The UK Is No Longer A Religious Country...

'Any Questions' on Radio 4 had a question this week about civil partnerships, and whether the Anglican church should move with the times and recognise gay marriage. The most interesting and amusing reply came from panellist Johann Hari, the journalist, who is himself gay. His contention is that Christian homophobes are right - the Bible DOES specifically state that man shall not lie down with man. His answer, then, was for gay Christians - for whom their sexuality was a more important feature of their life than their religion - to renounce their faith and become atheists. Either that or, presumably, remain celibate. Raised a few eyebrows that one, I expect - which Hari loves to do, anyway. It points to an issue, though, that I (as a fellow atheist) have always niggled over. If all religions are based on absolutes - which they are - then how can any one religion be tolerant towards another one? Surely a liberal Christian, say, who proclaims his or her acceptance of someone else's right to follow a different faith is, in essence, being hypocritical. You cannot on the one hand say that your God and faith are the only true ones, then say that someone else's God and faith are equally valid. Or am I being hopelessly simplistic and talking out of my backside, as usual?

There was a bloke on the radio the other day (I was only half listening so I can't remember who or what or why) who said that certain faiths, Judasim in particular, believe you can still get into heaven if you don't believe in god (or believe in a marginally different god), you just have to behave yourself.

Religeons are absolute but to be a religeous person you do not have to take the prescribed texts, etc, in their entirety, or that's what I think anyway. I always got the impression that traditions and dogma within religeon were necessary for trivial kinds of things as well as the down right holy- like circumcision being useful in sandy climes (and I'm sure that you can guess why) and a day of rest and all that. As far as I can see these kinds of traditions are quite useful as long as their not kept solely for their own-sakes and they move with the times. I don't believe that they are really inteference or that they are particularly offensive even if you keep another faith. My guess is that most people are saying that religeon is detrimental are saying it because of all this extremism. I doubt that many people think the use of a church hall is hurting any thing. Tell me to shut up if I'm being annoying, but that's the way I'm seeing it.

'A poll carried out on religion says that eighty percent of the population believes it causes more harm than good. ' If you read any religious text, it's aim is to cause as little harm as possible. As the famous car sticker says, "I don't have a problem with God - it's HIS fanclub I don't like." 'Is it time to call a halt to religious interference in our daily lives?' There's a report on Sky news tonight about a couple who were rewarded £10,000 after taking legal action against a constabulary (forget which one) who questioned the couple for making homophobic comments. "Freedom of expression of religion" !! This is the bollocks I'm strongly against. Religion should not be granted such privileges. Religion was born and grew alongside civilisation. Whatever path a person chooses to follow, it is always with a strong conviction that that particular way is a way to peace and happiness. You can't take that away from scripture, no matter how warped it may appear out of its historical context. Universal unity will only emerge when there is only one God, or no God atall. This may simply be a case of allowing evolution to rinse the crap from our systems (no God), or to eliminate the opposition. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

'Is it time to call a halt to religious interference in our daily lives?' Just what is it you think religion is interfering with, anyway? I don't mean to sound flippant, but what are you so anxious to do that you think religion is keeping you from doing? Not an easy question to answer, is it? It amounts to what are we supposed to do with ourselves? Religion's answer was to worship God. Yan mentioned that religion was born and grew alongside civilisation. I might even go further and say that in the beginning, religion was civilisation. The Hebrews would not have survived as a people without the multitude of rules and strictures that are preserved in the Bible. they would either have died of disease, killed each other off, or intermingled with the surrounding peoples and disappeared. But more than a means of survival, religion provided a world view, of not only this world but the unseen world of the spirit. And all of these things were tied up in a fairly organic package. Granted that a lot of the bible has no relevance today, the opinion that we need to get rid of religion seems to miss the more important point of what we are to replace it with. Any ideas? If we simply do away with religion without putting something in its place, we will create a vacuum that will be filled by marketing men, politicians, and all the other agents of those bastards who control the earth and would like to control our souls as well.

