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.

Accommodating religion...

I read this article by Chris Stedman today where he makes his case that we should embrace the religious more openly and essentially tries to rally "Atheists" to his common cause of religious apologetics.

He writes: "I have major concerns about the ways many vocal atheists go about trying to accomplish this goal through simplistic, unreasonable criticisms of religion".

Simplistic criticisms are fine; the charge that one has to be a Theologian in order to refute the myths at the core of faith is one which needs kicking into touch. All debaters that I have seen on the pious side, from all faiths, highlight this as a weakness of their Atheist counterpart. Douglas Wilson tried something similar with the late Christopher Hitchens, a man subjected to frequent criticism about his theological qualifications; William Lane Craig attempts as a routine when questioned about Richard Dawkins.

It simply does not require years and years of study to refute the theological propositions. You do not need anything more than the ability to read the Bible itself. Bear in mind that this is a book which has been claimed to have been written by the almighty god - surely such a god would have intended such a book to have been accessible by all of mankind.

There are only a few reasons I can think of why you would need someone to read a book to you.

1. You are blind;

2. You cannot read;

3. You are too young to understand sentence construction and the meaning of individual (and most likely complex) words.

But there is another reason why the Bible has been hijacked by Theologians who claim that all of humanity cannot understand it...

Power.

Tell enough people that they can read something but will never understand it unless they defer to an "expert" is simplest way of creating a hierarchy of influence and power. Illiteracy was the root cause of why people initially fell into this trap. Once people became literate a new way needed to be devised to retain this power structure. Theology degrees simply entered the fray to give a cloak of legitimacy. We now see colleges and universities devoted to Biblical studies and if you're not in with that crowd then you are considered ignorant.

We hear it all the time in Atheist circles.. and it is an often used criticism of the more intellectual proponents of the New Atheist movement.

It's what's known as an Ad Verecundiam fallacy; an appeal to authority. It doesn't work because 'authorities' are wrong about a number of things. So we can ignore Stedman's plea about not using simplistic tools to berate religion because it's not needed. Religion is not owed a living by any of us. including the faithful. This sort of accommodation of religion puts Atheists on the back foot immediately where there is no need to concede ground. 

If you can read and write and talk... these are the only tools required to criticise religion. Simple or not, it doesn't matter. It is the claims of the pious that require examination. Do not let people say that you need some sort of specialist knowledge to refute the claims made within the Bible or any other religious book. It's nonsense and a grab for the higher ground in the debate.

Is there a good way for Atheists to become active? Not really. All methods of interaction will work on some level. Whether this is taking the piss or taking part in debates; all are equally valid routes to challenging nonsense and bullshit. We just have to think about the claims that religious people make... and then tackle each case individually. 

More importantly, we do not need to mobilise Atheists at all or become activists. This is because Atheism is simply a position of rejection. We do not have groups mobilising to press home the point that unicorns are imaginary or that fairies are not living at the bottom of the garden (maybe I spoke too soon?)

Sam Harris puts it like this:

If religion is interfering with state politics, your activism comes from being a "Secularist". Even religious people can be secularists, and indeed should be, for if a religion opposite to the one they subscribe to is given prominence in politics you'll have a lot of unhappy people, discrimination and would pave the way to a totalitarian state. We can discuss which states currently exist in this way but there's no need; I would hope we can all think of at least three without going into such detail.

Thus Stedman's article falls apart because it;s based on the Composition fallacy and Fallacy of Moderation that Atheists are a distinct group of people with the same goal, and thus should behave in a coordinated way, and that there is a middle position to be assumed by accommodating religion by "understanding" it in the same way as a theologian would.

Sorry, this is a very odd form of religious apologetics. There is a totalitarian backbone to religion and it demands both service and closed lips; they'll have neither from me and I'm not going to play their game. And I don't particularly care if my own style of criticism is considered unpalatable, controversial etc. I write what I write because I hope that people see the same ridiculous things I do. I don't have a huge audience (just under 2000 a month) but that's enough for me to know I am getting some sort of message out there.

It's quite simple for me; either religion gets it's act together and provides some evidence for its very grandiose claims or it should get out of government, education and philosophy. I do not believe that it belongs in any of those fields of discourse. Religions belong to the annuls of history and nothing more. 

I also noticed an article by Alain de Botton in the Guardian where he wrote:

The second paragraph contradicts the first. He says that there was a warmth and joviality in the celebration of Christmas, the idea that the warmth and fun of the occasion helped him enjoy the occasion more than he thought. He then goes on to say that it should be possible to take some of the religious ideas of family, celebration, warmth etc into the secular realm.

