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, just skimmed because its been a while since I saw this, but from what I have read, totally agree with SGB and Unquiet Dad.

Analogies with racism etc are unhelpful and do underscore what is being said about the angryness of the religious.

Saying that you should keep your religions to yourself because frankly, there are so many different ones and you often gang up on each other, and I can't keep track... is rather different from saying 'ooo a paki, lets stone him and deny him a job'

wouldn't you agree?

Interesting that the religious bleat on about being all offended when their believes are not respected.

Well tough. I don't respect you, I don't respect your beliefs, the same way you don't respect my lack of belief.

BUT what seems to make me different from you, is that I am not asking for special treatment or privileges based on my adherence to one supersition over another.

Religion should not be anything to do with the state. If you have faith in a Supreme Being, that's lovely, it must make you feel all warm and fuzzy... so why so angry about it all???

hmmmm just re read a bit more closely.

I can see an enormous difference between unquiet dad and a racist.

Racism, as I understand it, means you hold beliefs that certain races are inferior or superior and you will act on those beliefs to the detriment of those groups you deem inferior.

Being pissed off with religious people does not mean that I or any other atheist would attempt to deny them a job, a house, a seat on the bus. I would just politely ask them to save their religious talk for their temple, church or other gathering of the like minded and give me some peace on the journey home.

I absolutely defend your right to believe in whatever you want to believe and worship whoever gets you thru the day. But why, o why o why do any of you need to be 'consulted' on that basis by the State?

So Spero . . . who DO you think should be consulted by the state?

I'm sorry that you feel I am coming across as angry. I don't feel particularly angry. I do find it bizarre that intelligent people strive to use language that offends people, purely for the sake of offending. Why are you so keen to maintain your right to offend?

I don't respect your beliefs, the same way you don't respect my lack of belief.

Why would I not respect your beliefs? What beliefs do I disrespect?

The language on this thread is very similar to racism: the demarcation into 'them and us'; the assumption of intellectual superiority; name-calling such as 'howling nutjobs'; stereotyping; claiming the right to be 'contemptuous'; the continued use of language that is intended purely to offend - all of this based on whether people do or do not claim to have a belief in the divine. I fail to see how anyone can be "pissed off with religious people". How is that different to being pissed off with black people or gay people or disabled people - or any other 'group of people'?

I looked up my Life in the UK study materials, and according to the 2001 census 75% of the population claimed a religion and 70% of the population claimed to be Christian. There should be some question about how much the social landscape has changed in eight years, but otherwise I think it's fair to say that requesting input from faith groups is a good way to go about getting a representative perspective.

Why are people saying that religious groups are asking for entitlement through being consulted by government decision makers?

"atheists on MN are so much more evangelist than any religious group here"

you are so right stuffitllllama. They remind me a bit of Dickie Dawkins' recent efforts with schoolchildren and his summer camp where they all learnt about atheism and sang John Lennon songs around the campfire! the irony!!! the happy clappyness of it all!!!!

well I personally make no judgements about people regardless of what they do or don't believe. I don't call my atheist friends nutjobs, and interestingly they don't see it fit to poke fun at my beliefs.

I respect a Muslims' right to believe in Allah, I respect an Atheists to believe in nothing.

the 10% figure quoted in the article is a red herring as it's based on WEEKLY attendance, those that state that they attend every single week. Many more people will attend regularly, but not as regularly as weekly. Many more won't attend at all because of ill health/distance/living in a care home etc etc

UK religion stats from 2001 census:

There are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian. The percentage of Christians is similar between the two countries but the proportion of people who follow other religions is 6.0 per cent in England compared with 1.5 per cent in Wales.

In England, 3.1 per cent of the population state their religion as Muslim (0.7 per cent in Wales), making this the most common religion after Christianity.

For other religions, 1.1 per cent in England and 0.2 per cent in Wales are Hindu, 0.7 per cent in England and 0.1 per cent in Wales are Sikh, 0.5 per cent in England and 0.1 per cent in Wales are Jewish and 0.3 per cent in England and 0.2 per cent in Wales are Buddhist.

