Why secularists make Christians angry (and vice versa)

A report from Premier Christian Media is highlighting how Christians feel more persecuted. The rise of secularism is one thing that is blamed for this.

But it’s cause and effect. If Christians (and other religions, notably Islam) didn’t make ridiculous demands, secularists would be less vocal. It becomes a game of ping-pong, with each side trying to hit the ball harder each time it comes to its end of the table.

If secularists complain that there’s too much religion on TV, say, that’s probably because there is (disproportionately so), and the BBC and other broadcasters are guilty of kowtowing to these beliefs, instead of – as I’m sure would be quite acceptable – making interesting programmes about religion to enable us to increase our knowledge, just as we might seek to increase our knowledge of cooking by watching Jamie Oliver. (No, scrub that. TV cooking is just a spectator sport for morons, but I digress.)

I’m not saying secularists are always right – and often one wishes they’d stick to secularism if that is their only remit, and stop pontificating on spiritual matters or issues of ontology and theology. After all, secularism is just a case of wishing to chuck the churches and other religious organisations out of public decision making and put them on a level playing field with any other group that seeks the ear of those in power.

If secularists have “humanist” in their name, then that’s a different matter, because the term “humanism” seems to have such a wide scope that it invites its devotees to say just about anything. However, not all humanists are as freethinking as they like to make out, and some so-called freethinkers can be quite dogmatic, as a glance at the letters pages of the Freethinker will confirm.

But, on the whole, secularists pure and simple or secularists who are humanists, rationalists and/or freethinkers have the moral high ground as far as this humble blogger is concerned. Religion is a huge power game, and should be put in its place. It’s far removed from the simple sets of beliefs that probably gave rise to it. Spirituality is a personal thing, as is belief in gods and other supernatural agencies.

Most secularists would argue that people should be allowed to enjoy their beliefs, practise their rituals, celebrate their festivals, honour their deities – as long as they don’t wish (a) to push it all down everyone’s throat or (b) to restrict others’ freedom, either to have religious beliefs or not to have religious beliefs.

And that, if anything, is the strongest case for keeping religion in the private sphere. I’m sure few people object to a bit of sentimental hokum at Christmas, say. I for one like the sound of carols, and the odd crib scene in a town centre doesn’t send me into a vapour; church bells can be pleasing to the ear, provided they don’t keep one awake or frighten the horses. Christianity was here a long time before it began to decline, and it’s informed much of our culture.

If I saw a harmless display celebrating Diwali, say, I’d think the same.

But religionists who shout and throw their toys out of the pram can turn mild secularists into raging, uncompromising fanatics, complete with pitchforks and torches.

It's child abuse! Children AS YOUNG AS 4 to be 'educated' in atheism! What is the world coming to?

Yes, it's a long headline above, and reflects this blogger's pissed-off-ness with the likes of the Daily Hate (sorry, Mail – old habits die hard).

Its headline screams: CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS FOUR TO BE EDUCATED IN ATHEISM.

What is really happening is that humanism will be incorporated into religious education in primary schools in Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire (in the north of England), to accompany the religions that are there: Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam. So kids will be told that certain religions exist, and this is what they say, and that there are people who don't do religion, and this is what they say.

Simple and, if you're going to teach religion at all, sensible. Religions can then be put into a context: that there are people who have no religion and there are people who have.

But it's not just the Mail's take: it's also lousy journalism. A Mail hack knows he can get away with the utmost shit if it leads to a screaming headline with some sensationalism in it, manufactured though that sensationalism is in this case.

So he gets brownie points.

However, if you read on you realise it's a story that comes down in favour of humanism and the new bit of the curriculum. There's even a priest quoted:

Reverend Kevin Logan, a local journalist, author and religious community leader, said: "It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.

"They are religions like any others. It is just that people worship man instead of a god.

"I am certainly not worried about Christianity. It can stand against any belief and come out in a good light."

And others quoted in the story come out in favour of a more sensible approach, too. So why do the headline (which is down to the subeditor, usually, not the writer) and the intro make out it's a crime against humanity to teach kids as young as four about atheism?

