I don’t know how Richard manages to keep turning out pieces at the same time he’s trotting around the world giving talks and interviews. He must be able to turn out his inimitable prose very quickly. Yesterday he wrote about his interview with the odious reporter Adam Lusher; and yesterday he published an exchange of letters with Will Hutton of the Observer in that paper: “What is the proper place for religion in Britain’s public life?”
Both men admit to being “cultural Anglicans,” (what is that, exactly? How can you be a cultural Anglican when there’s no Anglican food?), and Richard points out that his Foundation doesn’t exist to promote atheism (though he’s glad to do that personally), but “reason and science,” in other words, secularism. Hutton takes issue with that:
I also think your distinction between atheism and secularism is sleight of hand. Secularism unsupported by atheism is nonsensical. The reason why a secularist objects so strongly about the extension of religion into the public sphere – and even its private practice – is because its adherents are delusional, and, using your own words, imposing a delusional set of values and practices on others.
If you take “secularism” in the sense of “not favoring one religion, or no religion, over others,” then the distinction is not a “sleight of hand.” As Dawkins points out, plenty of religious people and religious organizations promote secularism in the public sphere not because they think religion is a “delusion,” but because they worry about one religion getting the upper hand, forming a theocracy, and banning or marginalizing the others. Now I think that secularism will inevitably erode religion, because by refusing to marginalize atheists it prevents religion from dominating the public sphere, and also allows freedom of speech to those who espouse reason rather than superstition.
Richard makes a point that hasn’t been sufficiently emphasized:
That doesn’t mean religious people shouldn’t advocate their religion. So long as they are not granted privileged power to do so (which at present they are) of course they should. And the rest of us should be free to argue against them. But of all arguments out there, arguments against religion are almost uniquely branded “intolerant”. When you put a cogent and trenchant argument against the government’s economic policy, nobody would call you “intolerant” of the Tories. But when an atheist does the same against a religion, that’s intolerance. Why the double standard? Do you really want to privilege religious ideas by granting them unique immunity against reasoned argument?
Somebody needs to analyze why religious belief is so different from political belief. Perhaps the readers can weigh in here. Obviously your faith has much more powerful implications for your behavior and, especially, your postmortem fate, and perhaps that’s the reason. But I’ve seen nothing written about this.
Hutton:
Of course we can agree that nobody wants a theocracy, and the founders of both the American and Indian constitutions were right to protect their countries from that risk given the historic and cultural contexts in which they founded their states. But there was little risk of church and state eliding in Britain 200 years ago despite our very imperfect unwritten constitution; there is zero risk today. To raise its spectre is specious.
Zero risk? What about faith-based schools in the UK, where children are brainwashed and evolution is minimized or criticized? And doesn’t Hutton know about America, where theocratic values are being imposed by the government—even under Obama? Just read Sean Faircloth’s new book, Attack of the Theocrats, to see how the “wall of separation” between church and state has been severely eroded. (By the way, I highly recommend that book and will be reviewing it here soon.)
Hutton:
Jürgen Habermas says that human nature needs both secularism and rationality on one hand, and faith and belief on the other; that to imagine pure secularism is utopian. I am in the same place.
One-word response: Scandinavia.
I’ll let Richard have the last word, because, in my admittedly biased view, he gets the better of Hutton in this debate. Go read it.
It has been obvious since the publication of The God Delusion in 2006 that many supporters of religion have preferred to ignore its arguments and just repeatedly claim that it’s full of rage and hatred, fundamentalism and intolerance instead – traits that are not recognised by most people who have actually read it. The less-than-subtle message is: “He’s strident and shrill so you can ignore what he says.” Yet this alleged stridency consists in nothing more than clearly and reasonably challenging religious claims in the same straightforward way that no one bats an eyelid over when the subject is anything other than religion.
And now, when the issue is not atheism at all, but the role of religion in public life, the same stunt is being pulled. The mere act of commissioning a scrupulously factual survey from a highly respected, impeccably impartial polling organisation has been described by an editorial in one of our leading newspapers as “hysterical”, and others are piling in with similarly intemperate words and rather desperate attempts to divert attention from the cool and sober findings of the research. . .
