The only real solution to the problem of the Church Of England is to disestablish it. Let it fend for itself and divide or unify in any way that it sees fit.

In its place with regard to state funding and resource the savings could be put into providing free counseling services; and community centres.

As the Census is no doubt going to show Christianity is not just decreasing in influence but is in effect no longer the faith of this country. There is no place for it in law; policy making or in the class room; unless it is seen from the viewpoint of history.

I’m not against a belief in God; however I am opposed to such an irrelevant and illogical nonsense as Christianity having any role in an advanced society. It’s time to move on.

To be fair those young people need to actually identify as Christians first, before they’ll start getting involved in the church. Given the ever increasing numbers of atheists I think that looks to be more and more of a losing battle. Unless you want more of the “temporary committed Christians” that tend to pop up around the catchment areas of decent CoE run schools…

The church should wither and die, it is built on a tissue of lies.

The church has done a great deal of good, [1] but that was when it was a proxy for society. Today the church is comprised of mostly old people and the gullible. Many more people than previously estimated, I am sure our latest census will show, are atheist, and the proportion of atheist young will shock our elders. However, people have not stopped helping each other, they just don’t claim a divine pat on the head for doing so.

___

[1] Although usually not the Church of England. Two examples. Dissenters were disproportionately involved in Britain’s late C18th/early C19th industrialisation. Methodists did a great deal of campaigning to make capitalism more humane at the C19th/start of C20th.

I agree with Martin @1.

The church is an irrelevance to most people, and it is high time Bishops were ejected from the House of Lords, and CofE schools stopped taking money from the government.

The decline in it’s membership and influence is a direct result of a failure to reflect the needs, desires and outlook of modern society.

Left Outside,

You may be making a mistake in believing the church is made up of the old and gulible and therefore dying – there is a lovely story of two Oxford dons touring Soviet Russia in the 1970s (since neither of the two were at all left-wing, presumably just for the fun of it) and observing how old the congregations at the churches were. And then noting that their predecessors on such tours in the 1920s had noted exactly the same thing – but clearly with a different set of old people.

It seems that religion happens to people at various times in their lives; some of my friends who were as unconcerned as me about religion when young now attend church regularly, and I suspect more will as we get older – it just seems to happen.

‘and CofE schools stopped taking money from the government.’

You are aware that in many rural areas CofE schools are actually the only schools that there are and usually have only very vague links to formal Christianity (at least from the point of view of the pupils). Let’s not fuck up the education system out of a misplaced sense of outrage, eh?

‘The decline in it’s membership and influence is a direct result of a failure to reflect the needs, desires and outlook of modern society.’

I’m no fan of the CofE, but that’s a dubious statement; it’s noticeable that the decline of organised religion in Britain began around roughly the same time as the decline of almost all other forms of collective associational life. I personally refuse to believe that that’s a coincidence.

It’s a brave man who sticks his head above the parapet to defend the church on this website!

Those who are so eager to knock it down might want to ask how many voluntary community organizations there are who can claim as much membership as even the much diminished C of E. The labour party? The TUC? Man United Fan Club?

Equally important, the church must address its flagging membership – only 7% are between 18 and 35. A recent crisis summit was called over the poor engagement of young people in the Church. Bishops and other leaders have started to wake up to the challenge of a drastically ageing congregation, but this must now be reflected in action. More than just an exercise in glossy presentation, this needs to be a real connection with people’s lives.

What’s needed are greater incentives for joining the Church. For example, this “Christians-only” discrimination at the gates of paradise is quite discouraging for potential applications. Perhaps a more inclusive policy – even for special occasions; like a “Believe What You Want Wednesday” or something – would make it more attractive…

Okay, sorry to be snarky. But the point is that if people are going to join the Church they’ll need to be Christians and if they’re going to be Christians they’ve got, to some extent, to change themselves according to theology; not t’other way round.

“No group can possibly bring communities together if it excludes women from its leadership, or discriminates against homosexuals.”

Surely the Church’s teaching that non-Christians are going to spend eternity in Hell is the larger problem.

7. James from Durham

“It’s a brave man who sticks his head above the parapet to defend the church on this website! Those who are so eager to knock it down might want to ask how many voluntary community organizations there are who can claim as much membership as even the much diminished C of E. The labour party? The TUC? Man United Fan Club?”

So your argument in defense of the church is that it beings people together? So does Al Qaeda but I’m not sure I want that as justification for tolerating them.

It is fine to question what replaces the church in society but that is not a justification for the churches to be tolerated or to remain. Your lack of logic would suggest that you are a religious person seeking some sort of validation (and as usual foolishly opting for one that falls apart rather easily).

There are many options to replace the churches; better still most of them aren’t based on the outrageous lies and corrosive dogma of Christianity that causes so much harm and misery.

‘The Church of England is ideally positioned to take a lead in the Big Society – it holds a unique claim to have a presence in every community across our nation.’

It barely holds a presence in CofE ‘communities’ let alone among atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists or Jedi.

So your argument in defense of the church is that it beings people together? So does Al Qaeda but I’m not sure I want that as justification for tolerating them.

Hah! Imma gonna throw this out there: by “voluntary community organisations” he means youth groups and charity events, not collective bombing raids. I don’t think the Church has a right to power – bishops in the House of Lords, for example, though it should be noted that it’s no more foolish for them to reside there than the other unelected bozos – but I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that it does more good than harm.

> The Church of England is ideally positioned to take a lead in the Big Society…

The vast majority of the UK are not religious: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/congratulations_great_britain.php

We don’t need a Bronze Age cult representing us. But thanks for the offer.

Bluerock,

We don’t need a Bronze Age cult representing us.

Iron Age please – they were definetley using iron in the Roman Empire.

Also, I am not sure that James was volunteering to represent anyone – just pointing out the church could still play a role (which is true, regardless of whether we think this is a good thing or not).

@ 6 Alun

You may think a sense of outrage is misplaced…. I and many others don’t. I don’t want the church subsidised by my taxes, whether directly or indirectly because it is involved in education. If people want a religious education for their children, let them pay for it privately.

There are 3 high schools in my home town. Two of them are single sex state schools (which have a joint sixth form), whilst the other is a mixed CofE school. as a result, my daughter was obliged to attend a single sex high school as the CofE school is allowed to discriminate against non church-goers. Of course, what happens is that suddenly lots of parents suddenly find religion….at least until their kids turn 18.

Also, if the CofE, or indeed other faiths were that relevant or important to people, they would be defying the trend you note. They aren’t, as the OP notes for the Cof E, and as the Church of Scotland has also found in my home country – the numbers attending regularly there have plummeted because it is seen as increasingly out of touch and irrelevant.

12 Ben Six

“but I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that it does more good than harm.”

It might not be controversial but it would be a lie. The Christian faith is as the root of most social division and conflict in Europe. It is easy to make a list of the Catholic raised despots of the 20th Century for example. Religion relies on poor memories such as yours to excuse itself.

You didn’t actually read my full post where I pointed out that the argument for religion cannot be based on Community cohesion both because that is not a justification for the other flaws; and more importantly Religion divides rather than unites communities.

This isn’t even about my blatant contempt for Christianity and its victimization of minorities (and the rather creepy concept that we are created sick and commanded to be well); this is about leaving religion behind and focusing developing new communities without it.

If you are for gender equality; if you believe that someone’s sexuality is their own business; if you want to see science taught based on what is known rather than what is believed; if you want people to have less dividing them. The one thing that you should be intolerant of is religion.

Religion isn’t something you are born into; it is inflicted upon you; and it is something that you do. Religious groups have hidden behind the nonsense that it is about “race”; when I am perfectly entitled to condemn their practices and beliefs in the same I would for any other creed.

Religion is fine if it is personal; it is a matter of choice; however I will not have my life impacted by the faith of others. Thankfully Britain is heading that way already. We can guarantee that the Church of England will be begging to keep the results of this census quiet for a long time.

