Over recent weeks there appears to be a lot written in the press about where we get our moral guidance from.
As an atheist I find it amazing when Christians claim that moral behaviour is derived from their God and that those who do not follow their religion cannot have morals.
I am sure that those of other religions also claim to have the only true moral guidance, from their religion. These I am less likely to read about as the focus in the UK press tends to be about Christianity, amid claims that this is a Christian country (despite evidence to the contrary).
There are two key problems with these claims, both well known but seemingly ignored by the religious.
Firstly, if what they are saying is true, they are only prevented from committing murder, rape, crime and so on by guidance from their God. The Bible is the guide for Christians and anyone reading it can see that there is much that is immoral by the standards of the majority of right thinking people. We only need to look at the treatment of homosexuality in the Bible and the many references to mass slaughter.
Secondly it is clear that the majority of atheists have good moral standards, something that the religious would claim to be impossible.
Certainly there are good and bad in both camps, but there is no evidence that religion is essential to be moral.
It is about time that religious people stopped trying to claim the high ground on this and accept that moral behaviour is a characteristic of the majority of the human race.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Church, Listed Buildings and VAT
I read in the news today that the Church of England fears renovation projects could be scrapped because of planned changes to VAT in the budget.
This will mean that VAT will be charged on approved alterations to listed buildings, previously exempt.
There are a number of issues to be dealt with here I think.
The first of these is that it is not targeted on churches but will affect ALL owners of listed buildings. This will impact upon private individuals and also the likes of the National Trust and English Heritage who between them must have a large number of properties that fall into this category and will also suffer.
Secondly the wording is that it is for alterations. Repairs of the fabric of the buildings to allow them to continue to be used should not be affected. Additions of new shops and cafes will be. That is different from the needs of simply keeping these buildings open as a place of worship.
Finally, the church is not a poor organisation. A quick glance at the accounts will show that is asset rich and has many commercial investments. As such it should be prepared to bite the bullet and contribute to the nations coffers with everyone else. Claims of lack of funds are not acceptable. If it were essential repairs that were being taxed then maybe they have a point, but it is in fact improvements.
What really annoys me however is the fact that the Treasury has reported that church projects will not be cancelled as there will be provision from the Listed Places of Worship Scheme whereby we the taxpayer will seemingly make up any extra costs! I have said before and will say again, Church and State should be separate. What the Church wants, it should fund from it's own significant income.
This will mean that VAT will be charged on approved alterations to listed buildings, previously exempt.
There are a number of issues to be dealt with here I think.
The first of these is that it is not targeted on churches but will affect ALL owners of listed buildings. This will impact upon private individuals and also the likes of the National Trust and English Heritage who between them must have a large number of properties that fall into this category and will also suffer.
Secondly the wording is that it is for alterations. Repairs of the fabric of the buildings to allow them to continue to be used should not be affected. Additions of new shops and cafes will be. That is different from the needs of simply keeping these buildings open as a place of worship.
Finally, the church is not a poor organisation. A quick glance at the accounts will show that is asset rich and has many commercial investments. As such it should be prepared to bite the bullet and contribute to the nations coffers with everyone else. Claims of lack of funds are not acceptable. If it were essential repairs that were being taxed then maybe they have a point, but it is in fact improvements.
What really annoys me however is the fact that the Treasury has reported that church projects will not be cancelled as there will be provision from the Listed Places of Worship Scheme whereby we the taxpayer will seemingly make up any extra costs! I have said before and will say again, Church and State should be separate. What the Church wants, it should fund from it's own significant income.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Religion and the State
Here in the UK our Prime Minister, David Cameron, held a meeting before Easter with church leaders during which he made a number of rather worrying comments.
As surveys and doubtless the 2011 census are showing, the number of people who feel they have a religion is falling. As an element of this so is the number of those who claim to be Christians. A recent survey commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science showed that of those who identified themselves as Christians many just did so because it was their parents religion. Interestingly, amongst the Christians many feel as I do that the Church and State should be separate.
Having read the reports of this meeting, it seems that not only is Mr Cameron unaware of this, but that he is actively trying to fight against it (democracy?).
I felt driven to write to him about my concerns with his viewpoints and will update this post if I hear back, either from him or from one of his staff.
In essence he made a number of points as follows:
He believes that Christian values would create a happier and better society for everyone. I will look at some of these below but for now I need to point out that Christians do not have exclusivity on morals and ethics and indeed these existed before Christianity. Atheists also have morals and ethics and whilst any group will have 'bad apples' there is no reason to put Christians on a pedestal for their values.
