If what I now write has atheists and devout belivers criticising this blog then I will have achieved what I set out to do. Which is to take both viewpoints outside the comfort zones of the holders.
That how right you believe your view to be is not a reason to hold others to your belief.
Even though atheism is not based on fantasy, or at least on super natural power, this does not mean that we can enforce those views on others.
What we can do is assess the actions that are a consequence of the thought. We need more than a correlation – we need causation, that the belief leads to the act.
As much as we may not wish to phrase it otherwise, atheism is a belief. We may argue that we have better data leading to the conclusion. However we cannot claim it as a fact – otherwise we do exactly what creationists do when they say evolution is only a theory. We cannot debase language by our emotion or force of conviction.
The belief that Jesus was born on 25 December does not hurt me. That it may be celebrated with a tree and tacky decorations is none of my business. The consequence of the belief does not cause harm.
Howver, when I ask you to look at the evidence that the early Christians focused on Jesus’ death not birth. Save for Matthew whose writings appealed to the Greek epic of omens fortelling deity. That the date chosen for commeration is more about pagan significance and convience than historical accuracy.
Faith is not a free ride. You may tell me that your partner is beautiful and your children smart. You are entitled to that view, however I shall choose the opinion that is independent of yours. Do not hold me to your view publicly – it may get ugly.
The above analogy is appropiate because people may feel comforted in their belief of their family as they do about their faith. I suspect though that we all know a family whose belief in their virtues is liable to loose it’s gloss with the disinfectant of scrutiny.
Maybe hands off would be polite. Certainly well mannered if we do not want an argument. Thing is that in the world of competiting faiths is like drunken husbands fighting over whose wife is most virtuous, while the wives prepare their children to dominate the future.
We cannot argue that if Dawkins and co would only shut up then an uneasy ceasefire may exist. Such is the power of thought and to silence is to deny who we are. Thinking animals moved to action based on thought. Not necessarily rationally based but the pack should be allowed to rip the bad ones to pieces for the survival of the best ideas.
So trump card – tolerance of thought. The limits are where the actions of those thoughts lead to consequences against the thoughts of others. Censorship being one, styfling debate another.
The more I see Hitchens debate Rabbis and others makes me think of Douglas Adams and the philosophers arguing about the computer giving answers to philosohical debates. Deep Thought responds that the wait for such answers can set them on the gravy train for life as long as they could vemenently disagree with each other.
The truth is the undiscovered country, but while some become rich on the journey we all benefit from the experience. The sparring, and the friction may lead to ugly moments.
Freedom of thought, the plurality of ideas is important if we want to discover answers. You have to accept that, as in Deep Thoughts words, you are not going to like it. Always.
Splendid Elles (right) tagged me to answer these series of questions.
Can You Remember The Day That You Officially Became An Atheist?
Officially is a redundant word in the question. I neither am a card carrying atheist, nor had a party where people celebrated my non belief. If you want an action that publicly made that, it would be in front of the White House when to a TV crew I spoke about atheists being treated as equal citizens with everyone else – that it was no reflection on your character or ability to be a moral person.
There is no one moment, where you rid yourself of the blood of the lamb. While at University it was a nagging feeling that there was no evidence for a supernatural being that communicated directly with us. Reading philosophy, and in particular Bertrand Russell, and reading politics just meant that god slipped away as I realised we humans have to take responsibility as the only conscious species in making the world a better place – rather than hoping with death we make it to a better one.
Do you remember the day you officially became an agnostic?
Fairly soon after leaving the study of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It occurred to me that their religion was the work of man and that prophecies claimed in the bible were allegories or concerned with actual events that had already happened. The human yearning though for a spiritual side to existence was one that completed the human experience, but religion was only an answer to that expression rather than the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything.
Some people think the politically correct thing is to term yourself a skeptical agnostic. Yet becoming an atheist just means that you hold out there being no evidence that there is a god; and refuse to accept any argument by a person as being divinely inspired. They will need rationality, logic, empirical evidence, and the welfare of life to consider.
How about the last time you spoke or prayed to God with actual thought that someone was listening?
