England and Wales become more secular

Religious adherence in England and Wales continues to decline

A British Social Attitudes Survey published in May 2016 shows that the proportion of the population declaring themselves as adherents to a religion in England and Wales is continuing to decline. Nearly half of the population say they have no religion. The percentages are:

Anglican	19,8
Other Protestant	15,7
Catholic	8,3
Non-Christian religion	7,7
No Religion	48,5

Religious censorship in British public examinations

The British government endorses the religious censorship of public examinations

One disturbing development in Britain today is the collusion of the government (now the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition, but previously New Labour as well) in permitting religious bigotry to trump equality and universal standards.

It is bad enough that children, at state expense, can be channelled into schools which propagate religious bigotry, but worse that examination boards, with government consent, allow public examinations in religious schools to be censored on religious grounds. What happens is simply that some questions - the answers to which conflict with religious dogma - are blacked out. Such religious censorship (1) restricts examinee choice and makes what purports to be a public examination different for candidates in religious schools, and (2) acts as an utterly indefensible form of censorship for teenagers, cutting them off from public knowledge.

In lending its weight to religious censorship, the British government is yet again turning its back on universal secular values. Fear of confronting organised religion is obviously one factor, but much more important is the alliance both New Labour and the Coalition have forged with organised conservative religion in deny young people knowledge and psychologically imprisoning them in ethnically divided so-called communities run by traditional authority. The divided, ignorant and unfree are easier to oppress.

Danish Cartoons: No to religious censorship

Multiculturalism has confused the left on matters of censorship

In 2006 the New Labour government in London promoted a bill in Parliament to outlaw the publication of material that religious people might find offensive. The main backers of the bill were fundamentalist Muslims.

Some on the "left" felt that this bill would play a positive role in reducing anti-Muslim feeling in Britain and help integrate society. I did not agree; hence the letter below.

6 February 2006

Hi Ian,

I never thought, when we left university in 1983, that twenty-six years later we would be debating the possibility of fining and even jailing people who mocked religion, nor putting the Enlightenment on par with Islam. Times change.

Islam, like all religion which purports to command behaviour beyond that of the individual choice, makes a totalitarian claim on society. Liberalism, by contrast, aims to maximise the individual’s freedom of action, consistent with everybody else having the same freedom. The trade-off between the two is not one of reconciling two positions which are different but of the same kind (e.g. should the outside of the building be painted yellow or green), but of compromising one position which purports to give maximum choice to all with another that seeks to impose a ‘patterned’ life on everybody.

Let me take three consequences of attempting to appease fundamentalist Islam, which has become so enraged in Britain and elsewhere this week as a consequence of cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. (It is perhaps worth pointing out that no Muslim in Britain need see these pictures, and whatever is decided in Britain is hardly likely to cause Denmark to rescind its long tradition of freedom of speech).

First, if Islam were to be protected against ridicule, then of course other religions would enjoy the same protection. ‘The Life of Brian’ and anything like it would be seen no more in the New Britain.

Second, if a cartoon published in a newspaper causes outrage, then so much greater is the outrage, for example, of women walking uncovered through Muslim areas. Once you have abandoned the individual rights as a basis of law making, where does one stop in ensuring social peace through appeasement?

Third, most people who want to attack Islam (as opposed to Muslims) are from the Muslim community itself. The veil of censorship would fall on the likes of Salmon Rushdie, and we would have the absurd position of the British State attempting to stop the secularisation of Islamic communities, and prosecuting dissidents within its ranks.

The whole debate in Britain is absurd. Last week we had the Blair government seeking to impose censorship on publications which ‘insulted’ Islam (and for form’s sake other religions too). What effrontery from these New Labour scumbags! What kind of insult is a cartoon compared with the massacre of hundreds of thousands in Iraq? Why does the government concern itself with insults against Muslims caused by scribblers, but see none in 90-day detentions without charge? The truth is that the Blair government seeks censorship for the same reason that seeks 90-day detentions and war – it wishes to expand power of the state.

I know you decided in the end to oppose the Religious Hatred Bill, so what I’m trying to do is to pull you back even more firmly into a defence of liberal positions, positions which form the bedrock, in my view, of any worthwhile socialism.


.

