Christianity Under Attack

As I am writing this it is around 10pm on a Friday night. Yet the morning headlines have already been written. In particular, the Daily Mail has offered us something quite profound for the masses to get hysterical over.

The headline has been generated because of a landmark ruling in the High Court. The report is here. Here is an excerpt...

"Atheist former councillor Clive Bone started the case against Bideford town council in July 2010, claiming he had been ‘disadvantaged and embarrassed’ when religious prayers were recited at formal meetings.

Backed by the National Secular Society, he insisted that the ‘inappropriate’ practice breached the human right to freedom of conscience and discriminated against non-believers, making them feel ‘uncomfortable’.

The society claimed council meetings should be ‘equally welcoming to everyone in the local community’ and should therefore be ‘religiously-neutral’."

The emphasis is mine but I see in no way how this position could discriminate against any person. Religiously neutral. It protects every viewpoint. No prominence of one religion over another. Sounds like a perfect set of circumstances to thrive in.

"Communities Secretary Eric Pickles described the ruling as ‘very illiberal’.

He said: ‘The ruling is surprising and disappointing. Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation."

It is not illiberal... it is religion neutral. That Christianity is part of our heritage means nothing whatsoever. It was part of the culture of the British Empire to utilise slavery but it would have been a crass argument for its retention pre-Abolition.

"Harry Greenway, a former Tory MP and ex-chairman of the National Prayer Breakfast, said: ‘If people do not want to attend prayers of this nature, they can stay away instead of meddling and busybodying with other people’s beliefs.

‘Non-believers are not harassed in this way by believers. Why cannot the non-believers show the same kind of tolerance?’"

Perhaps Harry Greenway might like to read the paper he is being quoted in which reported that a street preacher got off scot-free after screaming out pious abuse at a gay couple. Yup, the believers really keep their faith to themselves.

The trouble is, people like Greenway always play the victimisation card. The trouble is that the most oppressed minority in the history of mankind has always been those without faith who have had to see societies ripped apart over arguments about whose god is better or whose holy book contains the right information.

So no, Christianity is not under attack. It is simply having to conform with a modern and progressive society which states that all religions are equal. It might be a painful process but it is necessary.

Only people with faith could suggest that their own religion deserves prominence. No Muslim, in their right mind, would argue that a Hindu society deserved their religious customs to be observed because of time honoured traditions. The same applies here in Britain.

A rather pious Sunday from the Daily Mail

I'm going on a short break until the end of my libel case; it's taking up far too much of my time so something has to give and this blog is it. However, I couldn't resist posting once more after being alerted to some rather religious indignation over at the Sunday Mail (Sunday edition of the Daily Mail) - courtesy of Angry Mob.

Firstly , the front page contains this rather startling headline...

Who is the Mail writing to? The "year of our lord"??? Our???

Do Muslims read the Mail? Probably. Sihks? Hindus? Jains? Atheists? Buddhists? I hate to think how many people this headline excludes.

But then the target audience for the Mail is not liberal minded persons with ideas about equality and fairness.

It's a newspaper for the person who says "I'm not a racist but..."

Moving on from the headline, it turns into a rant about the BBC replacing BC/AD with BCE/CE. They need some religious outrage, and it is duly supplied by the Rev Peter Mullen:

"This is absurd political correctness and these new terms do not mean anything to anyone. I think it's an example of the BBC trying to undermine Christianity by pushing an aggressive secularism."

As opposed to a minority religion pushing aggressive religious dogma in using a term that no-one was consulted on? And despite the BBC saying:

"The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams."

I swear the idea that Christians are somehow victims in some crazy secular vision is nonsense. And Rev Peter Mullen just demonstrates his ignorance and, once again, how out of touch he is.

On the inside pages, deceased Jade Goody's Mother made this rather surprising claim:

And another pious story is arrived at shortly after and this time it's about police brutality... (allegedly)

The guy owns a cafe and  displayed bible passages which are now considered homophobic (most of the bible is considered completely irrelevant if you didn't know). This guy was, in all honesty, standing up for his right to display homophobic messages in his own cafe.

The owner said:

"At no stage had they [the Police] spoken to me like I was a law-abiding citizen trying to earn a living. I felt like a criminal."

Is the Mail now the first port of call for complaining about oppressive police tactics? I would have thought that the best route would have been the force's Chief Inspector or the IPCC...

The final story is the best. Bestiality in fact.

It's not the story that is relevant here... it's the comment from a Mail reader:

If this is a genuine comment, then it speaks for itself.

So, the message to take away from the this edition of the Mail on Sunday is that if secularism has it's way in removing relics of Christianity to meet the needs of modern society then not only does this lead to racist ex-big brother contestants having their babies sent from heaven die but this will prevent homophobic cafe owners from making a living promoting their hateful material...

