Sunday, November 22, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Where are all these militant atheists ruining Britain?

by Nick Cohen - guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/22/islam-bnp-atheism-nick-cohen

As every middlebrow with a newspaper column or Radio 4 slot to fill agrees, a vulgar "new atheism" is sweeping Britain. The readers of Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman and Christopher Hitchens are, they tell us, crass because they do not appreciate the mystery of religion, the consolations of ritual and all the rest of it, and also dangerous because they are as fundamentalist in their criticisms of religion as the religious fanatics they criticise.

I could waste your time by pointing out that "new atheists" are not so different from old atheists – we still don't believe in God, for instance – and add that the charge of moral equivalence would be easier to substantiate if atheists planted bombs on the underground. But space is short and the depressing truth about "new atheists" no one dwells on is that if they exist outside the imaginations of religious writers, they are never there when you need them. For if we had a vibrant atheist or secularist movement in Britain, it would now be tearing into this government for once again trying to ride the Islamist tiger.

Last Sunday, John Denham, the communities secretary, announced: "Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of faith at their peril. We should continually seek ways of encouraging and enhancing the contribution faith communities make on the central issues of our time."
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/22/islam-bnp-atheism-nick-cohen

Posted: Sunday, November 22, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 20 of 20 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #433971 by hiraethog on November 22, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Faith schools should not receive government support or tax payers money.

Other Comments by hiraethog

2. Comment #433976 by pipsy on November 22, 2009 at 10:51 pm

"Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of faith at their peril."
Would that be the constant threat of violence from the faithful.

Other Comments by pipsy

3. Comment #433999 by Thurston on November 22, 2009 at 11:45 pm

An interesting and terrifying article. Enough of the appeasement, let's have more outspoken criticism.

Other Comments by Thurston

4. Comment #434000 by Sally Luxmoore on November 22, 2009 at 11:51 pm

We should now take note of how many muslims, prominent or otherwise, stand up to agree with her secular democratic ideals.
I, for one, will not be holding my breath.
On the other hand, I would bet that it won't be long before she is criticised and demonised by her 'own' people.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

5. Comment #434013 by Notstrident on November 23, 2009 at 12:46 am

I am not being sarcastic when I say this: I am ashamed of myself. Ashamed as an American and as what I thought to be a good person for the quick shot of gloating I felt reading about those would-be theocrats in the UK, who are as bad in their own way as the ones we have here. All of us clear-thinking citizens of the planet have a common problem with the evils of religion. We are all in it together.

Other Comments by Notstrident

6. Comment #434039 by TIKI AL on November 23, 2009 at 3:34 am

"Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of faith at their peril."

As long as there are abortion doctors and clinics, tall buildings and airplanes, and innocent people congregating in public places, the "role of faith" that places them in "peril" shall not be ignored, but will be confronted at each and every step of the way.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

7. Comment #434072 by elbuho on November 23, 2009 at 8:36 am

This article should be a rallying cry to UK secularists to get active, start looking for ways to influence the main 2 parties and find a party they can - visibly and vocally - support at the next election. LibDems?

Other Comments by elbuho

8. Comment #434090 by Follow Peter Egan on November 23, 2009 at 9:59 am

What is the LibDems position on secularisation£

I don't know who to vote for, since I have a considerable dislike of both main parties.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

9. Comment #434103 by blakjack on November 23, 2009 at 11:32 am

I am beginning to sound like a broken record on this matter, but frankly with little to choose between the political parties, the one that embraces secularism will get my vote. Why oh why don’t politicians realise that a huge percentage of the British population is fed up to the hind teeth with the influence religion has nowadays on our lives? Surely they must be keen on the votes they would gain in espousing secularism?

Jack

Other Comments by blakjack

10. Comment #434113 by AMreasonedthinker on November 23, 2009 at 12:25 pm

How I would LOVE to see a mass uprising of secularist and rationalist people, something akin to the first Iraq war demonstration with over 1 million people marching on the Houses of Parliament in protest against (including but not limited to):

Faith Schools
The Church of England (as part of the infrastructure of UK society)
The Queen, Royal family and any legal recognition of the concept of 'devine right'
Any pseudo 'judicial' courts, such as Sharia...

