Why is atheism important in the UK?
October 26, 2012 by Mark Embleton
Filed under Atheism
Atheism UK would like your opinions on why atheism is important.
Why are we asking, especially as we can list our own answers? Let me explain:
Probably everyone who is a member or supporter of Atheism UK has joined us because they want to help challenge the malign effects of religious faith, are knowledgeable atheists and know most of the issues.
However, we regularly receive e-mails from believers and non-believers alike asking why religion should be challenged; why can’t we live and let live, and be more tolerant of people’s religious beliefs? After all, we live in a ‘Christian country’ and what harm is it doing, etc? (I’ll add that comments are not confined to Christianity).
Since Atheism UK started just 3 years ago we have realized that there appears to be a general apathy towards religion as many people don’t know what the issues are, or are uninterested because they don’t see religion affecting them directly.
Of course, there are lots of religious issues for atheists and secularists to be concerned about, but here in the UK we don’t really have that one central burning issue or rallying point. Individual atheists may have their own issue(s) they think are particularly important, but not everyone will agree. Compare this to our friends at Atheist Ireland who saw a huge swell of support after the reintroduction of a blasphemy law in 2009 (blasphemy laws were repealed in the UK in 2008).
So, we’d like to know why you think atheism is important in the UK today and what, for you, are the major issues.
You can add to the issues already suggested on our main Forum here.
We’ll collate your responses with the aim of creating a page on the web site where visitors can see what the issues are as identified by the atheist community and why it is important to challenge them.
Many thanks,
Mark Embleton
President
If people want to believe in religion and derive great comfort from it then that’s OK by me. I’m simply against organised religion which I think is socially divisive; and I’m against religious people and entities getting special treatment (tax benefits, etc.).
All religions claim superiority over others and demand exclusivity. This creates social and cultural divisions that are stronger than ethnic differences and make, by their very nature, absolute (to my thinking absurd!) claims that are irrefutable. The most intolerant people in society are, in fact, religious people. Their holy books urge them to kill others who do not share their beliefs, even their own children.
Religions are also prescriptive over outdated moralities that separate and treat unequally social groups based on issues including but not limited to gender, sexual orientation, abortion rights – a host of issues that are private and no one else’s business (so long as they do not cause harm to other persons).
There are demands for special religious privileges in the work place: wash rooms, prayer breaks, wearing of religious jewellery, headgear, etc. Being religious shouldn’t grant extra rights over others in society. Everyone should be subject to exactly the same laws of the land.
I also agree with Richard Dawkins that imposing religious belief on children is, in many cases, a form of child abuse. And making any kind of decision based on irrational religious beliefs (such as whether or not to invade Iraq) scares me. The church must be disestablished from the state.
In summary, therefore, I believe atheism is synonymous with secularism. Only atheism can be guaranteed to uphold our laws and apply them equally regardless of religious affiliation. All people should be subject to the same laws and religion’s special status under the law removed.
My main reason is that the ruling classes are hand in hand with Religious hierarchy. Therefore atheists do not get a fair hearing.
Second, they make sure that census forms are deliberately vague, to still include virtually non-religious as being religious.
Third, Wrongs committed by the Church or it priests are covered up and not properly covered by the media. Religious people I speak to say that the victims of priest abuse, for example, are lying to try and destroy the church!
Fourth, religion still keeps women as second class citizens (all because Jesus had a penis).
Fifth, Blasphemy a victimless crime is always used to shut people up with genuine complaints and concerns. I have personally had my letters removed accusing blasphemy, when I cannot tie down a meaning of that term other than upsetting someone I disagree with. In no other subject, ie politics, business could anyone get away with such behaviour. It is not as though I was being rude or personally offensive, just disagreeing on a point of argument.
From a pragmatic point of view, religion serves no positive purpose that any other real world alternative could not adequately address with actual results. As a rationalist it quite frankly disgusts me that something can be literally beaten around people’s heads without even a sniff of proof or evidence to back it up!
What are arguably the world’s most ridiculous claims are accepted at governmental levels without question, but any other principle of life open to scrutiny is demanded of to produce the self same evidence, even though it may be glaringly obvious it is true, it must still be proved! Oh but not God, no how dare I question the veracity of a non testable, unprovable, fictitious, strangely male oriented but still supernatural, invisible overlord!!
