Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Talking Politics

    The faithful can’t be trusted in politics

    Baroness Warsi is right. Secularists are becoming more militant. Prayers at council meetings, religious speeches from politicians, bishops in the Lords — we want them all gone. We'd like to be more reasonable about it, but religious people, unfortunately, can't be trusted.

    They've been given several opportunities to behave responsibly and they keep dropping the ball. Most secularists welcome religious participation in the debate as equal partners — much like we welcome Conservatives (big and small c) socialists, feminists and the like. Everyone's welcome. The Archbishop of Canterbury is undeniable perceptive, reasoned and civilised. John Sentamu also provides a reasoned and valuable voice. There are many others. Even on issues such as gay marriage, where their views are incomprehensible and barbaric, they serve a useful function in giving voice to a large minority of traditionalist voices in the country.

    But give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Warsi demonstrates as much in her speech today, made on a trip to the Vatican to plan the defeat of 'militant secularism'. First, she insists faith has been "neglected" and "undermined", citing, among other things, the British Airways ban on a flight attendant wearing a crucifix. Fair enough. People are entitled to wear whatever necklace they like, be it Che Guevara or Jesus Christ. Warsi just wants Christianity to have "a place at the table" she says.

    Then she takes the fatal next step, which religious figures always take. God, Warsi says, should have been included in the European constitution. Seemingly without realising the irony, she then insists it is secularists who are "deeply intolerant".

    To include God in a document which covers all the citizens of a country or continent would be deeply intolerant. It would be an attack on those of us who do not believe in God. By leaving religion outside of political life, we ensure free expression for all. Its inclusion is a minor tyranny, putting atheists on a secondary platform. If this is a 'Christian' country then surely it's not mine. If it's a secular country, it belongs to everyone.

    The religious always make this mistake. It is not a coincidence. The fiery passions that accompany faith are a direct result of holding beliefs on the basis of emotions rather than reason. Believers are so wrapped up in their own ill-conceived superiority they can't tolerate an equal footing with others. We want them to have an equal voice, but they simply can't be trusted not to try a power-grab. Give them a speech and they'll propose a religious constitution

    Faith schools indoctrinate children with a world view before they are old enough to consent to one. Bishops in the Lords hold a role in the legislative process which no political formula could justify. The government is increasingly keen to introduce a religious element to its mission statement. Prayers are said in the Commons before it starts its sessions. And deeper down, at the social level, religious people are increasingly wary of even engaging in argument. Religion has been put 'off-limits'. The intellectual interrogation of someone's faith is now judged 'offensive', as if relinquishing rationality entitles you to special privileges which other belief systems do not.

    There is no official separation of church and state in this country despite the overwhelming indifference of the British towards religion. Church attendance is at an all time low, faith is in decline: the British ambivalence towards those who claim absolute truth is alive and well. The secular majority in this country tolerates the continued lack of separation between church and state because religious and political leaders have been civilised and practical enough to limit their calls for greater power. That will not necessarily last. Warsi and her allies in the Vatican should stop rocking the boat.