I could go on..... but although I despise apathy - I just don't ever see this happening.....

Last chance to save the world anyone?

Other Comments by AMreasonedthinker

11. Comment #434118 by CaptainMandate on November 23, 2009 at 1:03 pm

The government need to be taken to task over faith schools.

maybe we shall remain a group that can be discriminated against until someone coins a phrase such as atheaphobia or anti-seculraism

in the game of politics religion always had the head start. the only thing people want to listen to is a victim mentality.

New Labour is like a bad parent just rushing to appease whichever baby cries the loudest

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

12. Comment #434120 by scottiedawg on November 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm

I haven't checked this out yet - but the above comments reminded me of it.

Guide for the Skeptical Voter:
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/11/vote-rationally-with-skeptical-voter.html

although i thought the UK english version was 'sceptic'? :s

Other Comments by scottiedawg

13. Comment #434137 by ramfalls on November 23, 2009 at 2:04 pm

I'm looking forward to the day when if someone says "I believe in god" its like farting in a lift full of people.
We keep quiet when it happens but they know they've been rumbled.

Other Comments by ramfalls

14. Comment #434164 by Border Collie on November 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm

'... once again trying to ride the Islamist tiger'
What a fantastic line!
We have a similar-ish story about helping a rattlesnake here in Texas.
Vote-whores be damned on both sides of the Atlantic!

Other Comments by Border Collie

15. Comment #434165 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm

14. Comment #434164 by Border Collie

'... once again trying to ride the Islamist tiger'
What a fantastic line!

Surprising to see it in the Grauniad though. It was Mark Steyn who drew it from a limerick to make up the title of his anti-Islamist polemic "The Face Of The Tiger", thusly:

There was a young lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And a smile on the face of the tiger

(You have to pronounce it "Nye-djur" and not "Nee-zhair", or it doesn't work.)

I assume they were both unaware of the Irish sense of the verb "to ride".

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

16. Comment #434220 by Mr DArcy on November 23, 2009 at 7:07 pm

I assume they were both unaware of the Irish sense of the verb "to ride".

As in "Ride a cock-horse to Banbury Cross"?

Where would the Carry On films have been without double entendres?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

17. Comment #434281 by j.mills on November 23, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Mind you, on the faith schools thing, we must note that a muslim is presumably as likely as an atheist to be excluded from working in a catholic school. So it's not just us. But then, who would want to work in an organisation that promotes misbelief in children?

Other Comments by j.mills

18. Comment #434284 by j.mills on November 23, 2009 at 8:43 pm

On party positions, the BHA welcomes the Green Party's policy:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/353

Conference delegates approved a range of policies, which sought to remove religious privilege from the education system and introduce more inclusive education practices. The most significant policy adopted said that religious organisations should not be involved in the running of state funded schools, meaning an end to divisive and discriminatory faith schools.

In addition, the conference called for abolition of the legal requirement to hold daily acts of compulsory collective worship. It also supported proposals that both state and private schools should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion or belief in either their admissions policies, or in staff recruitment and employment.

Other Comments by j.mills

19. Comment #434350 by Border Collie on November 23, 2009 at 11:19 pm

hungarian ... Yep, I've read the poem way in the past. The story of the rattlesnake isn't nearly as poetic, but the gist of it is similar. Well, back to my vulgar, strident, militant, disrespectful, egotistical, etc., religion bashing ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

20. Comment #434745 by PERSON on November 25, 2009 at 3:02 am

One thing the Lib Dems do have right is the policy of PR. If that were implemented, there really could be a party that ran on an atheist/rationalist platform or even rejected religion explicitly. OTOH the BNP would probably get representation in parliament. TBH, I think that would be healthy insofar as it would undermine the arguments from disenfranchisement that the BNP tends to make.

The things is, whilst explicit declarations of faith are harmful in the UK, explicit declarations of hostility to faith are too. It's true of any assertion that might commit one to specific policies. That's why the Tories have held off on being specific for so long. People go on impressions, and those are shaped by the stories told about policy. No policies, no stories, just warm fuzzies courtesy of the friendly parts of the press and stories constructed by activists fed to the rest.

Other Comments by PERSON

Reload Comments | Back to Top