When I read Watchtower publications and realised that these were the works of men, with false prophecy and changed dogma. I prayed for realisation of what his will was, and that I may come to an understanding of the ultimate truth of things. The answer to those things is in the living.
Did anger towards God or religion help cause you to be an atheist or agnostic?
No. My anger was directed at the Watchtower organisation. That new editions of books did not highlight changes interpretations. It was almost doublespeak of Orwellian descriptions. My anger was directed at the real possibility of dying from refusing a blood transfusion – one that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed their mind about since 1956 when they first decided it was against god’s will.
Here is a good one: Were you agnostic towards ghosts, even after you became an atheist?
I never believed in ghosts. However nothing wrong with science trying to rationally explain the paranormal experience people have. Everyone has to make a living.
Do you want to be wrong?
If there is a god I think belief in him is the last yardstick by which he will measure your life on earth. The notion of freedom and autonomy for me goes against wishing for a celestial all powerful being to exist. There is no guarantee such a being would be benign – with 99% of all living things now extinct, and the way entities in nature try to survive pointing to life as a reflection of god’s attitude is one that would terrify me.
I do not fear death, just as I do not fear life. My ancestors went through it. People around me do it. You just have to figure out what you want to do in the time you have.
So to spread these ideas around, and keep the meme alive, I better tag some people:
A good argument has a frank exchange of views, and where they differ but are spoken lightly and with good humour it can be as exciting as an argument that involves chair throwing.
On that score Gervais and Williams are in the former category – enjoyable to listen to. Glad Simon Mayo just sat back and let it happen.
Not just the catholics with child abuse covered up
It has been a rather long time since I blogged anything specifically about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, if you want a in depth analysis of the technique used in selling the faith to you then check out this blog here.
To summarize, as you can imagine it is about introducing themselves, telling a narrative (crime, pollution etc) and closing a deal that the bible has something for you to meet these concerns. You can buy into this at no cost no risk – with a free book and at some point a free bible study. Of course the not celebrating birthdays, not voting, and keeping company with fellow believers while being on watch for none believers can wait as you are sucked in to the promise that you can live forever on a paradise earth because the bible tells you – but only with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
They are the ultimate salespeople. Trained how to preach the word, they sincerely believe in the faith they are selling you. Though of course that is not how it sounds at first – rather it is like they are offering an education into what the bible offers. The rest will come later.
While I have discussed whether they are a cult or not the blog mentions this point:
Witnesses are presented with an elite social milieu, a feeling of certainty, and a hope for better things. These are things that most people dearly want to find. It takes great bravery to give it all up.
It is exceedingly difficult to face this challenge alone. If you have decided to leave the Witnesses, your first priority should be to find whatever support you can get, through books, articles, web sites – and people. As you move away from your “new” life into a newer one, you will find that the world is not as shadowy as the Witnesses have led you to believe. Love is everywhere, in many forms.
Be careful, though, that you don’t leave the Witnesses and jump into yet another controlling group (religious or otherwise). Take your time, and always remember the dictum: Tout ce qui brille n’est pas or – not everything that shines is gold.
Think for yourself, and keep asking questions.
I could not more agree, and if you are in that situation please get in touch. Because you are not alone in having gone on that road to come through the other side.
Which may be easier said then done if we are hard wired to make distinctions between those that will cooperate (for our betterment) and those that would cheat (to our detriment) in a social contract. Some behavioural scientists looking in this area suggest that:
The results of these experiments suggest that cheaters might look different from
cooperators, possibly due to beliefs and personality traits that make them less ideal exchange partners, and the human mind might be capable of picking up on subtle visual cues that cheaters’ faces give off. [source]
Examples have been mock courts, with the same evidence and script, where the only variable has been the demeanour of the defendant. While we may want an impassioned jury to base the innocent or guilt on the evidence, but the dress or physical characteristics of the defendant did impact on how a mock jury made it’s decision. [source]
However, that module that helps us to rationalise trustworthiness in people can be hijacked by cultural traits. These can lend itself to making observations about people which may not be rational in nature, but use the same system of working out who to trust. Using that instinct, often when not all facts are in, may often serve us well on the whole in a fight or flight situation. Now and again though it would fly in the face of logic.
