Atheists To Win!

Great news today for the Secular Movement as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor declares that the practice of being intolerant to anyone of any religious belief will ultimately wipe out Christianity.

Yes!  It’s true.  Every time you berate someone for believing in an omnipotent and and ever loving Sky Fairy you grate away a little bit at them until you get them to the point where they not only won’t express such awful and untrue things they also won’t practice any part of the Christian ethos, tolerance, trust and compassion will be eschewed by them particularly with regards to you.  Remember, whatever they say about their faith just go “It’s not true, you’re fooling yourself, are you stupid?  Maybe you want young boys to be molested.”  Eventually they’ll either cave or they’ll hit you.  So stand there holding your bloody nose and go “Dats nod a bery Grisdian agd, you gahd really be Grisdian gad you?” and call your own damn ambulance, no one’s going to do it for you.

OK.

You don’t need to have a Christian framework to be compassionate.  But some people like to.  Some people find faith, security and solace in belief.  Why do other people feel a compunction to rip that away from them?

Sure bad things have been done dishonestly in the name of faith but so have good things, honestly.  Why do some atheists feel the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Many of us of faith have seen the awful things done by some people claiming to be act in the name of God and we deplore them too.  It doesn’t mean that we’re going to rip apart faith to expunge them.  When you find a bad apple in your fruit bowl do you take the whole bowl out and burn it?

Incidentally, intelligent readers will have spotted my conspicuous use of the word “some”.  Some atheists, some Christians.  There are no hard and fast rules for either group (although some Christians do follow rules that are both hard and fast).

That “some” with Atheists won’t apply to David Penberthy who penned an interesting article a couple of years ago entitled, “Please God Spare Us The Born Again Atheists“, in which he deplores the behaviour of many nouveau Atheists in the Dawkins mould who feel a compunction to go out into the world and evangelise their lack of faith:

“The once gentle conviction that there is no God, and that in an ideal world, everyone would stop fighting over the supremacy of their imagined deity, is increasingly becoming the preserve of aggressive loudmouths who are every bit as annoying as those Jehovah’s Witnesses who used to knock on the door at 9am on a Sunday while you were sleeping off a big night.”

And so I find myself in agreement with a Cardinal and an Atheist.  Funny place to be in.

 

Proselytizing Atheists

I started writing this blog earlier this week in response to a slightly odd article in the Spectator from Nick Cohen on “The Spectre of Militant Secularism”, but I find these proselytizing atheists so tedious that I stopped.  However now others have started to wade in on the issue and I thought I might as well.  The problem with opining on this is that it will attract these proselytizing atheists, but as I can moderate comments then I’ll start by saying that if you comment just to have a go then I’ll moderate the comment.  This doesn’t affect your freedom of speech.  You can write your own blog in response, I might even read it.  If you don’t like it, tough.

The main response you get when you mention the mainly atheist militant wing in the secularism movement is “Ooh we’re not violent”, but then militant doesn’t necessarily mean violent.  It can mean violent but it doesn’t have to.  Another is “Ooh religions have killed people”, well yes, people have used religion as an excuse to be unpleasant to other people, but people have used a number of things to be unpleasant to other people, money, knives, non-religious ideologies, few people say we should sweep them all away.  A third is “Ooh, not all secularists are atheists”, well we aren’t talking about non-atheist secularists we’re talking about Militant Atheist Secularists it’s a subset; draw a venn diagram.

However, there are Atheist Secularists out there who, for want of a better word, proselytize.  It’s hard to be in the “of faith” minority on Twitter to not encounter a few of these people.  [Twitter, in the UK at least, is apparently designed to be a group hug for left wing secularism, anyone not conforming to this group will struggle to get followers in triple figures unless they work for a major media outlet, in which case they'll get a lot of left wingers following them so they can complain about them, ok that's probably not true].  These people are so fired up by their rejection of God and their embracing of the way of Dawkins that they find themselves unable to not go on about it to anyone they find who still believes in God and agress at them until they either go away (as per winning an argument on the Internet) or they swear at them, which they take as a sign of victory “Ooh, you swore, that’s against your “God”, you can’t really believe.”  In many ways they’re a lot like “born again” believers, and at least as annoying.  In fact they are often converts themselves so very like the born again.

Proselytizing Atheists are easily spotted.

They appear to have read the Bible, although of course they haven’t.  What they have read is a list of choice quotes, probably on a website or in a Richard Dawkins book, together with an interpretation that makes them appear to be out of step with current secularist thinking.  Yes.  A series of books thousands of years old written in a particular historical context (which they overlook) doesn’t agree with current secularist thinking.  It’s such a surprise.  Not.  The books of the New Testament were written almost 2000 years ago and related to a new and, at the time, quite radical change of belief system.  As such, many parts of it, don’t try to rock the boat against the society of the time too much.  Maybe there’s a lesson there.  The books of the Old Testament were written thousands of years previously.  Part of this, Leviticus, contains various rules.  They also excite the Secularists rather a lot.  I’ll come back to Leviticus.

