I'm beginning to think that religious people have an abnormally low tolerance for criticism, several comments and conversations recently seem to suggest to me that the distance between debate and attack in religious minds is much shorter than in non-religious minds. Of course everything is relative and there is very little to suppose that there is even such a thing as a "religious mind" although some recent brain studies seem to suggest this might be the case.
Here is an extract from a recent BHA article, outlining some topical examples of this phenomenon (in italics), my comments are inserted under each paragraph.
Baroness Warsi, Shadow Social Action Minister, announced at the conservative party conference last week that there has been “a growing intolerance and illiberal attitude towards those who believe in God,” blaming BHA Vice President Dr Evan Harris MP for “driving this secular agenda” into the public sector.
Being secular says nothing about belief or otherwise in God, Baroness Warsi is exhibiting a surprising level of ignorance in these comments; secularism simply requires the separation of church and state, not an intolerance to religion. In actual fact secular societies are more likely to have freedom of religion than non-secular ones and certainly more than theocratic ones, this sounds like a irrational persecution complex to me.
Similarly, Tony Blair took it upon himself to declare that “we face an aggressive secular attack from without” when speaking to an American Muslim ‘interfaith’ organisation. He went on to describe how, “those who scorn God and those who do violence in God's name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”
Why on earth should a disbelief in God offer hope for faith, this is simply nonsense; I am alarmed and dismayed that someone like Blair would attempt to throw Atheists into the same bucket as the 9/11 terrorists, that is outrageous and reveals deep misconceptions and insecurities in the man, such ideas are fundamentally biased and flawed (no change there then!)
Most people in the USA and Europe would I'm sure agree that a secular system is a fair and legitimate system of government, yet there are still those who equate the levelling of the playing field by removing religious privileges as an attack on the faithful, I can't help but see hypocrisy in this entire line of thinking.
16 comments:
I wish Tony Blair and George Bush had been atheists then they might not have been so quick to take us into Iraq -- they both say their religion causes them to feel 'sure' of the right course of action.
E, yes, its only now that we see Mr Blair's true colours; I feel used.
More like they face an attack from rationality - an attribute they lack.
Steve, hi...unfortunately you have this "no-reply comment" thing on, so when you post your comments, no response is possible. So here's mine, in response to your comment on my post...which started with "I don't think...":
It was said by a wise man that one who starts a philosophical, spiritual, or scientific statement with the words "I think" or "I don't think" should finish the sentence in a cupboard. In other words, substance is sought, not 'opinion.'
Thanks for dropping by, but since we have little in common, don't make it a habit :)
Oh dear...you have one of those "pending approval" things, which I guess means that something that doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't see the light of day?
CB, and an attribute which they struggle against by inventing ever more abstract theological complexity to work around factual inconveniences as they emerge.
It's only the artificial respect that we've been conditioned to give religion from tradition, and the fact that so many good people are also believers that we seem to give it credence still.
Braja,
Do you only encourage people to comment on your blog that you agree with then?
Your cynical assertion about me censoring is perhaps a reflection of your own arrogance?, you don't know me nor do you know what we may or may not have in common, but then "spiritual" types like you specialise in "knowing" the un-knowable, have you got anything real or useful to say?
Steve: Again I have to come here to answer your comments, as you block answers on your email. You write that you want to "explore". You're not interested in "exploring," cut the bullshit. You're interested in attacking. And you go all pussy when someone bites back and then you say things like "you insult me" because you write something that's unfounded, insulting in itself, and merely your opinion. That's ain't "debate," honey, that's puffed up arrogance. Now get off your high horse, show a little humility, and speak like a gentleman. When you do, you get treated like one. When you don't, you get the same. Simple.
The rest of what you write? Yeah, it's bullshit. So cut it and speak like a man, not an arsehole. If you can.
Last visit here, so go ahead and have the last word. And sure, call it "debate." :))))
Baja, no one is "blocking" anything?
Thanks for your comment, you have made your perspective very clear, unfortunately I have learnt nothing about your views; maybe you should check out wikipedia on the subject of the logical fallacy of "ad-hominem", it seems appropriate.
See ya... little girl :):)
I just realised how appropriate this missive from Braja is to the topic of this post, it could almost be a plant!
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point Braja.. the cheque is in the post :)
Braja - there is debate here, and I disagree with Steve about 75% of what he posts, so go and annoy someone else. Please.
My history is a little shaky, but wasn't there a secular government after the French Revolution? I don't recall that being entirely fair and legitimate. Ditto Lenin and his chums. Good government is as much about who's doing the governing as the system that they rule under. You may think it's a necessary condition, but it's clearly not enough on its own.
Hi dmk, thanks, You are absolutely right of course there is no a priori rule that says a secular government is guaranteed to be a good one. My only point on this really is that "secular" is not the same as "intolerant of religion", quite the opposite in fact, secular in this context means neutral on the subject. My position is that a system like that would be fairer than any other for everyone, particularly when you have a multi-faith/multi-cultural society.
Steve
You're absolutely right, I think. (If I end a sentence with "I think" do I have to start it in a cupboard?)
I don't see the value or point in an established religion. Under Henry VIII no doubt it was useful for the king, as it made him a lot of money he needed for wasting elsewhere. But it compromises both the state's neutrality and the religion's prophetic role. The post-Revolutionary French government was anti-Christian rather than secular. Not sure they were secular so much as deist. It's fair to say they weren't great, but then the Spanish Inquisition wasn't exactly a great example for church and state working in harmony.
Hi G, nice to hear from you, clearly (according to Braja) my sentences start and finish in the dog house :)
Let's face it, most Governments of any flavour over the ages have been more or less rubbish with the odd spike of inspiration here and there; as David says that's probably more a reflection on the people involved than anything else. However on balance I think the macro-direction has been positive and more secular in character which I believe helps to smooth out the bumps.
Wow, hysterically funny. I'm sorry I missed the golden moments when it was going down.
I especially like the dig at you (Steve) about "debate" when she didn't make a single substantive comment. Except to say that substance was desirable, and then substance left the building.
And of course the two of you apparently do have little in common, especially above the shoulders. :-)
Hi Lisa, I know! a walking, talking contradiction engine it seems; probably too much "substance" abuse if you ask me. :)
Post a Comment