Have Your Say
Please send your letters for publication to letters@secularism.org.uk. We want to publish as many letters as possible, so please keep them brief. We reserve the right to edit. Opinions expressed in letters are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the NSS - 13 November 2009
From Paul Brown:
I thought I would provide a small success story Westminster Unison had regarding Street Pastors, which were nearly introduced at Westminster City Council. Following a complaint made by myself, and a letter to Newsline, outlining the reasons why a local authority should not pay for the Ascension Trust, an evangelical Christian group, to patrol the streets, I was informed this week that Westminster has now withdrawn the proposal.
I had outlined to the Council the various arguments against: the Trust's attitude to LGBT people; its opposition to abortion; its advocacy of compulsory Christian teaching in schools; and their constant railing against alcohol, drugs, ‘provocative’ clothing, and social liberalism. The work of the Ascension Trust is incompatible with the Equalities Bill, and I therefore believe it will be untenable for other authorities to continue with this scheme once the Bill becomes law. The BBC took an interest in the issue, and so it was probably wise for the Council to withdraw the proposal before it became a story. I would encourage others that work in local government to take the same approach if they have Pastors introduced to their area.
From Richard Green:
Terry Sanderson (Newsline, 6 November) says: “I couldn't care less whether there is a God or not.”
But, if there were a God, religious privilege would be perfectly justifiable.
From J. Dowdle:
I have sent on the latest NSS newsletter to our WAH members, including your very article on being an Indifferentist. I sometimes claim to be an apatheist – I don’t know and I don’t care, either.
From Brian Nixon:
Terry Sanderson’s piece strikes me as somewhat confusing, and possibly confused. There is nothing wrong or illogical about being totally indifferent to religion and wishing to behave as if it had no effect on one’s personal situation. Unfortunately, to varying degrees, depending on where one lives, religion can, and is likely to continue doing so, have a significant and derogatory effect on people’s lives. To be able to practise total indifferentism, one would have to go and live on a desert island, either alone or with like-minded “indifferents.” (Indifferent appears in the OED only as an adjective, not as a noun). One can, of course, make an effort to practice indifferentism while living in the UK or similar locations, but not if one aspires to act in accordance with the following principle quoted by Terry.
“The NSS wants to ensure that religion doesn’t take over the world and force itself on to the lives of us Indifferents.” He will obviously, by virtue of his being President of the NSS, actively pursue a course to bring this about. Therefore, logically, it is impossible for him to be indifferent. By taking any action to support such a course, he ceases to be indifferent.
From Sue Cauty:
Terry Sanderson'’s exploration of ‘Indifferentism’ is as good as Ophelia Benson’s article in the Guardian, which I think is excellent. I suppose I, too, am one of her ‘Movement Atheists’. But it seems to me that anybody who is not satisfied with the status quo and seeks to change it is a ‘movement person’, and many Newsline contributors fall into that category: church to pay hospital chaplains, religious teaching out of schools etcetera.
But Terry Sanderson's ‘indifferent’ stance will pose a problem for those who, like me, were ‘indifferent’ until the advent of suicide bombers. Children being taught to suicide bomb and so murder others? Women with mental problems being manipulated to mass-murder? Isn’t the backbone of Newsline the exposing of religious privilege; and the many ridiculous absurdities which are multiplying all around the once-great Britain I once loved? It seems to me that the essence of the NSS is ‘movement atheism’ at least insofar as it is pushing hard for the separation of Church and State – which can hardly be construed as ‘indifference’ to religion. I would love to feel free to be ‘indifferent’ to it, but think it my duty to investigate what goes on inside the heads of rabid fundamentalists of any religion – certainly one which promotes indiscriminate murder, proposes to Islamicise Britain, demands sharia law, and aims to put the Queen in a burqa. Laughable they may be, but not funny. Plenty of Germans considered Hitler and his gang laughable and funny.
From Matt Sheard:
Terry Sanderson says that “The NSS wants to ensure that religion doesn't take over the world and force itself on to the lives of us Indifferents.” Why, then, all the fuss about three minutes of pseudo-religion on the radio of a morning?
From Dene Gilbert:
I'm loathe to criticise someone who has worked so hard for the cause of secularism, But...