Well that would be all well and good but the celebration of the Winter Solstice preceded the Christian traditions we are now accosted with on a yearly basis. The Winter Solstice itself created many, if not all, of the traditions we associate with "having a good un". It's also interesting that de Booton says that despite adopting Christmas sentimentality in his own household that he has not yet gone so far as to having a tree; almost as if this would force his entrenchment into the Christian faith further. But, again, the tree is another Pagan tradition.

I also cannot ignore his comment that "God may be dead"... almost as if he was ever alive in the first place. This is peculiar talk for a so called "Atheist" but it goes to show that "Atheism" itself is divergent and indiscriminate. However, people like de Booton simply give the Christians too much credence for the season...

Accommodating religion simply continues the façade.

Not without a Hitch

He preferred to be called "Hitch", which brought back memories of his own Father's nickname, but you would be given a cold stare and a harsh rebuke were to you shorten his first name "Christopher".

What seems irrational frustration with the removal of letters from a surname being acceptable but not for a first name is part of what made Hitch an enigma of our time. A person with a resolute belief in propriety but not afraid to step away from convention when the need suited. And thus people were never always certain where they stood with him as demonstrated by his fervent argument in favour of the Iraq War. For a "wet liberal lefty" to have agreed with George Bush's crusade into the Middle East with all of the religious and right wing baggage that accompanied it, it left people like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky incredulous.

But then Hitch wanted nothing more than for people to be continually surprised. He had been doing it all of his life. He was considered, by both friends and enemies, of being a supreme intellect; a person who was articulate, spoke with great force and wit and had a ready accessible library in his head which would send shivers down the spine of his opponents in debate. He could, quite literally, destroy a person with his rancour, concessions and rebuttals.

But he left university with a third class degree. This demonstrates the point perfectly that it's not always "who you know" in the world that gets you somewhere because clearly Hitch was only able to sustain his long career based upon "what he knew". It also demonstrates that a university degree classification demonstrates nothing about a person's potential or ability to apply knowledge and passion to a career.

There is not a lot unique that people can write about Hitch but I hope the above "eulogy" has been something different from the various endorsements that are permeating the blogosphere. All are worthy reads.

What has been interesting is that as soon as Hitch's book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" started trending on Twitter (#godisnotgreat) there were a gluttony of posts from some religious fruitcakes clearly unable to recognise that the trend was not some random phenomena started by some godless heretics but was the vehicle by which people could communicate common sympathy for the death of a person of great significance.

What was surprising, or which should not have been really as the book in question documented the history of religious irrationality, was the violence espoused by the "Religious Twitterati" in response to the hashtag.

Here is a selection rounded up by others...

These comments speak for themselves of course. What was even more surprising, but again should be expected, is the people wishing to profit from the death of Hitch:

These "psychic readings", attached to the Hitch hashtag, contain a level of crassness that is difficult to fathom. But people need to make a living right?

Ok, well the ultimate challenge befalls any psychic who entertains the spirit of Hitch because the level of eloquence needed to prove to any skeptic that they are in Hitch's presence would be incredible. Hitch was one of the most incredible speakers with a breadth of knowledge and a witty repertoire that is not really found anywhere else.

If psychics can truly speak to the dead, and they claim they are speaking to Hitch, they will need to do more than say "I'm sensing the letter "C"" and warble on about how existence is so much better not being in pain blah, blah, blah...

What sort of information could Hitch bring back? Certainly more than telling his family that he loves them very much. I wonder if we will see any attempts to contact Hitch. And if a medium was able to channel his spirit what sort of information would they need to convey to make us believe that he was really in touch? Hitch was one of the most entertaining orators of his generation (and no doubt many others). Unless they were genuinely in touch with his spirit, a medium would need a level of intellect and readily accessible knowledge that I doubt they possess. I might be wrong and the option is there for a significant script to be learned. It's up to the skeptic community to critique this should it ever happen. I'm hoping that someone isn't crass enough to try but judging by the touting for business on the back of the #godisnotgreat hashtag, don't be surprised.

And what about that religious fruitcake Rick Warren who thinks homosexuality is a sin and not a viable lifestyle? He had this to say...

This is the Christian "I told you so". Rick Warren was the guy who invoked Pascal's Wager during a debate with Sam Harris in his closing comments:

"We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."

