Letters To Newsline

From Nick Harding:
Just for a bit of fun, what with Darwin's 200th anniversary coming up, I thought I create some lyrics and donate them for a song. Some secular song writer should now add music and the whole thing put out there to celebrate the great man and more importantly get right up the noses of theists.

DARWIN, YOU LOSE
You and me and monkey/ In our family tree/ Got the primates fizzing/ In the Papacy
Got them spitting brimstone/ Got them spitting fire/ Got them shooting papal bulls/ Calling you a liar

Hey Darwin, you win/ The good book lose/ Hey Darwin, you win/ Church got the blues

Hey Darwin, you win/ The good book lose/ Hey Darwin, Charles boy,/ Genes have gotta choose

You and genealogy/ Descending form the apes/ Got the synod sweaty/ Galapagos japes

Got them bashing bibles/ Got them burning you/ Got them burning all your books/ Losing pious glue – oh they’re stuck on you!

Hey Darwin, you win…. fade out.

Ed writes: Anyone out there want to take up the challenge?

From Steve Denton:
Howard Rye suggests (Newsline, 18th July) that we should allow devout religionists, such as the now notorious Islington registrar Lillian Ladele, to opt out of performing those parts of their jobs that conflict with their religious ‘conscience’ (read intolerance and bigotry), however cynical, politically motivated and hypocritical their demands for such treatment might be, in the same way that we allow atheist teachers to opt out of religious observances.

However, I believe Howard fatally undermined his own argument when he argues that to wish to deny religionists the same opt-out rights that atheists enjoy could be perceived as making an “I’m right, you’re wrong” statement about them, which would risk making us appear as smug, arrogant and judgemental as the religionists we seek to distinguish ourselves from.

Well, I’m sorry, Howard, but at the risk of us sounding smug, arrogant and judgemental, I think we do need to state in very clear, loud voices that we are right, and they are wrong! If there is one thing on which all atheists are agreed (I hope) it is that religious belief is a delusional state of mind which causes those who suffer from it to think and do things that are irrational and potentially harmful, both to themselves and to non-believers – i.e. to think and do things that are just plain wrong.

As such, when Lillian Ladele demanded the right to behave in a blatantly prejudiced and discriminatory way towards gay people because of her irrational delusional beliefs, she was in the wrong. On the other hand, when an atheist teacher refuses to take part in religious observances because they do not wish to pay lip-service to irrational delusional beliefs, they are in the right.

It really is that simple, and to suggest that the two cases are in any way equivalent — i.e. that one person can be as justified in discriminating against homosexuals because of religious beliefs as another person can be in refusing to take part in religious observance, and that both should therefore be equally permissible — is, I would suggest, deeply offensive to gay people everywhere. It also risks elevating religious belief to equal status with lack of religious belief, despite the fact that the former constitutes an irrational, delusional state of mind while the latter does not. And if asserting that fact opens us up to accusations of being as smug, arrogant and judgemental as our religious opponents, then so be it; at least when we say it, it happens to be the truth, so we can be forgiven our immodesty.

All this being said, I must reluctantly agree with the tribunal’s judgement in the Ladele case; Ms Ladele’s terms of employment had been changed after she took the job, and the new terms made it difficult for her to fulfil her duties (however stupid and contemptible her reasons were), so she had a legal case against Islington council on those grounds alone. They could not have sacked her for refusing to comply with new working practices, as that might have been seen as constructive dismissal. At best, they should have offered her voluntary redundancy.

But as she has now won the right to continue in her job as a registrar, I think they should amend her employment contract so that the reason she is exempt from performing partnership ceremonies for gay couples is accurately stated for the record; it should read “mental incapacity (irrational, delusional state of mind caused by religious belief)”. At least that would be telling it how it is. And if Ms Ladele chooses to take offence at having her religious beliefs described as a mental incapacity, which she probably would, and decides to sue Islington council for ‘religious discrimination’ a second time, no doubt with the enthusiastic support of the Christian Institute, then I hope it goes all the way to the High Court, with blanket media coverage, and with psychologists, clinical psychiatrists and neuroscientists being called as expert witnesses. Because such a legal case would require a definitive judgement to be made about whether or not religious belief does, in fact, constitute an irrational, delusional state of mind and therefore a mental incapacity. And if Ms Ladele and the Christian Institute lose that case, it would finally expose religious belief, and those who hold it, to the bright light of truth for all to see, and all the privileges, power, influence and ‘respect’ that have been accorded to it and them might finally be seen as the sheer idiotic lunacy that atheists have always known it to be. So bring it on, Ms Ladele, bring it on!