Terry Sanderson may be indifferent to religion but I, and I suspect most other NSS members am not. I care deeply about religion; about its influence on the world and upon individual lives. I joined the NSS because I want to live in a secular democracy, but also because I'm concerned about the influence of religious thinking on all of us; in particular its tendency to divide people into oppositional groups. In this misguided article Mr Sanderson has himself divided the world into two opposing camps – the indifferents and the believers. In doing so he foolishly equates Atheism with Theology and so suggests there is an equivalence between supernaturalism and evidence based thought; the religious lobby must be delighted as this is a position which they crave. To hear it from the President of the NSS must be a true joy to them.
It is not good enough to say that you are bored by religion, that you just don't want to have to deal with it. You might as well say you are bored by violent crime – so long as you don’t have to witness it, you're not bothered. Is Mr Sanderson indifferent to the indoctrination of children, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia and the promotion of supernaturalism over evidence? Is he really happy for religions to do and say whatever they choose so long as he doesn’t have to encounter it? I hope that the NSS has higher aims than simply to protect Mr Sanderson’s right to stick his head in the sand.
From Keith Charters:
Great article, Mr Sanderson. My sentiments exactly.
From Barbara Smoker:
My first reaction to Terry Sanderson’s claim to be an Indifferentist rather than an Atheist was one of approval. Certainly, indifference is the most intelligent response to all the rival theological minutiae.
On second thoughts, however, can we really be indifferent to the immoral idea that an alleged creator, though omnipotent, permits so much suffering, yet is deserving of human worship? Can we be indifferent to the huge religious confidence trick that is imposed on almost all children, whether attending ‘faith’ schools or not? Can we be indifferent to the life-long effect on many people of this confidence trick, often affecting their citizenship choices – even occasionally, to the extreme of suicide bombing?
Atheism is not just an alternative belief system, demanding official equality with every other: since it alone rejects any beliefs that are not derived from adequate objective evidence, it is only sound basis for social action.
From Graham Davis:
In your recent article you state that the majority of the population define themselves as “subscribing to no religion”. Whilst that is undoubtedly the case, you go on to say that you share this view and that your “Indifferentism” means that you couldn’t care less whether there is a God or not. Whilst I have great respect for your work on behalf of the NSS, this view troubles me somewhat. Secularism only exists because some of those who believe in god try to foist their particular beliefs on the rest of us. Secularists are inevitably defined by what we are against; if there was no god and religion, there wouldn’t be a need for the NSS.
Belief in god is both infantile and irrational and the religions that feed off this belief need constantly to be challenged because they use their hold over millions of people to promote their own, often inhumane, agendas. How can we remain indifferent to a belief that enslaves millions?
If belief in god did not result in religion I would share your indifference, but it always does and we cannot expect a rational, secular society to occur whilst significant numbers of people still believe in god. In my view the NSS, in common with other freethinking, rationalist and atheist organisations should not just confront religious privilege but constantly challenge the belief that lies behind it.
From Samantha Beere:
Thank you, Terry. Can we get “indifferent” put down on the census and any other official way of measuring “belief”? Because it’s totally what I am. Brilliant statement.
From Robert Kaye:
In addition to your counter to the pro-paid preachers argument mentioned in John Bazley’s letter (Newsline last week), I think that there is another counterpoint to be made. Given the number of patients who have to deal with cancer each year, it is no surprise that among these patients are followers of ‘minor’ religions, so what would John have made of the situation had the christian patient who was so comforted by the chaplain been a hindu, or a jew, or a sikh, pagan or baha'ist? In these situations their clergyperson would travel to see their follower entirely at their own cost, despite these religions often not being as wealthy as those who have paid chaplains within the hospital, and it wouldn't have cost the NHS a penny, thus allowing more money to be spent on medicine and staff. Since these less wealthy religions can afford to support their followers in times of need out of their own pocket, why can't the wealthy religions?
From Steve Curr:
Lots of things in Friday 6th’s Newsline that warrant comment, but I’ll restrict myself to one, plus a note about Remembrance Sunday.
Newsline first: shame on the author who put vegetarians in the same class as religious nutters. The former generally choose their diet on rational ethical and scientific grounds, whereas the latter choose their diet on the basis of irrational medieval and pre-medieval myths and prejudices and often use these to justify barbaric treatment of animals. Whoever wrote that shameful paragraph should direct their attention to the creeping enforcement of Halal meat on society and other such matters based on belief rather than reason.
On Remembrance Sunday, I happened to attend a ceremony at the war memorial in a Dorset village this year. I was not surprised to see the well-attended ceremony led by a man of the cloth, but was appalled at his opening gambit: “We are all gathered here this morning to celebrate the glory of God the almighty and all powerful...” It was only my respect for the names on the memorial and for other members of our armed forces that have been killed and injured in the defence of our liberty that prevented me from yelling out “No we’re not, we are here to honour the fallen, and you would do well to remember that!”
