There something of the Eric Pickles about Sayeeda Warsi. There's a small minded mill town malice about her 'faith'. I would take her more seriously if she wasn't a minister
with-nothing-to-do in a complacent self-interested government. Sayeeda & her millionaire mates will NOT get thru' the eye of the needle. Cameron should give Sayeeda Andrew Lansley's job. This would keep her out of mischief and give her the chance to prove that she's anything more than a minor-aristo's 'pet-ethnic'.

@sir

Thanks for the article on E. O. Wilson from 3 or 4 years ago, which I don't recall seeing then.

I'm not quite sure how it makes your point.

It seems to emphasize how these various secular 'leaders', Wilson along with Dawkins, and earlier Gould and Lewontin, have major public disputes, all of which will eventually be settled by science, not by any other type of thinking. That certainly seems more like my "the secular leaders exhibit nothing of the kind" (totalitarian), rather than illustrating your "gone beyond what has been accepted for decades and lo and behold it is finding resistance". Those resisters of Wilson's scientific generalizations, about selection operating at higher levels as well as at the level of genes, are surely (those who live long enough) going to see a firm answer based on science, not some alternative mode of thinking, which you seem to think they lack. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

1. The Hon Barroness has talked a lot about faith etc., of course, without making much sense. First she cries loudly of Europe's Christian roots without giving any historical reference of such supposed roots: What roots, Madam! Charlemagne, King of Franks and Roman Emperor in Europe (768-814) made the first real attempts to introduce/impose Christianity in Europe: He had large army of soldiers, monks, priests and hired criminals; he conquered nation after nation for Christianity, giving them the choice betwen Christianity and Death; many accepted Christianity and many preferred death to the Roman Christian barbarism. This is what comprises the essential roots of Christianity in Europe ...! After near complete conquest of Europe by the Christian armies by 1000 CE, then came the age of imposing true belief and faith: The Inquisitions resulting in burning alive of millions of European women and intellectuals as witches and heretics. This frightful Christian barbarism is the 2nd stage of the European Christianity. Then came the Reformation, Counter-Reformation Religious Wars in Europe which took the lives of millions; families were uprooted and displaced many times in their lives, brothers killed brothers in the ugly display of their faith, belief and religion. Millions ran away and migrated to America to save their lives; later they escaped to India, Africa, Australia, Canada and New zealand. This is the 3rd stage of Christian roots of Europe ...!

2. Then came the age of Crusades, the wars to subdue Muslims, which also devastaed Byzantine lands and killed Muslims as well as Jews. Thousands of Europeans and Muslims were killed and hundreds of thousands disabled in each of the successive crusade; that makes the 4th stage of Christianity in Europe. Moussolini and Hitler were devout Catholic Christians who were fully supported by Catholics and Protestants in their efforts to conquer the world for Christianity. Read John Cromwell's book "Hitler's Pope" on how the Cahtolic Church, Pope Pious XII, the Jesuits, priests, Bishops and lay Catholics as well as Protestants fully cooperated with the Nazis and the Fascist buthers in the mass slaughters and holocaust of the Jews...! Mere the number of Jews killed in successive anti-Semitic pogroms will put any self-respecting religious man or woman to shame! The series of mass frenzy and wars of religions continue in our own days: The very Christian and then the very Cathilic Tony Blair declared God told him to invade Iraq; he concocted the lie of WMDs in Iraq; G W Bush-the very Christian and Methodist declared that God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan-the wars which destoryed both countrie killing millions and maiming more than that, the Europeans, Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis. He called these destructive wars as Crusades.
Now let's turn to N.Ireland for a civil war side of Christian religious roots in Europe. How many throusand were killed and maimed for displaying and asserting their religious identity in this religious civil war, Madam. Let's go to Bosinia, how many thousands of women were raped on religious grounds? How many Muslims and Christians were slaughters for religious identity, Madam?
How many thousand have been killed and maimed by the Muslim Jihadists trying to prove the strenth of their religion, Madam '

3. Madam, If you have some spare time, please do read the History of Europe ans particularly the History of England and Scotland before childishly advising your grandfathers something new about the religious roots of Christiantiy in Europe and Britain.
There is something called Reformation, Counter-Reformation in the History of Britain and Scotland with religious frenzy forcing people to kill and burn one another as a mark of their religious identitiy. That was the Christianity in Public Space which you are so fond of recreating: the ritualist religious burning of witches and intellectuals, the beheadings on the name of religion, the rebellion, the English civil war of of 1642 where an army of religious Christian Puritan and Republicans lead by Cromwell beheaded the king and started a reign of terror. Please also read about the Guy Fawks of the Catholic Party who under the influence of Catholic Jesuits tried to blow the English Parliament! You talk against Secularists calling them Militant Secularists without rerring to any incident of militanny "What dishonesty, Madam, what ignorance; what hypocracy and obstinany ! Remameber, please that it were those "Fighting for Faith" who slaughtered one another, burnet women and intellectuals as witches and heretics, and it were the Secularists who saved the countries fron religious barbarism !
You want a public role for religions; however, people belieeve that there is too much religion in the public space already. Peaple have seen religious schools full of not only hatred for other sects and religions but the same religious schools full of homosexual and pedophile priests. Bishop Patrick Buckey recently declared on his website that 40% catholic priests are homosexuals and the Internet search will confirm that more than 20% Catholic priests are pedophiles. Jesuits are mosty school teachers; their homosexuality rate is more than 60% and their pedophile rate is more than 40%. Is that not enough religious in the public space`.
There are Muslim taximan who refuse to take a passenger with Ham or Muslim doctors who refuse to treat an alcoholic patient in Emergency as this is against their religios.
And have you not seen the religion in Public space in Pakistan, Iran, Sudan etc.: Killing of Ahmedis, Sunni and Shias; thousand in jails under the islamic inquisition accused of Blasphemy without any basis. Have you not seen the practices of Female Genital Mutilation in the Islamic countries, the multple wives, the seclusion of women there ...I a Secular Humanist and I support the traditional marriage as between a man and a woman through the natural sexual route, i am against homosexuality and Gay-marriage, but i found that it is the Christianity which is promoting these destructive sexual orientations, in Uk it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who is the most loud voice for Gays ... Here goes your religion, Madam....!

