Return to: Home | Life & Society | Society

10 comments from readers

upbeatskeptic
17 July 2008 at 17:35

In my experience the most prejudiced, bigoted, hate-filled diatribe comes from those without any particular faith admonishing those who do. My guess is that should religious organisations become more intimately involved with public services (which, to a large extent, they already do) then it would not lead to mass discrimination of non-faith members. I’m not so sure, however, the same can be said of the other way round.

Also, if you’re going to deny people the right to be ‘Christian’ because they simply fill in a form claiming they are so without regularly participating in active worship, then by that rule should not the doubling of BHA membership be considered similarly irrelevant? I mean, surely to become a member you just fill in a form, without any extra devotional commitment required….

A fairer discussion would consider, then, the relationship between Christian belief and identity, and Christian worship. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the BHA membership went on to have specifically humanist weddings and funerals (whatever they may look like - I have family members who had a civil wedding but it was for convenience, not because they were humanists, and so it would be disingenuous to claim them as such simply by default) - I bet the percentage would not be all too different from the 7 percent of the 'Christian' community.

Fra59e
17 July 2008 at 18:44

Humanism too involves faith. Humanism rests on the assumption - without any evidence whatsoever - that the survival and well-being of the human species is a good thing.

DavidPollock
19 July 2008 at 12:43

mtm83 is sadly ill-informed. When religious organisations have taken over public services the record shows and the law allows that they discriminate against non- or other-religious employees and often create a religious environment that is hostile to all but their co-religionists.

Humanists advocate a "secular" society - which does not mean atheist but neutral as between beliefs - i.e., protecting the freedom of belief of everyone excwept those so bigotted that they see it an an infringement of their freedom that they cannot use our public institutions and to try to impose their own beliefs.

As to the census, humanists do not wish to "deny people the right to be ‘Christian’" but if they come from the 20-30% of the 70% ticking "Christian" who not only never go to church but in other surveys say they have no religion (no other poll has come anywhere close to a figure of 70% of Christians), then it is a pretty meaningless attachment - the weakest sort of cultural association. The census question came immediately after one on ethnicity, which may explain this - as does the fact that the census forms are filled in by heads of household answering for their whole families!

upbeatskeptic
19 July 2008 at 15:11

I think one would further need to explain how any non-faith based organisations don't proceed to do exactly the same. The humanists and the secularists, for example, promot their doctrines, political and philosophical, just as much as any faith group, and, as I tried to suggest, in my experience are often more intolerant to those that oppose their creeds than any faith groups I've ever come across.

Which brings me on to the main point. The notion of a secular society that is 'neutral as between beliefs' is entirely fallacious; often beliefs simply collide, and in this situation the 'secular society' must take a principled stand. Quite often this stand is simply that of the anti-religion, because this allows a superficial neutrality, in the sense that it does not explicitly ally with any one particular religion, although it does ally with a particular philosophical and political doctrine common to the 'secular' cause. However, it is not really neutral, and can be as severe and uncompromising as any 'religious' stance - your comment that 'protecting the freedom of belief of everyone excwept [sic] those so bigotted that they see it an an infringement of their freedom that they cannot use our public institutions and to try to impose their own beliefs' demonstrates precisely this. No doubt 'those so bigoted' will almost entirely be composed of those individuals, with faith or without, who contravene the creedal beliefs of the aggressive secularism of contemporary society.

In essence, it's a case of pot calling kettle black.

David Flint
21 July 2008 at 07:05

Humanists, Fra 59e, do believe that "the survival and well-being of the human species is a good thing" but this isn't an assumption about the world. It's a moral commitment and a basis for action. As such it doesn't require evidence.

And, it's a moral commitment shared by many religious people and thus the basis for a shared morality. This shared morality is the basis of those decisions that a secular state must make when, as mtm83 points out, it must choose between conflicting moral opinions.

DavidPollock
25 July 2008 at 12:02

Re mtm83's 19 July comment: apologies for my mistyping previously: I should have referred to those who "see it an an infringement of their freedom that they cannot use our public institutions to try to impose their own beliefs'. Is that what mtm83 defends? Many do: they want to take over shared institutions and public services as a means of evangelism - for example, the writers of the recent C of E report Moral but no Compass". Why should the general public allow that? Why cannot people of different beliefs - religious or non-religious - live together and share the publc space? Is there a better way? The only alternative seems to be fighting for sectional advantage.

Our society has been effectively secular for decades, subject to restricted residual areas of theocracy in religious schools, bishops in the Lords, and some 'dignified' areas of the constitution. But this Government has a policy of handing over public services to religious bodies and providing inadequate protection for employees and users. This has to be challenged before it gets out of hand and we find ourselves governed by religious bodies in thin disguise as the local job centre or NHS dentistry service - I joke not: the Government wants the first, the C of E the second.

PS: Why do so many people hide their identities in forums such as this?

chanmakhna
30 July 2008 at 07:59

In a recent article Andrew Walden offers some amazing statistics: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every day, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.” These are some remarkable figures indeed.

