A cold house for atheists?

Tough to 'come out' as an atheist, yes, it reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo

Tell me about it; I'm a deist libertarian who like gays and guns!

At the same time, John?

Brian, I think you make good points, and this is an area I've been thinking about a lot lately. What seems to be required is a shift in society to the point where it is OK to come "out" as an atheist; where atheists will not be disowned by their families, colleagues, or even (and this is going to sound strange) their *church*.

It is no secret (indeed, it is readily demonstrable if you talk to people) that many many regular churchgoers don't really believe in god, but their "faith" is a simple operational acceptance that there are things we don't understand, so they feel they may as well call the mysteries "god", and get on with living a good life and valuing each other's company. I actually don't see a problem with this - many members of the "Big Four" religions here are probably more "Unitarian" than anything else.

The United Irishmen, as well as the Founding Fathers of the USA are a good example - many significant people from that era were deists (it was even harder to be a proper atheist back then, for pretty obvious reasons - Darwin hadn't lifted the lid on evolution, for one thing). Nowadays their heirs are Quakers, Unitarians or Non-Subscribing Presbyterians (here in Ireland). The fundamental principle is freethought.

So here's my heresy - I suggest the churches should do more to bring people in, of all religions and none - not for evangelism, but purely for community. Allow people to participate in communal activities, but allow the matter of belief or disbelief to remain entirely personal. Allow people to view the metaphorical "christ" in whatever way they want, whether as connected with a (likely) historical Jesus, or as a human symbol of how we develop as humans, and move beyond the baggage of the past to paying things forward. Promote equality, diversity, but above all, Reason. If we have to have faith in anything, let it be in the essential worth of humanity and our environment.

And may the Bishop of Lancaster have his armpits infested with the fleas of a thousand camels for his inane comments [Will, surely you should do a post on that?]

Peace and love, y'all!

-H

Thanks for linking that YouTube clip John. It was linked on the Flying Spaghetti Monster website a long time ago, it gives me a good laugh now as it did then.

Mom really makes you feel the love of jesus: if you don't believe, you're not getting any presents this christmas!!

Helio- Yes, at the same exact time. A gay with a gun would be just great. Which makes me wonder why we don't see more mixed 'opinion' like mine: you mention freethought which is conspicuously absent in people whose beliefs are so easily predicted: a NI Catholic who tends to vote leftwing? A NI Protestant who tends to vote conservative? Can't you believe in low taxes AND a united Ireland? Can't you believe in redistribution of wealth AND wish to remain in the United Kingdom? Can't you support gays AND guns? Can't you support the free market AND legalisation of cannabis?

Helio

Very interesting heresy. Makes me wonder a number of things.

First, and I'm sure you have you own experiences of this, my knowledge of the christian sub-culture has led me to conclude that this need to 'come out', or 'stand up and be counted' has often be a very evangelical christian one. Even years ago the idea was communicated that Christians should not be ashamed of their faith, and as I'm sure you will know there are all sorts of cliched ways of saying this. The idea of course was driven by the belief that Christians lived, and now live, in a increasingly hostile world where 'bearing witness' was crucial. Most of the world we were told were unbelievers, and so it comes as something of a surprise to me that people should feel the need to assert their atheism. Now, family difficulty I can understand as I can understand 'exclusion' from or maybe lack of identification with one's previous circle of friends, but surely this is a difficulty particularly related to those who have lost or rejected their faith. In such circumstances I can see that lack of belonging might be a problem.

This then leads me more directly to your comments regarding a more inclusive church. Is it fair to say that in spite of your 'lack' of Christian faith that you see the value of the church as a focus for the wider community? If so why would this be the case? And at what point would you find such participation in a church community uncomfortable, I'm thinking for example of a service of worship, and how would you imagine such inclusive church gatherings workings? There's a lot to unpack here.

One more thing, related to the probably no god thread. Could you please explain to Brian, cos he's not listening to the Christians, that the idea that Jesus of Nazareth (or wherever) was more than likely an actual person, maybe he'll see sense from you!

BTW what did the bishop say?

Interesting ideas on church and community. I'm convinced that the 'social factor' is the primary reason anybody goes to church today. This explains a lot, including why many older middle-class professionals who don't feel comfortable in bars anymore fit into church, and why churchgoers sometimes display hypocritical behaviour: they're not there because they formed views identical to the guys sitting in the pews around them, they're there because they enjoy the community and the sense of belonging.

I, of-course, am no more an atheist than I am a theist but I completely understand where Helio is coming from even though, despite some apparent similarities, it is quite different from my own position. Religion in Northern Ireland is and has long been for many of its adherents a social, cultural and aesthetic experience devoid of spiritual content - I do not see why the reality should not be acknowledged.

One interesting thing:it strikes me that essentially Graham proposed something similar to Helio in his extended defence some time ago of the odious Pascal's Wager. I look forward to being corrected...

John - your comments on 'mixing' opinions. This older, middle-class, professional, church-goer feels very comfortable in bars and is a left-wing voting Protestant - although, it must be said, I do not wish to remain in the United Kingdom.

Peter

The Roman bishop of Lancaster essentially blamed the undermining of traditional beliefs and values by education and educated catholics for the decline in attendance at mass - particularly among the working classes.

Hi Brain

holding any type of faith is frowned upon in Nireland,

In the poem (whatever you say, say nothing) that you quote above Heaney also says,

"to be saved is to save face"

i think that our culture is oppressing spiritual people in Ireland in the same way that the politics of church is oppressing non-belivers.

Jesus hated dry religion, the kingdom that he speaks of in the gospels, is completely different. I think we have something in common here :)

Anyway I am glad that you are a part of the country, and i hope your community feels the same way about me.

S small number of points raised by Brian are reasonable.

Unfortunately, the rest is absolute bunkum. Perhaps by composing an "article", rather than simply making a post, Brian wants to borrow some authority.

Of course, the first point that should be made clear is that the issue is, to a large extent, one of perception.

Brian feels that atheists suffer from a "fear of hostility and ridicule, fear of appearing intolerant and aggressive, fear of discrimination in our professional life"

Of course, these could all be totally baseless, irrational fears.

And, given that it's a matter of perception, in my experience, CHRISTIANS are often subject to hostility and ridicule, and dismissed as intolerant and agressive...interesting that Brian himself dismisses Christians as just that in this very article.


As his prime example of how poor atheists are discriminated against, Brian flogs the "choice" horse once more...

I would rather not focus on the abortion debate in the context of this wider issue, but Brian reliance on it, and his inept use of the word "choice" is a misjudgment.

That society does not allow people the "choice" to terminate the lives of the unborn is not a simple matter of discrimination.

Brian says that

"We seek to promote freedom of thought and action and do not wish to impose behaviour on others or prevent people from doing things, but believers do not want to allow non-believers this freedom"

Unless Brian is an absolute libertarian, which i know he is not, he respects the right of wider society to lay down limits to freedom. There are many things that we are not free to do, and that Brian would, no doubt, not wish to grant us the freedom to do. Brian would not call for the "choice to murder", for example.

That the current democratically elected government has decided that terminating the unborn is one of those limits to liberty is neither here nor there with respect to "religious hegemony".

Brian says; "the public discourse is still dominated by an outmoded religious hegemony"

Elaborate on this, please. In what way?

"The old attitude that an atheist is either a fool or a knave ("The fool hath said in his heart there is no good... they have committed abominable acts" - Psalm 14) still prevails"

Whether that attitude prevails or not is, again, a matter of perception. I would argue that it does not - no doubt we could trade examples.

However, does Brian wish to force people to change their attitude?

If that attitude really does prevail, then Brian should either attempt to change it through persuasion, or, failing that (indeed, having edited a humanist magazine, it could be said that Brian has already failed), dry his eyes.

"The Humanist Association of Northern Ireland has had members whose families have disowned them for being atheists. Other single members have been pressurised by their spouses into keeping a low profile."

I know of a person who was disowned by his friends when he became Christian. I know of a woman who's Christianity is scorned by her husband.

So what?

Are the personal views of families and spouses some part of an evangelical plot, legitimised by dominance and hegemony? Or are they just that, the personal views of families?

""Whatever you say, say nothing" remains the usual advice when the topic of religion surfaces"

Again a matter of perception. In my experience, in may circumstances people are discouraged from discussing their faith honestly, and tacit encouragement and even praise is heaped on the attitude of the scornful sceptic.

In the workplace, for example, were I to begin evangelising I would be scorned and ridiculed, whereas a good blasphemous or heretical joke always goes down well.

but that's just my experience. Perhaps Brian works in a religious bookshop, or lives in a convent.

Finally, the issue of professional discrimination:

Brian says:

"There is no doubt that the principal of a school or a controller of the local media is unlikely openly to declare themselves an atheist"

Now...a controller of the local media...I am unsure about that.

As for a principal of a school, many parents send their children to religious schools and therefore expect a degree of religious and spiritual example. This is the choice of parents.

Your criticism amounts to the fact that atheists are not free to take up a position in which they are supposed to present a religious example - which is like crying discrimination to the church when they wont let atheists in.

Brian, if you're really so oppressed, tell us in what way.

If you're crying because some people think you foolish and intolerant, perhaps you are, dry your eyes.

Hi Peter(morrow),

The need to "stand up and be counted" is a purely human one, and is in no way specific to, or backdated to, Christianity, evangelical or otherwise. As for Christians living in a "hostile world", this has been part of the martyr myth that has been carefully manufactured and cultivated for centuries; transferring this to atheists is not, I feel, a thing I would like to see (while not disagreeing with Brian, of course).

Sure, people have been persecuted through the centuries for all sorts of opinions and beliefs - there is zero new in that, and I don't think chips-on-shoulders are healthy (even if they've been cooked in sunflower oil).

We need a few little things: 1. Consciousness raising (and I think Brian has done a nice job of this). 2. Dialogue (and isn't that why we're here?). 3. Recognition that we are all going to have to live here together, and while we might not respect each other's opinions, we can at least respect the person, and acknowledge their right to *hold* their opinions.

My "Our Wee Utopia" vision essentially involves those principles. Culture is dynamic, should never be dogmatic. A clear secular vision *protects* religious liberty.

As for the benefits of community, yes, I would acknowledge that many churches do a really good job in this regard. They are being "humanistic" in this respect. Mosques and synagogues and temples have the same effects in their communities. My argument is not that religion is always harmful (it clearly is sometimes, but it is often benign), simply that it is not actually *true*, and insistence on dogma is inappropriate.

That being the case, come on, churches! Open your doors to atheists, muslims, jews, buddhists too - not to proselytise, but to forge a spirit of community. How we interact with our concepts of god is our own affair; how we interact with each other is of crucial importance to us all.

