1. Comment #434239 by Max of Earlobes on November 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm

The interests and views of religions have to be respected and taken into account, in exactly the same was as the interests and views of any other privately funded non-governmental organisations have to be taken into account, but no more than any other privately funded non-governmental organisasions (such as trade unions, businesses and charities) are respected and taken into account. For example, religions do not have the right to their own schools, nor to a quota of seats in parliament, nor the right to be consulted on all pieces of legislation that concern morality, nor the right to inculcate children with the beliefs of their choice. And, to anybody who says, "Religions speak on behalf of their adherents when governments are deciding what to legislate", I say that the adherents can speak for themselves. Conduct surveys, and find out what the followers of religions really think, which is often radically different from what the preachers say that they do (how many Catholics do you know who believe that AIDS is Bad but Condoms are Worse?).

Other Comments by Max of Earlobes

2. Comment #434242 by yanquetino on November 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm

I love Paula Kirby's articles: she has a real talent for calling a spade a spade. EXCELLENT essay! THANK YOU, Paula.

Other Comments by yanquetino

3. Comment #434254 by TIKI AL on November 23, 2009 at 8:01 pm

"But they should not find it easier to be heard by governments just because they are religious. They shouldn't have an inside track:"

Bravo, Paula, and may I add they should not enjoy tax-free status even if they keep their noses out of politics, which they don't.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

4. Comment #434256 by j.mills on November 23, 2009 at 8:04 pm

A treat as ever, Paula.

To quote from the question:

church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree?

Yes. It doesn't follow that anyone has a duty to heed them.

Other Comments by j.mills

5. Comment #434258 by SilentMike on November 23, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Encore! Encore!

Brilliantly done. This is one of the points that needs to be pushed repeatedly: No special privileges for religions. They should play according to the same rules everybody else has to follow.

Other Comments by SilentMike

6. Comment #434261 by Mbee on November 23, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Agreed an excellent piece.

The more articles that get this type of discussion into the mainstream the better. I still get the impression that most people just go from day to day and don't really give much thought to religion or belief and just go with the flow and their indoctrination. They just want to get by.

Other Comments by Mbee

7. Comment #434262 by God fearing Atheist on November 23, 2009 at 8:11 pm

Go Paula go!

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

8. Comment #434269 by Mr DArcy on November 23, 2009 at 8:20 pm

I just wonder what the special input of Christians into the issue of climate change is. They are the ones who tell us hell is eternal flames. Will hell suffer from global warming? Will the elect be "raptured" away to leave the rest of us trying to stay above sea level?(or lake of flames level). I mean I'm really worried about what advice the Pope or Archbishop of Cant are able to provide. After all they do have a hot-line to God, .... don't they?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

9. Comment #434271 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2009 at 8:22 pm

An excellent article. If it were at all politically possible, I would go further than Paula.

I don't think religious believers should necessarily be given influence on equal terms. What governments need to make decisions is rational investigation of evidence. If someone makes a career out of promoting the rejection of reason, we should be cautious about taking seriously their views about anything.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #434277 by TIKI AL on November 23, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Mbee @ 6: "I still get the impression that most people just go from day to day and don't really give much thought to religion or belief and just go with the flow and their indoctrination."

I agree. I think it has merely become a reason for my Catholic neighbors to go for a fish fry on Friday and wash their cars on Sunday. Religious apathy to serious brainwashing.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

11. Comment #434282 by Mr DArcy on November 23, 2009 at 8:37 pm

A good article but I think Paula over-rates economics:

Economics is a serious academic subject, requiring years of university study before it can be properly understood.

In which case the predictive power of economists is called into question. If they understood what they were studying, why didn't at least most of them predict the subprime and subsequent finnacial turmoil, let alone the recession/depression? "No more boom and bust" said Gordon Brown, no doubt advised by government economists. The reality is the economists don't understand capitalism and its anarchic nature.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

12. Comment #434287 by j.mills on November 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm

If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion.

