The Next Pope

[redarmi]

Think describing people such as that as millitant is a bit harsh and the proportion of theists that display a similar attitude to atheists and worse is much higher.  I also think that the stock view of most thinking atheists isn't really a dislike of religion, just a quiet (and quiet is the key word) disdain for their lack of intellectual capacity.  I have never seen anyone in the street shouting that the passers-by need to lose God, Allah or whoever.  I rarely walk down a street on a saturday without seeing the opposite.  Not really sure why theists should be allowed to ram their, frankly ridiculous (imo of course), views down our throats.  On the rare occasions atheists have publicly demonstrated or shown their voice the treatment they have received, particularly in the US, is nothing short of disgraceful.

[boldie]

Was thinking of getting leaflets printed up promoting a god-less kingdom, telling people there is no such thing as life after death etc. and going round the houses in my area.

Don't think it'll go down well in our neck of the woods though. (They still do marches here)

[kinboshi]

That's maybe a good idea for all the militant atheist disciples who want to promote the idea a secular society.

It's all well and good saying that you don't need religion to stop you being a cock. To reinforce this idea then, atheists oughta stop behaving like cocks. Being rude to old ladies and calling everyone with a different viewpoint an idiot is cock-like behaviour.

Cannot remember ever having seen someone on the telly talking making an argument against religion without them being a bit of a cock about it.

A secular society should be a must for people of faith surely?  By definition the separation of faith from politics means that you're free to practice any faith whereas in a state intrinsically tied to a religion the people of that state are not free to worship their particular faith.

Privilege through religion is a major problem imo, and whereas faith is a personal thing that doesn't have to impact on others, religion affords
people power - and when certain individuals or groups are given power in this way it means others have some freedoms or rights taken away from
them.

I think the intrinsic ties between favoured religions and the state which you speak of are a bit of a red herring.

Inequalities with regard to religion and people's decision to practice a particular faith will always exist irregardless of what the state does. Just as inequalities with regard to sport and what sporting activities people want to participate in will exist. The major factor behind both of these inequalities will be the relative popularity of others in the population making similar choices.

In practice people are free to crack on with whatever religion they choose in the UK. It's probably easier to be CofE than a Buddhist but eliminating whatever privliges Rowan Williams enjoys will not really acconplish anything. Eliminating all inequality would be a fools errand.

There's discrimination based on religion in education, employment, the armed forces - in fact pretty much throughout society in the UK.  Women's rights are very obviously restricted in many countries, but fortunately less so in the UK (although it's still there to a certain degree).  But to say the intrinsic ties between religions and states is a red herring is an interesting comment.  For example, I'm sure women in Ireland, or in Saudi Arabia or Somalia might disagree.

 

[thetank]

I'm not in Somalia, Saudi Arabia or Northern Ireland though. Revolution not required here just because it may well be required elsewhere. Campaign for change in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Northern Ireland and I'll leave you be and wish you well.

[redarmi]

If that is the case then why has every Prime Minister in my lifetime felt the need to go to church and refer to religion?  Why is there not a single US congressman or senator that describes themselves as an atheist?  Why do we still have Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords?  Why does the Head of the CoE have a veto over every law that is passed by a democratically elected parliament?

[thetank]

Think describing people such as that as millitant is a bit harsh and the proportion of theists that display a similar attitude to atheists and worse is much higher.  I also think that the stock view of most thinking atheists isn't really a dislike of religion, just a quiet (and quiet is the key word) disdain for their lack of intellectual capacity.  I have never seen anyone in the street shouting that the passers-by need to lose God, Allah or whoever.  I rarely walk down a street on a saturday without seeing the opposite.  Not really sure why theists should be allowed to ram their, frankly ridiculous (imo of course), views down our throats.  On the rare occasions atheists have publicly demonstrated or
shown their voice the treatment they have received, particularly in the US, is nothing short of disgraceful.

Dawkins described himself as being a militant atheist, albeit with a dash of irony.

I make no apology for questioning atheists. Those claiming a monopoly on the  intellectual high ground should be
 open to opposition. Christopher Hitchens taught me that.