Rick Warren is basically a guy rolling dice with faith. He doesn't seem to get that he could well be wrong about the god he believes in and that any god who accepted his reasons for believing (which essentially rests on the turn of a card) would be a god of immense stupidity (or naivety). Any god who is omnipotent would know that Warren is taking such a bet and wasn't really into the faith. After all, it's just a bet. A win-win for the theist?

It wouldn't surprise me if the faith fruitcakes end up with some crazy theories about a deathbed conversion; they did it with Darwin, for example, and most recently with Anthony Flew (but in realtime)... if you hear or read about such stories, Hitch has left a memo:

I'm sure if anyone would have been sympathised with for turning to Pascal's Wager, it would have been a person in Hitch's position. Death is something we all face and we do not know how we will react when the time comes. I am with Hitch on this and there will be no recanting from me. Therefore the pious should stop using Pascal's Wager full stop as some sort of argument.

In fact it's intellectually repugnant for any faith head to use Pascal's Wager in anyone's presence but if they do just laugh because they are ascribing a level of stupidity to the deity they are placing on a galactic pedestal.

They commit the ultimate insult to their idea of god, their faith and their own intellect.

Seriously, just laugh.

There are many more comments which I could have included from the brainless to the disgusting. You will find them if you only scan twitter for a brief moment. Share the ones which make you laugh, rip apart the ones which are logically flawed and keep a cool, rational head with the ones which are offering a violent retort to the hashtag. Hitch would do no more, no less were he faced with this situation.

Hitch did not, to my knowledge, use Twitter. He never needed to. However, it is a medium which is immensely useful for spreading ideas. Millions of people use it, millions of people probably follow a god of sorts. These people can see what is being written. It is up to the Atheists and Agnostics to offer not so much an alternative to the violent remarks but a Zeitgeist; we need to show that responding with reason and skeptical rationality is the only way to approach such a situation. This in turn will help others realise we are not evil and cruel but fair and critical of bad ideas.

I'll leave you with this:

“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”
― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-believer

EDIT:

This is one of the poignant blogs I was talking about above:

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/2011/12/16/god-is-not-great/

Please read it. It's extremely honest and heartfelt.

It's just a theory

I'm no biologist. Other than a double award GCSE in Biology and Physics I have only an 'interest' in the sciences. I claim no authority whatsoever in this field. But I do know the difference between a 'theory' and a 'Theory'.

And no, the capital "T" is not it. I shall explain...

John Freshwater is one of those Creationist Biology teachers who claims that he teaches alternative views to Evolution to bring balance to the subject.

He lost a case against his dismissal from Mount Vernon Middle School this week where it was claimed that he not only taught Creationism and refused to remove religious material from his classrooms but also burned a cross into students arms with a Tesla Coil. This is a picture used in the case against him:

Horrific.

A report here said:

"Although it is reported that school officials have not completely absolved Freshwater of the Tesla coil incident, a hearing officer had previously found that it was not a factor in the firing, "because Freshwater stopped using it after he was told to do so."

“I have been completely cleared of that but they continue to bring that up. That should have never been brought to the case,” Freshwater said. “The media reports keep bringing it up. I guess it sells papers.” [emphasis is always mine]

So he is a liar as well as a child abuser then because burning symbol into a child's skin IS child abuse. He should have been sacked on the spot for that alone. The school caught him doing it and told him to stop using the device to inflict his warped sense of morality onto other human beings.

I would have strapped to a chair, put the Tesla coil in his mouth and then retire for lunch... hopefully upon my return he would have a different opinion on whether the Tesla coil is a suitable teaching implement? Maybe he would like it too much and this would defeat the object? I digress...

If that wasn't bad enough his lawyers adds insult to injury:

“He never had a negative performance evaluation in 20-plus years. He is a good teacher,” Rutherfor Institute President John W. Whitehead told CP. “The real issue here is that he has obligedly challenged a sacred object in public education, which is the theory of evolution.

“People forget it is a theory. So, our argument is that he should have the academic freedom to do that. If schools just want an official version they should just show a video or get a robot to do it. It would be easier,” Whitehead said."

Creationists LOVE saying that Evolution is "just a theory"... they think it offers a way for them to intellectually discredit Evolution and offer alternatives on a rational basis. 

Now, if they truly think that Evolution is just a theory based on their understanding of the word "theory", then it is entirely rational for them to believe that an alternative is viable. I always look at how people use rationality and reason to come to their conclusions. And I do think that they are operating on some rational level based on their assumptions.

