"Why we should no longer be cowed by the chattering classes ruling Britain who sneer at Christianity"

[BetsyBoop]

Just thought I'd share I found this a really interesting "Easter essay" in today's Mail.

Tbh, he sounds like a grumpy old man having a bit of a rant. How unusual for the Mail.

I only skimmed the start of the article - it was a bit long-winded - will try to get back to it.

I have wondered many of the sames things recently.

I really don't get people who want to ban, ban, ban things in our communities that are good. Even if you don't identify with Christian worship, you have to admit that church is a good thing, especially in the area of mission. The state falls very short of supporting everyone who needs to be supported - the church steps in, without quibbling about money or time or whose job it is.

There was a report on the news yesterday about some nutter secular leader calling for hospital chaplaincies to be quashed. How silly! If patients and families find them of benefit, why would you want to get rid of them? I bet they are a lot cheaper than counsellors.

I knew this would be the Mail before I opened the thread! They have a way with words, bless their rabble-rousing hearts.

It was quite good to read though, apart from this para which is complete tommyrot;

"Sadly, they [the CofE bishops] have all but accepted that only stupid people actually believe in Christianity, and that the few intelligent people left in the churches are there only for the music or believe it all in some symbolic or contorted way which, when examined, turns out not to be belief after all."

Why does there always have to be this looking back over the shoulder to the good old days when bishops were noble and the people were faithful? Human nature is what it has always been and I cannot see any evidence that there have ever been better bishops than we have now. The bishops I have met are fantastic, deeply committed and fiercely intelligent. Speaking of which, if I took a sample of churchgoers from my home town and cross-matched them against a control sample I could pretty well predict that they'd be less, not more stupid. THe Christains I am privileged to worship with are creative and thoughtful.

This kind of 'glory days' thinking is part of the 'Merrie England' mythology and has no basis in Christianity. Funnily enough it is echoed in a secular form in the Conservative local councillors round here; "the country's gone to the dogs", that kind of thing. Not surprising to see it in a religious piece n the Mail then.

Sigh...

It surprises me the number of Christians who are surprised or angered by the anti-Christian feeling in the world.

The Bible warns that such things will happen in the end times.

"Even if you don't identify with Christian worship, you have to admit that church is a good thing"

I don't. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not in favour of banning religion though. Only curbing it's authority over the non religous.

I respect every man and woman's right to their own hallucinations and obsessions.

Bless the DM, they are good entertainment value if nothing else.

I read this too and thought, oh cock off you silly old sod. It's the same old whining-buckethead-Christian (as opposed to nice people who just happen to be Christians) crap which translates as 'Bwaaaaaahhhh! You're not letting me insist that everyone does Christian stuff and if they say it's not their cup of tea thanks they should be put in PRISON!'
HInt: losing your privilege status is not the same as being discriminated against.

I see it tries to imply that conscience, enjoyment of beauty, music, love etc is religious.

Also displays ignorance of how science works. >>Ah, say the rationalists. But no one can possibly rise again after death, for that is beyond the realm of scientific possibility>>

I don't see a rational person saying that since science is the knowledge we have so far. In fact strictly speaking if you could put every atom back where it belonged the person would carry on where they left off so it is 'scientifically possible'

Thanks for all the responses, I always find it fascinating how people read such different things into the same words.

I agree there are definitely bit of "grumpy old man" in there but the article struck a special resonance with me, as some of you know, I've been on a similar journey recently from a period of no faith, to finding my faith again.

I can also understand what he is getting at when he is talking about beauty, music, love etc, you do experience them in a different way without faith than you do with faith, I have experienced both ways in recent years.

I get tired of people suggesting that lack of faith equates with a deficit of emotional awareness about the world.

I can find beauty in a sunset, be moved by music, be amazed at the intricacies of a spider's web but I don't need to believe that these things were created by some Supreme Being in order to have those feelings.

He'd perhaps get his message across better if he didn't come out with shit like "fanatical feminist-in-chief". It's lazy argument - ignoring the fact that many atheists are sane, non-sneering, tolerant and respectful people - I mean, you could pull as many people up who are tossers and point to their religious belief. But then he's writing for the Mail. Go figure.

Agree with Justa. It's not about it being better, it's just different. Sometimes it's most definitely not better, actually.

In fact, his talk about "materialist atheism" being an illogical arid creed displays just as much intolerance. So he lost his faith because he felt uncool. Well, pity for him, frankly - I'd rather teach my dd - as an atheist - that her principles and values as a decent human being are far more important than what's cool.

And not believing in an everlasting life doesn't take away your sense of amazement and joy at nature/art/music/the human mind and body - I find it perhaps even more amazing now than when I was religious - I think I took it more for granted then.

But yes, completely bored with privileged western Christians whining.

Persecution of Christians happens in the world today, and I find it offensive to hear people who aren't facing it at all whinging about somethihng which isn't persecution at all.

i have just bookmarked the article and not read it properly , but i beg to differ re the sunset example
eg i have alwyas loved waterfalls, now i am a christian i still love them, but i can also thank GOD for them, likewise with a sunset. it has more signifigance, HE causes it to happen, and i appreciate aND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

See, mufti - now I find even more amazement in physics re sunsets, waterfalls, etc than I ever did amazement and wonder at a god.

so habbibu , you said you "were " religious , have you gone towards atheism from being as believer?
ie the opposite of the article writer
i also look at ds sometimes the way he is constsntly developing and changing , and the makings of his mind and body, and think ,"how else?" its marvellous

Yes, I was brought up Catholic, did Lourdes, etc and became an atheist in my 20s.

FWIW, scienceteacher, I absolutely agree that the idea of banning hosp chaplains is daft. Even if you don't believe in God, the importance of psychological/spiritual support to the patient in a way that is appropriate to them is incredibly important in recovering health, or, in the case of terminal illness, to the pain/stress of the patient, and the mental well-being of the family. And it's not up to me or anyone else atheist to say that a person who believes in god shouldn't have the support that will help them most (and therefore be most cost-effective) because I don't believe in it. Just so long as there is similar support for those of us who don't want a chaplain - from my experience there is.

bit like my dh

exactly Justa & Kay, that's why I was careful to say you experience things in a "different" way with faith, different wasn't meant to imply "better", just well "different"!

Do you know I didn't realise we were still employing hospital chaplins.

I have no problem with sick people getting support from their religion/church etc but isn't a hospital chaplin a bit specific? Unless you're going to have an Imam, a Rabbi and 50 others at £40m per faith.

chaplains I mean. I must have been thinking of Charlie.