You stop combing your hair...
...when the teeth meet resistance.
I don't know whether this post by Tobias Jones in The Guardian's commentisfree section is very clever or merely the incoherent rantings of someone who writes like a first year undergraduate. Among other things, I think we might say that the entry is a good example of the vast difference between perception and reality. Perception: crime is everywhere; reality: no it isn't. Jones's perception is that some group of people called "secular fundamentalists" want to outlaw religious belief. The reality is that Jones is merely using the word "fundamentalist" which, he knows perfectly well, has pejorative connotations in English, and marrying it to the word "secular" in the same way that it's collocated with the adjectives "Christian" and "Islamic".
I don't think there are any "secular fundamentalists"; and if there are, the rest of us would be hoping, as we're down at the pub, that they're not going to come over and start talking to us because they'd be as dull as Mormons. As for the plan, someone forgot to send me that memo. This is what happens: you're in China; no one tells you anything.
No, that was the PC brigade which comprises a multitude of proponents. I'm not especially bothered about people wearing crosses, veils, or turbans.
I don't think that was the pernicious plan of the French government, but rather the application of the French constitution which keeps church and state separate. To allow one religious group special licence would be to allow it to all of them. This is what the French constitution of 1958 says (translation from purepolitics.com)
Sacré bleu, Batman! That just has to be a declaration of war on believers.
Well, let's see, shall we? A bunch of religious fanatics decides to fly some planes into the WTC; the President of the United States and his party have strong ties to the religious right. Belief does seem to be playing a large part in all this. It's not quite a modern day Crusade, but I have no doubt that some Americans would like to see it that way.
Who are these "wise agnostics"? And what are these "commandments that the state doesn't see or understand"? Of course I, as an atheist, cannot possibly comprehend the mysteries of religion or unsubstantiated statements.
I don't quite see how this follows on from the preceding, but I'm smelling the old shibboleth that only believers have a moral compass.
Quite a few things seem to be going on here. Firstly, Jones seems to be implying that atheists are hypocrites because they'll go to church to get their children into CofE schools; secondly, CofE schools must be superior if atheists want to send their children to them; thirdly, once again, only believers have a moral compass; lastly, it seems that we have social anarchy which, presumably, is due to those evil secular fundamentalists, and can only be solved by those rational believers.
What? There's a pact? Why is no one telling me these things?
Really? (And I mean "Really?" to both parts of the sentence.) I think a lot of Christians would say that they've never heard such a claim before. Perhaps it's on the blooper reel from the Sermon on the Mount. But Jones kind of elucidates the second point.
In fact, what that's really saying is that the spiritual world has graciously permitted the existence of the secular, and we're kind of back to the old Pope vs. the Emperor feud of the Middle Ages. This is actually taking a rather narrow view of history and humanity since it fails to look beyond Europe and Christianity. I could argue that since belief is not innate in humans, secularism is humanity's natural state. The secular world tolerates religion, but the dogma of the primacy of the latter means that it can never acknowledge such a thing.
I'm sure that the reasons for the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire are a little more complex than I understand them to be, but weren't the Christians being persecuted because they were inimical to the tolerant nature of the pre-Christian Roman Empire? The Romans tolerated a range of religious beliefs from around the Empire. The main rival to Christianity in the Empire was Mithraism which had its origins in ancient Persia. Its doctrine was nearly identical with Christianity, although it excluded women (major black mark that one) and was tolerant of polytheism (which is more than you can say for Christianity).
Yeah, that's so true. I'm doing that all the time. Every Sunday I'll hang around outside one church or another (I have to spread the totalitarianism about; after all, there's only one of me) telling worshippers what to wear and what to say.
People like Tobias Jones are permitted to say such things in the public arena and people like me would be remiss to say that they should be prevented from making such pronouncements, no matter how inane they may be. As I said at the start of this entry, there's a gap between perception and reality. Jones thinks he's being persecuted when no such thing is happening. His claims are another example of how self-deluding believers can be.
(I now find there's another entry about religion in the commentisfree section, except at this point it's attracted a whole raft of comments.)
I don't know whether this post by Tobias Jones in The Guardian's commentisfree section is very clever or merely the incoherent rantings of someone who writes like a first year undergraduate. Among other things, I think we might say that the entry is a good example of the vast difference between perception and reality. Perception: crime is everywhere; reality: no it isn't. Jones's perception is that some group of people called "secular fundamentalists" want to outlaw religious belief. The reality is that Jones is merely using the word "fundamentalist" which, he knows perfectly well, has pejorative connotations in English, and marrying it to the word "secular" in the same way that it's collocated with the adjectives "Christian" and "Islamic".