But in this case it is intellectually dishonest for a teacher to believe that a 'scientific theory' and the word 'theory' mean the same thing. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Horribly wrong.

Scientific Theory: "In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains."

Theory: 

By saying that Evolution is "just a theory" it's clear that Creationists are referring to the 2nd description in this dictionary.com explanation. They think that Evolution is an idea... a flight of fancy without verification.

This book rounds on those who think that evolution is "just a theory" and I recommend it highly (I don't get money for links, advertising or purchases). 

Above all, it is intellectually disgraceful for a science teacher to be misrepresenting, via his lawyers, evolutionary theory. And this shows that he has been either sucked into a propaganda machine intent on "Teaching the Controversy" or is simply a fruitcake of the highest order who needs to go back to school. 

The message is; always watch out for the Creationists who deliberately misrepresent the word "theory" whether by intent or lack of education.

I wish the Liars for Jesus brigade would debate honestly. By moving the goalpost to deliberately misrepresent the science they are committing fraud and trying to fuck up public education. And it's all part of an agenda by organisations determined to promote Intelligent Design based on the Christian principle of a creator. We don't see Hindu creationists penetrating public discourse for example in the same way as the Christian fundamentalists but then the resources of these organisations is vast and influence wide.

Answers in Genesis is one popular creationist resource... check paragraph 6 of their mission statement:

This is the intellectual level at which this organisation and their ilk operate on. Nothing can contradict the bible. If it does, even if the evidence is overwhelming then it must be wrong. Simply because it will have been subjected to "interpretation by fallible people".

Anyone else think that this is a contradictory and hypocritical statement to make considering that:

a) the bible was written by fallible people

b) that the bible is subject to interpretation by fallible people

Nothing will convince the fundamentalists that they are wrong. It's their mission statement. I prefer to subscribe to rigorous scientific enquiry. I don't mind being wrong about things. In fact I consider being wrong to be a part of the learning process. Creationists, and particularly the fundamentalists of all faiths, do not want to learn. And that's backwards thinking...

Gettin' rid of t'cross

Faith is on the menu again this week with Christian Concern spoiling another broth. This time, the anger is over the removal of a cross from a Christian Charity.

Andrea Williams will no doubt feature more often on here in the future because she is priceless.

I think my new nickname for her is going to be 'Kuato'... that protruding fella from Total Recall

Anyway, the story goes that a Christian Charity wanted to make itself more inclusive by removing overt references to Christianity. The story gained traction because it was discussed as part of an employment tribunal case for Tony Williams who was selected for redundancy. The Telegraph report says:

"Angela Painter, the chief executive of the Kenward Trust, said Mr Williams had been selected for redundancy because he had performed badly at interview.

Mrs Painter denied the Christian ethos of the charity had been diluted. “One of the things we know from our service users was that at times a very obvious big cross can trigger the memory of abuse in a Christian setting which would be upsetting,” she said."

"The tribunal found that Mr Williams had been “fairly selected for redundancy” and that he was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. He was ordered to pay £500 in costs."

So, in other words, Tony needed to perform at a certain standard and was offered a chance to save his job; he was crap, so they made him redundant. However, he wanted to get the last word in and criticised his ex-employers by claiming "religious discrimination". Not only was his case chucked out, he was spanked for costs too. Usually, there is a good reason you receive a costs order against you... I'll say no more.

Kuato was all over this like a fly around shit.

On her blog she wrote:

"Only this week I learned that a large cross was removed from the entrance lobby of a UK Christian charity, in order not to offend others.

Increasingly, it seems that Christian beliefs are allowed to be held ‘in principle’ but cannot be manifested in public. Attempts to stop any public display of the cross are a small but telling part of this dynamic.

Scripture warns us that the cross is an ‘offence’. Yet removing the cross from the public square is not going to negate his victory or stop his return. What was accomplished on the cross stands for ever.

We serve an incredible God."

Anyone else know what Kuato is on about? I'm sure there was a strawman, a red herring and then something about the rapture... 

It seems like Kuato was almost making a threat? 

You know, Jesus is coming back and when he realises that you have removed from public view the instrument of torture which led to his death he isn't going to be happy! 

But earlier in Kuato's blog she said:

"Sadly, this news by no means shocked me. It sits within a wider narrative of attempts to remove the cross (and the Christian faith) from the public square – attempts made by both secularists and Islamists on an increasing basis."