How narrow minded of me, the blasphemous atheist sceptic who is clearly the devils banner bearer! It is perversely amusing to me because if there was some evidence found then it is the scientific community that the religious so vehemently oppose that would be the one’s capable of providing actual proof! Head to wall repeated forceful contact anyone?
For me it’s the oft quoted fact that:
1. Beliefs inform actions
2. Actions are not contained within a personal bubble.
3. Actions have effects on others
4. These effects if based on untrue beliefs can have malign effects e,g. the constant stories of faith healers (who kill!), sex abusers and the cover ups surrounding them, disuading people from using condoms, discrimination of gay people. etc. etc. etc.
5. Religious beliefs based on “faith” are the ultimate expression of these untrue beliefs.
There are harms and I simply cannot “live and let live” about!
I care too much about people to let these beliefs go unchallenged! And it is the concept of “faith” that is the root cause.
Christopher Hitchens made an important distinction when he defined himself not just as an atheist but as an antitheist. Antitheism can be therefore defined as a confrontational reaction to organised religion, all claims to a personal god and all the tyrannical corollaries of such beliefs.
This leaves us with the important question of how to actually define atheism positively rather than with reference to theism or the religions. In many ways, atheism is meant to transcend the battles of religion and anti-religion and address a world where theism is confined to the history books along with all other forms of superstition, irrational fear and ignorance.
In many ways atheism only begins to make sense after antitheism has won the argument and has successfully managed to render itself irrelevant. Otherwise, it is meaningless at best and a sign of apathy or perhaps pathological denial at its worst. In other words, “I do not believe in God and I do not care to know if you do”.
The UK is probably the closest to a society where religion has become irrelevant. It is therefore precisely here in this country that we may have an opportunity to define what atheism means in a self-sufficient and meaningful form, not as a lazy alternative for antitheism.
So what may this purer meaning be? In my view, the answer to this question becomes clearer when we begin to inspect the devastation and the barren lands left behind following the retreat of religion from the public consciousness. The ethical questions that have historically been muffled by the empty slogans and the circular tautologies recited pompously from the pulpit remain largely unanswered.
Morally, we do have a secular way of defining the concept of “bad”. It is called the legal system. Bad is what is illegal. However, not being “bad” does not make ones actions necessarily “good”. We do not have a secular way of attempting to define “good”. This is where atheism can become truly important.
The fact that I haven’t committed murder or theft or rape does not make me a good person. There are however certain things upon which we can all agree as humanists as being genuinely and almost universally good.
Rescuing a drowning child, being kind to a stranger, expanding our knowledge, creating a thing of beauty are all things that most of us would see as positive because they are intrinsically good and not because they please some cruel, judgemental and most importantly, absent deity.
Unless atheists begin to capture this ground, attempting to define the values that unite us in a general sense of defining the concept of “good”, we are leaving the door wide open for religion to return and retake this ground. Unless we want this to happen we need to create a secular spirituality, in a sense a “church with no God”.
Why do politicians everywhere feel compelled to pretend to hold some form of deep faith and be seen to attend religious services? It is purely because this is the only way that they can visibly and portentously demonstrate an adherence to some form of moral and ethical value system. There is no alternative framework that they can point to.
On the other hand, why don’t our fellow atheists possess any opportunity to regularly and freely congregate and discuss the positive moral aspects of their lives? Of course, these values are largely personal but surely as thinking and inquisitive beings we will continue to try and make sense of the values that we do share and provide an alternative to dogma. Otherwise, we are abandoning this ground to the god merchants.
The human need for moral and ethical values will not go away as religion disappears. We need to provide an alternative framework for these questions to be posed, debated and evolved. Atheism needs to become a referenceable moral framework which can be taken seriously. In this way atheism could become relevant and important in the UK.
Danny, I hope you do not mind me quoting you here but I do as a way to trigger my thoughts and write them here, which I have been meaning to do for a while. You say ‘The UK is probably the closest to a society where religion has become irrelevant’ and on certain levels I would agree, however, I still think that, socially, it is the biggest elephant in our collective room!
Religion is so ingrained in our society, in our ceromonies, laws and language it makes me so angry (and increasingly so!) The trouble is that we cannot openly discuss it and challenge it. When did you last hear anyone ask why we even have an Archbishop of Canterbury when the whole business of religion, in their view was based on a lie? It is just accepted that it is an important role in this country and afforded a huge amount of gravitas. If religion is becoming irrelevant in this country why is this still happening?