Madam, the very word Secularism was coined during the 16th Centurs wars of Christian religion in Europe, to escape the too absurd and too destructive religion in the public space cauding wars, deaths, destructions and disabilities ...

Iraq is an excellent illustration of why a faith-based mindset is so dangerous to the world. Bush and Blair, both deeply religious, believed there were WMDs despite there being no evidence - just as they believed in the existence of God despite there being no evidence. And, of course, they _knew_ right was on their side . . .

Matt, that is a total non-sequitir. "They wouldn't have believed in weapons of mass destruction if they were atheists!" is bollocks. Virtually nobody, religious or atheist, only believes in that which has evidence. You believe in good and bad don't you? There is no evidence for that either, yet you are capable of morality and ethics. You do this by virtue of being an irrational rather than purely logical being, and thus can make judgement calls on matters based on ideas you don't need to prove to yourself.

This is NOT to say that religion is necessary, but it is to say that methods of holding beliefs or gaining insights without proof are necessary for any human endeavour which lies outside our biologically compelled behaviour, whether that be religion, music, literature, science, debate, law, or philosophy.

Secondly, David, some of the biggest cheer leaders for that war were atheists. While Bush and Blair (the supposed Christians) were doing it for oil and profit the atheists (Hitchens and Harris) were supporting it to stomp on religion. Who are the ones doing it for "good" exactly?

Reading this article brought to mind the piece "The Pope's political troops", from the New Statesman, written about 10 years ago (http://www.newstatesman.com/200211250012). This initiative by Baroness Warsi seems to be part of a plan that has been gestating for a long time.

Why is the photo taken from a scene in Star Wars?

Is there such a thing as secularphobia? If so I think Warsi exhibits it in spades.

What's odd about referring to the Pope as the Holy Father? It's pretty much equivalent to referring to the Queen as Her Majesty - something that no one would comment on a visiting dignitary doing.

The Baroness is clearly attempting to copy the same tediously hysterical paranoia currently afflicting the USA, which can be summed up thus: 'If you dont allow the widespread, vigorous promotion of faith, no matter how illiberal or indoctrinating, then YOU are a militant secularist hellbent on pushing people of faith to the margins.

To which we reply, 'And you are nuttier than a barrelfull of monkeys on acid!'

"at the hands of those semi-mythical bogeymen the militant secularists"

Just who are the real deniers of fact here? Of course there are people who have a need to stomp on religious belief wherever they see it. To call such people "semi-mythical" is to call religious fanatis "semi-mythical", but we wouldn't catch you doing that would we?

So, Sir Michael, who exactly is the militant secularist that you know?

You know, a real card carrying AK47 wielding bomb belt wearing secularist?

Thought not.

Piffle fart.

Memo to Sayeeda - bnow go to Turkey and give the government about "militant secularism". Then we can see you get derided in an Islamic country, too.

"Miltant secularism" makes about as much rhetorical sense as "Guerilla peacekeeping force".

@sir

'"at the hands of those semi-mythical bogeymen the militant secularists"

Just who are the real deniers of fact here?'

I largely agree, but the difference is that the leaders of the religious fanatics do exhibit much in common with many "totalitarian regimes", whereas the secular leaders exhibit nothing of the kind. Once again sir refuses to acknowledge the difference between some deluded followers who call themselves secularists, and the people they might call their leaders.

Sayeesa Varsi came from where? Instead of going off to see the Pope, her energies might be better employed fighting for the rights of Muslim women. Perhaps a flying visit to Egypt to give them a piece of here mind for their virginity testing of female protestors, among other things. She could then head on to Afghanistan and show some solidarity with the downtrodden Afghan women,assuming of course that she doesn't run into some of the more militant men of that country. She makes me tired this unelected woman who seems to have taken upon herself the mantle of the mother of the nation. Please. Someone muzzle her. We cannot be dragged back to the thrall of religious dogma of any creed.

Cyprian Latewood
14 February 2012 at 12:40
Why is the photo taken from a scene in Star Wars?

Ha ha. Nice one!

"Why is the photo taken from a scene in Star Wars?"

(comment by Cyprian Latewood)

Yes, and if there was a caption the Pope would be thinking "The farce is strong in this one"

All religious faith is deeply weird, life-impoverishing tosh. That is not a position I expect to hear expressed by the tiresome Baroness Warsi. On the other hand I do not expect to hear her express any view which could possibly be construed as an attempt to diminish in the slightest degree the secular nature of our secular state or to undermine our current notion of public discourse as a religion-free zone rather than an incendiary "level battlefield" of competing faith positions.