Letters to Newsline

17 October 2008

From Graham Davis:
As the NSS member whose letter from Mark Damazer was published in Newsline on 3 October, this is my reply and for those who asked for his email address it is mark.damazer@bbc.co.uk In the unlikely event of a reply, I will publish it on my blog as well as forwarding it to the NSS.

Dear Mr Damazar,

I ask you once more to change your mind.

Paul Braterman:
The Scotsman story on the move to introduce Sharia law courts in Scotland includes the following quotation: “Aamer Anwar, a Glasgow-based civil rights lawyer, said: "Those using sharia law are fully entitled to religious freedom as long as it doesn't conflict with criminal law... It is down to the community to decide for itself.”

No, it is not down to the community, it is down to the individual. Who is to decide whether or not someone belongs in a particular community? And who except for the regular law courts can possibly have the right to impose decisions on anyone? Right now, people can refer civil matters of their choosing to a religious court, and indeed such a court might be the only body that could decide religious matters. What else is there to discuss?

From Jason Hill:
I won’t repeat the arguments against Radio4’s Thought For The Day. Instead, let me recommend Radio 3’s Free Thought broadcast at about 8.30am as an antidote. See. There – isn’t that better?

Ed writes: Jason, I agree – and we have recommended this programme already in Newsline, but Freethoughts is only temporary. Maybe we should write to the BBC and insist that it is made a permanent fixture, just like Thought for the Day.

From David Panton:
Ian Smith is probably right in saying that Prayer for the Day on BBC Radio 4 is overlooked by critics because, being so much earlier in the day, it has a much smaller audience than the egregious Thought for the Day. Perhaps for that reason it’s less easy to get angry about.

Although the latter is too late for me, I often catch PftD which I can enjoy for the pleasure of hating it so much, a much underrated experience. I remember one that started “You know, I often think this is the time of day for angels”. Interesting, and thanks for sharing, but help is available.

From Terry Thomas:
I was astonished to hear that a candidate for isolation on the Desert Island (as in Desert Island Discs) who having refused the offer of a Bible was told that he was not allowed to choose a non-religious book instead. He could only choose a religious book as that was the rule. He chose the Bhagavad Gita which was OK.

I could not believe my ears when I heard this. It is total discrimination against those who are not religious believers. There’s nothing reprehensible about atheists choosing to take the Bible as Anthony Grayling did after he was told that he probably didn’t want to take it; he enjoyed the English language of the Authorised Version, so he said. But for an atheist to be told that it’s either a religious book or nothing is sheer discrimination fostered by the BBC. I think a strong objection should be made by NSS to this invidious form of discrimination.

From Arthur Summerfield:
This is what I wrote to the BBC after hearing the disgraceful edition of Desert Island Discs:

In last Sunday’s programme, David McVicar, offered The Bible as part of his reading matter, politely declined. But when he suggested alternatives, the admirable Kirsty Young, who should know better, but was presumably under orders, told him that the only permissible substitute would be another religious text. In our essentially secular society, the presumption that we all have religious belief, and if we haven’t then we jolly well ought to have, is increasingly irrelevant. But the BBC still refuses to accept this. Let us hope that the producer of Desert Island Discs, at least, will have a re-think.

From John Hein:
I was somewhat sorry to see in last week’s Newsline my old friend Garry Otton write: “I believe in a ‘life’ after death”. He has now been removed from my Xmas Card List! And why castigate Desert Island Discs for insisting on including a Bible or some other superstitionist twaddle in the Castaway’s luggage? Does he not realise that copies can be obtained printed on strong and absorbent material?

From Dinah Foweraker:
While I understand Mrs J B’s concerns over her son receiving conflicting messages about religion at school and work, I don’t think she needs to be too worried. I was in a similar situation myself when I was a child, when religion was thrust at me at school. My mother was an agnostic, my father an atheist, and my Dad in particular never had any compunction about discussing his disbelief in front of me.

