Are we free to believe?

This is a rather confused piece, and I can only assume that Mr Trigg's report is the root of the confusion given the quotes you provide.

On one hand he seems to be saying that we are all free to believe and say what we like, but then he implies that criticism of his beliefs should not be allowed.

He also states that we should all be allowed to put our beliefs into practise "as far as possible" (within the law I presume he means). I can only assume he is making the claim that he and his co-religionists are being denied this opportunity, no doubt with reference to the recent rash of cases brought by the Christian Institute (such as nurses wearing crucifixes, registrars officiating for gay couples, etc etc). I challenge him to produce a single case (which has been tested in court) where religious people are given less freedom that others. In truth it is the other way round - there are numerous exemptions codified in our laws for religious people/organisations giving them more rights than others.

It is also crucial that, as far as possible, we are able to put our religious (and equivalent) beliefs into practice.

Doctors advise patients to not smoke or drink alcohol because of the harming effects on ones health. There is increasing awareness re how beliefs/thoughts etc can also influence health. SO whilst one may be free to believe all sort of things - perhaps one day they will come with a government health warning due to the recognised effects on one's health!!


The pursuit of "equality" is rated more highly than religious freedom.
And of course it should - because we are all equal and unfortunately some religious beliefs do not recognise that fact and instead render people homophobic/bigoted etc and those false beliefs are not based on any true understanding of the human person but arise out of ignorance/indoctrination/lack of awareness etc. They should be discouraged and not acted out due to the harm they cause. Education, Education, Education regarding man's true and equal nature would perhaps help to counter some of the absolute rubbish that is pedalled in the name of religion and God in my view.

I don't agree that human beings are naturally "religious" animals. If I grew up in India, I would likely be Hindu, in Israel, I would likely be Jewish. Religion generally follows place of birth or upbringing. What I believe is "natural" and mature is an eclectic spirituality - the desire to know God and form a relationship with God from that knowledge. This results in a quest which will bring human beings in touch with bits and pieces of various religions from which they create their own belief system.
I think that some "religious" beliefs are being marginalized because they are...well...beyond belief, and people are beginning to question. An example might be the three persons in the Christian God.
A free society should never be in the business of muzzling spiritual voices, let alone in the name of Christianity of Islam, or any other religion.
I feel that Mr. Trigg may be wrong. Religion has historically been the most fettering, iron-cast system of belief ever imposed on humankind; in fact, most religions stop you cold from thinking at all about God because religion already has the answers. All you need do is memorize them and spout them back. If you don't believe what you're spouting, you simply lack the faith.
A society is wise to distance itself from religion, but keep close to spirituality. The debate about God and what God wants is never-ending because none of us living or long-dead really has or had all the answers, though some of us, especially evangelicals, seem to think they know all there is to know about God, Heaven and Hell. If God wanted us to stop thinking, it's not likely S/he would have given us a brain.
I almost agree with Trigg's argument: 'Everyone must be free to come to a personal decision about their commitment, or lack of one, to a spiritual position, which may or may not adhere with any standard religion, precisely because of the centrality of spirituality for human consciousness. It is a crucial mark of individual liberty to be free to decide which beliefs to adhere to, or to reject most beliefs and become spiritually eclectic.
I think it's a major problem of our society that the media and its followers are often so quick to turn aside from morale dilemmas and fail to ask penetrating questions such as: "Was this the right thing to do?" Morality is a public concern; religion is private concern. Spiritual evolution is a public concern. Religion has setback our quest for true spirituality for hundreds of years e.g. Believe or be excommunicated, stoned, burned at the stake...

I would argue that we're not a naturally religious species. However, as language using, self-aware and intelligent species, we're inherantly aware of our mortality and the enormity of the world around us and we use stories and ritual practices to ease our fear of death and the unknown.

A child does not instinctively believe in god, there are many instances of atheist children as there are many theistic, they believe what they're told and to a child the concept of an all-powerful being who looks after them can be comforting.

The perception that we're naturally religious is simply due to indoctrination and influences during childhood. One more reason why preaching to kids is so insiduous.

The word religion comes from the latin word meaning relationship - so being naturally religious could be that we are hard wired for relationship with God - as we were made by God, from love, with love, in love. Thus we end up seeking that which we are.

If children were demonstrated and taught the ways of love - they would naturally come to know God. Not through belief or indoctrination but because it is who they/we are. Children are naturally closer to God anyway- naturally loving and joyful - before life hammers it out of them!

Eunice (#5)

My children are demonstrated and taught the ways of love, as was I when I was a child. My 8 year old recently declared a lack of a belief in god and I decided I didn't believe in god many years ago.

I highly doubt that children 'naturally' come to god. Nuture is a very powerful thing.

Natman: I also decided as a child that I didn't believe in God - the God that I was told about in church, school etc and it was good to not 'believe in ' that God -because those teachings were false. So I would prob say it's great that your 8 yr old says they do not believe in GOd - because it is quite likely that the God they have been told about does not exist in my view. Children have a natural innocence and knowing that can see through alot of the c**p that they get told about God.

When I say they are naturally closer to God - children are naturally loving, joyful and playful - and this is the natural expression of their true nature. (in my understanding, God is love, that love is within each person and that is their true nature - and that is expressed as love /joy/playfulness etc)
Re demonstrating and teaching the ways of love - many people would agree with you and say they were taught and demonstrated those ways and they pass them on to their children. Parents love their children and want the best for them - usually. However, I have come to realise that there is a bit more to this love thing - in terms of how to live in ways that are truly self-loving and also being love for another. It is part of the human condition that we receive alot of mixed messages as kids re love and that can play out in adult life as well. We often get rewarded/loved as kids for doing good, doing well in sport/exams/manners etc etc End result we seek identification, recognition and acceptance as adults. So I'm just saying that I have come to learn that some of what I thought was love is not love and that there is more to love and its true ways than I ever realised or imagined.

