His Holiness The Bearded One was on BBC's Newsnight program 'Aftershock, The Crash A Year On' on Tuesday night (the title of this post is a link to the video on the BBC's iplayer service) to discuss the causes and effects of the crash. As you may remember, The Bearded One and his conservative side-kick Dr John Sentamu both made a little bit of a stir last year as the crash was unfolding, by comparing money to a new idol that has been worshipped by certain sectors of the business community (See
Hypocrites? Of course not, they're our spiritual leaders! for my take on this at the time).
Admittedly the Archbishop was not given a central role in the program - about 40 minutes were taken up with reports by the economics editor and a debate between business leaders, an ex bank chairman and economics professors - but he was interviewed for several minutes, and his answers were treated with real respect by the interviewer, Jeremy Paxman, a man noted for his tendency to rip less exalted interviewees to shreds.
Everyone has an opinion on this subject, of course, indeed we're all experts now, but where is the sense, and what is the point, of giving serious air time and credence on a serious news program - this edition of which was entirely devoted to a matter of global significance, the effects of which may be felt for generations - to a man who has devoted his life to the study and interpretation of unreality?
Paxman's first question may just have carried a twinge of sarcasm - he basically asked the Archbishop if he thought it was odd that the political leaders who espoused the credit-based capitalism blamed for the collapse (Tony Blair, George Bush et al) were Christians. The bearded one gave a small wry smile at this, but answered that yes he did think it was odd, especially when 'some of the inspiration for Tony Blair's ideology did come from communitarian and non-strictly capitalist origins'. So straight away, we're in to the important stuff - Christians were in charge, why did their Christian values not stop this greed? Can anyone else see a little smidgen of irony here?
I've transcribed the rest of the interview for you below (see how thoughtful I am?) to save you the bother of watching the video, though I do recommend watching it anyway as it has good entertainment value. The Archbishop's interview begins about two-thirds of the way through the program.
'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be, because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, there was an enormous confidence trick going on.'
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly unavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.'
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now [reference to a report by economics editor Paul Mason] a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.'
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.'
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics is too important to be left to economists, that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market beyond a very very limited range of activities, therefore that awkward amateurs do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [wry smile] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? What is this wealth creation that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.'
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'[laughs softly] I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercise, I, I'm not an economist, I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera [Junior minister in the department of business]said about that earlier today in the Standard [London Evening Standard, daily newspaper] I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.'
Paxman thanks him and closes the interview.
OK, so I've just transcribed it without dropping in any comments of my own. I am pretty sure that any atheists reading this have spotted the irony and hypocrisy a mile off, and I would put a little bit of money on most Christians spotting it too, but just in case you haven't, go back through the transcript and wherever you see a reference to 'finance', 'economist' or 'wealth' etc, substitute 'religion', 'Christianity', 'God' or 'The Church', and hopefully the hypocrisy will leap from the page.
I'm not saying that the man didn't have anything worth saying about the subject, he is, after all, a decent and intelligent chap, but as I said, we all have an opinion about this subject now, and he was giving his opinion as leader of our State Religion. I would therefore give his utterances more value if he had merely given the interview as Dr R. Williams, 'Concerned' of Canterbury.
I can sense your disappointment there, yes you at the back - 'What! how can he transcribe a whole interview without dropping in his customary sarcasm?' Well fear not, because I can't resist it, I just didn't want to clutter up a decently funny interview with my pointless witterings until you had a chance to read it for yourselves.
There now follows the same transcript, with previous square brackets removed, and my own attempt at humour and/or outrage inserted.
'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be,[Should be used to it after 300 years] because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, [We in the Church do, of course] there was an enormous confidence trick going on.' [!!]
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, [just as many of us were forced to grow up believing the Church is aways right] and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly anavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.' [Last year he quoted Marx, now he's invoking Keynes - are we seeing a further shift to left in the Church?]
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, [and a great deal more uncertainty that my minions are even now attempting to capitalise on (Church attendance is reportedly up in some areas as a direct consequence of 'material uncertainty')] there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, [repent ye sinners! Fill our collection plates!] we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.' [We will never see this day while belief is prevalent, maybe one day.]
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.' [Just keep substituting 'religion' for 'finance', no further comment is required]
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics [theology] is too important to be left to economists, [theologians] that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market [religion] beyond a very very limited range of activities, [preferably none at all] therefore that awkward amateurs [non-believers] do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [scientist] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? [religion?] What is this wealth creation [fiction] that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, [said the man with a graven image of a man suffering unspeakable torture dangling from his neck] that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.' [!!]
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercises, I, I'm not an economist, [I don't have any more of an idea than the rest of you; the fact that I am a spiritual leader, well versed in bullshit, lends credence and authority to my opinion] I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera said about that earlier today in the Standard. I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional [said the chap who not so long ago voiced the opinion that adopting some aspects of Sharia law in the UK is 'unavoidable'] if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.' [Thanks for having me, I'm off back to the palace now for a couple of sherries and a quick chat with God before bed.]
There simply is no sense in giving authority to the words of a spiritual leader, when they are speaking as such. I would ask that the BBC ask someone more qualified to give their opinion and fill five minutes next time - just grab a random passing bloke off the street for a good common-man's opinion. Alternatively, for balance they should also invite the chief Rabbi and whichever member of the Muslim Council of Great Britain is currently claiming to speak for all Muslims five minutes too, then I could write a post three times as long.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