And nowhere, you'll note, does it venture to suggest that it's perhaps more dangerous to teach kids as young as four about religion, rather than leaving that till later in their school lives, when they are better able to offer critical judgement.

Bye-bye, Christmas? We don’t think so!

Oh, dear! Christmas could be banned, shock, horror! And gay “rights” may have to be upheld (the quote marks are deliberate – read on).

The wacky UK Christian organisation Christian Concern for Our nation (CCFON) are worried about the Equality Bill, which is “so complex that interpreting it could lead to bizarre decisions by town halls and other organisations”, and are quoting bishops who have voiced this very fear.

Basically – and you can read CCFON’s concerns here – they feel that equality will mean a council, for instance, won’t be able to favour Christianity above, say, Islam or Hinduism, and so will be reluctant to call something Christian or Christmas, but wil have to bow to the other religions, too, and come up with something else.

If this really is the case, and councils will ban the use of the word “Christmas”, then that would, indeed, be a shame, because that’s what we call it. We don’t have to believe in what it means to Christians, and many people don’t understand the significance of it, anyway. It’s just a time for overeating, getting pissed and receiving presents. And, whether we like Christianity or not, it applied the name “Christmas” to this time of year centuries ago, and that’s our tradition.

We don’t complain that days of the week are named after gods such as Odin and Thor and Frigga (or Fricka, take your pick).

Even among those for whom Christmas is a more reflective time, there will be many who see it as a time for family and friends, concerts and just doing different things, but won’t “celebrate” the birth of guy two thousand years ago who may or may not have existed at all, and almost certainly not in the clinical way he’s portrayed.

But historically it’s still called Christmas, and I, for one, don’t even mind the odd carol. See my article in G&LH of last December on why I wouldn’t want to take the Christ out of Christmas – but see it only as a syllable.

However, it’s a syllable that’s part of the word that we’ve come to use historically for a time of the year when we begin the climb to spring and punctuate the darkness of winter with mirth and joy, however we decide to do it.

I do wonder, though, whether these Christians are overstating things. Quite often, tabloids come out with all kinds of horror stories about how Christmas is being banned, and it turns out they’ve got the story arse about face or are just stirring it for ethnic minorities.

CCFON also obsess, as you would expect, about sexuality, of course:

Under the provisions of the Bill, public bodies could also be forced by law to promote homosexual and transsexual “rights”. Also, churches and other Christian groups could be forced to employ practising homosexuals, transsexuals and civil partners.

Note the scare quotes around “rights”. If atheists put quotes around the word when talking of Christian “rights” (oops, I just did it!) they’d be moaning. They refuse to see that it’s not a question of rights above others’ rights, just rights to be treated equally and have relationships recognised in the way hettie relationships are recognised. What’s wrong with that?

Pillocks!

Gods move in mysterious ways

Terry Pratchett, eat your heart out! Visitors have flocked to the temple in the Indian coastal district of Kendrapara, eastern Orissa, bearing rice and fruit to pay homage to . . . a turtle

And the villagers have refused to hand over the creature, even though it’s illegal to keep turtles in captivity.

Just as a god was trapped in the body of a turtle in Pratchett’s Small Gods, the villagers believe the god Jagannath is the turtle-incarnate entity.

The priest of the temple, Ramesh Mishra, told reporters, “Lord Jagannath has visited our village in the form of a turtle. We will not allow anybody to take the turtle away.”

Barmy McSwami

The yogi who reckons yoga can “cure” homosexuality is moving to Scotland, according to Britain’s Telegraph.

Swami “Baba” Ramdev plans to transform a remote Scottish Island, Little Cumbrae, into a yoga and traditional teaching centre.

If he stuck to yoga instead of “diseases” that can be “cured” by it, it could be a good thing. As I said in a previous post, “Barmy swami”, yoga as a discipline for mind and body can be a good thing.

God exists?

He asks the question and they give their answer, in the UK Channel 4 television programme Revelations: How Do You Know God Exists?, next Sunday at 7 p.m.

