Freedom From Religion

 Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Sep 302008
 

The phrase “Religious Freedom” or ‘Freedom of Religion” often comes up, but I would like to see the phrase “Freedom From Religion” used a little more. This is going to sound a bit like an attack on religion itself, but it is not intended as such. Everyone is free to practice the religion of their choice … or none at all.

The key is the end of that last sentence – no religion at all. We’re all too often besieged with symbols of religion and people assume we want to hear about their favourite fictitious god. Certainly the UK is nowhere as bad as the USA where atheists can be subject to treatment that amounts to persecution even including physical and verbal abuse merely for voicing their lack of belief.

But that does not mean the UK is properly secular in public life. Schools can be a little too religious; I do not mind my taxes being used to pay for the education of children, but I do mind that it is used to pay for the religious indoctrination of children. Too many schools are “faith schools” and are at least partially funded by the taxpayer.

In many cases … particularly for primary schools where the most impressionable children are taught, there is little choice other to send children to such schools. The Church of England still “owns” (we won’t worry too much about the fine details of this ownership) 25% of all primary schools. Rather creepily similar to the Jesuit saying “Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man”.

Of course there is nothing deliberately sinister about the CoE schools these days. Long gone are the times when one could be beaten for expressing views even slightly atheistic, but there is still a distinct odour of the Christian religion about such places. One school even boasts of providing a “christian education”.

Moving onto Universities, and you will find the education considerably less influenced by religion as these places are supposed to be serious institutes of learning. But if you have a close look at who is employed at these places you will often find a chaplain or six. Now these chaplains probably are not going to ram their religion down your throat, and are to a certain extent simply a counselling service with a religious twist. The funny thing is that both of the Universities I checked also have independent counselling services.

So what we have here is a special religious counselling service that only certain people are qualified for employment with … just christians (or perhaps people who believe in other gods). Now religious students (and staff) could probably do with a little support from a University, but what is wrong with ordinary counsellors just pointing them at local churches, mosques and the like ? Again I’m not entirely sure why my taxes should go towards paying the salaries of people whose principal talent is talking to imaginary beings.

But far worse are the more in your face examples of religion. The church sign that says “The Wages of Sin is Death”, the kerbside evangelist who harranges you about being saved, the smug Christian who insists that all unbelievers will go straight to hell and suffer eternal damnation. At best this is merely irritating; at worst it consitutes a kind of verbal abuse.

Yet religion seems to have a privileged position in our society … it is considered wrong to criticise the beliefs of others. But why is not also considered wrong to criticise the unbelief of others ? I do not believe, do not want to be preached at, and certainly do not want to see my tax money spent on supporting religious belief in any way whatsoever.

“Intelligent Design” vs. Evolution

 Religion, Science  No Responses »
Jun 302007
 

There are some knuckle-dragging Neanderthals (and I’m being insulting to Neanderthals making that comparison) who when they can stop drooling, parrot some nonsense about how they have come up with a “scientific” demonstration of how the evolution hypothesis is wrong and that the ages old creation myths given a quick paint of pseudo-science is a suitable explanation of how life came to be.

There are supposedly several arguments for “Intelligent Design” …

The first of course is the dumb religious prejudices of those who support “Intelligent Design” in that they cannot bring themselves to believe that the theory of evolution is compatible with a creator. This is principally a failure of imagination. Assuming you go with the Genesis creation myth, the dumber believe that God created the world exactly as depicted in Genesis. Just imagine for a minute, God trying to explain how he created the universe to a less educated man of pre-history … he would almost certainly resort to a simplistic explanation to avoid having to spend years at the task. If the Genesis myth is real, then it is most likely to be as described … a simplification suitable for man. There are many religious people who accept this and accept evolution as a reality.

The second argument is that evolution is an unproven theory over which there is considerable debate amongst the scientific community. Well the scientific community is wondering where all the argument is. As to whether evolution is unproven, well of course it is. There is supporting evidence, and nobody (with any credibility) has disproved evolution. It is the currently accepted theory as to how life came to be as is now.

There is also the complexity argument … those who argue for a “designer” claim that there are elements in life which are too complex to have evolved and this demonstrates that a designer was necessary. Not so … believing that a system is too complex to have evolved is again a failure of imagination. We may not understand how something could have evolved, but that does not mean it did not evolve.

Those in favour of “Intelligent Design” are anti-scientific bigots (it has been demonstrated again and again that there is no science in the “theory” of “Intelligent Design”) who want to turn back the clock to a time when anyone wondering about nature would be told “God made it that way” and to stop wasting their time. They want us to return to the dark ages.

Laugh at them. Spit on them. And ignore them.

And if you live in a country where they are corrupting the education system, fight that corruption!

Is “Thou Shalt Not Kill” Optional ?

 General, Religion  No Responses »
Mar 202007
 

I do not understand Christians (and I guess this applies to some related religions too but I am thinking more of Christians here). They have all sorts of rules to live their lives by, but there is a “Big Ten” set. One of which is “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Yet they will quite happily run around killing people (we’ll skip killing other things including animals for now … it is possible that the original words should be translated as ‘thou shalt not kill people’ or something).

Well, perhaps not happily except for the deranged, and this little piece is not about them. But given sufficient incentive … like ‘go out and kill these soldiers or we’ll put you up against a wall and kill you’. Now do not get me wrong, this is not a criticism of soldiers who have a job to do. Do not forget that I am not a Christian and I believe it is sometimes necessary to kill (preferably when sanctioned by society).