Why, whenever there is a murder or disaster in a community, does the local vicar or other church leader get wheeled out in front of the cameras to tell us that the response is to gather together and pray for the families effected!!! WHY does the reporter not ask why their god allowed a young girl to be raped and killed or the bus to crash or the flood waters to decimate a street?? Why do they allow the church to speak for the community?
Speaking of the Archbishop of Canterbury, let’s get him on TV with Paxman or someone else and ask some proper questions. Why do you believe in God? DO YOU really believe in God or is it just a means to an end for you and other christians? etc etc… But let’s face it, we cannot do it because it would be ‘offensive’, ‘disrespectful’ ‘stirring up racial hatred’ etc,etc.
The idea of the christian God comes from the bible so let’s publicly, openly examine it and debate it and challenge it like we would anything else!! It is so fundamental to the notions of where we are from, where we are going and why, that we as atheists should be standing up together and shooing the elephant from the room!! Thanks elephant, we’ll take it from here….
I’ve got an antique blunderbuss we can use to start with, count me in Petchiism!! I agree totally with the religious representative comments.
Oh look, some people have been killed in a freak weather accident, lets ask this confused old man in absurd fancy dress robes carrying a bronze age fictional story book, to make us all feel better about it by letting him tell us completely idiotic lies, to our faces, and lets all pretend that we agree with him and that it makes everything all better again!!!!!
When you look at it from a realistic perspective, I struggle to find anything more insulting than a religious service!!
Good evening Virtus83. As a newbee I’ve studied the site… Nearly everything. I could reiterate your points and views but it’d be futile. What you have to accept is this… The world revolves around religion and atheism does not the structure to change it. Yet
That’s what we aim to do, change perspectives so that religion can be seen as the childish nonsense it is and remove that cloak of respectability that it surrounds itself with.
I find it fascinating that such a general question elicits almost exclusively responses referring to Christianity and the bad-old CofE. I would definitely contend that the greatest danger posted to atheist aspirations comes not from the Christian church, but from the influx of other religions, which threaten to hijack the entire religious fabric of the UK.
The rise and phenomenal success of radical Islam is the biggest threat to any civilized society, not only the UK, which we are discussing here. I fear genuinely for any atheists, secularists, or even those who just don’t give a toss. I fear that we will become overrun by these misguided fanatics – should they get what they openly call for, such things as Atheism UK would not even exist. People like us would be thrown into jail, slaughtered as blasphemers, hunted down and tortured. The focus, in my opinion, should be in nipping this insidiousness in the bud (if it is not already too late) – kill it off, oust it, then we can get back to the relatively non-serious business of bringing down the CofE.
To Robert Angel
I would first ask if you are religious in any way, and if so which in particular?
If not then I find it a rather naive view on your part to say “the world revolves around religion”. I humbly suggest you are wrong. All evidence points to a massive decline in religiosity “where people are educated to a good standard”, as they can make informed judgements and decisions and see the lies of the theological brow beaters for what they are.
However, in areas that use religion as a form of state education or a key aspect of it then you see quite the reverse effect. Throw in some scaremongering by their so called leaders and its a national infection of their psyche that takes place.
If humanity vanished without trace tomorrow, the Earth would more than likely benefit from our absence, it’s rotation would still be 26 degrees off axis and the solar year still taking a full orbit of the sun. Religion would be erased from existence and the Earth, would care not a jot!!
Religion is based on fear and emotional manipulation. Why do you have to pay in church??? Its a voluntary contribution they say…..how they look down at you though when you don’t put anything in!! How very “Christian” of them. The sentence for apostasy (leaving the religion), is DEATH within the laws of the “peaceful” Qu’ran. Jihad anyone?!!
Take for instance the media portrayal of Mohammed in newspapers, hang on a minute!! The Islamic’ don’t allow ANY pictures or representations of their prophet EVER!! So how the hell do they know what he actually looks like and how can they get angry at something they don’t even have an original version of anyway!!
Religion is for those without the wit or courage to voice their cause and beliefs in a rational and ultimately provable environment because THEY know it’s all a shambolic lie to control the minds and lives of the weak, fearful and foolish.
I agree absolutely with Radicalpoz and it is insane to keep sidestepping the fact that every fanatical action in the majority of cases is overwhelmingly the result of ISLAMIC influence! To keep burying our heads in the sand is ridiculous and we might as well just hand them the keys to Westminster!!