The Swiss referendum on minarets

I think the motive behind the Swiss People’s Party was Muslim bashing. And obviously singling out an ethnic group for a symbolic kick in the balls is wrong.

Yet, if you look at the actual content of the decision itself: no minarets. What’s the problem? Should secular people for some odd purpose be permitted to put up towers in towns or in the countryside; towers by their nature are an attempt to architecturally dominate an area.

One could argue back and say, ‘Ah yes, but what about existing and possible new Christian steeples?” Well certainly I would oppose building new ones, as for existing ones they are part of the heritage of the area; and nobody is trying to ‘wipe the slate clean’.

If I were Swiss I would have voted against the ban on account of the motives behind it, but as for the decision itself, I wouldn’t worry about it. In fact I would try to get a ban on all new towers put up for ‘ideological’ purposes, whether religious or secular.

BBC bans humanists from 'Thought for the Day'

The BBC doesn't believe; it just believes in belief.

In promoting religion, Thought for the Day endorses faith over evidence and reason, as well as backing moral injunctions, allegedly granted from on high, which irrationally restrict the freedom of individuals.

Faith Group Leaders and Government

Faith Groups and Government (27 December 2009)

Religious leaders have been granted a privileged consultative status in the British home office. Implied is the idea that these leaders somehow represent their respective communites. This is nonsense.

If the majority of English people were to be represented by "a religious leader" based on their or their ancestor's religion, most would be represented by the Anglican Church. An atheist can’t represent you even if you are one, because there are only faith groups on Home Office Minister, John Denham's consultative committee.

Most of these "so-called" Anglicans would vomit at the idea that Anglican bishops represented their interests. So why is different for Muslims and Jews?

Home Office Minister appoints board of faith advisors

To think that the once great British Labour Party is now being advised, not by trade unionists or other representatives working people, but by faith groups (i.e. religious bigots) shows just how far New Labour has sunk.

Perhaps there is an electoral calculation in it. But I believe even more that New Labour (having built on Thatcher’s work) and having created a totally unequal and dysfunctional society, now sees religion as an illiberal social glue to hold it all together. The ever-increasing authoritarian British state is to be bolstered, as far as possible, by state sponsored religious bigots, who will whip their communities into line through the carrot of school places – and perhaps later charity/welfare. At the same time each community, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, will be divided from each other.

Disgusting politics.

Christian fundamentalist heads Northern Ireland's police

All religion is a dangerous thing.

First, the believer asserts things to be true on the basis of faith, not evidence and makes a virtue of doing so. Hence they can produce utterances, like: “the bible is without error.” Second, religious people have moral norms which they invariably attempt to impose on other people through social pressure and legislation.

Now as a liberal, I believe the citizen has a right to believe things which are false or for which there is no evidence. Citizens may also impose any moral system on his or own private behaviour providing their conduct remains within the law. In other words, I uphold the fundamental rule: Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever within the private space, but a rigorous secularism in the state.

So that leaves the question: can a religious fundamentalist be head of a province’s police?

Police women in Sheffield wear veils

Policewomen dressing up in veils as a publicity stunt to promote multicultural Britain is truly ridiculous.

The New Labour government fully endorses religion as a means of dividing and controlling the population, hence its promotion of religious schools. They would love to see the dominance of conservative religious leaders enforcing religious norms on their own people while dancing to the government’s authoritarian tune.

It is not the job of the police to promote veil wearing, but to start treating Muslims, whether they wear veils or not, with respect – and, for instance, not feeding questions to Pakistani police as they torture British Muslims.

Creationalism accredited in Britain

So NARIC at the New Labour government’s behest thinks that religious claptrap about science is of equal value to science itself.

New Labour’s promotion of religion through education is but one aspect of its authoritarianism. The problem for New Labour with real science is that it is value neutral and it allows the individual to create his or her own moral judgments within the realm of fact. Religious mumbo-jumbo in science is always made compatible with divine injunctions which have the effect of restricting personal freedom and limiting knowledge.

God doesn't exist and is irrelevant

Let us make the absurd supposition for a moment that there is a God.

If God can intervene to save the world but doesn’t, then he’s a sadistic voyeur. If God lacks the power to intervene in human affairs and weeps as a loving onlooker, then he’s useless.

It seems to me that in any kind of rational argument about what will or will not happen talking about God is a red herring.