-H (for hugs)

I've never felt in any way discriminated aganist, put out, or otherwise had an adverse reaction if and when the subject ever came up where I revealed myself an atheist. I don't advertise it but I also don't hide it.

Maybe it's just Brian then...

;)

John,

Thanks for the link to the YouTube video. Excellent! A clear illustration of the hostility that some young atheists encounter.

On the general issue, it seems to me a legacy of our sectarian history that people would meet hostile attitudes if they voiced their atheist beliefs. Our culture has been dominated by the two varieties of Christianity and the antagonism between them for centuries. Isn't that why we have partition, religiously segregated schools, sectarian politics and families still recovering from the violence of the Troubles? Naturally, in that context, people stick to their own tribe because you don't know how long the present lull in the conflict will last and they view with suspicion atheists whose beliefs undermine the ideology of the tribe.

Only the exceptional politician here will declare that he/she is an atheist, because it is a vote-loser. Likewise, in our sectarian education system, any teacher who declares him/herself an atheist will not be well received by the Board of Governors and can forget about career advancement. I have known teachers who were atheist by conviction but who were prominent in their local church because it was good for their careers.

Fortunately, as Malachi O'Doherty shows in his book, "Empty Pulpits", traditional religious beliefs are leaking away and we may have arrived at a more secular culture in a few years' time. Roll on!

Bernard, it is not just Brian - it is a real phenomenon, and I have personally been on the receiving end of a tub of vitriol from one of our elected representatives because I (perhaps foolishly) let him know that I did not believe in his space pixie, and therefore did not feel that his report of its opinions was something I could reasonably be expected to take under my notice. Mind you, since many of our elected representatives are complete idiots, this didn't worry me too much.

But if you are saying that you are happy for atheists to have a hearing in public discourse here, and for atheist views to be accorded respect and airtime (as befits 14% of the population), then that is encouraging. The next time the "leaders of the four main churches" are being pumped for their opinions on x/y/z, perhaps the media should call on Brian or Les, because there are a lot more atheists than there are (say) Methodists.

-H

Having worked in several places in which there were generally a few vaguely 'churchy' (Christmas and weddings) people, a couple of atheists, me and maybe one or two others (actively practising faith) and the rest of no strong opinion, I don't really see where Brian is coming from when he talks about atheists being afraid to tell their colleagues about their atheism.

In a lot of places people of faith are ridiculed, and in many others no one gives much of a toss either way.

This current 'oh, us poor atheists are so trodden upon' rhetoric is starting to get really tedious. In some places you will be discriminated against, in some there will be discrimination in your favour, and in the vast majority no one will give a stuff. That's life.

Helio, I don't doubt that what Brian has described does occur. No doubt there are some really stuffy societies, or small villages, where it's a bit of a taboo.

But, as Sharrieg above me points out, and as Brian himself pointed out, most people don't give a toss either way.

Brian:
"While the majority of people, including Christians, are generally tolerant and open-minded"

He thens goes on to say that somehow "public discourse" is dominated by some sort of religious hegemony.

Which is nonsense of the highest order.

The fact that most politicians here would not admit to being atheist may be due to the fact that most people want someone of faith and hope to lead them.

The fact that, unlike in Britain, politicians here discuss their faith more openly hardly amounts to hegemony.

Even if we're discussing lawmaking, while Iris Robinson's remarks may be abhorrent, and her husband may be the First Minister, there is absolutely no way in which they would be able to enact any law that attempted to enforce their beliefs on others. Absolutely no way they could do so.

You seem to class the fact that they are free to discuss it as some sort of hegemony.

I suppose we can't blame the atheists for looking for sympathy - they might as well jump on the victim-culture bandwagon with everyone else. If you deviate from the norm and make a point of it, I agree with Sharrie, you can expect to take some flack.

I well remember expounding some of the less contentious elements of my own world-view at a parish meeting in my home village and being told effectively, in an interesting pre-echo of Bishop O'Donoghue, that 'my too much learning had made me mad'.

My opinions were rubbished, my faith dismissed, and my character questioned. I am afraid it probably reveals a personality disorder of some type but I went home thinking O Joy! rather than O No!.

Just right.

I or they?

Or indeed both...

No, yourself.


If people think you odd, eccentric, misguided or foolish, sometimes you should rejoice in it, instead of complaining that everyone ought to think like you do.

Bernard:

1. Your concern for my welfare is touching. I can assure you that I am not alone. I and some others will say what many more say in private.

2. There's the ex-Plymouth brethren member whose entire family disowned him when he came out as an atheist.

3. There's the ex-Catholic whose wife threatened to leave him if he didn't stop attending meetings.

4. There's the ex-Presbyterian who emailed me after the Sunday sequence interview, saying that he came out to his parents when he was sixteen but they were so angry and upset he never mentioned it again and that to his
parents being an atheist is being "beyond the pale", outside civilised society. Religion, he added, is not just a belief system, it is the whole paradigm on which social relationships, language, morality and rules of living are based. Indeed, and that's a crucial part of the hegemony in NI.

5. I didn't suggest the article. It was suggested to me.

6. Are the fears real? Well, perception is all in our dear little province. There is a wide gap between public and private discourse on the subject of religion. While privately it is often ridiculed and questioned, the public voice does not reflect this widespread cynicism and scepticism.

7. Thus a religious perspective still dominates the media, education, politics and public affairs generally. Broadcasting has regular thoughts for the day and religious programmes, newspapers have religious columns and adverts, schools are largely religious-owned or run (through clergymen on boards), some politicians are clergymen, and clergymen are prominent in commissions (Eames-Bradley, for example) and public bodies. Throughout the troubles their views were regularly called upon by the media; humnanists and atheists were largely ignored.

8. On the abortion issue, trumpeting the rights of the child in NI is pure humbug, given the general neglect of children and the fact that we have one of the highest rates of child poverty in Europe, along with Portugal, another one of the few 'progressive' societies to ban abortion.

9. The 'rights of the child' argument is in fact a smokescreen to conceal control over our lives by the churches, especially control over women. it is a product of religious patriarchy, disguised as a bogus concern for children.

10. Abortion is certainly not the only issue and was only given as an example. Homosexuality is another, and the homophobia is definitely a product of religious ideology. In NI gays have rights, largely because they were imposed from the UK. Otherwise, it is patently obvious that their rights would be denied in order to 'save Ulster from sodomy'

11. Segregated education is a third example. It exists here because the churches in the 1920s opposed a proposal to have Protestants and Catholics educated together. Today, barely 5% of our children are educated together in integrated schools - a disgrace - and the churches are the chief cuplrit in keeping them apart.

12. Segreagted worship is a fourth example. The rev David Armstrong wqas hounded out of here because he dared at attend a Catholic service. He fits the pattern. anybody who challenges the dominant religious and political tribalisms him is treated as a pariah. Gerry Fitt is another classic example, hounded out because he dared to criticise his own tradition.

13. Now, Bernard, should be the time for your tears.

Bernard:

I should add that some prominent figures in broadcasting throughout the island of Ireland have been given non-religious funeral ceremonies by both the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland in recent years. But their atheism or agnosticism was not publicly known during their lifetime. I shall not mention names, but some people know who I am talking about.

Actually, Bernard, you make Brian's point. "People want someone with faith and hope to lead them"?

Don't atheists have hope? I sure do, and most atheists I know are people of hope, of joy, of kindness.

What do you mean by "faith"? If you mean "belief in a god and adherence to a religious code", then aren't you saying, in effect, that Brian is correct? If not, what exactly *do* you mean?

Perhaps you mean moral conviction. Most atheists have this too - we're just prepared to defend our moral position without reference to some notional debate-stopping god. I would have thought having such an approach would be a most excellent thing in a politician. Thus, Brian is right - Joe Theist needs educated into the fact that atheists are just as nice (and as nasty) as theists.

Do you really regard atheists as "worse" people than theists? If *you* don't, do you think society in general is prejudiced? And if you don't, how can you defend your statement above?

-H

Brian:

2) 3) and 4) - particular examples, the opposites of which could also be found.

and 4)
"to his
parents being an atheist is being "beyond the pale"

The crucial words there are "to his parents"...so, not society as a whole then...because there is no way atheism makes you "beyond the pale" in wider society.

5) "While privately it is often ridiculed and questioned, the public voice does not reflect this widespread cynicism and scepticism"

Balls. What public voice? Newspapers? But barely a day goes by in which there isn't some letter ridiculing creationists, or some pro-abortion column written by Eamonn McCann. Television? With Dawkins being commissnioed to make an entire series of programmes?

I suggest that there is a healthy mix of scepticism and dogmatism in the major media, as, indeed, there is in society as a whole.

Perhaps by "public voice" you mean politicians. Again, politicians are elected...perhaps you should stand on a humanist ticket...

At this point I must tell you, this again seems to be not a clarion call for freedom, but a childish rant that not everyone agrees with you.

If people do not want to vote for explicitly atheist politicians, that is up to them. Private citizens have as much right and scope as everyone else to make their views heard. If most people don't agree, hard luck.

"a religious perspective still dominates the media"

How?

"Broadcasting has regular thoughts for the day and religious programmes"...

as it also has openly atheist and anti-dogmatic programmes...it is a relatively free forum.

"newspapers have religious columns and adverts"...

As they also have sceptical columns...Eamonn McCann, Malachi O'Doherty...recognise these names?

I could possibly name two religious correspondents, but would struggle to name more. Dominant, you say?

...of course, anyone with the money can place an advert...why not follow the lead of your brethren across the water...Certainly no one is STOPPING you!


"schools are largely religious-owned or run"

And yet parents decide to send their children there.

"some politicians are clergymen"

And yet people still elect them.

Again, your problem is not that anyone is denying you some sort of freedom, but that most people disagree with you.

"clergymen are prominent in commissions (Eames-Bradley, for example) and public bodies"

As are civil servants and ex-politicians.

"Throughout the troubles their views were regularly called upon by the media; humnanists and atheists were largely ignored"

Like who? you?

"On the abortion issue, trumpeting the rights of the child in NI is pure humbug, given the general neglect of children and the fact that we have one of the highest rates of child poverty in Europe, along with Portugal, another one of the few 'progressive' societies to ban abortion"

A fair enough point, but wholly irrelevant to the issue at question.

"The 'rights of the child' argument is in fact a smokescreen to conceal control over our lives by the churches, especially control over women"

Absolute nonsense. In what way does the church control you?

And I assume the control over women refers to the widening of responsibility for the unborn beyond that solely of the mother...presumably, then, you think the father has no say in the matter either, as it's solely the woman's body and a matter for her?

