XPost: talk.atheism, alt.religion, alt.religion.christian   
   From: vigyazat@hotmail.co.uk   
      
   From "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" :   
      
   [Snip URL]   
      
   For some reason I can't access the article.  I just get a 404.   
      
   In which case I'll go by the extracts.   
      
      
   > In the US, the religious Right numbers about   
   > 35 million. Recent polls show that about 30   
   > million Americans define themselves as hav-   
   > ing no religious commitment.   
      
   Which leaves, by my calculations, 230 million people who apparently   
   aren't worth mentioning.  Could it be that they are those who a) aren't   
   Christian but aren't atheist (I sympathise); or b) are Christian but   
   aren't particularly 'right-wing' about it?   
      
      
   > There are two main reasons for the hardening   
   > of responses by non-religious folk.   
   >   
   > One is that any increase in the influence of reli-   
   > gious bodies in society threatens the de facto   
   > secular arrangement that allows all views and   
   > none to coexist.   
      
   I agree: it does threaten this arrangement.  But at the same time,   
   doesn't an anti-religious stance (as opposed to a non-religious stance)   
   also represent a threat to this arrangement?   
      
      
   > History has shown that in soci-   
   > eties where one religious outlook becomes   
   > dominant, an uneasy situation ensues for other   
   > outlooks; at the extreme, religious control of   
   > society can degenerate into Taliban-like rule.   
      
   Agreed.  "At the extreme".  35 million against 260 million worth of   
   extreme, perhaps?  America's problem isn't that the religious right   
   exists, and it certainly isn't that religion exists: it's that America   
   allows the right a disproportionate amount of power.   
      
   That's not a problem that's going to be solved by destroying religion -   
   because religion, as always, is the handy excuse for the 'religious'   
   right, who, without it, would simply find some other excuse to attempt   
   to impose control over their fellows.   
      
      
   > - - -   
   > [insert -- one might be tempted to argue, strongly,   
   > that the mass murder of the Jews and homosexuals   
   > and gypsies (and others) had at its core centuries   
   > of anti-Judaism instigated/supported by Catholic   
   > theology, with all due respect to those who did use   
   > their religion (and their humanity, or their humanity   
   > with minimal influence from religion) to try to help   
   > the Jews (and others) who suffered at the hands   
   > of the Nazis -- end insert]   
   > - - -   
      
   Indeed, many are regularly so tempted.  Tarring all Christians with the   
   Nazi brush is just one of the tactics frequently used by those who   
   cannot or will not judge every person on their own merits.  It's far   
   easier to demonise all by reference to the few, and if it helps people   
   to rationalise their own prejudice against religion then so much the   
   better for them.   
      
      
   > Faith organisations are currently making common   
   > cause to achieve their mutual ends, but, once they   
   > have achieved them, what is to stop them remem-   
   > bering that their faiths are mutually exclusive and   
   > indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the history   
   > of their relationship is one of bloodshed?   
      
   Nothing - and indeed this is most likely, again because of extremism:   
   the disjointed and monochromatic perspective that enables someone to   
   accept as logical the bizarre assumption that "the enemy of my enemy is   
   my friend".   
      
      
   > Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intel-   
   > lectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality   
   > as belief in the existence of fairies.   
   >   
   > This remark outrages the sensibilities of those who   
   > have deep deep religious convictions and attach-   
   > ments, and they regard it as insulting. But the truth   
   > is that everyone takes this attitude about all but one   
   > (or a very few) of the gods that have ever been   
   > claimed to exist.   
      
   This is one of the standard arguments presented by anti-theists in these   
   groups.  The usual form is to tell the Christian that he or she is   
   "really an atheist" because there are so many gods s/he doesn't believe   
   in.  This seems to hit at the very definition of atheism, since the   
   belief in one god would normally in itself be enough to disqualify   
   someone for that label.   
      
      
   > The atheist adds just one more deity to the list of   
   > those not believed in; namely, the one remaining   
   > on the Christian's or Jew's or Muslim's list.   
      
   Which is fine, of course - except that the atheist occasionally uses   
   that one god as the template for all gods; that one religion as a   
   stand-in for all religions; and then attacks that all-in-one religion   
   from a self-proclaimed position of intellectual superiority.   
      
      
   > As knowledge replaced these naiveties   
      
   Why naive, I wonder?  Knowledge might well tell us how a thing works, or   
   to some degree why it exists - but does that prevent that thing from   
   being divine?   
      
   Or is it in fact the case that 'divine' is popularly accorded only one   
   true meaning, and that that meaning is 'of the Christian God'?   
      
      
   > With such a view of religion - as ancient supersti-   
   > tion, as a primitive form of explanation of the world   
   > sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-   
   > religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard   
   > for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a   
   > disproportionate say in running society.   
      
   No-one, religious or not, should have a disproportionate say in running   
   society.  That's my view - and I am 'naive', apparently.   
      
   That's why I'm worrying about 230 million missing Americans, I suppose.   
      
      
   > This is the more so given that the active constitu-   
   > ency of all believers in Britain is about eight per   
   > cent of the population. A majority might have vague   
   > beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even   
   > they do not want their lives dictated to by so small   
   > and narrow a self-selected minority.   
   >   
   > The disproportion is a staring one. Regular Church   
   > of England churchgoers make up three per cent of   
   > the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House   
   > of Lords.   
      
   26 / 731 * 100 = 3.5   
      
   So if we assume your figure of 3% for the Church of England, the   
   representation in the Lords is 0.5 percent out in the Church's favour.   
   There are four bishops too many.  A problem, perhaps, but hardly a sign   
   of unfair Christian dominance of the country.   
      
   That largely disposes of the proportionality argument.  If the further   
   argument is that the bishops in the House of Lords are not elected, then   
   it is self-evidently fatuous.   
      
      
   > Now that religion is bustling on to centre-   
   > stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for   
   > faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is   
   > no longer tolerable.   
      
   Agreed - religion has no place in schools.  On the other hand, if the   
   government could be persuaded to invest properly in education and (and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)