The ancient word online
Take for example my blog being used on a christian forum board, where a poster is concerned about the Codex Sinaiticus, and how to respond. The person that responded to him decided that I was not a trustworthy person because on the cover they assume:
I am gay
I am anti-christian
Claiming that my blog supports the two propositions. Which is odd given that I am straight (as many gay friends will more than happily verify) and that I am against religion being enforced on infidels and none believers by the political and judicial system. If I could get hold of the “Atheists for Jesus” T shirt I would – nothing like trying to emphasises the humanity of Jesus rather than the divinity and hellfire afterlife awaiting non conformists.
Mind you if you just went by:
Homoeconomicusnet
and
Perhaps the person may decide, based on their module for trustworthiness (where religion as a cultural fact is a high indicator that is against homosexuality) consider that:
As to the website you linked to it is typical leftist tripe. The owner is (as his other articles show) a practicing homosexual and an anti-Christian. [source]
The fact that I am for free markets, read economics (hence pseudo name), hetrosexual (practise makes perfect), and someone that thinks that the secular state defends the freedom of the religious and the none believer may counter that. It seems though that we are both inclined to use the same source (this blog) to appeal to our difference of opinion. Perhaps I can claim to have insider knowledge on these things denied to the casual reader. As some do to rendering holy sacred text.
Mind you at least no one on the basis of these words on the blog are going to start a religious creed, or make life and death decisions enshrined in law. These words are recognised as being the product of man – where evidence, logic and rationality can be tested and argued over. Just because I type these things it may not be true.
It helps when you can do this with all literature. Rather than just judging by the cover that the book was written by god. Or that you do not like the cover so disregard it- without examining it. As my comment at the christian cafe ended trying to answer the original post as the devil’s advocate:
As the owner of the blog in question, the pseudo name Homo economicus is an economic concept – and not a reference to my sexuality http://homoeconomicusnet…./01/being-born-a-lesbian/
Even if I was gay, that has nothing to do with the original poster’s question. It actually shows an intolerance that is disturbing.
The point is that various editions of the bible, how scriptures were included to be in certain editions, and the many hands that wrote them is an indication of the works of man. The idea that the bible to every word and punctuation mark is ordained by a higher power seems rather unlikely given the history of how the bible we have today originated.
The strongest argument against that charge is that the gospel is something to be lived, and not a text to be burned into your heart in a fundamentalist way. The bible may have been written by men, but the life lived as a follower of Christ is one that gives grace and would make the world a better place.
I may not agree, but the argument is a stronger one than dismissing some one’s argument on the grounds of sexual orientation or voting intention. [source]
Only with free and equal people doing so; the fault lines are religion but the cause of war and violence is more rooted in what makes us human.
I suspect that most atheists are secularists, but are most secularists atheists?
Is atheism the ‘lavender menace’ of the secularist movement?
Well, at the risk of sounding like “some of my best friends are …”, I know theologians who are more passionate about the secularist state than the second coming.
Atheism does not undermine secularism; the issue is really whether you think religion needs to disappear for a golden age of humanity or that any one that offers a magic bullet for humanity’s ills is more likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
If people want to believe that manna rained down from heaven and that god spoke from a burning bush fine. That to me is no different to Greek myths, or tribal stories that unite a community with a common culture.
When religion starts to be enforced on me as a basis for how to live my life, or affect my status as a citizen then a line is crossed. Your belief has become threats to my liberty, of person and thought.
The secular state is the only one that can give justice and freedom to citizens, whatever religion is yours or if you have none. That is a much more powerful argument than the irrationality of anyone believing their particular faith is true for everyone.
Sir Harold Kroto has responded to my blog on Michael Reiss, and his comment I include below:
The Reiss Affair – a Matter of Intellectual Integrity
Sir Harold (Harry) Walter Kroto, Nobel Laureate
Various letters, such as that from the Bishop of Lincoln (Guardian) etc, contain a significant amount of self-righteous criticism of the Royal Society with regard to the Rev Michael Reiss’s position as Director of Science Education. It is clear that there is almost total ignorance about the real issues involved and a truly pathetic understanding of Science – the culture that created the modern world – from anaesthetics and penicillin to jet engines and the Internet. Of course “The Origin of the Universe and Living Organisms” is a perfectly respectable question for the Science lesson (perhaps the most exciting and fundamental one) – as long as someone with Intellectual Integrity is there to answer it! There is a major problem however for the religious person, scientist or otherwise, in answering this question and it involves, first and foremost, Intellectual Integrity.
