money for nothingness
From THE TELEGRAPH:
The British Humanist Association, which is running a campaign get rid of faith schools and wants to end the Church of England's position as the established religion, has been given a grant of £35000 by the Government's equality watchdog and is using it to stage a series of debates about the place of religion in public life.
Critics say it is wrong for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to give taxpayers' money to a controversial organisation whose stance would be found objectionable by many members of the public.
Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister who specialises in religious discrimination, said: "It's a bit like paying the Taliban to lecture on women's rights. There is the question of whether this is what Government money should be going for, particularly in a time of recession. If we're having a debate on religion, should we be paying one side of the argument to hold it, especially with public money?"
The BHA says it is dedicated to bringing about "a world without religious privilege or discrimination" and represents "people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs".
The BHA is the "official campaign partner" of the atheist bus campaign, launched earlier this year, which seeks to place on London bendy-buses a series of adverts declaring: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".
COMMENT: I fully understand atheism and possibly spend more time considering it for myself than most agnostics. But these so-called humanists I just don't get. They are just so destructive - they always campaign for the negative whatever they say about themselves. If they truly were "people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs" they would just STFU and live and let live.
I guess about 5% of the English population is part of the"established church." The bravest we ever get nowadays is to lecture people about spending too much money at Christmas and to make comments like "the rich are responsible for the rest of us being poor." In other words, bog-standard humanist beliefs. Our church schools are exactly the same as any 100% state school in respect of the curriculum. They may have very bland and wishy-washy Christian assemblies, but any student can opt out them (although even the Muslim students don't tend to).
We are not financed by the state. We have one privilege - the right of a few bishops to sit in the non-legislative house of parliament and nobody, except the bishops, give a toss about that. In return our old ladies pay for the upkeep of most of our country's architectural treasures.
So what are these English humanists after?
Do they think that if they get rid of the Christians their enemy will disappear along with them?
I don't think so - he'll just change his name to Allah and then they will have something to complain about.
14 comments:
I was struck by the existence of a "Roman Catholic barrister who specialises in religious discrimination": If there is such a legal specialty, though, I'm not particularly surprised that he's an RC.
I've told you, they are anti-theists. It's a form of a religion itself, which is deliciously ironic, don't you think?
I would love to live and let live. I only get militant when the believers aren't willing to return the favor.
IT
This is the Telegraph reporting the story. I would agree that the BHA is a religion (a non-theistic one). They do funerals, weddings, etc. I will also note that (a) the state supported faith schools include the Vardy schools which have apparently taught creationism and (b) discriminate on religious grounds (e.g., preference given to church goers).
Anyway what is wrong with a few debates about the place of religion in public life? The commission has also apparently funded 8 other religious (apparently theistic) organizations to do similar events. In addition looking at the list of speakers it includes at least a few avowed Christians and Jews. conferences web site
IT
As far as I'm concerned you can think whatever you like about God or his absence. What's it to me?However, if you believe in unrestrained capitalism you can feck off out of here. The way I see it - God can take care of herself whilst the starving millions can't.
The BHA are cowards. They continually attack the Church of England which is a secular organisation that does God on Sunday mornings. But they are never so scathing about other faiths and the religious right. They are just a bunch of talking heads who want to sell books and get on Big Brother.
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life
The thing that's offensive about the above, is the ASSUMPTION that "A" automatically leads to "B".
[Believe me, the moments that I'm most worried/least enjoying my life, are those bleak moments when I consider the possibility that Love isn't the most eternal force in this (or any) universe, i.e., that "there's probably no God" :-( ]
MP, why on earth would you think I'm an unfettered capitalist? Good God, man, I'm an academic!
If I were an unfettered capitalist I would have made a mint in investment banking or health insurance, rather than pottering along trying to do something useful like cancer research.
I think unfettered capitalism is also a religion. Or maybe a cult.
I don't think you're an unfettered capitalist, IT. I'm just pointing out how unimportant our religious beliefs are in the big scheme of things. Jesus never once asked anybody whether or not they believed in God. But he did get cross about oppression. Which is pretty much the blog policy. So, I was, in fact, just agreeing with you.
Hey, there's something to be said for requiring all state funded schools to be secular. Face it, when some religious denominations are eliminationist or dominionist in intent and practice, handing them free money to teach subjects in a way that ignores science or removes secular causation is A Bad Idea. Conservative fundamentalist / evangelical Protestant US Christian history textbooks used in home-schooling and sectarian schools give (currently) chilling or inaccurate interpretations of American history: Native Americans deserved to be cleared from the land desired by white settlers because the N.A.s were vicious heathens. Slavery was the best thing to happen to blacks, because they had an opportunity to hear the Gospel. All the Founders were devout Christians. (false). God appointed the USA to be the rightful leader of the world.
