A slow but certain demise

by Terry Sanderson, Guardian

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/oct/30/atheism-religion

All the signs are there: religion will die. I'm just sorry I won't be around to see it

There are signs that in the western world (including the US) religion is, indeed, beginning a long, slow – although accelerating – decline. All the statistics show that congregations are falling, mass attendance is diminishing and Christian knowledge is passing inexorably from our culture.

There have been two, or in some cases, three generations of people in this country who have had no connection with church at all. It plays no part in their life or their thinking. They are what I term "the religiously indifferent" – they couldn't care less whether religion is there or not, just so long as it doesn't interfere with their lives. Such people make up a vast and increasing swath of the population of Britain.

Why is this? In order to survive, a religion's mythology must be imbued into the next generation at an early age, before critical faculties that might prompt resistance develop. This is Richard Dawkins' meme theory. It is also the reason that most Church of England schools are primary schools and that madrassas start the process so early on in children's lives.

Evangelists know that it takes only three or four generations of unchurched people for the mythology to fall from consciousness, to disappear from the culture. People find that actually they can manage perfectly well without it.

Religious leaders may despair about how difficult it is to reach "Generation Y" (roughly, 16-25 year olds), but if children have reached adolescence and they have not been infected with the religious meme, they will be mainly immune to it. The only way is to get gentle Jesus into their heads when they're four or five.

In the developing world we are told that religion is strong and, apparently, unassailable. We see people in great crowds passionately defending their beliefs from insult, or walking round a giant stone in Mecca. But one needs to ask: do they really believe what they purport to believe? Or is the religious meme so strong in poor countries that it is inescapable? Does religion control so much of the culture that it is simply not possible to function as anything other than a religious adherent, whether sincere or not?

I ask this because I've noticed recently how many people are telling me: "I'm not a religious person, but I am spiritual." This is rapidly followed by a defensive: "You don't have to go to church to believe in God."

And this is what religious leaders should fear far more than the atheism or secularism they like to rail against. The spiritual-but-not-religious brigade represents a creeping disease that can eventually kill religion. It's a way of leaving the church without having the guilt of declaring yourself an atheist.

The founder of the National Secular Society, Charles Bradlaugh, said: "No man sees a religion die". That may be so, but religions do eventually die. History is littered with their corpses. Until now they have always been replaced. But one day the human race's growing indifference to the gods will prove more lethal than any anti-clericalist dagger. Religion will die.

I am sorry I won't be around to see it.

Preaching to the masses

The BBC's Catholic director-general holds non-believers in contempt, as his programming shows

Comments (97)

• 
• • Terry Sanderson
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Saturday October 18 2008 12.00 BST
  • Article history

Although the headlines majored on the BBC's fearful relationship with Islam, there was another point hidden in the BBC director general's speech to the Theos Christian thinktank this week, and it is just as disturbing.

Those of us who have wondered why there is such a ridiculous excess of religion on the BBC now have the answer. It is because Mark Thompson, an enthusiastic Catholic, wants it. Thompson is a great proselytiser for his faith in the mould of Lord Reith, who thought the BBC was "the nation's church".

And, of course, the BBC gives him a very big pulpit to preach from – one that reaches into just about every home in the country, and which we all have to pay for.

Thompson told Theos that there are now more religious programmes on BBC TV and radio than there have been for decades – whereas coverage has almost disappeared from ITV.

"My view," he told the thinktank, "is that there is a difference between the position of Christianity, which I believe should be central to the BBC's religion coverage and widely respected and followed.

"What Christian identity feels like to the broad population is a little bit different to people for whom their religion is also associated with an ethnic identity which has not been fully integrated. There's no reason why any religion should be immune from discussion, but I don't want to say that all religions are the same. To be a minority I think puts a slightly different outlook on it."

He added that demographers predicted an increase in the number of Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs over the next 20 years, and a fall in the number of those who profess no religion or consider themselves atheists. Religion, he said, is back.

Religion is indeed back, but not in the way Thompson would have us believe. It is certainly crazier and more violent than it has been for a long time and there is no way we can ignore its terrifying extremists, but there is no popular revival of religious belief – certainly not in Britain.

A Home Office citizenship survey in 2001 showed that when respondents were asked: "What says something important about you if you were describing yourself?", religion came just ninth in the list of priorities.

Even more significantly, four times as many thought religion was not important to their identity as those who did. The idea that most people's lives are motivated by religion is simply not true.

The most comprehensive and trusted annual study of religious statistics, Religious Trends, predicts that by 2040 half the population will identify itself as non-religious (up from 22% in 2001).

Similarly church membership will have dropped from 7% of the population in 2001 to 5% in 2040 (with only 2% actually attending services – and most of them over 65).These are conservative estimates, and the reality is likely to be a whole lot worse for the churches. Certainly Islam is growing, and is predicted to grow further – from 1.8% of the population to 3.6% – but that will be almost entirely from reproduction and immigration, not because vast numbers of people are converting to Islam.

The only group that is growing – and growing rapidly – are those who say either they have no religion or that they don't believe in God. Yet this group hardly gets a mention on the BBC.

As for Thompson's claim that there is a mighty audience for religious programmes, I draw his attention to a survey by Ofcom, the media regulator, which showed that religious programmes were not greatly valued by viewers – only 5% found them to be of any personal significance. Other research from Social Capital showed that in homes that had access to digital channels, there was an almost total flight from channels showing religious programmes.

Thompson added: "The fact that the same licence fee is levied from every household means that all audiences are of equal value to us. There is no specially favoured demographic, no premium market."