"If we simply do away with religion without putting something in its place, we will create a vacuum that will be filled by marketing men, politicians, and all the other agents of those bastards who control the earth and would like to control our souls as well." IMO that's the worst thing, it's already happened and many of those that go against the grain do so for non-religeous purposes. nobody

'Secondly, your question is as easy to answer as any I've ever been asked. The answer is, I asked the original question using the 'royal we', ie. I was asking on behalf of any and all readers as a device to open a debate, I wasn't referring to myself in particular.' Yes I did gather as much but I chose to put myself in opposition to you and your hypothetical cronies who I imagined you were addressing. I also meant 'you' collectively. I could've said 'youze' but I think you might have taken issue with that. I still think you are being hasty saying that the question is easy and you seem to have avoided answering it. Let me rephrase it: If we eliminate religion from our lives, then what should our main occupation be on this planet? I suppose if you look at it narrowly, in terms of your own wants and needs it is still an easy one, but if you step out of the box and look at it philosophically it isn't so simple. Should it be business? The whole capitalist system is a juggernaut heading for a crash of unprecedented proportions. The system simply cannot sustain itself forever and without the ability to look further than our own gain we will not be able to stop it. And business, left to itself without any moral ameliorating force will tend to an imbalance on the side of the few fittest who can take the most. The public welfare is left to fend for itself. Also there is the spiritual side. Without the religious way of looking at ourselves on this planet, wondering where we came from and where we go and whether there is any higher being then ourselves, we are nothing more than animals. Sophisticated, technologically enhanced animals with the ability to destroy the planet hundreds of times over. Though I am no fan of organised religion and I don't disagree with your opinion of the church, I think you are approaching the problem negatively, ie. we need to get rid of religion, whereas I think it should be approached positively ie. we need to create this and gradually phase out what we have. It is a huge difference as far as I am concerned. If we just remove what is left of religion the businessmen scavengers will move in as I have said. We simply must come up with something to replace it with. And whatever it is, I think it should be a philosophy that confers divinity on the Planet Earth (or at least recognizes its sentience), recognizes the intimate connection between the atmosphere and we human beings and insists that we treat others the way we would want them to treat us.

As I think I said on another, similar debate, whether or not we should get rid of religion, I don't think it's possible that we could. As humans beings, we see beyond ourselves. We will always look beyond ourselves, and beyond the evident physicality of our world/universe, in our eternal search for answers pertaining to our purpose and the nature of our "souls." We may dispose of particular religions, but religion/spirituality is an integral part of what it is to be human. {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

As a follow-up letter from a bloke from the Christian Socialist Movement pointed out re: The Guardian's slightly misleading front page headline: "While 82% of respondents "think religion causes division between people" it is not clear how this result should be interpreted since you report that 57% of people "think religion is a force for good"." While the headline did say 'more harm than good' the question wasn't asked directly to the respondents. I don't know it's the Bucks Fizz and Mince Pies but I think I broadly agree with Pepsoid on this - whether or not we like it, religion is going away anytime soon. I also think that - aside from the unnecessary obsession with what consenting adults get up to in their bedrooms - the big churches in Britain are generally quite good. Despite being a member of the Labour Party, I'm much nearer to broad agreement with the public statements of Rowan Williams than I am to the public statements of Tony Blair so, if the CofE was a political party, I'd join it. The only reason I don't is that I don't believe in God, although historically that's never mattered much in the CofE.

'I think George was on about the separation of church and state' If that's what he meant than maybe my comments weren't exactly appropriate. But I still believe in what I said. Does the church really interfere that much in one's daily life in Britain? I should think big business interferes more and people seem to be developing a religious awe of large companies and anyone worth a large amount of money. There is more of beauty in a moment's silence than in all the works of tongue or pen...