Let me clarify the fundamental philosophical issue – The Scientific Mindset: Science is based solely on doubt-based, disinterested, examination of the natural and physical world. It is entirely independent of personal belief. There is a very important, fundamental concomitant – that is to accept absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, for which there is no evidence, as having any FUNDAMENTAL validity. A lemma: One can of course have an infinite number of questions but only those questions that can be formulated in such a way that they can be subjected to detailed disinterested examination, and when so subjected reveal unequivocally and ubiquitously accepted data, may be significant.
The plethora of more-or-less incompatible religious concepts that mankind has invented from Creationism and Intelligent Design to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism etc., etc., etc., are all basically indistinguishable, from the Freethinker’s perspective. It really does not matter whether someone believes a mystical entity created the Universe five thousand or ten thousand million years ago – both are equally irrational unsubstantiated claims of no fundamental validity. Unfortunately Michael Reiss who is, according to reports, a nice guy, was just in the wrong job. He, together with all religious people – whether they like it or not, whether they accept it or not – fall at the first hurdle of the main requirement for honest philosophical scientific discussion because they accept unfound dogma as having fundamental significance. Note that I did not say value (positive or negative!). In the Jeffersonian sense Church and State (including education especially on Sundays) must be separated – otherwise our democratic freedoms are undermined. A secular socio-political framework is an absolutely necessary (though unfortunately not always sufficient) condition to guarantee freedom of religion – as well as freedom of non-religion.
I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs – for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However I, and many Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education – this is a totally different issue. An ordained minister must have accepted that there is a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) and thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. Reiss cannot have his religious cake in church on Sunday and eat the scientific one in the classroom on weekdays. This is where the Intellectual Integrity issue arises – and it is the crucial issue in the Reiss Affair.
I suggest that the Rev Reiss, the Bishop of Lincoln and any others who presume the authority to dictate how religious issues should be handled in the science classroom read from Sam Harris’s book “Letter to a Christian Nation” at their Sunday sermons. Then perhaps some of their flock may understand what Intellectual Integrity and true humanity actually involve. Furthermore I suggest that this wonderful little book be a set text for young people at Sunday School, so they recognise that the really dangerous people can include the religious who are hell-bent on dragging us back into the Dark Ages, rather than the Freethinking Humanists who are struggling to save the democratic freedoms of “The Enlightenment” for our grandchildren.
Feb 14th 2008 | THE HAGUE, ROME AND TORONTO
From The Economist print edition
The right of faiths to run their own affairs and regulate their adherents’ lives has recently become controversial—because of fear of Islam
reportdigital
AMONG family-law buffs, the case is seen as a key example of the messy ways in which religious and civil law can get entangled. It concerns an Italian couple who wed in a Catholic church in 1962. After 25 years of less-than-blissful union, she got a legal separation from a civil court, which told him to make monthly maintenance payments. But he had other ideas: he convinced an ecclesiastical court that their union had never been valid, because they were close blood relations.
After vain appeals to various civil and religious courts in Italy (to which she complained that she never got a chance to tell her story), she turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which in 2001 ruled in her favour and made a modest compensation award. The European judges in Strasbourg had no jurisdiction over church courts—but they did find that Italy’s civil judges failed to assess the religious courts’ work or note the deficiencies.
In every democratic and more-or-less secular country, similar questions arise about the precise extent to which religious sub-cultures should be allowed to live by their own rules and “laws”. One set of questions emerges when believers demand, and often get, an opt-out from the law of the land. Sikhs in British Columbia can ride motorcycles without helmets; some are campaigning for the right not to wear hard hats on building sites. Muslims and Jews slaughter animals in ways that others might consider cruel; Catholic doctors and nurses refuse to have anything to do with abortion or euthanasia.