Er, does she realise that the case she was angry about concerned a decision made by the head of the Christian charity and not those damn Islamists and secularists? Fruitcake.

Kuato is also helping out some bird with a face like a bag of spanners... a case I reported on in this blog's previous life.

However, the fun doesn't stop in Kuato Land; the Christian Concern website is a treasure trove of ignorant bollocks dressed up as "concerns".

Under the heading "Islam" their concerns are as follows:

"The influence of radical Islam is growing in the UK and as an ideology it seeks to shape our political and social landscape. From the introduction of Sharia law and Islamic finance to the implications on freedom of speech and women’s rights, the presence of Islamism in the UK has great repercussions for all of us."

Replace 'Islam' with 'Christian' and "women's rights" with "gay rights"... then hopefully Kuato and her ilk will understand why it is secularism which is the future for Britain and indeed the world. As much as Christians like herself are concerned about the rise of Islam, secularists are concerned with the role of religion in society as a whole. Christianity is not a matter for politics, law, medicine or any other public concern.

Other matters which concern Kuato and her merry band of blood cult followers revolves around homosexuality. It just had to didn't it?

"Due to the recent increase in equality legislation there has been a profound shift in UK law, resulting in homosexuality being given increasing protection as a ‘right’. Unfortunately this has led to serious consequences for Christians."

&

"Sexual orientation is being given increasing protection under equality legislation."

How dare people be treated fairly under the law regardless of their sexual orientation! It's a sin I tells ya! Glad to have people like Kuato tell us about this "increase in equality legislation"

What Christian Concern wants is equality, but only for their own views. They want equality under the law to have the right to judge homosexuality but deny equality for homosexuals to be able to express their "sexuality
as a right". They cannot have it both ways.

"Although both religious belief and homosexuality are protected to some extent under equality law, these two strands are often incompatible with one another. The law is unbalanced in this area, first within the legislation and then worsened in judicial interpretation, favouring the protection of sexual orientation over the protection of religious belief""

Strange reasoning. Sexual orientation is natural whereas religious belief is a choice. While it is true some people may choose to partake in homosexual activity it is a fact that no-one is born with religious belief.

Therefore homosexuals deserve protections under the law over and above religious thought.

Which brings me to my final point really...

Anyone ever have homosexuals knocking on their door preaching about the benefits of such a lifestyle or say that you are evil/going to hell if you don't sign up?

Nah, didn't think so...

Next time you read a story about militant atheists/homosexuals/pro-choice advocates or general noisy secularism just remember that for centuries religion has been less than quiet and reasonable in the enforcement of its belief system.

Christian Concern is one of those fronts which wants to have it all their own way. And they still want everyone to believe what they believe. Don't think for second that they don't.

Melanie Phillips Nutcake Recipe

Ingredients

• Take a ridiculous article berating a 16 year old boy about his background (or make it seem as if he was being disingenuous)

• Throw in some made up nonsense about 'Winterval' 

• Cover with a dusting of rationality

• When it turns out to be not quite to your taste, apply stupid libel threats liberally

The libel 'threat' statement from Mel said:

"Your blog post about me is highly defamatory and contains false allegations for which you would stand to pay me significant damages in a libel action. There are many things I could say to point out the gross misrepresentations, selective reporting and twisted distortions in what you have written. I will not do so, however, because you have shown gross abuse of trust in publishing on your blog private correspondence from me without my permission. Consequently I will have no more to do with you and any further messages from you will be electronically binned unread along with other nuisance mail."

Mel is unhinged from reality and, unusually for someone who likes to staunchly defend her opinion, is not interested in receiving criticism.

http://www.fagburn.com/2011/02/melanie-phillips-vile-poisonous.html

She has subjected the world to a number of completely ignorant statements and seems to revel in being a rent-a-quote for theological crowd. Take this comment, for example, and note it's breathtaking failure to grasp 'evidence':

"And evolution certainly does not have all the answers. It does not explain human self-consciousness; it does not explain altruism; it does not explain how existence began." http://www.melaniephillips.com/intolerance-against-religion

Evolution, it might surprise her, does not attempt to address elements associated with the neurological and social sciences and neither does it suggest the origin of life.

"It promotes, for example, unproven environmental propaganda as fact, a subversive idea of citizenship, a sexual free-for-all and above all, the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth."

Here's game for you to try; try to work out what she is referring to with these cryptic descriptions... you'll probably come to the same conclusion I did...