I haven't read the whole thing, but the conclusion is perhaps a little startling in its apparent pointnotgettingness.

'Everyone must be free to come to a personal decision about their commitment, or lack of one, to a religion.

Correct. This will have no argument from me.

Precisely because of the centrality of religion for human nature, it is a crucial mark of individual liberty to be free to decide which religion to adhere to, or to reject all religion.

The premise does not support the conclusion. Certainly there is a lot of religion about, but to argue that it is central to human nature is like arguing that malaria or tapeworms are central to human life. However, the conclusion is, as I said, perfectly acceptable (even though the reasoning in Trigg's case) is faulty.

If individuals matter, and Christian teaching says they do, that liberty should be respected.

Well, humanist "teaching" says that too, so it's not as if Christianity is special in this regard. It is in fact the hallmark of a truly secular society that individual liberty is respected.

It is also crucial that, as far as possible, we are able to put our religious (and equivalent) beliefs into practice. Yet influential voices in our society, including some sections of the media, are all too ready to treat religion as something of only private concern.

This is the insidious bit, and we've covered it in the Offensive Evangelism thread. It is not that religion is something of only private concern - it is that the rights of people to practise their religion need to be balanced with the rights of other people to practise THEIR religion, and the rights of the rest of us to NOT practise religion of any stripe. So whingeing will get you nowhere, Roger. It is spectacularly difficult to argue that there is some sort of bias against religion (Christianity in particular), given the special treatments Christianity (mostly the Anglican sect) gets in the UK that is denied to, say, Humanists. The playing field must be level, and that DOES mean that religious ideas should be as subject to criticism and even ridicule as political ideas or which football team is the best.

They see the demands of religion as ones that can be subordinated to whatever are the pressing social concerns of the moment. The pursuit of "equality" is rated more highly than religious freedom. Yet we dare not give up a burning desire to protect such freedom, since it lies at the heart of all freedom.'

And that just makes no sense. As it happens I *do* think that some people over-egg this pudding - the wearing of crosses or the hijab or Claddagh earrings or whatever do not offend me in the slightest, BUT I do reserve the right to point out the ridiculousness of using such symbolism to assert a religious hegemony or pretend a moral superiority. But that is surely not what "equality" is about! Maybe Trigg goes into more detail in the body of his report, but one has to wonder what precisely the problem *is*. Is it *really* that Christians (he's hardly going to stick up for Muslims, is he?) are being persecuted by a post-modern media & scientific establishment, or is it really that he feels that religious groups should be permitted to interfere or hegemonise in society without that activity being scrutinised?

Equality and religious freedom are (at least in theory) equivalent. But your freedom to assert your beliefs has to be balanced with my freedom to live my life without interference, access services, get education for my kids, etc. And to tell you that your beliefs are silly.

Are we cool now?

Its funny that all the atheists here are humanists too (why not anti-humanists?)
Shows the influence of new atheists on civil servants, semi skilled and the unemployed
Liberalism, capitalism and socialism don't work

Doyler, I can never work out if you're a troll or not.

I don't think it's 'funny' that atheists are generally humanists. Humanism is an inherantly skeptical standpoint; I won't say all humanists are atheist, as you can get religious humanists, but I'd say the vast majority of atheists are also humanists. Humanism (capital 'H', no adjective such as "secular") is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.

Your statement "Liberalism, capitalism and socialism don't work" is highly dubious, seeing as liberalism and a forms of socialist capitalism have been the way things are done in western cultures for close to 200 years and have resulted in the best standards of living, the lowest poverty and crime figures and a general satisfaction in life that the human race has ever achieved.

Getting all paranoid that the New Atheists are somehow trying to 'influence' is bizarre enough that I think you're either a troll or a Poe.

I am also a bit puzzled as to why someone who does not believe in the gods should be *anti*-humanist. I know OT will argue that Humanism (at least here in the West) largely evolved out of Christianity - and for me personally, that was the case. And Lance Armstrong no longer needs stabilisers to ride his bike.

We have got to the point where our *society* no longer needs to give special treatment to religions in general - they are free to compete in the marketplace of ideas just like anything else. What they don't have is the right to drive into it in an armoured tank, to borrow someone else's allusion.

I suggest that if any recommendations emerge from this report, it should be that "Life of Brian" be compulsory viewing for all citizens.

”Lance Armstrong no longer needs stabilisers to ride his bike.”

I suspect though, he needs wheels ;-)


Having only scanned the report, it may be best if I comment more generally, although William’s summary is very useful.

My initial reaction is that while I agree that Christianity is the dominant worldview upon which our society has been built and that we have taken too much of it for granted, it really is time for Christians to think ahead. To be honest, I’m growing tired of the argument that because of our history Christianity deserves some kind of special treatment. This argument is framed in a number of different ways: the ‘Christian heritage’ argument, the ‘equality’ argument, the ‘this law shouldn’t apply to me’ argument, the ‘rights’ argument and so on, but what we are not hearing or debating is how Christians ought to react if society is no longer built on Christian principles or if (and this has not yet happened) Christianity is actively opposed by the State.

At present most of the response appears to be of the type, ‘this is dreadful, don’t you realise what Christianity has done for us, don’t you realise what you’re going to loose, don’t you know I have rights!’ But this approach cannot be sustained in a ‘marketplace’ where Christianity is perceived as only one dowdy (and by some dangerous and threatening) stall among many. This is a context which has not yet been faced adequately by our churches, and anyway, it’s the wrong argument.

The debate which the church has to have is (if I might use a biblical phrase) how can we seek the good of the city when the ‘city’ is no longer interested in what we have to say, or, even, if the ‘city’ is opposed to us.

And frankly, there’s no point in pulling a hissy fit or stamping our feet and demanding ‘equal’ treatment - that isn’t ‘Christian’. The thinking ahead will require that Christians rediscover what it means to live as a sacrificial (or perhaps Eucharistic) minority for the benefit of others, *that* is where our real freedom lies.

