All Comments (25)

tyoscazi cseziflgr kfgped gkxpuj jminsogk kewr zaprqsdyo

tyoscazi cseziflgr kfgped gkxpuj jminsogk kewr zaprqsdyo

To Tonio,

You make some sense in saying,"I think the ideal move would be for them to make their own judgments about all religious doctrines instead of reflexively rejecting all religion."

The "separation" of church and state in a shallow secular environment has for many come to mean the denial of Christian faith in public life (i.e.the secular faith of course becomes the faith). It seems what is important is fairness, if Christian faith represents what 2/3 or more of the people affirm what is unfair about recognizing that in public life in a way that leaves space for others to freely express their faith (or non-faith) and participate in society as they will?

It is amazing that after the century that we have come through, of major experiments with societies deliberately sidelining or suppressing Christian faith (e.g. Germany and the former Soviet Union) we now have these "fresh faced youths" again wishing for "those good old days." We need a little realism to enable constructive conversations. If you come from a background where your parent or grandparent died in isolation in prison, disappeared into one of the Gulags never to be heard from again, or was dragged to their death in Siberia that might concentrate the mind.

Ben W

FatPie32, thanks so much for the information. I would be curious to know whether the falling fertility rates in Europe are due to contraception, lack of sex drive, less desire for children, rising rates of natural infertility, or some combination of all of these.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=it&v=31

A more official figure. Shows that Italy actually has a lower fertility rate than the UK.

"Really? I had assumed that the sale of contraceptives was illegal in Italy."

Not at all, oddly enough the best way to show how much nonsense this is (as finding evidence of non-existent ban on contraceptive was proving rather difficult) was to look at a pro-life website.

http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/2006/oct_Resource.htm

"The latest statistics of the European Union say Iceland's fertility rate is 2.03 per woman. It is followed by Ireland, France, then Norway and Finland. Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom fare worse. Eastern and southern Europe are losing the highest number of people."

Italy has one of the lowest fertility rates in Europe!

"Italy has been dramatically affected by the birth dearth. This is ironic, considering it is the cradle of Catholicism, which is opposed not only to abortion but also contraception. Italy's Minister of Labor and Welfare first offered women 1,000 euros to every mother of a second child. That program was then expanded to also include women who have their first child. The mayor of one Italian town, where only 4 babies were born that year, felt the government's offer was too little. He is offering mothers 10,000 euros over a five-year period for each additional baby born."

However unreliable this website may turn out to be, the fact is that if there were no contraception in the country it's a fair bet that they wouldn't have to pay women to have more than one child.

You learn something new everyday, eh?

"In America there is an unfortunate stereotype of atheists, that they are always making petty court cases. That public picture is not going to help you make any gradual reforms, and in fact it is causing many to react against atheism more harshly."

I know. No question that Madelyn Murray O'Hair was fighting the good fight, but her unpleasant personality and tactics made her the perfect atheist bogeyman. That's why I'm grateful for Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who eschew the tempting tactic of deliberately provoking people just to generate headlines.

"Your constitution isn't defending you from religious fundamentalism. Legislation can be changed or simply ignored, so if you want to be safe from fundamentalism you are best off making sure people know who the bad guys are."

No constitution will by itself guarantee security from would-be theocrats. They had turned the Air Force Academy and the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives into tools of evangelism. The best defense is vigilance by people who love freedom of conscience.

"In Italy there are many Roman Catholics, but you won't find too many who take the 'no contraception' teaching seriously."

Really? I had assumed that the sale of contraceptives was illegal in Italy.

"Coming back to the main point, the bad guys are not often an entire religious group (Westboro Baptist Church is perhaps an exception), but rather the more extreme members who decide to take their teachings in a disturbing direction (sometimes those members can be the leaders)."

In my view, the real "bad guys" are not bad people, but people who are so terrified by change that they desire order and stability more than their own freedom or the freedom of others. I can hear that fear when they talk about America's supposed moral decline following the elimination of mandatory school prayer.