[thetank]

The lack of declarations of atheism among congressmen and congresswoman in the United States cones from a country which has the separation of Church and State enshrined into their constitution. One may call that evidence that similar changes to the British constitution (we do have one, though not a single document and it is more fluid than that of America's) are pretty pointless and they won't stop declarations of faith from political leaders if that's what they perceive the prevailing electoral climate to be demanding.

[thetank]

Also, percieved problems elsewhere, (in this case the US) do not always good arguments make to changing our current system here. Especially when the change being proposed makes us more similar to the place where the problem is.

[kinboshi]

Also, percieved problems elsewhere, (in this case the US) do not always good arguments make to changing our current system here. Especially when the change being proposed makes us more similar to the place where the problem is.

As was mentioned, in the Lords (in itself a contentious issue) there are a significant number of Bishops helping determine UK policy:

http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx

"Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

Religion and state completely separate in the UK?

[redarmi]

The lack of declarations of atheism among congressmen and congresswoman in the United States cones from a country which has the separation of Church and State enshrined into their constitution. One may call that evidence that similar changes to the British constitution (we do have one, though not a single document and it is more fluid than that of America's) are pretty pointless and they won't stop declarations of faith from political leaders if that's what they perceive the prevailing electoral climate to be demanding.

The enshrined separation in the US constitution is weird one.  If it is so strict I don't understand why dollar bills bear the legend "in god we trust" or public buildings can have a scribe of the ten commandments on its wall.  It may be enshrined in the constitution but it doesn't really work that way in practise.

[kinboshi]

The lack of declarations of atheism among congressmen and congresswoman in the United States cones from a country which has the separation of Church and State enshrined into their constitution. One may call that evidence that similar changes to the British constitution (we do have one, though not a single document and it is more fluid than that of America's) are pretty pointless and they won't stop declarations of faith from political leaders if that's what they perceive the prevailing electoral climate to be demanding.

The enshrined separation in the US constitution is weird one.  If it is so strict I don't understand why dollar bills bear the legend "in god we trust" or public buildings can have a scribe of the ten commandments on its wall.  It may be enshrined in the constitution but it doesn't really work that way in practise.

The US is interesting, as many of the founding fathers were determined to separate state and religion and would probably be 'amused' at the direction that has taken.  Currently reading about this in 'Arguably' by the aforementioned Hitchens.

[thetank]

It is an interesting one. As much as I like questioning the conclusions and actions of some atheists, there's no doubt that atheism is increasingly prevalent in occidental society and that the communication of scientific advances in the fields of biology and physics has been a factor in this.

People who happen to be atheists should be participants at all levels of our representative democracy in the sane way that people who happen to be female, disabled or ginger should be. They are in Britain, they are not in America. Let the Americans worry about that though. I have no interest in solving problems here that don't really exist by means that don't really work.

[kinboshi]

Our system still offers religious privilege. That still needs to be addressed.

[redarmi]

It is an interesting one. As much as I like questioning the conclusions and actions of some atheists, there's no doubt that atheism is increasingly prevalent in occidental society and that the communication of scientific advances in the fields of biology and physics has been a factor in this.

People who happen to be atheists should be participants at all levels of our representative democracy in the sane way that people who happen to be female, disabled or ginger should be. They are in Britain, they are not in America. Let the Americans worry about that though. I have no interest in solving problems here that don't really exist by means that don't really work.

Agree totally with your reasoning although I would say that I think atheists are probably participants in all levels of democracy in the States too but they just daren't say that they are. For example, Obama had very little by way of religious upbringing and it wouldn't be a massive stretch to suggest that his church going is somewhat contrived.  

[thetank]

Our system still offers religious privilege. That still needs to be addressed.

I'm not sure I agree and I'm concerned that any direct action to bring about that which you desire would have unintended consequences that run contrary to what you desire.

No CofE-er at the moment is taken seriously when they complain of oppression of marginalization within the United Kinggdom. The importance of the church within public life has slowly been reduced and that trend looks set to continue. No-one really cares. Pressing the issue with sone symbolic change that is radically different to what the masses are used to and this might galvanise popular opposition to the gradual scaling back of the importance of
religion.

Essentially, what you want is already happening. Pressing the issue and you risk losing a 'won' position.