In England and Wales 7.7 million people state they have no religion (14.6 per cent in England and 18.5 per cent in Wales).

The English region with the highest proportion of Christians is the North East (80.1 per cent). London has the highest proportion of Muslims (8.5 per cent), Hindus (4.1 per cent) Jews (2.1 per cent) Buddhists (0.8 per cent) and people of other religions (0.5 per cent).

Fifty-eight per cent of people in London gave their religion as Christian, with the highest proportion in the borough of Havering (76 per cent). Thirty-six per cent of the population of Tower Hamlets and 24 per cent in Newham are Muslim. Over one per cent of the population of Westminster are Buddhist, while Harrow has the highest proportion of Hindus (19.6 per cent) and Barnet the highest proportion of Jewish people (14.8 per cent). Over eight per cent of the populations of Hounslow and Ealing are Sikh.

Sixteen per cent of the population of London say they have no religion, including 25 per cent in the City of London.

Outside London, the counties with the highest proportion of Christians are Durham, Merseyside and Cumbria, each with 82 per cent or more. The districts with the highest proportions of Christians are all in the North West: St Helens, Wigan and Copeland (Cumbria) each have 86 per cent or more.

The district with the highest proportion of Sikhs is Slough. One person in seven of the population of Leicester is Hindu. One person in nine of the population of Hertsmere in Hertfordshire, is Jewish. Over one per cent of the population of Cambridge are Buddhist. Brighton and Hove has most people stating other religions (0.8 per cent).

The districts with the highest proportions of people with no religion are Norwich, Brighton and Hove and Cambridge, all with over one-quarter.

In Wales, the highest proportion of Christians is found on the Isle of Anglesey (79 per cent) and the fewest in Blaenau Gwent (64 per cent). Rhonnda, Cynon, Taff has the highest proportion with no religion (25 per cent). Cardiff has the highest proportion of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews. Ceredigion has the highest proportions of Buddhists and people of other religions.

At the time the Census was carried out, there was an internet campaign that encouraged people to answer the religion question "Jedi Knight". The number of people who stated Jedi was 390,000 (0.7 per cent of the population).

The religion question was voluntary, and 4,011,000 people chose not answer it (7.7 per cent).

Regarding the religious question on the census: no distinction was made between people who ticked the [religion] box and meant they believe in Whatever and regularly attend meetings, and those who meant that they were brought up by families who considered themselves [whatever] and the box tickers sort of regarded it as part of their culture/heritage/'well you've got to put something, haven't you?'.

And WRT respecting other people's beliefs however daft, how do the monotheistic among you deal with the equally-deeply-held views of people who adhere to pantheistic systems, such as Hindus? Because, basically, you must think on some level that they are wrong and you are right, or you'd be a Hindu too...

And the equating of race/disability with religion is just silly: a person's ethnic origin is something they have no control or choice over whatsoever. If you adhere to a myth system, you have chosen to do so and can choose, at any point, to swap it for a different one or decide the whole lot is bollocks, and no one but you will necessarily know.

Actually you didn't have to put anything at all - it was voluntary, and 4,011,000 people chose not to answer it (of whom I was probably one).

SGB - What did you answer on the religious question? I can't imagine either you or UQD indicating a familiar religious affiliation.

In answer to your question about Hindu's, I'm fine with them having a representative voice in policy making because I share a social structure with them.

SGB Re. your question about Hindus: I think that most (all?) religions are really symbolic language expressing the concept of one divine state/being. There are effectively 'monotheistic' Hindus (bear in mind that it is an enormous spectrum within that faith alone) who think that all divine entities/gods are an expression of aspect of one supreme being. I've been to Hindu temples, found it extremely moving.

If you adhere to a myth system, you have chosen to do so and can choose, at any point, to swap it for a different
one or decide the whole lot is bollocks, and no one but you will necessarily know.