On topic: Rabbi, Archbish, Mullah, thank you all for coming. Now, first, could we ascertain from each of you what is your deity's preferred method of carbon sequestration?

Other Comments by j.mills

13. Comment #434293 by Demotruk on November 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm

I certainly agree that government should listen to the views of the religious (though, that doesn't mean church leaders should be listened to any more than any other random citizen, it's not like mass is a gathering of ideas and discussion) as they would any other constituency.

However, and I'm sure secularists here all agree, any law or bill going through congress or parliament, which is based entirely upon religious beliefs, should be automatically rejected. Even if there is a majority in congress/parliament, even if there is a majority in the public. I just don't want "listen to the religious" to become "no driving on Sabbath, by law", whether a religious majority supports it or not. It's an entirely religion-based law, it would have to be justified with secular arguments for it to be accepted (which would be much harder to do.)

This might seem a redundant thing to say, but it's true that such laws arise in supposedly secular countries with a religious majority such as Israel. Here in Ireland, it's now illegal to blaspheme (although it's highly unlikely to be prosecuted for it).

Other Comments by Demotruk

14. Comment #434295 by modano on November 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Great article
Should be posted in all media.
It's a very important issue and this collaboration
between religion and politics is at best an anachronsism.

On the other hand it could be a good opportunity
to speak up against it. Maybe put it on the agenda,
in different media, so it might be discussed in the open. I hope mrs.Kirby encourage prolific intellectuals to join her in this

Geir

Other Comments by modano

15. Comment #434299 by aquilacane on November 23, 2009 at 9:14 pm

"According to Mr Denham (a secular humanist), faith is a 'strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity', and Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change."

Perhaps, but why can they not contribute as simply people, why must they only contribute as Christians or Muslims£ Why can we label them by their religion when it is for the good but not lable them when it is for the bad£ What insight is predominanty Christian with respect to the environment£ How does being Christian make the insight more or less valid£ To say that Christians and Muslims have a valid positive place at the table soley for being Christian or Muslim is a kin to saying Christians and Muslims have no place at the table soley becasue they are Christian or Muslim. Good insight and good ideas have a place at the table regardless of their origins.

EDIT:
I would like to see a list of these moral values and where they differ from the non religious.

Other Comments by aquilacane

16. Comment #434310 by Mr Blue Sky on November 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Nice one Paula! I do not think he is a true secular humanist if he makes statements like this but then he is trying desperately to gain more votes...

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

17. Comment #434314 by mirandaceleste on November 23, 2009 at 9:35 pm

Excellent article! The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was given a ridiculous amount of influence and power over the contents of and the fate of the House's health care bill.

The Church leadership can always be counted on to lobby, persuade, bully, and blackmail as much as they're legally permitted to. In other words, they push up against the boundaries of legality and constitutionality, careful to go as far as they possibly can without stepping over the line (or, at least, careful to not get caught when they do step over the line.)

IRS rules for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charities (including religious organizations) are, unfortunately, rather ambiguous, and many religious groups use that ambiguity to obtain as much governmental influence as they possibly can without running the risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

18. Comment #434346 by mjwemdee on November 23, 2009 at 11:06 pm

Surely I'm not the only one who finds it hard to understand how John Denham can call himself a secular humanist? Oh...I forgot...he's a politician. Yeah, that'll be it.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

19. Comment #434352 by bungoton on November 23, 2009 at 11:25 pm

I wonder how the bishops, mullahs, and rabbis would feel if we included Scientologists, followers of Asatru, and members of Cargo Cults among their number. If we are to consult religions on matters of concern then we should include all of them. We should give them all equal credence as well since they all have equal levels of evidence to support their beliefs.

Other Comments by bungoton

20. Comment #434354 by Net on November 23, 2009 at 11:42 pm

Hey, Bungoton, and let's not forget to test how bishops, mullahs, and rabbis would feel about also including astrologers, alchemists, and the like.