Ed writes: See also this article from a barrister who thinks religious people should be free from the restrictions everyone else has to observe

From Len Burch:
Carl Defoe criticises Howard Rye for expressing what was in my mind, that “If we want tolerance for our beliefs we had better tolerate the beliefs of others”. And Defoe criticises that statement on the grounds that “atheism is not a belief”.

However, Rye’s quoted statement and contribution, talking about “our beliefs”, is not confined to any atheistic absence of beliefs – nor the presumption therein, that “we” (even as atheists) are thereby without beliefs in respect of Godly and religious matters. We are not mentally neutered.

For quite obviously, even as atheists, we do have beliefs, e.g. that rationality is preferable to mentally conditioned and indoctrinated forms of “blind” faith. That civilisation is disadvantaged and held back by religion. Some of us believe not just that rationality is preferable, but that religion is actually harmful, dangerous, and contrary to good human relations. Some atheists like me, will also believe in the principle of “do unto others as you would be done by” (my central moral belief).

So, Rye’s original statement about mutual tolerance is surely consistent with that, is important and unobjectionable, even though we may be atheists — simply since atheists are not devoid of beliefs as such, and since that toleration does not imply any acceptance of whatever — and certainly not acceptance of intolerance itself.

Such is the case, even ignoring the deeper philosophical issues, as to the nature of the difference between Defoe’s agnostic-failure to believe in the existence of a God and an atheistic mental acceptance of God’s non-existence. I do have what I consider to be good reasons for believing that a God (in the form presented to us by Christianity) does not, and could not, exist. So do I thereby go one step beyond that agnosticism which Defoe calls “atheism”?

But let none of that further complicate the more obvious forms of intolerance that some contributors to Newsline are expressing in respect of other folks’ convictions and beliefs. Others’ beliefs which in my opinion may be irrational or not, but which are certainly not dangerous, and which mostly consist of instances where folk are failing to comply with, or are refusing to do something, rather than insisting that others should comply with their particular outlook.

We need to make a distinction where, for whatever reason, people wish to opt out, and not comply with, some custom and practice, from situations where they are intolerantly insisting that others must opt in, and comply with their views or practices. Some contributors seem to come within the latter religious category. They seek enforced compliance with their own particular views as much as do most religious folk.

When I read “Shouldn’t someone remind everyone involved in this daft case that Civil Partnerships are not marriage?” followed by “This case [the individual employee’s objections] should be justly thrown out on that basis alone”, then I wonder what sort of people I am in association with. Religious folk preach tolerance but fail to practise it. Many among us don’t even preach it.

Sure, compliance can be what we (like religions) are about. There is nothing wrong with seeking compliance with our views and outlook – but it is the advocacy of legal enforcement and compulsion (or lose your job) that I find both odd and inconsistent with what we despise so much in religions.

From Brian Nixon
I must take issue with Carl Defoe (Newsline 25 July) when he states that “atheism is not a belief”. Unless he has found some irrefutable proof that supernatural entities (gods, fairies, etc) do not exist, then it can only be a “belief”. The OED defines belief as “a firm opinion” as well as citing its association with religious convictions.

Atheism is indeed a “firm opinion,” based on a substantial body of evidence indicating that the likelihood of supernatural forces existing is vanishingly small This evidence does not, however, in logic constitute proof, which means that atheism is indeed a belief (cf. Hume & Russell’s tea-pot). I understand, of course, why he and other NSS members are adamant in wanting to avoid calling it such. It is because belief, in general, has become corrupted by excessive association with religion and thus any belief comes to be considered irrational.

While this is certainly true of faith-based beliefs, I would suggest that there are other beliefs, which I would call logical or rational beliefs, for which there is an abundance of evidence but no definitive proof. There are many of these, e.g. I believe in quantum theory and evolution but for much of both (quarks, Higgs’ bosons, divergence of plant & animal kingdoms) there is still no proof. Atheism is the same.

Incidentally, the OED defines atheism as a “theory or belief that god does not exist”. Perhaps Carl should take it up with the editors.

From Hugh Davies:
In relation to Malcolm Hutton’s letter about the death of his wife, my father died in a nursing home in the USA (where my mother still lives) some 3 years ago this month. The nature and timescale of his dying (he had a brain tumour and it took a year) cemented my atheism (and later, my mother admitted, hers too).

The peace and solemnity of the moment of his death was disrupted by a member of the nursing home staff who grabbed my and my mother's hands and insisted we spoke a prayer over my father's still warm corpse. We were too distressed to do anything about it at the time, but I was very, very angry afterwards. (In fact, in writing this, I realise that I am still angry now.) I joined the NSS shortly thereafter. At least the chaplain left us alone, at our request.