Oh, give us a break! A few sentences later he says:

"I believe that the BBC has maintained the daily and weekly presence of religion on its services with more consistency and commitment over decades than any other British media organisation, and also more than most of the rest of what you could call public Britain. This year we celebrated the 80th anniversary of the launch of the Daily Service. Songs of Praise, Choral Evensong, Thought For The Day, Prayer For The Day: the reflection of the cycle of the Christian week and the Christian year is there for anyone who wants to find it. So too – though admittedly less prominently – reflections of some of the key festivals of the UK's other major faiths. It's hard to square any of this with the idea of the BBC as the anti-God squad."

I remember meeting Thompson at the BBC some years ago in connection with the National Secular Society's campaign to open up Thought for the Day to non-religious voices. He appeared to listen sympathetically to our point of view, but, of course, nothing happened. It is clear now that for all his vague promises, he had no intention of doing anything about the situation. This speech shows he holds non-believers in contempt.

However, these latest revelations answer a question that we at the NSS has been asking for years: why,

when all the research shows that hardly anyone wants to watch it, is the BBC absolutely awash with religion, particularly Christianity? It is all down to Thompson and his sidekick Mark Damazer, the controller of Radio 4.

It is disgraceful that these zealots should have their hands so tightly round the throat of the BBC and use their positions to promote their personal beliefs at licence-payers' expense. The NSS intends to make a complaint to the board of directors of the BBC about Thompson's blatant bias.

Birmingham Council ban on atheist websites

by BBC

A city council has blocked its staff from looking at websites about atheism.

Lawyers at the National Secular Society said the move by Birmingham City Council was "discriminatory" and they would consider legal action.

The rules also ban sites that promote witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity.

The city council declined to comment on the possible legal action, but said the new system helped make it easier for managers to monitor staff web access.

'Very strong case'

The authority's Bluecoat Software computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".

Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief, which includes atheism.

National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said the city council's rules also discriminated against people who practise witchcraft, which is also classed as a legitimate belief.

He said the society would initially contact the council and ask for the policy to be changed, and otherwise pursue legal action.

He said he believed he would have a "very strong case".

Mr Sanderson said: "It is discriminatory not only against atheists but they also are banning access to sites to do with witchcraft.

"Witchcraft these days is called Wicca, which is an actual legitimate and recognised religion.

"We feel very strongly that people who don't believe should not be denied the access that people who do believe have got."

He added that some opinion polls said that up to 25% of the UK population now considered themselves atheist.

A city council statement said the authority had a "long-standing internet usage policy for staff".

It added: "We are currently implementing new internet monitoring software to make the control of internet access easier to manage.

"The aim of this is to provide greater control for individual line managers to monitor internet usage, and for departments, such as trading standards and child protection, to gain access, if needed, to certain sites for business reasons."

Faith is not the answer

by Terry Sanderson, Guardian

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/29/religion.anglicanism

Faith is not the answer

Whatever you think of our modern-day woes – and some aren't even all that woeful – religion doesn't offer the solution

Speaking at the Lambeth conference,

the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has said that almost all of the ills that plague modern society are caused by our lack of religion.

Since we stopped going to church we've become a nation of fat, isolated, divorced, graceless and uncaring slobs who spend all our time online creating "ever smaller sects of the like-minded."

Families are falling apart, loneliness is escalating and so on.

The ills that he identifies are all real, of course. Obesity is becoming an epidemic, more people are complaining about depression and isolation and divorce is on the rise.

But isn't the same true of the US – with knobs on? And isn't the States supposed to be one of the most religious nations in the world, not to mention one of the most violent?

I have a different explanation from the rabbi about the way that our society is developing. I believe that some of the things that he complains about are not necessarily negative at all. The rising divorce rate could simply be an acknowledgment that marriage doesn't work for everyone. It is only since we have been released from the shackles of religion that we have we been able to do anything about it. In days of old, when religion ruled every aspect of our lives, divorce was not an option, except for the very rich.

And so millions (mainly women) endured lives of utter misery in marriages that verged on torture.

Obesity is a sign of our affluence, not of our atheism. In deeply religious countries in the developing world there is little obesity. But that has nothing to do with religion restraining people's greed, it is to do with poverty and lack of opportunity.

Yes, new technology can be isolating, we know that, and a new publication by a government advisor suggests that we should be less materialistic and send fewer emails if we want to be happy.

But being less materialistic doesn't necessarily mean we have to once more embrace the incredible claims of religion. There are other ways to be philanthropic that don't involve taking orders from priests. Many non-believers work in hospitals, welfare services and voluntary groups. They get a lot of personal satisfaction from such work that goes well beyond the (usually miserly) pay packet.

Yes, we need to make a real effort to take our eyes off the computer monitor and set them on to real people. To do our communication face-to-face rather than through the keyboard. There is something truly uplifting about a good conversation with someone we like, and in solving problems together in person.

Rabbi Sacks thinks we should all troop back to church/synagogue and all the problems would be solved. We would stop splitting into ever smaller interest groups, he says. But then, he was talking to the Anglican Communion, so they would be able to understand precisely with what he's saying.

Pick of my Comments from Guardian

macanna

Jul 29 08, 6:47pm (about 4 hours ago)

Here we go again. Now can we all resist turning this into an exact copy of the comments on the AC Greyling article earlier today? I am not holding my breath.

Obviously the good rabbi is barking. However just because someone is mentally ill does not make them dangerous. So it is with religous adherents, they are not necessarily dangerous. Just some of them.

Clearly the ills of our modern society are because religion has failed. What a relief - all we have to do is come up with an alternative. New Labour anyone? Or was that just Catholicism in disguise? I suggest over eating, having sex with people we are not married to of any gender, and ignoring those idiots in our family. Sounds great to me! Could it catch on?