Other Comments by Net

21. Comment #434369 by Piero on November 24, 2009 at 12:39 am

Ah, if only I had Paula's gift for poignancy and conciseness... This was a truly excellent piece.

Other Comments by Piero

22. Comment #434378 by Eric Blair on November 24, 2009 at 2:08 am

"In reality, every genuinely progressive law that has been passed in the UK has been opposed by the religious every inch of the way."

Applying this "throw-away" statement to Canada, certain Christian churches actually led the way on such issues as gay rights (in general, plus ordination, marriage), women's rights, anti-poverty laws, more liberal policies on refugees and immigrants, and even abortion rights.

A small point and irrelevant in this context but, unless I am completely wrong on the development of such rights in the UK, the role of churches shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Otherwise, Kirby is completely right and the article speaks for itself.

Interesting: Only 20 or so years ago, when coalitions of churches and bishops spoke against nuclear weapons in the US, only Reaganites questioned their "expertise" on foreign policy.

While I generally shared their views, I did wonder whether their belief in the afterlife might make them a little more complacent about the Soviet threat than many of us! ;)

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

23. Comment #434384 by Pobjoy on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 am

Well said as usual.

Other Comments by Pobjoy

24. Comment #434388 by The_Intangible_Fancy on November 24, 2009 at 3:04 am

Religious people already have the right to vote, just like every other citizen. If they want their voices to be heard they can do it the same way as everyone else--by electing representatives that share their values/ideas etc. In fact, this is exactly what they have been doing since democracy first got started. And it still isn't enough--they want MORE access and MORE power. Ridiculous.

Other Comments by The_Intangible_Fancy

25. Comment #434390 by mordacious1 on November 24, 2009 at 3:27 am

A good article. If I may just bring the topic back to the U.S. briefly. As I mentioned on this site a couple of times last week, this is becoming a pernicious problem in the U.S.

Bishop Tobin has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy from receiving communion, the central sacrament of the church, in Rhode Island because of the congressman's support for abortion rights. And of course there is the infamous John Kerry situation when he was running for President. Whether these lame threats have any direct results is irrelevant. It is the attempt that counts and it may have some effect on catholic voters.

When one considers that six out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are catholic, it becomes scary. We need to build up that wall...the higher the better, and soon.

Other Comments by mordacious1

26. Comment #434393 by Mayhemm on November 24, 2009 at 3:43 am

Comment #434314 by mirandaceleste

IRS rules for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charities (including religious organizations) are, unfortunately, rather ambiguous, and many religious groups use that ambiguity to obtain as much governmental influence as they possibly can without running the risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

I am curious as to whether a church has ever actually been stripped of tax-exempt status in the US, UK, or even here in Canada. To me it seems like the same type of law as jaywalking; violating it is technically against the law, but you'll never be prosecuted for it. This is really unfortunate. I think the government should start stripping TE status more liberally when churches get involved in politics (as many do, rather overtly).

And it shouldn't occur in a courtroom either. It should work like a health inspection. A goverment rep shows up unannounced and if it is found that such and such a church is violating the terms of their status (ie: by being politically active as an institution), they receive a letter of notification saying their Tax-exempt status has been revoked and listing the balance they now owe in back-taxes. Heh heh.


Comment #434378 by Eric Blair

"In reality, every genuinely progressive law that has been passed in the UK has been opposed by the religious every inch of the way."

Applying this "throw-away" statement to Canada, certain Christian churches actually led the way on such issues as gay rights (in general, plus ordination, marriage), women's rights, anti-poverty laws, more liberal policies on refugees and immigrants, and even abortion rights.