He then went on to discuss the values of the Bible - this includes the Christian values he chooses to omit such as violence, explicit sexual references, child abuse, objectivisation and dehumanisation of women, aggressively genocidal racism, explicit animal cruelty and incitement to commit murder and hate crimes (my thanks to Rosa Rubicondior at http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-warning-would-you-put-in-gideon.html for the succinct list).
Many of these so called 'values' are clearly unacceptable in a civilised society, so perhaps Christians need to bring the Bible up to date.
Mr Cameron is also very keen to promote the teaching of religion within schools. If this were objective then perhaps we should not worry because pupils would be taught about the various religions, the fact that many are atheists and agnostics, and then encouraged to think for themselves about what they believe. This is not the case however, schools teach their own doctrine thus a Church of England school teaches their own brand of Christianity with little or no reference to the alternatives. I have seen examples of this with my own nephew and niece - though they stood up and thought for themselves. Read more at http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/religious-indoctrination.html
Finally, he talks of suppression of Christian rights. The issue that annoys me most here is prayers as part of council meetings. These were recently declared illegal, however the PM has decided to change the law so they can be made legal again. We have a very varied society and many council members will not be of the Christian faith, yet Christian prayers are to be imposed upon them. This is unacceptable. What is wrong with allowing a period before the meeting and separate from it in which those who wish to do so may pray or have a time of personal reflection - this should be acceptable to all as those who do not wish to partake simply arrive later for the actual meeting which constitutes the business of the council.
I feel that Christianity is being forced upon the country, whether we like it or not. I doubt my letter to David Cameron will have any effect, but by that means and through this blog I am trying to show that we do not all agree with Christianity, or in my case any religion.
As surveys and doubtless the 2011 census are showing, the number of people who feel they have a religion is falling. As an element of this so is the number of those who claim to be Christians. A recent survey commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science showed that of those who identified themselves as Christians many just did so because it was their parents religion. Interestingly, amongst the Christians many feel as I do that the Church and State should be separate.
Having read the reports of this meeting, it seems that not only is Mr Cameron unaware of this, but that he is actively trying to fight against it (democracy?).
I felt driven to write to him about my concerns with his viewpoints and will update this post if I hear back, either from him or from one of his staff.
In essence he made a number of points as follows:
He believes that Christian values would create a happier and better society for everyone. I will look at some of these below but for now I need to point out that Christians do not have exclusivity on morals and ethics and indeed these existed before Christianity. Atheists also have morals and ethics and whilst any group will have 'bad apples' there is no reason to put Christians on a pedestal for their values.
He then went on to discuss the values of the Bible - this includes the Christian values he chooses to omit such as violence, explicit sexual references, child abuse, objectivisation and dehumanisation of women, aggressively genocidal racism, explicit animal cruelty and incitement to commit murder and hate crimes (my thanks to Rosa Rubicondior at http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-warning-would-you-put-in-gideon.html for the succinct list).
Many of these so called 'values' are clearly unacceptable in a civilised society, so perhaps Christians need to bring the Bible up to date.
Mr Cameron is also very keen to promote the teaching of religion within schools. If this were objective then perhaps we should not worry because pupils would be taught about the various religions, the fact that many are atheists and agnostics, and then encouraged to think for themselves about what they believe. This is not the case however, schools teach their own doctrine thus a Church of England school teaches their own brand of Christianity with little or no reference to the alternatives. I have seen examples of this with my own nephew and niece - though they stood up and thought for themselves. Read more at http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/religious-indoctrination.html
Finally, he talks of suppression of Christian rights. The issue that annoys me most here is prayers as part of council meetings. These were recently declared illegal, however the PM has decided to change the law so they can be made legal again. We have a very varied society and many council members will not be of the Christian faith, yet Christian prayers are to be imposed upon them. This is unacceptable. What is wrong with allowing a period before the meeting and separate from it in which those who wish to do so may pray or have a time of personal reflection - this should be acceptable to all as those who do not wish to partake simply arrive later for the actual meeting which constitutes the business of the council.
I feel that Christianity is being forced upon the country, whether we like it or not. I doubt my letter to David Cameron will have any effect, but by that means and through this blog I am trying to show that we do not all agree with Christianity, or in my case any religion.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Archbishop of Canterbury - Capitalist?
In the news we read that the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out about the so called invasion of St Paul's. Apparently he backs the protesters.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Religious Indoctrination?
About six weeks ago I visited my sister and her family. During the visit my twelve year old niece asked if we could all help with her homework from her RE class.