"In NI gays have rights, largely because they were imposed from the UK. Otherwise, it is patently obvious that their rights would be denied in order to 'save Ulster from sodomy'"

Not to stir up a hornets nest, but don't homosexuals have sufficient rights in ROI?

"barely 5% of our children are educated together in integrated schools - a disgrace - and the churches are the chief cuplrit in keeping them apart"

Nonsense. those people who choose to send their children to a religous-based school are solely responsible for that, and it is their right.

That Catholic and Protestant churches fought to keep THEIR SCHOOLS denominatioal is natural...the schools were set up BY THE CHURCHES with the express purpose of providing spiritual as well as general education.

No one prevented anyone from setting up non-denominational schools, as no one does now. That the majority of parents decide not to send their children to such schools is something that you will have to accept

Again Brian, you seem to be complaining about the fact that most people don't agree with you, while simulataneously claiming that, really, they would agree if they weren't so oppressed...but you've yet to give any example of ACTUAL oppression.

"Segreagted worship is a fourth example"

This is absolute nonsense of the highest order. that people want to worship according to their own traditions is entirely up to them. In essence, you are complaining that atheists are excluded from church. which is silly.

"The rev David Armstrong wqas hounded out of here because he dared at attend a Catholic service. He fits the pattern. anybody who challenges the dominant religious and political tribalisms him is treated as a pariah. Gerry Fitt is another classic example, hounded out because he dared to criticise his own tradition"

Those are fair enough points to make, but I think you conflate the religio-political situation here with the genuine religious faith of the masses.

I'm not going to speak for whatever wing of the DUP hounded David Armstrong out, but Gerry Fitt was certainly not hounded out by the Catholic Church for daring to criticise its "dominance and hegemony"...he was hounded out by political agitators for political reasons. So that is a totally dud example, which attempts to shoe-horn the political situation into the wider religious situation.

Helio Re your post 25.

I was making the point, not that atheists are bad people, with no hope, or moral convictions, or anything of that sort...

In this context I was merely pointing out that people can vote for whoever they want. And if they prefer people with a religious view to do so, that is up to them.

That does not count as discrimination...people can vote for who they want. Brian's complaint that no one would vote for an atheist is merely a complaint that not enough people agree with him.

Does that mean that society is prejudiced? Or just that, in society, most people hold views that are different to Brian's, and elect representatives accordingly.

No one STOPS atheists from running for election...it's just that no one seems to VOTE for them.

So if Brian's point is "most people don't agree with me"...then yes, I agree with him.

however, his point seems to be "most people don't agree with me, and attempt to oppress me"

If voting for someone YOU want to represent you, sending your child to a school YOU want them to attend, and attending a religious ceremony of YOUR own choosing somehow OPPRESSES those who take a different view...

well, I don't know.

No one FORCES people to go to church, attend a religious school, vote for a religious believer, or watch a religious tv programme.
Brian seems to be complaining about the fact that lots of people WANT to.

1) I'm going to be really perverse and suggest an academic article from my fav website should be read before we get all huffy over who should be telling who to do what in Politics.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-politics/

2) It is interesting that Humanists have stories that are analogous to Evangelicals. I know the son of a wealthy farmer who was disinherited for becoming an Evangelical. I know of marriages that have split up because one partner has refused to abandon their faith. I know of married individuals whose partners have told them that if they become "born again" divorce proceedings will ensue.

3) I'm all for atheists having a public voice. In fact I agree with Brian's article on Religious Education in Northern Ireland https://nireland.humanists.net/docs/article1.doc
The AQA syllabus that I follow requires that each ethical issue be studied from the perspective of two religions/denominations, AND that students be aware of Secular alternatives to Religious approaches. This includes examining Secular critcisms of Religious Arguments.
Whereas the CEA syllabus studies central issues - like why Presbyterians have their pulpits in the middle of the Church, and not at the side. (To be fair, they have responded to demand and are including more philosophy and ethics. Far too little, far too late, but in Ulster that counts as progress.)

4) It strikes me that everyone feels under threat. Secularism is the dominant philosophy in the academy and media. Consumerism dominates business and government. So there is a "top-down" threat to traditional religious communities. There also is a "bottom-up" threat in that in the context of the UK those within the orthodox Theistic traditions are outnumbered 3-1.
Within Ulster, and probably Ireland, Secularists face greater numbers of orthodox believers. The level of public discourse is embarrassing at times (here's to you Mrs Robinson) but politically Fundamentalists are well organised and have significant clout.
So who is in the ascendancy? It all seems to depend on your perspective. One thing is certain - we can't ALL be persecuted minorities. Can we?

GV

Bernard, you don't seem to get it, do you? No-one is forcing anyone to do anything, but if anything I see Brian's piece as an exhortation for atheists to get out there, get known, show the world that atheism IS normal, IS OK, and break down the stereotypes.

Personally I don't feel victimised, perhaps because I have sufficient self-respect to realise that people often abreact purely out of ignorance.

But if you're saying that the vilification of atheists & secularism (and I have attended enough church services and listened to enough sermons to know that this *is* the case) is a bad thing and should end, how can I possibly disagree with you?

Do I want youngsters to approach the world in a free-thinking manner? Yes. If my kids decide that they actually do believe in Christianity or Islam or some other thing, am I going to stop them? No. But am I going to let them know the counter-arguments? You betcha.

-H

"I see Brian's piece as an exhortation for atheists to get out there, get known,"

Ah...well, feel free.

The rest of your post, I agree with.

What I took from Brian's piece was this notion that somehow a dominant hegemonical society actively discriminates against atheists.

Which is nonsense.

The truth is that most people are fairly apathetic: they're getting on with their lives and don't pause much to think about it. Both atheists AND the religious, in that environment, have a tough time sometimes not being derided for taking a stand on it by people who don't know what they believe and feel one-upped by people who've taken the time to think about it.

So, humanists: it isn't just you. In fact one could argue that in the secular British Isles, your beliefs are trendier now than being Christian!

Yes - atheists should get out and get known. But the "atheism bus" and the use of terms like "bright" and "super" make me wonder if atheists haven't been infected by the evangelical "naffness" meme.

Before you know it, student atheists "will just, really wanna, you know, share some ideas that have really just touched them, like on a personal level. It's all just so really real, you know, being an atheist?"

Hi Helio, huggy huggy kissy kissy!

I wasn't trying to make an argument that Christians are living in a hostile world, merely that this is often the view communicated by them and, as I'm sure you know, the idea of 'witnessing' is very much the way evangelicals are encouraged to get their teenage kicks. Let’s face it, we weren't allowed to do much else!

What I was trying to get at is that there is a contemporary atheism which seems to take an approach to its atheism which is akin to the evangelical Christianity I am familiar with - that is, some atheism seems to need to be particularly 'evangelical' about itself. Personally my view is that actions speak louder than words and that the church might do more to communicate its 'gospel' if it shut up and cared more.

The issue about church and the community is one I would like to return to, I can't, for example, imagine certain public atheists taking you up on your idea.

However for now, lets stick with this idea of identity. In saying that "the public discourse is still dominated by an outmoded religious hegemony" I think we should be clear that this does not necessarily mean personal Christian faith, rather it probably more accurately means cultural ritual and cultural practise which just happens to be 'christian' in appearance. If this is Brian's view then I have sympathy with it and can say that I too find the expectation that one conform to this outward cultural expression frustrating. And remember too that once one starts down this road one must be careful to choose one's particular brand of 'christian' politics too!

What I want to say in response however is that this form of religion as we commonly encounter it is not necessarily the church as I understand it; indeed if Les is accurate in saying that many atheists choose to associate with the church in order to protect their 'good public name' then what we have is a bundle of churches whose prominent members are often atheists. If so, it's no wonder church is at times a confusing place to be.

This understanding of church is more akin to a professional or sporting club than it is to anything else and as we know, all these clubs have their ways of making people fit. Indeed I was once told by a golf club that if my social membership was not payed within a specified number of days that I would leave, what shall we say, with a question mark against my character. Maddness!

There are many, many institutions in NI which offer belonging and (let me be careful here!) opportunities for furthering one's career, and in doing so they all require some kind of conformity. Indeed sometimes I think of Northern Ireland society as a loosely stitched patchwork quilt of institutions, beliefs, and cultural practices, and often membership of these many organisations (I shall mention none of them) and an adoption of their accepted world view play just as critical a role in determining one's acceptance. NI loves stereotypes! And for this reason I think that in approaching the subject as he does, Brian is overstating the case.

Bernard (post 26):

You don't HAVE to dissect every sentence, you know!

1. You say of our member that atheists are 'beyond the pale 'to his parents', not society as a whole. I would have thought that society is made up largely of parents. A member has emailed me to say that in her experience as a mother other parents are suspicious of you if they know you are an atheist.

Also, it is not just parents. Atheists have been dubbed 'fools' by a minister on this blog, and you refer to my 'childish rant'. These are the kinds of personal remarks which some Christians just can't help making and are indicative of our conservative and religious society which makes some people think they know the truth and others who disagree are indeed 'beyond the pale'. Look, it's pretty simple. Don't give away your high-handed and 'superior' attitude by throwing cheap insults at people who don't happen to agree with your belief.

2. Eamon McCann. 'Struth! You criticise me for giving particular examples and then throw a name or two back at me. Eamonn is mainly a political activist, but he would largely agree with me that the churches have far too much power and influence in Ulster society. He cannot hope to compete effectively with the overwhelming pro-religious slant of the local media. Do you even read the Newsletter or the Irish News? Open them and you will discover that one is a 'Protestant' Christian newspaper and the other is a Catholic Christian newspaper. This is patently obvious. That's not to say that they never allow an atheist or agnostic voice - Alex Kane is an atheist and has said so in the Newsletter - but the weight of material is clearly in the direction of their brand of Christianity. Read their weekly religious correspondent's column. Read most of the letters. Read the advertisements. Each gives their readers a basically Christian view of the world, and a sectarian one at that.

3. The BBC and other local broadcasting stations are predominantly pro-religion. The BBC throughout the UK will not permit a self-styled atheist or humanist give a thought for the day. BBC Radio Ulster on a Sunday is littered with programmes of a religious nature: Sunday Sequence, Sunday Service, followed by dog-collared DJs from 11am to 1pm and more sacred music at 5pm. Why can't an atheist or non-believer be permitted to present his or her selection of music every week? Why is it assumed that only a believer is interested in 'good' music? How arrogant! Commercial radio, by the way, is no better in this respect.

4. Your reference to the rights of homosexuals in the ROI is interesting. What has happened in the South is that it has now become more liberal and progressive than NI. I don't think there is any doubt that if the DUP had its way, rights for gays would be curtailed. It is one area where a section of the population can be relieved that the laws were initiated in the UK and not locally. It proves my point.