I can't speak as to the involvement of certain churches in the causes you mention (my knowledge of my homeland's history is sorely lacking). I can, however, say with some certainty that it is highly unlikely that these churches took the positions they did SOLELY because they were religious, which would have to be the case in order for religion to be necessary for a progressive society. These were definitely not the positions held by religious institutions as a whole (or even on average). So I think Paula's statement holds for Canada as well.

Other Comments by Mayhemm

27. Comment #434397 by Steve Zara on November 24, 2009 at 4:09 am

Comment #434393 by Mayhemm

I can't speak as to the involvement of certain churches in the causes you mention (my knowledge of my homeland's history is sorely lacking). I can, however, say with some certainty that it is highly unlikely that these churches took the positions they did SOLELY because they were religious, which would have to be the case in order for religion to be necessary for a progressive society.

The appropriate phrase in the article was "has been opposed by the religious". I think a clearer way of wording this would have been "has been opposed by mainstream religions". There isn't really a uniform group called "the religious", and their views are so diverse that I have no doubt you will find many religious people who have encouraged progress.

On the other hand, religious authorities have almost always worked to hold back progressive legislation.

But: if you want to write an effective opinion piece you can't end up qualifying each statement. It just doesn't work in terms of style or readability.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #434420 by megacephalanthropus on November 24, 2009 at 6:50 am

"According to Mr Denham (a secular humanist), faith is a 'strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity', and Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change."

TRAITOR!!!
Climate change is to be dealt with scientifically!

Other Comments by megacephalanthropus

29. Comment #434430 by Follow Peter Egan on November 24, 2009 at 8:31 am

Thank you Paula, a well-written and powerfully argued piece. It's good to see Denham's wishy-washy appeasement criticised in the way it should be.

Progress of a kind. A few years ago his proposal of setting up a panel of "faith experts" probably wouldn't have been quite so vociferously challenged.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

30. Comment #434436 by hungarianelephant on November 24, 2009 at 8:48 am

Paula's figures overstate the number of people active in the Church of England. 8% is several times the real number. Here are the C of E's own figures from 2005:

* Average Sunday attendance fell by two per cent to 988,000. (2004: 1,010,000; 2003: 1,017,000).
* Average weekly attendance fell by one per cent to 1,169,000, following no change last year. (2004: 1,186,000; 2003: 1,187,000).
* Average monthly attendance fell by one per cent to 1,694,000, following no change last year. (2004: 1,707,000; 2003: 1,704,000).
* The average number of children and young people at services weekly fell by one per cent to 231,000, reversing some of the two per cent rise last year. (2004: 235,000; 2003: 230,000). The number attending monthly increased by one per cent to 441,000, continuing the recent trend.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr0707.html

Based on a population of 49 million in England, that gives you:
- average Sunday attendance 2%
- average weekly attendance 2.4%
- average monthly attendance 3.5%

Don't get me started on how the figures are rigged. Oh, and "children and young people" means the under 25s.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

31. Comment #434437 by PMartin on November 24, 2009 at 8:48 am

Perhaps he meant to say:

"...Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change - if they can suppress their arbitrary and conflicting religious beliefs and learn something about the subjects they want to discuss".

Perhaps he felt it was too long for a soundbite.

Lovely article, Paula. Thanks.

Other Comments by PMartin

32. Comment #434440 by Paula Kirby on November 24, 2009 at 8:58 am

hungarianelephant: Here are the C of E's own figures from 2005:

Thanks for the updated figures. I've tracked down the webpage they came from and have bookmarked it for future reference. It's here, if anyone wants the full story: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr0707.html

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

33. Comment #434444 by quisquose on November 24, 2009 at 9:39 am

Comment #434436 by hungarianelephant

Paula's figures overstate the number of people active in the Church of England. 8% is several times the real number. Here are the C of E's own figures from 2005

I've read the 8% figure mentioned a number of times, and think it refers to total attendance ... all places of worship.