I recommend this article that deals with one aspect of the American fundamentalist movement:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/06/27/050627fa_fact

"Can you explain how the secular society arose? Was it purely a reaction, or was it the product of gradual reform?"

I'd guess that it was combination of the two. A reaction to religious wars and the 'fruits' of over-zealous behaviour. A product of the efforts of people to avoid such things as time went on.

In America there is an unfortunate stereotype of atheists, that they are always making petty court cases. That public picture is not going to help you make any gradual reforms, and in fact it is causing many to react against atheism more harshly.

Your constitution isn't defending you from religious fundamentalism. Legislation can be changed or simply ignored, so if you want to be safe from fundamentalism you are best off making sure people know who the bad guys are.

Coming back to the main point, the bad guys are not often an entire religious group (Westboro Baptist Church is perhaps an exception), but rather the more extreme members who decide to take their teachings in a disturbing direction (sometimes those members can be the leaders). In Italy there are many Roman Catholics, but you won't find too many who take the 'no contraception' teaching seriously. It is the leaders of the Church who are making the immoral decision of preaching that contraception is wrong in countries where AIDS is rife.

On the stand against gay adoption, it actually appears to be the far right amongst Muslims, Jews, and Protestant Christians, and not simply the far-right Roman Catholics who were to blame. Nevertheless, the problem is the prejudices of the religiously conservative and dogmatic. Not the religions as a whole. Naturally sometimes people decide to criticise a whole religion because of the actions of a few (Roman Catholics because of the IRA, Muslims because of 9/11 and 7/7, Hindus because of the destruction of the Babri Mosque, etc.), and when that happens it is discrimination. It is not discriminating when we provide contraception, sex education, and equality of rights where they are needed.

Fatpie42,

"Fundamentalism is not growing in the UK in anything like the way it is in the US where you claim these 'safeguards against theocracy' exist. The reason why a theocracy is not likely to arise in Britain is because most of the population is deeply agnostic and would not stand for such a situation to arise."

I'm glad to hear that. My point is that religious attitudes in all cultures are not static. Social turmoil in any nation or culture could push people toward religious extremism such as fundamentalism. That is why I oppose the concept of state religion in all its forms. The Puritans who emigrated from England during America's colonial era set up a quasi-theocracy in Massachusetts, and that colony ended up being decades behind the others in efforts to protect freedom of worship. And when Puritans seized control of Maryland for a time, they overturned freedom of worship.

"As well as linking religion with authority in the UK, we also have religious studies lessons where we are taught about the many different forms which religion takes. This means that denial of religion is not only a matter of rebellion against authority, but actually involves the recognition that the true 'religious' authority is rather uncertain."

Thanks for the information. That relates well to the previous question on this site, the one about teaching comparative religions. Perhaps the teenage rebellion against religion that I described is largely an American phenomenon. I strongly favor the idea of questioning all religious doctrines and authorities, with people forming their own opinions and judgments.

"Certainly Charles persecuted puritans and quakers, and certainly after the civil war Oliver Cromwell established a kind of theocracy. However, this has only served to produce the secular society which now exists."

Can you explain how the secular society arose? Was it purely a reaction, or was it the product of gradual reform?

Blue and White

He may be sensitive to anti-Catholic issues, and that is very much to his credit. Still, quite a few of his posts have been pablum.

Tonio,

1) Fundamentalism is not growing in the UK in anything like the way it is in the US where you claim these 'safeguards against theocracy' exist. The reason why a theocracy is not likely to arise in Britain is because most of the population is deeply agnostic and would not stand for such a situation to arise.

2) As well as linking religion with authority in the UK, we also have religious studies lessons where we are taught about the many different forms which religion takes. This means that denial of religion is not only a matter of rebellion against authority, but actually involves the recognition that the true 'religious' authority is rather uncertain.

3) The religious majority in the parliament was far from the point. The fact was that the king did not want to have to pass laws through parliament, no matter what religious beliefs its members might hold. Certainly Charles persecuted puritans and quakers, and certainly after the civil war Oliver Cromwell established a kind of theocracy. However, this has only served to produce the secular society which now exists. (Oliver Cromwell's era as 'Lord Protector' has left us with the phrase "Lord protect us from Protectors".)