2manypeters,

Interesting response though I am not sure the hair shirt will be required for everyone to rub along together - believers and non, maybe just a bit of humility all round and a true understanding of equality and free will.

The problem will be persuading the multi million dollar businesses, sorry churches, that following your view (which is more of the christ they used to teach us kids about) is more important than making money, having nice wives, making political connections and having swimming pools.

Peter, we are of one mind :-) There's hope for you yet!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hmmm.

Moderators dont seem to realise that quoting from an essay is entirely within the bounds of copyright legislation.

-------------------------------------------------

2MP

I agree with most of what you have said. The only problem is I think you make a false dichotomy.

There is no reason why philsophers like Trigg should not argue his corner while Christians serve the community.

Otherwise you are looking at a complete secular-Orwellian rewriting of history. And if you don't have an accurate view of history, what does that mean for charting a course for the future?

OT

emmm 2MP

Christianty not yet opposed by state?

I understood some people had already lost their jobs over matters of consicence.

Also, is Trigg not performing a public service in putting forward his case?

I also think you need to distinguish between Christians making special case arguments and Christians having freedom of speech and conscience.

There is a world of difference between these.

OT

Helio

You do realise that my motivation for those comments is spurred on by that middle section of the Apostles’ Creed: crucified, dead, buried, risen and ascended?

That, as Dave said, there is something more important than making money and political connections. (I do admit to having a nice wife though!)

That there is, in my opinion, something less than gracious (and I don’t mean ‘polite’) about the argument which seeks to maintain a Christian presence in society by institution, law and right. In fact, it could be suggested that there is something deeply unChristian in seeking to maintain the gospel by institution, law and right.

In other words, the freedom to love my enemy, to act justly and love mercy, to relinquish my power/rights for the good of another is exactly the sort of freedom the church should be able to display because this is exactly what we say about God. Perhaps if we (those who call ourselves Christian) were to act with this kind of freedom we would increasingly see the folly and redundancy in demanding the ‘right’ to ‘believe’.


OT

Just seen your comments, it'll have to be later. Sorry.

2MP....

If making public arguments as Trigg does is contrary to a Christian ethic... or a waste of time... on what grounds do you personally make public arguments on this blog?

In what way do they serve your community differently to Trigg's arguments?

OT

OT,

Christianity is not opposed by the state but neither should it be favoured by the state. Two things have happened :-

1) People of faith are not allowed hide behind their beliefs in order to discriminate in the provision of goods and services and in much of employment law. If they want to discriminate then they have to take the consequences like everyone else. Freedom to discriminate is not a matter of conscience.

2) Special privileges that christians have had are being removed ie christians are treated the same as everyone else. The removal of Bishops from the House of Lords should be the next step, no other group in society has such an influential position which is used to institutionalise discrimination.

These are positive things for all non christians as it removes an unwanted influence from their lives.

Thanks Dave

I dont make any special pleadings for people of faith as per 2MP's concerns.

I have no problems with the "dechristianisatian of society" and removal of bishops from the lords.

In the end we will get the society we collectively want. Free will is a central biblical concept.

I affirm your right not to live by any religious principles. I affirm your value and dignity as a person in doing so.

Within Christianity and other Abrahamic faiths marriage is clearly defined; members of Abrahamic faiths are not necessarily "hiding behind their beliefs" when they choose to not actively affirm alternatives that are traditionally seen as unacceptable within their faiths.

It is not hard to see how someone can try to hold to their conscience, (an action which is inward and upward focussed) in contrast to someone who is actively going out of their way to discriminate or in some way demean or insult others. There is quite a difference between those two attitudes.

One is very compatible with tolerance of differing views. the other isnt.

In the case of the registrar from London who lost her job because she did not feel able to register civil partnerships, I understand it was quite clear that no gay couple would be denied services by allowing her freedom of conscience.

ie there were plenty of other registrars available who could carry out such responsibility for civil partnerhips but as I understand it no consideration was given to this as a possibility.

It is analagous to doctors being allowed exemptions from taking part in abortions on religious grounds; nobody in the UK is denied abortions because some doctors decline to be involved in them. There is plenty of room for competing rights to be accomodated if we wish them to be without any services or goods being denied to anyone.

However it would appear that the equality legislation is being used as an ideological battering ram to try and trample down not only dissent - but the right to dissent. Otherwise there would be real efforts made at looking at ways for competing rights to co-exist, as with doctors and abortion and there would not have been such heated debates on freedom of speech in the past parliament.

However no such efforts at accomodation have been made or are being made in the UK. That is why siblings in the UK were deliberately refused the right to civil partnerships for tax and inheritance benefits, which is allowed through civil partnerships in France, a very secular country.

We have had a very particular ideology legislating in recent years in the UK which has been shamed when its true face has been exposed to the light. I give you Gordon Brown's election shame when he though he was speaking in private in response to reasonable questions from a reasonable voter.

2MP - theocracy is certainly not biblical - but is naive passivity?

Christ asks us to be "salt and light" in society.

OT

OT

Free will is not a biblical concept, how can it be?

Yes, we are given a choice - follow god or not, but if you choose not to you get punished in hell forever and ever.

Coersion or a threat of eternal damnation does not allow true free will, it merely allows the illusion of one.

OT

I’ll try and clarify a few things.

First, I’m not saying Roger Trigg *shouldn’t* make his argument (nor I am saying it is a waste of time), I’m *disagreeing* with his argument, or at least aspects of it, and I’m specifically saying that for Christians to adopt a ‘what about our Christian heritage’, an, ‘I ought not to be subject to this or that law’, or an, ‘I have rights’ argument is (at least) limited. I have no objection to Christians making their voice heard, I am one, but once we start assuming that we have the right to be heard, then sooner or later we’re going to find ourselves hollering into the wind. What I am trying to do is to move the debate on.