5. As does the hounding of both David Armstrong and Gerry Fitt. The point is that the conservative and backward religiosity of Ulster is mixed with tribal and backward political ideologies so that anyone who doesn't fit in, who tries to be different, is regarded as somehow not 'normal' or suspect.
In the case of Armstrong's hounding, I see that you passed the buck away from 'Christians' to the DUP (they wouldn't be Christians themselves, per chance?)

6. Which raises the question, Bernard: do you think the churches in NI are faultless? Have they nothing to do with our Troubles? Is it all 'political'?

I think there is a danger of too much agreement breaking out here, which is nice (and fits with our new huggykissiness). Let's face it - I will never believe in god again - I can't. I'm going to presume that many people feel the other way. Yet we're all going to have to live together, and how we conduct that operationally is actually not that different between our different perspectives.

So let me ask again (in a different way): should the churches re-cast themselves in a more social mould, where the doctrine becomes more of a cultural context, rather than a fixed corpus of "belief"? Isn't it time that anachronistic nonsenses like the Westminster Confession of Faith are consigned to museum cabinets?

-H

Helio

You want a social church. Do you think Brian would go along? In fact let's ask him. Brian would you go along to a church event if it was cast in the role Helio suggests?

As I said Les has seemed to suggest that many churches are little more than social gatherings anyway so I'm not exactly sure how you see this one working. What does "doctrine becomes more of a cultural context" look like? What events would you go to? Dances or something? ;-) Movie nights? You are going to have to give me more here. Do we actually need a church for this?

So while you are thinking about that here's my heresy. All church buildings should be immediately be put up for sale and the church localized into houses and/or community centers or pubs. The money, after we have bailed out the PMS(!), should be given to worthy causes. All cultural rituals associated with the church should cease and all ecclesiastical hierarchy banished. No state openings, no dedicating arches, no school carol services etc. Anyone left who can be bothered turning up should spend time drinking coffee, eating pizza, playing football, walking in the forest and communicating with one another about what they actually do and do not believe. Atheists would be welcome - whether or not we could all stick each other however is something else altogether. However, I'm probably going to want to pray at some point, maybe after the football, maybe before the coffee, how would that work out for you?

If you are saying that the church should become some kind of rotary or masonic organisation, not for me thanks - don't like institutions much; as far as I'm concerned there's too much of that 'old boy' network already, oh, and we're (the church) already pretentious enough as well.

The issue of the WCF is a different, yet interesting, issue. Maybe we'll debate that some day too.

Helio - you remind of Cardinal Guzman desiring something he already unknowingly possessed: the essence of the situation you think would be luvverly is the situation that actually pertains in the churches at the moment just as it has throughout Christian history.

PeterM your post is a repetition of the cry of Alcuin bemoaning the appetite of the religious for the secular to Higbald. (It's a moan I have often made myself). It just goes to show nothing has changed down the centuries: the church has nothing to do with Christianity. Anyone who doubts this proposition needs only to look at the flight of self-interested Presbyterians from the PMS and the subsequent, equally self-interested, distancing of itself from the mess by the PCI. If we recognised this we might actually get somewhere.

Churches are about promoting social networking, aesthetic experience, entertainment, and in the process, like the Masons, they do quite a bit of charitable work. Like the Masons, too, they recognise that community is built on shared experience or a common bond - generally the more extreme the experience the stronger the bond. (I find the Brethren look after one another much better than the Anglicans). To belong you need to buy into the ethos - lip service suffices there is no need for actual commitment.

So Helio, while you already have the essence of what you want, if you look for it all - if you say ditch the common bond, drop the facade, you destroy the cement which binds the community together and without belonging there is nothing worthwhile to which we might belong. This is one cake you cannot have and eat. Try just a little teensy weensy bit of hypocrisy and you will find you fit right in to just about any church you could mention.

I am all for ditching the church's built history and its dogmas and theologies - mass in the drawing room or the forest sounds good to me.

Peter:

I do go along to church events, e.g. funeral services and debates. But, like you, I don't like insititutions much, even thought I taught in one (a pretty liberal one, thank goodness) for 36 years.

I belong to a pretty loose organisation. If it adopted any strict party line, I would walk away pretty sharply. That's a major part of the problem for atheists. Most of us aren't joiners and don't want to be told what to think by others.

On the other hand, if churches were purely social organisations with no dogma (assuming that is possible), I'm sure I would go along to an event if I was interested.

Brian;

"I would have thought that society is made up largely of parents."

Or another way of putting it might be that society is made up of individuals who make their own judgments...not some sinister hegemony.

"A member has emailed me to say that in her experience as a mother other parents are suspicious of you if they know you are an atheist."

Ha, I once went out with a girl who's parents forbade her to see me because of my religion. true story. Particular examples though, eh. Again, hardly "wider society".

"Atheists have been dubbed 'fools' by a minister on this blog, and you refer to my 'childish rant'."

Conversely, you refer to the religious attitude as being "exclusivist or authoritarian"

If all we're going to do is trade insults, we are going to get nowhere.

Brian, if someone disagrees with you, if someone vociferously claims you're wrong, if someone even calls you a fool...that is not discrimination. People can hold their own views.

Some people think you are a fool. I am sorry, but that's life.

"These are the kinds of personal remarks which some Christians just can't help making"

Nor, apparently, can humanists...If your argument really boils down to "some christians make hurtful remarks", then fair enough. Yes. They do.

"and are indicative of our conservative and religious society"

What?


"which makes some people think they know the truth and others who disagree are indeed 'beyond the pale'."

Hold on, you also think you know the truth...it's the human condition to have and express opinions. If you think that is discriminatory, you really need to get out more.

"Look, it's pretty simple. Don't give away your high-handed and 'superior' attitude by throwing cheap insults at people who don't happen to agree with your belief."

I think that's well and good. if only we could all do the same. Your article was full of cheap insults, and your resultant posts have made cheap digs at religious people in general, the ability of religious orders to educate people, and the ability of religious people to tolerate others,l and even to think rationally.

"2. Eamon McCann. 'Struth! You criticise me for giving particular examples and then throw a name or two back at me."

Yes, sorry. reciprocation. We can all name examples.

But then there is a different burden of proof.

You claim that religious discourse DOMINATES public discourse...so even one example that I give proves that's not the case. you have to prove, not only that examples of religious commentary exist, but that they are DOMINANT. Which is nonsense.

You go on to say that, in both the Irish News and the News Letter, the religious view is dominant...yet you mention both Eamonn McCann and Aex Kane, and then refer to the ONE religious correspondent that each paper has.
#
Surely that's a balance? Each paper has one atheist columnist and one religious correspondent.

Or would you rather that only the atheist voice is heard?

You then go on to mention letters...of course, letters are written by ordinary members of the public.

Once again, your problem is not that you are oppressed, but that the wider public disagrees with you.

"4. Your reference to the rights of homosexuals in the ROI is interesting. What has happened in the South is that it has now become more liberal and progressive than NI."

In this particular context...fair enough. I would prefer that homosexuals in the North of Ireland had the same rights as those in the south. On that issue, I agree with you.

But of course, that opens an entire hornets nest that, really, has nothing to do with homosexual rights. This is one issue on which you might plausibly argue for a united Ireland on purely human rights issues...but I suspect you won't.

"I don't think there is any doubt that if the DUP had its way, rights for gays would be curtailed."

Indeed.
And yet, even though their leader is the first minister, they can't do such a thing. They can't get their way. Hegemony, you say????

"5. As does the hounding of both David Armstrong and Gerry Fitt. The point is that the conservative and backward religiosity of Ulster is mixed with tribal and backward political ideologies so that anyone who doesn't fit in, who tries to be different, is regarded as somehow not 'normal' or suspect.
In the case of Armstrong's hounding, I see that you passed the buck away from 'Christians' to the DUP (they wouldn't be Christians themselves, per chance?)"

Ok. I did pass the buck, on the basis that they are not the type of Christians that I would be associated with.

However, the issue is whether such "so-called christians" exercise a "dominant hegemony" on wider society.

although the move to persecute David Armstrong may have went down well in some DUP backwater, it was totally and utterly reviled in the wider public sphere. Even in the Newsletter, if I remember right. So that's hardly an argument about a dominant religious, hegemonical society, is it?

"Which raises the question, Bernard: do you think the churches in NI are faultless?"

Absolutely not....but

"Have they nothing to do with our Troubles?"

With the more recent troubles, very very little. If, for example, the catholic church had any REAL influence, the IRA would have given up on one of those, too numerous to mention, occassions when they were unequivocally CONDEMNED by church leaders.

"Is it all 'political'?"

mostly, yes.

Although there are religious aspects, those aspects certainly have nothing to do with religious institutions, not since the 18th century.

Bernard:

You say: "Each paper has one atheist columnist and one religious correspondent". TOTALLY WRONG. The religious correspondent of each paper has a regularly column to write about religion. There is NO ATHEIST correspondent in any local newspaper. That's ridiculous and if you have any brains at all, you know it. Alex Kane is a political columnist, but he recently strayed into religion on the back of Iris Robinson's comments. That was ONCE.

Eamonn McCann is also a political columnnist (in the Telegraph, not a morning paper), but has also strayed into religion on, for example, abortion.

Neither of these examples is in any way compartable. Do you deny that the Irish News is
basically a Catholic newspaper with Catholic religious values or that the Newsletter is basically a Protestant newspaper with Protestant religious vales? Will you answer this question?

Then you say that with regard to letters my problem is not that I am oppressed, but that the wider public disagrees with me. No; letters are selected by editors. If you follow them over a period of time, you will discover that the particular newspaper clearly decides to give prominence to letters which agree with its slant, though the Irish News is not as bad as the Newsletter in this respect. It allows views that are different from an Irish Catholic nationalist one; the Newsletter is much inclined to do so. I suggest you study them for a while instead of ignoring the evidence in order to 'get at me'.

I believe in a united Ireland for many reasons. But denying that religion is an important factor is one reason why it will not come about in the near future. By and large, many Protestant have opposed a united Ireland precisely because:

(a) They have a religious fear that 'home rule would mean Rome rule'. It isn't any longer in many but the Protestants who oppose unity don't see that. of course, education and health are still very much in Catholic Church control, and that needs to end.

(b) These Protestants by and large want to keep their own little Puritan statelet dominated by puritan religious values (biblical literalism, rigid morality, Sunday observance, homophobia, paternalism, etc).

Religion is behind the politics of the problem. Only when religion is taken out of the equation will the border 'wither away'.

Brian, i don't mean to get at you...I just disagree.

On the issue of newspaper columnists, I did of course simplify the issue to my advantage. Of course Alex and Eamonn are political commentators.

