A survey conducted of people in England established this year that, for the first time, the majority of that nation are not religious. Fifty-one percent of those polled reported that they have no religion — a sharp contrast to the same poll conducted in 1985 when 67% said that they were Christians.
Today, only 42% said they were Christians while 51% took the no religion option. This makes England a non-religious nation for the first time.
Tony Blair has been raging against this trend in England and others (here and here and here and here) have joined in calling atheists Nazis or threats to civilization.
What is fascinating is that the English are becoming less religious while their government is increasingly prosecuting people for blasphemy (here). Some of us consider the greatest threat to civilization to be the curtailment of free speech against religion rather than religion’s decline. If you are concerned about civilization, you should be guaranteeing that people are allowed to both worship and speak freely on religion. All those atheists and agnostics in England probably have a few things to say about religion. Yet, Blair and others are allowed to call them virtual terrorists while they are not allowed to speak freely about the dangers or their dislike for religion.
Source: Guardian
Jonathan Turley
Religion, as a human activity sometimes captures my attention and occasionally fascinates me, albeit briefly.
What about the religious notion that there are “those who accept the world only on rational terms”?
This being a law blog (aka blawg), I needs be look in a law dictionary to understand “rational.”
Methinks Black’s 7th, 8th, and 9th are much the same regarding rational, it appears best defined in the manner of rational interpretation for which, see logical interpretation, which I observe is, on glancing at Black’s 6th, about legislator intent, such that a logical interpretation may be based on what the legislator meant that the legislator was unaware of meaning. That is rational?
Were I to know what you meant when you did not know you meant it, would I not be having a “religious experience”?
If I avoid words in thinking, I very well know and understand the meaning(s) of my thoughts. If I put the meanings of the thoughts into words, the words are never the meaning I seek to convey through words.
Thus find I “the law” to be irrational by its own definitions.
Perhaps “reasonable” is better. Is it reasonable to know a legislator’s intent if the legislator did not know it? Or, would that make a decent descriptor for a religious superstition?
Logical interpretations appear to include liberal interpretations, which is on the path to my above cited religious experience.
Of course, I do not know what I am writing or what I intend to mean with what I am writing. In that way, I am just like everyone else?
Were I to know what I am doing, would I not need to be liberally literal, to conserve my religiosity?
anon:
You can stop projecting. Thanks.
frank:
You seem to have struck a cord with Tootie by merely posing the questions. His/Her reply is the perfect example of why the hyper-religious cannot be trusted to deal rationally or tolerantly with any dissent. Even if you pointed out the myriad of god-sanctioned murders, mayhems, rapes, or child-slavery in the Bible you would be met with protestations of taking it out of context, or not fully understanding the meaning, blah, blah, blah. To the hyper-religious, their religion is unfalsifiable. There is no quantum of proof that would dissuade its fanatical followers because of religion’s insidious practice of positioning itself as both victim and inscrutably all-powerful being. That is why it cannot be believed by those who accept the world only on rational terms. There may well be a Creator, but surely these buffoons cannot be his/her/its examples for the rest of us.
Good on Britain, they’re evolving. Tootie will take even more time.
TS,
Thanks for your ‘in country’ posts.
This article about the Bishop of Winchester should give you an example of the kind of impotent moaning we get from the clergy nowadays.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/569229-bishop-of-winchester-legal-system-discriminates-against-christians
Although I take your point about the blasphemy laws, Prof. Turley, in practice the UK is an increasingly secular country and the power of the church is dying.
Blair in particular is discredited because of his involvement in the Iraq debacle, so while he may be able to make a bit of a noise he doesn’t really have much of a constituency within the UK. Others such as various bishops have tried to make a fuss about what they represent as laws that discriminate against religious believers (typically, complaining that believers aren’t being permitted to discriminate against homosexuals as their repugnant beliefs tell them they must) but they aren’t getting anywhere either. They simply present themselves in the worst possible light.
Please note that the British Social Attitudes survey, as its title suggests, applies to all of the United Kingdom, not just England. This is a very significant point, because on the whole Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are far more religious countries than England.
As the members of our government, all we need are, excluding all others, only people who know and understand everything perfectly, perfectly in the sense of being absolutely incapable of any sort of error or mistake, people who therefore cannot learn anything because there is nothing remaining to be learned, people who therefore cannot understand anything because there is nothing remaining to be understood.