According to the BBC publication Radio Times, Antony Thomas went straight to the top to find out the answer. He asked the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, Muslim theologian Tariq Ramadan, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Hindu Swami Pramtattva.

The magazine asked Antony Thomas, “How many of them gave you a clear answer?”

They all said the same thing – God’s existence is evidenced by the goodness they see in people,” he replied, and “all of them, with the exception of Tariq Ramadan, wanted to see the questions in advance. I thought this was a bit strange – I’ve never been asked to do this before. And some of them refused to answer certain questions.

There could hardly be a more weird answer than the one they all gave. It seems that God implants a little goodness in people and stops at that. So much for an all-powerful, all-loving god!

Barmy swami

Psst! Wanna be cured of being a poofter? Easy-peasy. Just get into the lotus position, take some deep breaths, let them out slowly (remember to breathe in again after each exhalation, though, or you might go blue in the face).

Hey presto! Before you can say Bhagavad Gita, you’re straight.

Well, that’s what this barmpot thinks who’s featured in a Pink News story I read yesterday.

Swami Baba Ramdev (pictured), a yoga guru, has filed a challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment from earlier this week that said homosexuality should be decriminalised.

He filed the challenge saying homosexuality was a “disease” and could be cured by yoga.

According to the Indian Express, he said: “It can be treated like any other congenital defect. Such tendencies can be treated by yoga, pranayama (breathing exercises) and other meditation techniques.”

So now you know. Just like other religionists, this guy thinks a bit of body bending and breathing is a cure.

What he’s done is to give yoga a bad name. In and of itself, stripped of any required belief system, it’s good therapy, both physical and mental. No one can doubt that good breathing is important, as is body suppleness. An ability to meditate and empty the mind of “noise” must also be a good thing.

But to say it’s a “cure” for homosexuality is akin to saying it can “cure” maleness or having a palm on your hand.

Talking of which, I’ve just thought of the best way to experience the clapping of one hand. You use the one hand to slap the face of Swami Baba bloody Ramdev.

Burning question

We tend to be a bit squeamish about death. Some cultures see it as a rite of passage, and perhaps feel less scared of the Reaper.

Perhaps we ought to have a healthier attitude to death here in the West, and be able to cope with it better than we do.

Be that as it may, this week, the UK’s High Court will hear a case in which a Hindu is claiming the right to cremate a body in the open air. He was denied this in 2006 by his local council, Newcastle, but is now mounting a legal challenge.

One assumes the body he hoped to consign to the conflagration has now been dealt with in some other way, but I guess he wants to establish a principle.

Open-air funeral pyres have been illegal in the UK since 1930, and a (London) Times leading article says this should remain the case.

Whatever the views of other cultures, this is Britain, with British culture, and we’re just not used to that type of thing. So I go along with the Times leader writer.

Not to mention Mrs Bloggs’s washing, hanging out on the line and getting spotted as the lighter bits of dear old charred Mr Gupta are scattered to the four winds.

Faiths’ hopes of parity – but at what cost?

If you ever wished to ponder on just what a “faith” cacophony we have in UK schools, you could do worse than read an article in today’s Independent.

It begins by referring to the headteacher in Sheffield, Yorkshire, who stopped Muslims from having their own separate religious assembly. And quite right, too.

Some teachers, as the Indie points out, use imagination to get over potential conflicts, while keeping their assemblies broadly Christian, as they are supposed to be by law.

But just how much effort in time and logistics could be saved by getting religion out of schools altogether, except as a subject of academic study?

It continues to amaze me that the authorities just don’t see it – or don’t want to see it. Are they just plain thick?

If a school assembly is there as a meeting for the whole school, so that staff can make announcements, pupils can feel a sense of community and both staff and pupils can do whatever else they get up to in assemblies (minus the religious mumbo-jumbo, that is), then surely that is so much the better.

“Not all schools have such harmonious relationships with parents,” says Steve McCormack’s article. “The Sheffield case is one example of a disagreement escalating seriously, but there are plenty of other cases where teachers are uneasy at the way Muslim parents try to influence what happens in school.”