WoollyMindedLiberal

Jul 29 08, 6:55pm (about 4 hours ago)

macanna

Obviously the good rabbi is barking

He has a lovely, deep, mellifluous and inspiring voice. When he is talking he sounds most impressive. But when you read it in printed form it looks trite or simply dull and uninspired.

cebolla

Jul 29 08, 6:57pm (about 4 hours ago)

But that's the way religions work isn't it...everything will be ok as long as we are controlled, as long as we are limited, and cowed. It will all be fine as long as people just believe this stuff.

Trouble is, it's not just unbelievable, it's ridiculous. And such an obvious remnant of primitive man's first attempts to answer questions that were, for him, unanswerable. Many of those questions are still unanswerable for us, but we're whittling them down. We're at least still asking them! Religion would have us not ask, the answers are already there...discovered by primitive man, who ate his own cack.

I believe I am quoting Parliament (or were they Funkadelic then..?) when I say : "Think! It ain't illegal yet!"

#
fluorospacedon's profile picture fluorospacedon

Jul 29 08, 7:04pm (about 4 hours ago)

Religion is the source of all evil.

Besides being a completely imbecil way to look upon life.

It has been used for thousands of years to oppress and stupidify people.

That it is still allowed at all proves that as a species humans can't yet be considered rational.

#
Bluecloud's profile picture Bluecloud

Jul 29 08, 7:19pm (about 3 hours ago)

Our society has certainly become lost. Religion relies on blind faith, but I rely on reason.

As we look for a deeper meaning for life we find only the consumer society as the offered solution by those in power. No wonder people are becoming obese!

How about our role models? Emulating Amy is not a good plan. Infact she has managed to make clear where our consumerism can ultimately lead us! And as for the politicians!

If we found a system which focused us on looking after our civilisation, rather than relenting to santuary in consumerism & religion, we might realise that there is something to live for and even celebrate!

I live in hope.

#
LucyQ's profile picture LucyQ

Jul 29 08, 7:32pm (about 3 hours ago)

The Museum of Sex in New York City has a fantastic exhibition on currently titled The Sex Lives of Animals.

The exhibit is rooted in science and is a must see for everyone as it shows how completely and utterly stupid the monotheistic religions are with regards to how, what and why we are. I am quite convinced that the bible, torah and koran exist as manifestations of human cruelty and divisiveness. Since they were invented by misogynist males to control women and the other it is high time that everyone stand up for human decency and insist that they compendiums be shelved with porn, for consenting adult eyes only. Those who suggest that for the few of us alive today who have the luxury of complete freedom are poorer because we don't join in practicing superstition are lying to themselves and anyone else that listens to their idiocy.

TomRees

Jul 29 08, 7:59pm (about 3 hours ago)

Terry, don't know if you read the comments, but wanted to pick up on something you were quoted on over at the bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7530519.stm "He added that some opinion polls said that up to 25% of the UK population now considered themselves atheist. "

In fact, according to the latest YouGov poll, 36% don't believe and 25% are not sure. Of those that do believe 34% say that religion is not very important and 5% say it is unimportant. So only 24% of Britons both believe in God also think religion is at least somewhat important. For 3 out of 4 Britons, religion is simply unimportant.

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/UKresults080311.pdf (p9)

macanna

Jul 29 08, 9:15pm (about 2 hours ago)

What I want from the society I live in is compassion, equality of opportunity, a redistributive taxation policy, all the leftie stuff of a socialist utopia. It is easy to confuse some of these values with the values of religion. Indeed a just society is a secondary goal (after obedience to god/dogma etc) of many religions.

The difficulty I have with religion as a route to achieve that goal, leaving aside the absurd supernatural stuff, is that after thousands of years it has delivered NOTHING. If this stuff actually worked, maybe I could pretend to go along with the fairy stuff. But all religion has managed to create is division. And as for religion''s role in the subjugation of women, they are STILL at it!

How could it be otherwise? Placing obedience to dogma above compassion for one another is shameless and immoral.

I do not have a solution to the terrible suffering in this world, but religion is not that solution, it is part of the problem.

The Rabbi is yesterday's enslavement, soliciting tomorrow's victims.

AdrianTippetts

Jul 29 08, 9:40pm (about 1 hour ago)

Well said Terry. We certainly do not need to invoke the supernatural to cure the world's ills. And as for obese people - it must be said, one only has to look to the USA, the most religious nation in the developed world, where the waist is as supersized as the carbon footprint.

Get kids doing the duke of edinburgh award - relying on each other - invest in local sports facilities at grass roots level (rather than throwing it all at olympic white elephants...), and teach kids good manners by example - that's what I want to see more of in communities. My fear is that with money thrown at interfaith projects, it will end up going to mega churches or similar pest-houses.

phybyn

Jul 29 08, 9:44pm (about 1 hour ago)

Macanna, what is it you mean by religion ?

Surely you cant be lumping all the worlds different Faith & Belief systems into one handy box called religion, your argument that all religion has managed to create is division is as absurd as the comment in the original article that all are problems are due to the lack of religion these are just gross and meaninless generalisations.

I do believe that any system that promotes the wealfare of others, the care of our neibours, and compassion, has to be worth a look.

Sadly as I posted earlier socialst utopias just dont work.

cebolla

Jul 29 08, 10:14pm (32 minutes ago)

phybyn "what is it you mean by religion ?"

It's all very well reflecting and having a sense of the spiritual...we all have that. The trouble starts when people claim to know things that they cannot know. When they claim to have access to a 'secret' knowledge, not just that there is a creator/god, but that they know what he's thinking, what he wants us to do (usually a lot of bowing and scraping and apologising for stuff we didn't do) and what he wants us to wear. Yep. Have you noticed that the major religions tell us that this 'god' is really interested in fashion?

Bottom line : you know nothing, stop telling us you do.