"If we eliminate religion from our lives, then what should our main occupation be on this planet?" I don't understand the meaning of this question, xman. What sort of 'occupation' are you referring to? "Without the religious way of looking at ourselves on this planet, wondering where we came from and where we go and whether there is any higher being then ourselves, we are nothing more than animals..." Well.... we ARE nothing more than animals. Highly evolved ones, sure... but still just sophisticated apes. I take it you are referring to our capacity for spirituality - but you don't explain why we need to have religion in order to be spiritual. I regard myself as deeply spiritual - but I don't believe in any God. I hope it's more than just 'religion' that separates us from the other species. "...Sophisticated, technologically enhanced animals with the ability to destroy the planet hundreds of times over." Yep. And most of the killing and destruction that currently takes place in the world is done in the name of religion. Without it, though, I expect we'd probably find some other excuse to destroy each other. We're nothing if not resourceful in that respect. "I'm asking if it's time to refuse religious access to government world-wide." I for one, Missi, will truly believe that we're living in a democracy the day that we elect an openly atheistic prime minister. An openly homosexual one would be something, too.

Religion is the septic boil on the arse of humanity.

'Wherever did you get the impression I have 'hypothetical cronies'? Your opposition is just another tiny addition to the whole, so far, and will be treated with the same degree of disbelief as the rest' Why, from yourself. You complained about my use of the pronoun 'you' (which is the correct pronoun to use when answering 'we') and alluded to the royal 'we' which I took to mean that you fancied yourself as some royal something or other holding court over a group of invisible cronies. But for all this nitpicking, you still haven't answered my question. 'those that know me well will know that the sub-text of my concerns is more to do with the blind devotion that religious acolytes hold their chosen superstition in.' I suppose what distinguishes a good writer from a poor one is the ability to get his message across to those who don't know him as well as those who do, n'est ce pas? There is more of beauty in a moment's silence than in all the works of tongue or pen...

"Is Shakespeare Crap?" Now therein lies a debate! :-))) {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

Mississippi, you are a tedious prick. And I will explain why (tediously so you can understand) At the beginning of this thread I asked you a question, which I admitted was not easy to answer, to which you offered this: 'Firstly, I'd like to point out I'm not anxious about anything to do with religion. Secondly, your question is as easy to answer as any I've ever been asked. The answer is, I asked the original question using the 'royal we', ie. I was asking on behalf of any and all readers as a device to open a debate, I wasn't referring to myself in particular.' Your first part didn't answer the question and I never said you were anxious about religion so it was a bit misleading. Then, still not answering the easy question you proceed to give me a pedantic lecture on the use of the 'royal' we as if I didn't know it. I chose to treat this in a jocular fashion later on, but that went over your head. Or you played dumb (which wouldn't be too hard for you) Your manner of discussion reminds me of a two-bit lawyer who subtly distorts the truth to build a winning case against his opponent. On the other thread in answer to your call for Hussein's blood, rather than give you a pedantic diatribe on how killing Hussein has nothing to do with his record in Iraq but is merely another piece of propaganda that the power players are using to dupe us, I chose to treat it comically which I felt was much more fitting but you missed my point again. 'Ya see, it's got absolutely nothing at all to do with 'christ', anti or pro, it's to do with common decency, but people like you who assume the choices are between 'christ' and the 'devil' are the very ones that perpetuate this crap that humankind can't be civilised, or indeed even survive, without some fucking idol to worship. ' ...Any opinion other than the agreed upon one is unwelcome ... ' Your failed attemps at reducing world events to comedy infer that YOU believe that YOUR opinion is the only acceptable one.' I wasn't talking about christ or the devil at all but you don't seem to possess the modicum of wit it would take to realize that. You say: ' I doubt there's anything I can learn from you about the use of the English language.' which is ironic coming from one who doesn't know the difference between 'imply' and 'infer'. And your reference to my 'problematic' mind sounds good but I think you meant to say 'troubled' unless you mean that it creates a problem in understanding for you. But I am not offering to teach you anything. I think it is a bit too late for that anyway. You could do worse than to read Shakespeare. He was a great writer who was understood by all classes of his time. Though five hundred years later it does require some imagination to read him which you don't seem to have. well that's all folks. No need to take the trouble to answer me as I find this forum too full of negative energy for my taste. I will take the advice that the haemorrhoid gave to the pimple when he said: quit while you're a head' I bid you much ado No, you won't get that either so I will just say good-bye Apologies to the nice people on this forum who have had to suffer this.

