AC Grayling gets it bang on re faith group daftness.

[SolidGoldBangers]

There's a pint on the bar for him all right. Good effort.

Yes, agree.

well apart from thinking that relying on weekly attendance figures as "the" figure is a bit

The government has squillions of advisory groups - why should it ignore religious groups when vast amounts of taxpayer's money are used by religious groups?

Should they ignore all gay advisory groups because their statistics will be similar?

Unless he invites Jedis to the table, Denham reveals the hollowness of this policy.

morningpaper, I have much more respect for and interest in the views of gay people, probably because they don't demand that people who aren't gay become gay immediately or go to hell.

With a few noble exceptions, this does seem to be the fundamental position of the major religions - hence underscoring the extreme idiocy of trying to accommodate them all.

Go secularism.

and perhaps the government is doing it because of the census figures rather than weekly attendance. Depending on which data you look at (LSF or Census) only 13-16% of the population in England and Wales put themselves as having no religion. Figures are higher in Scotland at between 16-29% with no Religion.

Practising (regular or occasional) or not people that claim they have a religious affiliation of some type are very much in the majority.

apart from Jain Hinduism, is it not true that the major religions - Chritianity, Islam, Judaism - believe they are the one true religion?

so er, how do you accommodate these three round the table? If you give money to one lot, aren't you blaspheming the others?

so why not just leave religion as an entirely private matter. The function of the State should be limited to preventing persecution and that's it. Not advocating for specific religious groups or giving them money or any interest in their views.

what so because they all believe that they can't possibly talk to each other, be civil, and perhaps even come up with ways in which to create more understanding/tolerance between themselves and those of other/no religion and whatever else that the advisory panel with be asked to do?

Have some sympathy with this point of view. Am always suspicious of the government appealing to 'community leaders' - whose community, exactly? Does turning up to do an occasional stint on the Today programme as the voice of Sikhism/Islam/Catholicism really mean you speak for anyone but yourself?

And at a pedant level, find the use of 'faith' instead of 'religious' really irritating too. Feels like some horrible euphemism.

As for talking to each other and being civil, think the Pope has revealed what's really going on with his grab for Anglican misogynists (and church property).

always - I am in awe of your optimism but suspect your grasp of reality is a little shaky.

Please do give me some examples of when members of different religions have agreed this 'hey, live and let live!' policy.

Isalm and Christianity are both proselytising religions. Their aim is to convert, those who won't convert are damned.

If you follow a religion, please keep it to yourself and don't you dare plead it as something that merits you special consideration when considering community issues.

Edam, exactly. i'm very suspcious of these 'community leaders' particularly those who represent the more patriarcal of religions (i.e. all of them)

There are interfaith groups all over the country. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean that can't talk civilly to, and perhaps even be friends with someone from another religion (or no religion), god you know sometimes even people from different relgions come up with good ideas together as well you know.

I am a Christian, and no I won't "keep it to myself", I'm afraid that's not what my faith is about.

Thankfully in most Western Countries these days Inter Faith Networks have been fostering good relations between different religious groups so that they no longer see the way forward as the one that involves kicking the sh*t out of anyone that doesn't follow their faith.

edam - yes, my favourite Tory (I have one!) Sayeeda Warsi, is equally scathing about this "community leader" nonsense.

blimey you know even back in the late 80's when I was a kid our Methodist church had a fantastic relationship with the Gurdwara next door (and yes it was literally next door - we could hear them and they could hear us). They didn't just tolerate them - some of us even had friends we'd talk to after the service over the fence

There's a distinct lack of religious tolerance and understanding in this country (you only need to read MN to see that) - and to think that if people of faith "just keep it private" will sort out any issues I think you need to get a check on reality.

Tolerance and understanding doesn't come by shutting something away and ignoring it.

She was the one on QT the other week with Griffin, wasn't she? Was slightly distracted by her voice, I lived in West Yorkshire when I was little and that accent sounds so homely (although it's not the accent of my village, but the nearest town, it's close enough to make me feel nostalgic).

Oh I do agree that people are perfectly capable of being friends with those who have a different worldview or adhere to a different myth system, in the same way that friendships can survive opposing political allegiances or one of you liking modern classical music and the other being a follower of the X Factor. But a government-backed body handing out dosh only to superstition-based groups runs the risk of attracting the more demented, grabby, attention-seeking representatives of same, particularly when it's allegedly a 'defence against secularism' - this is going to encourage all the howling nutjobs to set aside their differences in personal taste in order to support each other's pleading for special privileges.

There's so many ignorant statements on this thread it's sort of pointless going any further

Suffice to say I've spent a lot of time working with interfaith groups who want to move forward on common ground, dealing with social exclusion etc. There is a lot of interfaith work that goes on with people who want to learn to be more tolerant and work together. The comments about religious people on this thread is very similar to the views of people who think that all Germans are Nazis. All religious people "demand that people who aren't gay become gay immediately or go to hell, with a few noble exceptions" - what, those noble exceptions that don't believe in the concept of hell, for example? Like erm, Judaism?

oh - I'm a "howling nutjob"

• agree with MP's first statement

agree with morning paper too.

SGB - the fact that you just can't help but refer to religious people as 'howling nutjobs' says so much about you and your nasty little prejudices.

Donnie: my point is not that all religious people are howling nutjobs, it's quite the opposite - ie that this GOvernment initiative is idiotic because encouraging religious 'leaders' to expect special privileges not offered to the non-religious encourages the howling nutjobs, of which there are plenty to step forward with all manner of demands, while the perfectly reasonable religious people who are just going about their own business and don't actually want to inflict their superstitions on everyone else, get unfortunately tarred with the same brush.
It's the special treatment of superstition I object to because it's dangerous, it sets a precedent for allowing nutjobs to damage other people in the name of their imaginary friend.

At the risk of being flamed, could we just have a little bit more respect for those who follow religions, on this thread? There have been many examples posted of religious tolerance between people of different faiths. How about those of you using language like "howling nutjobs" take a leaf out of these examples of tolerance and consideration for others in how you speak of people who follow a religion. It is incredibly arrogant to presume that religious people are merely superstitious. I think there should be the expectation that you don't belittle someone's religion any more than you might belittle their colour or sexuality.

I really would like someone to give me a proper reason why the words 'religion' and 'superstition' are not interchangeable. Given that probably roughly equal numbers of people believe in the stuff about spilling salt, walking under ladders and suchlike, as believe in gods.
And the squawking about it being disrespectful to refer to 'howling nutbjobs' when I have stated that it's not their particular brand of myth systems that makes them nutjobs, it's their interpretation of it as giving them the right to harm and harass other people that makes them nutjobs. For an easy, obvious example, someone who firebombs medical clincs in the name of his/her imaginary friend is a howling nutjob. Someone who has objections to abortion and therefore chooses not to terminate any of her own pregnancies because of her beliefs is not a howling nutjob, though she and the nutjob would both claim allegiance to the same basic faith brand.

No, sorry SGB, we've been through this 100 times already.

Referring to religion at superstition and referring to a belief in the divine as a belief in an imaginary friend is wrong because it offends people.

Is there any other sphere of life where you offend people continually, where it is completely avoidable, but where you continue to do so purely to upset?

Hear hear MP. Why be offensive needlessly? There are so many other things you could get het up about.