They tend to claim they embrace freedom of religion, although their language suggests they don’t.  They will, at some point, mention at least one of Sky Fairies or Spaghetti Monsters.  Embracing freedom implies an inherent respect for others, denigrating the beliefs of others doesn’t imply a great deal of respect.  They do of course demand respect for themselves.  As a person of faith you must respect them and if you deign to suggest that their language is at best rude or you return an insult then they may get a bit mouthy with you.

They seem to know better than those of faith what belief in a particular religion entails.  In this way they are much like people who hate Islam with their precious quotes from the Koran, they “know” a bunch of rules (mainly  from Leviticus) and say that if religious people aren’t following them then they can’t be very religious or they can’t be truly religious.  What they fail to understand is that Christianity (and Judaism and Islam who share Leviticus in one form or another) are all broad churches.  As are atheism and secularism.  Not all believe in the same way, there’s the obvious split between Catholicism and Protestantism for a start.  So, just as not all secularists are wont to jump down the throats of religionists, not all religionists are wont to reciprocate.  Leviticus is thousands of years old, originally it was a part of Judaism, latterly it’s used in part by some branches of Christianity, a lot of it relates to the laws of a people who lived in a desert climate.  Jesus himself broke aspects of Leviticus, that’s one reason why the Jewish authorities took exception to him.  Why do some parts of Christianity follow some parts of it and not others?  Times change and various parts of various Christian churches have changed with time.  Secularists will often recognise that Christianity has adapted its festivals over the centuries but seem curiously blind to the idea that it might have adapted in other ways too.  They often take this variance of degrees by which people abide by these rules as another justification to remove religion altogether from life.

Which brings me to ask just what do they really want?  They seem to say that they want to separate church and state, but many by their actions and for all their talk of freedom of religion actually seem to want a total removal of religion from all public life for all people, regardless of their faith or lack of it.  They’ll do whatever it takes to try to force their point of view on society and in doing so they’ll shout and push until they’ve persuaded or silenced all opposition and they have an apparent majority that is converted to their “cause”.  Curiously one charge they make against religion is that it won’t listen to opposition and runs roughshod over it, as Midtown sang “you’ve become everything that you had hated”.

Of course any such that run across this blog will accuse me of doing the same with the moderation policy, but well, fuck ‘em.

 

Would Gays Sue The Church?

Well … the Same Sex Marriage trolley trundles on, now with the news that the government’s “consultation” will have no bearing on the legislation.

One big issue with the proposal is that some activist groups or individual activists may try to use any new legislation as a stepping stone to force churches to allow such unions on their premises.  The legislation as put forward doesn’t require churches to marry same-sex couples.  Apparently that is to be “crystal clear”.  But would that be enough to stop activist groups pursuing the churches if they wanted to?  Many people say no.  The government’s intent is that such an action would be in contradiction to the law, and my own opinion is that it would be petty and frivolous.

As the law stands a church can refuse to marry any couple they do not wish to, if an ordinary couple get turned down by a priest or vicar because they aren’t from the parish or they aren’t of that faith or whatever then the couple just has to go and seek out a clergyman (or clergy woman these days) who will.

To my knowledge no one has ever pursued such a vicar through the courts.

To clarify my own position, if one wants to marry in a church then one wants their union to be blessed in the faith and beliefs that that church espouses, if that church considers homosexuality to be a sin and that same sex unions are an affront to God then why on earth would a same sex couple want to be married there?  Unless they were being petty, frivolous and more than a tad vindictive.

It makes no sense whatsoever to me why anyone would do such a thing and why anyone would support them in doing so.  As ever when I can make no sense of something I ask.

So I asked on Twitter, I thought perhaps some gay person trawling for an argument might over react at me but I struck lucky and it turns out that one of my followers is not only “a gay” but is capable of rational and largely non pejorative discussion.  Imagine my surprise.  I say “largely non pejorative” because there was a slightly unnecessary reference to “Sky fairies”, and yet an acknowledgement that such a comment was uncalled for was forthcoming if not an apology.

Anyway, the chap in question is @Saturos79 and new new twitter will allow you to see the full discussion on his stream, or on mine for that matter.  That’s the only good thing about new new twitter, I still prefer old new twitter myself.

I’m not going to transcribe or snapshot and paste an entire discussion here because I can’t be bothered but the nub was this:

Although he isn’t of faith himself and wouldn’t want a church wedding himself if someone wanted one and didn’t get one he’d support their right to sue.  Even though the law wouldn’t require churches to conduct such ceremonies if he thought that someone wanting to pursue such a course was genuine he would support them regardless of any other consequences beyond the issues of same sex marriages in churches.

And trust me, the moment a court decides to tell the Roman Catholic church that a matter of doctrine is illegal all merry hell will break loose.  Don’t forget that while Roman Catholics are a minority in the UK they are a majority in most European countries and in countries around the world.  No UK court is going to risk being the one that makes that judgement and if they don’t rule for the homosexuals an activist group will bounce it up a level until it hits the ECHR.  Who can see the ECHR trying to tell 30% of the world’s population that the doctrine of their church is illegal?  It’s beyond a can of worms.  It’s a massive barrel of snakes.  And it’s a barrel of snakes that a minority group in the UK might try to open for reasons of vindictive irreligion.