But the wider point still stands that their atheism has in no way hindered their ability to express their views. That there are two notable openly atheist columnists does not sit well with your view that atheists have to keep their views to themselves at the risk of discrimination.

The fact that some newspapers have a religious correspondent does NOT mean that the religious outlook is dominant, any more than a hurling correspondent dominates public discourse. There is a regular column on one particular issue that many people have an interest in. It is not DOMINANT.

"Neither of these examples is in any way compartable. Do you deny that the Irish News is
basically a Catholic newspaper with Catholic religious values or that the Newsletter is basically a Protestant newspaper with Protestant religious vales? Will you answer this question?"

Yes i will. And no, I do not deny that. Those newspapers also have large numbers of readers who, presumably, feel represented by the newspaper, that's why they read it.

I'm beginning to see where you're coming from and where we have crossed wires. You are complaining, essentially, that large numbers of people have religious views. That is why they buy newspapers with a religious slant - although I would say that the particularly RELIGIOUS slant, as opposed to the "one-side of the community" slant, is minimal.

In saying that the religious outlook is dominant in Northern Ireland, do you mean that the majority of people hold that outlook? If so, then yes, the religious outlook is dominant.

But does this mean that atheists are somehow discriminated against? You have yet to give any examples of how they are discriminated against, other than the fact that most people would choose to send their children to a school with a religious ethos, and that most people buy newspapers with a - minimal - religious ethos.

But again, no one is denying the freedom of expression to atheists. you publish a humanist magazine.

That fact that fewer people buy it than buy those bastions of religious discourse, the Newsletter and Irish news, does not mean discrimination...it means that most people disagree with your views. you are still entirely free to hold and publish those views, it's just that not that many people will buy your magazine.

Sorry if that sounds like a personal dig, by the way, but it's crucial to the point I am making.

Atheists are not ridiculed or denied expression. You have full rein to express your views. If no one want to listen, that's just life.

On the political issue, I almost agree with you. In fact, I'm starting to think that it's all the protestant's fault.

In certain protestant areas, there probably is a stifling of debate and a desire to sustain a puritanical statelet. But I do not think that that reflects wider society, and has not done so for a long time.

Again, this really is just a matter of perception. I have no doubt that there are some areas in which debate is stifled in favour of puritanical dogmatism.

In fact, I really am starting to agree with you. northern ireland was established as a dogmatic and puritanical statelet in which debate was stifled, no doubt for atheists, but also for catholics, socialists, and dissenters. Fair enough, you actually do have a point.

However, I really do not see that that is a reflection of wider society NOW.

New dispensation sure, eh?

No doubt in a DUP meeting or a Free P picket atheists may be ridiculed and stifled. In wider society, and the media etc, I do not think that that is the case.

Brian
I did recommend an article that would suggest that your analysis in the last post is more than a little simplistic. Martin Luther King? Ghandi?
I also think that you are conflating religion and civil religion. In the latter religion is valued for it's social effects. These can be beneficial - Kings use of America's civil religion. And they can be extremely harmful - Northern Ireland is a case in point, Kosovo and Bosnia another.
Oddly enough, as I pointed out earlier, I find myself agreeing with Bernard AND you. Secularism is the dominant philosophy in Western culture (to the extent that the article I recommended refers to secularism as the "traditional" view, and to many religous critics of that view as "liberals". How the pendulum swings!)
But Civil Religion still dominates Northern Ireland and has an important role in US politics. (Hence the moral panic in the Media over the Bush Presidency. Which wasn't helped by his being crap, admittedly).
The result seems to be that everyone feels insecure. Perhaps a United Irealnd would help - I would be favourable as I prefer a written Constitution, and I like the Irish Constitution. For religious reasons.
Is there any comfort in the fact that you and I agree on many key issues - the comprehensive non-denominational education, Religious Education, a United Ireland, a distaste for "Selfish Capitalism" - yet we both start from very different convictions about Religion?

GV

Bernard
You're a PROTESTANT who reads Lonergan?!!

GV

As someone who has moved largely in church circles for a lot of my life, I think there are a lot of misconceptions by those who have no affiliation to religion. Here are some of them (as I see it anyway:

(1) Like it or not we are all born with reigious labells in this part of the UK. As I have often said on various blogs in Norn Iron you can actually have Protestent Atheists and Catholic Atheists. I have a friend who describes his religion as Humanism, and yet ,he refers to Cathlics as "them" probably unintentionally.

(2) Atheism is far more prevelent within the church than you might imagine. I jest not Brian. There are huge numbers of religious adherents that attend church on a regular basis and yet they have no belief in God (or at least they wont admit it). Are these "nominal Christians" not really Atheists or at best Agnostics ? I was once told by the late Rev. Hedley Plunkett that the most widely held view (even within the church) was actually Agnosticism. There was a story circulating in Christian circles a while ago that in a particular Brethren church in the south of England the preacher's subject every Sunday was the second coming and the fact that Christ would come back with the sound of trumpets. One week, two teenagers decided to have a bit of fun and bew trumpets down the ventalation ducts. Half the hurch apparently got down on their knees and confessed their sins. It may have been a Christian urban myth but I think it's probably more true than you might imagine.

(3) Hostility to religion (or lack thereof) works both ways. My wife (a committed Christian) recently presented a paper to a conference on coucelling at Norwich University. The subject was something like"inner child theory". She was quite shocked at the sheer level of Humanistic thinking and a very subtle hostility to Christianity (in fact any form of religion). I'm not sure why this was but she did feel somewhat intimidated and as a result, kept her Christian views to herself.

I've also listened at length to Monty White's testimony who was a former atheist. White states that when he was first converted to Christianity his father completely disowned him and refused to speak to himfor a number of years. It's funny how some of the most vociferous YECs are ex. Atheists.

I also strongly object to Atheists such as PZ Meyers, Jason Rosenhouse, and even Richard Dawkins constantly having a go at Christians who accept mainstreem science (e.g. Karl Giberson, Francis Collins, or Ken Miller) . Do they not realise that they are giving the Christian fundamentalists amunition ? Richard Dawkins hasn't done the Atheist cause any favours, in my opinion.

(4) As I have said, we are all born with religious labells whether we like it or not. Even though church attendance in the province is quite high there are still a lot of people who don't attend. Surely these people are really Atheists (or at best Agnostics ?).


(5) I also feel that the ROI is probably far more of a cold house for Atheists than NI. Can anyone recall the row between Gereth O'Callaghan and Ray D'Arcy last year ? I thought D'Arcy's remarks were pretty inocuous, but apparently not:

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_/ai_n19036616

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-2055083506.html

STATION OF THE CROSS ; DJ Raps Atheist D'Arcy 2007-04-22

By STEPHEN MAGUIRE
GARETH O'Callaghan has started a holy war with Ray D'Arcy because the Today FM host has revealed he doesn't believe in God.
The ex-2FM star said D'Arcy should keep his personal beliefs to himself when broadcasting.
D'Arcy recently told listeners that he belonged to a section of society in Ireland that had no religion.
O'Callaghan said: "Maybe it's not trendy today to believe in a God in some shape or form. He said recently on his radio show that he didn't believe in God.
"That's fine by me but he should keep his beliefs - or 'non- beliefs' - to himself, particularly when he's dancing barefoot on a subject that still forms the cultural tapestry of who we are."
O'Callaghan said much of D'Arcy's audience was made up of impressionable young people.
He fumed: "For a broadcaster to come out with such a loose- cannon statement is nothing less than a blatant abuse of his privileges, demonstrating a level of immaturity and recklessness that makes alarm bells ring.
"Ray D'Arcy is no Gay Byrne nor will he ever be."

Doesn't the Orange Order believe in civil and religious liberty for all ? Maybe that's why such a situation hasn't occured here in the North.

On a final note, Ed Babinske, a former christian fundamentalist and author of "leaving the fold", wrote this on his blog a while back, during correspondense with coral Ridge minstries (D. James Kennedy etc.):

https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/errancy/james-kennedy.html

Coral Ridge ministries: Or, on the other hand, what do you risk losing by giving up Jesus and your Christian heritage--or, conversely, by giving up to Jesus and letting Him return to you?

ED: I pray sometimes, or sometimes just listen quietly and pray internally. I am not against prayers. I figure there's a bit of theist inside even atheists, and a bit of atheist inside even theists. As I said, I have my own private beliefs and hopes in God and an afterlife, just as Deists and philosophical theists and people of many different religions have since time immemorial.

I think Ed's statement is quite an accurate observation

"Bernard
You're a PROTESTANT who reads Lonergan?!!"

Ha, no, I'm not, as it happens.

Whatever gave you that idea?

It's usually Protestants who blame everything on the DUP.
We need to blame *somebody*.

GV

PS - Personally, I always blame Anglicans. Wonderful scapegoats are Anglicans.

To see just how a secular society is persecuting Christians, watch the video and learn -
https://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/11/colbert-goes-to-war-against-xmas.html

In the end though, this is all just whataboutery.
Lots of people are persecuted, disrespected, insulted, silenced, and ridiculed for lots of different reasons, by lots of different people.
I don't see that the atheists really have it so bad. It depends who you're speaking to really, doesn't it?

Brian & Bernard: priceless.

I LOVE when atheists fight.

Bernard
Wonderful! Now you're a protestant and an atheist!
Doesn't that make you an anglican?

GV

Ha ha, dear God, I've no idea where these slanderous accusations are coming from.

I'm catholic through and through, incidentally.

:)

Bernard:

"Northern ireland was established as a dogmatic and puritanical statelet in which debate was stifled, no doubt for atheists, but also for catholics, socialists, and dissenters. Fair enough, you actually do have a point".

This is substantially correct, though things are improving as I said in the piece.

Don't forget that across the border there was A Catholic state established in its very constitution and it is only recently that the liberalisation has occurred.

Just because you are a Catholic doesn't allow you to exonerate the Catholic Church from its responsibility for division. It is even more stubborn in opposing integrated schools than are most Protestant denominations.

My point is that in many respects NI is behind the Republic and still a Puritan statelet. You are agreeing with me on this at least!

"NI is behind the Republic and still a Puritan statelet."

Hahahaaaaa!!!!!!

Brian, perhaps we can leave it there.
the one thing in your last post that i take issue with is the point about integrated education.

People, of course, are free to set up their own schools, and attract pupils.

You seem to want the churches to engage in integrated teaching, even though their whole prpose in teaching is to provide spiritual education of a particular type.

Again, this is like the atheist complaining that he isn't invited to church functions. the church is perfectly within its rights to establish its own schools on its own terms, and to attract pupils on those terms.