I am not trying to attack you personally Robert, I simply have very strong and “provable” views on this topic and do not like “apologists” and “sympathisers”, evidence speaks for itself and religion does not use evidence but superstition. This is simply a fancy word for “self delusional storytelling”, I have no time for this.
Welcome to Atheism UK!!
Hello everyone. My first post.
I don’t think atheism is at all important. It’s ‘secularism’ that is important. An atheistic society could not be fully democratic.
I am an atheist who gets frustrated seeing all the misery religion is causing around the world right now, but it isn’t my place to judge others. We have to stand back and watch them make their mistakes, even if they don’t learn any lessons.
Why would an atheist society not be fully democratic?
Unfortunately tookey, standing back and allowing them to make their mistakes involves doing nothing when a young girl has her clitoris hacked off with a rusty blade. While I refuse to take the law into my own hands and will not agree with vigilantes, I will always campaign against against human rights violations.
I see nothing wrong with judging a group as savage and intolerant if they promote violence. The difference between me and them is I expect a conclusion to any complaint to be resolved by a judicial and democratic court, not an execution mob.
Secularism is only the seperation of church and state, it does not guarantee democracy. Neither does atheism, although I think all the regular members of this group support equal rights for all.
To say we just observe smacks of the peversions of cultural-relativism and some of the other geek-philosphies of the post-modern movement.
Hi tookey
Ok let’s start with “atheism is not at all important” it is “secularism” that is the ultimate goal. The US constitution is the most secular document in the developed world and yet the US is the most rabidly christian society, which regularly undermines the rights of the godless. In Kentucky for example an extension to the Homeland Security Act requires the states citizens to recognise the protection provided by god or risk 12 months imprisonment.
http://goo.gl/f2eoh
Is this an example of secular democracy ?
You then go on to infer religion “makes mistakes” which it may not learn from. Have you ever considered the possibility that the religious do not make mistakes (or that they don’t recognise them as mistakes) and that they truly believe that every action, no matter how reprehensible, is justified by their belief in their particular deity. Thus, as far as they are concerned they have nothing to learn.
It is at this juncture that atheism assumes an importance that supersedes secular considerations, it is here that atheists point out the hypocrisy of religious belief, it is here that we quit standing back and doing nothing, and take them on head on and we owe it to ourselves and future generations to do so.
This is the 21st century and bronze age mythology and “magic books” should have long since been consigned the the dustbin of history. Unfortunately they have not, but maybe with our help they can be.
The majority of atheists are secularists, but secularism on its own is not enough.
The separation of church and state (secularism) just means that one does not interfere with the other and religion does not have undeserved or preferential privilege in law.
However, secularism does not prevent children being indoctrinated into religion by their parents, clergy or private schools. Secularism does not stop the malign effects of religion because it upholds the protection of religious freedom, even if those religious beliefs are demonstrably untrue or abhorrent.
Hi Stephen, Russel and Mark
The reason I say leave them to their religions doesn’t mean I haven’t tried to talk some sense into my theist friends – I have, and at great length. At the end of the day they will not let go of their religions. I leave them to it.
As for secularism, I can’t see why that isn’t enough. One cannot – in any free society – outlaw religion. I think the key words here are ‘free society’ and that means freedom OF religion as much as freedom FROM religion. Yes, the young will be indoctrinated into their parent’s religion, but it’s hardly abuse. However, circumcision IS abuse and should be outlawed! I was christened C of E but it means absolutely nothing to me and so I’m not going to castigate my parents for it. If they had signed me up to the local Nazi party, that would be a different matter!
There are many things I would like to see the back of – not just religion. Therefore if I were to fight to rid the planet of religion I would also need to tackle all the other things I dislike with equal vigour, and that would be impossible.
The best I can do is lead by example and hope that others follow.
There is a distinct difference between campaigning against something and outlawing it. I do not believe anyone in this group would outlaw religion, freedom of belief is a basic human right.
However, religions will continue to campaign, even in a secular state and a secular state alone is not a guarantee of freedom from religious fanatacism, as Russell pointed out. Therefore, there needs to be a strong voice against these people.
You seem to think we want some sort of fascist or Stalinist state towards religion, that is certainly not the case.
However, I will not sit back and see people indoctrinated in ways that can kill – jehovahs who deny blood transfusions to their children, parents who turn to prayer rather than calling a doctor or scam healers who claim they can cure HIV and persuade people to give up the medicines that are working.