Of course I’m basing this on the opinions of one man.  But I think one man who is relatively moderate in his pursuit of equality.  Imagine what an extremist or a professional activism group might do in the same situation.

So I asked one.

And they haven’t got back to me.

So in place of response, conjecture.

I think, with a sinking feeling of inevitability, that they would go down the legal route and they’d do it with alacrity regardless of the consequences.  Because this is the sort of world we now live where, instead of words and persuasion people think the best way to get their point across is to wave the law at people.

 

Fight Or Compromise?

Society functions on compromise, always has, always will, you get two groups vying for attention (like 3 year olds) or for their point of view and the wrangle can go on forever until the two groups eventually stratify and go their separate ways (like the Church of England) or someone, somewhere, gives a little ground, and then someone of the other side gives a little ground and then eventually saner minds prevail and compromise is achieved, or so you’d hope in a sane society.

[I know I may have just suggested that the Church of England isn't a part of sane society but no analogy is perfect or maybe it is, no short answer on that one.]

And on the subject of Gay Marriage we’ve had the shouting, we’ve had the wrangling, we’ve had the morons suggesting that any marriage that doesn’t produce kids isn’t real, how about the compromise?

Gays, Catholic officialdom will never recognise your civil unions as marriage, never, ever, ever.  Never, not at all.  Not ever.  Never, Ain’t going to happen.  You know that, I know that, the Church knows that, everyone knows that.  Never.

Catholics, you aren’t going to recognise civil unions as marriage, we know that.  If anyone tries to take you to court over that then they have de facto taken the law of man over the law of God and excommunicated themselves, you can already refuse to officiate declarations of union between non Christians.  If any court tried it on over that one then most of Europe would erupt.

So let it go.  They can have their civil unions and call it marriage, they can call it pogo sticks if they want, you won’t be recognising it.  They can think “Oh yeah, sticking it to the man”, and you can think “You think we actually care?”

Compromise achieved.

Happy to help.

 

Keith O’Brien Takes The Dogma For A Walk

So Keith O’Brien has stated the known Catholic position on homosexuality and on homosexual unions.  Uproar has of course followed.  But why?  The Roman Catholic position vis a vis homosexuality is not actually a revelation to anyone.  Anyone reeling with shock and going “But … what?  That can’t be so.” is an imbecile.  The number of Catholics or homosexuals to whom this is unknown should be countable on the fingers of one foot.  So anyone falling out of their tree on this one is either someone who has been in a coma for the last 2000 years or someone looking to be offended.

I think we all know how I feel about people looking to be offended.

But let’s look at some of the “complaints” shall we?

The normally entertaining Dan Hodges writes in the Daily Telegraph:

“Sorry, Cardinal. We live in a parliamentary democracy, not a theocracy. And we like it that way. The government responds to the will of the people, not the will of the clergy. And if you’re unhappy about that state of affairs, then you’re perfectly free to stand for election and try to change things.”

I’m sorry to go off at a tangent here (not all that sorry though) but is this the “absolute” separation of church and state that Rick Santorum was complaining about the other day?  Does the secularist dream of Dawkinsian atheists mean that a community leader of millions and a citizen of the UK shouldn’t be permitted to express his opinion and lead his community by dint of his religiosity?  If a PM were to take advice from someone who is openly religious in their opinions would that be restricted?  Must those of us of faith hide our opinions motivated by that faith in public (in direct contradiction to that faith)?  One would hope not.

Tom Chivers, on twitter, invokes the horrors of Leviticus.  Yes, Leviticus tells us a whole bunch of things to do that we don’t do anymore and tells us stuff to do that some of us still do.  But Christ himself broke some of the constraints of Leviticus and was very big on the whole concept of following the spirit of God’s love, if not the letter of the Old Testament within the changing nature of the world.  He recognised, for instance, that slavery existed within his world and gave instruction to both slave and master so that both could enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as both were equal under God’s law if not under man’s law (which is secondary to God’s law).  Ask yourself whether Jesus would, within his wider message welcome or condemn the end of slavery. [Incidentally, sitting around pulling out odd verses from The Bible, The Torah and The Koran and ignoring the whole message is tedious and childish, stop it.]

But what of Keith and his dogma.  He’s restated essentially two things, the position of his Church and the requirement his Church makes of its members, i.e. to follow that position.  It is now the place of individual members to understand that and to decide accordingly within their own hearts.

But I think he’s missed a trick.  The proposed change in law does not require his Church to consecrate these unions.  In fact under this well exercised dogma they would not consecrate them.  If people want secularism within law then let them and make a clear and concise statement that such unions will never be consecrated in Roman Catholic churches and will never be recognised by that Church, and ensure that a recognition of that dogma is recognised by the state as being allowed within the law through that act of separation.  Then when some imbecile tries to sue them the moral high ground is established, well warned and owned.

Maybe that’s what he thinks he’s doing, but if that’s the case he has a funny way of going about it.