“Some of us consider the greatest threat to civilization to be the curtailment of free speech against religion rather than religion’s decline.”
I agree with that well-reasoned statement.
“If you are concerned about civilization, you should be guaranteeing that people are allowed to both worship and speak freely on religion.”
Yes, but religious worship of all stripes must be kept out of government and at all costs. However, as seen with GW Bush’s reactions to voices in his head from ‘God’, which resulted in death and destruction, and exemplified by what I consider the Revivalist Palin Invasion, I am convinced that the intrusion of religion into government will grow and it will be stronger from within my own Republican Party.
The result for this atheistic Republican is that I am caught between the proverbial (and mythical) Rock (of Ages) and a hard spot (the Devil’s Hell) here on Earth.
“Rock of Ages cleft for me…” release me from this religious insanity…
“godless communists”
Boy, haven’t heard that in years but every time I do I immediately mentally transpose it to the WKRP in Cincinnati episode “Tornado” wherein a tornado is bearing down on the city and Les Nessman is directed to broadcast the disaster plan to the city:
Mr. Carlson: Here, Les. Read the disaster plan.
Les Nessman: But, the disaster plan doesn’t say anything about tornadoes. It’s for what to do if we are ever attacked by the Communists!
Mr. Carlson: Well… Just read the plan and wherever you see the word “Communist” substitute the word “tornado.”
Les Nessman: [into the microphone] Citizens of Cincinnati, we have just been attacked by the godless… tornadoes!
The whole ep is on HULU and this vignette of Nessman-esque folly begins at 17:20.
Tootie wrote to frank:
“It seems you have these types of questions because you are an ignorant person who hasn’t availed himself of all the bountiful information flourishing on the internet such that you could come to understand the people you cast aspersions on in a most knee-jerk,thoughtless, stereotypical, and anti-intellectual manner.
I feel sorry for you.”
===========
Why does the phrase “political projection” come to mind?
Is it actually possible to be alive, be in any way a member of human society, and actually be a non-believer. I believe such to be, as fact, an absolute impossibility.
Methinks psychologist Albert Ellis may have solved the problem, though almost no one may yet know and understand the solution he found and reported.
It is about little children learning the ABCs. Learning the alphabet of human living.
A stands for Activating events.
B stands for Beliefs and the Behaviors resulting from Activating Beliefs and the Behaviors thereby Activated.
C stands for Consequences following the Conduct Activated.
Are we, all humans, delightfully little children, just beginning to learn our ABCs?
It is one thing to believe in a superstitious, abusive, dangerous religious establishment as though it is neither superstitious, nor abusive, nor dangerous, nor religious.
It is another thing to believe that we, as individuals and as community, live lives activated by events, and what is activated are the beliefs which, merely by being believed in the context of whatever activating event activates the activated beliefs, become also activating events which activate covert or overt conduct, which activate consequences which may or may not lead to disasters in the form of damaging events.
The alphabet soup of life stops not at C…
Activating Events… Go down to next line.
Beliefs and inner Behavior… Go down to next line.
Conduct and Consequences… Go down to next line.
Destruction or Delight… Go down to next line.
Eventually, another Activating Event… Go up 5 lines, OR…
Failure to remain alive… Go down to next line.
Go to the letter after Z, the unending eternal post-Zzzs???
Not deciding is merely one form of decision.
Not choosing is merely one form of choice.
Not believing is merely one form of belief.
You don’t believe it? You believe that you don’t believe it?
I shall not believe in any “religion” or system of “religious beliefs” or “religious establishment” or “established religion” which, were I to believe in it, would thereby teach me to not believe in it; this being because I believe that any and all such aspects of religion are false aspects of not only religion, but are false aspects of anything and everything that may ever exist or not exist.
I can only tell of such beliefs as the events of my life have activated, and what I am doing as overt conduct herewith is telling such. Of anyone else’s events, beliefs, and conduct, I know of and understand only what others tell me, whether through words or conduct.
My reading the words of this blog activate various of my beliefs, and what I write is of the consequences thereof.
Others may choose what to believe and what to disbelieve of what I share as Activated Beliefs that I Care and Dare to Echolaliate.
You don’t believe that? Okay, I believe you.
