AC Grayling gets it bang on re faith group daftness.

[SolidGoldBangers]

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

but there are literally 100's (probably 1000's if my google searches are anything to go by) of "Advisory" Groups that the government has. All they do is "advise" on issues - on just about anything you could possibly dream about. Doesn't mean they get automatic rights, or have everything they suggest put into policy.

This has obviously moved on.

I am disappointed in morningpaper for being so childish and gratuitously nasty. Racism comparison indeed. Shameful.

Hiding thread now, so

I think MP has a point with her racist comparison. It doesn't quite fit: but racism is a contempt and prejudice due to ignorance and a failure to understand, and there's contempt and prejudice on this thread which can only be due to ignorance, or failure to understand -- a failure apparent even unto the atheists themselves.

Perhaps these threads only attract the particularly vocal and evangelical atheists, on a bit of an ego jag. But Zeph, you said you were a non believer and you have been very balanced and articulate.

I don't know. But it seems they can dish it but not take it.

Just thinking about it further: do SGB and UQD understand why intelligent people have religious belief?

If no, why the contempt and name calling? You cannot judge something you don't understand, and expect people to respect your views.

If yes, what is your understanding, and why do you remain contemptuous? If yes, you must know there are are many different shades of belief: many paths of struggle, questioning, doubt: many roads of reason and tolerance, argument and deep thought that religious believers have travelled.

If it is not interesting to you, then walk away: if it is interesting to you, why alienate people with harsh words

These are quite serious questions, and I doubt whether either can answer them, if they still feel the need to resort to contempt. Contempt is easy for something we don't understand: and this is where MPs comparison with racism is relevant.

Spero, if you feel able to address those questions in a mature way, I would be interested.

Also last I looked atheists were not allowed to discrimate against religious people whereas it's ok the other way around.

Could you give me an example of this, please? (I'm assuming that you don't want to be a Bishop, of course)

Ha, UQD's complaining that the thread's gone 'nasty' and he doesn't want to play any more.

Pots. Kettles. Black.

As an agnostic, I nevr fail to be shocked by the lack of tolerence shown towards Christians on mumsnet in general and on this thread in particular. And what arrogance to declare that you alone are party to the universal truths and to deride those who belive otherwise as

Morningpaper where have you been for the last decade?. There have been discussions and news about the church wanting to bar women, gay people etc and not just from their hierarchy which I can sort of understand. We had the church wanting to bar gay people from adopting children because of course they are not quite human are they.

And to those still saying racism you are making yourself look foolish. The point about racism is that a factor is used to define you, over which you have no control (color for example) and which has no effect on your beliefs, actions or abilities.

Now of course your religion is part of what defines you and upon which you base your actions. In fact many people insist on being judged according to their religion. They say things like "As a christian" or "good christian family" etc

Thank you scarletlilybug for helping me make my point.

Well I can't say I have any control of my faith. I believe, I can't turn round tomorrow and say I disbelief,

and at the end of the day IT'S JUST ANOTHER FECKING ADVISORY BOARD THAT WILL SIT AND DRINK COFFEE, WRITE LONG REPORTS, SHOUT A BIT................and then basically get ignored (just like most of the other advisory groups do.........ACMD debarkle recently anyone???)

Onager, you said that religious people are discriminating against atheists. Can you give an example of that, rather than an example of something entirely different?

And to those still saying racism you are making yourself look foolish. The point about racism is that a factor is used to define you, over which you have no control (color for example) and which has no effect on your beliefs, actions or abilities.

Is it okay to discriminate against gay people then?

Can you clarify exactly which groups it is okay to discriminate against, and which are not okay?

Onagar, I think morningpaper is making a very valid yet perhaps subtle point.

If one is not Christian, not a member of the CoE, then the internal CoE policies would not affect them. If you are a member of the CoE and feeling that the policies are wrong, it you get involved in the theological debate, which happens regularly, as reported in the news. I wouldn't consider this discrimination. You, for example, are immune to any CoE policy which restricts which posts women could hold within that church. In short, it's an internal issue and not your business.

An example of a case where an internal theological issue leaks out into the public domain is the JFS, where racial interpretations on who is and who is not Jewish has repercussions on government policy.

MP gay people haven't any control over their homosexuality. Did you mean this?

But there are different kinds of prejudices. For example, prejudice against expats. People might very well have a prejudice against expats, based on a certain set of beliefs they have about them and the voluntary nature of their expattery. But it wouldn't be acceptable to discriminate against them. You have no idea if any specific expat behaves in a specific way.

Or single parents. Single parenthood is a factor over which we have some control. Is it acceptable to discriminate against them? No. We have no idea if any specific single parent behaves in a particular way, and even if we did, it wouldn't be acceptable to discriminate on the grounds of their single parenthood.

However this is the kind of prejudice against religious believers which is apparently acceptable to some atheists.

I think you must see this, all of you upset at being described as prejudiced. It's hard for you to accept as you probably see prejudice as rather beneath you. But I think you are going to have to!

Stuffit: Well, I think Onager's criteria for "accceptable discrimination/contempt" is that if you have feelings (e.g. of a spiritual need) but don't act on them.

Sounds exactly like another argument I've heard frm our good friend Benedict VVXIVIVX which is generally recognised as being, um, morally obscene ...

stuffitllama I'm confused, are you suggesting that athiests discriminate against the religious? How?

apologies for the garbled second paragraph

The second sentence should have read:
If you are a member of the CoE and feel that the church policies are wrong, you would get involved in the internal theological debate, which happens regularly, as reported in the news.

Perhaps even that isn't much of an improvement . . .