Yes, they can be pushy and demanding:

Another teacher[,] from a secondary school in Essex, complains about the way that Islam, and other faiths, are allowed to intrude on school life. “Every year we see some 15- and 16-year-old girls just disappearing from school,” she says. “Everyone knows it is for arranged marriages. But no one makes a fuss. If they were from other families, we wouldn’t let it happen.”

Other parents insist their children can’t do anything active, or go on school trips, during the month of Ramadan, because they are fasting during day-time. “This isn’t good for their education, and I’ve tried explaining my understanding that it’s not compulsory under Islam for children to fast during Ramadan, but they won’t budge,” says the head of a primary school in outer London. “I get the impression that fasting is treated as a badge of honour by these children and their parents.”

But it’s not only Muslim parents who make life difficult for headteachers, says McCormack:

At a school near the outskirts of London, a head teacher recently found himself under intense pressure from parents of Sikh and Hindu pupils, because he allowed Muslim children to use a hut in the playground for prayers on Friday lunchtimes, under the supervision of a parent volunteer.

“When this news got out, some of the Sikh and Muslim parents were up in arms,” he says. “It had an incendiary effect. I was having people coming into school and talking to me for an hour about their unhappiness at this decision. They were very hostile, but I did not change my decision.”

My case rests. Religion is divisive, toxic and dangerous – or can be. Left to the home and the meeting house (be that a mosque, a church or a madrassa) it can then be contained, and its effects need not infect others against their will.

But, of course, we have to kowtow to all religions, and it’s our kids who are suffering. Do the authorities give a rat’s arsehole as long as cuddly “faith” gets its way? Do they hell!

What if . . .?

Just had a wicked thought. Some Hindus held a ceremony yesterday to mark their new Hindu school, which the British taxpayer is forking out for so that British children who happen to have Hindu-believing parents can have their brains stuffed with bullshit.

Don't get me wrong. There are wonderful, colourful stories tied up with Hinduism, and, as a mythology, it takes some beating. But let us teach about the Upanishads etc., not teach that what happens in these fascinating stories is actual, factual truth. And (yes, I know, we secularists do bang on about this, but it's true) it's just more segregation.

My wicked thought. Yes. I'll get to that in a minute.

This school is the Krishna-Avanti primary and it's going to be in London and will offer 236 places when it opens, possibly in 2009. It will teach the National Curriculum, it says, but, if it were going to teach only that, there would be no need for a Hindu school, would there? No, the idea is to ensure that the religion pumped into the kids' minds from birth continues to be pumped into their minds by teachers and peers as they grow older, depriving them of the opportunity to mix, in an educational establishment, with kids and teachers of all religions and none.

The British Humanist Association says there will be selection bias. The head teacher says no: the school will "promote community cohesion, inclusion and value inter-cultural and religious diversity".

If these people really believe that, why do they bother with a segregation school? But we know the answer to that: grubby politicians know there are votes in the ever-growing immigrant communities, and, anyway, it just doesn't do to be beastly to good, kind, faultless, cuddly religion, does it?

My wicked thought. Oh, yes. Well, you see, they held this ceremony yesterday called Bhumi Puja, during which they chanted and banged cymbals and all that, and sought permission from Mother Earth for the school to be built there.

And my thought was this: what if she'd said no? Seriously, what if that had happened? Would they go back to the drawing board and find another piece of land?

It will be interesting, assuming these segregation schools continue, to watch the Hindu ones to see if Mother Earth ever says no, piss off, find somewhere else. OK, we know Mother Earth won't actually use words, but these people presumably feel they are interpreting what higher entities say, just as Christians, conveniently, all seem to know what is in the mind of the ineffable God. My bet is that Mother Earth will always say yes – unless there's a Plan B that has also got the permission of those who really count in these matters, the planning authorities.

So Mother Common Sense has whispered in my ear and told me her sister Mother Earth will always say yes. Waste of a planning application otherwise, innit?