Archive for RELIGION
Peace and goodwill to all?
Posted by: | Comments
No God? Be good for goodness sake
Having spent the holiday at my parents for the annual Christmas meal, I was dismayed to return home and find that throughout December there has been an unceasing attack by religious voices on atheists.
What was the sin? It varied depending on where you lived.
In some parts of the USA, atheist groups had dared to reach out to like minded people by putting up billboard and other advertisments. Some were more controvertial than others, some simply said things like “Be good, for goodness sake”.
In our own country I read of a teacher who wanted to force 6th form students (16/17 years old) to attend a church service, despite affirming that they were non-religious. We also had the 9 lessons for Godless people, which was apparently even more popular than ever.
Once again the whole thing about atheism at Christmas has been blown out of all proportion. I don’t celebrate the Christian festival of Christmas, and I couldn’t care less about it.
What I don’t understand is how people can be so hystical about the fact that someone else does not celebrate their religious festival. Do Muslims have a fit when atheists don’t celebrate their festival? Do the Jews get angry when we don’t celebrate theirs? No, of course they don’t.
To those who are offended by atheism at Christmas let me remind you that I’m not offended because you choose to celebrate. As long as you don’t ram it down my throat you’re free to do as you please.
I also understand those non-religious folks who want to get into the spirit of the season, and do a non-religious holiday. Why not? Atheism is a rejection of religion and superstition, why not keep the frivolity and fun and leave aside the God and Jesus bit? After all the celebration of the winter solstice goes back to pre-Christian time. Perhaps if I wanted to be the devils advocate I could argue that the Christian tradition at this time of year is simply a corruption of the original celebration of the pagan solstice feast.
So, get over yourselves, nobody is out to ruin your fun, or ban you holiday. You’re just being paranoid and uncharitable and a time of year when people should come together in celebration.
Coffee will Costa your soul
Posted by: | Comments
There have been a couple of articles in the news that have caught my attention recently on the subject of religious proselytising, and I wanted to comment on them. The first being an initiative by an organisation called Cafe Church, who want to bring Sunday services into the Costa Coffee chain. The second relates to the Bishop of Reading holding a harvest festival service in Asda.
In the first case, Whitbread which owns Costa Coffee has decided to allow public religious worship to take place on its premises, and it was reported that some branches are even running the Alpha Course.
Given these are privately owned premises I would have no issue with the church groups hiring out these venues for private use, such as running an Alpha course. In much the same way people hire all kinds of venues for different events. Where I take issue is that a preacher is to be permitted to stand up and give his sermon with no regard for the other patrons of the cafe. If I were to ask permission to stand up and tell a story or go around offering people in the cafe a short course on humanism, or to promote my own secular views, I’m quietly confident that I’d be refused.
The second story focuses on the bishop of Reading, who decided it would be a great idea to hold Harvest festival in Asda of all places. According to the interview on the BBC it was too troubling to get all the produce to the church so they decided to bring the church to the produce. The bishop made several remarks along the lines of, “this is the kind of place Jesus would want us to be”, and “Jesus would have shopped in a supermarket”. The BBC then interviewed an array of people, with one man politely saying “I’m not sure when I am shopping, but it’s nice to do things in a different way, I guess” and child said “This is weird”. The only person to come out and say anything definite was some grey haired old lady
The bishop stated in his interview that “The church is for everyone”, although he seems to have missed the point, that by holding his service in a public area that he’s imposing the church on them. He already has enough churches in the diocese you’d think that would be enough places to hold a service.
The whole affair brings to mind the legislation which covers religious discrimination in the workplace. Is it right to run the Alpha course in a place of work? What if employees do not wish to listen to religious sermons during their working day? Surely they have the right not to be subjected to such things?
Hypothetically speaking, if a gay employee is forced to listen to a sermon on the evils of homosexuality, I would imagine he’d have a great case for claiming his workplace was a hostile environment.
It is one thing if someone wishes to say grace in a restaurant, or pray during the working day. They have that right. However what is being done here isn’t a simple act of personal prayer; it is outright blatant proselytising and I believe it is totally inappropriate in these spaces, in a public context.