That brings us to next point, a secular rewriting of history. Yes, let us remind those who are not Christians, or who may deliberately wish to forget, of our, and their, past, but as you say “what does that mean for charting a course for the future?” Exactly! What do Christians do if or when revisionism writes us out of the past and the present? That is what I’m trying to debate and I’m saying that the, up until now, popular response of ‘heritage’ and ‘rights’ doesn’t and won’t cut it. If I am denied the right to believe or to identify as a Christian there won’t be any point in making a ‘rights’ argument then. Or, to use Helio’s anaology, if our stall is kicked out of the marketplace or consigned to the periphery there’ll be no point in complaining that we cobbled the square!

Next, yes, I agree that Christians are in a position where we are increasingly facing issues relating to conscience, but those issues are arising primarily because of ‘equality legislation’ not because Christians are being opposed for being Christians (that is what I mean by State opposition, and that is not yet happening). And we can’t appeal to a secular government for equality under the law and then deny equality to others - that is self-defeating and hypocritical. Not only that but in saying that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead we are already adopting a position which is other than the dominant secular worldview so the primary point, I suggest, is not to seek equality under the law it is to ask how, given the freedom I claim by being identified with Jesus, I/we react in the contemporary world. Our freedom in Jesus is supposed to take precedent!

And that freedom is a freedom to love those who disagree with us (and yes, let's disagree) but let's keep on loving people even if such disagreement should eventually slide all the way up the scale and become opposition. If we claim to follow a *living* Jesus, if we claim to be citizens of a new creation and subject to the principles of a new Kingdom then, I am arguing, it is the light of *that* Kingdom which ought to shine brightest when the resistance is greatest. This is anything but “naive passivity”. And I agree that the salt and light is ethical and moral but it is also the freedom to relinquish my rights and I'm arguing most strongly that this latter voice is the voice which needs to be demonstrated.

And yes, I know that this raises all sorts of practical ‘what if’ scenarios which need to be addressed by the communities we call church, but we’re kidding ourselves if our privileged institutional and political past or a culture of protest guarantees our future, it doesn’t.

Natman (@ 23) -

"Free will is not a biblical concept, how can it be?

Yes, we are given a choice - follow god or not, but if you choose not to you get punished in hell forever and ever.

Coersion or a threat of eternal damnation does not allow true free will, it merely allows the illusion of one."

Although, as you well know, I don't agree with a lot of what you say, I acknowledge that you have made a valid point here.

The concept of 'free will' is an intellectual minefield. We have an overwhelming sense that we possess free will, but once we start to define it, it becomes elusive. When we make decisions, how 'free' are we, and how much are we influenced by factors beyond our control (e.g. nature and nurture) - factors of which we may be largely unconscious? This is a problem for materialists (due to determinism) as well as religious people.

Whatever our world view, moral choices have consequences. Should we regard these 'consequences' as a form of blackmail or coercion? If I deliberately choose to walk out in front of a speeding car (giving that car no time to stop), then there are consequences to my choice - I will most likely be killed or, at least, seriously injured. The driver may be my best friend, but I have put him in the position where he could not avoid hitting me. To suggest that he was coercing me to infringe my free will by forcing me not to walk into the path of his car (because of the threat of what would happen to me if I did) seems an odd argument. In one sense, my decision to walk in front of the car would be a trangression against freedom itself, since the consequence of my act would destroy my ability to continue to make constructive free choices in my life.

It is true that some people may become Christians out of a fear of going to hell (and, sadly, there are evangelists who look for that kind of response. It's called 'Pascal's wager' and it's a logical fallacy). This is certainly not the reason why I am a Christian. I don't pretend to have all the answers concerning the subject of 'free will', but I certainly believe that moral freedom implies the possibility of consequences, just in the same way that the law of gravity 'punishes' people who choose to step off the top of a block of flats.

Free will is one of those little paradoxes - we have it and we don't have it.

Natman: Yes, we are given a choice - follow god or not, but if you choose not to you get punished in hell forever and ever.
Coersion or a threat of eternal damnation does not allow true free will, it merely allows the illusion of one.

This line of thought depends on the belief that God punishes and sends people to hell/eternal damnation. This is a complete fallacy in my view for God neither condemns/punishes nor sends people to hell. This is the sort of nonsense that is put out about God and it is just not true. Therefore IMO it is not relevant to the discussion re free will - unless of course people actually believe this (and I accept many do) in which case what you say is correct.

Most people are influenced to some degree by their upbringing, conditioning etc such that we do not really have true free will ..... the latter is however possible to my understanding.

OT,
Sorry I missed your reply to me.

The registrar case is interesting as she was a public servant and so paid by the public through taxes which everyone including people who wish CP's. In addition CP's are a civil matter not a religious one. Did she also refuse to marry divorcees, adulterers, fornicators etc, no she chose to single out gay people. Should registrars have a list of people they will not join, would mixed race couples be a matter of conscience - I think not.

The right to have a conscientious opt out of abortions is not analogous as there is no discrimination, the doctor refuses to carry out all abortions.

It is not hard to see how someone can try to hold to their conscience, (an action which is inward and upward focussed) in contrast to someone who is actively going out of their way to discriminate or in some way demean or insult others. There is quite a difference between those two attitudes.

There is I agree, the issue is that it is not intent which is measured it is impact, and the end result of the two scenarios is the same - discrimination. It is discrimination which is illegal no matter the source of it.

The continual upsurge in secularism will only serve to marginalise Christians. There are many cases...some of which have been highlghted in these blogs...that show this to be true.
Christians are seen to be religious bigots...yet can atheist etc. not be recognised as bigots also.
If we supposed to allow freedom for all beliefs and non-beliefs then why should Christians need to be the ones expected to renege on what they believe.

