Slow Whiny Death of British Christianity.

hrmwrm

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
58
Location
Alberta
The slow, whiny death of British Christianity
Posted by Johann Hari 4 days ago

And now congregation, put your hands together and give thanks, for I come bearing Good News. Britain is now the most irreligious country on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else. Some 63 percent of us are non-believers, according to an ICM study, while 82 percent say religion is a cause of harmful division. Now, let us stand and sing our new national hymn: Jerusalem was dismantled here/ in England's green and pleasant land.

How did it happen? For centuries, religion was insulated from criticism in Britain. First its opponents were burned, then jailed, then shunned. But once there was a free marketplace of ideas, once people could finally hear both the religious arguments and the rationalist criticisms of them, the religious lost the British people. Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims non-existent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end.

Now that only six percent of British people regularly attend a religious service, it's only natural that we should dismantle the massive amounts of tax money and state power that are automatically given to the religious to wield over the rest of us. It's a necessary process of building a secular state, where all citizens are free to make up their own minds. Yet the opposition to this sensible shift is becoming increasingly unhinged. The Church of England, bewildered by the British people choosing to leave their pews, has only one explanation: Christians are being "persecuted" and "bullied" by a movement motivated by "Christophobia." George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, says Christians are now "second class citizens" and it is only "a small step" to "a religious bar on any employment by Christians".

Really? Let's list some of the ways in which Christians, and other religious groups, are given special privileges every day. Start with the educational system. Every school in Britain is required by law to make its pupils engage every day in "an act of collective worship of a wholly or mainly Christian nature". Yes: Britain is still a nation with enforced prayer. The religious are then handed total control of 36 percent of our state-funded schools, in which to indoctrinate children into their faith alone.

These religious schools, paid for by you and me, are disfiguring Britain. I know one reason I grew up without the prejudices of some of my older relatives was because I went to school with kids from every conceivable ethnic and religious group, and I could see they were just like me. A five year old will make friends with anyone, and he'll be much less likely to believe smears against those friends for the rest of their lives. But in Britain today, that mixing is happening less and less. Increasingly, the children of Christians are sent to one side, Jews to another, Muslims to another still, and they never see each other except from the window of their parents' cars. After the race riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001, the official investigations found that faith schools were a major cause.

So why keep them? Their defenders say these schools perform better in exams - and at first glance, it seems to be true. On average, they get higher grades. But look again. A number of studies, including by the conservative think thank Civitas, have blown a hole in this claim. They have proven that faith schools systematically screen out children who will be harder to teach: children from poor families, and less bright children. Once you look at how much a school improves the pupils it actually admits, the only real measure of a school's success, it turns out faith schools do less well than other schools - which isn't surprising given they waste so much time teaching them crazy nonsense like Virgin births and Noah's Ark. The British people instinctively know all this: 64 percent want every state school to be neutral when it comes to religion.

Special rights for the religious don't stop at the school gates. They automatically get 26 unelected bishops in the House of Lords. Public broadcasters are required by law to give them large amounts of money and time to screen religious propaganda. Jews and Muslims are allowed to ignore the laws on animal cruelty and engage in the barbaric practice of slitting the throats of live animals without numbing them in order to create kosher and halal meat.

And it seems that, in crucial cases, religious figures are virtually exempted from the law. There is now overwhelming evidence that Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope, was involved for over twenty years in an international criminal conspiracy to cover up the rape of children by priests in his Church. (Check out the superb edition of the BBC's Panorama, 'Sex Crimes and the Vatican', for the evidence.) But when he arrives in Britain in September, our politicians will fawn over him, rather than dialling 999.

Given all this unearned privilege, how can Christians claim they are in fact being "persecuted"? Here are the cases they offer as "proof". A nurse called Shirley Chaplin turned up to work wearing a crucifix around her neck. Her hospital told her that they were worried the elderly and confused patients she worked with could grab at it, so they said she could pin the crucifix to her uniform instead if she liked. That's it. That's their cause celebre. Oh, and a woman called Theresa Davies who worked in a registry office, but refused to perform civil partnerships for gay couples, so... she was moved to working on reception.

In response, Carey and the CofE demand Christians be allowed to break the law requiring them to treat gay people equally when providing a service to the general public - and that any case where a Christian feels discriminated against should be judged by a special court of "sensitive" Christians. If we started allowing religious people to break basic anti-discrimination laws, where would we stop? Until 1975, the Mormon Church said black people didn't have souls. (They only changed their mind the day the Supreme Court ruled this was illegal, and God niftily appeared to their leader that morning and announced blacks were ensouled after all.) Would we let a Mormon registrar refuse to marry black people? Would it be "Mormonophobia" to object?