. . . arguing against religious belief is not hysterical, militant, or totalitarian. It’s what we do in all other fields of discourse, where no one viewpoint can claim privileged immunity to argument.
And that should be the last word.
Here’s something I posted in the Guardian comments section (pardon my lousy english):
It should be pretty clear by now that anything other than discrimination in religion’s favour will be construed as anti-religious discrimination or “imposing atheism”. The appalling thing is that in the west in the 21st century “secularism” (i.e. the absence of any religious bias from politics) still needs defending at all.
In Saudi Arabia Hamza Kashgari faces prosecution, and possibly execution, for being insufficiently deferential when tweeting about Mohammed. In Indonesia Alexander Aan is in jail (after being violently attacked by the religious mob) for making an atheist remark on Facebook (atheism is officially a crime in Indonesia). In India Salman Rushdie had to cancel his appearance at the Jaipur literary festival because of death threats. In Amsterdam muslim extremists stormed a book launch by muslim reformist Irshad Manji, threatening to break her neck. In London the Atheism, Secularism, and Humanism Society at Queen Mary College had to cancel a meeting after a muslim began filming the attendants and threatening to kill them. And some people want to tell us to that “militant” secularism is really the problem here (Notice the double standard btw: Atheists are called “militant” if they use logic and humour, whereas militant believers use threats and violence.)
Atheists are not the ones who are advocating a double standard. We are not singling out religious beliefs for special criticism. We just don’t see why they should be singled out for special protection, and we are confident that no religion could survive in the absence of the astronomical double standards that are now applied in their favour. The moment we start judging religious claims by the same standards of logic and evidence by which even the believers themselves judge secular claims, then religion will have been dealt a mortal blow. Even weak scientific hypotheses generally have more going for them than any religious claim ever had (the argument from design is just embarrassing, and all the other arguments for God’s existence are even worse), yet no scientist worth his weight in salt refrains from criticizing a weak hypothesis (or indeed a strong one) for fear of causing offence. Those who have good reasons for what they believe, appeal to those. Appeals to “respect for the beliefs of others” are only ever heard when there are no good reasons to appeal to. But a belief can hardly become any more worthy of respect for being based on bad reasons. As Sam Harris so eloquently put it: “Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail”.
There is an equally appalling moral double standard. As a thought experiment, imagine a ruler of some foreign country (preferably a white, western, secular one, otherwise we might just have to “respect his culture”) who said and did all the same things that the biblical god supposedly said and did (ordering genocides, demanding rape victims to be stoned, threatening to force anyone who disobeys him to eat their children etc.). Now imagine the reaction if someone in our part of the world publically sided with this disgusting monster. My guess is that they would be met with public outrage and charges of “hate-speech”. Leftist radicals would organize protests wherever they went, and we would see attempts to have their views censored. Substitute our imaginary dictator for an equally imaginary god, and much of the indignation suddenly turns against those who criticize the same evil. If this is not hypocrisy, then nothing is.
Even if the Bible represented the very best of its day (which it clearly didn’t), the best of the Iron Age is still awful by the standards of the 21st century and should not be allowed to influence modern life in any way. If you believe in a god who literally said and did everything that Yahweh is supposed to have said and done according to the Bible, and in spite of this you still take God’s side, then there is nothing you can accuse anybody else of that is worse than what you, yourself actively favour. Religious moderates and liberals, on the other hand, may not promote intolerance and violence themselves, but through their disingenuous whitewashing of their holy texts they give legitimacy to books and doctrines that definitely promote intolerance and violence. And just in case you wonder, I have read the Bible, and if there is any overarching message to be derived from this disaster area of a book it’s that God is not a moderate.
Bjarte Foshaug, both your English and your thinking are excellent.
I’ve read it twice to find the ‘lousy English’ in it. And if this is an example of lousy English, then we should start teaching it far and wide.
Oh, thanks!
Perhaps I shold write in anger more often 😛
Eh, “shold”?!? There’s your lousy english! 😛
Yes, very well put!!! This is something I will save and quote in the future. I hope many of the readers of the Guardian see it.
Bjarte Foshaug,
Superb! Absolutely superb. That so perfectly expresses the most salient points of the current atheist/secularist movement.
Vaal.
Bjarte, can’t you write the next op-ed for the Guardian?