From Kevin Jones:
Please advise what Christian church services have to do with remembrance? I feel fully part of the whole remembrance ideology and ceremony but yesterday, for the first time in my life, I was shocked at how it is hijacked by the Christian church in Britain.
What I instantly realised was that religion is totally separate from remembrance. What do all the muslim, atheist, hindu, sikh, pagan, agnostic soldiers and families feel about being excluded from the remembrance ceremonies across Britain?
I notice that the royal family was also a central part of the ceremonies. The sooner religion and religious leaders are separated away from the remembrance ceremonies, the better. And the sooner we have a head of state that is democratically elected the better. It is most sad that a wholly worthwhile and dignified ceremony to remember the sacrifices of brave people in conflict has in many cases been brought about by the actions of reckless politicians, conducted by the leaders of religions which are discredited and irrelevant, in the presence of, and paying homage to, heads of state which are unelected, out-of-touch and irrelevant. There is a BIG gap in the market for a relevant remembrance ceremony. I for one would welcome such a ceremony 100%.
From Graham Davis:
A Secular Thought for Armistice Day:
At 11 am today many of us will share a moment of silence to remember those men and women from the armed services that have died serving this country. It is hard to imagine the pain felt by mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and especially the children who know that they will never see their loved one again. And for comrades who shared the horror of war comes the survivors’ guilt, reawakened at the passing of each anniversary.
War is started by a conscious act; it is never inevitable but is sometime necessary. The justification for it can seem overwhelming at the time but sometimes less so when the verdict of history is delivered. Those bereaved by conflict draw comfort that their loss was for a noble cause and that it was not in vain. For their part, our leaders both political and military, display fortitude and resolution when the coffins of the dead and the wheelchairs of the maimed pass before them.
But in all conflicts there are those who question the assumptions that lead to war and the expectations raised in the pursuit of it. Do we have accurate intelligence? Is it legal? Is it just? Are we adequately prepared? And in a world that we hope is governed by reason and not emotion is there an alternative?
In the early 19th Century Clausewitz described war as “diplomacy by other means” a callous if realistic definition, perhaps apt for those times but not for our own. We see war as an aberration, we attack in order to defend and not to conquer. In the end what is needed is a moral justification for war, not a political or economic one. We must be as certain as we can be that all options have been pursued before we send our young men and women into battle. We must ensure that they are protected as much as is possible, both by adequate training and the best equipment; if we do not, the covenant between us and them is broken.
Our leaders have to shoulder this enormous burden of responsibility. We hope that they will be guided by a strong moral compass as well as good advice from their colleagues. Hardest of all is to admit that the sacrifices made by the armed forces are not achieving the intended results. This may or may not be the case in Afghanistan but if the time comes that we realise that our objectives cannot be met then it will take tremendous courage to admit failure. Let us hope that our politicians can muster this courage in the same way that our armed forces have done.
From David Dalby:
As I understand it, creating images of living things, people or animals, is a sin in Islam, which is why Islamic art is so abstract. Also quite beautiful in its own way. However, that being the case, why is it acceptable to Islamic extremists to create images of themselves on fundamentalist websites?
From Dave Purnell:
Yes it’s Samaritan’s Purse time again. This time the school has put out a letter to parents asking my kids to fill shoeboxes for “Samaritan’s Operation Christmas Child”. No mention is made of any religious agenda. And the parents I have spoken to all assumed this was “The Samaritans”, and took quite a bit of convincing that this wasn’t in fact the case. I have written to the school, local press etc. However given that this group has been censured in the past for disguising their aims, I wondered if the above wording is part of a national strategy? Have any parents in other parts of the country received similarly misleading letters?
From Nigel Sewell:
Responding to John Bosley (Newsline November 6): There should be no problem with a ‘moveable feast’ for winter solstice, after all, the christians managed to have easter wander all over the calendar for 2000 years, why can’t the world handle a couple of days’ variation?
From Michael Hall:
It is very disappointing to see today's Times seemingly reporting alleged "miracles" as fact.
Notwithstanding that some people fervently believe that miracles do happen, it is rather worrying to see a mainstream newspaper use such slipshod language as in Ruth Gledhill's article on a supposed miraculous cure attributed to Cardinal Newman. For Ms Gledhill to state that "miracles still occur at Lourdes" gives dangerous weight to superstition – something that I would not have expected from a supposedly quality media outlet.