Also, the moment you add anything supernatural, you're pricing yourself out of rational argument. Supernatural means what it says...there's never been any proof for anything supernatural because, guess what, 'natural' describes our universe. If you have to call on something that cannot be evidenced by definition you know you are onto a loser. Ghosts, speaking with the dead, chi, spirit photos, gods, telekinesis, homeopathy...stop pretending. Take off the funny hat - you are not a wizard. Grow up.
cebolla

Jul 29 08, 10:21pm (24 minutes ago)

USAcomments [hope he doesn't comment for the entire USA] said :

"Faith should never be confused with religion"

The word faith means :

"Being an ignorant primitive that thinks his beliefs actually map onto reality, without evidence, without proof, without logic, just because he feels like it should. "

Chimp.

#
SharpMango's profile picture SharpMango

Jul 29 08, 10:29pm (16 minutes ago)

All athiests in this thread.

Note this: No one knows what existed before the universe. And by universe i mean all universes, be it we are an offshoot of another universe or anything.

ALL athiests MUST believe that the universe is eternal, that the actual act of 'creation' did not occur. otherwise they need to believe that 'something' came out of the absolute void with no prompt at all.

To believe that the universe(s) is eternal is as much a belief as to believe that something created the universe.

I'd much rather believe in the idea of an omnipotent being that is eternal than in the idea that the universe is eternal. using my powers of reasoning, the former is infinitely more probable than the latter....

athiests dont have a belief system? (wry smile)

#
blackcatbone's profile picture blackcatbone

Jul 29 08, 10:35pm (10 minutes ago)

USAcomments: Humanism is not a religion. It is ethical atheism. We have but one life. Live it well with consideration.

madhatter

Jul 29 08, 10:38pm (8 minutes ago)

ALL athiests MUST believe that the universe is eternal, that the actual act of 'creation' did not occur. otherwise they need to believe that 'something' came out of the absolute void with no prompt at all.

No we mustn't.

Indeed most of us believe in nothing preferring evidence to blind faith.

The numbers at the moment point to the 'big bang' about 15 billions years ago.

Given that time is an inherent property of he universe talking about what existed 'before' time started is meaningless.

But hey given that the religious spend most of there time obsessing over essentially meaningless and unanswerable questions I'll leave them to their pointless speculations

The Large Hadron Collider is being switched on this summer it may provide some more of that evidence stuff

#
USAcomments's profile picture USAcomments

Jul 29 08, 10:43pm (2 minutes ago)

blackcatbone, look it up.

quote - In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies.

In the huminism religion there is no higher power than humans, humans are literally considered to be Gods.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/29/religion.anglicanism?commentpage=1

#
Yaquina132's profile picture Yaquina132

Jul 29 08, 10:47pm (about 1 hour ago)

Religion is not the answer.

It is the problem.
WoollyMindedLiberal

Jul 29 08, 10:51pm (about 1 hour ago)

SharpMango

All athiests in this thread. Note this: No one knows what existed before the universe. And by universe i mean all universes, be it we are an offshoot of another universe or anything.

Not quite as sharp as a mango are you? We only discovered the existence of other solar systems and galaxies through science - strangely your alleged magical Sky Pixies knew nothing about them.

SharpMango

ALL athiests MUST believe that the universe is eternal, that the actual act of 'creation' did not occur. otherwise they need to believe that 'something' came out of the absolute void with no prompt at all.

Hang on one cotton-picking minute, I'm the Evil Atheist in residence on CiF and leader of the New Militant Atheists so I'll bloody well decide what the Hench-Atheists must believe. We'll go with what the science says until I say otherwise. Go read some Cosmology.

SharpMango

To believe that the universe(s) is eternal is as much a belief as to believe that something created the universe.

A logical fallacy so huge we could fly a galaxy through it and not touch the sides. The latest thinking shows that its quite possible that the Universe simply came into existence as the result of random quantum fluctuations and that it is not eternal but about 14 billion years old depending on where you measure from. Its not expected to last forever either, in about 50 billion years time there'll be a bit of radiation and maybe a few decaying black holes and that's your lot.

SharpMango

I'd much rather believe in the idea of an omnipotent being that is eternal than in the idea that the universe is eternal. using my powers of reasoning, the former is infinitely more probable than the latter....

Your powers of reasoning aren't all that great. If a Sky Pixie can be eternal then so can something else, whether its a universe or a multiverse. If a Sky Pixie can create itself then so can a multiverse or a universe. The magic Sky Pixie answers no questions and adds no value to the process, a smart person wouldn't bother to postulate it in the first place.

SharpMango

athiests dont have a belief system? (wry smile)

That's not a wry smile, only half-clever people can do those and you aren't even close to that.

It depends what you mean by a belief-system. Mine is grounded in observation, evidence and reason. Its open to change, when the facts change then so do my opinions. All CiF Atheists are required to have the same belief system or face being thrown to the merciless Dawkins Sharks we keep in our hollowed out volcano base.
WoollyMindedLiberal

Jul 29 08, 10:54pm (about 1 hour ago)

SharpMango

Madhatter- there you go, just because you cannot answer that question through empricism does not make it invalid. its the most important question that is out there, that is the type of question that only rigourous logic can answer. The fact that you believe that the big bang was point zero actually illustrates the fact that you believe the universe IS eternal. strange though isnt it?

The difference between the Planck Time and zero is neither here nor there. You clearly have deluded yourself that you know what all atheists much think. If you weren't an established believer then I'd suspect you were a wind-up merchant deliberately trying to make religious people look stupid.

Not all religious people are stupid, many are very clever indeed : for example my chum ChooChoo.
cebolla

Jul 29 08, 11:44pm (18 minutes ago)

Apart from flashing his/her ignorance, Sharpmango said something instructive :

"I'd much rather believe in the idea of an omnipotent being that is eternal..."

That's the point...you'd rather. Some of us however have enough honesty, self respect to want to know what is true.

Religion tries to sell us what we'd 'rather', but being invention, tells us that we must have 'faith'.