Thanks, everybody. I really should try to get my own fatwah 😀
On a more serious note, I strongly encourage everyone to sign the petition to free Hamza Kashgari (Perhaps Jerry could help spread the message as well?). As i wrote in a different context:
“In light of all the recent assaults on free speech, this is no longer just about one little known (to most of us) individual (as if that would somehow make it more acceptable). To say nothing also sends out a clear message: That all we are prepared to do is stand idly by and hope nobody looks in our direction.”
http://www.change.org/petitions/saudi-government-interpol-and-malaysian-government-freedom-for-hamza-kashgari
Signed!
Extremely well said!
/@
“How can you be a cultural Anglican when there’s no Anglican food?”
Roast beef, gravy, and Yorkshire pudding
Bangers and mash.
Communion wafers
Okay, that was a spit-take!
Spotted dick
Another scurrilous attack on Richard! 😉
/@
On account of the “dysphemism”, some benighted group once changed its name to “Spotted Richard”!
What food could be more Anglican than that?
Full English Breakfast (Black pudding compulsory)
I’ve seen something in my Amuricun supermarket from England (“Aaaannglund,” as pronounced in the Appalachian South) called “Spotted Dick.” Is it of Anglican provenance?
Just a flash first reaction on two points:
1. Secularism.
François Bayrou, French presidential candidate and one of the most respected independent politicians of that country, is a convinced and practicing Catholic. For that very reason, he is one of the staunchest proponents of secularism, and one of the first to react against religious encroachment in the public sphere. So much so that secularism has long been one of his main campaign themes. Why? Because, as a historian, he knows that only a strongly secular state can guarantee religious freedom while preserving civil peace, equality and liberty. He’d make short shrift of Hutton.
2. Habermas.
It does not suffice to quote Habermas, one must also read and understand him. One of the recurrent themes in his work is modernity, the heritage of the Enlightenment, and forces that oppose them. These are highly irrational, and Habermas reflects about ways of domesticating them.
> But when an atheist does the same against
> a religion, that’s intolerance. Why the
> double standard?
I should think that is kind of obvious. Most people think of their religion the same way they think of their skin color. They were born with it; it’s not something they chose.
I guess that’s the difference between most atheists and most theists. Hardly anyone is born into atheism. Most people are still born into religious families and so many have to reject their parent’s religion. Many other atheists are given the opportunity by their parents, religious or atheist, to choose their religious views (as my parents did for me). Almost no atheist was indoctrinated into atheism, we all had to choose it at some point.
The religious on the other hand were largely at least baptized if not indoctrinated into their religion and never actively considered changing it.
Though in the US lots of people will go shopping around and change their religion. They don’t necessarily keep to the religion of their parents. So this is odd, the view that religion is something on is born with. Most American theists aren’t born with their religion, they choose it! And yet you hear the same arguments of treating religion like race in the US.
Ironic, really, since we are all atheist at birth.
Not this vapid Dictionary Atheism again. Firstly, I think you know perfectly well what I mean. Many people are born into say a Catholic family and then are raised Catholic and sort of just stick with the religion. “Born into Christianity” is short for “born into a Christian family that raised them Christian”. This is standard English, no one is born with a wallet full of cash, but certainly one can be born into wealth.
Babies aren’t born atheists. They aren’t born Christian, Muslim, nor atheist. At birth, one has no comprehension of religion. You might as well say that a chair is an atheist because it doesn’t believe in god (it can’t believe). This is a category error. To call something or someone an atheist you really should be referring to a person with some capacity for comprehending religion. Babies have no idea what god or religion are, they’ve never once thought about the matter. Babies are at best implicit atheists and even then that is a bit of an abuse of the term “atheist”.
Almost anyone who is currently an atheist was either raised by a religion family who taught them about a particular religion and at some point had to consciously reject that religion. Or they were raised by a secular family (theist or atheist) who raised them to make their own decision about religion and at some point deliberately concluded that they did not believe in god. They are explicit atheists who at some point chose their atheism.
Now would you please stop this absurd Dictionary Atheism nonsense?