Oh, verily, 'tis the season of Joy and Goodwill.

Yeah... cheers to that. If it ain't religious people insulting one another, it's people insulting one another about religion.

"Religion is the septic boil on the arse of humanity." Hm, well.... Nobody - including, to my shame, me - has mentioned Buddhism yet. In western minds, it often gets lumped together with Hare Krishna, Japanese Zen, Yoga, Reiki, TM and a whole host of other stuff. People also mistakenly think that it involves the worship of idols in special temples. But it is, simply and essentially, a peaceful, compassionate and humanistic religion, carrying the simple message that those who commit themselves in faith, study and practice will achieve their goals and be moved to dedicate themselves to the wider causes of human happiness, world peace and environmental harmony – universally and unimpartially. It’s also always been more fundamentally concerned with finding practical solutions to the problems of suffering than with debating the finer points of philosophy and theology. I don’t class myself as a follower yet, but a friend who’s been a Buddhist for nearly 30 years has recently been encouraging my interest – NOT, that is, attempting to convert me: there’s nothing remotely evangelical or proselytising about it. I must admit to feeling daft sometimes, sitting and chanting ‘nam-myoho-renge-kyo’ to myself – but, believe it or not, it does help. I get fewer depressions, anyway. I feel better about myself in many ways. And there are no strictures: you can eat what you like, drink what you like, smoke what you like, etc – and you don’t have to belong to any church or temple. AND there are no wrathful gods keeping tally. If we must have a religion for the 21st century, I can’t think of a worthier candidate. Sorry this isn't really in keeping with the thread's argument. Maybe it should be a separate thread. I just thought it might be good to bring a positive note into the proceedings.

I make you right Missi, whatever you'd have said mr xman would have tried to make an arguement, it's a good thing he fucked off. What was his comment on hanging? something along the lines of anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and you attack them. That was despite the views of BBF amongst others having a differing opinion. I think the man was trying to fight someone elses corner and making a miserable job of it. Regarding Alan though I disagree. If he's found something that works follow that line, as long as it doesn't involve strapping explosives to himself and detonating them in public places of course. nobody

I don't say we MUST have a religion for the 21st century, Missi. A couple of billion or so other people would disagree, though - and, on reflection, and in spite of my own feelings about religion, I wouldn't really want them to be denied that spiritual choice ('Do I contradict myself? Very well, then - I contradict myself...'). Maybe if they all ditched the other major religions in favour of Buddhism, we MIGHT start to see a few changes. As I said, I'm not a follower of Buddhism or any other kind of religion. Out of all of them, though, Buddhism seems to me to be the most compassionate, humanistic, all-embracing and - in many essential respects - 'modern' of religions (in terms of its focussing more on the practicalities of bringing peace and an end to suffering and less on arguing and fighting over scriptural interpretation). I do, though, take your broader point. Why do we need to have a religion in order to have a code to live by, a reason to be civilised, etc? Why can't we just DO it? There could be all sorts of answers to that question. Some indefinable human need to believe in the existence of something beyond the material realm - some mystery we can never fully explain. Also, perhaps. some need to be LED by some higher authority (something, you might say, that saves us having to thnk for ourselves!) For many people, the fact that faith seems to be a negation of reason is reason enough to have faith. Then again, theories have been propounded - most notable by the anthropologist Pascal Boyer - that religious belief is the result of the way the brain works in many people. Quote: "The organisation of the mind does not need anything special to create religious concepts. Because minds can detach concepts from their normal settings and yet retain most of the standard inferential connections that accompany them, they can easily generate notions of the supernatural." Any number of other reasons, I'm sure. You'd have to ask a believer, probably.

'nuff sed. Spot on, as usual, BBF. You cut through the crap. PS You're right. 'Hierarchical' is missing an 'r'. It's your spelling of 'inherent' that has me more worried.