When I go for my coffee, or to do my shopping all I ask for is great products and good customer service, I don’t need a sermon.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/fancy-a-coffee-look-out-the-evan.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8311712.stm
BBC Thought for the Day
Posted by: | Comments
I have just been reading an interesting piece in the Telegraph, about secularists wanting a voice on Radio 4’s, “Thought for the Day” slot. Personally I find the Today programme quite a good bit of news reporting, especially as they have a really agressive style of interrogating their guests, in a very un-Paxman like way.
So for the un-initaited ”Thought for the Day” comes on during the Today programme around about 7:45am and a pre-selected religious buff gives us a 3 minute monolgue about what he thinks about current affairs. There are a mix of religious commentators from the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and many other faiths. Needless to say, its almost like a daily sermon in a 3 minute slot.
Now the evil secularists, atheists and humanists want to get in on the action and have a slice of the action, boring people to death with their endless drivel in the 7:45am slot. Sorry to be harsh, but you can’t tell me it will be any better just because they don’t believe in God. I’d don’t agree that non-believers should be banned from the slot, but equally I don’t really give a crap. There are a lot more important issues to address than “Thought for the Day”. How about, so called “honour killings”, or forced marriage, what about the 26 C of E Bishops who sit unelected in the House of Lords.
I just can’t get up the energy to argue about “Thought for the Day” as it all just smacks of, me-too-isms. The only reason the slot has 4.5 million listeners is because they’re already tuned into the Today programme and can’t be bothered the change the radio station. I bet if you took it off air, and made it available only on iPlayer very few people would bother to go look for it.
Oh and if you’re one of those religious types, don’t go thinking I’m on your side either. You get plenty of programmes on TV, like all the channels that pump out worship on Sky. They even have it listed specifically in the planner! Let us also not forget “Songs of Praise” and “Around the World in 80 faiths”. So don’t tell me that the religious are hard done by.
So what to do with the 3 minute boredom slot? either make it more interesting, or bin it is my view. I have no interest in it and it seems completely out of place in the programme content.
Pope to visit UK in 2010
Posted by: | Comments
Protest against the vatican
Several days ago the BBC reported (along with many other news agencies) that Pope Benedict has been invited to the UK on a state visit.
So lets ask the question. Is Pope Benedict someone we want honoured by a state visit to the UK?
My personal view on this is that the Pope should not be honoured in such a way. This has nothing to do with the fact he’s head of the Catholic Church. It is quite simply inconsistent with the way we have responded to other radicals.
Let us take the case of Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP. He dared to describe the Koran as a “fascist book” and wanted to enter the UK to show a film depicting Islam in a negative light. Whatever my personal view on his comments, he was excluded from the UK on “Secuirty grounds”, and perhaps rightly so?
Pope Benedict made equally inflamatory comments at his Christmas address where he likened homosexuals and trans-gender people to be as big a problem as global warming. We could continue to talk about the abuse of many childen at the hands of this organisation he represents, and that same organisation failed to take action to protect these children. It also continues to fail in meeting is obligations in the UN.
So when you look at it this way is the Pope any better or worse than our Dutch MP? How many angry people from the LGBT community will it take before the papal visit becomes a security concern? Well of course there isn’t a security concern from the LGBT community because they don’t go around burning effigies and making threats of violence like some of the extreme Islamic groups in our country. Therefore he will have his state visit virtually unchallenged.
I’d suggest you fill in the online petition but this too is unlikely to make any difference. However I signed it anyway.
So I’m going to sit back and just accept that it will happen and watch the moral fibre of our nation be flushed down the toilet.
I’m sure many Catholics (and other Christians) will be offended by these comments, but not as offended as I am about a man who lives in a palace and preaches to us about greed.
My only message here is to Gordon Brown…NOT in my name.
Human Greed?
Posted by: | Comments
In an article in The Times today Rowan Williams has blamed "Human greed" for the current financial crisis.
In some ways I don’t disagree with him as there is certainly some form of behavioural psychology at work. However I do not agree that being greedy on its own is bad, it is the consequences of greed which are bad.
I could be greedy, but act in a totally ethical way in order to obtain all that I desire. Greed is simply an expression of desire, be it a desire for money or a desire to help our fellow man. One could argue that Christianity is greedy because they want to get as many worshippers as possible.