Relax, Brian. I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out a small bit of irony. I am completely aware of the difference between “dictionary” and “committed”(?) atheism. You only need the dictionary kind for irony to work. (and a sense of humor to recognize it)
Bit of irony? But babies aren’t atheists. And Dictionary Atheism is a profoundly absurd version of atheism, so absurd it should avoid being mentioned. I mean, if you want to correct a theist on what an atheist is bring out the dictionary, but don’t drag babies into it.
Brian… Take my advice. Go out and invest in a sense of humor. It will serve you well for years to come.
The problem, GBJames, is that the joke really wasn’t that funny.
I’m glad to see people saying this sort of thing. Ten or so years back, there were quite a few people on alt.atheism pushing the “We are all born atheists; religion is acquired” (and the related usage of “deconversion” meaning for a religious person to become an atheist). I thought it was a simplistic slogan at best. As a fairly new atheist at the time, I found it a bit silly to assert that I had, in effect, reverted to an infantile state. Nor did my adult skeptical rationalism feel like a return to some sort of null condition — it was, if anything, a conversion to a fundamentally different way of viewing the world.
No, it isn’t the world’s greatest joke. It is was a quickly typed quip and ought, IMO, to have been recognized as that. Still, if it makes y’all feel better to humorlessly rant against “dictionary atheists”, have at it. I am not one of them, just so ya know you aren’t ranting at me.
Sigh.
FWIW, GB, I’ve always rather liked the “babies are born atheist” riff–IMO it’s just a humorous way to drive home the point that religion requires indoctrination. I’d say disputants are overthinking the matter; but then, there’s no accounting for taste, humorous or otherwise…
Given that so much of society is happy to talk about “Catholic children” or “Muslim children” or whatever, it’s important to counter the perception that said kids had any choice in the matter…
Eamon: Concur.
James: Well, I thought it was funny.
/@
Did you hear the one about the born-again atheist?
I’m not sure of the punch line but I’m pretty sure it involves him not being a dictionary atheist.
It is probably a good thing I don’t make my living as a standup comic.
I don’t think you can be “indoctrinated into atheism”. I just don’t see how it can be done!
You could be told from early childhood that gods are myths passed on and around only by very dumb and/or wicked people. You could then be told that if you so much as consider the possibility of anything remotely divine, you’re risking your eternal reason. And you can be assured that if you so much as ceased to be 100% sure none existed, all your family, friends, and teachers would abandon you, that your civil rights would be quite properly nullified, and you may well be subjected to an intervention to jump start your sacred reason and bring you back to the unfaith.
I don’t know that there’s all that much on the atheist side that’s all that like that in the real world. It’s not written for realism, more for the counterpart of religious indoctrination.
Indoctrination into critical, skeptical thinking, and a careful adjustment to the balance of evidence of our conviction in a given belief – now that would make far less sense. Reasonable atheism just falls out of that.
“Hardly anyone is born into atheism.”
I’m hardly anyone? That’s funny, I feel like someone.
Here in NZ, it’s not at all uncommon nowadays, though it would have been rare when I was born.
Fair point. I sometimes forget that some countries are not as backwards as my nation, the United States.
The double standard is part of the protective armor of the religion meme.
Better to kill someone’s sweet little grandmother than mess with their delusions. They’ll hate you less in the long run.
The difference between politics & religion, as regards why religion must be protected from criticism and political ideas are not (at least in most “western” democracies)? Religion can’t stand up to reason, has no evidence to support its positions. Political positions, on the other hand, at least in theory should have such support(though when religious ideas get into politics, they are often at least somewhat given such deference also, e.g. the recent debate over insurance coverage for contraception in the US).
Now I think that secularism will inevitably erode religion, because by refusing to marginalize atheists it prevents religion from dominating the public sphere, and also allows freedom of speech to those who espouse reason rather than superstition.
Another reason (and to my mind, at least as important) for religion to decline in the face of secularism: for the longest time in the West, religion had a monopoly on the good-behaviour-enforcement business, with governments providing the muscle. Then we began to split off the important aspects of pro-social behaviour — basic prohibitions like murder and theft — into a growing secular sphere, while de-regulating specifically religious prohibitions like one’s sex life (they became a purely private matter). And as the secular regulation of society has grown, and society has not descended into chaos, it became clear that we don’t need religious institutions, or even religious belief, to maintain a good society. People come to realize that religion is *irrelevant* to anything important to their lives.