BBF, you seemed to say what I meant, thankyou for breaking it down to everyone else in a way they can accept. Religeon is good for some but not the extremists, whatever the religeon. None of them actually preach hate to others, they all tell you how to live. That's all Bhudism does, but without the bullshit. I say treat others as you'd like to be treated, except for your sexual desires, I aint getting whippeeeed for no-one. nobody

Don't worry, xman. Missi's the domineering baboon who comes lumping about the place once in a while. He attacks the majority of the males who have...nah...let's just stop there at 'the majority of males.' It all comes clear when he attends another abctales event or 'missi's pussy-sniffing night' away from his wife, in the future. He's a tosser this place could sorely do without...maybe he needs a dart up his hairy ass. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

How does the saying go... 'Faith is what I die for. Dogma is what I kill for.' BBF: When I click the link, it says 'Server Not Found'. Does that mean you're enigmatic? Maybe you are the Messiah after all - the God invisible and omnipotent. Or maybe you're just 'avin' a larf.

You already revealed it. All hail barely black francis, the one true God. What are thy commandments, O Great One?

This has been a fairly intense 'discussion'. Guess there are a lot of rivalries that I'm not aware of (I don't visit often enough). Anyway, onto the topic. I'm not a religious person and it annoys me when religious organisations have any kind of say on my life (religious holidays, christmas being the main offender). I'm not opposed to religion, but it should be practised in a way that does not impact upon others. For example Christmas, the bane of my existence. These days it has lost all religious meaning and has instead been hi-jacked by commercialism. Christmas is a time when everyone is stressed out, all places of business are rammed full of people, all regular clubs are closed for the holidays (and by clubs I mean hobbies, not drinking establishments) and televison programming becomes full of repeats (i've stopped watching TV now as its so bad). The UK has lost its religious focus, and it does need something to replace it, which is why most people ferociously cling to christmas as a celebration, more out of habit than actually enjoying it. We need to come up with some celebrations that are non-religious that have some significance to the modern UK. Our national holidays should be celebrating something that we WANT to celebrate, not that we do for routine (not thought of any specifics at the moment). Also, sunday opening hours are just plain dumb. Everything is disrupted because for some people it is a religious day, lame.

Also for newish people, there's a level of acrimony tolerated on this site which wouldn't be on many others, which is one reason why Missi's not banned. Heat and kitchens, folk. Another is that he actually writes stuff and attends ABCTales events. And a third is that, although he's a bolshie sod with very definite views, he's actually a nice guy in the flesh. Well, he can be, at least when I've met him. And, no I didn't get a sniff of pussy at any previous ABCTales event, although I did once get pinned up against a pillar and ... well, never mind, it's really all about creative writing. Honest. Religion ... um, well all the Buddhists I've met have been nice and peaceable and they tend to represent theirfaith a lot better than most others.

I'm with Alan on this one. "Surely a liberal Christian, say, who proclaims his or her acceptance of someone else's right to follow a different faith is, in essence, being hypocritical. " Although many Christians acknowledge this and therefore say that others have the right to be wrong and Christians must try and convert them through non violent means, that's what evangelisation is. To maintain that all religions are partial truths does not stand up to philosophical logic. I am also with George on the call to end "religious interference in our daily lives?" One example is the contraception pill. When it was invented, the seven days in every 28 where a woman doesn't take the pill and therefore has a 'false period' were only designed into the product because ' the church' (predominantly CofE in the 60s) would be more comfortable with something that imitated nature. Without church interference, the pill would have been back to backed (which I believe it will be soon anyway) eliminating the monthly withdrawal bleed. I am not in any way a feminist but this annoys me. The fact that the Catholic church condemns the pill anyway is irrelevant since the birth rate among practicing catholics in this country is the same as among secularists and most catholics ignore the teaching of their church anyway. I very much enjoy many of the world's sacred scripture and am not anti-religion but it is impossible to have religious doctrine that isn't used in the wrong way because we're fucked-up fallible human beings. So if religion will always be used in the wrong way are we better off without the institutions of religion? undecided of Camberwell. "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Happy New Year, Jude - and everyone else, of course.

just heard on Sky news that Hogmany's cancelled due to bad weather. Can we cancel the whole of 2007, it's a rather dull year I've planned and I'd rather go straight to 2008? jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net