Other Comments by quisquose

34. Comment #434459 by Steve Zara on November 24, 2009 at 11:44 am

Regarding Church Attendance - I would be interested in the link between the figures and belief. It may not be that direct. Church services tend to be boring, and people may simply think that they have better and more exciting things to do on a Sunday. Does this mean that there is a reduced belief in God? I don't know. I have no idea what the requirement to attend services is in the Church of England (in Catholicism it is sinful not to do so).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #434462 by hungarianelephant on November 24, 2009 at 11:53 am

33. Comment #434444 by quisquose

I've read the 8% figure mentioned a number of times, and think it refers to total attendance ... all places of worship.

So have I, but there appears to be absolutely no supporting evidence for it. The figure being bandied about when I were a lad was around 4%, the proud boast being that more people go to church than football. So the 8% figure raised immediate suspicions.

The C of E tried to pull a fast one a couple of years ago about total attendances in a month, which IIRC came out just short of the 8%. But in order to do that, they had to count like airport numbers. If you went every Sunday, you were counted four times (or five in a month of Sundays). Which, I'm sure you'll agree, is cheating.

Anyway, Paula's point is perfectly valid - that so few go that it makes no sense to view the C of E as representative of any kind of broader group. I was just pointing out that it was even more valid than she said it was.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

36. Comment #434465 by hungarianelephant on November 24, 2009 at 12:07 pm

To continue the football analogy:

The vast majority of people don't support football, and plenty have absolutely no interest in it. Does this mean that a democratic society should pretend that football doesn't exist? No. No one sensible would suggest that. It is appropriate to take the wishes and needs of the football-watching community (ugh) into account when making policy.

At times, it even makes sense to make special concessions - like putting up a big screen when there is an important match on, or temporarily closing streets to accommodate a crowd.

But if the Queens Park Rangers Supporters Club started taking a position on stem cell research, we would be asking for their credentials. They are entitled to their views, like every other citizen in a democracy, but there is absolutely no reason to give those views special treatment. That does not change even if they claim to have special knowledge through the matchday programmes, or if their constitution specifically holds to one position.

If, when ignored, they claimed they were a "beleagured minority", and that society was increasingly anti-football, they would rightly be judged to be talking nonsense.

Barry Pearson has suggested that if we treat religion as a hobby, most of the issues with it simply disappear. It is a rather useful way of evaluating the claims of religious leaders.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

37. Comment #434473 by flying goose on November 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm

The figures, in the C of E, are counted at the main Sunday service, on Sunday's during a given month. I think it is May. Then avereged.

On belief in the general population. Thats quite complex I think. Guardian types like me agonise about what we should or should not believe in. Most don't I think. I could be wrong.

I was recently at a school reunion. I was as surprised by what many believed in as I think they were surprised about what I do not believe in. (Given my profession.)

I never ceases to amaze me what people do believe in.

The beleagered minority are the 'true believers', those who do something about it. And the True 'non believers' People who are doing something about their non belief.

Most seem to get by 'believing without belonging'.

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Britain-Since-1945-Contemporary/dp/0631184449

Thats what the research seems to say.

I have a friend a former priest who does a lot of ceremonies 'funerals etc' for people who don't want either a church service or a humanist ceremony.

He does quite a lot, gven the default for most round here is still very much the C of E.

I do not think Religions should go any where near Govt BTW. It corrupts Govt and certainly corrupts religion.

We don't need that kind of influence and it is a distraction anyway.

Other Comments by flying goose

38. Comment #434475 by flying goose on November 24, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Hungarian

If there is rigging, and it certainly does not happen here, I check the figures, it can be down wards.

The tithe is calculated on the basis of attendence and I have heard of cases where a deliberately lower figure is recorded.

Other Comments by flying goose

39. Comment #434478 by Peacebeuponme on November 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Hungarian #434465 - Great post.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

40. Comment #434490 by hungarianelephant on November 24, 2009 at 2:19 pm

38. Comment #434475 by flying goose

If there is rigging, and it certainly does not happen here, I check the figures, it can be down wards.

