1. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98083 by Pob on December 13, 2007 at 3:55 am

I am surprised that this forum is not expressing more outrage at this resolution. Most people who have commented on it so far seem to think that it is just a vacuous statement of the obvious, which on the face of it is true, but try reading the following amended version:

The House of Representatives
(1) recognizes white as one of the great skin colors of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for white people in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international cultural and historical importance of white skin;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by white people in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against white people, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to white Americans and white people throughout the world.

Since the above makes no reference to black people, are we to assume that it is not offensive to them? Of course not! If this resolution had been passed there would be total outrage, and rightly so.

By expressing respect for Christians specifically and by rejecting bigotry against Christianity specifically, the House implicitly disrespects non-Christians and is in danger of implicitly condoning other types of bigotry. No doubt most of those who voted yes would say otherwise, but if all Americans deserve respect regardless of their religion, sexuality, skin color or whatever, then why not say so? Or, better still, why not shut up and get on with the proper job of legislating?

2. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72872 by Pob on September 23, 2007 at 9:45 am

The situation in the UK at the moment is depressing and looks likely to get worse. Anyone who cares about faith schools in the UK should read this document:

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/faithinthesystem/pdfs/FaithInTheSystem.pdf

It sets out the combined view of the government and the churches that run religious schools, and tries to tell us that they're a great thing for the country. Reading it made my blood boil and I've written to my MP (Lynne Featherstone - an influential Liberal Democrat) to ask her to do whatever she can to oppose it.

Does anyone know what official Liberal Democrat policy is on faith schools? Unfortunately David Cameron has said that he supports them so with both major parties behind the new policy the prospects aren't good, but I know a number of Lib Dem MPs (such as the excellent Evan Harris) are strongly opposed and will do whatever they can. I hope my MP will join them.

3. Religion and Politics

Comment #24321 by Pob on March 6, 2007 at 2:11 am

I'm trying to work out how religious these various Presidential candidates really are. Of course they all talk a good game but then they have to if they want to have any chance of winning, and from the other side of the Atlantic it's difficult to tell who is telling the truth.

To me it seems that the main contenders are, in roughly decreasing order of religiosity:

McCain
Clinton
Romney
Obama
Giuliani
Edwards
Gore

Anyone care to improve on that ordering?

4. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #23683 by Pob on March 2, 2007 at 3:50 am

I'm with Homo Economicus (comment 24) in suspecting that there's an anti-Turkey motivation behind this. France and Germany are among the strongest opponents of Turkey's becoming a member of the EU, and it appears that their leaders (and potential future leaders) are also among the strongest proponents of getting Christianity into the constitution.

I think the following link has been posted elsewhere on this site, but it would do no harm to duplicate it here:

http://www.vision4europe.org/

It's a group trying to propose an alternative "Brussels Declaration" which talks about Europe's shared values without favouring Christianity. It's less than perfect in my view (I'd have missed a lot of it out and had a much shorter statement) but it's better than what Merkel has to offer.

5. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20369 by Pob on February 2, 2007 at 3:16 am

I wasn't impressed by this programme either. The only really good moment was when the presenter was laying into the evangelist about his literal interpretation of the bible and the fact that he selectively took the bits he liked literally and ignored the bits he didn't like. It was a shame that the presenter then backed off just as he seemed to be totally cornering the guy.

6. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #20001 by Pob on January 31, 2007 at 3:29 am

Thanks, Russell. You've helped clarify my thinking on this issue. Both here and in another article (about a plan to replace the Lord's Prayer with a so-called "non-denominational prayer" in Canadian public meetings), I have argued that I preferred the status quo (which in both cases clearly favoured Christianity in particular) to the alternative (which favoured religion in general). In both cases, although I disliked both the status quo and the suggested alternative, I found myself preferring the status quo but couldn't quite put my finger on why. After reading your post, I now understand why I felt that way. It was because, as long as nobody made an issue of it, both the Lord's Prayer and the established church could be viewed as obvious anachronisms that nobody had quite got round to abolishing. But once someone came along and said they were going to change to a supposedly inclusive alternative, it made a point of reminding everyone that religion was still important and still deserved a privileged position in society. In both cases, it was that rather than the specifics of the suggested change that got me worked up.

7. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19638 by Pob on January 29, 2007 at 3:51 am

Even Prince Charles... wonders whether he should be Defender of Faith rather than Defender of The Faith to mirror the racial and religious make-up of 21st century Britain.

This kind of thing makes me want to shout at my computer screen. Britain is a secular country, but our future King wants to replace the attitude that Christianity is best with a new attitude that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in some kind of religious nonsense with no evidence to support it. About half of Britons don't believe in God, so this does not "mirror the racial and religious make-up of 21st century Britain" at all.

I never thought I'd find myself supporting the established church, but if the alternative is to replace it with a system whereby the state officially defends the concept of faith and (by implication) rejects the concept of rational inquiry, I think I'd prefer to stick with what we've got.

8. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #19418 by Pob on January 27, 2007 at 4:11 am

I find the so-called non-denominational prayer even more irritating than the Lord's Prayer. At least the latter is obviously exclusively for one group of believers, whereas the former pretends to be inclusive but actually isn't. Perhaps the atheists could just direct their prayers to the flying spaghetti monster instead.

9. In defense of atheism

Comment #19267 by Pob on January 26, 2007 at 2:10 am

What a superb article! I agree with Ben Jennings: I've read that third to last paragraph about five times now and I'm still laughing out loud.

10. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18779 by Pob on January 23, 2007 at 1:27 am

I agree with Filistyn to the extent that there is no reason to assume that all atheists are supporters of gay rights. A rational debate on the subject of adoption by gay couples is to be welcomed, but arguing that homosexuality is immoral because it says so in some 2000-year-old book riddled with absurdities and contradictions adds nothing useful and removes reason and evidence from the debate. As Sam Harris writes: "Religion ... tends to divorce morality from the question of human ... suffering. ... You are not worried about the suffering caused by sex; you are worried about sex."

The Catholic Church is now blackmailing the government by stating that it will close the agencies completely if it doesn't get its way. I feel that this shameful tactic would be undermined by a group offering to keep the agencies open if the church abandoned them. On reflection, the donors could be any group of people who felt the church's stance was wrong. They might be atheists or they might be Catholics who were against the church's view on homosexuality. Of all the (many) things I find objectionable about the Catholic Church, perhaps the most irritating is the notion that it somehow speaks on behalf of all its one billion "members" when in fact many of them actually support gay rights, contraception and so forth. It's just a shame that when there's a debate like this the supporters of the Vatican speak up and the Catholics who disagree keep their heads down.

11. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18674 by Pob on January 22, 2007 at 9:56 am

I wonder how much it costs to run these seven adoption agencies that the Catholic Church is threatening to close if it doesn't get its exemption. Wouldn't it be great if the Richard Dawkins Foundation (or another atheist charity) could step in and offer to pay to keep them open if the Catholic Church were to pull out? This would totally undermine Blair and Kelly's argument that they're just acting in the interests of the children, and it would also help me to demonstrate to my non-religious friends who who still believe that so-called "Christian values" are worth preserving that this view is misguided.

Sadly it is probably beyond the means of RDF at this early stage to take over funding these adoption agencies, but even if it could offer a token contribution of say £10,000 towards keeping them open then that would send a message and might grab a few headlines: "Atheist charity steps in to help adoption agencies abandoned by the Catholic Church." I'll put up the first £1,000 myself. Any more offers?