"But religion has become the great unmentionable in our society. In intellectual, political or media circles, a religious handle is enough to label one as a bigot or fruitcake."

...and this following statement made me smile more than any other:

"Instead, secularism now arrogantly presents itself as if it were a religion."

Right.... so after a full article completely bashing secularism for being dogmatic, founded on lies, disingenuous with facts, corrupts children in numerous ways and has an overall chilling effect on society she then goes on to say that secularism presents itself "as if it were a religion"... yep, clear off secularism... you're treading on religious territory.

My real opinion however is that she is just not being that smart. I'm only appalled that people think that because she appears in a daily tabloid that she has an opinion worthy of consideration. In reality, she is quite bitter with what appears to be some very strange ideas about what the political term "liberal" is (which she describes herself as).

She says so, I might add, without any hint of irony.

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.

The curious case of Peter Vardy

Back in December 2010 a guy called 'Sir' Peter Vardy won an apology from the Tribune Magazine after issuing libel proceedings; damages were paid and therefore the case is considered to be settled out of court. It's not a binding precedent and there are a couple of inferences that can be made about the Tribune's decision to settle:

1. The Tribune were in the right but couldn't afford the short term legal costs in defending the claim and thus it was easier to put an end to the situation now and let others make their own mind up on the merits of the case (possible)
2. The Tribune were wholly wrong with their allegations and therefore took the quick route out of extended proceedings (likely)

Peter Vardy was recorded in an interview saying this:

"He told how he has been “saddled with this unwarranted and wholly untrue” Creationist label for many years, finally losing patience when the accusation was repeated in an article in October 2009 by Tyneside author Ed Waugh."

"Yesterday, after winning his case in London, he said: “I felt forced to take this action in the High Court of Justice to set the record straight and finally lay the matter to rest."

“These allegations were not based on any fact and have been extremely damaging. The court action reflects the gravity of the matter and the seriously damaging effect that such untruths can cause.”

BBC News also reported the settlement:

In a statement, Sir Peter who was knighted for services to education, said: "I have been saddled with this unwarranted and wholly untrue 'creationist' label for many years.

"I felt forced to take this action in the High Court of Justice to set the record straight and finally lay the matter to rest."

Now, if a person had a vested interest (just so happens) in proving that calling someone a 'creationist' is considered pejorative they might be inclined to use Peter Vardy's case as an example of how 'damaging' such an allegation could be.

On the basis of the articles they might feel that they can prove their case to such an extent that Peter Vardy's own words could be used? I mean, the articles above clearly infer that Peter Vardy 'won' his case for being called a 'creationist' and that the matter was "laid to rest."

I cannot work out whether Vardy was being economical with the truth or whether it is a case of shoddy reporting. Because the actual case itself, in which an open statement was read out in court and contains a statement that the Tribune accepts that Peter Vardy is not a creationist, states nothing about the claim being about the private beliefs of Peter Vardy and nor considers any allegations about him being a creationist.

So why is the case seemingly referred to as a "win" for Vardy in dealing with the Creationist tag?

Firstly, Peter Vardy is a creationist and I'll explain why I think so:

*ads removed and spliced to read into a single jpeg (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist)

The dictionary reference contains all of the information I need to make the claim that someone is a creationist. There may be other phrases which work in tandem with the term creationist but it all reduces down to one element; the belief that human beings were created by another being as opposed to a naturalistic process.

This is useful too:

"The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says the term "creationism" is used for the doctrine that the world is created. "Young earth creationists" believe in the literal word of Genesis: that God created the universe in six days. Critics say this dates Earth to younger than 10,000 years. "Old earth creationists" say God created the universe by evolutionary means."


Any person, organisation, charity that suggests that the biblical account of creation is correct would fit the the definition of being called a Christian creationist. There are different degrees of course, as with political leanings, but there tends to be a one size fits all category for believing the world is created and creationist fits; for what else could it be called???

So why do I think Peter Vardy fits the definition above?

In an interview here, Peter Vardy says the following:

Another article considers quotes from the head of the Vardy’s Emmanuel Schools Trust:

Also relevant is an article in the Guardian who ran a statement from a local council who conduct OFSTED inspections at Vardy's schools:

"Alternative theories" - I love that phrase. But it's nonsense. The only theories that should be taught are ones which have scientific and verifiable evidence. There is a place for religious creationism and that's in the RE classes. And I suspect that this is where the bulk of any creationist education or story telling takes place anyway (I think that is right to say for all schools, not just limited to Vardy's).