It is not a question of the numbers being fictitious. It is a question of what the numbers represent.

If you count every person on a plane leaving an airport in a month and get 200,000, say, all that tells you is that there were 200,000 outgoing trips made. It does not tell you that 200,000 people got on a plane. It could quite possibly have been the same 10,000 people travelling over and over again. Certainly I would bet you a pint that 20% of passengers are accounting for 80% of all journeys.

If the headcount for Sundays in May comes to 1 million, all that tells you is that there were 1 million church attendances on Sundays in May. The actual number of people attending church on Sundays in May is somewhere between 125,000 (assuming 8 Sunday services a month) and 1 million. But that was not the message put out by the Lambeth Palace press office.

The 05 figures appear to be rather more robust. About time we knocked this 8% nonsense on the head.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

41. Comment #434500 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Mr DArcy claims

A good article but I think Paula over-rates economics:

Economics is a serious academic subject, requiring years of university study before it can be properly understood.


In which case the predictive power of economists is called into question. If they understood what they were studying, why didn't at least most of them predict the subprime and subsequent finnacial turmoil, let alone the recession/depression?

Yawn. They did.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

42. Comment #434504 by Peacebeuponme on November 24, 2009 at 2:58 pm

hungarian

The airport at least gets valuable information by counting the number of trips made in a month. This is more more useful to them than knowing the underlying number of people making the trips.

The church has no other reason to count like it has other than to manipulate the statistics. It could have counted the numbers on only on Sunday, or taken an average. To release figures that implcitly assume unique congregations each Sunday in the month seems ludicrous and underhand.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

43. Comment #434535 by flying goose on November 24, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Hungarian

I cannot speak for how the numbers are crunched and stats produced.

All I can say is that the Usual Sunday Attendance ( U.S.A.) in Village 'A' of my group is 40. This group of 42 go nowhere else and there is only service per Sunday. The total adult population of Village 'A' is 592. That makes the percentage of 7.09%.

A smaller Village 'B' has a U.S.A. of 23 out of a total adult population of 144 which is 15.97% of the total.

Where I was curate in Birmingham, the U.S.A. is 120, but that is out of a total population of 8000. I make that 1.5%.

From that I would say that Nationwide stats are meaningless and useless.

One conclusion I might perhaps draw is that the smaller and more distinct the community, the more likely it is that people will support organisations within that community.

Other Comments by flying goose

44. Comment #434560 by Lucas on November 24, 2009 at 5:34 pm

The same applies to every other sphere of government policy: religion is either irrelevant or an active hindrance.

You bolded the wrong sentence, Paula. : ) Although, really, most of that second to last paragraphs deserves the bold. I also strongly agree with Steve Zara when he says:

What governments need to make decisions is rational investigation of evidence. If someone makes a career out of promoting the rejection of reason, we should be cautious about taking seriously their views about anything.

... and Demotruk when he says:

... Any law or bill going through congress or parliament, which is based entirely upon religious beliefs, should be automatically rejected. Even if there is a majority in congress/parliament, even if there is a majority in the public.

I think these three quotes pretty much get to the root of any comment I might have on the subject.

Other Comments by Lucas

45. Comment #434588 by Eric Blair on November 24, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Steve Zara wrote: "...But: if you want to write an effective opinion piece you can't end up qualifying each statement. It just doesn't work in terms of style or readability."

Steve: I disagree, in this case. Overall, Paula’s “detour” look at some positions of religious groups is unneeded and irrelevant but broadly grist to her mill. However, her final blanket dismissal of all religion as being anti-progressive actually undermines her general argument.

Because it cries out for qualification (What’s “genuinely progressive”? Who are “the religious”?), her assertion tends to sidetrack the discussion into a debate over whether it is accurate or not. (I would argue that is inaccurate unless so strictly qualified as to make it meaningless as a generalization.)