4) Henry VIII was a Catholic. You realised that right? Henry VIII did not persecute Catholics, but rather he pillaged the monasteries and other Roman Catholic institutions. Henry VIII's actions were political, not religious.

Ba'al

Point well taken.

Whether from a Christian perspective or a non-religious perspective, I've found Dr. Wright to be very sensitive to issues like the one you mentioned concerning anti-catholicism. It's almost impossible to say everything that needs to be said on a topic which only gives one a little space to say it. I'm just saying to not dismiss him. He is a breath of fresh air (among mainstream Christianity) in communicating his faith in a way that respects other points of views without at the same time diminishing the beliefs of orthodox Christianity.

Blue and White

I stand properly corrected!

I do maintain that the essay is sweeping under the rug one of the most defining features of recent UK history.

Ba'al writes,

"I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but given that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, I think it is safe to say that discrimination against Roman Catholics is alleged a lot more than just 'sometimes'. Comments by religious figures that are this profoundly tone-deaf go a long way to explain why I am an atheist."

Well, it's not all of the time and it's not none of the time. So that leaves us with "sometimes."

"The civil war was between those who supported the monarchy and those who supported parliament. Religious issues tended to get brought in to these kinds of things, but religion was not the central point of the war."

From what I know of English history, the Parliament was controlled by theocratic Puritans who opposed Charles I's religious policies. By "religious wars," I was also referring to the post-Henry VIII struggle over whether an Anglican or a Catholic would sit on the English throne. That's really 1500s, of course. Whether religion was at the heart of the conflict or was simply dragged into the conflict, it jeopardized the lives of many English who simply wanted to worship as they chose.

"The idea that the Church of England is going to be used to suppress individual conscience is a joke."

I was trying to condemn the principle of state religion in general, not specifically the Church of England. I was trying to uphold the principle of the US Constitution's First Amendment, keeping government authority separate from any church authority.

Right now, England is nothing like Afghanistan, where unbelievers can be sentenced to death as traitors. And you have a good point about many English being Christian in name only. But why should expect that to last? Attitudes and beliefs in all cultures often move backward and forward over the centuries. The growth of fundamentalism in both America and the Middle East has been largely a reaction to social changes. It's possible that some future social turbulence in England might push many English toward fundamentalism, transforming the CofE's doctrines. Whether that is probable is not the point. My point is that I'm not aware of any statutory safeguards in the English system against theocracy.

"Who do you think is reflexively rejecting all religion without making any judgments?"

In America, it's very common for people who go through private religious schooling to reject religion as they approach adulthood, simply because they associate religion with authority. In the European countries that have state religions with little active participation, I wonder if this type of rebellion is much more widespread.

What religious wars in Britain in the 1600s? No seriously!

The civil war was between those who supported the monarchy and those who supported parliament. Religious issues tended to get brought in to these kinds of things, but religion was not the central point of the war.

Religious wars were not caused by the Church of England, but by the reformation which split the whole of Europe. Both the Roman Catholics and the new protestant denominations accused each other of heresy and, as such, there was huge bloodshed. If the Church of England caused wars, one might have expected such a religious war during Henry VIII's time on the throne.

The idea that the Church of England is going to be used to suppress individual conscience is a joke. The CofE church register only comes to about 3% of the population. The number of people who write Church of England on the census form however, comes to 40%. The number of Christians as a whole in the country (according to the same census) is about 70% of the populationm with CofE and Roman Catholic making up the majority (63%) of that group.

And let's not forget that there are many Roman Catholics who would claim to be 'lapsed'. I've heard that some Roman Catholics believe that you can't cease to be one unless you have written permission from the pope! (My girlfriend, a ceased Catholic rather than a lapsed one, doesn't buy that, but at least one of her relatives most certainly does.)

The only truth to your claim is the fact that CofE bishops are guaranteed 26 seats in the House of Lords. That is something which the British Humanist Association is attempting to change. It is much more of a threat than the Queen, who is most likely just as agnostic as the rest of us, and who cannot really make a serious act of political power since it is practically certain that the monarchy would be abolished straight after her doing so.