Firstly, apols if this post is taking you back to Wednesday - I've been playing Florence Nightingale in a house full of sick people and have had no time to catch up on the thread! Will read the other posts soon but just wanted to add these thoughts...

I totally agree with MP's post on Thursday at 9.37am. I couldn't have put it better myself, which is why I'm glad you did.

Having given this more thought I think the problem in this particular thread is not about religion, it's in the difference between debate and discussion. In discussion you start from the premise that you aim to engage with your discussion partner and remain open-minded and willing to consider their opinion and willing to reconsider your own opinion. In discussion you place the relationship above point-scoring and assume that you and your ideas are fallible.

In debate you start from the premise that you are pitting yourself against an opponent (which already creates an atmosphere of war), firing missiles and rebuffing any missiles they send your way. As I said earlier, I have had such religious 'debates' with both atheists and believers of various religions (including my own) and on each occasion found them to be objectionably self-oriented because they had no intention of moving forwards in their understanding of the world; they were just out for a battle. Debate is a game, and it is the enemy of thoughtful conversation.

When two debaters get together they immediately understand each other and so enjoy the game. Similarly with two discussers - they enjoy learning from each other. When two opposites are partnered they keep assuming that the other is applying their own approach to conversation and so continually fail to understand each other. The result is mutual antagonism. This is what I see happening on this thread, and I and other MNers have observed it with some of the same posters who've been accused here of causing offence - interestingly not just when posting on religious threads.

I am thankful that there are atheists/ agnostics on this thread who understand the distinction between debate and discussion and are more inclined towards the latter; however, it's a great pity that MN religious threads seem to be dominated by people who just want a game/ fight.

So you accept the truth of the rest then?

I'll see if I can find a nice summary to being you up to date on the discrimination thing, but you really ought to keep up with the news. I'd almost think you were being obtuse on purpose.

As for the other point I'm sorry, but no you can't morally discriminate against gays or anyone else.

Discrimination itself is senseless. Why should you be allowed to say you won't have a gay man as your GP or black people working in the nursery.

It's wrong to reject say a driver on the grounds that you don't like his color because the color makes no difference to his driving.

You can reject him if he is a poor driver though because that is relevant.

It's madness to disapprove of someone just because they were born in the 'wrong' country.

On the other hand if they approve of honour killings for example you have a perfect right to disapprove of them for that even if their whole culture agrees with them (though only to act on that if the law agrees)

To turn that around they have a perfect right to disapprove of you for NOT supporting honour killings. These are real objections to what people are and not fantasies based on what group you perceive them to be in.

I can even understand why some christian churches want to keep women,gay people, non believers out of their hierarchy. Though of course since they claim to be all about loving their neighbor it makes them look hypocritical. And they can't be allowed to apply that to cleaners and admin stuff just because they can't bear to have them around.

They have the right not to approve of me and I have the right not to approve of them. That's why you can't say it's racist not to agree with religion. Well you can say it. You can say that you're a banana if you want, but it makes no sense.

Slug: I'm saying some atheists, in particular on this thread, are prejudiced. Yes, I suppose they do discriminate, in that they post very rudely and aggressively, and as if one is stupid (but possibly you think it's acceptable to talk that way to people you think are stupid). But really, it's that they're prejudiced: they like to think they aren't, because they think they're so damned full of rationality, but unfortunately for me, they are.

MP : aha I didn't understand. I do now.

Well put Merry, very well put. Hope everyone is better in your house.

"In short, it's an internal issue and not your business"

zazizoma, do you apply that to everything? I mean I'm not personally affected by abuse that goes on inside homes for children or old people. Do you advise me to look away and mind my own business?

Onager, discrimination starts with prejudice: you cannot disapprove of discrimination and approve of prejudice.

slug: "But the point is that the majority may have some sort of belief, but the 30% (according to the Life in Britain test) that don't have some sort of belief are not represented." - I agree, and was very shocked to learn this week that, for example, the BBC Trust has ruled to keep atheists out of Thought For The Day. You are wrong to assume that all believers want to push their status ahead of that of non-believers; there are plenty of people like me who have a faith and totally respect other peoples' rights and choices over their own beliefs - without resulting to name calling.

On that score, SGB, however much you claim to respect people's right to believe what they like, the offensive language you use to describe people of faith makes that claim sound like a big lie.

UQD, I don't think MP was comparing you to a racist - she was saying that you are prejudiced against people of faith in the same way that racists are prejudiced against people of particular skin colours. The point she was making was about prejudice, which spans more than just race.

UQD again (sorry, I'm just going through the posts in order; not picking on you, I promise!): "It's fair, though, to say I do find an educated person's belief in religion/superstition hard to understand" - interestingly, in your posting style you remind me of a friend of mine who would say the same thing. Another thing he finds hard to understand is the realm of emotion. He believes that other people's emotions are "a weakness" - astonishing, I know. This is a limitation in his personality (of course we all have limitations of one sort or another), but I don't think it's one that he can't tackle if he wants to. How about you?

Right there's only so many times my 3 yo can sit on my lap watching The Pinball Song while mummy posts on MN - and we're still in our pjs! Will come back to this post later.

scarlet, I totally agree with you and could have posted the same myself.

Going off on a tangent a bit, I find it odd that 'the church' in the UK is generally taken as meaning the church of England and the view of the vocal minority within it that usually hit the headlines with their anti gay adoption views, etc. Even within the CofE there is a heterogenous group of people with widely differing views about gay adoption, ordination of women, etc. Christians in the UK are a very diverse group, with large numbers belonging to other churches.