I don’t want the church subsidised by my taxes, whether directly or indirectly because it is involved in education. If people want a religious education for their children, let them pay for it privately.

Out of interest, does the same go for art galleries, theatres, opera houses et cetera?

Martin –

The Christian faith is as the root of most social division and conflict in Europe. It is easy to make a list of the Catholic raised despots of the 20th Century for example.

So, your answer to “it does more good than harm” is “ah, but then it used to do more harm than good”. Yes, I agree but – so? Sure, I wouldn’t like it to have all the power that it once abused so rampantly but in its quiet and ineffectual state its largest influence, I’d guess, is in community engagement. And, as I’ve said, there’s no real problem with youth groups, fundraising and the like.

@18. BenSix

“So, your answer to “it does more good than harm” is “ah, but then it used to do more harm than good”.”

No. My argument is that it ALWAYS does harm.

Let’s get rid of another one of the lies about religion shall we. Religion isn’t abused to cause harm to others. It is the source and cause of that abuse.

Your logical fallacy there is known as the No True Scotsman argument. One commonly used by religion to excuse itself; that whenever someone does something bad in the name of that religion or because of that religion they weren’t a “true” Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu.

There is no problem with community groups at all. However if religion gets in there the damage is often irreparable.

Community cohesion is not an excuse for religion since religion does not provide it. It can only divide.

17 Ben Six

No. I’m happy to see my taxes subsidise the arts. Last time I looked I haven’t seen any galleries or theatres turning away people who were tone deaf, colour blind, or who disliked Wagner.

@17 BenSix

Again you’re using a strawman.If anything you conveniently defeat yourself. You’ve just highlighted all the other community activities that could take the place of religion.

You might want to look into Cognitive Dissonance and see how well the problem applies to yourself (it might be tough to realize that it does but there’s always hope you’ll grasp the problem).

My argument is that it ALWAYS does harm…It can only divide…

Simply false.

(I’m not religious, by the way.)

Galen10,

Since one of the key commandments of Jesus was not to turn anyone away, I don’t think your argument holds there.

You seem to be seeing religion as elitist and seperatist. In fact, in my (non-religious) experience the Church of England is neither, being open to all in the community regardless of anything other than their existence (I got married in church despite being non-religious (my wife is Christian) because I lived in the parish for example). There may be vicars and congregations that regard themselves as above all that, but I have never met them.

This does not mean we should fund the Church of England, but it does mean we should question whether it serves a useful function before we withdraw funding. I certainly find it difficult to believe that a Christian institution turns aways those who seek it out anyway.

14. Watchman

> Iron Age please – they were definetley using iron in the Roman Empire.

True, but I was being ‘generous’ with the origin of the Xianity cult: a bastard concoction of previous cults and superstitions that originated in the Bronze Age. (You knew I was going to have an answer ;))

> Also, I am not sure that James was volunteering to represent anyone…

“The Church of England is ideally positioned to take a lead in the Big Society…” – that sounds like someone volunteering themselves to be captain of the team.

> …the church could still play a role (which is true, regardless of whether we think this is a good thing or not).

No doubt it could, but it would alienate a lot of people. The UK is clearly a secular nation with the majority being irreligious – why would we want a divisive, irrelevant anachronism organising us?

Anyway. Big Society? Fuck off. It’s a noxious marketing smokescreen for Dave and Gideon to gut the country to benefit Big Corporation.

Martin,

I don’t think you can argue community activities can take the place of religion, which is a set of beliefs which (I believe, not actually having felt it) make people feel more secure and at home in the world.

You may mean that community activities can take the place of churches, which is somewhat closer to achievable, but what about when people want to meet to express their religion? Or to do good in the name of that religion?

Meanwhile, I am wondering why I have an ad for scientology looming at me on this page – perhaps the bot that determines adverts is trying to reinforce Martin’s case or something?

Bluerock,

Fair enough – although arguably all religions go back to the stone age surely (the fertility gods we have from then are quite awe-inspiring in their proportions, which might explain a lot).

And whilst I don’t really think the idea was to lead us all rather than do god generally, I do actually agree with you (or what I hope you are implying) that only those who want to should have to deal with religious groups. A potential flaw in the Big Society model really…

@ 23 Watchman

“This does not mean we should fund the Church of England, but it does mean we should question whether it serves a useful function before we withdraw funding. I certainly find it difficult to believe that a Christian institution turns aways those who seek it out anyway.”

Well, their educational institutions certainly turn away non-believers, even if their more low-church parishes are happy to countenance some token agnostics or atheists. The church is rich enough to fund it’s own activities without expecting help from the tax payer.

Well, the comments to this piece are much as I would have expected: the most interesting point about the piece to my mind is the one that James Townsend doesn’t make.

There are religious denominations which are growing – and growing fast relative to the static or declining populations of both denominations like the Church of England or the agnostic/atheist/”spiritual not religious”. How they do this is not by conversion but by withdrawal from the wider society, whose values they repudiate, and by “endogenous” growth – simply, their families have lots of children. And their withdrawal from the wider society makes it extremely difficult and painful for anyone to leave the faith. All such denominations (or creeds, in the case of mainstream Islam) have one thing in common: they reject the Enlightenment and in particular the hegemony of rationality.

But this, I suspect, is not the type of radical overhaul James Townsend has in mind. Or if it is, he’s chosen a strange location to promote it!

“Equally important, the church must address its flagging membership – only 7% are between 18 and 35. A recent crisis summit was called over the poor engagement of young people in the Church. Bishops and other leaders have started to wake up to the challenge of a drastically ageing congregation, but this must now be reflected in action”

I think the median age of churchgoers is about 46, compared to 40 for the population as a whole, so while that’s older than the population at large, it’s not disastrously so.

26. Watchman

> And whilst I don’t really think the idea was to lead us all rather than do god generally…

My emphasis! I think you’ve offered a Freudian slip on behalf of the CoE! 😀 The religious have always weaseled in via the Trojan Horse of good deeds (when not using threats of ever-lasting torment).

“It might not be controversial but it would be a lie. The Christian faith is as the root of most social division and conflict in Europe. It is easy to make a list of the Catholic raised despots of the 20th Century for example. Religion relies on poor memories such as yours to excuse itself. ”

Well, it certainly wasn’t at the root of National Socialism or Bolshevism, which were the ideologies in whose name the majority of killing was carried out in 20th century Europe. One can argue that these were pseduo-religions, but they certainly weren’t Christian.

29. Sean Fear

“I think the median age of churchgoers is about 46, compared to 40 for the population as a whole, so while that’s older than the population at large, it’s not disastrously so.”

Fraudulent use of information (just like Christianity).

Median age of churchgoers could be the median age of 10% of the population versus the median age of the overall population (which for your Christian types who struggle with maths and science would be 100%).

Also the median age of Churchgoers is disproportionately affected by parents faking religion to get their children into faith schools (which will be doomed once the real numbers of religious people in this country is known); so a lot of 12 year olds combined with a preponderance of 70 year olds creates a false average figure (and we can be sure that the Median of 46 is loaded by certain parents lying to get their kids into a ‘good school’).

Christianity has reached a critical point where it cannot turn back from. Just as other religions before it have died out because of people seeing them as patently silly (and Christianity is so patently ridiculous as a belief system it even makes Zeus look more plausible). I’m not saying that no other religion will take its place but right now Christianity is doomed to obscurity in Europe and eventually the world.

“Well, their educational institutions certainly turn away non-believers, even if their more low-church parishes are happy to countenance some token agnostics or atheists. The church is rich enough to fund it’s own activities without expecting help from the tax payer.”

In general, the Church of England is financed from collections, donations, legacies, and investment income. It does receive some tax advantages, as do all charities, but it doesn’t receive direct State support, unlike some other European Churches.

WRT C of E Schools (which are after all, part and parcel of the State system), nearly 30% of pupils are not C of E, and plenty of the remainder are pretty nominal in their adherence. I can cerainly attest to friends and relatives who’ve got their children into C of E schools without being in any way religious.