It's a con. You're being fooled. Read a book.
#
gailm61's profile picture gailm61

Jul 29 08, 11:51pm (11 minutes ago)

Absolutely agree, the decline and fall of marriage is a sign its not for all.

Falling numbers at churches is also a good sign, people are thinking for themselves and voting with their feet. The simplistic messages sent out by religious types does them no favours these days, people are more sophisticated and less vulnerable to the bullshit hardsell that passed for spirituality in the past.

Welfare shouldn't be left to 'faith groups'

• 
  

The government is trying to get religious bodies involved in the provision of services. In doing so, they're ignoring the lessons of history

All comments (68)

• 
• • Terry Sanderson
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Thursday June 19, 2008
  • Article history

Last week, the prime minister opened the doors of 10 Downing Street to a group representing "people of faith" and announced that the New Labour was moving into "new and exciting territory" as it pulls religion closer to the centre of political power.

Gordon Brown thanked the faith leaders profusely for the many projects they run that help disadvantaged people. "We're here to celebrate local projects that make such a difference, led by people of faith: changing the world, transforming communities and having an enormous ripple effect across the country", he said.

Indeed, many church organisations do carry out wonderful work with hard-to-reach people and they should be applauded for their efforts. But should they receive public money to do it? Surely the very definition of charitable work is that it is done and financed from the pockets of people of goodwill, not by the taxpayer.

More importantly, should these "faith groups" be invited to take on even more social and welfare work that has traditionally been done by secular local authorities and central government?

The Downing Street meeting came soon after the publication of a Church of England-commissioned report, Moral, But No Compass, that complained that "faith based welfare" was not appreciated by the government and that the Church of England must be given large amounts of money and a lot more influence immediately.

The Downing Street event, (a coincidence of course) marked the launch of a Labour consultation exclusively with faith groups, entitled Believing for a Better Britain, run by the government's new "faiths taskforce", chaired by Alun Michael MP.

The actual spadework on the consultation will be done by Malcolm Duncan of the Faithworks movement. This, you will remember, was set up by the Rev Steve Chalke to ensure that religious organisations play a big role in welfare provision,

and get lots of lovely public money to spend on their organisations.

Since then Faithworks has become more or less an arm of the government.

Malcolm Duncan, leader of Faithworks, aims to use the consultation "to hear first-hand the concerns of faith communities and those motivated by their beliefs, in order to reflect those concerns in the next manifesto."

Duncan will be, of course, impeccably objective. He tells us that:

People of faith are making a vital contribution to the United Kingdom. It is impossible to talk about community cohesion, joined up service delivery or strong and sustainable partnerships without understanding this. By acknowledging the distinctiveness of different faith groups, we are also able to harness their commonality. As the consultation with people of faith and belief gets under way, I am committed to ensuring that the listening process is honest, open and accountable. As the Labour party listens more closely to people of faith and belief, my hope is that it will discover again the amazing contribution of people of faith and belief.

So, it isn't as though Duncan has decided the outcome of the consultation in advance, or anything, is it? And no self-respecting taxpayer would begrudge the hundreds of thousands of pounds that it will cost to run this exercise in futility, the results of which are probably already written and at the printers.

Oh and look – here comes our old friend Stephen Timms MP, vice chair of the Labour party "with responsibility for faith".

Eh? Haven't we got a faith taskforce chair already in the shape of Alun Michael? Oh well, it seems we now have two Labour politicians for "faith". After all, there are so many "people of faith" in this country, that we really need two representatives to give them whatever they ask for … er, that is to say, look after their interests, don't we?

Timms also reassures us that the "faith consultation" is in no way the foregone conclusion and complete waste of time, money and effort that it seems to be. "This consultation gives us a tremendous opportunity to listen more closely to people whose starting point is faith", he says. "Far from being a narrow path of discourse, it opens a highway for Labour to listen and speak with those who are committed to making a collective difference in society and are determined to be a source of good. Under Malcolm Duncan's independent leadership, the consultation process will be a vital contributor to how Labour develops its policies and approach to working with people of faith."

Well, there we are then. A completely objective and open-minded consultation will be headed by the man with most to gain from coming out with a positive response about "the faith communities".

Duncan is a decent chap, and he means well. But he is pushing the country into something we are all going to live to regret. And most people seem completely unaware it's going on. Far from asking the "faith communities" whether they would like another great big chunk of money and privilege (naturally they think they deserve nothing less), this consultation ought to be opened up to the whole country. In the end, it's our money they're dishing out to the discriminators and proselytisers, but no one asked the punter in the street whether it should happen.

Faith-based welfare? Are the churches going to be permitted to do to hospitals and social services what they have done to schools? To turn them into hotbeds of injustice, favouritism, prejudice, discrimination and separation? Sectarian old-folks homes anyone? Catholic-only adoption services? Sikh-only housing associations? Muslim-only probation services?

We know where faith-based welfare leads. We've seen it in operation in Ireland and Scotland where we ended up with the Magdalene asylums. We have seen it in operation in Australia where it led to generations of aboriginal children being stolen from their families by the churches. And now the same thing has happened in Canada where the government apologised this week for handing over the children of the indigenous people to various church organisations in order for them to be "Christianised". All over the world, priests are on trial for grotesquely abusing children put in their care in the belief that faith-based welfare was automatically trustworthy and safe. In the US where faith-based welfare is institutionalised, it leads to unfettered bigotry that increasingly ends in acrimonious and distressing court cases.

The Bishop of Carlisle has already made clear that he does not wish to see any regulation of church welfare provision.

Duncan will tell us that it is different now. But is it? His Faithworks programme has come up with a charter that it asks its member organisations to sign. It expects them to promise not to discriminate against their staff on grounds of religion and not to restrict their services only to people they approve of.

All that is fine, but what about those religious groups that have not, and will not, sign the charter? The ones who constantly mewl about wanting to be exempted from human rights and equality legislation? Duncan, with his good intentions, is opening the door to the maniacs as well as the good guys.

But far more tragically, the government is aiding and abetting this without consulting anyone but those with a vested interest.

Where are the secularist Labour MPs in all this? Why aren't they as noisy and demanding as their Christian counterparts? Why don't they speak up for the unconsulted in all this and protest about what is happening?

Could it be that they support Brown's plan to divest the government of its social responsibilities? Does it imagine that it is OK to cast us to the wolves of religious charity that will, as soon as they are established, start to abuse their authority?

Christian charities should also realise that they risk putting their "ethos" at risk if they throw in their lot with the government. They may find themselves regulated in ways that they do not like, and then we have confrontations such as the one currently being engaged in by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. Last week he announced that he intends to defy the recently-introduced equality law and continue to discriminate against gay couples who want to access Catholic adoption services. The cardinal does not need to wait for any consultation to end. He obviously regards himself above the civil law.

We will have to see whether the courts – and Brown – agree with him. If they do, then the results of faith-based welfare will be bleak.

I don't believe it -Terry Sanderson

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor takes a patronising line on atheists - and reveals he doesn't even understand the nature of secularism

Profile

All Terry Sanderson articles

May 9, 2008 12:00 PM

Where does on start with a speech as specious and self-serving as the one given by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor in Westminster Cathedral yesterday?

The BBC headed its report of the event: "'Respect atheists', says Cardinal". Can you imagine anything so utterly patronising than the leader of some rapidly diminishing religious sect (in the UK at least - with a 40% decline in attendance in a generation) telling a huge proportion of the population that he's prepared to tolerate them? And why is he prepared to tolerate them? Well, because even if they say they don't believe in God, God is still with them and, really, atheism is just a "distorted kind of Christianity".

But more worrying than that is Murphy-O'Connor's caricature of secularism as some kind of threat to people's personal beliefs. He conflates atheism and secularism, either through ignorance, or more likely deliberately, and then says that it is trying to rob people of their spirituality.

That is not what secularism is about.

Murphy-O'Connor is nearer the mark when he says that secularists want to "privatise religion" and reduce its influence in the public arena.

There is a difference between individual believers bringing by their version of morality into the public debate, and a Church wanting to write its dogmas into law.

Faith is about believers having a personal relationship with their God. Religion, on the other hand, is about organising those believers and bidding for temporal power in their name. Secularists have no problem with the former, but they have a lot of problems with the latter.

And as for the claim that Christians are "denied a voice", take a listen to the Today programme, as broadcast this morning. Richard Dawkins, who was personally attacked by Murphy-O'Connor in his speech, was given three minutes to tie John Humphrys in knots about the BBC's automatic deference to religious leaders. An hour later Murphy-O'Connor was allotted seven and a half minutes to repeat the unfounded assertions about non-religious people being incapable of living a full life, and about religion being denied a voice. Hopefully spurred by Dawkins' chiding, Humphrys did give the Cardinal a harder time than is usual with clerics on the BBC.

Murphy-O'Connor also speaks with forked tongue when he tries to portray the Catholic Church as some persecuted institution that means harm to no one. He says the Catholic Church is caricatured as "some heartless, insular institution that wants to deny people their freedom".

Cardinal - this is not a caricature. It is the truth. Your own actions and pronouncements confirm it.

You have tried to deny human rights to homosexuals, you have tried to rob women of the right to choose contraception and abortion and thereby take control of their lives, you have tried (and continue to try) to interfere with scientific research that may lead to the alleviation of enormous suffering. You have attempted to manipulate the political process by pressurising Catholic MPs. On a personal level you - and your church - try to control every aspect of your followers' lives, from telling them what to think, what to eat and when to eat it, to telling them who they can sleep with and even what they can and cannot do when they get between the sheets.

You have argued that Christian leaders should have privileged input to government policymaking. You have said that you should have unchallenged access to the BBC.

You are a politician as much as a priest, but no one has elected you. It is you and your church - not secularists or atheists- which are out of step with the people of this country.

Just how remote Catholic bishops are was illustrated in a YouGov poll (pdf) for Catholics for Choice in November. Only a seventh of the population agreed with the Catholic bishops or Vatican position on abortion law, and only just over a quarter (27%) of Catholics. And there is little doubt that the bishops' line on contraception and homosexuality would be even more out on a limb. Yet it is the Pope's three-line whip that the Catholic MPs are forcing the government to accept.

You ask why the government continually thwarts your will - the answer is that they are elected to represent the people, while you take your orders from an unaccountable central source in another country.

You may bleat that people no longer believe - but that is their choice and choice is the one thing that the Catholic church fears. As far as you are concerned, there is only one way - the Catholic way. Well, the country at large, and increasingly your own congregations, are telling you that the Catholic way is not their way, as this poll so clearly reveals.

Religion in schools – long overdue for a radical rethink by Terry Sanderson

It seems the issue of "faith schools" is not going away – however much the Government would like it to. The NSS is doing its best to keep this vital subject on the boil and in the public eye. The most recent example of this was when we drew the attention of the Observer to an outrageous document published by the Catholic bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O'Donoghue, which he sent to all Catholic schools in his diocese. The bishop, it seems, wants to introduce a Taliban-style regime of Catholic orthodoxy in his diocese's schools.

reposted from: Newsline 4th Jan 2008
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

You can read what the Observer made of the story and the bishop's gob-smacking demands.

We have been told continually by the churches and the Government that "faith schools" are not about indoctrination and are not primarily about proselytising. The Lancaster document, with its revealing title, Fit for Mission, tells a different tale.
Fit for Mission? Is that what our schools have become – "missioning" grounds for failing religion?

It is time that the Government told the churches that it will no longer collude in the promotion of religion at public expense in this way. It is time for Ed Balls to do what other education ministers have not had the guts to do – tell the Archbishops and the bishops that their time is up in schools.

But how are we to overcome the very successful barrage of propaganda that the churches and mosques put out about how important a sense of morality is in schools – a sense of morality which, of course, only they can provide? How are we to challenge the deeply ingrained idea that religion is vital for children? Why does it seem so radical — even revolutionary — to suggest that, actually, children can have a perfectly adequate education without the input of priests, imams and vicars? They manage quite well in America and France without such interference in the education system.

The time has come for us to leave behind the idea that it is OK for religion to be pushed and promoted in schools so long as "humanism" or "atheism" gets a mention along the way. But it is not OK. It is far from OK.

We should stop asking for crumbs from the table and demand instead a neutral space in which children can learn without competing ideologies trying to use schools to recruit new members. But while the humanist movement continues to go along with the idea that it is important to educate children about religion in our state schools, the clerics will always be on hand to ensure it is done their way. And whatever small concessions they might make to "critical input from non-religious standpoints" it will always be they who have their hands on the steering wheel.

If we are to have religious education in schools at all (and, personally, I see no need for it), then it should be taught as an academic subject in short courses created by independent academics, not by agenda-pushing evangelists.

As well as dismantling the "faith school" system, we need to get the churches, temples and mosques out of our schools completely and allow children to have a well-rounded, propaganda-free education that lets them reach their own conclusions.

At the moment, it starts in primary school with a contentious premise (religion is good and, indeed, essential for a person to function in the world) and then, throughout the whole of their school life, religious education will be on hand to reinforce that idea for children. Anyone who has read the religious education framework will know that it is a charter for indoctrination – it is unbalanced, partisan and makes only the most grudging allowances for religions other than Christianity, and humanism gets only a fleeting mention.

Religious establishments and institutions in this country are at full liberty to preach their messages and to seek converts. But the converts must be free agents who have made the decision to embrace the faith without pressure and coercion. That is not the case in Britain's schools. Children are not given the option of saying: "I don't believe this and I don't want to have anything to do with it" as they might be about political opinions and other contentious matters.
No. Unless they get parental permission (or sixth form self-withdrawal), they are forced — by law — to take part in worship. Not just to attend it, but to take part in it. In any other circumstance, this would be seen as a gross abuse of human rights. Why is it not seen that way in the context of schools?

Once again, we are told that it is part of the child's "heritage" and they must be made aware of it. But is it? With only 7% of people in this country worshipping on the average Sunday, religion is no longer the heritage of most people, it is something they have chosen not to embrace.

A Home Office survey showed that when asked to name the characteristics that were most important to them, the population of Britain ranked religion as ninth. If we value it so little, why do we allow its enthusiasts to bully us into defending it and force-feeding it to children?
Would we really be a nation of amoral reprobates if religion was not part of the state, and not part of the education system? Of course we wouldn't. And it is time for us to break free of the conditioning that has told us that we must cleave to God in order to have an ordered society.

The NSS's opposition to "faith schools" will increase in the coming months. An unarguable case has been made against them and the time has come to demand action.

Schools must once again become repositories of knowledge, purveyors of facts, encouragers of skills, promoters of aspiration – not platforms for philosophies that seek to control our lives.

See also: Forcing faith on children is abuse
4 January 2008

The President’s Mid-Winter Message - Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society

reposted from: http://www.secularism.org.uk/thepresidentsmid-wintermessage.html

Since I became President of the National Secular Society, I have been aware that some religious people, who know me only through this public persona, regard me as some kind of hateful monster who is trying to kill their faith.

People who know me personally, on the other hand, think I am an old softy, who is as anxious to please as an aged golden retriever waddling to fetch a stick.

Being aware of this dual perception, and how easy it is to misunderstand other people’s motives, I try not to jump immediately to the conclusion that those who criticise the NSS (sometimes very fiercely) are automatically crazy people who don’t deserve to be listened to.

I give them the benefit of the doubt, and if ever I get to meet them – which I do from time to time in broadcasting studios or on debating platforms – I usually find them personable, charming and friendly.

They, too, have a public persona and are obliged to summarise their ideas in sound-bites for the media, without much qualification. In those circumstances, it is easy to sound hard and unrelenting. When we get to talk, and expand our ideas and explain them, there is usually at least some area of agreement between us.

So, let’s get this right –

we’re engaged in a battle of ideas, not of people. We all know what happens when people don’t talk and discuss – they become suspicious of each other and they fight.

So, my New Year’s resolution is to talk, debate, discuss, explore and listen; to continue to struggle for a secular structure for society, but in a reasonable and rational way.

Secularism is about living together in peace and harmony, without exploitation and without coercion. It isn’t primarily about attacking religion or religious believers. Although we may have a lot of sympathy with the rationalism of Dawkins and Hitchens, we realise that the argument about the truth or otherwise of religion is separate from the struggle for secularism.

Whatever we may feel about religion – and I know that many NSS members have very strong anti-religious instincts – we have to be pragmatic and understand that religion is not going away. So, secularism tries to create a shared space where no-one can dominate. The veracity or otherwise of religious belief is a legitimate argument, but not one that is central to the creation of a secular society.

Secularism is about listening to other people’s point of view, but sometimes agreeing to differ. It goes like this: you do what you want (within the law) in your space (temple, mosque, church, home), and we’ll do what we want in our space (likewise within the law), and we’ll agree not to interfere with each other while within those spaces.

But in the space that we have to share – the public square as it has been called - there can only be democracy. The direction and shape of our society and culture must be agreed between us, believer and non-believer alike, not imposed by divine right or by superior strength. In that way, we all participate. We don’t always get what we want, but at least we have the opportunity to lobby to change things by argument and persuasion, rather than by force and fiat.

