Further to the faux outrage over the Bideford ruling, we get Baroness Warsi wading into the debate about “militant secularism”.
I have to say that the whole thing is becoming increasingly tedious. As I mentioned in the previous post, I believe that taking the matter of prayers in a council meeting to court was over the top – despite it being wrong to impose one’s religion on others. That said, it is hardly militant Mr Bone came across as a bit of a twat, but hardly militant – and to be fair, both sides of this argument didn’t exactly coat themselves in glory. Next we will be seeing extremist trotted out to describe atheists who kick up a fuss. Yeah, sure, some non believers are a pain in the arse. So, too are some believers. Most of us just want to muddle along without all this argy-bargy.
That said, disestablishment of the Church of England would be a positive step. Warsi clearly disapproves of the French model of church and state separation. However, it is not the place of the state to be involved in religion and it is certainly not the the place of religion to be involved in the function of the state – let alone the legislative process.
During his comments on the matter, Lord Carey made a statement that Christians do not leave their faith at the door when they go to work. Frankly, that is precisely what they should be doing and if they don’t there is a real danger they will be told where they can put it. Faith is a personal and private matter and that is where it should remain. I realise that I have said it before, but the proselytising nature of Christianity has no place in a modern society. We have churches, we know where they are and that is the place for religious belief and worship. It has no place in the public sphere and the religious have no place imposing it upon others who may not share it – the “it’s a Christian country” argument just doesn’t wash. It was, once. Not any longer. That Christianity had a place in history does not mean that it follows it should do so today. Most of us are not practicing Christians, that alone should be a hint.
The easy way to resolve such friction is to adopt the French method – complete separation between the two with guaranteed freedom of religion. It’s probably worth pointing out here that on balance the French tend to be more religious that we are, at least that’s my personal observation from living there for a couple of yeas and visiting for over a decade previous to that. Given that our society is becoming increasingly secular due to natural evolution, this is the rational solution. Maybe then the fundamentalists on both sides of the argument will give our ears a rest.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6.6
“Given that our society is becoming increasingly secular due to natural evolution”
??
I’d have thought it fairly obvious. The more we understand the nature of the universe, the less need there is for superstitious belief. This is a natural consequence of the rise of science and enlightenment.
I don’t understand the evolution bit. Secular people aren’t surviving and passing on their genes while religious ones aren’t. In fact, you can argue quite convincingly that the religious have larger families. So IF religious belief or the propensity to believe is affected by evolution, one would expect it to move in the other direction.
Of course, as societies become more enlightened the influence of religion weakens.
Societies evolve. It really is as simple as that. The word is not confined to the biological meaning. To evolve means to change gradually.
The whole issue of Religion and its teachings are far more ingrained in Western civilised culture than may be imagined, just one example: the law about intent rather than consequence is down to Christian teaching. As to leaving religious belief at the door when going to work perhaps, it depends whether someone is going to force bad teaching down everyones throats, something that ought not to happen, however it may be that faith keeps easily angered people calm in stressful situations, something to be welcolmed.
Sure, providing they keep it to themselves. It’s the pushing of belief whether the teaching is bad or good, that is out of line.
The problem with the idea of ‘leaving faith at the door’ is that many religions come with a degree of evangelical crusading built into the creed – a duty to spread the word and save the lost.
As a very smallscale example, one of my longstanding friends has rediscovered Christianity in his 40s; I’m now subjected to periodic attempts at conversion because, as he puts it, I’m his friend and he doesn’t want to see me burn in Hell. Given he actually believes in this twaddle, you can see where he’s coming from – it would be very unChristian to just walk on by and let me fry! It does however mean that our meetings are becoming less and less frequent…..
But getting back to the larger politics issue, I would assume if you’re a believer, it is very difficult to leave your religion to one side, even if you don’t make a great public fuss about it – after all, with all that power comes an opportunity, and a duty, to save souls!
It’s the evangelical nature that needs blocking at the pass. I’m all for people being free to practice their religion. Indeed I would join them on the barricades if it was threatened – and despite the protestations of religious leaders, it isn’t – but it really, really pisses me off when people try to impose it upon me. Your friend is discovering what happens when they do. That “duty to save souls” is precisely why religion and politics must remain separate.
If they are sensible, religious people realise that a secular society is in their best interests.
LURVE your quote of Matt VI,6 …
Meanwhile christians are insisting on public prayers – err …..
Quite. Religious leaders are fond of ignoring the teachings of their books. In this case, showing of their devoutness.
I’m not sure how much I agree with you, LR. Certainly, for example, I find Jehova’s Witnesses annoying when they turn up at the door, and I would find it annoying if I was obliged to listen to someone preaching, but I think that ‘The Christian Ethos’ is still very much with us. For example, why should you help a stranger in distress? Why do people rush over to help someone who falls over? There are people who say that it is just a sort of evolutionary herd instinct, and that might be true, but that explanation strikes me as ‘a rationalisation’ since the human race, as such, has had no significant ‘enemies’ for several thousand years. I suspect that the injunction to ‘help thy neighbour’ is very much a religious idea, even it not directly connected with a specific faith. Why have a law which forbids theft at all? Why not just expect survival of the fittest as a matter of course? I think that the whole thing is more complex than it appears to be at first sight.
I don’t think that scientific knowledge, in itself, is anti-religious. But religion was anti-science when it tried to explain the physical universe by reference to the bible and philosophy! Actually, the more that you get to know about the universe, the more inexplicable it becomes.
A simple question: What precisely is space? It exists, but seems to be nothing.
Why do we help others? Because it is the decent thing to do. No religion needed. Nor is religion necessary for law – indeed, it is best kept away from law as we will have superstition and perverse morality imposed upon us. Worst case scenario being Islamic theocracies that execute gays or the victims of rape.
Sure, the universe may have much that is inexplicable. However, “god did it” isn’t an answer. That we do not know yet is plenty sufficient.
“I have to say that the whole thing is becoming increasingly tedious.”
Well, why add to the tedium?
“Most of us are not practicing Christians, that alone should be a hint.”
How would you know? How many practice in keeping with the verse you quote?
Cheap shot, frankly. The ongoing name calling from the likes of Warsi and Carey should be rebutted for the nonsense that they are.
Presumably all those dwindling congregations are a figment of my imagination, eh?
“Presumably all those dwindling congregations are a figment of my imagination, eh?”
No, but you missed the question. If they follow your advice, or heed the Bible verse you quoted, they wouldn’t necessarily attend a church, would they?
I didn’t miss the question. The link to the Tear Fund survey shows a decline in belief since the 2001 census. It’s a reasonable assumption that most people do as I once did and identify as Christian without actually practising it because they were brought up as CofE and attend church for the occasional wedding, christening or funeral – just as I do. I see no evidence to contradict that. As for swathes of people following the advice in Matthew 6.6 all I can say is; meanwhile in the real world…
XX Yeah, sure, some non believers are a pain in the arse. So, too are some believers.XX
Non believers never burned any one at the stake.