It should be blindingly obvious why secularism is not enough, the religionists and religious opportunists will do what they have done in the USA and, possibly, worse. Especially if we sit back and do nothing.
Well, we have to be careful when making moral judgements on others, however abhorrent their practices might be. What we may judge to be morally wrong in our comfortable western world, could very well be judged morally good in the uncomfortable third world, and if we protest against them they will see that as an attack on their religion, rather than a rational show of disgust. That’s why I say we need to lead by example – show them a better way rather than telling them they are evil.
I don’t differentiate between religions – as far as I’m concerned anyone who declares themselves religious are complicit in the suffering of all victims of harmful religious practices. A protestant christian is as guilty of the suffering of a Jewish baby undergoing circumcision as the Jewish parents allowing the procedure to go ahead.
As the late Christopher Hitchens once said, “It is the religious moderates who give the fanatics validity”. Oh, how true!
Russell
I have finally had chance to read the article you linked to. There are many cases like that in the States.
The US is a new world made up of many imported cultures. They hold on to their roots, and that almost always involves a religious backdrop. It would be interesting to hear what Jews, Muslims, etc think of the christian claim that the USA is a christian nation.
tookey, you conveniently move your argument to the third world, the instances of religious abuse I mentioned have all happened in England or America. FGM is illegal here and allowing a child to die in any cirmcumstance when medicine can help it should be. By sitting back and pretending people will follow your ways because they are good is about as sane as any religious argument.
Your Hitchens quote is a good one but you could easily include apologists in it as well and you fall into that category.
Your original argument was that secularism alone is enough. Do you honestly think a state will stay secular if nothing is done to protect that secularism, if you do you are living in cloudcuckooland.
tookey2k,
I find it quite annoying when someone says they are against religious practises that are “questionable” or “morally abhorrent”, then goes on to come up with half assed reasons to ignore them and pretend “its just their way” . The LAW exists to protect the lives of free people who VOTED for those LAWS, in accordance with the agreement that ALL people abide by the LAW equally. Religion does not hold itself accountable to the LAW, in it’s own eyes religion IS the LAW.
Your reference to Nazi / Fascist indoctrination is in NO WAY any different to the RELIGIOUS indoctrination of children. I will go a step further and argue that the Hitler Youth were actually a vastly more credible establishment than any religion, simply because they were idolising a REAL person and a REAL ideology. And no I do not in ANY way support his actions or that of the Nazis regime. @tookey2k, I will tell you clearly why secularism IS NOT enough. Apostasy (the separation of an individual from their current religion), is punishable by DEATH within Islam. Imagine one day telling a mobile phone company that you didn’t want your contract with them any more……then 4 men drag you from you’re bed at night and stab you to death, honourably of course, because you SEPARATED yourself from the contract. Now play that ideology out across the whole of the United Kingdom, at what point do you think that sitting back and waiting for secularism to make the STATE (the law), and religion (God’s law), SEPARATE will result in anyone having the remotest chance of FREEDOM????
” It would be interesting to hear what Jews, Muslims, etc think of the christian claim that the USA is a christian nation”
I imagine they would be a trifle miffed, however, it does’nt alter the fact that the majority of religious believers are christians in the US.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
FYI the US constitution defines the US as a secular nation, with a legal seperation of church and state, so those advocating the extension to the Homeland Security Act are actually breaking the law by undermining the First Ammendment to the Constitution.
“I have finally had chance to read the article you linked to. There are many cases like that in the States.”
So what, does that somehow make it acceptable ?
Stephen,
So what would you put in place in addition to secularism?
Virtus,
The Law, Secularism and Religion are 3 separate things. You are clouding the line between them. Secularism is the protective barrier between The Law and Religion. Both religion and The Law are subjective whereas secularism is absolute. Britain is not a secular state as I’m sure you are aware, and that is why I put so much importance on secularism.
As for the third world, I was merely referring to third world societies because that is where some of these people are from and who persist with their backward customs here. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.
Russell,
Can you explain why an extension to the Homeland Security Act goes against the First Amendment?
I thought that would be obvious, laws protecting the human rights of everyone with no opt outs on grounds of faith. However, you know that already, the question was just an attempt to over-complicate the issue.
As stated on the other thread, you will not convince us as the majority here think cultural-relativism is a pile of turd. It is worthy of religious status because of the narrow minded zeal of its proponents.
tookey
“Can you explain why an extension to the Homeland Security Act goes against the First Amendment?”