The task set for the homework was to ask four people if they believed in god and why (or why not). I have to say I was appalled that such a biased question had been asked, and not only that but many people's beliefs are very much private and the school was assuming that they would wish to discuss them.
I was quite happy to say I am an atheist, but that the reasons why would take up more than the few words the school would expect and to be fair I don't feel I need to explain myself to them.
I checked the school's RE curriculum and found that basically they preach Christianity (I don't think that is too strong a word) and make a brief mention of Islam - beyond that there may be five minutes a year where they mention atheism and other faiths.
Therefore it doesn't surprise me that they phrased the question in this way but I feel it would be better if it were to be multi part. Firstly, would you mind me asking about your views on religion, secondly if OK then what religion if any do you follow and finally, would you like to say a few words on why this is your choice.
My brother in law wrote to the school explaining that he was not happy with this homework that had been set and received a rather abrupt response that the purpose was to provide a topic for discussion in class. Clearly the teacher felt that by rigging the question the discussion could be kept in line with the school's RE curriculum.
Furthermore my niece was then taken out of class whereupon the teacher expressed surprise that she had not completed the homework, despite the fact that her father had explained why.
So here we have a school which promotes a biased view of religion, uses homework to reinforce the bias and finally takes issue with those who choose to have their own opinions.
Perhaps if should be renamed the 'George Orwell School of 1984'
Footnote:
My nephew attends the same school and is three years older than his sister. He has managed to ignore the indoctrination and has chosen to be an atheist. I must add that he made this decision independently and was not to my knowledge influenced by my atheism, certainly I had not discussed my views or beliefs regarding this with him until after he had made his views clear.
The task set for the homework was to ask four people if they believed in god and why (or why not). I have to say I was appalled that such a biased question had been asked, and not only that but many people's beliefs are very much private and the school was assuming that they would wish to discuss them.
I was quite happy to say I am an atheist, but that the reasons why would take up more than the few words the school would expect and to be fair I don't feel I need to explain myself to them.
I checked the school's RE curriculum and found that basically they preach Christianity (I don't think that is too strong a word) and make a brief mention of Islam - beyond that there may be five minutes a year where they mention atheism and other faiths.
Therefore it doesn't surprise me that they phrased the question in this way but I feel it would be better if it were to be multi part. Firstly, would you mind me asking about your views on religion, secondly if OK then what religion if any do you follow and finally, would you like to say a few words on why this is your choice.
My brother in law wrote to the school explaining that he was not happy with this homework that had been set and received a rather abrupt response that the purpose was to provide a topic for discussion in class. Clearly the teacher felt that by rigging the question the discussion could be kept in line with the school's RE curriculum.
Furthermore my niece was then taken out of class whereupon the teacher expressed surprise that she had not completed the homework, despite the fact that her father had explained why.
So here we have a school which promotes a biased view of religion, uses homework to reinforce the bias and finally takes issue with those who choose to have their own opinions.
Perhaps if should be renamed the 'George Orwell School of 1984'
Footnote:
My nephew attends the same school and is three years older than his sister. He has managed to ignore the indoctrination and has chosen to be an atheist. I must add that he made this decision independently and was not to my knowledge influenced by my atheism, certainly I had not discussed my views or beliefs regarding this with him until after he had made his views clear.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Capitalist Church
On Friday the protests in London under the name 'Occupy' led St Paul's Cathedral to close.
I presume the protesters are happy because it would appear that the church were not as focused on the fact that their flock would not be able to worship there but more that they were losing money. Apparently the takings from the various sources within - including the 'donation' for entry - average at nearly 23,000 pounds per day!
This has uncovers an aspect of the church that it would rather was kept hidden, it's capitalist element.
Why as the protesters ask has it closed now, because any 'risks' were no different on previous days? Surely it must be because the loss of revenue is hitting it hard and if it closes there will be less outlay. They clearly don't worry about their flock! But then they can worship their IMF elsewhere.
I presume the protesters are happy because it would appear that the church were not as focused on the fact that their flock would not be able to worship there but more that they were losing money. Apparently the takings from the various sources within - including the 'donation' for entry - average at nearly 23,000 pounds per day!
This has uncovers an aspect of the church that it would rather was kept hidden, it's capitalist element.
Why as the protesters ask has it closed now, because any 'risks' were no different on previous days? Surely it must be because the loss of revenue is hitting it hard and if it closes there will be less outlay. They clearly don't worry about their flock! But then they can worship their IMF elsewhere.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Industry managed by the Church?