     
    • Steve  •  3 months ago
      The very fact that this debate is taking place - on Yahoo and in the wider context, highlights the main prob;lem.
      Polarisation.
      We live in a world where we are coerced into taking sides.
      Whatever happened to the gentle world of those who simply lived their lives with a calm, non-demonstative faith, trying to be good people and doing right by others because that was the way they felt inside.
      I am not religious myself - never seemed to have the time - but if I had to mix in the company of one or the other I would choose the gently religious souls every time over the zealots on either side of the argument.
      • josiema 3 months ago
        I have been part of a church and felt comfortble and comforted in it. That has only happened on ONE church - others have seemed to me to be full of people who want to belong to an exclusive club. So I remain a Christian - have faith in God but don't go to church. But I do try to live my life in a way that helps others, doesn't require them to be like me - and feels right. It may well be inadequate but that's my failing not anybody else's.
      • Steve 3 months ago
        Josiema,
        I think we've disagreed over something or other in the last week or so, but in the deeper things that count most, even though I'm not especially religious myself, you're my kind of people. Stay with it.
      • Anon 3 months ago
        What an alarmingly reasonable position.
        I also had a similar thought awhile ago.
        I...err....disagree?
        OH DAMN YOU HUMAN NATURE!
    • Matthew  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      The main problem I have with religion is that it gives us another reason / excuse why we are different to our fellow man. I think we should embrace our similarities rather than our differences.
      • Andy 3 months ago
        If you can quote any part of the Bible, Quran, Torah, Upanishads thats says we should discriminate between ourselves please show me.
      • josiema 3 months ago
        I think that the differences are often/usually created by organised "religion" rather than by faith. I believe that all people are of the same importance to God. That they don't have to believe in him for Him to believe in them. The " my club gives the best benefits" approach is the attitude of certain churches. Often accompanied by a really aggressive superiority! That's why, although I still believe, I don't go to church.
      • Richard 3 months ago
        @Andy
        You mean like the bits where god orders the Israelites to commit genocide against the surrounding tribes, steal their land and take any of their women who have not "known the touch of a man" as prizes to be shared out amongst the soldiers? Or the whole "sons of Ham" bit that was used to support slavery for a few centuries?
    • cluckcluck  •  3 months ago
      I agree with Steve: it's what Milan Kundera called "the noisy foolishness of human certainty" that is most annoying. We are just leaves on the tree of life and should be a little more circunspect about claiming to have all the answers because we once read a book, be it by Dawkins or Jehovah.
      • cluckcluck 3 months ago
        typo: circumspect
      • Hooklineandsinker 3 months ago
        Agnosticism is the only intellectually stance
      • franc o'file 3 months ago
        The difference is that Dawkins actually wrote his book, an excellent insightful book, whereas the bible was written by various ill educated scribes many centuries after the supposed events.
    • Judge Dredd  •  3 months ago
      ... the author of this article got it right. I mean, you have to ask one basic question and that is WHY they are so determined to force their religious viewpoints on people. It is of course a variant on the control-system so beloved of the church, the old monarchs, the dictators, etc the world over. Religious politicians know that if they do the right amount of knee bending the religious brainwashed grudd-damned morons will follow them simply because they follow the same faith. Suckers to the end, the religious are taken in by empty hollow words, the very dynamic by which we know ALL politicians. There is a very simple rule. If their lips are moving then LIES are flowing ... and if you think ANY politician has a soul, forget it, they SOLD it years ago for their so-called power.

      State and Church should always be separated. If the Church gets control of the State we will have taken a massive step backwards in time ... just look at what happens in countries with muslim governments (brain-washed populations, terrified of breaking the smallest law) ... no, no, in retrospect, sure, let's have religious law in this country and NONE OF YOU will be free to do anything at all without first consulting with a religious spokesman, and yes, I mean MAN because women are widely considered to be ''unclean'' by many male dominated religions, including christianity who even now is fighting to prevent women being elevated to the ranks.
      • Andy 3 months ago
        I agree...but why does the secular world insist( with equal fervor) to thrust its unproven theories on to society( Evolution, Big bang, relativity, string theory, etc etc etc)? It works both ways.
      • Judge Dredd 3 months ago
        ... science, citizen is when a scientist makes an observation and then has it confirmed by another party. Evolution is a proven 'theory' as is relativity, and the so-called big bang event, at least from our current knowledge of things (string theory is still out there) but you are asking us to bow and scrape before an invisible, silent super-natural being who is called upon to reveal itself and yet chooses not too. Either grudd is deaf, dumb and mute (which I suspect) or it does not exist, at least not in the way that you and many others think.

        I mean, what do you think grudd does all day? It must get pretty boring sitting around waiting for planetary systems to condense from dust, life to evolve, but then for grudd all of that takes but the blink of an eye, right? For all of the proof that you have you might as well begin a church to worship an abstract concept for all the good it will do you. Science supplies answers, grudd promises them but NEVER delivers. Faith is nothing but a wish, one that seldom comes true and then, the religious have a word for that also, don't they? People who grudd ignores do not have sufficient faith ... what is religion, some cosmic joke of a lottery?
      • Kingsi 3 months ago
        This to me is the single most annoying thing about religious people. They do not seem to grasp the concept that the burden of proof for the existance of god falls on them. I have read the books, watched the debates and can honestly say that I have not seen or heard one scrap of evidence that justifies the supernatural claims of any religion. What I have noticed that happens all the time is that religious people do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "theory" when it is used in a science context.
    • Owl  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      You believe it what you want to, just don’t force your belief on anyone else.

      My only concern here is, Law is supposed to be blind, fair, and based on FACT. So how can anyone expect to have religious basis to any law. By the very nature of religion it is based of a supernatural belief. One which cannot be proved or disproved. Who can show definite proof of a supreme being?
      • Common Sense Talking 3 months ago
        Can you prove there isn't one.? And you are stating your beliefs loudly. May I point out the English Law IS based on religious beliefs. The very 1st thing you have to do is swear an oath on the bible. A judge, jurors & Barristers have to be sworn in; using an oath based on the belief in God.
      • Whatsupdoc 3 months ago
        Actually English law is based upon 9 of the 10 Commandments. The only one not enshrined by law is False Witness. That is why we have miscarriages of justice when a liar convinces the court he is correct. True Justice would insist that this omission be corrected.
    • Jude Richards  •  Hull, England  •  3 months ago
      Belief is the choice of the individual, religion is the organised means of enforcing rules to define a certain set of beliefs. The origin of the word religion is from the Latin word religare, which means “to tie, to bind.” Someone who has chosen their personal belief will accept the right of others to choose their belief. Religions will always see other religions and secularity as a threat to their organisation and seek greater power as a means of defence of their particular views
    • wally  •  Crawley, England  •  3 months ago
      true religion is something you do for yourself, the moment you try and force your opinion on anyone , secularist or otherwise ,it can't be right. Voicing of your opinions is not forcing anything on anybody.However do we not let parliament enforce common law on all of us by consent of the majority (in theory) .
    • Peter  •  3 months ago
      I agree. Religion and Politics do not and should not mix.
    • sunnyside  •  3 months ago
      What I find annoying about the crucifix ban in the mediais, it is not a ban on wearing religious symbols, it is a uniform code where nobody is allowed to wear jewellery. If people are not willing to wear the uniform as proscribed they should not take the job.
    • Aneirin  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      As soon as a politician mentions God in political service, that is it for me, they are off with the fairies, all respect is lost, because we are a secular country where personal belief is championed, but not ever brought into political discussion. Blair on the events leading up to the illegal invasion of Iraq brought God into politics, which directly indicated to me he had been spending too much time with President Bush, and the WMD reason was bogus. Then came Cameron bringing God into politics with his desire for this country to once again come under the yoke of religion, so, by mentioning this he also lost my respect as a politician and now because of his words, I totally distrust his judgement, as lets face it, hearing voices of person's not there outside of political or religious life is of interest to the mental health profession, as where is the difference between someone with mental health and someone in political life ?

      It also seems to me for a supposed God of love, there has been an awful lots of wars and persecutions in it's name, something I had hoped this country had moved on from, but it seems not given the last two prime ministers hearing voices that may or may not be there.