(Um... what do you mean by 'to make their own judgments about all religious doctrines instead of reflexively rejecting all religion'? Who do you think is reflexively rejecting all religion without making any judgements?)

"The Church of England is, for the most part, such an innocent 'tea and biscuits' affair that I find it hard to criticise it as an institution. For all the conservative loonies found within it, there are just as many radically liberal figures."

Fatpie42, I wasn't necessarily talking about the Church of England as it exists today. I was talking more about the nation's bloody religious wars in the 1600s.

I was also talking about the wrong-headed principle of having any kind of state religion, no matter how benign the institution becomes in practice. As long as such an institution exists, there will be attempts to use it to suppress individual conscience in the name of patriotism or national security.

Having said that, I believe John Peel makes an excellent point. I've read the suggestion that many Western Europeans have turned away from religion precisely because religious observance in those countries has been a civic obligation. I think the ideal move would be for them to make their own judgments about all religious doctrines instead of reflexively rejecting all religion.

"It sounds like the real problem with the English system is the idea of an official state religion. That idea sanctions or appears to sanction discrimination against believers in other religions."

Tonio, I'm really not sure I agree with that. The Church of England is, for the most part, such an innocent 'tea and biscuits' affair that I find it hard to criticise it as an institution. For all the conservative loonies found within it, there are just as many radically liberal figures.

Ever heard this quote from John Peel?:
"I have to admit that I didn't really believe in God, but imagined this no bar to progress in the church of England. I secretly believe - and still do, I suppose - that no-one actually believes in God any more than they believe in the Tooth Fairy or Inspector Morse, but I have never been awfully good at defending this position in debate. But, I mean, come on...!"

However, on the topic of the right for Roman Catholics to discriminate as to who they allow to adopt children, I'm afraid that is not even remotely discrimination against Roman Catholics. We have a rule for all public services and we don't think Roman Catholics should be given an exception. Meanwhile Roman Catholic adoption agencies offer children to all suitable parents (and don't expect those parents to be Roman Catholic), but make an arbitrary exception for suitable parents who have a partner of the same sex. Roman Catholics adoption agencies cry 'discrimination' when they are not made an exception, when they are happily making homosexuals an exception on the basis of their own prejudices. It's the very height of hypocrisy.

The Roman Catholic adoption agencies are being refused an exception because it isn't right to do so. Not because they are a 'Roman Catholic' organisation.

I saw more hatred of Roman Catholicism in my university's 'Christian Union' group than I have ever seen in wider society.

Halozcel, I wasn't trying to take sides between Catholicism and Protestantism. To me, English history doesn't prove anything about either religion, it simply proves that any kind of state religion is wrong and dangerous.

The Act of Settlement is from 1700.
Apostolicae Curae is from 1896

How a law can be a "direct result, of course" from a document that appeared almost 200 years later, is anyone's guess.

But of course you already knew that.

Lets not forget Catholic Bloody Mary who had 283 heretics burned.

Protestantism is the real Illumination and present Civilization based on Protestantism.

It sounds like the real problem with the English system is the idea of an official state religion. That idea sanctions or appears to sanction discrimination against believers in other religions. England is a much different place than in the 1600s, when the religions fought a series of civil wars and many Catholics were executed as traitors. (Not much different from some Middle Eastern countries today.) But the attitude that Catholicism is unpatriotic still seems to linger in English culture.

oh NICO dear all that religious stuff is pure nonsense its mostly a scam run by homophobic moneygrabbing priest/mulahs/ministers/rabbis its all hokus pokus lets forget about all that bs and get back to reality! religion is the problem and NOT the answer!
god/jesus she just doesnt exist!

I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but given that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, I think it is safe to say that discrimination against Roman Catholics is alleged a lot more than just "sometimes".

Comments by religious figures that are this profoundly tone-deaf go a long way to explain why I am an atheist.

I want to come to kenya to plant the chuch