What is in Kelvin's Head?

The #syriavote is not so simple really

03/12/2015

Like many people in the UK, I spent much of yesterday dipping into what was happening in parliament as a long debate took place as to whether this country should engage in military action against ISIL in Syria.

I once had aspirations to be an MP and that always makes me wonder which division lobby I would have walked into when these moments of national drama take place.

In this instance I am almost sure that I would have walked into the nay lobby – I’d have voted against extending military action in Syria.

However, I don’t find this a simple question. It is far more complex than my twitter feed seems to be suggesting. And this morning I’m not rushing to add #notinmyname hashtags to everything. This is a case where I can see merit on both side of the question and I find that my gut reaction which is to be against military action is more pragmatic than ideological.

I happen not to be a pacifist. I am not a pacifist because I think that sometimes there are evils that may need to be defeated by force. The obvious and classic example is that I think that the allied forces were right to be deployed to defeat Nazism. It was an ideology that threatened all of Europe with its evil. Some things are worth fighting against.

It is my suspicion that ISIL is something worth fighting against that would have made me pause before casting a vote had I been in parliament last night. I find myself having sympathy with Hilary Benn who identified the threat from ISIL as being the fascism of the day. So many of the same themes emerge – death to the Jews, death to the gays, murderous sectarianism and a direct opposition to democracy. The fact that it now uses terrorism on Western streets and wickedly distorts Islam for its own ends shouldn’t blind us to the fact that we’ve seen fascism before and have believed it should be fought.

And that’s why I can see that there’s a case for action.

My problem is largely because I can’t see the action being particularly likely to succeed which is one of the conditions of using force in just war theory.

I can’t really see that there’s a plan for post conflict rebuilding of Syria yet. I can’t really see how another two bombers will make that much difference – the Americans have been bombing ISIL targets for months and don’t seem to me to have solved the problem. It is inevitable that civilians will die in this action. It is difficult to believe that the action will meet the test of proportionality. I also don’t really believe that you can bomb ideas out of existence.

And so I find myself believing action to be wrong for pragmatic reasons whilst believing that ISIL should be confronted for ideological reasons. And that would have given me a terrible dilemma has I been in parliament.

Two things emerged yesterday which I found contemptible. Firstly the Prime Minister’s assertion that those who were against action were terrorist sympathisers. It was beneath the dignity of his office to make such a claim and he should have apologised. Secondly, those who are trying to co-opt this question for the sake of Scottish Nationalism. It should be beneath our dignity as the people of Scotland to co-opt this terrible decision for our local politics. Whether one likes it or not, Scotland chose to remain part of the UK and the UK parliament has made a decision. Being democrats means that sometimes we have to respect the democratic decisions that are made that we don’t like. That’s what being a democrat actually is. That means those who don’t like the result of the Scottish Referendum need to accept that the people of Scotland made an informed choice. It is our parliament that made the decision last night – a decision I happen to find it difficult to support. It is a parliament that the people of Scotland chose to remain a part of. Using ISIL to make cheap nationalist points in this country appals me. If we don’t accept democratic decision making (the referendum, the workings of parliament in which we are all represented etc) then we begin to lose the moral right to stand against the forces which rage against democracy wherever we encounter them.

We encounter them in ISIL. The question at hand is how to oppose them.

Last night I think that I would have voted against the government and against the use of force in Syria. However I would have done so with a heavy heart. It is just possible that after listening to the debates I might have voted with the government and for the use of force against the evils of ISIL. I would have done so with an even heavier heart though I would have done so hoping that if my own land was being conquered by fascists, then other countries would intervene.

That’s why this issue is more complex than my twitter feed seems to find it.

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

Nick Brindley

14/05/2014

It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

“Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

Reply
Andrew

14/05/2014

I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

15/05/2014

To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

Reply
Jimmy

15/05/2014

The links on this post have led me to think of this –

The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

Reply
Allan Ronald

19/05/2014

There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

Reply