For some reason, the article linked to is no longer being served (totally not a pun on a British comedy). No idea why. That’s my long-winded way of saying ‘subscribing’.
This link works:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/religion-secularism-atheism-hutton-dawkins?INTCMP=SRCH
I can still use my link, but I’ll replace it with Richard’s.
Thanks, Richard. The original link is being served now without the ‘oops’ page that was popping up in its stead. I know not why.
My impression is that religious affiliation is essentially tribal in nature. Evidence that weakens the tribal bonds is a survival threat.
The brain calculates survival as priority number one. If reason has to be sacrificed to survive, then so be it. It may even be necessary to atrophy the hippocampus to protect the brain from the threatening evidence.
survive.http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017006
This is just wrong.
You can be a secularist and be religious.
Probably in the USA most secularists are religious.
Agreed: jaw-dropping nonsense. When I read that I doubted I’d read much of any sense in the rest of his argument
Think carefully about it, and that quote can begin to make sense. It recognizes that there is a difference, but that they are like inside and outside, one can’t exist without the other. If you promote secularism, the idea that government should not enforce a particular religious agenda and morality, then you must believe that it is possible for a good society to exist with purely human guidance. To believe that, you must believe that there really is no such thing as divine guidance. Hence, you must be an atheist.
True, there are some religious secularists, who see the dangers of the ascendancy of a theocracy that would differ from their own religious morality, but I am sure that their ultimate hope is that their own religion will be reflected more than the others in a secular government. At the very least, they must be willing to accept less than the best possible society, one informed by God’s absolute truth.
The underlying belief is that there is an absolute moral good, because it is ordained by God, and (as Supreme Court Justice Scalia has explained — Google his essay “God’s Justice and Ours”) the job of government is to be guided by God and wield His Sword of Justice. Only an atheist would doubt that. Better to believe in some god than none at all.
I do not think that is correct unless one conflates society with government. It is entirely possible to maintain the secular position regarding government and still advocate for one or another religion in society at large. Secularism has it’s roots in the need for people of different faiths (or none) to live cheek-by-jowl without endless and bloody physical conflict.
I happen to think that society would be much better off if religion would simply evaporate, but that is a position above and beyond my secularism, regardless of what Tony Scalia might think.
Exactly. For several centuries, Protestants and Catholics went at each other across the length and breadth of Europe, pausing only to crusade on the “Turks” or pogrom on the Jews. Today almost none of that shit is happening. It isn’t the case that one side “won”, and everybody joined the right sect, nor that everyone became atheist — they decided to leave religious questions unresolved and just get along. And whaddyaknow? It worked!
Now it just happens that this creates a space not just for religious pluralism, but for complete unbelief….
” then you must believe that it is possible for a good society to exist with purely human guidance”
They all do. Every last one. Gerbils are no help and the gods are all imaginary. Well, some are not even imaginary.
What you got against Gerbils?
They’re just no help at all in governance.
They can pass motions.
Yep. Esp. see ordained minister Barry W. Lynn’s American’s United for Separation of Church and State, or listen to anything Baptist pastor Bill Moyers has to say on the topic.
I had no idea Bill Moyers was a Baptist pastor! He does sound very much like a pastor when he talks, extremely measured, doesn’t he?
The only issue I have with Dawkins’ brilliant exchange of letters is his idea of secularism as ‘neutrality’. I think this is the European form of secularism, but not the American form which is strict and the only form that makes sense to me.
I think new atheism is liberalism in the more authentic form (but not yet fully authentic) and other self-described liberals are much more incoherent about their liberalism.
Could you explain in what sense you think secularism here in the states is ‘strict’? I can’t parse this parse this with respect to the neutrality issue with which you take issue.
Atheist haters are dime a hundred in the USA.
Atheism is one of the main of the many hates of the fundie xians. The religious certainly argue against it frequently and often. Discrimination against atheists is pervasive as well. An atheist can’t get elected dogcatcher in the USA. If the xians can get away with firing an atheist, they’ll do it sometimes.
Death threats are common as well. Like a lot of scientists, I’ve been getting them for over a decade. On a good day, PZ Myers has gotten over a hundred.
