Would you/have you started going to church to get child into a good church school?!

This was tested in the courts when Oz magazine in the 1970's depicted Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals. A certain faction took the comic to court under an obscenity law.

They didn't win and the judge made a landmark speech about what constituted obsecenity.

The British Christians are usually fairly happy with criticism because the faith is robust and we're not over sensitive about it. You can go off and draw some cartoons depicting Christ if you like and I won't come out and kill you.

I don't "treat people" with faith any different to anyone else who talks crap. A strong society is one that doesn't care, not one that respects.
Where I differ from Dawkins is not that I am an atheist, but I find the bigotry of Christianity intolerable. Who else would get way with state funded discrimination ?

To put it in more neutral terms. If someone said they though Apples were good computers, I might agree or come up with reasons why they were not.

That's the problem isn't it ?
You don't want to be treated like anyone else. You want more rights than others people.

Time and again we see religious types coming up with the "my rights, not yours".
They want "tolerance", oh except when they discriminate against gays in adoption, when "faith" is used as an excuse for bigotry.

It is "offensive" to attack religious views. Except of course Scientologists or Mormons who are mad, and American. Not that this is racism, either, no.
Search this forum for remarks about these religions, and in your "mind" swap swap Scientologist for "Jew" or Christian, see how "tolerant" people are for religions that don't back their views with force or media muscle.

Freedom of speech is OK, I can be called a sinner, lost, etc, but that's fine. Say equivalent things about religious people and that's "offensive".

Religious people want the state to treat everyone equally. Except of course when they have grips on schools, when their "right" not to have their kids mix with needier kids or worse still black ass Moslems, comes to the fore. But that's not racism. No. The Moslems "just happen" not to be white.

When Blair tried to get criticism of any religion made a crime recently, the law was to include clauses that specifically said that truth would not be a defence, if it caused offence to religious people.

"I don't see his position as "tolerance", merely trying to get more support in a country who is mostly indifferent to the religion he is going to "defend".
It's also dangerous in the extreme."

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with a society that is inclusive. We are all diffrent people and have diffrent was of worshiping or not worshiping. Why can't we just respect eachother for that instead of trying to tear eachother down. It would never occur to me to treat an atheist or a person of a diffrent faith with the contempt that some of you show people with faith. You behave in the manner which you claim to despise.

Blimey, the arrogance of some people! Just because you happen to believe in mythical beings we are all supposed to bow down to that.

I don't see his position as "tolerance", merely trying to get more support in a country who is mostly indifferent to the religion he is going to "defend".
It's also dangerous in the extreme.

England was the first country to achieve any clear separation of church and state, which is the reason that we have the form but not the substance of a state religion.
Starting with Elizabeth I, the state drew back from saying "X is truth, believe or die". took a while of course, but the Christians realised it was actually for their own good, since for cneturies, every time one gang of christians had got power, they had tortured, burned and generally maltreated the other sort. Islamic nations haven't managed this with the result that more moslems are murdered by government moslems than are murdered by Israel.

Note that it is bishops who are appointed by the Queen, not vice versa.

We have a state that in almost all important aspects simply doesn't give a toss about what religion you are, or if you have none.

It's a bodge of course.
We have no written right to relgious freedom, indeed Blair recently came very close to abolishing it altogether.

Although it works, the system has vulnerabilities. Without a constitution, we are pathetically vulnerable to laws and abuses based upon religion.
If we look at the radicalisation of moslems, an interesting change is that Pakistanis, Indians or Arabs would typically have labelled themselves according to ethnicity. Now a large % pick their religion as a group label.
Partly that's because they perceive that if they gang together in this way they will be treated better by the government. They may be right or wrong, but by pandering to religions, it increases that tendancy.
It is more than a little interesting that Ruth Kelly, former minister of education and a promninent member of the hardline Catholic organisation Opus Dei, didn't want her kid to go to aq school in an area where there are so many moslems.
We're going to see more of that, and it will get bloody.

I also think he is a very tolerant person and I respect that. You could learn a little from him Domini

I'm not fond of Prince Charles but I think you are being unfair to him. I really respect his views on sustainable and organic farming. His views on town and village planning are also excellent.

I do agree the Nanotechnology comment was pretty stupid.

There is the solution offered by the queen's idiot son. Charles wants to be called "defender of faiths"
He wants to promote superstitions of all kinds.

He also has stated in print that the largest building in a town should be...
The town hall where we keep local councillors.
Yes, really.
He also believes that nanotech will reduce the Earth to a grey goo, and that's before we get onto the subject of what his plants tell him.

What better advert for religion in the 21st century.

It does seem very odd to have a State religion in a country that is made up of people of many diffrent faiths or lack of faith.

But given that it's one which two-thirds of people actively don't want taught in schools
(source )
and only 1m-2m people actively go to church, can it truly be called the state religion any more?

UQD, yes being a monarchy does matter with regard to the state. Our state is not secular, it has a religion ie C of E.

Indeed, which is why I'm not surprised that overthehill has been silient since I asked her to explain without the threat of violence.

Of course overthehill isn't threatening to break my legs, but the religious response to "offence" is very much like people running a protection racket.

"nice society you got here guv. Wouldn't it be sad if some nasty person broke it ?. Not me you understand, but there's people out there, who aren't a nice as me. I personally deplore violence, they just get a bit carried away, you know how young people are... Look at Northern Island. Nice priests, wouldn't hurt a fly, but get them agry, and they put nail bombs on your kids school bus..."