32 Don’t blame me if the statistics don’t bear out your convictions.

31. Sean Fear

“Well, it certainly wasn’t at the root of National Socialism or Bolshevism, which were the ideologies in whose name the majority of killing was carried out in 20th century Europe. One can argue that these were pseduo-religions, but they certainly weren’t Christian.”

Again with the lies.

Firstly you’re trying to blame Nazism on non-Christians?
Every single Nazi & Fascist leader was raised Catholic. All but 2 of them claimed to be Roman Catholic until their death (including Hitler).

Bolshevism (really now? you use that phrase it marks you as a true Catholic like Hitler) or Communism rejected Christianity. That doesn’t make all those who oppose Christianity Bolsheviks it just makes Christianity AND Bolshevism equally vile. You are using a Strawman argument there and failing badly.

So despite your pathetic attempts to smear non-believers as Communists or Nazi’s I’ll end this thread because you went and mentioned Hitler which pretty much sums you up as you flail in desperation looking for more nonsense to fling about.

Now sod off unless you’re willing to apologize for your nasty little argument there.

There is apparently no depth Christians would appear to sink to try and defend their faith (no wonder they conceal their rampant child abuse so easily).

Martin, you seem to have a poor grasp of history. Bolsheviks and Nazis were the champion killers of Twentieth century Europe. Neither group was motivated by Christianity in carrying out their killings. Nowhere have I suggested that non-Christians are therefore Bolsheviks, or Nazis, merely that both ideologies were anti-Christian.

@ 33

“I can cerainly attest to friends and relatives who’ve got their children into C of E schools without being in any way religious.”

Most of them allow token numbers of unbelievers, whether atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists. The high school we visited had an open evening the nasty piece of work who was in charge actually stated that he felt non-church goers wouldn’t feel comfortable in the school. I don’t think you could be much plainer than that.

Many CofE schools which are now wise to the parents suddenly “finding” religion to get their little darlings into school, now require letters from vicars confirming that the parents and children are “real” christians. Marvelous… we’re actually expected to fund this discrimination!

35. Martin (chunkylimey):

> Every single Nazi & Fascist leader was raised Catholic.

I was watching Hitchens in a recent debate and he made the point that you could swap the word ‘fascist’ for ‘Catholic’ in any European history book of the 20th century and it would still be accurate. I suspect that would hold true for ‘mass murder’ going even further back in to history.

Sean Fear

“Nowhere have I suggested that non-Christians are therefore Bolsheviks, or Nazis, merely that both ideologies were anti-Christian.”

Just in the same way that I note that anyone calling themselves Sean Fear is a slimey pedophile loving rapist. However of course I’m not implying that is you; I’m just making a rhetorical point. Of course you may be too stupid to grasp what I’m saying there.

I have a perfectly good grasp of history thanks.

““I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” Adolf Hitler.

Are you going to come back with more lies and smears?

Martin, charming as I’m sure you are in person, I don’t think it’s necessary for you to resort to personal abuse to defend your position.

“Of course you may be too stupid to grasp what I’m saying there.”

I have to admit that I do find it hard to work out what point you’re trying to make.

36. Sean Fear

> Neither group was motivated by Christianity in carrying out their killings.

Herr A. Hitler wrote a cheeky little book called ‘Mein Kampf’. Here’s a line from it:

“… I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.”

His later oratory was filled with similar declarations – “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” Oh, and his soldiers had ‘Gott Mit Uns’ on their belt buckles.

Stalin is more complicated but he was born to strict Catholics and began training as a Jesuit priest. Maybe they beat and buggered the crazy in to him? Stalin certainly used the fact that Russia was a country of credulous peasants, conditioned to blindly follow church authority – he just pushed the church out of the way and took its place.

It may make you feel better about your Xian apologetics to deny history, but it makes you look a bit of an idiot to anyone who is informed.

Sean Fear:

“Martin, charming as I’m sure you are in person, I don’t think it’s necessary for you to resort to personal abuse to defend your position.”

OK so why don’t you explain what the relevance of Communism & Nazism had to the debate and why you mentioned it in conjunction with non-Christians?

It certainly wasn’t a refutation of my claim that nearly all European despots in the 20th Century were raised Catholic was it? Because that’s an evidence based argument rather than your rather feeble attempt to assert a connection between Communism/Nazism.

What you’re attempting to do is to associate non-Christians with bad nasty people; but are uncomfortable when you have to admit that Christians have just as many.

I suggest you look up Godwin’s Law. Do some research on Cognitive Dissonance too. You’re a prime case.

Noting that Stalin trained as a priest and ergo can’t be said to have been areligious is like saying that as Ernst Rohm was gay the Nazis weren’t homophobic. The Soviet Union would jail, institutionalise or just slaughter the religious; those thousands of deaths are rather more serious evidence than unhinged speculation about Stalin being “buggered”.

43. BenSix

See although I’ve disagreed with you on other points you grasp the invalid nature of Sean Fear’s attempts to play the association game.

You’re absolutely on the mark there. Whilst I will disagree with you about the impact of religion at least we acknowledge that association doesn’t mean implicit causation.

41 Hitler was no atheist, but he’d abandoned Christianity by the time of WWII. Other Nazi leaders such as Himmler, Heydrich, Borman, Goebels, had resigned from the Catholic Church. Rosenberg, and Ley were overtly hostile to Christianity. Add to that, the closure of Catholic lay organisations, the imprisonment of clergy, the closure of Catholic schools etc. and I’d say that it was pretty clear that the Nazi hierarchy were pretty hostile towards the Christian relgiion.

I think that Stalin’s anti-Christianity is pretty well-attested.

42 I think that is highly relevant to your contention that “The Christian faith is as the root of most social division and conflict in Europe”.

Lame debate all round: this is why you should never discuss politics or religion; and in this instance the politics of religion.

For the love of God and the non-believers give it a rest.

Sean Fear

“Hitler was no atheist, but he’d abandoned Christianity by the time of WWII. Other Nazi leaders such as Himmler, Heydrich, Borman, Goebels, had resigned from the Catholic Church.”

Not true. Only one Nazi leader was not a Catholic and that was because he was excommunicated for choosing to be a Protestant. Basically you’re either lying; or you’ve been lied to and are desperately hoping that it’s true because it makes you feel better ( a bit like that Bible nonsense and your fairytale about Jesus really).

Which is why my assertion of a relationship between religion and stands.

You can try and re-write history as much as you want to try and make yourself feel better.

They are YOUR guys and your guilt to deal with. Don’t try and dump them on others just because you can’t face the truth (then again Christianity is a constant state of denial and lying to yourself so what did I expect?).

Anyway I have to agree with others that this thread should end.

You’re either a liar or an idiot and either way I’m wasting my time on you. Carry on with your fantasies but try not to hurt anyone (especially the kids we just can’t leave you Christians around kids these days far too risky).

47/48 Well, I suppose that makes Professor Richard Evans, who makes precisely these points in his Third Reich Trilogy, a liar.

I agree that there’s little point in continuing this argument.

…(especially the kids we just can’t leave you Christians around kids these days far too risky)…

An irony of this thread is that you’ve been trying to convince us that religious people are cruel and irrational while writing cruel and irrational bunkum like this.

45 – I think you’re wasting your time. These people seem to have decided that religion or Catholicism is the most evil thing ever and no amount of facts or logic will change that. There are plenty of criticisms that can be made of religion, Catholicism, the CofE etc without resorting to hyperbole.

50. BenSix

” …(especially the kids we just can’t leave you Christians around kids these days far too risky)…

An irony of this thread is that you’ve been trying to convince us that religious people are cruel and irrational while writing cruel and irrational bunkum like this.”

So you’re trying to deny the high frequency of child abuse amongst the clergy?

It’s not cruel or irrational. Facts are facts. Just because you find them unpleasant to cope with doesn’t make them any less true.