From Raymond Berger:
On a recent visit to a University to see my granddaughter graduate in medicine, I was moved and gladdened to see young people receiving acknowledgement of their academic achievements. The graduates were of all races and colours and different cultures but in graduation they were bound together by the common factor of knowledge which is the most powerful weapon that we secularists have against the ignorance of religious dogma and extremism. I was saddened to see some young women in the hijab, though, which to me is a symbol of religious repression, so it wasn't all good news.

My hope is that these new generations of graduates, theists or not, will help to kick out extremism. Be they Muslims, Hassidic Jews, evangelic Christians, the extremists seem very similar to me in practice, the Jews and Muslims especially with their rules about women hiding their hair, and their nasty tradition of mutilating the genitalia of helpless babes, as well as their homophobia. Their obsessive agenda is rooted in some apparent revealed truth in the past, disregarding progress in Society, though undoubtedly not the advances of Science where it suits them. The mindset in which adherence to strict rites apparently laid down in their holy books excludes normal human intercourse is a major concern and is one good reason for not supporting the move towards Faith Schools and the perpetuation of their more abhorrent attitudes and practices.

That the religious issue has become such a major one is still a surprise to me. I went to a grammar school in London in the Fifties, where, in spite of daily assemblies, schoolfellows were mercilessly teased if they became religious, or ‘goddies’ as the irreverent described them.

From John Ewbank:
In the run up to the Olympic Games I was thinking about the overtly religious athletes who thank god for helping them achieve their success. Perhaps supernatural help should be treated in the same as chemical help (it's surely unfair on those less highly favoured by god), surely those who compete simply want a "level playing field". Maybe rigorous testing should be utilised in order to root out these religious "cheats". Obviously convincing evidence would have to be forthcoming in order to prosecute those accused of ......, ah, errrm, oh never mind.

David Panton:
Perhaps the answer is too obvious for me to need to ask, but I'll ask anyway. Isn’t Hazel Blears’ craven attitude to “faith communities” just an appeal for votes from the religious, of whatever stamp? Would it be cynical to speculate that focus groups show that this would bring in more support from the religious than it would lose support form the (broadly) secular, but sadly complacent, majority?

From Tony Kehoe:
Gavin Mewes said (Newsline last week) that the distinction between “marriage” and “civil partnership” is a false one. All civil partnerships are marriages, because a marriage is simply a legal contract. Whether any superstition is involved or not is irrelevant. To say that they are different things or, worse, “separate but equal” (now, where have I heard that phrase before…?) is to imply that a civil partnership is somehow less than a full marriage. Such an attitude cannot stand. The term “civil partnership” should be abolished, and everything involving the legal ceremony and its attendant rights and obligations called “marriage”. That would clear up any confusion, and also prevent mad mullahs from claiming that although they practice polygamy, they are only married once, and have three civil partnerships.

From Brian Robinson:
You write (Newsline last week): “Pat Condell has added a new video to his growing gallery – and once again, you'll be wanting to cheer on his ability to say what needs to be said directly, but rationally, and without apology". Firstly where have I been these past 44 videos that it took the latest Newsline to make me discover Condell? So I've now watched several and read up about him on various websites. Of course I agree with him completely on the purely religious aspects of the argument and share your own view, but yet I’m not happy with Condell’s narrow approach to political realities.

Ironically I’ve had this row several times but in each case I’ve been on Condell’s side of the argument and my opponents have been from that part of the left that Condell excoriates so justly. So may I play a secular Devil's Advocate? My opponents have always said something like, “Brian, we wouldn't even be talking about this where it not for ...", and there follows a long list (and Condell alludes to this very thing) of all the evils inflicted upon the world by America, Israel, “The West”. And it’s really not good enough for us to minimise the significance of this history as Condell seems to do. Yes, there's religious manipulation by hypocritical power-crazed elites and much of the mess we're in is due to them; but they'd never have attained to anything like their present influence had it not been for the suffering inflicted on — mostly — Muslims by — mostly — Christians and more recently Zionist Jews.

As I often tell fellow members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, to campaign for Palestinians doesn’t mean we have to ignore or excuse Muslim oppression of other Muslims, and to shout loud about American imperialism doesn't enjoin silence over Islamic theocratic ambitions. You can oppose any war on Iran and oppose the sort of horrors of Iranian “justice” that Newsline has also reported this week. Indeed, justice and freedom being indivisible, it’s mandatory for us to do so.

It may well be true that “Islam is not a victim” but my contention is that although more Muslims have suffered through the religious cruelty of other Muslims than have suffered at the hands of western imperialists, enough Muslims have suffered injustices at the hands of the latter, and recently, to explain the recovery of Islamic fundamentalism from what had been a well-deserved obscurity. It’s not “all our fault” and we mustn’t appease anybody, but “we” have a case to answer and denying that fact won’t help.

---

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. Writers’ opinions are not necessarily those of the NSS.

---