Integrationists have every right to establish integrated schools. that only a minority of parents choose to send their children to those schools IS NOT discrimination.

that Northern Ireland is probably more puritanical than most other places i can certainly agree. That this somehow makes atheists fear for their jobs and their livelihoods is nonsense. That you may be open to ridicule is a fact of life, here and everywhere else.

Also, you began by complaining about discrimination and intolerance...now your main issue seems to be religious division, which is an entirely different kettle of fish, and, apart from anything, shouldn't affect atheists in the slightest.

You seem to keep changing what you're complaining about. that there are many political and religious differences in Ireland may be regrettable, but I fail to see how it implies discrimination and intolerance of atheists, over and above a general intolerance for lots of differnet points of view, both religious and non-religious.

If your point is that people in Northern Ireland are generally more intolerant than other places, you may be right. I don't see that this specifically affects atheists, or makes them afraid to "come out of the closet", which i believe was the point of your article. I don't see that you've substantiated it yet.

But at least, on some issues, I find myself in agreement with you. Surely that represents progress, of a sort.

:)

Of interest to me, is the idea, suggested by more than one contributer, that some/many/a significant number, of the pew-warmers/prominent members in our churches are actually atheist/agnostic. So much for the cold house, seems more like atheists in da house. Why however should this be the case? Do we really have a situation where so many non-believers and/or serious doubters feel that they have to doff their hat to Jesus in order to get on? Surely they can't be that weak minded? Surely they have chosen their hypocrisy for the sake of whatever?

Maybe more than a significant number of people in our society are happy to keep this particular show on the road as there are too many cultural conveniences and sacred 'cows' invested in it. I mean, practically speaking, if we did abolish the church tomorrow think of the number of public events which would have to be rewritten, maybe it's just easier for the majority to continue with the illusion of a benign grandfather/mother figure to keep society oiled. Let's face it, every society has it's traditions, ours just happens to be called christian, or perhaps more accurately Christendom.

If this, in any way, reflects the real situation in relation to religion in our society, then we are all guilty of a crime. Believers are guilty of the crime of syncretism, and atheists of duplicity, and there is no point in blaming 'the church' as if it were something distinct, for in these terms we are all the church. Worse still, if true, the church has become our cultural myth which gets things done and in these terms I would be delighted to help Brian, for different reasons perhaps, expose the sham.

Portwyne your critique was devastating. I wish it were not true, but I fear, at times at least, it is, and if things are as bad as you say, then this 'church' is not the Church of Jesus Christ, it is rather thoroughly anti-christian in the sense of being something utterly other than what it is supposed to be.


A final question to Brian and Helio. If the church were purely social/cultural what would it actually be?

Too many avenues to respond to.

Graham:

Yes, I can see many points of agreement between us (post 42).
Civil religion can be very harmful: South Africa under apartheid is another paradigm case. Again, you had a puritan theocracy similar to Ulster under Orange rule.

Bernard:

You want to leave it but cannot resist making 3 posts.

THe sectarian division IS related to discrimination against atheists and many other dissident groups. the point is that the two tribalisms were cannibalistic. They fed off each other and strengthened their own bigotry and exclusivity by being the opposite extreme to each other. So you had a backward Protestantism and a backward Catholicism reinforcing each other and squeezing atheists and other individual voices out.

GReen and Orange, Catholic and Puritan - there were the hate-inspiring and crushing religio-political creeds of what Brian Friel made the point when he referred 'a retarded people, divided by similarities.

You can see the underlying similarity surface on a subject like abortion where parties, normally at each other's thrusts, combine to keep Ulster 'pure' from 'child murder', i.e. in the hands of the churches and their patriarchal value system.

On the subject of education, the Catholic Church has a real cheek. It wants 'spiritual' education for Catholic children, at the state's expence. Totally immoral and a betrayal of the child's fundamental right to think things out for himself/herself and to be educated side by side with fellow citizens. Disgraceful.

Bernard:

Just to expand a bit on the topic of education, here is an area which greatly substantiates my argument.

You say that people are free to set up their own schools, and attract pupils. But not at the state's expence. If the Catholic Church or any Church or group (humanist or whatever) wishes to set up its own schools, then let it but it is quite wrong for the state to support it financially. This is taxpayers' money. In any case, it is wrong, particularly in a divided society, for the state to support religiously divided education.

It means that many children of one version of Christianity never meet, work with and become friends with children of the other brand. This cannot be good for community relations. It reinforces attitudes.

According to one survey, 96 per cent of Protestants who had received a state education saw themselves as 'British', 'Northern Irish' or 'Ulster'. More than 90 per cent of Catholic-educated people saw themselves as 'Irish' or 'Northern Irish'. Their politics reflected these figures.

Protestants who attended integrated schools tended to have the edge taken off their attitudes. More saw themselves as 'Northern Irish' as opposed to 'British' or 'Ulster' (with its strong loyalist connotations). While not embracing Irish nationalism, they were more likely to 'occupy the middle ground of NI politics': they were 'willing to detach themselves from a British or unionist identity but not to adopt the identity of the other side'.

Catholics who attended integrated schools showed similar effects: one-third wanted a united Ireland, compared with more than half of Catholics from segregated schools. In short, integrated education tempers the edges of unionism and nationalism. The catch is that only 5 per cent of pupils attend integrated schools, so they can make only a small difference.

Incidentally, the same researchers found that: "Those with no religion are overwhelmingly more likely than either Catholics or Protestants to label themselves as 'neither' (unionist or nationalist)". Among atheists, in fact, 67 per cent rejected both political viewpoints.

Children also have a right not to be indoctrinated. This is written into the UN Declaration of Human Rights. They have a a right to learn about all religions and all world views, so that they can make their own choice among them. This is what education should be about, not brainwashing them into one particular perspective.

On integrated education, the state has been tardy and stingy in support of integrated schools, and many have struggled to get going. Opinion polls indicate that most parents would support integration. That it doesn't happen on a broader scale is the product of precisely what I am protesting about: the continuing power and dominance of churches in this society, despite the fact that a growing number of people are becoming 'secular' in outlook.

Citing some secular or semi-secular individuals like Eamonn McCann or Malachi O'Doherty doesn't vitiate the argument that the institutional power of religion in education, the media and civil society in NI is still excessive and needs to be curtailed.

Bernard, your definition of choice in education is rich. If I want to send my son to a Catholic school or a state/protestant school in my area, I have loads of choice but if I want integrated education I have to travel much much further.

Have you ever been involved in setting up an integrated school?Even with 600 expressions of interest, every sectarian and vested interest in the area fight tooth and nail to stop you.

I disagree with your points about integrated education.

The Catholic Church single-handedly invented the education system. It provided education to millions upon millions of people, when no one else would.

For the state, or anyone else, to attempt to force them to provide integrated education would be wholly wrong.

That the state does not support integrated education in the way that perhaps it should is very debatable.

A number of debates have been held in the Assembly on just that issue, and in my view, the evidence is inconclusive.

If there is enough registered interest in a school, the state has a duty to give financial support.

And it does.

That you have to travel further to go to an integrated school is due to the fact that there aren't many of them.

The polls that you mention are inconclusive....indeed, there have been polls with contrary results.

I personally do not recognise the picture you paint of religious schools. You claim that these schools are somehow the cause of sectarianism and division. While i might be prepared to agree that it REINFORCES division, I assert that it does not CAUSE it. I don't really see that, because people who go to Catholic or Protestsant Schools label themselves as unionist or nationalist is DUE to the schools. It has more to do with the wider community that those schools are in.

I certainly wasn't indoctrinated in my school, and was given extensive education on numerous religious and world-views.

Yet again, I think this is down to personal perception.

However, Brian, I'm starting to almost see your point on some issues. That Northern Ireland has little room for dissenting voices is a fair enough statement.

That this is somehow CAUSED by "religious dominance and hegemony" I do not accept.

Almost a hundred years of political agitation and divisions has nothing to do with it then?

I also don't accept that atheists are particularly discriminated against. Indeed, the argument could be made that until very recently, Catholics have borne the brunt of discrimination and the "cold house", much more so than atheists, humanists, muslims, hindus. or anyone else.

Just a final word to condense the issue;

"the institutional power of religion in education, the media and civil society in NI is still excessive and needs to be curtailed."

That religious institutions have institutional power in education, I accept. But this is due to the fact that the churches are the longest running providers of education, and the majority of people wish to send their children to such schools. That institutional power does not extend to hindrance of others.

Arguably, the fact that there has been such divisions between protestant schools and catholic schools had led to the fact that neither one group can effectively hinder the other, or any other educational group.

That religion has institutional POWER in the media I don't accept. REligious institutions have no POWER over the media. That some newspapers have a religious leaning is a matter for them and their readers.

That religiouse institutions have institutional POWER in civil society, I do not accept. I accept that it has a VOICE, which is fair enough given that the majority of people ARE religious (or claim to be).

That many politicians are of a religious persuasion is between them and their voters. The Churches have no POWER over that.

Bernard:

What an admission! Schools in Northern Ireland reinforce division. There you have it, out of the mouth of a supporter of faith schools. Certainly, the divisions are caused by many factors, and schools can only contribute so much to counter the wider bigotry. That, by your own words, they reinforce it instead of challenging it and 'educating' children away from it is a damning indictment in itself.

No one is saying that the divisions are caused entirely by religious factors. Nationalism is also a poisonous ingredient. But when you mix religious division with ethnic nationalism, as in Northern Ireland, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia or wherever, you have a pretty lethal cocktail.

Incidentally, you talk about me changing tack on this question, but you yourself are all over the place. The good things are caused by religion (specifically Catholicism), the bad things by 'politicians', the 'people', the 'other lot' etc.

And as for the Catholic Church single-handedly founding the education system, which system? In ancient Greece? (Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Lyceum?) Or Ireland? Archbishop McQuaid would spin in his grave if he discovered that Trinity College, the oldest university in Ireland, and that 'place of sin', was founded by the Catholic Church!

"Bernard:

What an admission! Schools in Northern Ireland reinforce division. There you have it, out of the mouth of a supporter of faith schools."

Brian, you seem to forget that I have no problem with division.

In fact, wasn't it you who was complaining about homogeneity and hegemony, now you're complaining about division!

When talking about religious and political division, you seem to think that it neccessarily implies discrimination.

That catholics can go to a catholic school does not discriminate against atheists, or protestants, who are perfectly within their rights to establish their own schools...and have done so. The popularity of those schools is a matter for themselves.

I am glad that people who wish to have a catholic education are able to do so in a school with a catholic ethos. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...it seems that it is you who would rather we had a hegemonical and homogenous education system!


"Incidentally, you talk about me changing tack on this question, but you yourself are all over the place."

Indeed. I'm trying to keep up with your changes of tack!