I certainly have no hesitation or problem arguing that religion is malevolent and all Mkae Believe and Let’s Pretend. It is what it is.
Those would be people and organizations with insufficient numbers to wield political power. In most of the US, you have no idea who of your neighbors may or may not be Mormon. But, man, if you are in Utah…
It was one of the purposes of the First Amendment when the Constitution was first written.
Granted, the US has done a great job ignoring that particular part ever since, but when the United States was first formed, one of the key objectives was to insure that there wouldn’t be a Church of America the way there was a Church of England.
I quite enjoyed the exchange. It made for a refreshing Sunday morning.
I found interesting how Hutton insistingly tried to play down the poll results, as in the following quotation, by feigning surprise at the large number of people who identify themselves as Christian:
“Of course I’ve looked at the results of your poll, and what I find striking is the still large proportions of respondents who profess some attachment to Christianity – much larger than I would have expected. Not sure the results are quite as devastating as you portray.”
Really? an 18% decrease isn’t all that impressive? Yet, the more devastating part of the poll lies elsewhere, namely the in amount of people who think religion should keep its oily hands at a distant remove from government. As Richard notes:
“If saying that religion should be a private matter and should not have special influence in public life is illiberal, then 74% of UK Christians are illiberal too. If it is intolerant to say that religious belief should not exempt you from compliance with the law, then 72% of UK Christians are intolerant too. These are mainstream, humane and liberal attitudes, not the obsession of an intolerant few.”
This is virtually two thirds of the population who feel that government shouldn’t be influenced by religious opinion. What more do you need, Mr. Hutton?! Let me guess, this result also speaks to your side of the argument:
“Your poll [Richard’s] helps to confirm an important part of my argument: the majority of self-described British Christians seem to manage their faith while simultaneously acknowledging it should have firm public limits.”
*sigh..there truly is no winning with you , is there, Sir?
It’s actually 74% and 72% of the 54% who self-identify as christians. Since in the UK most of the other 46% will have no religion (we’ll have to wait for the census result, but bear with me on this) and therefore will agree that the government should not be influenced by religious opinion, then the total numbers agreeing with this proposition start to exceed 80%.
The British Social Attitudes survey said 6% other religions, so expect the census to say, say, 10%, leaving 36% no religion &c.
/@
Fair enough, Ant. That takes the figure to over 75% wanting no religious influence in UK government.
Go secularists!
Don’t tell Baroness Warsi. All these numbers will make her brain ache!
Amen! (can I say that?)
There are indeed quite a few people who advocate the establishment of theocracy. In Richmond, New Hampshire there’s a group calling themselves The Slaves of The Immaculate Heart of Mary who operate St. Benedict Center.
http://catholicism.org/
At their conferences, which I’ve attended, they advocate transforming the United States into a theocracy, specifically by establishing a Catholic monarchy. They want to bring back the real inquisition, complete with capital punishment for heretics. Not sure what their stand is on “comfy chairs”. 🙂
I think you sit, rather than stand, on comfy chairs.
/@
You’re sure they’re not just a spoof along the lines of Landover Baptist Church? 😉
I have been having a good look at ‘The Good Book’ A Secular Bible by A C Grayling. It is very well compiled and I recommend it to all thinkers. I tweeted this quote today and it is pertinent to this article.
“The good set their hearts on the law the others set their hearts on privilege.” (The Good Book a Secular Bible A C Grayling)
I thought Anglican food was that unseasoned, meat and potato based sort, like steak and kidney pie.
I remember a breakfast I had in London years ago that included a stewed tomato and some small sausages that were mostly fat, almost no meat, and which had absolutely no spices or flavorings at all. Could that have been it?
Sweet kittens, Anglican food sounds like the most compelling (perhaps not best, but compelling) argument for abandoning the faith ever. Gah!
“He who has tasted heavenly food has no taste for earthly food.” — The Commendatore from Don Giovanni
I think the epitome of Anglican food is having cucumber sandwiches at high tea with the vicar’s wife.
My cultural Anglicanism consisted of enjoying looking around old Anglican churches and Cathedrals with my father also an atheist cultural Anglican.