I’d never leave a child alone with a member of the clergy the risks are too high and the damage they do is horrible.

51. Richard

“I think you’re wasting your time. These people seem to have decided that religion or Catholicism is the most evil thing ever and no amount of facts or logic will change that.”

What I define as evil is homophobia; forcing raped women to have the child of their rapist; spreading HIV because of lying about contraception just to name a few.

That they happen to be things that are perpetrated by the Catholic church does make me loathe the institution itself. However it is also something perpetrated by Islam; the Church of England and certain Jewish sects. So no I’m no singling out Catholicism entirely.

43. BenSix:

> Noting that Stalin trained as a priest and ergo can’t be said to have been areligious…

You do like battling strawmen, don’t you? Intentional dishonesty or just deficient reading comprehension? Whichever it is, it makes you look like a prat.

> The Soviet Union would jail, institutionalise or just slaughter the religious;

Which is why I wrote “…he just pushed the church out of the way and took its place.”

Try responding to what people write, not a fiction that you construct from plucking out a few words.

> An irony of this thread is that you’ve been trying to convince us that religious people are cruel and irrational while writing cruel and irrational bunkum like this.

Sounds like a religiot is butt-hurt (;)) that the toxicity of religion is being exposed in this thread. They don’t like it up ’em!

~~~

45. Sean Fear:

> Hitler was no atheist, but he’d abandoned Christianity by the time of WWII.

Evidence? Or does that just *feel* right? Whatever Hitler was, he carried at least part of the fucked-up cult that he was raised in.

Religion always has been and still is a toxic influence on society. Blind faith leads to blind actions.

52. Martin (chunkylimey)

> I’d never leave a child alone with a member of the clergy the risks are too high and the damage they do is horrible.

Another Hitchens quip: “If I called for a babysitter and a priest turned up at the door, I’d first call for a taxi and then the police.”

Cake or Death?

“Irish Catholic bishops donate £9m to victims of abuse”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/irish-catholic-bishops-donation-abuse-victims

Perhaps someone here can tell us how the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland is able to club together and turn up with £9 million to compensate the victims of abuse.

On the evidence, among the best policy options for protecting children from abuse would be to proscribe the Catholic church.

James’s post is contains lots of agreeable perspectives that I would happily discuss elsewhere, but the post ultimately becomes an internal Church of England dialogue, falling into the typically Anglican trap of the whole church meaning the Church of England only.

There are dozens of Christian and non-Christian faith groups who have been doing more than their bit for their communities for years (I hesitate to use the “BS” term!). From soup runs and parent and toddler groups to luncheon clubs for older people and whole community centres, many of these faith groups do their work quietly, with no interest in proselytising and little or no outside funding.

In mine and James’s shared home of Manchester, community centres such as the Wythenshawe Tree of Life centre and Levenshulme Inspire are excellent examples of how the whole community is engaged with and helped. This is brought about by the vision of people of faith, and has involved ecumenical (inter-church) and interfaith co-operation, but without the leadership of the Church of England.

There are many excellent examples of social action under the auspices of the Church of England: James will be well aware of the Booth Centre for the homeless at Manchester Cathedral. Yet the Church of England cannot bring about closer communities by itself. Church of England parishes have to look outward to the needs of the surrounding community to become an inclusive facilitator of community cohesion. In turn, faith groups collectively also need to embrace their shared vision to help their neighbours in- and outside of congregations.

Martin –

So you’re trying to deny the high frequency of child abuse amongst the clergy?

No, but then you didn’t say “elements of the clergy”, you said “Christians”. Fun parallels might be “Kahanists” and “Jews”, or “Al Qaeda” and “Muslims”.

BlueRock –

The point is that those hundreds of thousands of deaths are evidence of areligiousness. The speculation that he was “beaten and buggered” and, thus, turned into the man we know and loathe (your words) are evidence of nothing. Thus, it isn’t “complicated” (your word once again).

A thread on Big Society and the church.

And no one has mentioned the Salvation Army.
That’s a single self-funded church that probably does more for the poor in _your_ town than all the humanist/atheist organisation all together.

S’funny, how Sunny only allows such religion-bashing theads if it is Christianity under the microscope.

There’s never been an Islam-bashing equivalent on LC.

Just Visiting – Eh? It’s a pro-Christian (well – pro-Church) post. I’ll bet Sunny wishes that he could determine how the threads pan out but any economics post that Tim W comments on stands as ample proof that it’s beyond him.

Interesting article. I agree about the tragedy of the absence of young in the Church. But I am afraid a reason why the C of E fails to relate to the idealism of youth is that the Church no longer represents an alternative to the prevailing permissive & individualistic culture of this country. It is precisely the theological issues which the writer seems to consider irrelevant that the Church should vigorously pursue and debate, standing up for the eternal Christian teachings. The young are not fired by lukewarn liberal bromides, I fear.
As to a putative discrimination against gays, well, my experience of Anglican parishes is that gays play a significant part indeed both in membership and leadership. Whether that is a good thing or not…is another matter.

@60 That would presumably be a completely different Salvation army to the one that decided to destroy children’s toys that were donated to them because they were of characters from Harry Potter and Twilight, and thus encouraged witch craft?

http://arise-blog.org/2010/12/do-not-donate-to-the-salvation-army/

Why do I dislike the church so much? This post is still winding me up, there must be something pathological going on.

Just Visiting may have a point here, I certainly wouldn’t give a fuck if some imam spouted off about how wonderful mosques were for the community. I’d ignore him and assume him an idiot.

I suppose its the air of presumption which the CoE has, and many Christian churches possess, that this is their territory and that atheists are fallen ex-fellow Christians (perhaps because for a very small part I somewhat believed in god). Probably some latent left-wing anti-clericalism too.

Of course the only reason communism could get a foothold and flourish in the Russian Empire was because the place was so intellectually and emotionally backward through the presence of the vile Russian Orthodox Church. Whether the communist leaders were from a religious background is irrelevant. What mattered was the church had created a context where individuality was suppressed and blind obedience to a higher authority was accepted without question. Stalin sending those who were not part of his group to the Gulag is pretty unremarkable if one believes god is going to do the same sending out members to Hell. Blind obedience to religious authority will always in all contexts lead to the oppression of those who disagree. Therefore, religions who do try and enforce that type of obedience are the source of all evil.

I don’t think science and religious belief need be mutually exclusive. Two of the greatest scientists of all time, Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell both held religious beliefs, as did James Hutton the founder of geology who understood natural selection before Darwin. What I object to is when the government gives them a seat at the table to use ethical objections which flow from their religious belief in order to try and suppress science. Religions should have no input to ethical debates about science.

Sunny isn’t even here! I commissioned this… wanted to give a different angle on Big Society and the church (and James ‘bashes’ neither)… and seem to have succeeded in creating a good debate, as hoped.

Beyond the usual comments (well, rants) of people who believe Christianity is based on lies (it’s not, it’s based on an interpretation of a historical fact), it’s worth pointing out that the church should not simply adapt to what people think to succeed, and arguably will succeed by doing exactly the opposite of that.

By making a stand for something other than the shifting sands of public opinion (so not just following it blithely but standing back and saying why certain things are wrong (sinful) without excluding or hating the person or group doing them), it will be distinct as a body still trying to follow Christ as opposed to any other social club.

And on dying away, and having no representation in the 18-35 group, I belong to an evangelical, conservative church in Oxford of which 60% or so are below 40. It’s anecdotal, but indicative that if you don’t water down your message to try and keep up with public opinion, you don’t appear old, washed out, sold out, and hence will attract younger people.

Hence overall: Yes the Church can make a contribution to the Big Society and should (and does), but doesn’t need to by forgetting what it is to follow public opinions on everything.

@68 James Reade

“Beyond the usual comments (well, rants) of people who believe Christianity is based on lies (it’s not, it’s based on an interpretation of a historical fact), …”

Well, there is something of a tension between what is “factual” and what is “interpretation”. It MAY be a fact that Jesus existed, but that doesn’t make everything in the New Testament a “fact”.

“.. it’s worth pointing out that the church should not simply adapt to what people think to succeed, and arguably will succeed by doing exactly the opposite of that.”

Do you think the church has remained pickled in aspic over history? It has surely changed over the millenia since it began to come together, whether because it was dragged kicking and screaming towards more common sense positions, or through gradual, incremental change. Your belief that the church should do exactly the opposite of reflecting what the majority of people (or believers?) think seems to be a recipe for irrelevance. Making theological purity, or rigid adherence to the “then current” set of beliefs will inevitably take you down a cul-de-sac, and make you about as relevant as the Amish.

“And on dying away, and having no representation in the 18-35 group, I belong to an evangelical, conservative church in Oxford of which 60% or so are below 40.”

The more important issue for those who want to promote christianity or other faiths, is not the anecdotal evidence from their own self-selecting group, but what the trend is generally. The figure for your church may be correct, but what % of all 18-35 year old in Oxford are active christians, still less evangelical conservative christians?

68. James Reade

Firstly let’s get one thing clear. The key reasons I object to religion is that you make claims like this:

“the usual comments (well, rants) of people who believe Christianity is based on lies (it’s not, it’s based on an interpretation of a historical fact), ”

With no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. I suggest you read or watch The God Who Wasn’t There: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_IjNPmIEI for the core evidence that Jesus himself probably never existed; much in the same way that there was probably never one individual called Robin Hood. To save you time don’t bother mentioning Josephus he is utterly discredited and there are no contemporary documented witness’s to his existence. It’s not much to worry about since the same problem exists for Siddhartha (Buddha for those not knowing) and Mohammad.

As is typical for religious people you respond to evidence and statistics with anecdote. As if solid facts of low church attendance can be somehow magically dismissed with your story about how your church is full of young people.

You even conclude your posting with a claim that somehow you’ve proven that the church does good for society but fail to actually provide any examples (you don’t even have an anecdote for it). You just make vague unsubstantiated claims about moral values and strong guidance in life; which is patent nonsense.

At the core of your faith are 2 massive problems.

Firstly you have a a God that is supposedly the creator and controller of everything but then refuses to be held accountable for the creation of suffering and evil and tries to blame his own creation (no wonder Tony Blair is a Christian he is very good at denying responsibility for any mess he created).

Secondly your God allegedly creates everything broken and then demands that it fix itself.

Basically your God is a sadist. Worse still a sadist who has enabled his victims to comprehend his sadism.

I don’t reject the idea of their being a God. It is quite possible. But the God of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad cannot exist simply because it is so utterly illogical.

Children raised in that religion are raised on painful contradictions; burdened with guilt and confusion especially as their faith has no bearing on reality. It does nothing but harm from the start.

So bringing it back to the original point.

The Church; in particular the Christian faith overall; cannot provide a better society because it undermines science for improvement; it divides society; it creates mental illness (in fact it IS mental illness); it condemns people for their natural state of existence (whether women; homosexual or just plain intelligent) and it does so under the sinister guise of being about loving and caring.

There are many decent people who are Christians (although I would argue most decent people reject the faith in the end) ; but Christianity has no claim on decency.

An inclusive society can only exist once the forces of division are rejected. To be tolerant we have to be intolerant of those who refuse to be accepting. Christianity and its sibling faiths need to be marginalized to protect the basic freedoms and rights of people. Fortunately like other religions before it Jesus is now going the way of Zeus and Thor as people reject its silliness and move on. This years Census is in many ways the end for Christianity in Britain. No sensible politician will appeal to such a disliked group and funding, support even tax free status will dry up. I’m sure Christianity will wallow in its persecution fantasies but ultimately it will fade away. I just hope sooner than later.

@68 Actually a lot of the supposed historical events contained within the old testament have been proven to be false, no flood, no Moses-led uprising and migration, no Eden, no God getting his ass kicked by iron chariots. The story of the birth of Christ is also at odds with the historical record.
There quite possibly was a man called Christ who was very charismatic and pious, but the story of his life and deeds were certainly embellished significantly.

“Beyond the usual comments (well, rants) of people who believe Christianity is based on lies (it’s not, it’s based on an interpretation of a historical fact).”

Right, I’m detonating a Godwin on this.

Interpretation of historical fact you say? Well, they’re all worthy of equal consideration!

72. Left Outside

It’s a bit late detonating a Godwin 😉

Someone already tried to blame Atheists for both Communism & Nazism/Fascism (despite the later being a clear product of Catholicism).

Nice link though.

Here’s another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

66/Richard W: “Religions should have no input to ethical debates about science.”

If one accepts – as an atheist surely must – that there is not one true ethical model superior to all others (and even if there is, none of us has it), then I’m not sure why ethical stances reached based on an acknowledged religious background should be treated as automatically less valid than ethical stances reached through other methods.

That’s not to say that ethics panels either need or should have formal religious representation, but it would be equally unjustifiable to require all members to be non-religious.

74. cim

A fair point that someone’s religion shouldn’t preclude them from making input on the ethics of science. I wouldn’t require panelists for example to be non-religious.

I just don’t think that they should be there because of their religion and not on an understanding of the science itself. Until there is some solid proof of their claim to moral authority (one true religion?) then no religious group should be given authority to decide on ethical policy for everyone else.

It’s actually one objection to any religious representation in parliament; since it has to be all religions or none to be truly fair.

Hopefully we can agree on that.

Question for Martin: do you consider yourself to be in possession of the One Sole Truth? Because you seem very full of yourself. Ranting away and blaming Chrisitanity/religion for all the world’s problems isn’t exactly helpful – in fact it’s more off-putting than the calm, rational nature of the OP (even if I disagree profoundly with the OP on many points). In fact one might even say you were… “evangelical” about your views (defined as “marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause”).

I write as an atheist.

PS If Jesus didn’t exist then neither did Julius Caesar. There’s the same amount of evidence for both.

PPS (and on-topic) If the public sector is going to get hollowed out then I hope religious orgs to step up to the plate BUT with the huge caveat that they are helping everyone, not just those who fit in with their sky-fairy’s demands. Ideally I’d rather not have the focus on the BS at all, as it is a fig-leaf for the destruction of welfare provision in this country.

@76

“PS If Jesus didn’t exist then neither did Julius Caesar. There’s the same amount of evidence for both.”

Well no…. there’s a lot more direct contemporary evidence from multiple sources about Julius Ceaser than there is about Jesus.

@77

Do you suggest that we only rely on “contemporary” sources when investigating the ancient past? Cos that makes pretty much all the Greek philosophers non-existent at the drop of a hat.

76. Mr S. Pill (your points in quotations).

“Question for Martin: do you consider yourself to be in possession of the One Sole Truth?”

No which is why I despise nonsense like Christianity that does. There is no such thing.

“Ranting away and blaming Chrisitanity/religion for all the world’s problems isn’t exactly helpful”

Firstly I am using Christianity as an example of Religion as a problem. Of which I’ve never said it was the ONLY problem maker. Just a significant one. I’ll accept the accusation of ranting however 😉

To be honest I no longer care about bring Christians into the fold. I want them bullied into submission and non-existence in the same way they do to everyone else around the world. They bleat about persecution but as soon as they get into any position of authority proceed to bully and oppress everyone else. They deserve no sympathy just mockery and contempt.

“If Jesus didn’t exist then neither did Julius Caesar. There’s the same amount of evidence for both.”

Which is a lie told by Christians to try and justify their faith. It is untrue nonsense. That you believe it shows the pervasive influence of their faith in spreading misinformation.

” (and on-topic) If the public sector is going to get hollowed out then I hope religious orgs to step up to the plate”

The reason the thread has gone this way is that based on the evidence not only would hollowing the public sector be a bad idea; but having religion step in would be worse because of the negative impact on society. The idea of the Catholic church offering children services where the state has failed to provide adequate coverage? I’m sure plenty of people would see a good reason to object to that.

The reason debating the validity of religion in society is important is that religious groups claim moral authority and the right to decide on social policy when they can’t even prove the validity of their own faith and thereby provide adequate reasoning for their rights to make decisions and policy.

You would question and evaluate a brain surgeons credentials before allowing them to operate; so also should we challenge the right of the clergy to act as moral guidance. Based on past and present evidence the Clergy are not just unqualified to decide upon moral issues; if anything letting them do so is reckless and dangerous.

76. Mr S. Pill

“Re: @77

Do you suggest that we only rely on “contemporary” sources when investigating the ancient past? Cos that makes pretty much all the Greek philosophers non-existent at the drop of a hat.”

There are only 2 responses to that. Either you are a liar or poorly informed.

There is no shame in the latter, by the way and I’ll be happy with an admission on your part to being mistaken.

Also it is interesting that you challenge the reliance for “contemporary” sources. If you want we can use modern archaeological methods; cross referencing and so on. All of which provide significant evidence AGAINST the veracity of the Biblical narrative on anything.

I am increasingly doubtful of your claims to be an Atheist since it is very clear that every argument you are using comes from Christian sources. I do hope that’s just a legacy of ignorance on your part (perhaps raised in a Christian background) rather than you being a liar.

@ 78

No, but thsat isn’t the point. There is almost nothing contemporary supporting the exitance of Jesus Christ; it overwhelmingly comes from decades or even a century or more after his death. There is nothing in the archaeological record about him either, and nothing written by him or attributed directly to him even after his supposed life and death.

There is in comparison a vast amount of direct contemporary evidence for Caesar, lots of archaeology, and even works which are widely accepted as having been from his own hand.

Your position is wholly disingenuous.

@81

Well there are hardly going to be the exact same amount of contemporary sources for the leader of a tiny Jewish cult & a military general of the Roman Empire are there? Point is the majority of historians – and even Dawkins – accept the idea of Jesus existing. Doesn’t mean anything more and tbh it’s a diversion from everything else – there are historians that support your view too.

@Martin I’ll address your points when I have a bit more time.

82. Mr S. Pill

Please don’t bother responding.

You’ve repeated one lie too many to be bothered dealing with you any further.
You’re either very poorly informed and overly confident; or disingenuous about your Atheism and views.

If anything you are just the kind of example of why I think religion should be kept out of the classroom because children don’t need wishy-washy evasions and lies. What they need is critical thinking and evidence based arguments. None of which you’ve demonstrated and none of which come from religion.

You’ve stated your arguments. Any further commentary will be just more excuse making and attempts to justify what you’ve already said. Let’s end it here; it should be clear that you’re not being very persuasive.

@ 82

Then I don’t get your original point; it is vastly easier to “prove” or at least be confident beyond a reasonable doubt that Caeser was a real person, and given the wealth of direct and contemporary literary sources, and other concrete evidence, to have some confidence about his character, or at least how he was seen by those around him, there is next to nothing about a small time Jewish teacher far away from the bright shining centre of the Empire.

I’m willing to accept…or be persuaded…. that there was a man called Jesus. Virtually everything else we “know” about him is varnish.

59. BenSix

> The point is that those hundreds of thousands of deaths are evidence of areligiousness.

The point is I made no claim about Stalin’s religiosity. You constructed a strawman and fought against it.

If you’d asked me nicely to expand, I’d have told you that my understanding is that Stalin was an atheist – but that had no more to do with the atrocities he was responsible for than the fact he wore a moustache.

> The speculation that he was “beaten and buggered” and, thus, turned into the man we know and loathe (your words) are evidence of nothing.

It was idle and humorous (to my mind) speculation. But it contains a viable argument – do a little research on the common experience of children taken in to the ‘loving’ embrace of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