Even in determinedly secular states like France and the United States, the political authorities often find that they are obliged, in various ways, to cope with the social reality of religious belief. America’s Amish community, fundamentalists who eschew technology, has generally managed to get around the law with respect to social security, child labour and education. In France, town halls serving large Muslim populations ignore secular principles as they get involved in the ritual slaughter of sheep.
Apart from exceptions to existing laws, another sort of problem arises when religious (and other) communities establish bodies that work very much like courts—and may be called courts—that enforce ancient rules that are often called laws.
All these questions, but especially the last of them, have been on the mind of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Anglican leader caused a furore when he suggested, on February 7th, that some accommodation between British law and sharia, or the Muslim legal tradition, was inevitable and should perhaps be made official.
At first, there seems not to be any huge problem about the existence of institutions whose members freely choose to respect a set of norms—so long as participation really is voluntary, and the rules do not horrify the rest of society. (Intuitively, most Western societies accept the circumcision, on religious grounds, of baby boys, but they would not tolerate the genital mutilation of baby girls.) But in almost every democracy which aspires at the same time to be fair, secular and tolerant of religious diversity, it is getting harder to mark out and preserve the boundary.
Until recently, religions with deep local roots—like Anglicanism in Britain or Lutheranism in Scandinavia—could rely on well-honed survival instincts; clerics had developed a keen sense of how much “soft theocracy” society could accept, and when to beat a tactical retreat. Even the existence of court-like institutions, dealing in particular with marital and property issues, caused little fuss as long as everybody involved recognised the absolute primacy of the law of land. In Britain, for example, religious courts or beth din used by Orthodox Jews have been recognised by statute—and in 2002, divorce law was adjusted in a way that acknowledged the role of these bodies. (If a Jewish husband refuses to seek a religious divorce—thus denying his wife the chance to remarry in a synagogue—a civil judge can now delay the secular divorce.)
The Church of England uses ancient canon laws to govern the use of church property and its internal workings. But like the monarchy, it knows that the way to retain some vestigial authority is to give up most powers that could be controversial.
What has upset the old equilibrium, say law pundits in several countries, is the emergence all over the world of Muslim minorities who, regardless of what they actually want, are suspected by the rest of society of preparing to establish a “state within a state” in which the writ of secular legislation hardly runs at all. The very word sharia—which at its broadest can imply a sort of divine ideal about how society should be organised, but can also refer to specific forms of corporal and capital punishment—is now political dynamite.
That has rendered controversial some things that were once well accepted, like the existence of arbitration services which lighten the burden of the state by providing an alternative arena in which disputes can be settled. As Maurits Berger, a Dutch specialist on Islam and the law, points out, most English-speaking countries have a tradition of dealing with family law through arbitration—voluntary procedures to whose outcome the parties are bound. (Things are different in continental Europe, where the nearest equivalent is non-binding mediation services.)
The Canadian province of Ontario is the clearest case of an English-speaking place where fear of Islam made religious arbitration untenable. An uproar began in 2003 when Syed Mumtaz Ali, a retired Ontario lawyer, said he was setting up a sharia court to settle family law disputes for Muslims. Such arrangements were allowed by the province’s 1991 Arbitration Act and could carry the force of law.
The proposal caused an instant backlash, right across the religious and political spectrum; many Muslim groups were opposed too. Marion Boyd, a retired attorney-general, investigated the matter and initially recommended that the Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be adjudicated by religious bodies—subject to stricter regulation by the state. But that turned out not to be good enough for Ontarians who were nervous of sharia. In September 2005 the province’s premier, Dalton McGuinty, decided to prohibit all settlement of family matters based on religious principles under the Arbitration Act. Religious arbitrators could still offer services in the settlement of disputes, but their rulings would not have legal effect or be enforceable by the courts. The province’s laws were duly changed.
The political background to these moves is no secret: a general wariness of Islam prompted not only by the September 2001 terrorist attacks, but also by NATO‘s war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, in which scores of Canadian soldiers have died. Moves to establish sharia tribunals, be they ever so voluntary, aroused “quite a lot of anti-Muslim feelings”, says Alia Hogben of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women (which opposed the tribunals). “It allowed people to say, here they come, they are going to ask for more and more.” Apart from a general fear of theocracy, says Jeffrey Reitz, a professor at the University of Toronto, Canadians were nervous that “some of the progress that’s been made with gender equality might be lost if we begin to accommodate various group that have less concern…”
As anxiety over (real or imaginary) Muslim demands for sharia turns into a broader worry about theocracy and religious exceptionalism, many democracies are seeing bizarre multi-polar disputes between secularists, Christians, Muslims and other faiths.
In southern Europe, says Marco Ventura, a religious-law professor at the University of Siena, Catholics are now more worried about the perceived advance of Islam than about maintaining old entitlements for their faith. “Their dilemma is whether the rights which their faith enjoys can be justified when new ones, like Islam, are appearing in Europe.” Some of Italy’s Muslims, meanwhile, have been demanding “secularism” in the sense of diluting the Roman Catholic culture of the state, which is epitomised by crucifixes in court rooms, classrooms and hospitals. A Muslim convert, Adel Smith, has been fighting a long battle to get such symbols removed.
In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has dismayed secularists by stressing the country’s Catholic heritage in some recent speeches. But the late (Jewish-born) Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, was a staunch defender of the secular state as a bulwark against all forms of fundamentalism.
Defining the relationship between religion and the state was certainly easier when it could be assumed that religion’s hold over people’s lives and behaviour was in long-term decline. But with Islam on the rise, and many Christians—even those with the vaguest of personal beliefs—becoming more defensive of their cultural heritage, the line is getting harder and harder to draw. On that point at least, Archbishop Williams was quite correct.
My previous blog on faith schools resulted in an e mail from someone very hurt that their fond childhood memories at a faith school were not only being insulted, but they felt under attack due to my passion on this issue. As someone that is concerned about the separation of church and state you have to appreciate where I am coming from on this; I am not belittling your experience or diminishing you because you went to a faith school.
You must understand that you had a good educational experience at a faith school; I on the other hand due to faith nearly had my life chances ruined because faith was considered by the government an acceptable reason for me to be taught at home. But that is not the principle that matters here. I am not saying that educational experiences cannot be wonderful in a good (faith or none) school. Of course they can. My own secular school after being taught at home lacked character or inspiration. Given the choice between the school you went to and my old one, hands down I would go for yours.
If you look carefully at the blog I am attacking the selection of pupils on the basis of religion. That for me is more crucial then the religious character of a school. I do not think that a tax paid institution of education should be able to select pupils on the basis of faith. It provides a public service and as such should not discriminate places on the basis of religion.
That is my contention as well as with more faith schools covering more religions we are actually not promoting social cohesion. Rather, we are deepening and widening the social divisions that already exist. The future is that these will become fault lines – misunderstandings and intolerance will be reinforced by never having known people outside your circle. The curriculum itself of religious education is not the same as being with people from different backgrounds.
If faith schools did not use the faith of parents as the basis of selection in a state school I would still have concerns that not all faith schools would be as well run as many are – but at least what I regard as an inappropriate way to select children for an education placement in a tax paid institution would be negated. Not to mention less segregation.
The simple maths – segregation reduces social cohesion, and the earlier in life that happens the worse it is.
If you disagree with that argument then by all means state why I am wrong, that children born of Islamic parents that go through the whole of their educational life in a Muslim school, live in a Muslim area of town, will be just as socially cohesive as one where the local kids go to a state school open to all regardless of faith? Or that in Northern Ireland the fact that children grew up in segregated schools did not add to tensions during the troubles that lasted over many generations?
Where parents make the choice out of educational opportunity, I understand that. When it is done out of religious conviction I am concerned, but the education on offer is what matters. My concern is public provision that is limited based on religion I find abhorrent – children should not be turned away on the basis of faith.
Social cohesion and use of tax payers money where children are excluded based on faith would therefore be my two greatest concerns. For more on that, people may want to look at the following links:
In a blog, with reference to Rowan Williams’ lecture, I analyzed the significance of what the Archbishop said about Islam and British Law. I mention that he wanted an accommodation of religious law with British law, and if not joint jurisprudence, at least the law to support religious sensibility in a way it may not apply equally to someone that did not profess that faith.
His predecessor Lord Carey summed it up rather well:
The archbishop is said to be shocked by the reaction to his comments and said on his website he “certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law”.