...leading to everyone sleeping with their pets.

Prayer prescriptions

On the 22nd September 2011 a hearing will take place conducted by the General Medical Council:

Doctor Richard Scott found himself in hot holy water back in May this year after a patient's relative complained about him pushing his faith onto the patient in question. The GMC agreed with the patient's version of events and issue a warning letter which Dr Scott refused to accept. He wanted to keep doling out prayer prescriptions so he contacted the Christian Legal Centre and the above hearing is taking place to establish whether he deserves a warning or not.

The ECHURCH Blog says:

"On the face of it, it would appear that this “Official Warning” is unwarranted, if indeed the medical consultation was concluded and the discussion of faith was with consent."

No-one has access to the GMC files or decision making process. If a patient makes a complaint which concerns misconduct and the GMC has investigated it to the extent that they feel a warning is necessary then it has to be accepted "on the face of it" regardless of whether we feel the decision is right or wrong. This is because we do not have access to the full set of facts enabling us to decry the decision and support Dr Scott. If the discussion was with consent, there would have been no complaint worth taking. The fact a complaint was made demonstrates, on the face of it, that Dr Scott stepped over the line.

The TelegraphView says:

"Nevertheless, the mother of one of those with whom he raised it complained. Indeed, she was perfectly entitled to do so – but we cannot see how her complaint can be grounds for the GMC to take action against Dr Scott. After all, no one maintains that he ever forced religion on anyone, or that his faith ever impeded his ability to dispense medical care."


Again, we do not know the complaint detail so it is tricky to decide whether it was a meritous complaint or not. Considering the GMC thought it was a complaint worthy of warning Dr Scott over, perhaps we should accept that there were grounds. But if she was entitled to make a complaint, why wouldn't it be grounds for the GMC to take action? I suspect it was poor phrasing from the writer which made it look like they were contradicting themselves...

The bold type, emphasis mine, is pretty much what the complaint was about otherwise the GMC would not have investigated the complaint. There must have been an element of forcing his religion on the person subject to the complaint otherwise Dr Scott was playing by the rules. The GMC don't tend to raise phony cases.

So what did Dr Scott say about the matter? Here is a video clip of his version of events. Two comments stand out:

1) “I encourage people to come down to our local Church.”

This is, in my opinion, forcing his religion onto a person. Dr Scott does not want a general chat about faith; he wants people to join his Church. This is his words on the matter and he says he has offered it to thousands of patients. So, not a one off and clearly a demonstration of Dr Scott's motives which has impacted upon his duty to dispense medical care because he has caused harm/distress to a patient. That seems to me to be the reasoning behind the GMC decision based on the information available to us all. And the last part of the GMC hearing notice appears to state that they acknowledge his media comments on the subject to be an admission that this was the case:

"It is further alleged that Dr Scott subsequently confirmed, via national media, that he had sought to suggest his own faith had more to offer than that of the patient."


So there is clearly more going on within the investigation than just an innocent chat and hopefully the details will be released in good time.

2) “I offered a needy patient a way out of the situation”

Religious arrogance. Crikey... you can smell the smugness a mile away. The only way out of a medical situation, to my knowledge, is with medical intervention. This is how we have extended lifetimes and better quality of health. It's remind me of a quote:

Give a man a fish and he'll feed himself for a day. Give him a net and he can feed his family for lifetime. Give a man prayer and he'll die praying for a fish.

So we have motive of Dr Scott and the means to employ his brand of dogmatism. The GMC decision to warn him seems light in regards to the thousands he has "helped" in this way. His beliefs seem to drive his career; indeed Dr Scott used to be a missionary in Africa and this is not a criticism. It's a worthy endeavour. But if you allow religious beliefs to be a part of the scientific methodology of medicine then heed these words from a fellow GP:

Dr Shaba Nabi, a GP in Bristol, said:

"To even consider bringing religion into consultations is unacceptable. It's as bizarre as bringing up witchcraft or folklore. I'm extremely respectful of patients that are religious. That is their personal belief, but we shouldn't bring our personal beliefs into consultations."

And this is what it is all about. Imagine a Satanist GP offering 'tactful' advice to a patient who looked "needy". I imagine the Christians would not be so 'tolerant' then.

But this isn't a harmless story about the tooth fairy in a Dentist's surgery... imagine a Dentist who took the tooth-fairy literally!

Scary thought!

The Telegraph then proceed to slide into the typical victimisation routine containing irrelevancies, fallacies and bullshit... a reet ole' recipe!