But it's a natural position to notice the contradiction of teaching science in the morning and wooky woo in the afternoon.

I do wonder what other alternative theories are credible enough to fit into the masterplan though? Japanese vomit gods might have a hard time being accepted...

Anyway, I've digressed enough.

I think it's clear that Peter Vardy is indeed a Creationist based on his own words, the destination of his generous funds, the words of the head of his school trust and the comments by Middlesbrough Council that they understand that alternative theories are discussed which, by deductive reasoning, are more likely to be the Christian theories than the Japanese spunking gods myth

But the apology from the Tribune says: "We accept that Sir Peter Vardy is not a creationist". And the interviews conducted make it seem as if he feels exonerated in being called a creationist and thus has a libel case victory to back it up. Now again this could be down to shoddy reporting, and I think it is, but the point remains as to what the open statement from the court actually said because this contains all of the grounds upon which he brought action and won by default (i.e. the Tribune gave up rather than a judgement being given).

I'm a reader of the Sensuous Curmudgeon and even they issued an apology based on the reports. This is no criticism of anyone suckered in by the reports and the fact that those reports were accompanied by the idea that Peter Vardy succeeded in court would have caused people to take a step back and not inflame the situation further.

However, I have read the open statement made in court and all it says on Peter Vardy's personal beliefs as follows:

"They also accept that Sir Peter is not a creationist, and still less has sought to advance the teaching of creationism by means of the sponsorship of education in the UK."

I do not know what the Particulars of Claim stated. But it would have been strange for it to have included a request for the Defendant to accept that Peter Vardy is not a creationist considering the volume of evidence that could be found which would support that conclusion. Therefore I think that the comment above was simply made as part of the settlement and was never part of the original proceedings. It was sort of the icing on the cake for Peter Vardy in having this read out in court and as part of an apology.

This leaves any rational person with the comments that Peter Vardy has made over a number of years with either the impression above - that it was an icing on the cake throwaway comment - or that Peter Vardy has moved considerably from the position he had taken with respect to the bible and that his entire philosophy on creation has changed.

Coupled with him being called a creationist for years and years without issuing a single claim (to my knowledge) it seems reasonable that the action taken by Peter Vardy was taken because of something else.

Something which couldn't be proven under the current defamation laws in the UK.

Well the open statement for the court reveals exactly why Vardy took this action in the first place:

Note the wording from the counsel representing Peter Vardy: "None of these allegations is correct".

Nothing, in the sentences above, refers to Peter Vardy allegedly being called a creationist. I suspect that the original article more than likely made this allegation but it was not part of the open statement denial anyway which leads me to believe that either the article didn't mention it or it was a point which Vardy was not able to proceed with. In other words, he 'won' his case on points which the burden of proof would have been too difficult for the Tribune to have coped with. 

My opinion is that the libel action was brought because of these allegations only based on the open statement:

1. The article claimed that ‘the Vardy Foundation, led by Chrisitan Evangelical Peter Vardy, which... controls three State Schools with the fourth on the way’ was imposing ‘pseudoscience’ ‘again on children whose education is paid for by taxpayers’ money’.
2. The article also claimed that; ‘By virtue of donating £2million of the £22million it cost the taxpayer to build an academy, the Vardy Foundation can impose its fundamentalist beliefs on children through the science curriculum’.
3. The article asserted that by virtue of the funding provided by the Vardy Foundation; ‘children in State Schools, funded by taxpayers’ money, are being taught in biology lessons that evolution is as much a ‘theory’ as creationism and that everything was designed by a God creator as stated literally in Genesis’.

I argue that the reason the Tribune settled was because they had implied in their article that taxpayer's money was being spent supporting a school peddling creationism... had implied that children were being indoctrinated with creationist dogma and that the literal account of Genesis was correct (a Young Earth Creationism position and considered the more 'fundamentalist' approach)... 

...and the Tribune could not prove beyond any doubt that these allegations were correct. 

This is because, under UK defamation law, there is a reversed burden of proof making it a difficult and costly process. Hopefully, the Libel Reform Campaign will get this ridiculous situation sorted out in good time but I for one do not blame the Tribune for folding at this stage considering that costs can reach into six figures for the simplest of trials.

However, as above, the open statement did not deal with allegations that Peter Vardy was a creationist; the acceptance that he wasn't a creationist simply made up part of the apology that the Tribune made and presumably a condition of such a settlement. Why would Peter Vardy need the apology to make it clear that he is not a creationist considering that in all of his previous public statements the opposite would be true?