Wow the UK press are really going to town on Richard Dawkins. I love the smell of fear in the morning. (OK it’s afternoon here but I have just woken up after a night shift:-))
But there IS Anglican cuisine! My sister and I had some once, at a frigid hotel on the West Coast of Scotland, one January. We ordered different dishes. She had chicken, I had fish or vice versa. The meals arrived: both were smothered in a tasteless white sauce.
Oh, wait. That wasn’t Anglican, was it? That was Presbyterian. Sorry.
Anglican cuisine existed until Elizabeth David returned to England from the Mediterranean and wrote her corrective cookbooks. If I had time, I’d look up some of her descriptions of Anglican cuisine and quote her here.
Anglican food — cucumber sandwiches?
Tea and biscuits! (Vicar optional.)
/@
Curate’s eggs – come on, has nobody heard of them?
Nope. Does not sound appealing.
But parts of them are excellent!
No, only good.
Seems like Richard Dawkins rattled the cradle of a rather obnoxious baby with that poll. He’d better have brought a dummy with him, because it’ll probably be crying for some time to come.
‘Secularism unsupported by atheism is nonsensical.’
What an imbecile. Someone send him to a meeting of Americans United so he can see that in the USA it’s primarily religious people who fight to maintain a secular society (their enemies being *exclusively* other religious people who want their brand of religion to be the enforced religion of the state).
Well shit. There I go again making a point (thread 10, with links) and getting beaten to it by a couple minutes (while I was writing and posting). Y’all are just too quick.
You’ve obviously never had mushy peas and swede.
(subscribing)
Various religious organizations in Europe are doing their very best to portray secularism as an extreme ideological position. They are trying to obfuscate the fact that secularism – separation of church and state – is the only workable basis for a tolerant and free society. The only societal formula enabling citizens with different religious and non-religious views, opinions and lifestyles to coexist in peace, is a political system built on a strong secular basis.
However, such an open society is not to the liking of religious institutions like the Vatican, and other bigoted groups. Their aim is a society dominated by their own religious values and prejudices. In other words: a fundamentally intolerant society where all citizens are submitted to their religious values, particularly in regard to sexuality, reproduction, education, euthanasia, and much more.
Intellectual crooks like Adam Lusher are their puppets on a string spreading lies, libel and slander.
I’m afraid Adam Lusher inspired the following rant on my behalf:
http://bernardhurley.posterous.com/who-the-fuck-does-adolf-sorry-adam-lusher-thi
The language is a bit too exotic for me to reproduce it on someone else’s blog.
I imagine the confusion here is over the prospect of the UK (or the US) becoming an outright theocracy vs. the imposition of some theocratic laws, the influence of theocratic thinking, etc. I agree with Hutton that the risk of, say, America suddenly becoming a constitutional theocracy with mandated allegiance to a particular Christian sect, is essentially nil. We can’t know the future, of course, but that possibility seems pretty remote at present.
But there is absolutely no doubt that in both the UK and the US, many mainstream politicians would like to see purely sectarian dogma codified into law, and to some extent have been successful in doing so. That’s what we’re talking about here, and it’s a real threat.
” How can you be a cultural Anglican when there’s no Anglican food?”
I’d think it works like being a cultural jew no? I mean, what’s /really/ jewish that isn’t already levantine anyway?
A cultural Anglican might be someone who, when they do go to church, they go to an Anglican one, or somesuch.
“Somebody needs to analyze why religious belief is so different from political belief.”
This is like the issue in the US re: contraceptives issued under insurance plans administered by ‘church affiliated’ organizations.
Why does it matter that to some people, namely cardinals and the pope, contraception is immoral? If my employer is just-some-guy, and he objects to say, blood transfusions for moral-but-not-necessarily–religious reasons, no one in the world would suggest that my insurance plan should be altered, or paid for by anyone else.
Why can’t Citibank object to all medical procedures on moral-religious grounds?
Or consider something related to this. Why is the ‘sacrament’ of confession given /legal/ protection? If a person confesses something to a pastor, it’s protected and the pastor can’t be sent to jail for refusing to reveal it at court. But if you tell something to a /reporter/, and that reporter refuses to reveal it at trial, the reporter goes to jail. Why not send a priest who refuses to report violent crimes to jail? It doesn’t interfere with the practice of their religion, they can keep quite if they want, they’re just going to go to jail for it is all. Or pay a fine.