Yes to an extent that is true, and obviously there is some movement between denominations and even between religions. But a lot of it is to do with language and symbolism that you are familiar with, and that can be hard to 'move across' wholesale - a bit like moving to a forgein country, perhaps. However, I would dispute the idea that theists can 'decide' to be atheists. They may find the arguments for atheism compelling, and many of course find that the arguments for atheism reflect their own inner feelings and experience. But speaking personally, my conviction in the importance of spirituality is very much an important part of the way I feel about the world, and the way I experience life.

(There was also a "no religion" option)

Zazizoma: As I recall I put 'no religion' or whatever that option was. On one level I supported the Jedi campaign, on another level I don't think much of George Lucas's white-supremacist superman cobblers so wasn't going to ally myself with it even if I do think it's no more or less bollocks than any other religion.

ok 2 points SBG.

The LFS - while it's a much smaller sample shows figures that are the same as the census. Plus in Scotland the 2001 census DID ask "religion of upbringing" and "current" - although the figures for "current" were lower than those for upbringing, those that stated they had a current religion were still very much in the majority.

And I'm sure if those people that are no longer practising felt THAT strongly about it (as you do) then they would have put "no religion" - no???

and I would argue that most who "lose" their faith become agonistics, not atheists. At least I certainly know more agnostics than I do atheists, and they all once "had" a strong faith.

Anyway I don't really understand the big objection to allowing faith community leaders their tiny say. Would you really prefer it if it was just James Murdoch and Philip Green that policy makers listened to?

I see the religious people are still being nasty about people who are superstitious. That's ok though isn't it since they are not recognised as an official belief.

I loved the bit where it was conceded you couldn't consult with all religions because there were too many. But that's ok as long as your one is in there right?

Can anyone point out the bit where UQD was 'like a racist?' I've looked up and down and it seems like you just made it up because you couldn't bear to have people disagree with you.

And I'm still waiting for Atheists to be consulted because we are numerically significant. I won't hold my breath

ZephirineDrouhin, they have their say. They get to vote like everybody else. Why should they have an extra voice?

who is being nasty about people who are superstitious?

why should gays, ethnic minorities, "green groups", etc etc get an extra voice - they get a vote as well

There's a bit more to democracy than voting every 5 years, onager.

just about everyone else gets an advisory body - so why not religious groups?

I don't suppose there are that many Ancient Monuments in the UK - but there's an Ancient Monuments Advisory Board.

This has been said before, but I am always confused that the secular camp feels they are "outside" or "sit above" religion. Surely a secular, scientific or atheistic world view is simply one other world view, and just like a religious world view, in terms of it having sets of opinions, values, morals which inform its subscribers how to live in a practical way. I don?t see how the secular is "neutral" ground and should therefore be the status quo as Grayling seems to base his argument on.

However I can see that it is the status quo at the moment due to it being the majority position, which is entirely different. It certainly seems as if it is the secular world view/viewers who are mostly in charge in the UK today and driving the policies. Religious people may get a vote, but it?s doubtful that in the current political system their views will ever really be represented in standard secular driven policies. Surely all these proposals from John Denham entail is for the secularists to merely consult other (religious) world views/viewers to see where views, values, and morality differ or could be problematic? In other words it is simply consulting minority views and initiating dialogue - surely a good thing? Are the critics really saying that the secularist world view is so superior and religious views so deranged that all non-secular views do not even get an airing? Isn?t it better for policy makers to be aware of the different views amongst the electorate and any potential problems?

The new measures are surely a development of democracy and a reflection of a more heterogeneous society. Maybe the secularists are in the majority, but even amongst this group there are probably a myriad of different values and moral views. And its values and morals that are important here because it?s on these fundamentals that laws and policies are made.

"seems as if it is the secular world view/viewers who are mostly in charge in the UK today and driving the policies"

If that were so then you'd not see our kids being taught to believe in gods in school. Also last I looked atheists were not allowed to discrimate against religious people whereas it's ok the other way around.

Consulting is one thing, but what we're really talking about is pandering to pressure groups and allowing extra rights for some people