I don’t suppose these "Greedy" people in the banks thought for one minute that they’d like to orchestrate a global economic collapse. Who wakes up in the morning and says, "I know I think I’ll screw up the economy today".
So it is very glib of Dr Williams to boil our economic problems down to pure greed. These so called greedy people have probably been stupid, selfish, or ignorant, but if you take away all the subjective labels it becomes clearer. It is ultimately their actions which resulted in the outcome, not their greed. The way their greed manifested itself was the cause, not the desire (or greed) itself.
However what surprises me most is that Dr Williams is once again trying to convince us that Islamic Sharia law has the answers to all our problems.
I often fantasise about the world of Star Trek where everyone wants for nothing and nobody uses money any more. This is along way from the real world, and whilst the current situation is not very palatable, it is simply another step in our economic evolution.
It is my hope that one day the economics of the distant future will be quite different, and we can devote ourselves to the enrichment of our lives through the pursuit of art and knowledge.
So let me suggest to Dr Williams we look forward to the future and not hark to medieval concepts that have no place in modern society.
Anne Rice born again?
Posted by: | CommentsI
n my daily summary of Google news, one of my favourite authors, Anne Rice, talks to the Kansas City Star about how she’s gone from being an atheist to being religious again.
It’s interesting to me that some people who are affected by traumatic events return to, or find religion. In the article Rice is quoted as saying she can now hope to be reunited with her child at some future point. For someone like me this is simply wishful thinking, and just because she believes in God now, does not change reality of life. All that has changed is her perception of the world around her.
For Anne being an atheist wasn’t easy, and she’s right, for some people grasping what the evidence shows us can sometimes be frightening and scary. In some ways I understand why someone who’s suffered a traumatic event might find religion comforting. The compassionate part of me says we shouldn’t try to convince people otherwise, as long as their innocent faith doesn’t turn to something bitter and twisted.
Has Anne’s change of heart changed my mind about her work? Absolutely not, because I read books written by a brilliant and captivating author. Just because she’s decided she believes in God doesn’t change the fact she’s written some amazing stories.
In some ways it is disappointing that such an intelligent and creative woman has reverted to a belief in the sky fairy. However I ask myself is it better to have a happy and productive Christian life, than a woefully miserable and desperate one as an atheist? However when you look more closely, it is fear and loss that seem to be drivers behind this reversion. This supports the Richard Dawkins argument about religion being promoted through fear. It is remarkable that an attachment to the material world drives people to religion, so that they can maintain some form of attachment after they experience loss. Buddhists talk of not being attached to the material world in order to free ourselves from pain and suffering. Atheism certainly recognises the nature of the world as it is, pain, death, life, joy, all swirling around us.
My school of thought is that without pain how can we know pleasure or joy. I can look at my life and say "One day I will die, and that is the end of me", or I can look at my life and think about the difference I want to make in the world right now. I can’t escape the fact I will die, so why dwell on it? It’s simply a part of nature. The point about atheism being hard isn’t new, and Julie Sweeney really digs into the emotional aspect of this in her audio book "Letting go of God".
I think for people who are students of nature and science we approach these questions with a more empirical mind, and rationalise things with an almost Mr Spock type logic. Perhaps it just takes remarkable strength of character to be atheist? Perhaps for the artistic mind, such detachment is difficult, and so the comfort of religion does away with all the unpleasant reality of the world, and replaces it with a warm comfort blanket of perceived reality (God).
Cover your eye!
Posted by: | Comments
Yes it’s true and I’ve linked the article at the bottom of this posting. Some bloke in Saudi has suggested it would be really very good if Muslim ladies would kindly cover up one of their eyes, and the BBC is quoting Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan as saying "Showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive."
I have to say as a man, my natural instinct when I’m checking out the ladies isn’t to gaze deeply into her well made up eyes. For me personally it’s usually boobs and bum (sorry ladies), so any woman covered from head to foot in black cloth with nothing but a slit to look through is not going to be a turn on, no matter how much mascara she wears.
I am clearly making light of this item but you have to admit there is little sanity to this approach. I am surprised they aren’t developing a technology which allows women to have their eyes covered completely, but so they can still see out, a bit like one way glass.
I just cannot reconcile how you’d go through life never being able to show your face to people you meet in public. So much of how we feel and we respond to people is communicated through facial expression and body language. Personally I would struggle to have a conversation with someone who was covered from head to foot in black cloth.
The next question for me is why black? In a a country as hot as Saudi why would you wear black? Now that has got to be really hot, but then I guess the idea is to discourage women from leaving the house.
So I’m afraid Saudi lands on my list of countries which I don’t plan to visit.
Channel 4 | Make Me a Christian
Posted by: | CommentsI was watching a very interesting show on Channel 4 called “Make me a Christian”, and I found it very fascinating. Most of the values they expressed, such as not getting too drunk and having sex with random people are quite common sense values. They quite rightly pointed out that if you sleep around you’ll get and STI, and highlighted that abortion was not an easy option for unwanted pregnancy.
If I am perfectly honest I found that I agreed with most what the Christian mentors were saying, but what I did not agree with was the context. The difference is that I don’t resort to mythology to validate these values. I draw on my own common sense, experience and understanding of the consequences of my actions. It is quite a common perception that because I am a humanist I don’t have any moral compass. However I am always careful to continually check my moral compass and not assume that my values are always right.
Then there are some very crucial differences I have with the Christian view, such as their position on homosexuality, and abortion. Christians would call this moral relativism, but I call it being compassionate, and showing empathy. Sometimes morality isn’t as black and white as the words on a page. If you were living on the streets and you children were starving what would you do to feed them, and keep them safe?
It’s very easy to be moral when we have modern comforts, food, clothing and fresh water. I’ll be interested to see how the next episode turns out…
Proposal for Buddhist school
Posted by: | CommentsThe Buddhist community in Birmingham is now looking to get into the faith school business, like many other religions. The BBC report that:
A Buddhist charitable trust is to draw up a proposal for the first Buddhist state primary school in the UK to be built in the Midlands.
The argument against this is no different to the argument against faith schools of Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. They all claim to be open minded, loving people of all religion however we cannot escape the truth that this is simply sectarianism. The intent behind these schools is clearly to promote their own faith, why else would you create a faith school?
What is most interesting is that you would not be allowed to set up a humanist or secular school, because the law currently requires a daily act of worship. Therefore the playing field when it comes to schools is not remotely level.
The BBC report quite rightly asks the question:
Integration or segregation?
This only shows the increasing need to disestablish the church and separate religion and the state completely. All the time the C of E has it’s special place in British education and the House of Lords, other religions will want a slice of the pie too.
Ministers ‘ignoring Church role’
Posted by: | CommentsAccording to the BBC, the government only pays ‘lip service’ to the Church of England. So let us look at the evidence behind this. Umm…. 26 Bishops who sit in the House of Lords, bishops on the news every other week, thought for the day, songs of praise, faith slots here there and everywhere on the BBC. Oh and lets not forget the church indoctrination that goes on in all those faith schools (and community schools).
Forgive me if I don’t feel a great swell of sympathy for the state religion being ignored by ministers.
Quite honestly it is about time religion stopped sticking its nose into politics. Hazel Blears talks of listening to the “Christian majority” but even the last census (as well as church statistics) show this to be utter nonsense.
“God is dead”, to quote Nietzsche, so let him rest in peace, and once and for all disestablish the church. The state should be secular, it’s only because the religions keep saying secular like it’s a dirty word that people think secularisation of the state is a bad thing. Look at France! hundreds of years of culture and progress, and all in the remit of a secular state.. Secular means a free and fair society for all despite their religious or non-religious philosophical views.
So I say shut your yap, bishop Lowe, because it is utterly false to claim you don’t want to influence political decisions, yet want ministers to listen to you. Why else would you want ministers to pay more attention to you? A nice chat and cup of tea perhaps?
We all know the church has its own political agenda, and given half a chance would seek to reassert itself as it did in bygone days, that are best left bygone. The recent controversy on stem cell research only serves to illustrate this point.
As for churches being contracted to provide social services, well we only have to see how that turned for employees of the Christian charity prospects.
So Bishop Lowe, I say this. I don’t want ministers listening to you, I want them governing for the benefit of all British people NOT your church!
BBC News Online | Politics | Ministers ‘ignoring Church role’