When Lord Chief Justice Laws, who is a Christian himself, ruled the exemptions demanded by Carey would be "irrational, divisive, and arbitrary", he threw an extraordinary tantrum and said Christians might begin to engage in "civil unrest". When I saw Carey make these threats on television, red-faced and rageful, it made me think of a nasty child in the playground who had been beating up the gay kids and spitting at the girls for years and is finally told to stop - only to start bawling that he's the one who is being picked on.

As their dusty Churches crumble because nobody wants to go there, the few remaining Christians in Britain will only become more angry and uncomprehending. Let them. We can't stop this hysterical toy-tossing stop us from turning our country into a secular democracy where everyone has the same rights, and nobody is grantedspecial rights just because they claim their ideas come from an invisible supernatural being. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a Holy Lamb of God to carve into kebabs - it's our new national dish. Amen, and hallelujah.

This article appeared in GQ magazine, where I write a monthly column. To get these articles a month in advance of this website, you can subscribe to GQ at www.gq-magazine.co.uk


http://johannhari.com//2010/08/10/the-slow-whiny-death-of-british-christianity
 
...there's an awful lot to observe and comment on there, disregarding the hostile, intolerant tone of author. A lot of it is "what not to do."
The first being a state religion.

We should be able to look to Europe, learn from their mistakes, and refrain from emulating them. Unfortunately, as Europe collapses, too many Americans seek to duplicate all their failures.
 
hows the evidence FOR god coming?

I never claimed to have any evidence.

However, you have implicitly claimed positive knowledge that God does not exist by claiming that Christianity is "of man" and not of God. That knowledge is only possible if materialism is true. So, you have to prove materialism.

If all you can do it continually dodge and attempt to change the focus of the debate, you do not hold a logical position and do not have any argument.

However, we all know you can't make a coherent (let alone logical) argument. You can only engage in disingenuous posturing and demonstrate your close minded intolerance.
 
I've often noted the almost frantic belligerence of those who adhere to atheism.

and i to those of religion.

Why are you so driven to deny my beliefs?

believe what you like. just don't tell me it's fact that which you have no evidence for.
 
If all you can do it continually dodge and attempt to change the focus of the debate,

ironic. you started this after i asked you for evidence of god.who's changing the focus?
 
ironic. you started this after i asked you for evidence of god.who's changing the focus?

No, I started this after you positively asserted that all religions are of man; including Christianity. This is rather easy to check as it is only 6 posts above yours. Not that truth or reality ever hold much sway with you...

Also, as I have pointed out countless times; to demand evidence is to take the whole notion of faith out of context. Theists are not claiming a monopoly on reason, however, Atheists do claim a monopoly on reason ; specifically through the viewpoint you just espoused post #4. Therefore, demanding that you justify the premises of your argument is not out of the question and is not, in any way, taking that viewpoint out of context.

The fact that you cannot justify the materialism that your entire viewpoint is premised on only shows that there is no reason to your claim; it is rooted in faith. However, you persist in condescending from a false proposition that you have the high ground when it comes to reason.

Apparently humility is foreign to Atheists... :rolleyes:
 
Also, as I have pointed out countless times; to demand evidence is to take the whole notion of faith out of context. Theists are not claiming a monopoly on reason, however,

i'm not demanding absolute, unerrant proof. just evidence to back up a claim of existence.
otherwise it's not faith, it's BLIND faith.
my premise is not based on materialism.
without evidence, reason and fact are all that are necessary.
 
i'm not demanding absolute, unerrant proof. just evidence to back up a claim of existence.

Doesn't change the fact that you are taking faith out of context.

otherwise it's not faith, it's BLIND faith.

A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.

my premise is not based on materialism.

I never said that. I said your argument is premised on materialism. Maybe you should take the time to understand what exactly you are responding to instead of simply rationalizing your arguments in a knee-jerk, thoughtless, reactionary manner.

without evidence, reason and fact are all that are necessary.

:confused:

ALL arguments are based on PREMISES. Those premises are ESPECIALLY important when there is no conclusive empirical evidence involved. You can NOT construct an argument without premises.

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called missing premises...

The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument

Do you really have no clue how arguments are constructed? :rolleyes:
 
and i to those of religion.

I've never had ANY belligerance toward the mindset of atheism---only toward the hostility that so often accompanies it.

believe what you like. just don't tell me it's fact that which you have no evidence for.

I've never claimed fact, that's why it's called belief. The 'leap of faith' is a requirement.
If I'm wrong, I've lived a good life.
If you're wrong---HELLFIRE!

KS
 

Members online

Back
Top