Last week the Archbishop of Canterbury visited Derbyshire. As part of his visit he came to Derby.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
My Freedom from Religion
Like many people, I started out life labelled by my parents' religion. Through time I have come to question this and am now free from religion. Let me run through the key stages:
When I was born I was christened by my parents and of course as a baby had no say in this. This meant I was now officially a Christian by paperwork. As Richard Dawkins would correctly say, I should have been identified as the child of Christian parents rather than a Christian child.
Time went by and I attended church most Sundays with my family.
When I got to about fourteen I was sent by my parents to 'confirmation classes'. These were run by the local vicar and seemed in hindsight to be basically a form of indoctrination. I wasn't keen but it was made clear that this was the done thing and at the end of the process I would be Confirmed in the church. I suppose it was out of respect for my parents that I went through with this but I wouldn't class myself as a true believer event then.
Over the next few years I didn't think much about religion, and only attended church for the usual events of births, marriages and deaths - certainly not a regular Sunday service goer by any means.
The time came when I wanted to get married. Obviously it was expected by both sets of parents that we would marry in church. I was by then fairly well agnostic but felt it was important to celebrate our wedding in front of family and friends in a very positive ceremony which I felt a registry office wedding would not give.
After marrying, neither my wife or I were regular church goers - again the usual round of BMD to attend but otherwise nothing.
During these years I started to think more about religion, and the more I thought about it the more I decided that I had no belief at all in it.
There were too many questions that were unanswered by religion, with the usual reply 'it just is' or 'the bible tells us this' Added to that I was finding more contradictions in religious teachings and writings. Finally there were the massive discrepancies between what religion teaches and known scientific evidence.
Faced with all of this I decided it was time to finally decide I was an atheist. I watched a Richard Dawkins series on Channel Four and this highlighted even more issues that convinced me. I also read his book 'The God Delusion' which reinforced my decision. Subsequently I have read other books by the so called 'Four Horsemen': Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Unlike the bible they don't ell me what to think, but give me a starting point and ASK me to think.
At this time I was in correspondence with a friend who would label herself as a devout Christian. We did a book reading exchange whereby I asked her to read 'The God Delusion' and she selected parts of the bible for me to read, including the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John amongst other sections.
After doing so, she reported that reading Dawkins had merely confirmed her views, but without explanation why. I asked her some questions and raised some issues about the sections I had read but got the 'it just is' response and better still, 'we mustn't try and understand that in today's world' - surely a cop out.
So here I am now, an Atheist (or should that be atheist?) I respect other people's rights to believe in their god or gods and hope they respect my right to believe there are no gods.
To quote Ricky Gervais 'If God exists, why did he make me an atheist?'
Need I say more?
When I was born I was christened by my parents and of course as a baby had no say in this. This meant I was now officially a Christian by paperwork. As Richard Dawkins would correctly say, I should have been identified as the child of Christian parents rather than a Christian child.
Time went by and I attended church most Sundays with my family.
When I got to about fourteen I was sent by my parents to 'confirmation classes'. These were run by the local vicar and seemed in hindsight to be basically a form of indoctrination. I wasn't keen but it was made clear that this was the done thing and at the end of the process I would be Confirmed in the church. I suppose it was out of respect for my parents that I went through with this but I wouldn't class myself as a true believer event then.
Over the next few years I didn't think much about religion, and only attended church for the usual events of births, marriages and deaths - certainly not a regular Sunday service goer by any means.
The time came when I wanted to get married. Obviously it was expected by both sets of parents that we would marry in church. I was by then fairly well agnostic but felt it was important to celebrate our wedding in front of family and friends in a very positive ceremony which I felt a registry office wedding would not give.
After marrying, neither my wife or I were regular church goers - again the usual round of BMD to attend but otherwise nothing.
During these years I started to think more about religion, and the more I thought about it the more I decided that I had no belief at all in it.
There were too many questions that were unanswered by religion, with the usual reply 'it just is' or 'the bible tells us this' Added to that I was finding more contradictions in religious teachings and writings. Finally there were the massive discrepancies between what religion teaches and known scientific evidence.
Faced with all of this I decided it was time to finally decide I was an atheist. I watched a Richard Dawkins series on Channel Four and this highlighted even more issues that convinced me. I also read his book 'The God Delusion' which reinforced my decision. Subsequently I have read other books by the so called 'Four Horsemen': Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Unlike the bible they don't ell me what to think, but give me a starting point and ASK me to think.
At this time I was in correspondence with a friend who would label herself as a devout Christian. We did a book reading exchange whereby I asked her to read 'The God Delusion' and she selected parts of the bible for me to read, including the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John amongst other sections.