Christians are not expected to renege on anything Brian but they are expected to treat everyone equally and not to discriminate. If they conscientiously have to discriminate then they take the consequences. If an atheist refused to marry christians I would expect them to be sacked just like I would expect a christian to be sacked for discrimination. It is not marginalisation of christianity, it is simply putting it in its proper place. Why should any religion have a special place in society over all others and none.

Why should any religion expect opt outs from laws which are there to protect people from discrimination? Is that not religious law (a la sharia) by the back door?

Why does christianity require opt outs in order to allow them to discriminate against people?

Christianity contains many bigotries, (xenophobia, racism, misogyny, homohobia etc...) some of which have been diluted of argued away over time, some of which SOME christians hold onto with a seemingly vicious relish. This almost makes the homophobia worse as SOME christians seem almost rabid in their desire to cling on to this particular bigotry.

And what makes an upsurge "continual"? Many regard this as righting the imbalance; I'm sure we can count on theists to let us know when we've tipped too far the other way. But as Brian McClinton pointed out on SunSeq, there is really no evidence that that is happening, and in fact religions are *favoured* in this society, and religious notions are accorded a sort of privilege which means that they are immune from criticism. But then Brian T has a point; the upsurge or rationalism *is* continual, it has been going on since the time of the Ancient Greeks. However, since the rise of the Christian religion, one thing we've always been able to rely on Christians to do is to whinge and scuttle for the best martyr positions available, like ducks for bread-crusts. Trigg's report shows a tad more decorum than most, but it's cut from the same cloth.

"Blessed are you when men curse you for my sake," saith the Lord, "but if they're just slagging you off for holding ridiculous views that you're not competent to defend rationally, you're on your own, baby. Don't come yapping to me."

Amen.

From your responses you are only clarifying what I am stating. I notice you didn't turn around and say that Christians should be allowed to have freedom by what they believe but instead you condemned it as if you were certain that you were correct and not Christians.

How do you know that Christians are wrong and your right...on what basis...Dawkins...Hitchens..etc... perhaps?

How do you know they're right...why should you believe them...after all they have personal reasons why they are embittered towards God...


Perhaps you should take a leaf out of your own book and stop whinging at everything that Christians say

I don't take a moral high ground on the basis of being a 'born again' Christian but I do recognise what the Bible clearly says is wrong and if I want to speak out about then it's only because I care not and not because I am some self righteous bigot.

Brian, by using your belief in an ancient book to proclaim you're against certain harmless and culturally neutral practices (homosexuality, sex before marriage, etc) then you are being a bigot, whether you think yourself as one or not. If you actually had a case against such practices other than "because the bible says it's wrong" then you might not get accused of being so narrow minded.

The simple fact is this; society has realised that such things are not wrong, by continuing to decry them for nothing more than disagreeing with your principles, you are perceived as a bigot.

Brian,
Christians have freedom, as has everyone. They can discriminate all they like, but they will have to accept the consequences.

There is no excuse for bigoted discrimination in our society.

I do not know why you bring Dawkins and Hitchens into this, I do not look to them for moral guidance.

How do I know that christianity is wrong about different things simple - bigotry is wrong, some christian teachings are bigoted therefore christianity is wrong.

I fully agree with Natman. Some elements of christianity will have to learn that if it wishes to continue with its bigoted beliefs (which it is entitled to do) it will appear more and more bigoted and perhaps irrelevant to a growing number of people. It will also find itself more and more at odds with the law.

Let me ask you a simple question Brian about freedom,

What freedom did your church offer me when I was 16 to be who I was? Why did I have to be a criminal from the age of 16 to 21 to satisfy your (not my) beliefs? If elements of your church had its way I would still be a criminal just for being who I am. I acted on my conscience and had I been caught would have had to take the consequences which could have been stigmatization and prison, to my mind you are bleating about very little.

Dave...I'm interested by your story?

I'm not sure what you mean by church...if it's a local church or a denomination but that should'nt matter anyway.
Obviously if you have been hurt in some way then it has proved destructive in your view of church and God.

Natman....In response to those comments about bigotry.

I was struck by your thinking on what 'is' acceptable as right.

What makes something right....what makes sex before marriage right?...what makes homosexuality right?

How can you make such claims?

Brian, I agree with you that much of what the bible says is wrong - that is because it was written a long time ago by people who did not have the benefit of the experience and moral development that we have today. They got lots of things very very badly wrong - most of Leviticus, in fact. The problem for religious people is that in order for them to have their rights to believe whatever they wish to believe, the state *must* adopt a thoroughly secular approach. Otherwise, one group would seek to impose its supremacy on the others. So if Christians want rights, Muslims must have the same rights, and even Mormons would need to have the same rights too, not to mention JWs, Druze, Satanists and Trekkies. Can these rights all be balanced? Yes, they can, but you can guarantee that this will not please everyone in these groups, because they will inevitably feel that *their* primitive superstitions should be elevated above those of the others.

I think that the emphasis on discrimination against Christians misses the real problem here. What is happening in our society is that anyone or any group of people whose values or opinions are considered 'offensive' are being marginalised.

This is true of Muslims who want to dress in certain ways; it is true of comedians who tell 'offensive' jokes; it is true of anti-war protesters who want to demonstrate outside Parliament; it is true of football fans who want to celebrate their team with terrace chants and songs. Christianity's historical significance creates the appearance that it is under particular attack but this not so.

This attempt to silence what is 'offensive' or awkward or embarrassing is a product of our society's loss of confidence in genuinely liberal values. We no longer aspire to a culture of tolerance, pursuing instead a culture of 'respect'. But the culture of respect is deeply intolerant.

In a truly liberal society I can tolerate what I do not respect. However, what is the outcome when respect for difference is expected and demanded? It is precisely a lack of tolerance. What is not respected, what will not offer me respect, will not be tolerated.

Christians need to get out of their bunkers where they are fighting small battles and see the greater challenges facing all who value a truly liberal society, whether religious or secular, whether left or right.