"And as for the Catholic Church single-handedly founding the education system, which system? In ancient Greece? (Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Lyceum?) Or Ireland? Archbishop McQuaid would spin in his grave if he discovered that Trinity College, the oldest university in Ireland, and that 'place of sin', was founded by the Catholic Church!"

Ha, fair enough. I was making the point that the catholic church kept education alive throughout the middle ages, and founded the entire university system...perhaps not Trinity specifically, but the university system that exists today, which was a development from Cathedral schools and monastic seats of learning. It has also been the single most influential factor in the development of "school-education" since the middle ages.

Ref. "The Evolution of Medieval Thought" - David Knowles

The fact that we no longer have Academies and Lyceums (Lycea, Lyceii?), generally open only to a certain elite in Ancient Greece, but that we have a system of education that is, in principal, open to all, is due almost entirely to the catholic church...it being the ONLY church at the time.

- Obviously, that's not to say that protestant churches haven't also contributed to that development, though obviously at a later stage, since the reformation -

If they wish those schools, WHICH THEY ESTABLISHED, to have a certain ethos, that is entirely up to them. If you want to start a school with YOUR ethos, work away.


I don't see that any organisation of atheists has contributed to universal education in the way that churches have.

Of course, no one is preventing you from setting out on that course, Brian. You could even advertise it in your magazine!

"The good things are caused by religion (specifically Catholicism), the bad things by 'politicians', the 'people', the 'other lot' etc."

Whereas you seem to be suggesting that the churches control, not only education, but also the media, and every political party!

Which is madness!

Damn, I've transgressed the "not only...but also" rule!

Tarnation!

My pot-stirring thought for the weekend:

Will says, (Brian) "explains why so many atheists in Northern Ireland have chosen to keep their heads down."

I wonder is Brian as surprised as I am to discover that this actually appears to mean 'heads bowed in prayer'!?


; )

Bernard:

"Brian, you seem to forget that I have no problem with division.
In fact, wasn't it you who was complaining about homogeneity and hegemony, now you're complaining about division!"

Your reasoning is truly Jesuitical, and keeping up with its twists and turns is like trying to read Loyola's Spiritual Exercises.

A segregated school is likewise emphasise social division by stamping a homogeneity on children and denying their individuality. An integrated school, by bringing children together of all faiths and none, encourages them to be individuals.

Prejudice is fed by distance and is killed by closeness. Yet, astoundingly in the 21st century, 95% of northern children are still kept apart and educated along sectarian religious lines. As a result they are daily presented with separate sporting and linguistic cultures, separate visions of their historical past, and separate conceptions of what it means to be a Christian. It is we the older generation who are guilty of inflicting these different identities upon them.
To suggest, as the churches generally do, that these distinctions are insignificant and largely irrelevant to the hatreds in the wider community is to blind ourselves to the destructive realities of a deeply divisive educational system. The mere fact of separate schooling is bound to encourage mutual suspicion and hostility and so reduce the possibilities of social contact afterwards. In other words, segregated schools serve to reinforce segregation in other areas, such as marriage, work, housing, politics and religion itself. Segregated education is unquestionably a major obstacle to social harmony in Northern Ireland.
Research in America into racial integration indicates that changes in behaviour affect changes in attitudes. When blacks and whites were brought together on a daily basis, prejudiced individuals came into contact with the reality of their own experience, not simply a stereotype, thus leading to greater understanding. We saw a similar effect in the BBC Facing the Truth series in which victims and perpetrators of violence met each other across a table. By becoming aware of the motivation of ‘the other side’, the participants began to see it as more human and understandable.
So long as we commit the cardinal crime of keeping our children apart in schools, then so long will the deadly poison of sectarian hatred among some of our young people continue.

Re: segregated education.

Some years ago I took a short course on history and politics in Northern Ireland at QUB's life long learning centre. Quite a few of the participants were from West Belfast.

During a discussion at the end of the course, I was agast to discover that the folks from West Belfast were vehemently opposed to any form of integrated education system on the grounds of religion. When I expressed the view that while segregation might not have been the cause of the troubles, it certainly added fuel to the fire, they were adamant that this was certainly not the case (in their view).

This of course should not have come as any surprise. State schools are open to children of any religion (or none). It is the Catholic church that has opted out of the system, not the Protestant denominations.

Hi Peter:

I think you are being a bit generous to some of the Prod denominations. I think you will find that they like to have their own schools too (Inst, Presbyterian, Methody, Methodist, Friends', Quaker, etc.

State funding should be withdrawn from all religiously-owned schools. Let them fend for themselves and see how well they do.

I should say that many schools, Catholic, state and Protestant grammar, are becoming more mixed anyway. And this is clearly a good thing.

This mixture applies in many cases to the staff. The school in which I taught probably had aboiut 50-50 Protestant and Catholic teachers by the time I left. However, teaching is a scandalous and iniquitous exception to fair employment legislation, with the result that schools (mostly Catholic) can continue to employ only those who subscribe to the school's (usually Catholic) ethos.

Bernard, bless his sacred heart, thinks that appointing only Catholic teachers to teach Catholic children in Catholic-only schools is the best way guaranteed to produce children who will reject homogeneity!

Bernard - just noticed your wholly incidental query in post # 63 about the plural of lyceum. In Latin, I would suggest lycea but I have never heard anything other than lyceums actually used in English. What interests me here (and it's probably more appropriate really for the "A Tough Question" thread) is the extraordinary habit we have of seemingly quite arbitrarily assigning classical nominative plurals to certain words, sometimes in very common usage, in English. We do this even when we are using the word in a case other than the nominative where it looks and feels, to me at any rate, intensely annoying and incongruous. I have been guilty of conformity myself ('where are' the blush emoticons when you need them) but I feel it is much better to use English plurals when using a word in English.

I think you are being a bit generous to some of the Prod denominations. I think you will find that they like to have their own schools too (Inst, Presbyterian, Methody, Methodist, Friends', Quaker, etc.

I see your point Brian However, are the schools you mentioned really religious schools as such ? I don't think they are. I have no experience of the three you mentioned but I would imagine Inst would probably not push a strong "Presbyterian ethos". Likewise Methody or Friends. My cousin went to Friends. The family weren't Quakers (they were in fact Methodists). When he left school he wasn't a Quaker either (he's now an Agnostic, as far as I know). To all intents and purpouses the above schools are really state grammer schools rather than religious schools.

I do have some experience of the Catholic education system though. Two of my children attended a Catholic primary school for a time. The Catholic ethos was very evident and quite strong. An extrmely large Catholic bible greeted parents it the entrance. Great emphasis was placed on first confession for example (all pupils were expected to attend). No such events occured during my time at my own primary school even though it was looseely connected to the Anglican church (in the same manner as Inst, Methody etc.)

Still, as you say, schools are becoming mixed gradually anyway. People I know who work for the Department of Education tell me there are far too many schools in Northern Ireland (due to the religious nature of education here). The level of funding cannot be maintained indefinitely and eventually some sort of amalgamation will occur (it is envisaged many will end up closing due to falling numbers), or so I've been told.

Bernard, your comment in point 62 about the state having to support an integrated school financially if there is enough interest is just wrong, as I know from bitter experience.Deni have more than enough wriggle room to get out of any general exhortation in the legislation, and believe me they use it.

Brian;

"Bernard, bless his sacred heart, thinks that appointing only Catholic teachers to teach Catholic children in Catholic-only schools is the best way guaranteed to produce children who will reject homogeneity"

Whereas you think that sending children of all hues to a single state school is the best way to foster individuality and heterogeneity!

Strange world indeed.

I simply don't accept the accusation (for that's all it is), that going to a faith school automatically makes you close-minded and dogmatic, when I know from experience that it does nothing of the sort.


"However, teaching is a scandalous and iniquitous exception to fair employment legislation, with the result that schools (mostly Catholic) can continue to employ only those who subscribe to the school's (usually Catholic) ethos"

This is precisely the kind of nonsense argument that demands homogeneity as decreed by the state.

You don't allow for different organisations to establish schools according to their own views, but want everything to run to a single, state-decreed ethos (for is you don't allow individual schools to determine their own ethos, that is precisely what you are doing)

I know a protestant girl who applied for a job in a catholic school teaching RE...

Now...she was quite simply not qualified for that job. she had absolutely no authority to teach catholicism...

Why shouldn't a catholic school appoint someone who can teach children catholicism?

The point is that I believe that all schools should be allowed to determine their own ethos.

In denying that, you are not arguing for some kind of free-for-all, totally value-free school. You're effectively arguing for homogenous, state-controlled schools all determined by the ethos of the state.

And, apart from anything else...that schools want to determine their own ethos has NOTHING to do with "discrimination against atheists"

"the state having to support an integrated school financially if there is enough interest is just wrong"

It's not wrong. Integrated schools have as much right to financial assistance according to pupil demand as every other school.

Probably not enough...but then what schoold do you know that gets all the money it needs?

Bernarnardslackofinsight, I am referring to financial support for new integrated schools.My son goes to an integrated school that had to survive for 2 years without gov. funding, and on a site about 10 miles from its chosen catchment area.When funding was eventually granted, it included a lot of onerous conditions and another change of site.This type of uncertainty makes it more difficult for the school to attract pupils.
If we don't establish new ones then choice will continue to be restricted to RC and non-RC.
Various social studies have shown that segregating children on a religious basis fosters sectarian attitudes. These attitudes can be mild in their appearance at times or murdrous at other times. Either way, we all suffer as a result.

"I am referring to financial support for new integrated schools"


I know you are, and I'm telling you that they have the same rights to financial support as other schools of equal subscription.

Many many schools have trouble getting the funding they require. Particularly if they have a relatively small intake.

I have no problem with integrated schools for those who want them, but I would also like the choice to have a religious education.

"segregating children on a religious basis fosters sectarian attitudes"

No doubt bringing children to church fosters sectarianism too.

That children go to a school with a particular ethos has a negligible effect compared to living in a housing estate with a twenty foot wall surrounding it.

Why not sort out integrated housing, and then we can all choose how we want to be educated.

Ah, because that would be much more difficult, that's why.

But come on. The real scandal is not that children go to a school with a particular ethos, but that they cannot even live on the same street as their counterparts of another religion.

Still....what has all this to do with discrimination against atheists, or dominat hegemony and homogeneity?

Roman Catholic education is one of the few types of schooling that increases the likelihood of an individual retaining their religion (or more accurately "rediscovering" their religion) in their adult years. Protestant schools typically have no effect, and attending an Anglican School tends to have an inverse relationship with remaining Anglican. Perhaps there's only so much of it a person can take. In any case, the Roman Catholic Church is unlikely to give up it's Schools.
Added to this is the Catholic perception that a Protestant (or Secular) government has persistently tried to undermine their identity. Historically there have been real injustices.
Yet I do not believe that the past should tyrannise the present. It is difficult to justify that over 90% of our young people are educated in segregated Schools. I think that the State should supply some funding to allow some diversity in education - but when 9/10 students do not encounter an alternative Christian tradition, then we need a rethink.
Why Catholics and Protestants cannot share positions on Secondary School boards is beyond me.