After doing so, she reported that reading Dawkins had merely confirmed her views, but without explanation why. I asked her some questions and raised some issues about the sections I had read but got the 'it just is' response and better still, 'we mustn't try and understand that in today's world' - surely a cop out.
So here I am now, an Atheist (or should that be atheist?) I respect other people's rights to believe in their god or gods and hope they respect my right to believe there are no gods.
To quote Ricky Gervais 'If God exists, why did he make me an atheist?'
Need I say more?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Christian Values?
The Bishop of Manchester has blamed the 'me-first' culture for the recent riots in England. He goes on to explain that in his opinion the problems were down to the 'relentless erosion of Christian values' and a moral deficit in private and public life which had spawned 'acquiitiveness and dishonesty'.
I have to take him to task on two key issues here.
Firstly he is rather suggesting that only Christians have values and morals which is totally inaccurate. The majority of the people in this country have good values, ethics and moral standards regardless of which religion they support, and of course those who have no religion. It is totally wrong to say that Christians have the monopoly on this.
Secondly, we regularly hear cases of those in the church who one would expect to demonstrate these so called 'Christian values' demonstrating anything but. To take just two examples we have the child abuse within the Catholic church, and the number of church ministers who seem to ignore the sanctity of marriage in their dealings with their parishioners and have extra-marital affairs, ruining lives. I seem to remember a saying about people in glass houses and stones.
Perhaps the church lives by the maxim of 'Do what I say, not what I do'
I have to take him to task on two key issues here.
Firstly he is rather suggesting that only Christians have values and morals which is totally inaccurate. The majority of the people in this country have good values, ethics and moral standards regardless of which religion they support, and of course those who have no religion. It is totally wrong to say that Christians have the monopoly on this.
Secondly, we regularly hear cases of those in the church who one would expect to demonstrate these so called 'Christian values' demonstrating anything but. To take just two examples we have the child abuse within the Catholic church, and the number of church ministers who seem to ignore the sanctity of marriage in their dealings with their parishioners and have extra-marital affairs, ruining lives. I seem to remember a saying about people in glass houses and stones.
Perhaps the church lives by the maxim of 'Do what I say, not what I do'
Monday, August 15, 2011
Religious Discrimination
We often hear of cases where an individual feels they have been the victim of unfair discrimination because of their religion, whatever it may be. This makes news headlines and has the leaders of the appropriate church up in arms.
Less reported are the cases where someone has been discriminated against because they are not religious. This despite the fact that people with no religion are far from being a tiny minority. The cause for this lack of reporting is more likely to be the religious views held by some of the more influential figures in the media.
A case in point is a letter I was reading in a recent publication. It has been reported that the Scouting movement is in need of more adult volunteers. The writer of the letter, a father of two and also a parent governor, tried to volunteer. He was turned down as being unsuitable merely because he is an atheist.
This is unacceptable discrimination, yet I am sure the press would consider it not worthy even of a couple of lines somewhere. A man is prevented from displaying his palm cross in his company van and it makes the papers and the TV news.
What is the difference? Each case is one individual being discriminated against by an organisation on the grounds of what they believe or don't believe.
There are two issues here. First of all the chap volunteering for the Scouts was rejected for no valid reason, secondly the media are clearly biased in terms of what they report which is another form of discrimination.
I will be interested to see the figures from the 2011 census to show the breakdown of religious beliefs and those with no religion. I am sure that it will show that a large percentage of the UK hold no religious beliefs. If this is the case then the media should ensure they represent this fairly.
Less reported are the cases where someone has been discriminated against because they are not religious. This despite the fact that people with no religion are far from being a tiny minority. The cause for this lack of reporting is more likely to be the religious views held by some of the more influential figures in the media.
A case in point is a letter I was reading in a recent publication. It has been reported that the Scouting movement is in need of more adult volunteers. The writer of the letter, a father of two and also a parent governor, tried to volunteer. He was turned down as being unsuitable merely because he is an atheist.
This is unacceptable discrimination, yet I am sure the press would consider it not worthy even of a couple of lines somewhere. A man is prevented from displaying his palm cross in his company van and it makes the papers and the TV news.
What is the difference? Each case is one individual being discriminated against by an organisation on the grounds of what they believe or don't believe.
There are two issues here. First of all the chap volunteering for the Scouts was rejected for no valid reason, secondly the media are clearly biased in terms of what they report which is another form of discrimination.
I will be interested to see the figures from the 2011 census to show the breakdown of religious beliefs and those with no religion. I am sure that it will show that a large percentage of the UK hold no religious beliefs. If this is the case then the media should ensure they represent this fairly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)