Olli

There are thousands upon thousands of followers of Jesus Christ in the world who don't see themselves as 'in a bunker'

I have met numerous people whose lives have been saved and transformed because of Jesus Christ.

They would be insulted by your attitude.

There are Christians organisations, both locally and nationally helping people.
People with all sorts of problems and needs...they are being shown the love of Christ.

We don't spend our all of our time picking small battles...but when it comes to the eroding of superior moral values then it becomes a cause for concern.

Helio...to claim we now have superior moral values is absolute rubbish.

Take the blinkers off and look around you...maybe even step outside your front door.

I live in a community that has had to cope with 3 fatalities in the last week...one of them drug related....so this is 'your' progress!!

Brian,

You said you were interested so I will expand,

It was the church which led the fight against the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK and fought against the equalisation of the age of consent in the UK. It was the churches in NI led by Paisley (but supported either actively or passively by most of the others) with his save Ulster from Sodomy campaign which delayed the decriminalisation in NI by another decade to 1982. In 1982 I was 20 and the age of consent was still 21. So the churches in the UK and NI had conspired to ensure that not only was I a sinner in their eyes but a criminal in the eyes of the law from age 16 to 21. This was all down to the churches demanding I had to live by their beliefs not be free to live by my own. If Maggie Thatcher hadn't signed the decriminalisation bill into NI law (in a fit of peak to show Paisley who was boss) who knows - I might still be a criminal.

You could say that this has rather coloured my view of the church in general and some churches in particular.

The church has not hurt me, in any physical or mental way, but throughout my life has been a source of hatred, discrimination and bigotry so perhaps you can see why I have little sympathy when the churches bigotry is exposed and opposed.

With somewhere between 6 and 10% of the population being LGBT the church created quite a lot of ill feeling toward it and to be honest, with a few notable exceptions, is really not doing much to address the issue as it continues to oppose every single piece of legislation supporting equality for homosexuals and looking for opt outs when that fails.

So you see why I, and many others do not have to look to Dawkins or Hitchens for reasons to be atheistic and why I have significant sympathy for Anne Rice, I could not believe the god/jesus I was told about as a child was anywhere near these churches of bigotry and hate. In reality the church has provided, and continues to provide, all the reasons necessary for me not to believe.

Brian,

You leave yourself open to most easiest of responses by your words.

"to claim we now have superior moral values is absolute rubbish."

I suppose that executing women for being 'witches' is superior moral values, or perhaps casting out people from your own faith for daring (shock+horror) to ordain women! Oh my gosh, such depravity. And, if you actually looked into it, the age at which women marry is up from the early-teens of 100 years ago, more people are enfranchised to vote and take jobs, there's no slavery, murder rates and crime rates in general are DOWN. Funny how an erosion of moral values leads to lower crime rates.

On the basis of premarital sex and homosexuality, it is YOUR biblical perspective that makes it 'wrong'. To impose YOUR moral values upon everyone, regardless of if they believe it or not is bigoted.

And before you start ranting about how that makes child molestation or murder acceptable, look up that fantastic moral value known as informed consent and then tell me that your values are somehow superior. I don't have the arrogance to presume to tell people what they get upto, it's none of my business.

Could you please tell me which other moral values have been degraded? I'm intrigued. No, really, I am.

Dave: I agree with you - there are many people who reject the church because they recognise its message is not true and in the process we reject God because of what we have been led to believe about God through church teachings. However, for me, now there is a vast difference between the God of my understanding and experience and what gets taught /preached in churches - polar opposites in some cases. Part of the problem is that people get so put off having anything to do with God because of their childhood/young adult experiences through churches and I certainly did as well. So if we accept those teachings are false it leaves the way open to find/search for answers that may be more representative of God - if one feels inclined to and is not sickened of the whole notion of God! :-)

Dave...you have contradicted yourself...you say the church hasn't hurt you but obviously it has.

I do recognise and agree that some churches(denominations)get it entirely wrong but that doesn't mean they all do.

Natman...you haven't a clue or any understanding. You come with your own silly nit-picking arguments and chew on the same old bones.
You constantly seem to think Christian are the enemy.You are so consistently shortsighted a more narrow mindind than you think we are.

Brian,

At the time it hurt and it was a bad time, but what I meant was that it did no lasting damage in my case. Many are not so lucky.

If the church did not have the ability to impose its will and to believe it could denigrate homosexuals with impunity, the way it used to other races, women etc then the hurt to me and to many others would not have happened. This is why I oppose any opt outs of discrimination legislation for religious reasons as churches have been some of the worst offenders.

It is also why I oppose hate speech from churches. Calling me an abomination or the way I express my sexuality as perverted is insulting and incitement to hate. Unfortunately religions seem to get a by ball on that one, but even that halo of protection is wearing thin.

You say some churches got it wrong, I know of only one church (plus a few other clergy) in NI who accept homosexuals for who they are and celebrate the rights of LGBT people to form long term partnerships under the law and wish to formally recognise them as marriage by the church and their god. That is equality, anything short of that is discriminatory and bigoted.

You seem to admit that certain churches have hurt people, do you think they will ever get to the stage of recognising what they have done in their gods name and actually address the issue in a way which will resolve it.

Personally it is of little concern to me from belief point of view but it is from a human rights point of view. (my human rights, not an abstracted form) and as long as they continue to hurt people I will oppose them.

I have no interest in changing anyone's belief but I have every interest in neutralising their negative and bigoted impact on peoples lives including their continued unwanted influence in mine.

You asked Natman

What makes something right....what makes sex before marriage right?...what makes homosexuality right?

The answer is very simple, it is not about right or wrong. Homosexuals simply are and it is as normal for us to have sex as it is normal for heterosexuals. Sex before marriage is a choice between consenting adults and again is neither right nor wrong but simply their right to chose. You are the one bringing a morality based on your beliefs into the equation and trying to say it is wrong but your beliefs are irrelevant to everyone else except you and therefore so is your morality.