      What decisions are made should be on fact and evidence, not things that cannot yet be proved.
    • David G  •  3 months ago
      The real issue, which Ian Dunt doesn't address, is that in today's Britain it's acceptable to follow any religion except Christianity. "Faith is in decline" - really?? I haven't noticed much decline is the number of Muslims in the West Midlands. It's not religion itself which is being marginalised but the specific faith which, like it or not, has contributed so much to British identity. I'm not personally religious but I'll defend the right of anyone to worship whatever god they like.
    • Hugh  •  Xining, China  •  3 months ago
      "The intellectual interrogation of someone's faith is now judged 'offensive', as if relinquishing rationality entitles you to special privileges which other belief systems do not." Classic enlightenment era thinking: "faith" means relinquishing "rationality". Out of date.
    • Hugh  •  3 months ago
      I'm not sure how we can trust anyone at all in ploitics. Religion or lack of it is a minor part of the litmus test. But Alistair below puts his finger right on the button. Most believers are not that full of certainty - how can they be? But if Dawkins could be less shrill and dogmatic in his claims, you might have a point.
    • David  •  Stornoway, Scotland  •  3 months ago
      nothing wrong with god,just mans interpretation
    • adamson  •  Sheffield, England  •  3 months ago
      Question, Was it an atheist or a religious person who said `Love your enemy do good to those that hate you`?
    • kevin  •  3 months ago
      There have been a number of postings where people blame religion for all kinds of war and brutality. We need to remember that just because an act in committed in the name of a religion, does not necessarily mean that the act conforms to the tenets professed by adherents of that religion or in representative of the general behaviour of adherents as a group of people or is condoned by the believers or their religion. People so often do unspeakable things and seek to justify them in terms of their religious beliefs, political affiliations or for some other reason or cause. Much of the Catholic / Protestant violence in Northern Ireland, for example was committed by people who did not adhere to either Catholic or Protestant beliefs, but rather held political and nationalist motives. The terms of Catholic or Protestant were convenient labels that were highjacked to serve a cause. We can see the same thing in the Crusades where a supposedly well intentioned attempt to liberate the Middle-East from Moslem domination was high jacked by greedy nobles in search of land and power. What started out as an attempt at liberation, turned into an act of greed and unspeakable barbarity. The motives of human beings are nearly always mixed. Religion is an attempt to create a system of belief with ceremonies and rites to complement these belief systems. It is human beings and their own impure motives that are responsible for violence, crime, etc. Part of the problem is that religion, as much as politics affects the thoughts and emotions of the individual. People can become so empassioned as to be beyond sense or reason and violence and unreasoning acts can follow. There is nothing in the Koran to suggest or recommend violence. In the Bible, peace, love and respect for authority are preached throughout the New Testament, but once people become empassioned or see religion as a path to achieve other ends, then it can become a useful vehicle or and excuse to wrong doing. We live in an imperfect world, populated by imperfect and often greedy people who will use and abuse people's needs, beliefs, national politics, and anything else for that matter to their own ends.
    • Graham  •  Hounslow, England  •  3 months ago
      A further point worth mentioning is Britain is now full of Self opinionated axe grinders who gravitate to the Media or the Parliament. Most have had indifferent education inspite of the cost and have nothing worthwhile to contribute to a better society.
    • RICHARD  •  Milton Keynes, England  •  3 months ago
      You do not have to be religeious or atheist to be an opinionated social liability. Anyone can do it.
    • kelvin allanj  •  Abergele, Wales  •  3 months ago
      "Incomprehensible and barbaric" is the kind of language that does harm to the secularist position. Are you really saying that you do not understand what is being said by those professing a faith? Most sensible people keep quiet about their inabilities while resolving to do something to address them. You appear to be boasting about your failings.
    • A-M  •  3 months ago
      The thing that annoys me about religious views, especially in public life, is for some reason it is deemed taboo to question them.

      I can question your economic views, your views on how to handle the NHS, the justice system, yoru choice of wallpaper and while we may not like each other, it is not a rude or awful thing to do. In fact it's rather necessary for politics and democracy to function.

      If religious folk are so sure of themselves, why are they so unwilling to engage in meaningful debate?

    WRITTEN BY...