G Veale

But Graham, don't you see that some schools may wish to retain a certain ethos in their teaching, and that they have every right to do so?

I'm all for integration in most areas, but why should we be picking on the schools?

In the minds of many parents, school is not just to provide "academic" education, but also to provide a certain degree of spiritual guidance...why should they have to accept that a homogenous state sponsored school will provide sufficient spiritual guidance?

Brian, obviously, would like to remove spirituality from all aspects of public life, but i think there are some areas in which it must remain, and people have the right to demand that it does.

I would not like to send my children to aschool that I simply did not believe to have the neccessary expertise to provide that spiritual guidance.

There are many places in which we should argue for more integration - Housing is a perfect example...there is no reason wh people should live in religious ghettoes...but to my mind arguing that schools should be segregated is like arguing that churches should be segregated...it misses a fundamental purpose of schools.

But Graham, don't you see that some schools may wish to retain a certain ethos in their teaching, and that they have every right to do so?

I'm all for integration in most areas, but why should we be picking on the schools?

In the minds of many parents, school is not just to provide "academic" education, but also to provide a certain degree of spiritual guidance...why should they have to accept that a homogenous state sponsored school will provide sufficient spiritual guidance?

Brian, obviously, would like to remove spirituality from all aspects of public life, but i think there are some areas in which it must remain, and people have the right to demand that it does.

I would not like to send my children to a school that I simply did not believe to have the neccessary expertise to provide that spiritual guidance.

There are many places in which we should argue for more integration - Housing is a perfect example...there is no reason why people should live in religious ghettoes...probably people of different persuasions could do with a bit more contact with each other (Although I think in this day and age there is plenty of contact, and the ghettoisations exists to no where near the same degree as it once did)...but to my mind arguing that schools should be segregated is like arguing that churches should be segregated...it misses a fundamental purpose of schools.

I can understand Brian's point, because he simply doesn't accept that schools...or anyone...should provide spiritual guidance.

Perhaps he doesn't even accept that there is such a thing as spiritual guidance, and believes that there is only dominance and control.

I, however, think that young people are in dire need of guidance of a spiritual sort.

Don't know how that happened there

Bernard. post 79 is such a dishonest argument. You know perfectly well that most people already have a choice of RC and non RC schools, so it is only integrated schools which will be looking for new funding, so it is they who will suffer because of the governments approach to funding new schools.

"You know perfectly well that most people already have a choice of RC and non RC schools, so it is only integrated schools which will be looking for new funding, so it is they who will suffer because of the governments approach to funding new schools."


Fair enough actually...I accept that. I'm not arguing that integrated schools are given all the funding they need, merely that there is no inherent bias towards them in favour of faith schools.

You accept this, by saying that it is due to the Government's approach to funding new schools.

I'm not, of course, suggesting that church schools don't benefit. they often benefit from direct funding from the church.

But this is not to say that integrated schools are DISCRIMINATED against...merely that there is a ready made organisation available to support faith schools, which isn't there in the case of integrated schools.

The fact that an organisation exists to support one type of school and not another is not hegemony, or discrimination...it is simply fact that people already belong to such an organisation.

So, yes...I'm willing to accept that integrated schools are at a disadvantage...but not because of some discrimination or hegemony...simply because they don't have a ready made support group.

Which all raises the question...what has this got to do with discrimination against atheists, religious hegemony or dominance?

Bernard, I think you are beginning to understand what I am saying.I have never used the word discrimmination in this thread. As for hegemony, when we were trying to establish an integrated school in this area, all the faith schools combined to send a delegation to the education minister asking her to refuse funding to our school.Their main argument was that their numbers would fall if the new school was built. In other words people would exercise their choice in our favour. They also sent a delegation to the local council, which duly fell in behind them and started being as obstructive as it could towards any planning proposals for our new school.These actions strike me as being a bit more than just being supportive of faith schools, they are more about maintaining hegemony over the educational choice in our area.
This has little to do with the "cold house for atheists thread but I could'nt resist commenting when integrated education was mentioned.

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from.

I'm certainly not against integrated schools...and perhaps they should be given the extra funding needed.

However, my point is just that, although integrated schools may be at a disadvantage, this is not due to some kind of discriminatory religious hegemony.

And to assert that we must get rid of this hegemony by making all schools integrated is just lunacy of the highest order...forcing all schools to be the same in order to encourage individuality.

Brian has accused me of "running away" from this argument...in another thread.

Perhaps he hasn't bothered to check this one to see whether I'm still here.

:)

Bernard
I certainly do understand that many parents want their children to have a spiritual education, and that they would like schools to particpate in that education.
However, when the end result is that children spend their formative years divided from another community, then the state has an interest in reducing funding for religious education.
In many areas there is no sound educational or economic reason for having two schools. As for the spiritual welfare of children (I hope Brian and Noble Dee excuse the term), this can be catered for. Almagamate schools with falling numbers. Then Roman Catholic clergy simply join the board of governors of Protestant schools- or Protestant clergy join the board of governors of a former Roman Catholic schools.
I don't teach RE in way that the local Bishop would disapprove of. In fact, he may have less problem with my beliefs than the beliefs of some Roman Catholic RE teachers I've worked with. In primary schools, time can be set aside for first communion etc.
That would be a small step forward, surely?

GV

Oh, and don't call them Protestant, Catholic or Intergrated schools once they've amalgamated. Just call them schools.
GV

However, there are many many ways in which our young people are divided.

to pick on the schools that were established for what is an exclusivist purpose, really is like demanding that all churches should be integrated so that our kids can spend more time together.

It misses the point.

Try knocking down those big twenty foot high walls, then our children can spent all the time they want together, except that time when they're supposed to be learning in a particular way.

And anyway...

Yet again, i have no problem with integrated schools, but.....


What does all this have to do with discrimination against atheists, and a dominant religious hegemony in the public sphere?

Brian?

I don't wish to labour the point, but TODAY Brian said that I;

"ran away from that (this) thread"...

even though I made a large number of posts yesterday, and more today, whereas Brian hasn't made one since... let's see now....Saturday.

Strange

Bernard
I think that denomination (not religion) is the main source of segregation in our society. Again, 90% of our students are divided by "civil religion" - not religious convictions per se.
Furthermore, there are many areas (eg. Armagh) where segregation has led to an astonishing waste of resources. There simply is no case for segregation when numbers are declining.
Let me raise another point. I do not know a word of Irish. When I read history, I read British (ie. English) history. I am *disconnected* from Irish culture. Over the last few years I have become attracted to the Irish Constitution, and I would be of the opinion that a United Ireland would be preferrable to an impotent Assembly at Stormont or direct rule from Westminster. But because my schooling put me at a distance from Irish Culture, I would feel like a stranger in a strange land.
So segregated schools are a barrier to a United Ireland. If there is to be any hope of moving the Island forward more Protestants and Catholics will have to be educated side by side. Removing barriers would be in the interest of Nationalism, not Unionism.
And keep in mind, I do not want to see the Roman Catholic Church pushed out of Northern Ireland's education system. I am fully aware of the importance of Roman Catholic Schooling for Roman Catholic families. But given our political situation and the demographic curve, we need to renegotiate how that takes place.

G Veale

and what has this to do with discrimination against atheists...or dominant religious hegemony in the public sphere?

Plus, segregated education does not seem to be a problem anywhere else....suggesting that there are much deeper problems here than where we choose to go to school.

Again, i make the point that surely it would be more useful to tackle segregated housing, leisure facilities and even shopping facilities, than to demand that all schools become integrated into one homogenous state-sponsored system, thus inevitably diluting the scope for spiritual guidance.

Bernard
1) In terms of atheism, I don't think that it does any harm to show that conservative Christian belief does not determine one's approach to schooling.
2) I daresay on fundamentals we are in agreement. I'm guessing here, but I imagine that even on the issue of Salvation we would say something like - "a life transformed because genuine trust has been placed in Christ, because of Christ's nature and work". And we would not expect that those who have not heard the Gospel are damned by implication.
(Of course there are sincere Evangelicals who believe salvation is a matter of having had a wonderful experience, or having repeated a prayer. Just as there are conservative Protestants and Catholics who think it is a matter of Church attendance or particpation in rites. So here is an odd thing - there are many Roman Catholics I disagree with in theory, yet in practice I have more in common with them than I do some Protestant Fundamentalists or Anglican Liberals. Yet socially the gap is placed between the Catholic and me.)
Now our faith seems equivalent on the central issues. Yet I fully understand that you believe that a transformed life should result in obedience to the magisterial rulings of the Church. As a Protestant, I don't acknowledge that authority. You also attribute an efficacy to the Sacraments that I don't (in fact I think it obscures the Gospel, but that's a different issue).
Now suppose we were given the funds to start a School between us. Surely there is enough common ground between us to agree on a system that would allow the students to be educated together most of the time, yet allowed space and time for Catholic youngsters to learn and participate in their distinctives?
3) On a separate issue Churches don't receive billions in State funding, and children are not required, by law, to attend Church. So I think the analogy with Ecumenism breaks down.
In terms of Secondary Education, I don't see that the Roman Catholic Church would miss out on much. And I think that there would be benefits for all parties if new Schools could be formed on cross-denominational *and* non-denominational bases.
4) So I think I could start a School with you and a political party with Brian. I think this blog is infecting me with some form of megalomania. Soon I'll be forming plans to solve all of societies ills:)

GV

I partly agree with most of your points.

In what way, though, does this mean that atheists are discriminated against, and that there is a dominant religious hegemony present in all public discourse?

We seem to have moved on to a discussion of how to solve the particular ills of this society...although no one has yet to show that those ills include a particular discrimination against atheists, and a dominant religious hegemony in the public sphere.

Really all we're discussing are the particular intricacies of religious/social/political divisions in Ireland.

Which has nothing to do with discrimination against atheists, and far more to do with (past) discrimination against catholics....which bears absolutely no relevance to Brian's original "article".

Of course, it was Brian himself who fist steered us on this course, and now seems to have disappeared. Or "ran away".

:)

I'm only joking of course....no doubt he's just busy with other things, and will be along soon to tell us what discrimination atheists face.

Always interesting to turn up at the end of a debate - Brian whinging away as usual. Just picking through some of the stuff - the most laughable is the atheist desire to present thought for the day. It's a short religious programme - atheism by definition is not a religion. It's the hole in the donut, not the donut.