Brian, I find it somewhat astonishing that you seem to think that we have not made moral progress in the millennia since the various books of the bible were written. I am not for one minute suggesting that we live in Utopia, but there is no doubt that the book of Leviticus, for example, reflects a very primitive morality that is singularly unsuitable for a large progressive society. Yes, you may see a number of fatalities in your environs, but I would suggest that very few of those were stonings for adultery or gay relationships or being a witch or whatever. I would assume (or at least *hope*) that you think we have moved on a tad from then.

The idea that morality is beamed down from above is likewise pernicious and primitive; it removes the responsibility from us as members of society to intelligently shape how our society should progress, and subjugates us to the uninformed diktats or convoluted eisegesis of crazy people. The morality & ethics of "divine command" are profoundly inadequate.

So do I think we have made moral progress from the time when bloodthirsty prophets could order divinely sanctioned genocide, and that would be considered OK? Yes, I rather think we have.

Re #37. Brian, I won't disagree with your assertion about the exceptional role that many Christian individuals and organisations play in our society. I will just note, however, that you have completely missed the point of my comment.

Helio, as you seem keen to use the Old Testament book of Leviticus here is a web reference for you to look at...https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Leviticus.html

It may help you see it in it's context not by your opinion.

I love your comment about the prophets....what about this one Helio?

There were 140,000,000 deaths during the 20th century as a result of atheism, communism and facism.

Did you forget to mention that, or is that not on your moral radar?

Brian,

Could you breakdown those figures please into fascism, communism and atheism. I would be intrigued to know when atheists banded together to attack another group using atheism as the justification for attack. Fascists and communists may be atheists, but that is not the reason they attacked others, communism and fascism was.

Fascism and communism are simply systems of control or ideologies which for different reasons involve a need for the eradication of some or all theistic models which oppose their ideology, atheism is not.

Dave...None of us like to be told how to live our lives...We don't like to be accountable to anyone for the way we live or behave...it's the way we are. We all want to have freedom of choice but sometimes with that freedom there are consequences.
What your saying is that if a percentage of people behave or live in a certain way then it must be normal and acceptable... even though it could possibly be harmful or wrong.
Surely you would try and save the life of someone trying to commit suicide or would you not, because you believe that's their choice?

Ooooh, Brian, you get a Godwin award for that. The book of Leviticus (indeed the whole bible) contains a good deal of primitive moral reasoning that has been superseded, and a good thing too. I suggest you read the texts without some sanitised "study guide" holding your hand.

I was only trying to simplify for you Helio but obviously thats your way of saying your not going to read it....good get out clause as usual.

You will never ever supercede the morals of the Bible...only you will twist them!!

Brian,

The point is what gives you the right to decide that your beliefs, which I do not share, are more important than my right to chose to follow what is natural for me.

Please show me a non theological reasoning why being a practising homosexual is harmful (either to me or to anyone else) or wrong.

I am not trying to commit suicide, I am trying to live. In reality it is the actions and words of religion which has created homophobia which results in higher suicide rates amongst gay men.

You are not saving people from suicide you are increasing the rates of it.

Brian,

Your bad use of statistics is only superceded by your terrible use of the word 'atheist'.

Atheism has never been used as a cause to start wars or commit genocide.

If only religion could claim as much.

I also point you to the term informed consent and also that morals and ethics are not the exclusive preserve of abrahamic religions. The almost non-theistic beliefs of Buddhism put across some outstanding moral guidelines but are not so feeble as to claim a god told them what they were.

Brian : Dave is right - religion (as it has been and stands today) is responsible for many atrocities and even on a smaller scale it saddles people with tremendous guilt that outplays in many different ways. Any religion that does not see all people as completely equal with equal rights - is false in my view.

Brian, I *have* read it. Indeed, it practically makes my point. Come on - pick up your game!

I should also point out that Brian's article is wrong on many counts, especially on dating.

If you had read it Helio then you would begin to understand it in it's context and relevance. It leads on from the story of the exodus and focuses on God's holiness and his desire to be present amongst his people.It deals with specific offerings and sacrifices and their relevance can be explained but I know that your looking at from an entirely different angle and I'm not sure that your interested.

In relation to the challenge to the figures and facts...I believe I don't need to come back on that to much because I'm merely saying don't point your finger directly at Christians because the rest of your fingers are pointing back at yourself.

And by the way...I don't belong to a religion...I don't follow rituals and ceremonies....I follow Jesus Christ.

Question?....Why on earth does everyone want to normalise things that in the real face of it, can, in no way, be considered normal.

Try and answer it without referring to someone elses beliefs and thinking.

Brian,

So you never partake in the Lord's Supper?

You've never been baptised or baptised someone else?

You don't pray for various things?

You're right in thinking that a faith in jebus isn't a religion, however, it does demand certain religious practices if you want to fit in with the dogma.

Oh, nice childish 'don't point your finger directly at Christians because the rest of your fingers are pointing back at yourself.' I'll respond in the same way I did all those years ago, and point with all four fingers and my thumb. Gotcha! :-D

Religion is still the #1 cause of war and oppression on the planet.

Please define 'normal' for me as well. 'without referring to someone elses beliefs and thinking.'

Natman...I like your term 'Gotcha'...perhaps one day you'll get it right!

So atheists are peace loving citizens...I suppose you have all of their names and addresses.

If you need a dictionary to look up the term 'normal', I'll get you one.

Brian,

Question?....Why on earth does everyone want to normalise things that in the real face of it, can, in no way, be considered normal

The real question is ... Why do religious people want to pick on some things and define them as abnormal when in the real face of it they are perfectly normal.

Perhaps if you answer my question from earlier

'Please show me a non theological reasoning why being a practising homosexual is harmful (either to me or to anyone else) or wrong. '

I might understand.