"What, then, is the fuss about? The GMC's excessive reaction is part of a tendency: a number of institutions and companies have, in a misguided attempt to be "multicultural", banned Christian symbols and overt expressions of faith, something that would never be attempted in the case of other religions."

The GMC would have been more than aware of the spotlight on religion but chose to make a decision based on the evidence they held. There is even the inference that Dr Scott withheld information relevant to the investigation. 

The GMC actually supports, wrongly in my view, "offers of prayer" by medical staff. Hardly the actions of an organisation banning the Jesus Cult. Nor has the GMC stated that other faiths have more rights in this area than Christianity/

The writers of the articles simply jump to conclusions that do not exist. Classic signs of paranoia and don't the Christians just love to be victims!

"And yet the Christian faith is central to our country's history and our traditions. Its legacy is visible everywhere."

Yes, but in a secular society there is no longer any need to put Christianity above any other faith. That's sort of the point of secularism. But an argumentum ad antiquitatem is always on weak grounds. Society has changed and Christian church attendances are dropping. No reason to place Christianity above any other religion whatsoever.

"It is right that today, no one expects a person who holds positions of power and responsibility to be a practising Christian. But we appear to be heading towards an alarming situation in which the profession of faith becomes an active disqualification."

I have never heard of a case where someone has been sacked or treated differently for holding a private belief. Where that belief causes an issue within the law then there is an approach that is taken to put a stop to it. Where that belief contravenes a code of conduct you are damn right that it should be dealt with via the sanctions available. 

This would apply to Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Atheists alike; no-one should be subjected to questions about faith upon their admission to hospital because medical care is not there to pander to cultural desires.

People need to accept that medicine is going to help/save them, or at least make them comfortable, and that this will be done without preference to any one religion.

My gut instinct is that prayer is simply the offer of false consolation. I could point to studies which show that the efficacy of prayer is non-existent but this would offer some sort of admission that the point is worth discussing. It's not. 

Prayer simply does not work. Never has done.

Medical staff who think it does should be willing to place their heads above the parapet and leave the profession and set up ministries healing people and then compare their success rates with that of a hospital. The faith heads can then admit that prayer doesn't work and should be kept out of the medical profession once and for all.

My guess is that the challenge will not be accepted. Have a guess why?

We'll make you worship you damn heathens!

An article in the Guardian raises the important question why compulsory worship of a broadly Christian character still exists in the British state system?

Read that question again and then argue that we do not live in a semi-theocracy.

This brought to my mind a small dispute I had with my children's school when this letter was handed out to the parents:

I can vouch for the fact that those worship sessions are of a broadly Christian character as parents have been invited along to them for as long as I can remember. Hands together, eyes closed and "Amen" are not found outside of Christianity/Judaism are they? No; so the end credits are distinctly Christian then.

Anyway, the headteacher is concerned at the number of children collected early so that they do not have to sit through this compulsory sessions. In fact, she shouldn't be concerned at all because there is a "get out clause" in the Act where parents can remove their children.

But this comes at a cost according to the headteacher because she will subject them to an "embarrassing" ejection from the assembly while in progress spoiling the atmosphere for her sheep sheeple loyal adherents victims of brainwashing pupils.

The headteacher makes it clear, in no uncertain terms that in future, unless it is an emergency you may not collect your children unless you have prior agreement.

Parents may well think that the headteacher has the final say on the matter or be confused as to whether they are breaking the law in removing their child from compulsory worship.

Well their rights can be found here.

Under Section 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 you can withdraw your child from these 'compulsory' sessions.

And this is where the headteacher's letter completely falls flat on its face and demonstrates both the arrogance of religious belief and the deliberate misrepresentation misunderstanding of what the law states.

The sessions ARE NOT compulsory for the children to attend

It is only compulsory that the schools make the provision for the collective worship

Children are not bound to attend these collective worship sessions whatsoever.

EDIT:

Had to post this comment from Twitter:

UPDATE 03/10/11


I've been getting a bit of stick in some places by people who cannot be bothered to read the blog post properly.

I tend to find that it is those in foreign countries who cannot get their head's around the idea that schools with religious administrations in Britain receive government funding or that there is something called a "catchment area" which means you have to travel ridiculous distances (or jump through stupid hoops) to give your child a secular education.

Even so, the standard of my children's education is actually quite good. There is no need to remove them from the school disrupting their work, their friendships and their routine.

What this issue boils down to is the following:

1. A headteacher that has either misinterpreted or misrepresented the law.

2. That even if "collective worship" remained in force, then there should still be a provision within the school for children of no faith (or non-Christian faith) to go to during this period instead of them being led out of the actual assembly in an admittedly "embarrassing" fashion.

3. That the headteacher is a fruitcake.

4. That Atheists and Secularists can be fruitcakes too...

READ THE FUCKING BLOG POST PROPERLY!!!