But the criticism mounted as Lord Carey warned in an article for the News of the World: “He has in my opinion overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes.
Lord Carey says there should be “no exceptions” to British law.
“His conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law for aspects of Sharia is a view I cannot share.
“There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights. (From BBC News site)
There have been some calls for him to resign as Archbishop. To be honest my concerns have been met that he has been roundly criticised the length and breadth of the country and if he wishes to clarify that he did not mean what his words seem to impart than I would be even more happy.
There is something familiar about the Archbishop talking about another faith. Prince Charles, one day to be anointed due to conception to the throne of these Isles, once said he wanted to be “Defender of Faith”. Which misses the historical the which placed emphasis on there being really only one particular one to subscribe too. In past history subscription was a matter of life and death in the temporal world. British Law thankfully threw out that religious sensibility.
Yet when examining the religious claims that are made by various faiths the application of logic dictates that they cannot all be right. Their lack of anything substantive to make good why they know who God is, let alone that there is a God, suggests that all religious claims towards the supernatural have to be taken with so much salt that the diet would be hazardous to one’s health in this lifetime. It is healthier for the mind not to practise gullibility in swallowing codswallop.
Now as to whether we are better off living by some of the tenets of faith, that is a different question. Though I reject that I need to believe in the supernatural to make these things good. They are either good for me to live by or at least the common good by which it benefits me. The morality of such tenets will be the ethical consideration they give in causing suffering, or joy to others and the equal consideration of others it gives when assessing this.
The Golden Rule seems brilliant, and one worth keeping. Show pity to orphans and widows, yes it sounds fine to me. Disown my mother and father if they do not share my faith, no that sounds heartless and cruel. To kill someone that rejects my faith, an anathema to any free thinker. Yet I do not need religion in order to apply the Golden Rule or to derive it. I cannot think of a good deed that only a religious believer would do that a non believer could not do. But I can imagine plenty of things a religious believer would do that a non believer would not.
My concern with religion is that it seems to allow people to legitimise actions which no decent empathetic creature with an ounce of compassion would do or even dream of considering. The idea that on seeing a new born baby that genital mutilation is what is called for could only happen because religion made it so. That a child needs life saving treatment but is denied because either it shows a lack of faith or an ancient text somehow implies that a modern treatment should not be used.
Not everyone uses religion thus. Thank goodness, because faith seems to have the scope to support the unequal treatment of believers, the subordination of human rights on the basis of religious conviction, and even murder of apostates.
I would happily make this deal with those that follow a religion – by all means follow it and be happy, aim to do no harm. Please do not try to make me happy by inviting me to your faith. It does not appeal to me. Further, do not on the basis of your sensibilities try to take away my rights, my partners rights, my children’s rights, my parents rights, because you claim to know the mind of god and that what this being you know so well wants must ipso facto be good for us.
You cannot get away with that argument anymore. It has no part in a rational discourse about morality or any conception of the common good. More then ever it looks like the Archbishop may be feeling the fight back on this, because we can see that in the name of religious sensibility and conscience will much harm be done.
Enough has been done in the name of religion for the supposed common good. We need more than the interpretation of ancient texts for that. We need to embrace the common humanity that inspires the best out of us, the empathy that allows us to consider one another, the rational discourse to frame laws that lead to the common good. What the Archbishop proposed went against this, perhaps in ways he can not understand – I hope with the criticism he may begin to appreciate how come.
I know that for some people being of a religion is less significant than their star sign. But all I am asking is that people really question the super naturalism under pinning their faith, the ancient superstition that strikes fear to obedience, and the apparent absurdity that because I reject the blood of Christ I must by definition be a bad person, rightly destined to an after life of misery and hell. Thankfully I know that is not true, but those wishing it to be true and wanting it to be so – if only you showed such conviction for this in the here and now that the blackness of your heart may be shown. Yet has not history already shown that blackness, and has religion been the fierce horse it has ridden on more often in use then the bolt on the stable door to such feeling?
The only thing that seems to guard against such feelings causing harm is the secular state in a liberal democracy that values universal human rights. If you disagree Archbishop, then be prepared for much more criticism to come.