I too am perplexed about overthehill's accusations of "offensiveness". All I have done is to suggest that religions are based on mythology and that it is inappropriate for faith schools to exist, and people have argued with me on this basis. It's sadly common for "faiths" to play the "offended" card. Do I get offended if you claim I'm wrong or misguided for being a sceptic? I'd suggest you engage with the argument on its own terms and provide evidence for your side, rather than acting all miffed.

I don't understand this "sure he's right" and "extreme arrogance" thing either. I'm with Richard Dawkins (no surprise there, then) when he says there is simply no evidence for the myths of faith, and that if he were ever to be presented with any, he'd look at it with a view to changing his mind. This is what marks him apart from a fundamentalist.

It's impossible to prove the NON-existence of something, so people of faith think they have atheists over a barrel by asking them to do this. All one can do is to take a sensible, adult, informed decision about the "probability" of God's existence. I can't prove he is impossible - any more than I can prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn is impossible - but I can find him "extremely improbable", and base my life decisions on that.

One of the interesting things I learned from "The God Delusion", obvious in retrospect, is that you can be an agnostic without being 50/50 about it. You might be 70/30, or 80/20, depending on how convincing you find the evidence on each side.

(And do we have moderators? If we do, none of them has contacted me about anything inappropriate I've posted. Ever.)

Reincarnation is a "smarter" idea than eternal, yet rather dull sounding life.
Doesn't make it right of course.

People "like" cycles, we look for them, and often assume they exist, even when they don't.

There's a parallel with the Big Bang.
For decades scientists assumed and seemed to want it to be part of a cycle that led back to somke form of Big Crunch.
The evidence is now compelling that the universe will simply expand and decay until there is a huge number of tiny mindless fundamental particles each of which cannot in any way be affected or affect any other.
Such is the prevalance of arty types in the media that this fact has been ignored utterly to the point that most people (if they think of it at all, believe the universe with recompress.

I don't think religion should be veiled from criticism, far from it I have many criticisms of my own faith before I get onto the others. But i can do this in a respectful manner which will allow the debate to be more meaningful and both of us will get more out of it.

But I think you can critique without being offensive and the fact thatyou need to offend and rely on cheap shots as all priests are potentially kiddy fiddlers ( not use DC I think thatwas mademez) implies that there are flaws in the atheist or anti religion argument.

sorry awful typing again, two kittens on the keyboard trying to get my attention.

I have to agree with DC (we will be setting up our own religion soon) I dontl see why rteligious things should be closed to debate for fear of causing offence. As Richard Dawkins points out why should the most important things such as who/ what is responsible for the existence of our universe and even ourselves be closed for talking.

I ahve to admit that I am someone who tries to talk resepectfully about religion as I have a faith that means the world to me ad can understand how it can be such a sensitive topic. I would not use some of the words used here to describe religious people, tbh I was more offended that DC implied, actually he did more than imply he said that I was thick and lazy than when he had a pop at my faith. Perhaps my ego can handle one but not the other!

yes DCit amuses me when I read the kids work how many of them muddle up beliefs, so they say they believe in Jesus, think theyare a Christian an belive in reincarnation.

I am teaching about reincarnation at the moment, it does seem very popular with kids.

I fear you are confused...
I'm the one who refers to religion as hysterical superstition. Unquietdad simply doesn't want his kids told that various Bronze age myths are true, and doesn't like discrimination on the grounds of race. I see very little "offence" to be gained from his last posts.

But as for personal remarks, why is that we are supposed to avoid "offending" religious people ?
Are you that insecure ?
If you insulted a hero of mine like Richard Feynman would I cry *OFFENSIVE !", and demand your posts were deleted ?

Here's a little puzzle for you.
Try to explain why religion, should uniquely be shielded from any criticism ?
Just to make it interesting, try to do it without making veiled threats of violence that "some people" might use force if they are offended....

I thought this website had moderators!! If so, why then is it OK for some people (eg Unquiet Dad) to continue to make unchecked offensive comments about others on account of their religious beliefs?? I just don't understand how people like him can insult others in such a way but have absolutely no conscience about it, just because they're so sure they're right, which in itself is extreme arrogance. It's not as though Christianity and other religions haven't been around for thousands of years, with millions upon millions of adherents, including many very good people (and obviously, due to fallen human nature, also some atrocious dictators who have acted in the name of religion). Just why is he so vehemently opposed to religion, I wonder, and blind to any words of reason from anyone else? I object in the strongest terms.

Twinset, I agree about the pick & mix, one effect of RE teaching seems to be people including bits of other religions. A lot of "spiritual" people label themselves Christian, but believe in reincarnation.
They may be right, but reincarantion is not Christian doctrine.

Xenia religion is the one subject thatstill has to be taught in schools unless you have religious grouds for removing yourself from the subject. This law is not always adhered to and is often referred to in OFSTED reports.

Am agreeeing with Dc again, (stranger things have happened , at the moment I can't think of them) I would imagine the things that attarct right wing people to Christianity are probably the parts of Christianity that more leftie folk like myself struggle with such as an intolerance for homsexuality and divorce.

Donnie to you and me communion is a moving spirtual expereince but to outsiders it is a bizzare ritual open to jokes and I think we have to be tolerant of that. People only offend me if I let them.