But Christians seem to behave that the rule is “thou shalt not kill unless it seems pretty important” and that is not what the commandment says.

History would have been a great deal less blood splattered if Christians had kept to that rule!

Jack Straw and The Niqab

 Politics, Religion  1 Response »
Oct 062006
 

Jack Straw (the UK politician) has recently written an article on Muslim women wearing the Niqab (the full face veil) which has drawn a certain amount of attention. I don’t think he meant any more than to start a discussion and point out certain effects that the Niqab has on conventional British society. I am certainly not going to say that Muslim woman cannot wear anything they want … that’s a personal decision for them to make. I have no more right to decide that for them, than they do to decide I should wear something other than jeans.

However there are a few things that come to mind on this subject …

Wearing The Niqab In Public

Before going on to discuss the real issue here, I will mention something else … the Niqab is widely perceived as being a symbol of the Islamic tendency to repress women’s rights. Now I know that isn’t the case, but it is perhaps something that needs to be emphasised more — that it is a freely made choice made by the women who wear it. Perhaps Muslim men could consider wearing it ? After all if modesty is a worthy trait in Muslim women, surely it is also worthwhile for Muslim men ?

Now for the real issue here, and I’d like to emphasise that it is a minor thing.

Historically in UK society, nobody conceals their face (except in extreme weather) unless they are intentionally hiding their identity with some nefarious purpose in mind. The groups of people who conceal their face include medieval outlaws, highwaymen, thieves, bank robbers, the KKK, and Muslim women!! Now of course it is ridiculous to say that Muslim women conceal their faces because they’ve got some evil inclination, but at an unconscious level it does come across as just a little sinister.

Of course if a Muslim woman is deeply convinced that the Niqab is essential, she should carry on wearing it. But if a Muslim woman is not quite so sure and undecided, it may be worth considering this when making her decision.

Wearing The Niqab For A Face-To-Face Meeting

When we communicate, part of the communication is the spoken language and part is body language … mostly found in the face. If you doubt this, just dip into any book on basic psychology and check … it will be there. Anyone who has communicated online in the same manner as they would do when speaking to someone will have encountered situations where their communication has been mis-interpreted because of the lack of body language.

In a society where people are not used to people choosing to cover their face, conversing with someone who does is off-putting. Covering the face comes across to the rest of us as “I don’t want to communicate with you” and could be considered to be impolite … as impolite in fact as asking someone to to remove the Niqab.

Muslim women who wear the Niqab in public should at least consider removing it to talk to someone who may not be a Muslim. Wearing the Niqab is about maintaining a certain level of modesty in the presence of strange men; removing it to talk to a Muslim man could be considered to be immodest, but nobody who is not a Muslim would consider it so … look around you at what other women in our society wear!

After all there are many Muslim women who don’t consider wearing the Niqab to be necessary, and suggesting to them that by not doing so makes them less a Muslim, and perhaps immodest to boot could be a little dangerous! For a multi-cultural society to function smoothly, we need to be considerate of each other’s cultural backgrounds and patterns of behaviour, and that goes both ways.

This is not saying Muslim women should remove the Niqab when talking face to face with someone, just that they should consider it and perhaps explain why they wear it (after all not everybody knows).

Hysterical Reactions

Judging by the way that some leaders of Muslim society react, anyone would think that Jack Straw had suggested that women wearing the Niqab should be stoned in the streets, or fined! Jumping up and down, screaming “Islamophobia” at someone suggesting that one aspect of Islam may not be helpful in the UK is hardly a moderate reaction. In fact it is a very unBritish reaction and grates on the nerves.

Something more like “I don’t think Jack Straw understands how deeply we feel about the Niqab” or “That’s interesting, we should think about that” come across much better to the British people.

A Modest Proposal for UK Churches

 Religion  No Responses »
Sep 122006
 

UK churches are interesting buildings. Some of of relatively little worth admittedly, but most are of genuine historical interest and add to the flavour of our country. Many if not most of the most interesting ones are ‘owned’ by the descendant of the official state religion … the church of England.

Now the CofE has a bit of a problem … it has to maintain all those historic churches with ever decreasing funds provided by their members. Sometimes these funds can be added to by grants by organisations whose purpose is to maintain historic buildings, but that leaves the problem of those churches that are not quite interesting enough to attract grants.

Of course it would be wrong for the government to help out the church as things stand … because the taxpayer would be subsidising a religion that they may not support to the exclusion of other religions. Plus to many people in our communities, CofE churches are mysterious buildings where strange (and to some ‘blasphemous’) rites are practised to the exclusion of those who don’t share the right religion. This is a very large change from the time when many of those churches were built when each church was the centre of the local community and was inclusive.

Originally the building of those churches was funded by the local community … either through compulsory tithes, or even directly where a group of local people would form a savings group to gather enough money for a church. It seems wrong to restrict the use of the local church to just those who worship a particular God.

So take the churches off the CofE and grant them to the local council with a covenant that requires them to be used for worship. They can then be shared amongst the local community … Christians get to use them on a Sunday, Jews on a Saturday, and Muslims on a Friday. Ideally they would be used by other religions as well, but the ‘big three’ conveniently choose different days to worship on.

After all the original intention was that the churches would be owned by the local community represented by the church, but things have changed and the church is no longer representative of the local community.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries