AC Grayling gets it bang on re faith group daftness.

[SolidGoldBangers]

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

Sorry but there is genuine cause for concern about the rise in superstitious special pleading, so it is important to keep on stating the case for a secularized society (which does not mean banning superstitions, merely not giving them special treatment which other people don't get).The main thing is, you won't die of being offended, or disagreed with. And the insistance that your superstitions (generic you, not any individual) are taken seriously (eg people have to go at least, 'oh well, there must be something in it' or you're not happy) is special pleading.
Vegans, for example, think all meat is murder. SHould they be obliged to shut up about this viewpoint in a public debating forum because it might offend meat eaters?
(I eat meat, loads of it, and don't agree that it's murder, but am not traumatized by a vegan saying so.)

Well let's just call gay people sodomisers and pansies and black people 'coloured', so they can stop all their special pleading too (actually sounds a bit like christmas lunch conversation but)

Haven't read enough about the community leader proposal so my comments will be about other aspects of this artice:

1. Interesting source of information stating that 10% of the population follows a faith. The 'unchurched church' (i.e. Christians who have a faith but can't stand church) is a fast-growing section of my faith group, and there are dozens of books already written and published about it. No stats available for that, and I have no idea how this operates in other faiths - so Grayling's statistic can only be guesswork.

2. "following the glowing example of Northern Ireland where this exact-same policy fostered mutual hostility and even murder" - umm, I may be wrong but I thought the cause of 'mutual hostility and murder' in Northern Ireland was the fact that aeons ago the English invaded and refused to leave?

3. If Denham truly has 'poured scorn on' secularists (as opposed to that being Grayling's biased interpretation - I genuinely don't know which is true) then that is as wrong as SGB and others pouring scorn on people of faith. We have both made a choice about faith, why should any of us be scornful and intolerant towards each other because we've made different choices?

4. As always on MN religious thread (yawn) there are so many assumptions made on this thread based on the words and actions of genuine religious nutter extremists. That's as ridiculous as the person on a SF thread who said one preg woman in the USA died a horrific death from SF because she wasn't vaccinated, and therefore all preg women should be vaccinated. If you only look at the extreme cases, you will always be wrong - and can rightly be accused of being a nut-job yourself.

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.>>

But isn't that statement offensive to people are are superstitious? If you are saying "don't compare is to those losers!" which is how it comes across.

My problem with these discussions is that they are asking a minority to help decide things for the rest of us.

Or are we saying they will be giving wiser advice because they are getting it direct from the gods? That would be even scarier.

As for the whole 'keep your religion quiet' thing. I don't require people to hide their religion, but I demand they stop trying to impose it on me.

If religious people are entitled to an opinion then so am I. My opinion is that it's a complete fantasy which is unhealthy for the individual and for society. I'd rather take hard drugs than lose the ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.

But isn't that statement offensive to people are are superstitious?

I'm sure they can argue their own case, if that is so.

If someone professes belief in Odin, Freya, Apollo or Isis, would you call them religious or superstitious? How about if their imaginary friend of choice is Baron Samedi or the Orishas (Vaudun and Santeria deities, to save you the bother of looking it up)? Or the Thetans, for that matter? At what point does a set of myths and collection of named entities achieve privileged status?
I have no problem with whatever old bollocks people want to believe in, I do have a problem with some superstitions rather than others being given special legal status and can't see why this should be, that's all.

SGB, do you honestly think that every minority group can be accounted for? Why not include Emos, Goths, S&M devotees or National Trust members? The point of this initiative, as far as I can see, is that unlike you many people see the value of religion and what it can bring to a nation. They also see how influential it is and that however much secularists may want it to disappear, it won't. Of course all religions can't be drawn under the umbrella, and I do wonder whether you're just playing devil's advocate whenever you ask this question - you're more intelligent than that.

I also think it's a misapprehension when people assume that objectionable evangelicalism comes only from the religious. I have encountered this from extremist black separatist groups who see me as a traitor because I had the temerity to marry a white man (oh, the look on their faces when I introduced them to my DH - priceless!). Also DH has told me about his experience at art school, where every straight male that started the fashion course felt pressurised by the gay men on the course and by the end of the course every one of them professed to be gay - 100% homosexuality in any population? Not likely. If instead of those actions being committed by black and gay people, I told you that it was Muslims and Christians, you'd happily believe it, wouldn't you?

"Well let's just call gay people sodomisers and pansies and black people 'coloured', so they can stop all their special pleading too"

Theres a slight difference here though MP. Gays and black people don't demand that religious people should be deprived of their human and employment rights on the basis of their faith though are they? It's still legal to discriminate against homosexuals if the employer is the Church. Hardly special pleading I think.

slug - if you look closely you'll find many people within all wings of the Church (it's a broad organisation) who find this objectionable. It doesn't do anyone any favours to make gross oversimplifications.

Given that there are followers of all of these supposedly to be taken account of (scroll down for the list) how on earth is one supposed to do so? Secularism is the only sensible way forward.

UQD - no matter how highly you may prize your choices over people of faith, secularism is still a decision made about religion, as is choosing to follow a religion.

In the same way that not having a particular football team influencing policy is a "decision made about football" ?...

A simple test:

Should followers of David Icke be given a voice? Why (not)?

Are they followers of a) a superstition or b) a religion or c) neither? Why?

No, in the same way that not choosing a football team is 'a decision made about football'.

Saying that secularism is entirely separate from religion is like saying that homosexuality is entirely separate from sexuality. There are different types of sexuality, there are different types of decision on religion.

As for David Icke's followers, why don't you fill me in - all I know is that when he was on Wogan back in the day, some of my schoolfriends saw the programme and said he was rather weird.

UQD: FWIW (nothing to you), that sort of website is offensive to me - "God's Christians deny" ? As per usual, you are taking an extreme example of 'a religious person' (some christian fundamentalist who believes all other religions are worshipping false idols) and saying that because there is such an extreme, that invlidates the entire christian perspective. You may as well shove the swastike in the face of any German and say "SEE? THIS IS WHY WE DON'T LISTEN TO YOU!"

Who should be listened to in matters of government policy? Any religious body that is numerically significant and that wants to be consulted, I imagine

MrsMerryHenry Whether or not there are members of religious groups that object to the human rights abuses inflicted on women, homosexuals, etc (and I know many who do) the fact remains that these groups have managed by dint of special pleading to be allowed to circumvent human rights and employment legislation that applies to all other members of society. Surely there is a double think going on. If you object to this discrimination, then why do you belong to an organisation that actively promotes it?

You may be the top person for the job. The most qualified, experienced and have the best personal attributes, but you can't have the job because you are a woman. Why is this illegal if the job is a banker but legal if the job is Bishop?

Why does an organisation whose USP is love and tolerance enshrine inequality and demand that they be allowed to carry on doing so, in opposition to the law of the country, simply because of a set of beliefs? I think the BNP are a bunch of nutters, but I'm not allowed to refuse one a job on that basis. Why is that set of beliefs less valid than the one that says gays cannot adopt children?

I agree with MrsMerryHenry's question on statistics . . . I recently finished my life in the UK test, and the percentage of people who are affiliated with a religion was more like 70%, though I confess not remembering the exact number. (I did pass my test though . . . )

The belief in logic is not the same as religious belief, which is more of an illogical experience, in my, er, experience. But still, for many people, a real experience. (I'll stop now . . )

If you object to this discrimination, then why do you belong to an organisation that actively promotes it?

There are lots of churches that do not. Many local churches have signed "Inclusive Church" pledges which explicitly state that they will employ anyone, regardless of sexuality.

Why is there the need to lump all people with religious convictions into the same category of unthinking hypocrites?

Local or not, at a national level this is still very much the enshrined way of doing things. My problem with it is, the special pleading is still allowed in law and churches are still invited to comment on moral issues whereas those without religion are not. The local churches may be in disagreement, but the law still allows them to discriminate, whether or not they choose to take advantage of it. I haven't seen much lobbying from my local Methodist church (who have signed up to the agreement) to get the law changed. What ever happened to "Not in My Name"?

I find it very very difficult to take any moral comment from the churches seriously when their leadership and basic beliefs enshrine discrimination. (Quakers being the notable exception)

Oh dear. Bringing Nazi imagery into the argument never really helps, does it?

It's just a list of gods. That's all. The best and most comprehensive one I could find. Of course you may not "deny" them all, but my point was not that - my point was that there is no way the followers of all these religions/faiths/superstitions can be accommodated.

Well, yes, David Icke is rather weird. In my opinion. (I can't summarise him any better than his Wikipedia page does, and so I won't attempt to do so.) But that's the point - when it comes to religion/superstition, one person's reasonable and obvious is another person's weird.

Bringing Nazi imagery into the argument never really helps, does it?

Ermm well perhaps you could say the same to Grayling? Bringing the inquisition into the debate doesn't really help either, does it?

I can give another example if you like - what about bringing up slavery every time you meet someone from Bristol?

I am giving an example of extreme behaviour (in this case from history) being used as a brush to tar a large number of people. Can you just clarify how my argument differs from his?

What I want to clarify is how my providing a link to a comprehensive list of gods worshipped by superstitions/religions counts as "taking an extreme example as per usual".

And is it me or is "numerically significant" somewhat nebulous?

It's fun to debate on these issues, but I object to you using language deliberately to offend, when people keep pointing out that it is offensive to them.