This is not the way to build a functional democracy.
I haven't even addressed the issue of fundamentalist Muslim schools.
I'd reserve judgment about the BHA debates until the speakers' lists are published. 35K # seems steep unless television production is involved.
NancyP
To reverse your comment about me, sometimes you Mad Priest hit the nail on t'ead but other times I'd rather read The Sun for nourishment.
The Telegraph wrote: 'The BHA says it is dedicated to bringing about "a world without religious privilege or discrimination" and represents "people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs".
You wrote: 'But these so-called humanists I just don't get. They are just so destructive - they always campaign for the negative whatever they say about themselves. If they truly were "people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs" they would just STFU and live and let live.'
It's rather amusing that you copy (but seemingly didn't read) the motives of the BHA, but extrapolate their own definition of themselves to create a strawman. Let's see those two original quotes together:
"[P]eople who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs"... seeking "a world without religious privilege or discrimination".
Please, just think about that for a moment.
If anything, they campaign is to remove the "negative": discrimination over the parts of the population by promotion of religion over non-religion, discrimination over the rest of the population by the promotion of your religion over other religions, the ability for the heads of your religion (unelected by the rest of the population) to assume a right to represent/browbeat same, etc.
You're wrong that "nobody, except the bishops, give a toss about" their being in the HoL; there are plenty of us that don't care for the church's special privileges in this regard. Admittedly there are also many of us that don't care for the unelectedness of the HoL at all, but that's a separate issue.
As for state finance, churches can, under certain circumstances, receive public money, and of course the CoE has either a reduced of or exemption from taxation (depending on the mode of the finance in question). This can make a huge difference to fundraising. If it doesn't, I guess the church would happily abrogate its tax privileges, no?
If the "architectural treasures" truly belong to the country as you claim, then why not have the church donate them to the country (i.e. an organisation like The National Trust) and then have the tax-payer provide for their upkeep in the standard way such things are done? I suspect, the church wants to keep these as part of their £5.67 billion portfolio of property and other investments. Considering this sanction of gambling (sorry, how impolitic of me, "good stewardship of assets aligned neatly with the Parable of the Talents") somehow I don't think it's just a bunch of concerned tea-drinking little old ladies keeping the church in eucharist goblets and stained glass. I'll say nothing of the church's approbation for lottery funds (PDF) or funding for church schools.
I'm sure the BHA and others of that ilk will happily "just STFU and live and let live" when those of church choose to do the same. Perhaps you could give Slee, Williams, Sentamu and the rest of the talking heads a nod in this direction?
You wrote: "So what are these English humanists after?
"Do they think that if they get rid of the Christians their enemy will disappear along with them?
"I don't think so - he'll just change his name to Allah and then they will have something to complain about."
It's just occured to me: I don't think I've ever seen passive-aggressive fatwa-envy before. Should I give you props for that?
I'll mention it again seeing as it doesn't appear to have registered: "a world without religious privilege or discrimination". This is hardly the same thing as "a world without religion". Christians are not their enemy, christian (and other religious) privilege is what's of concern.
By the way, they're the British Humanist Association. And, if they really are a bona fide "religion" (in which case they should receive the same privileges as other religions, should they not? Either that, or denigrating humanism as "just another religion" as some of a theistic bent are wont to do on occasion [as exemplified in some of the comments here] simply undermines the assumed supercilious position of their own religion) then please direct me to their articles of faith, their scriptures, their dogmas and diktats, their traditions, their places of worship, their high priests and all of the other trappings of religiosity. I've obviously missed them in my travels.
I aspire to be like "The Sun"
It's the benchmark of real journalism
If the BHA campaigned for a world without religious privilege, I would join them (I am, after all, a humanist) but most BHA heroes like Dawkins and Grayling attack religion whilst enjoying all the privileges of academia.
If you look back on this blog you will come across many instances where I suggest that secular and religious humanists make common cause together against both religious and secular fundamentalists. At the moment, the BHA eschews subtlety and goes for lumping all Christians (mainly) together as some sort of evil empire. As someone who works for less than £20000 a year (6 days a week and over 8 hours a day) I would like to know where all this privilege is.
I read their position as one which thinks that religion should remain entirely in the private sphere with no public influence.
I can;t help but think that this would be positive in its outcome. There is little about the religious worldview which I think enhances society - even the issues they are to the left on, like third world aid, I lean to the right (I would stop all aid tomorrow until population control is made compulsory)
Post a Comment