But now, as the holiday approaches, and the time comes for reunions with family and friends, for the exchange of presents and for the sharing of good food and drink, we can live in peace with each other, at least for these few days.

The churches are open for those who want them, and so are the boozers. Christmas carols will be sung and Monopoly played. Telly will be watched and snoozes taken. For those lucky enough to be in the warmth of good company, there will be a central feast and the sound of children enjoying what is, essentially, their special time.

Our friends from Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu backgrounds will be able to share in the excitement and enjoy the holiday, too. The mischievous forces that try to make life difficult for them should be challenged, but over the holiday time, we can try to put aside those human-made differences and just let it be. Let’s leave the point-scoring and the arguing until next year.

Despite the claims of some, this mid-winter holiday does not uniquely belong to one section of the community. Indeed, there is no reason why atheists can’t enjoy it with a clear conscience. I certainly will and I sincerely hope you will, too.

So, whatever your religion (or lack of it) and whatever your circumstances, I wish you a very happy Christmas – as well as a peaceful solstice time and a jolly holly-day.

Methinks the believers complain too much

Editorial by Terry Sanderson

source: NSS Newsline September 7th 2007

John Humphrys has commissioned a poll from Yougov to help him sell his new book, In God We Doubt. It shows that 16% of the 2,200 people who responded defined themselves as atheists, 9% agnostics, 28% said they believed in God and 26% said they believed in some undefined "something".

That comes to a total of 79%. The article reporting the poll didn't say where the other 21% stood on the belief/non-belief spectrum.

42% thought religion harmful, a statistic which Humphrys explains away with a remark so obvious one wonders why he bothered to make it: "One reason might be the publicity attracted by a handful of mad mullahs and their hate-filled rhetoric."

He writes: "Even though the dominant faith – by a massive margin – is Christianity, only 17% thought the influence of religion was beneficial. That is even fewer than those who claim that they believe in a personal God. And yet when we asked which of the main religions was 'most effective' in getting its message across, most thought it was Christianity. Only 10% cited Islam compared with 32% who said Christianity." In the survey 10% prayed every night, 43% said they never prayed, and 31% hardly prayed. "More than half of those who say they believe in a personal God cannot be bothered to pray to him every night," was Humphrys' reaction.

Of course, like all polls, the results would have been dictated by the framing of the questions. And like most polls, you can read into this just about anything you like. Humphrys takes comfort from the fact that Christianity is cited as the "most effective at getting its message across", whereas we are happy that there are almost as many self-defined atheists and agnostics as there are God-believers.

We take even more comfort from the fact that it is a well-known phenomenon that when answering pollsters' questions about religion, people exaggerate, make all kinds of claims that are untrue about how many times they go to church and even claim they are believers when – under closer questioning – they reveal that they aren't (by any objective definition, anyway).

Perhaps the most notorious example of this effect was in the 2001 census, when 72% of people in England and Wales claimed to be Christian. Every other survey since has shown something like 35% of the population are prepared to say they don't believe, and something like 20-25% saying that they don't know whether they believe or not (and don't care either way).

And yet still we are fed this idea that religion is important just because among the diminishing numbers of believers are a lot of people in politics and the media.

And when spokespeople for the 35% who don't believe begin to emerge – people like Richard Dawkins, Peter Hitchens, AC Grayling and others – they are denounced from the pulpits and the newspaper columns as "fanatics" and "extremists". There is a positive library of newspaper articles accumulating expressing this opinion.

Just this week we've seen another crop of them. John Humphrys himself, a whingeing, praying "agnostic" who, for some reason, longs for the illusory comforts of religion, had a go in the Sunday Times.

Humphrys crassly imagines that because some people don't believe – and are prepared to say so – it's the equivalent of attacking and trying to destroy the very essence of those who do. According to the Sunday Times interview, by the notoriously superstition-driven journo Bryan Appleyard, Humphrys says that he read the books of the new wave of "atheist writers" and became angry: "Perhaps it was a mistake to read one after the other, to gorge myself, but it was the unfairness of it all. I thought they'd no right to do that … I was surprised how offended I was by their attack on people who believe, but it was personal." He felt it was 'grotesque for clever people like Dawkins' to present themselves as some kind of martyrs for the atheist cause.

"Nobody is denying them their atheism and nobody has done for a very long time in this country. I doubt whether any of Dawkins's immediate relatives have been burnt at the stake. Hitchens presents religion as not just wrongheaded but as something so dangerous it must be eradicated. And then they say even these people who profess to be believers actually know it's not true. How dare they? That's unacceptable. I think it's dishonest."

Not half as dishonest as the way Humphrys (or more likely Appleyard) is portraying it.

Then came Ron Ferguson, a columnist on The Herald in Glasgow. He has written the same article several times over the past few weeks.

Next up is Yasmin Alibhai Brown in the Independent. (Some responses.)

And after that Magnus Linklater – yet another yearning-for-God atheist – in the Times.

And then there's Mr I'm-so-reasonable-that-everyone-looks-like-a-loony-beside-me Theo Hobson on the Ekklesia site.

There are strong hints of insecurity in all these articles. Intelligent people trying to make the case for idiotic belief systems become themselves idiotic. I think they know this, and that is why they have become so extremely defensive. If they truly, in their heart of hearts, believed all the hooey they claim to believe, they would brush off detractors without a second thought. As it is, they realise that their cover has been blown. They have to face up to the fact that the religious emperor has no clothes.

What started out as a campaign by fundamentalist Christians to make the word "atheist" into a term of abuse, which could not be uttered without the addition of an adjective such as "extremist" or "fundamentalist", has now been taken up big time by the establishment intelligentsia who have never been able to shake off their childhood indoctrination. It's clear they feel guilty when they even try.