I believe that I am not a non-believer.
What else I believe is something else.
frank:
You ask “If God is all powerful why are the religious so frightened of non-believers?”
My answer:
You are dealing fast and loose with the terms. Believers in Christ tend to not consider themselves “religious” persons. Even an atheist can practice customs “religiously”. Nevertheless, you ask a loaded question when you ask why “religious” people are afraid of non-believers. Speaking as a Christian, I assure you that I am not afraid of people because they are nonbelievers. Nonetheless, I am afraid of being torn apart limb to limb by a lion, bear, mad-dog, a North Korean communist, or a member of the Democratic Party (who slaughtered 48 million Americans in the womb thus far and led a hundred years of war-making last century). But this is only because I feel pain viscerally. It has nothing to do with my faith in God. It has to do with me still being a human creature capable of feeling physical pain.
I can be utterly faithful to God, fear what is up ahead,trust God is with me, and yet experience physical pain all at the same time without shaking my faith.
Then you wrote “If God is the light and the truth why do they fear open discussion?”
It was, and still is, the godless, and espeically the godless communists who loathe open discussion. This explains why they destroy churches, private media, and muzzle free speech. This explains why Democrats, in particular a largely godless bunch, are trying to shut down Fox News, Talk Radio, and internet. These godless persons (despite their lip-service to “religion” cannot tolerate free speech and press after nearly a century of controlling the media. It is unlikely that you will find leftists who advocate abolishing the FCC. But you will find many “religious”, even Christian, folks and those on the right who think we should. Virtually all Libertarians would support abolishing it. Leftists lead the way in upholding it. This is because the left and the godless despise other peoples opinions. Of course, they don’t have a faith in god to see them through the danger.
In Christian lands under the influence of western civilization, media, publishing, literature, drama, and liberty grew to the highest stages ever in human history. It wasn’t until the godless communists (the leftists) came along that this was seriously threatened in modern times.
Finally you wrote: “Why call non-believers ‘Nazis’, particularly when the actual Nazis were believers?”
Believers in what or whom?
Can you demonstrate (provide written proof and citations from scripture) that anything in the New Testament condones what the Nazis did (e.g. murder, plunder, rape, torture, oppress, etc)? And if you cannot find one shred of evidence that would prove that Nazis were behaving like Christian believers will you have the integrity and honestly to admit your slander of Christians (if they are who you accuse)?
It seems you have these types of questions because you are an ignorant person who hasn’t availed himself of all the bountiful information flourishing on the internet such that you could come to understand the people you cast aspersions on in a most knee-jerk,thoughtless, stereotypical, and anti-intellectual manner.
I feel sorry for you.
I know a family where the parents, now in their 60’s, claimed to be non believers. Two of their three kids grew up to be extremely religious — i.e. associating only with people from their church, not sending their kids to public schools, raising their children to not have sex until they married etc.
after watching our christian fundamentalists and their own and the middle easts muslim fundamentalists, can you blame them.
I don’t feel that the two are especially linked, being English and having no religion.
What with the regular public displays of outrageously “unreligious” behaviour from those who claim to be examples of devout “Religiousness” we have how many paedophile priests in the church? and warmongering Mullahs preaching from their own version of the Qu’ran, A former Nazi is actually proclaimed pope and they then have the absolute gall to allow a women to become a priest and actually perform services in public!!!
I believe it is examples such as this which have more to do with the disillusionment of peoples in general when it comes to religion and maybe UK can be seen as a microcosmic example of a global trend away from religion.
One group’s belief often (maybe always?) causes them to be bigoted against another group’s belief. Christians vs Muslims, Muslims vs Jews, Atheists vs any Religion. Round and round it goes. As a live and let live type, I find that curious. Just sayin’.
A religious belief can exclude itself?
If God is all powerful why are the religious so frightened of non-believers?
If God is the light and the truth why do they fear open discussion?
Why call non-believers ‘Nazis’, particularly when the actual Nazis were believers?
These questions do not pertain to the existence of a supreme being but to the behavior of proponents of its various manifestations on this Earth. My guess is the asses, like Mr. Blair, use blaspheme laws as a club to stifle dissent of all kinds.
Repression always produces the opposite effect … thus prosecuting people for blasphemy produces more irreverent behavior … man, governments are stupid.