Oh, Brian.

I know what normal means, but I asked you to define it, who sets the baseline for which 'normal' is gauged?

The church? But what if you don't subscribe to that particular denomination?

The state? But what if you didn't vote for the current rulers, or are a tourist or short-term immigrant?

More importantly. Why is 'normal' so important? In todays society, it is you, the believer, who isn't 'normal'.

And I didn't say all atheists are peace loving citizens. You're creating the biggest straw man in the worlds biggest scarecrow competition. I said that atheism has not been used as a cause to spread genocide, oppression and war.

Religion has and continues to do so.

Natman (@ 52) -

"Atheism has never been used as a cause to start wars or commit genocide."

Nonsense.

It certainly has been used as a cause to commit unspeakable evil and oppression. I hope you're feeling in a suitably wriggly and eel-like mood, because you're going to have to perform some slippery contortions to get out of this example of atheistic brutality from recent history! Admittedly this isn't about 'starting wars' and it may not, strictly speaking, be 'genocide', but 'starting a war' against your own people and committing mass murder falls into exactly the same category.

Nothing quite like evidence is there, Natman?

(But wait for it... I'm sure Natman will find some way of twisting this evidence to make out that it really, really, really was the fault of religion! Or perhaps the oppressors weren't 'real' atheists, but only thicko communist peasants - never mind the fact that this was an explicit campaign against all religious belief totally motivated by atheism!!!)

I wait for your attempt at refutation with eager anticipation.

LSV,

He fought for Stalinism which was his ideology or belief, religion was an autonomy outside of Stalinism so he oppressed it. It had nothing to do with atheism simply control.

You miss the point, when was atheism on its own ever a focus for oppression. How can a non assertion of truth or a personal non belief ever oppress anyone.

Dave (@ 62) -

OK, Dave, let's suppose you're right, although how you manage to come to that conclusion on the basis of the evidence I presented beats me (it is absolutely clear that this was not merely about Stalinism, but more specifically an attempt to create 'the world's first atheist state'. It is possible to establish Communism while, at the same time, respecting people's private religious beliefs. Clearly Hoxha was going way beyond merely Communism, Marxism, or even Stalinism).

So, therefore, can we please apply your rule to so-called 'religious' oppression? Whenever a religious person commits evil, let's say that it's not to do with religion (even if it appears to be), but to do with the political persuasion of that religious person. I'm only being consistent with what you are saying, Dave, am I not? Or can you simply not understand the concept of applying the same moral rule to all people, whatever their view of 'religion'? If atheists can plead the excuse of 'political motivation' when they oppress religious believers, then why can't religious people plead the excuse of 'political motivation' when oppressing people they don't agree with? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As for your continual thing about atheism being a non assertion of truth etc, I think you imagine that if you can just say something enough times, it will stick. No, it will not. Atheism is dependent on a particular philosophical view of reality - i.e. philosophical materialism or metaphysical naturalism. This is a belief system, which stands in opposition to all beliefs which assert that there is more to reality than merely matter and energy (hence the atheists' constant, vehement and often vituperative opposition to what they term 'religion'). Now you can write another ten thousand posts about "atheism not being a belief", but you will not move me one nanometer from my position. Why is that, you may wonder? Because I am presenting a logical argument to substantiate what I am asserting, whereas you are just playing with words, and you fail to understand the proper meaning of the word 'belief' (which is not just a 'religious' term).

In fact, if atheism is such a 'non-belief', I am not really sure why you are even bothering to oppose me or any other Christian or 'religious' believer on this blog. You are obviously coming at us from a particular position or standpoint. Your standpoint is based on certain things you believe about reality. If it is not, then on what basis are you arguing with me?

LSV:This is a belief system, which stands in opposition to all beliefs which assert that there is more to reality than merely matter and energy (hence the atheists' constant, vehement and often vituperative opposition to what they term 'religion').

I agree with a lot of what you say. However - by the above point I would be an atheist (which I am not anymore!) as to my understanding all is energy. THis does not however, in anyway negate God.THe religion of love or of the soul is based on energetic understandings of the human person, God, life, spirit and soul etc. There is more to reality than physical matter. It is the unseen dimension that seems to give some atheists cause for scorn and ridicule - which I understand having been on that side of the fence before. There is however, growing recognition in some fields of the reality of the unseen dimension.

BTW the film Bent on William's Sex and the City of God collection demonstrates very well the power of feeling and the interconnectedness of people ---- for one person to 'feel' another without touching etc . We all do this all of the time without realising it usually! (although in a less intense way than in the film of course! :-) ) Again this is based on the understanding that we are energetic beings - feeling everything all of the time - even if we think we can't or aren't.
(thanks Helio for bringing my attention to the week at QFT -sorry I missed the start of the week so only managed to see a couple of films but will maybe try to get some on DVD . If they are as good as Bent will be a fine collection William - thank you. Unfortunately will miss the NY one tonight ! Actually whilst I am on the subject William do you know or does anyone know if it is possible to get DVD's of the documentaries you/ William did - Dying for Drink, Sorry for your Trouble and Losing our Religion?? Do the BBC supply copies?? I would like to see them as I missed them first time round -all subjects close to my heart! thanks.)

LSV,

I have no idea whose posts you are reading or perhaps you have been at the communion wine.

I have never made any statement (if I have please point it out) which warrants what you have said.

I regard religious oppression as oppression which occurs solely or mainly due to a persons religious beliefs. Stalinism is not, fascism is not, homophobia is, crusades were, banning condoms is, much misogyny is, much pro life activity is.

As I have consistently said, I do not oppose a persons right to believe whatever they like, what I oppose is them using that belief to oppress me or others and in making untrue, discriminatory and insulting statements.

Once you make your belief public and parade it as fact then you open yourself up to people disagreeing with you. I assumed that was the purpose of the blog, if you have different rules for it please let us know.