~~~

68. James Reade

> Beyond the usual comments (well, rants) of people who believe Christianity is based on lies (it’s not, it’s based on an interpretation of a historical fact),

They’ve found god?! Brilliant! Will he be appearing on TV or something more impressive? A celestial laser show, perhaps?

They’ve found evidence for the virgin birth? Walking on water? Bringing the dead back to life? Fan-fucking-tastic! Can you please provide cites?

How about that thing with fish and loaves? That trick could come in handy with the 1 billion+ starving people on the planet right now.

~~~

79. Martin (chunkylimey)

Thanks. You saved me typing all of that out. 😉

If you’d asked me nicely to expand, I’d have told you that my understanding is that Stalin was an atheist – but that had no more to do with the atrocities he was responsible for than the fact he wore a moustache.

Well, that’s fair enough, but as you’d replied to the claim that Hitler and Stalin weren’t “motivated by Christianity” with the suggestion that the latter’s case was “complicated” I don’t think it was too partial an inference to draw (ie. that you’d introduced a note of ambiguity).

Do you really agree with Martin’s sentiment, incidentally…

To be honest I no longer care about bring Christians into the fold. I want them bullied into submission and non-existence in the same way they do to everyone else around the world. They bleat about persecution but as soon as they get into any position of authority proceed to bully and oppress everyone else. They deserve no sympathy just mockery and contempt.

Take out “Christians” and add “Muslims” or “Jews” and it wouldn’t have endured for ten minutes on this website. That’s not an argument to delete it, by the way, but to treat it with contempt.

On the other hand, in recognition that this could turn into one of those debates that would tire Oxford Unionists, I accept it was the wrong (if not unfair) inference. Peace and lurrrrve, y’all.

86. BenSix

“Take out “Christians” and add “Muslims” or “Jews” and it wouldn’t have endured for ten minutes on this website. That’s not an argument to delete it, by the way, but to treat it with contempt.”

Feel free to replace the words Muslim or Jew. So long as you mean the religion that someone practices and not an accident of birth.

There is a distinction between being an ethnic Jew or ethnic Muslim and being a practicing member of the faith. It is all too convenient of for religious people to hide behind the shield of claiming “racism” when someone objects to their actions.

Yet let’s be clear the Bible is crammed full of Genocidal ethnic cleansing; Christians and Muslims to this date punish and discriminate against those who do not belong to their faith and their world view.

So let’s be clear. I would never punish someone for the misfortune of being born into a Jewish/Christian or Muslim family. Nor would I judge them for being affected by the constant abusive oppression they suffer being raised by those communities. I only discriminate against them when they start inflicting their nasty religion on other people.

As the fairy tale Jesus says remove the log from your own eye.

I will take no lecture on racism or equality from any member of the divisive genocidal cults of Islam/Christianity or Judaism.

If you would sink to slow as to accuse me of antisemitism then the question would be do you know if I am an ethnic Jew or not? I can despise a religion for what it does without being a racist.

If anything by NOT being religious I am far less bigoted; since all religion is a force for division between “them” & “us”.

All religion is bigotry against the non-believers. Christianity to the point of damning people for how they were born, especially homosexuals or women.

Christians and Muslims to this date punish and discriminate against those who do not belong to their faith and their world view…I only discriminate against them when they start inflicting their nasty religion on other people.

Really, Martin? ‘Cos, y’know, I’m a nonbeliever in a family of Christians and they don’t “punish” me or “inflict their…religion“. Yet you’ve implied not only that “we…can’t leave…Christians around kids these days” but that they should be “bullied” and deserve “mockery and contempt“. Nice. No, I’m not accusing you of anti-semitism; those sentiments are bigoted enough as they are.

Ooh, one little tip: if we’re going to talk about reason and evidential standards it’s perhaps unwise to cite a shoddy film.

@86 Ben Six

“Take out “Christians” and add “Muslims” or “Jews” and it wouldn’t have endured for ten minutes on this website. That’s not an argument to delete it, by the way, but to treat it with contempt.”

It may not be an argument to delete it, but your point is specious because it is untrue. Worse, it is dishonest. There is a history on this site of “people of faith” and/or their apologists claiming that it is biased against Christians (and more usually Roman Catholics), and operates a double standard by not tolerating any criticism of other faiths.

The accusation (whose most frequent proponent was oldandrew from memory, who appears thankfully to have stopped posting) is bogus. There are plenty of people on here who are quite happy to point out the ridiculous pretentions of all the major faiths.

Galen –

The accusation (whose most frequent proponent was oldandrew from memory, who appears thankfully to have stopped posting) is bogus. There are plenty of people on here who are quite happy to point out the ridiculous pretentions of all the major faiths.

Eh? I’m not talking about criticism of other faiths – the presence of “JustVisiting” in the comments bar is a near-everpresent reminder that that’s tolerated – I’m talking about suggestions that they should be “bullied into submission”.

86. BenSix

> …as you’d replied to the claim that Hitler and Stalin weren’t “motivated by Christianity”…

Instead of drilling down to draw conclusions about what I believe from what other people write, just stick to what I write.

> Do you really agree with Martin’s sentiment, incidentally…

Yes – all the ones I can recall reading so far. Religion is toxic. It divides societies. No exceptions. Some are worse than others, and I’d put Islam at or near the top – but the highest potential for Armageddon might rest with the crazies in the USA. They’re borderline insane and have enough ordnance to vaporise the planet.

I’ve not seen many religious threads on LC since I arrived, so I don’t know if there’s any truth that Sunny is biased and defends the Islamic faith. That would surprise me and I’d remove LC from my feed reader if it were true.

Let’s test that out:

* Islam is a vile, toxic cult and the sooner it dies out, the better for all humanity.

We might not have to wait too long: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

@91

“Eh? I’m not talking about criticism of other faiths – the presence of “JustVisiting” in the comments bar is a near-everpresent reminder that that’s tolerated – I’m talking about suggestions that they should be “bullied into submission”.”

The phrase “bullied into submission” may be a tad OTT, but you are still trying to make the point that it wouldn’t be tolerated if it were said about Muslims or Jews…and that simply isn’t the case; Christianity may have been the case in point, but it seems it was intended as a general point about all religions.

Religion is toxic. It divides societies. No exceptions.

Again, false. Religion can be damn divisive, yes, but it isn’t always thus.

…but the highest potential for Armageddon might rest with the crazies in the USA. They’re borderline insane and have enough ordnance to vaporise the planet…

While I’ve no desire to minimise the threat posed by the criminals among U.S. elites I’m not sure they’re dreadfully religious. Their supporters are, I quite agree, and so they use the rhetoric of faith to stir them into approval.

The phrase “bullied into submission” may be a tad OTT…

!

94. BenSix

> Again, false.