That is all

Collective Worship Morons Out In Force

The hot potato topic right now in the world of theological nonsense is Collective Worship. If you have been following the news here in Britain you will know that:

"Almost two thirds of parents questioned said their child did not attend a form of communal worship at school, such as a Christian assembly. The duty on schools to provide a daily act of Christian worship dates back to 1944 but was strengthened in the 1988 education act."

It seems the furore, if we can even call it that, is the issue of Headteachers breaking the law in not ensuring that their assemblies are of a "broadly Christian character". It's all a red herring of course; it's a simple effect of the incompatibility of the Labour multi-cultural initiative and the CofE school system.

Back in 2004 it was revealed that 60% of school students at Sir John Cass Foundation and Red Coat Church of England secondary school in London's East End came from a Bangladeshi background. How can a law be expected to be enforced against people of a different religion?

More importantly, there seems to be a growing understanding of the irrelevancy of Christian dogma, and religion in general, in which the lawmakers need to take into account in amending the legislation.

I'll accept the very weak argument that exists that the original law was there to take into account the cultural significance of Christianity in Britain. I cannot accept, on any terms, that there continues to be a cultural reason why the law should prevail in its current form or in any form which recognises religion. I have to admit it would be amusing to see an assembly about the moral virtues provided by the Flying Spaghetti Monster though.

And the ridiculous thing is that if religion remained within the scope of the Act then assemblies on Pastafarianism would have to be accounted for.

And so we turn to the morons... as ever with this issue you get the odd nutjob preaching and pouting. I've assembled a few here from the Daily Fail Mail:

Good ole' Brother Anthony (I don't know him) feels that "virtually everyone can agree that the 10 Commandments... form the basis of any civilised society." 

Really? 

Take a look at the 10 Commandments... only 3, perhaps 4, would form the basis of any civilised society (I'll cover this another time). I suspect that Brother Anthony hasn't read them properly. But this ignorance is contagious...

It would be funny to hear a school assembly explaining how the first 3 commandments were designed with Yahweh in mind... this renders the commentators argument at the end that Christian values and the belief in god are not inseparable pretty much redundant. In teaching the Christian values, derived from the 10 commandments, they are effectively telling people their belief in other gods is wrong. I'm surprised other religious figures have not risen up against such inequality... or it might be that this would be like punching yourself in the face considering the proliferation of faith schools in Britain.

This person performs a double strawman in one sentence! Firstly, Sam Harris remarked that "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

And how is "quality of life" and "Atheism" in any way linked in this context? Secular societies improve the quality of a persons life. But a "secular society" is not "Atheist" in this sense; it simply has no position on them at all. They are not even agnostic.

You can't tell that to people like Ed West who calls the National Secular Societies attempts to drive religion out of public life as "Atheist bigotry"... I'll have to dissect that nonsense another time?

Even Christianity Today acknowledges that "Highly secularized Scandinavian countries consistently rank high on international well-being and life-satisfaction indices... The world's great religions speak of caring for the sick, the poor, and the orphaned, and of practicing mercy and goodwill toward fellow humans, yet these traits are often more evident in the world's least religious nations."

British society does not seem to suffer considering the lack of belief in Zeus or Thor; neither should it suffer from the lack of belief in the Christian god. 

When you are in a theological debate like this, you tend to come across Pascals Wager - put simply, it's the "threat" (for want of a better word) that you'll be judged one day so you had better hedge your bets just in case.

It's such an infantile argument, I'll welcome any persons comment challenging me as to its usefulness in any debate. Just know that I have "plasma TV's" and "glorious modern technology" on my side.

This looks innocuous at first glance but I think it's the most incredulous, stupid, inane, tenuous and bullshittty of all comments I have read today.

Bear in mind the topic this person is commenting on - the law being broken by headteachers who refuse collective worship assemblies of a broadly Christian character - and you should see (hopefully) how mind numbingly stupid this person is.

In her words, "your children have a right to learn about god"; just so long as it's the Christian god referred to in the law yeah?

In any case, children do not have a right to learn about god. That's insane. It's like saying that they have a right to learn about Poseidon and Ananke and Pontus and Vishnu and... ad infinitum.

How many other gods do children have a "right to know about" from the recycling and refuse bins of religious history? I imagine if you taught children enough about Horus and Zoroaster, Mithras, Attis and Dionysus-Bacchus they might well leave their lessons thinking that Jesus was somehow a carbon copy of these other myths... and that wouldn't be no good for the CofE would it?

Actually, let's enforce collective worship and change the law so that every religion has to have a snippet read and in equal measures. 

We should have a fully secular society within around 5 - 15 years and a culture more adept at critical thinking.