Quite simple the first ammendment of the constitution (or establishment clause) prohibits the promotion of religion. It is in fact the clause that ratified the seperation of church and state. From wiki
“Main article: Establishment Clause
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.
Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,[1] Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
Read the last line carefully and you will see why the Kentucky Legislature has undermined the essence and purpose of the Establishment clause.
Whilst we are talking about the US here are some interesting figures for you from a very comprehensive survey reported by “Psychology Today” on the number (or more accurately the percentage ) of non- belivers as opposed to various sects of religious believers.
http://goo.gl/DA1xD
The survey was named ” The American Religious Identifcation Survey”, not exactly surprising but the results certainly are. from the survey………
“The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS)—probably the most comprehensive study of American religious demographics—confirms that only about 1.6 percent of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic. This may seem like an insignificant group, but even just 1.6 percent outnumbers the population of American Mormons (1.4 percent), Jews (1.2), Episcopalians (1.1), Muslims (0.6), and many other groups. Much more importantly, however, we should realize that the 1.6 percent figure is deceiving, because ARIS also shows that the actual number of nonbelievers is much higher.”
So non-believers are actually more numerous than Jews, Muslims, Mormans etc in the US and the numbers are still growing. Do they not have the right not to have religion forced upon them by a bunch of redneck fundies in Kentucky.
I don’t know how others here will feel about this, but here goes. Whist this discussion is interesting it is hardly in keeping with the idea that underpins this section of the blog. It was set up for members to give their opinion on the importance of Atheism in the UK, and we have now drifted in to the dreaded “off topic” area. So should we take this to the forum. It will be very easy to set up a thread to discuss any issues in what could be a quite wide ranging debate.
Just a suggestion.
@tookey2k
I know you really are trying pal, and I applaud your choice of beverage in the avatar but I cannot let you over simplify something as vital as the need to get the fact that RELIGION does not see any LAW greater than ITSELF!!
In the eyes of the religious GOD is supreme, how can they then accept governmental LAW but still be considered “the faithful”??? This means that they pick and choose what parts of each law they adhere to, whether it be Gods’ or Man. Again this means that they do not take either fully seriously. In direct contradiction to Gods’ law apparently you should suffer some form of devastation or punishment, why do theists openly flout the absolute law of God if they believe so very devoutly in its truth and rightness???? This is called Hypocrisy!!
We both agree that Secularism is the rational persons way of keeping the real world safe from the crazy, mystical bullshit world of religion, BUT……..ONLY if that is enforced by the STATE through the application of governmental LAW.
There is NO “clouding of the lines” here my good man, these lines are Berlinesque walls of absolute fact!!
As my learned colleague russell20 as quite clearly stated for you, even in an apparently modern and progressive nation such as the USA, if the STATE fails to adequately ENFORCE secular ideals then guess what slimes it’s way through the back door??? That’s right, you’re friendly neighbourhood religious knobhead!
Thank you all for your comments and opinions on this.
However, Russell makes a good point that this blog is specifically about “Why is atheism important in the UK?”; look back to the original text to see why we are asking this question.
This has now strayed off topic and is blocking any new contributions to the original question.
Please take this to the Forum, as suggested.
Many thanks,
Mark
President
tookey
I left out one very important caveat from the following……
“Quite simple the first ammendment of the constitution (or establishment clause) prohibits the promotion of religion. It is in fact the clause that ratified the seperation of church and state. From wiki”
It should read “prohibits the promotion of religion by the state” Thus the state should remain neutral on religious matters . However that is obviously not the case in Kentucky., Louisiana, Alabama, West Virginia……….on and on, ad nauseum !!!!!!!!!
Sorry Mark posted before I saw your post
Russell, no problem, I’ve done the same thing loads of times
Thanks Mark, I have started a new thread over at the forum. The topic title is
“Does a secular society recognise and defend the rights of the godless ?”
Hi Mark & fellow atheists, I have lived my 55 years of life so far in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Do I really need to explain as to why Religion needs to be discarded ? I personally know a few agnostics,but am the only committed and ardent atheist I know !! Sad but true, I’m sure there are many more atheists scattered around this province,but I have yet to meet them. This country is now self self governed by politicians who are either devout catholics or protestants ! And a few Liberals who make no comment for or against religion. So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE N.I. atheists come out,come out wherever you are, and let us create 1 loud voice together ! “Your country needs you” !!!
Trev
I’ve sent you a reply to this by e-mail.
Mark