I think it was a way of stifling further criticism and limiting debate. I can think of no other reason that could be taken as a serious argument. 

We know from his own words that he believes the bible is correct and that mankind was created by god. We know that his organisation promotes a 'Christian ethos'. We know that senior staff in his organisation are extremely vocal about their creationist principles and refutation of evolutionary theory.

We also know, from the open statement in court, that any allegation of Peter Vardy being a creationist was not denied. Read that again. It was NOT denied. Only the allegations which the Tribune could not prove were denied. For the reporter to have run the story at all would suggest that there was something in it. Some sort of mileage but that in the absence of fair and decent libel law such proofs would need to be so convincing that, in the end, the wick wasn't worth the candle.

Vardy is happy because he can continue doing... whatever it is he is doing... and with the kudos of an out of court settlement. 

Either way, the case is not a binding precedent, made no rulings on the meaning of the word creationism or creationist, made no adverse inferences about the state of play of creationism in the UK, considered no points of law about fair/honest comment (or indeed the truth) and was simply an exercise in using the crap defamation laws in the UK to stifle opinion.

So people might now be concerned about calling Peter Vardy a creationist. But, if he fits this definition then the rules of logic surely apply? If not, then the situation is an obscene and farcical one. However, with the Tribune caving in (rightly so in the current climate) and the reporting of the case people are concerned that they could get themselves into trouble.

The thing is, Peter Vardy has had plenty of opportunities to refute being called a creationist. The best opportunity came in then open statement for the court and no denial was made.

However, nothing was decided in law. And of course the right of reply remains open and invitations are made for either a counter statement or a concise explanation of why years of information which all point to Peter Vardy being a creationist are wrong or are no longer relevant owing to an 'evolution' of beliefs. For this could be the only explanation relied upon for why Peter Vardy would deny being a creationist.

So if Peter was considering taking action to right this alleged 'wrong' he needs to consider that the words in the past were either WRONG or are NO LONGER TRUE. I'm curious as to which one will be admitted to should he refute the creationist tag.

Until then, a person should be taken on their word and I would argue an honourable gentleman like Peter Vardy, should he have belief in the bible to the extent previously asserted, would be proud to believe in creation and thus not seek to deprive fair comment or honest opinion. I accept that he used to law to challenge allegations which couldn't be proven. No problem there and I have said nothing about those allegations. 

But I do think, based on his own words/actions that he is a creationist (whatever inferences other people make about that or for whatever consequences come for holding such beliefs)

God sent the Fury didn't cha know!

Today, Tyson Fury, the 6' 9" boxer, was proselytizing in the Belfast Telegraph. Anyone who has watched a Fury fight will know how much this chap loves god and how thankful he is for helping him win his fights in his post-fight interviews.

Here's some of Fury comments to the Belfast Telegraph:

“The ultimate sacrifice has been made for me on the Cross and I could never emulate what Jesus has done for me."

The Seething Primate has a perfect riposte for this. I can do no better. So here it is:

"If you have faith in God you can achieve anything."

You can achieve anything without god too.

“The Bible says that with faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains, so if we have faith in Christ you can do anything."

Fury has failed to properly knock out 13 of his 15 opponents so far (TKO doesn't count as the it means the ref has jumped in or the other fighter couldn't continue). If he can't move fat tomato cans what chance does he have of shifting mountains?

“Ask and you shall receive, so I’m asking and I’m receiving — so any problems I have I give them to God and he sorts them out."

Yup. God sorts out all of Fury's problems. In fact, I reckon Fury takes up so much of god's time that he isn't able to get around to less important stuff. Like saving babies in Africa from HIV/AIDS. Or healing amputees. Far too busy for that.

This sense of entitlement makes me sick to be honest. Why the fuck would god want to help Fury cause damage to people and help him earn millions in the process? Twat.

“God is the main thing that drives people even though they don’t realise it. Even those who say they don’t believe in God, because God is speaking to them, they’re very close to their lives being changed."


So now god speaks to people. It's not often that the religious claim this because it makes you look like a loon.

"And I believe God is helping me in my career to help spread the word of Jesus Christ. I have a special opportunity because God has given me the size, the height, the ability to go on and be the heavyweight champion of the world. I never think about damaging someone."

Fury seems to forget that he is the only fighter, in the history of televised boxing, to have punched himself in the face.

If there is a god, then he has a sense of humour at least.

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?