The important point is, even if religious institutions were on balance "progressive," they should still not be accorded special influence. That basic principle should be understood by everyone who calls themselves democratic, regardless of their religious views.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

46. Comment #434590 by Piero on November 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Comment #434588 by Eric Blair:
Eric, "genuinely progressive" is anything that tends to reduce suffering. "The religious" are those who care more about supernatural precepts than the reduction of suffering.

Other Comments by Piero

47. Comment #434613 by Eric Blair on November 24, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Piero: Though I was not specifically asking for a definition of these terms - just noting that there could be disagreement over them - I have to say your definitions lead to a circular argument: that religious people, by definition, cannot be progressive since they do not care about reducing suffering.

I think your definition of progressive is far too broad and that of religious as far too restrictive.

But, as I said in my post, such disputes are a distraction from the main point of the article.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

48. Comment #434622 by Eric Blair on November 24, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Steve: One last point I should respond to:

"The appropriate phrase in the article was "has been opposed by the religious". I think a clearer way of wording this would have been "has been opposed by mainstream religions". There isn't really a uniform group called "the religious", and their views are so diverse that I have no doubt you will find many religious people who have encouraged progress.

"On the other hand, religious authorities have almost always worked to hold back progressive legislation."


I realize you're talking about the UK and not Canada, but this is what Wikipedia says about Canadian churches supporting same-sex marriage (just one example of a progressive issue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Church_and_State):

The largest Protestant denomination in the country, the United Church of Canada [about 10% of religious population], offers church weddings to same-sex couples and supports same-sex marriages, testifying to this effect during the cross-country Justice Committee hearings. Unitarian Universalist congregations also solemnize same-sex marriages, as do the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Metropolitan Community Church. Some progressive Jewish congregations and some within the Anglican Church [overall about 7%, next to United among Protestants] have also supported same-sex marriage.

(My percentages, in square brackets, from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada.)

The RC church did and does of course oppose gay marriage and represents a huge proportion of religious people in Canada (45%). But does that make them the "mainstream"?

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

49. Comment #434661 by j.mills on November 24, 2009 at 10:25 pm

On the chatter about figures, and whether church attendance tallies underestimate the number of 'believers': gotta remember the opposite phenomenon too, that of unbelievers in the congregation. (Or indeed, in the case of the religious service provider flying goose, in the pulpit!) There are so many unexplored possibilities that those church attendance figures can't be taken to indicate anything other than church attendance.

(Mr Goose's occupation at least demonstrates the occasionally inclusive nature of religions, his church being happy to accommodate an agnostic[?]. Who said they were discriminatory? All ties in with globalisation: soon clergy will be provided by multinational agencies, to believe on demand! "Armstrong Apophatic Associates plc.")

Other Comments by j.mills

50. Comment #434672 by Steven Mading on November 24, 2009 at 10:56 pm

and Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change.

Of course they can. But only because they are human beings and thus deserve a fair say. The problem is when they act as if their religion gives them some additional authority on these issues beyond the minimum default authority everyone gets for just being people.

The key problem, as always, is the incredibly common dishonest blurring of the line between talking about the people who believe X, versus talking about the position X itself.

Do people who believe X have something valuable to say about issue Y?
Does X itself have something valuable to say about Y?

Note the difference between the above two sentences. NEVER forget the difference. Drill it home when you see the difference being deliberately blurred in public debate. Raise consciousness about this key difference. It's at the heart of where the false accusations of atheist militancy and stridency are coming from.

The biggest difference between those two statements is this: There is a lot about a person that is outside of their religion. That's why a person is capable of doing things a religion is not. That's why the answer to the question "Can a Christian drive a car" is "yes" even though the answer to "Does Christianity drive cars" is "no".

Along similar lines, that's why I can say that yes, Christians and Muslims have plenty of useful things to say about key issues, even though I don't think their religions do.

Other Comments by Steven Mading