The second story involved the baptism of former Muslim Magdi Allam by the Pope on Easter Sunday. This was a noted conversion which made world headlines. Allam, an Italian journalist and author, left Islam, renouncing it as a religion of violence. He said, “Upon my first Easter as a Christian I have not only discovered Jesus, but I have discovered for the first time the true and only God”.

As already mentioned, the rise in numbers in Islam is mainly due to demographics, not conversions. “This is more than the normal flow between two large religious communities. Islam can point to little in the way of recent conversions. Its claim to be the world’s fastest-growing religion stems mostly from the high birth rate in Islamic countries, whose infant mortality rates have been cut by the introduction of Western medicine. Christian growth is based on adult conversion. As leading Christian evangelist Wolfgang Simpson writes, ‘More Muslims have come to Christ in the last two decades than in all of history’.”

Walden looks at a number of Muslim countries where significant conversion rates to Christianity are occurring. He also looks at Western nations where Muslims are leaving their faith: “Islam is also losing adherents in areas where Islamist harassment is heavy on the streets. The London Times estimates 15% of Muslims living in Western Europe have left Islam - 200,000 in the UK alone. Those who leave often face harassment, threats, and attack.”

chanmakhna
30 July 2008 at 08:01

He examines a number of Middle Eastern nations, and presents some encouraging figures. Consider some cases: “In Afghanistan , for example, there were only 17 known evangelical Christians in the country before al-Qaeda attacked the United States . Today, there are well over 10,000 Afghan followers of Christ and the number is growing steadily.”

In Uzbekistan there were no known Muslim converts to Christ in 1990, but now there are more than 30,000. In Egypt more “than 1 million Egyptians have trusted Christ over the past decade or so, report Egyptian church leaders. The Egyptian Bible Society told me they used to sell about 3,000 copies of the Jesus film a year in the early 1990s. But in 2005 they sold 600,000 copies, plus 750,000 copies of the Bible on tape (in Arabic) and about a half million copies of the Arabic New Testament.”

In Sudan, despite “a ferocious civil war, genocide and widespread religious persecution, particularly in the Darfur region - or perhaps because of such tragedies - church leaders there tell me that more than 1 million Sudanese have made decisions to follow Jesus Christ just since 2001. Since the early 1990s, more than 5 million Sudanese have become followers of Jesus. Seminary classes to train desperately-needed new pastors are held in mountain caves. Hundreds of churches have been planted, and thousands of small group Bible studies are being held in secret throughout the country.”

In Iran in”1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini led the Islamic Revolution, there were only about 500 known Muslim converts to Christianity. Today, interviews with two dozen Iranian pastors and church leaders reveals that there are well over 1 million Shia Muslim converts to Christianity.”

------------------

Muslims may be gaining numbers mainly because of larger families, but Christians are growing in number because of an actual encounter with the living Saviour who once was dead but now lives. These are exciting times, and in the midst of so much gloom and doom, we need to be aware of such good news stories. God is at work and is doing powerful things in the Muslim world. We need to keep praying, believing and acting to see more of this take place.

First Ade
05 August 2008 at 17:55

mtm83 says: "In my experience the most prejudiced, bigoted, hate-filled diatribe comes from those without any particular faith admonishing those who do."

Assuming this to be true, it strikes me as more telling about her limited experience than anything else. I have never heard an atheist or secularist saying that somebody with a religious conviction should be killed because of their belief, nor have I heard atheists say that the law should allow for punitive measures against those who speak out against secularism or atheism.

mtm83 may be confusing "hate-filled diatribes" with frustration at talking to people who will insist that their beliefs in fantastical gods and demons should allow them special rights and allowances, not to mention prejudices. The Anglican church knows a story or two about that one at the mo... it might be time to broaden our experiences...

upbeatskeptic
08 August 2008 at 21:19

Apologies for my silence, I haven't been checking the thread. A couple of brief responses;

To Mr. Pollock, I would simply reply that one has yet to show how secularism does not hold true to its own dogmatic prejudices, and upon the basis of these assert an equally violent authoritarianism upon all those against its teachings. In this sense, I have no objection to your argument that public bodies should not be used to prejudice against people, I simply suggest that the aggressive secularism of contemporary society proceeds to do exactly this. As such, when systems do collide, I do not find the argument “we’re more right than you because we do not subscribe to a particular (atheistically defined) religion” to be a convincing one – we simply end up chasing our own tail.

To Mr/Mrs Ade, I would reply that neither have I ever met a person with a ‘religious’ conviction arguing that atheists and/or secularists should be killed on account of their belief, so we’re even on that one, though I have heard the secular/atheist lobby arguing for punitive action against those that contradict its (particularly moral) creeds. As examples, I would offer the recent successful court case brought by a registrar who was dismissed for feeling unable to register homosexual couples, or the slow drift toward coercion for doctors who, for whatever reason, refuse to conduct abortions.

As a brief aside, I must add that I have never come across a Christian, Muslim or Jew who believes in ‘fantastical gods or demons’ – I would venture to suggest that perhaps you lack understanding of that you wish to ridicule.