There should be a name for that tactic – linking to a source that no one can access.

> Religion can be damn divisive, yes, but it isn’t always thus.

Ah, yes – the old “but we give blankets and soup to the poor!” Not persuasive.

> …I’m not sure they’re dreadfully religious.

You need to spend a little time reading about the rabid religious belief that permeates the US military and how people are treated that don’t fit in.

Then do some reading about The Rapture. They don’t view it as a parable.

Ignorance is dangerous.

> The phrase “bullied into submission” may be a tad OTT…

Slightly hyperbolic, but essentially correct. Batter them with science and rational argument until we view all religions as we now do belief in Zeus or Odin. It’s all just different flavours of the same superstitious bollocks.

There should be a name for that tactic – linking to a source that no one can access.

Ah, so should I dismiss a book that offers footnotes I can’t chase up in me local library?

You need to spend a little time reading about the rabid religious belief that permeates the US military and how people are treated that don’t fit in.

Unless we’re to believe in some kind of Kubrickian scenario, religious nutbags in the military don’t have the influence to pull off such dramatic evil. Dangerous ideologues – think back to Kissinger, for one – have been motivated by worldly concerns.

@95 Blue Rock

“Slightly hyperbolic, but essentially correct. Batter them with science and rational argument until we view all religions as we now do belief in Zeus or Odin. It’s all just different flavours of the same superstitious bollocks.”

I didn’t say I disagreed per se, indeed I’m with Dara Ó Briain (‘Talks Funny’):
on the question of religion and woo-woo in general:

“Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you. ….. Right now I would take homeopaths and I’d put them in a big sack with psychics, astrologers and priests. And I’d close the top of the sack with string, and I’d hit them all with sticks. ……Herbal medicine has been around for thousands of years’ Yes, and then we tested it and the stuff that worked became MEDICINE”

In that case Dara O’Brien talks bollocks. Let’s take one example: psychics. Now, I don’t believe there’s evidence that should lead us feel that psychic powers exist but if he’s even heard of the ganzfeld experiments or
remote viewing I’ll willingly attend a Russell Howard or Andy Parsons show. Life, and science, aren’t that simple.

This thread makes baby Jesus cry, and not for the reasons some might like either.

You may think a sense of outrage is misplaced…. I and many others don’t.

In these times? The poorest sections of society are being made to pay for the errors of the richest, the welfare state is being undermined for the sake of profit and crazed dogma, our higher education system is being marketised and (as an inevitable consequence) further segregated as a direct and deliberate result of government policy, there is mass unemployment and most people are seeing a decline in their standard of living. And you get outraged about the fact that the silly old CofE has a hand in the state education system? Now, I can understand not liking that fact, but to be outraged by it?

I don’t want the church subsidised by my taxes, whether directly or indirectly because it is involved in education. If people want a religious education for their children, let them pay for it privately.

I grew up in the Marches and so went to CofE schools (like everyone else whether Anglican or not) and unless something has changed greatly since the 1990s (which seems somewhat unlikely), there is in fact a distinct lack of ‘religious education’ in CofE schools. At primary school level there were prayers in the morning assemblies and the local vicar (who was not at all knowledgeable about Christian doctrine and was probably not especially religious) bored the pupils to death every Thursday morning, and that was about it. At secondary school there was much less than even that.

Also, if the CofE, or indeed other faiths were that relevant or important to people, they would be defying the trend you note.

I’m beginning to suspect that you didn’t do more than skim read my post… nowhere did I claim that religion is important to most people in Britain. It isn’t (either way) and hasn’t been for a long time (longer than you probably think). But almost all forms of associational life (from Churches to Trade Unions, social clubs, pubs and, more than all of the above, political parties) entered a form of protracted crisis at some point over the past four decades. All I’m arguing is that it is wrong to separate the decline of Church attendance from the wider picture.

96. BenSix:

> Ah, so should I dismiss a book that offers footnotes I can’t chase up in me local library?

Aaand he’s back with another nonsense strawman.

Try and imagine how pointless any debate would be if we all ‘cited’ books on Amazon.

> …religious nutbags in the military…

You think they’re only in the military? You’re either amazingly ignorant of current affairs and the people involved in US politics, or you’re pretending to be. Neither is a good look.

BlueRock –

Aaand he’s back with another nonsense strawman.

Try and imagine how pointless any debate would be if we all ‘cited’ books on Amazon.

Sorry, but if you’re going to make a claim – “religion…divides societies…no exceptions” – that encompasses so much but offers so little argumentation you can’t expect a simple link to a frickin’ blog.

I could bring up lands that contradict the notion, if you like – from ancient Japan to modern New Zealand societies have been peaceful and pluralistic.

You’re either amazingly ignorant of current affairs and the people involved in US politics, or you’re pretending to be. Neither is a good look.

You brought up the military! Christ, the burden is on you to show that it’s so influential, not on me to show it’s not. Let’s think of the major forces in U.S. policy. The oil business? Obviously that’s not religious. The bankers? They’re pretty secular. The Israel lobby? Some Christian and Judaistic influence, but not a huge amount. The secret services? Nope.

@98 Ben Six

If pschic powers are so real then…… care to predict something we can check up on then?

No?

Thought not.

If pschic powers are so real then…… care to predict something we can check up on then?

Pity the scientific method – abused by its own defenders.

@99 Alun

I think a sense of outrage is entirely justified.. tho from reading the rest of your post, I can see why you don’t. I realise many people think the Cof E in particular, and “most” people of faith and their beliefs in general are pretty harmless, if somewhat batty. Granted I have a much more negative view: I disapprove of ANY religious involvement in education, and fully support the Dawkins view of it as tantamount to abuse. If people want to infect their children with religion, there isn’t much we can do about it, other than try to re-educate them…. but we certaintly shouldn’t be subsidising it with our scarce taxes, any more than we should be tolerating Bishops in the Lords.

You may think the decline in the Cof E simply reflects macro-trends in membership of collective organisations as whole…. but my point is, that the reason religion isn’t defying the trend (which surely it ought to be given that the members are the chosen, and have a direct line to their sky-god…?) is that is nothing special, and seen as such. It should not therefore be receiving the special treatment it does, nor should we entertain its pretentions to having moral authority to back up its dogmatic and often discriminatory belief system.

@ 103 Ben Six

What you are linking to is pseudo-science, not science. Even the (pretty lame) wikipedia discussions acknowledge as much.

There is as much evidence for “remote viewing” and ESP as there is for the efficacy of homeopathy.

Oh, really, Galen? Then is Richard Wiseman talkin’ woo-woo when he says…

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

101. BenSix:

> …from ancient Japan to modern New Zealand societies have been peaceful and pluralistic.

LMFAO. Your grasp of history must have been transmitted via a rose-tinted telescope that was turned the wrong way around. Idiot.

> …the burden is on you to show that it’s so influential, not on me to show it’s not.

Your ignorance about the role of religion in modern US society is equivalent to not being aware that religion causes problems in the Middle East. It’s so dumb it requires no response. Maybe Sunny should create a sister site: LiberalConspiracyForDummies.co.uk!

@106 Ben Six

Oh well then, I submit… if Wiseman says there’s something to it, it MUST be so….

Oh wait…. the full background from a cursory trawl of wikipedia results in this:

“Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced.”

..it continues:

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (…) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you’d probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don’t have that evidence”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

BlueRock –

Idiot.

Mine heart bleeds. Deal with it, BlueRock, it’s a fucking truism to say that religion isn’t always divisive. It often is, yes, and it will be ’til (well, if) it dies but life isn’t so clear-cut.

Maybe Sunny should create a sister site: LiberalConspiracyForDummies.co.uk!

Such mallet-like wit. Tell me, BlueRock, if I said I was a vegetarian would you ask if I was going to marry a carrot?

Galen –

Yes, I know he’s said there’s not enough evidence. That’s hardly damning, is it – so did I. And, no, you’re not compelled to accept the words of Wiseman but as it’s quite obvious that you know little of this subject the conclusions of its foremost sceptic might enlighten you. The point isn’t that psi exists, it’s that it’s not obviously untrue.

And now, gentlemen, I shall depart before the urge to cave my skull in with the monitor becomes too strong.

109. BenSix

> …it’s a fucking truism to say that religion isn’t always divisive.

Down at the macro level, handing out soup and blankets. Societal level? Not so much. Anyway with a minimal history education can grasp this.

Anyway, it’s largely a moot argument – the toxic superstitions are dying out in educated societies. It only thrives amongst the poor, frightened and uneducated.

P.S. Remote viewing? Ha haa!

Bullied into submission is OTT rhetoric by Martin (chunkylimey). I just want don’t them to have no special rights because of their religious belief. To make special provisions on the statute book for religious hatred is utterly obscene. Is there political hatred provisions on the statute book? Is there football club hatred provisions on the statute book? Why the fuck does religious belief enjoy this favouritism in the eyes of the law? There is plenty of law to bring the hateful to book without giving the religious a special place.

For anyone to argue that the W administration and their various colonial expeditions did not have a religious dimension is beyond parody. The administration was stocked full of those who bought into millennialism ideology. FFS they were sending out State Department memos before and during Iraq with religious tracts written across the top of them. None of us will live through a developed society ruled over by a bigger bunch of religious nutters than the W administration.

Richard –

The Iraq War was driven by corporate interests, geopolitical plans and secular ideologues. If they were just Christianists why’d’ya think they’re so unbothered about their comrades in faith being slaughtered in Iraq?

112. BenSix

> The Iraq War was driven by …

Can you grasp the concept that there are multiple drivers for certain events? That some people have more than one goal?

This is not a difficult concept to grasp for anyone of average intelligence.

You did not respond to any of the facts stated by Richard W. In fact, you don’t respond to a lot of what people spoon feed you. Troll? Moron? The effect is the same.

P.S. You said you were fucking off. Can’t stick to what you promise. Tut tut.

@Martin

“To be honest I no longer care about bring Christians into the fold. I want them bullied into submission and non-existence in the same way they do to everyone else around the world.”

Bring it on.

btw were you brought up to be religious? I just want to know if we’re going to get blamed if and when your killing spree starts.

“Can you grasp the concept that there are multiple drivers for certain events? That some people have more than one goal?
This is not a difficult concept to grasp for anyone of average intelligence.”

Well obviously it is too intelligent for you to understand . Seeing as he said 1 corporate interests, 2geopolitical plans and 3 secular ideologues.

I think you will find that that is three reasons. Obviously counting to 3 is a difficult concept for you to grasp. But we will have to make allowances because you don’t have average intelligence.

Also let’s not take “Bullied into submission” out of context
I mean for Religions to keep themselves to themselves and not inflict their warped values on the rest of us.

For Christianity to complain about oppression considering their track record and behaviour in the modern world; is just crass hypocrisy. If I said I don’t tolerate Fascism no one would have an issue; for me I see the two as the same thing. Of course no Christian is going to respect my viewpoint on that. Because ultimately Christians talking about tolerance or understanding is just a lie.

“I mean for Religions to keep themselves to themselves and not inflict their warped values on the rest of us.”

Nice idea but it is never going to happen. Religious people tend to be very pious, and don’t deal with counter views very easily. They like a simple world where people are kept stupid. Look at the American deep south. You can’t get more stupid, or Pious, and they love their guns. Very inadequate human beings.

Staying out of this one now, cos a)Galen10 knows more than me & b)I don’t actually disagree with Martin’s principles, just the way he expresses them.
Shalom, in that old phrase; apologies for my ignorance.

😉

115. sally

> Well obviously it is too intelligent for you to understand . Seeing as he said 1 corporate interests, 2geopolitical plans and 3 secular ideologues.

You need to follow the *full* conversation in order to even have a chance of making an intelligent contribution. Clue: religion.

Why not try contributing something more than your usual drive-by childish insults? Give it a go. Surprise everyone. You’ll feel better about yourself and people won’t think you’re such a pointless twat.

“I’ve not seen many religious threads on LC since I arrived, so I don’t know if there’s any truth that Sunny is biased and defends the Islamic faith. That would surprise me and I’d remove LC from my feed reader if it were true.”

I repeat: Sunny didn’t commission this, he’s on holiday, it was me!

If you Proselytise aggressively, you are a cockend. End of.

120. Jennifer O’Mahony

> I repeat: Sunny didn’t commission this, he’s on holiday, it was me!

Yeah, I saw that – I was just responding to the accusation that Sunny censors criticism of Islam in the comments… which, as I said, would greatly surprise me.

Thanks for kicking off a… umm… stimulating debate! 😉

~~~

121. Cylux

> If you Proselytise aggressively, you are a cockend.

You can remove “aggressively” from that.

@122 I accept some proselytising, on the basis that the person doing so genuinely believes that they are doing you a favour*, but once they start forcing the issue, despite any and all refusals, then the gloves come off.

*Like saving you from an eternity of suffering in hell for example.

123. Cylux:

Thing is, no matter how much they sugar-coat it up front, we all know the ultimate message is that we need to submit to the ‘love of Jesus’ or suffer ever-lasting torment. That’s their sales pitch – reward (of sorts) or punishment.

Anyone who tries proselytising to me will get a short, sharp verbal punch in the face. 😉