I had no difficulty in understanding what he was saying, and never felt confused or upset about it. It did have the effect though of making me question what I was being taught at school, and by the age of nine or ten I was an agnostic. I think it is very important for parents who are non-believers to be open with their children about this – it is, after all, nothing to be ashamed about.

Children are cleverer and more resilient than is often thought. They are perfectly capable of coping with conflicting information and of understanding that people have differing views about things. Some children will believe the religious propaganda at first, and they should never be criticised or belittled about this, but gently encouraged to think critically about what they have been taught and weigh up the probability of it being true. The important thing is to make sure they have enough information to make up their own minds. Finally, if toleration towards those with different beliefs is practised by parents, then their children are more likely to grow up tolerant themselves. Show, don’t tell, is the best method here.

From Stephen Harvie:
Re Bill Eveleigh’s predicament when some deluded fool demands that everyone should pay thanks to an imaginary god “for what we are about to receive.” I usually add “and may Allah be blessed for the sausage rolls.” It never fails to elicit a sympathetic laugh or two and takes some of the wind out of the presumptuous fool’s sails. I had to sit through all the usual nonsense at my father’s funeral earlier this year and made a point of letting the minister know that I had brought my brain with me.

From Bill McIlroy:
Bill Eveleigh’s letter brought to mind attending the unveiling of a memorial to the eminent novelist and notorious sceptic, George Eliot. At the lunch that followed, a man of the cloth was invited to say grace. While those present (probably including respectful unbelievers) abased themselves, I sat bolt upright, eyes wide open. If this miffed Christian diners – tough. I too was miffed by the clerical intrusion on a function I had paid good money to attend.

Bill Eveleigh asks if readers have suggestions for dealing with these situations. Here are two. First, don’t be a hypocritical humbug. Secondly, inform the chairman and secretary of your objection to being subjected to an unwanted religious ritual at a social occasion.

From Fiona Weir:
In reply to Bill Eveleigh’s objection to religious grace, I do, of course, think that the chairperson or host should give a suitable welcome to members and their guests, but it should certainly not be religious. It is perfectly possible to be “truly thankful” for good company and good food without addressing that gratitude to ‘god’ (especially not like the Scottish Minister who, invited to tea, proposed “for what we are about to receive — such as it is — may the Lord make us truly grateful”). A moment’s silence, in which one could pray if that’s what one does, would be sufficient.

I suggest you find out who is to give this ‘grace’ and speak to him or her well in advance of the event. If this fails, write to your committee and if this also fails, be brave enough to bring it up at the AGM. I’ve tried it and it worked. It’s worth taking a stand because it does seem rude to stay seated when others are standing (as I have seen republicans doing for the Loyal Toast) and social occasions should not, I think, be platforms for public protest.

Perhaps the answer is to put the grace back into Latin, in which case most people wouldn’t understand it anyway.

From Jason Brockbank-Gash:
In reply to Bill Eveleigh: simply remain sitting, facing forward with a slightly wry smile playing around your lips. Those with an interest in whether all the people around the table bow their heads or not will notice you and read your smirk accordingly. Everyone else will have their heads bowed anyway and so will not see you. The parson, or whoever, is made aware of your non-belief and everyone else is oblivious, which works well if, as you say, you don’t want to make a fuss.

If you do want to make more of a point, try making eye contact in your upright position either as your colleagues are bowing or raising their heads. This should strike them as unusual and hopefully they will then register your silent protest with the minimum of fuss.

From Steve Hill:
Eric Thompson is too generous in suggesting Catholics should merely apologise for purportedly deposing our monarchs. I am still waiting for an apology on account of Pope Innocent III "repealing" Magna Carta on 24 August 1215 on the grounds that King John exceeded his authority in signing it. Technically, Magna Carta has no force in English law, at least as far as Catholicism is concerned.

(Some letters have been held over)