They - call them secular fundamentalists - are anti-God, and what they really want is the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth.
I don't think there are any "secular fundamentalists"; and if there are, the rest of us would be hoping, as we're down at the pub, that they're not going to come over and start talking to us because they'd be as dull as Mormons. As for the plan, someone forgot to send me that memo. This is what happens: you're in China; no one tells you anything.
Because we live in a multiconfessional society, [secular fundamentalists] fostered the falsehood that wearing a crucifix or a veil or a turban was deeply offensive to other faiths.
No, that was the PC brigade which comprises a multitude of proponents. I'm not especially bothered about people wearing crosses, veils, or turbans.
In recent years the nastier side of this totalitarianism has become blatantly apparent. It emerged with the hijab issue in France. With the hijab ban in French schools, a state was banishing religion not only from its corridors, but also from its citizens.
I don't think that was the pernicious plan of the French government, but rather the application of the French constitution which keeps church and state separate. To allow one religious group special licence would be to allow it to all of them. This is what the French constitution of 1958 says (translation from purepolitics.com)
France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs.
Sacré bleu, Batman! That just has to be a declaration of war on believers.
There's a background to all this. Since 2001, lazy intellectuals have been allowed to get away with repeating the nonsense that terrorism and war are the consequences of belief in God.
Well, let's see, shall we? A bunch of religious fanatics decides to fly some planes into the WTC; the President of the United States and his party have strong ties to the religious right. Belief does seem to be playing a large part in all this. It's not quite a modern day Crusade, but I have no doubt that some Americans would like to see it that way.
But what is certain is that wise agnostics pleaded with believers to take a public lead again, because the point about believers is that they are obeying (and disobeying) all sorts of commandments that the state doesn't see or understand.
Who are these "wise agnostics"? And what are these "commandments that the state doesn't see or understand"? Of course I, as an atheist, cannot possibly comprehend the mysteries of religion or unsubstantiated statements.
Because [believers] are able to differentiate sin from crime, they have a moral register more nuanced than most.
I don't quite see how this follows on from the preceding, but I'm smelling the old shibboleth that only believers have a moral compass.
Even a wise atheist (and I've met a few of them in church, as they desperately try to get their kids into the local C of E school) knows that believers can deal with social anarchy much better than the state ever can.
Quite a few things seem to be going on here. Firstly, Jones seems to be implying that atheists are hypocrites because they'll go to church to get their children into CofE schools; secondly, CofE schools must be superior if atheists want to send their children to them; thirdly, once again, only believers have a moral compass; lastly, it seems that we have social anarchy which, presumably, is due to those evil secular fundamentalists, and can only be solved by those rational believers.
...[the secular fundamentalists] are also furious that believers have broken the old pact to stay out of public debate.
What? There's a pact? Why is no one telling me these things?
Christians feel particularly aggrieved because we believe that Jesus invented secularism.
Really? (And I mean "Really?" to both parts of the sentence.) I think a lot of Christians would say that they've never heard such a claim before. Perhaps it's on the blooper reel from the Sermon on the Mount. But Jones kind of elucidates the second point.
As Nick Spencer writes in Doing God, "the secular was Christianity's gift to the world, denoting a public space in which authorities should be respected, but could be legitimately challenged and could never accord to themselves absolute or ultimate significance".
In fact, what that's really saying is that the spiritual world has graciously permitted the existence of the secular, and we're kind of back to the old Pope vs. the Emperor feud of the Middle Ages. This is actually taking a rather narrow view of history and humanity since it fails to look beyond Europe and Christianity. I could argue that since belief is not innate in humans, secularism is humanity's natural state. The secular world tolerates religion, but the dogma of the primacy of the latter means that it can never acknowledge such a thing.
Christianity, far from creating an absolutist state, initiated dissent from state absolutism.
I'm sure that the reasons for the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire are a little more complex than I understand them to be, but weren't the Christians being persecuted because they were inimical to the tolerant nature of the pre-Christian Roman Empire? The Romans tolerated a range of religious beliefs from around the Empire. The main rival to Christianity in the Empire was Mithraism which had its origins in ancient Persia. Its doctrine was nearly identical with Christianity, although it excluded women (major black mark that one) and was tolerant of polytheism (which is more than you can say for Christianity).
These new militants, however, believe themselves to be the only arbiters of taste; they want to eradicate the root and cause. They will dictate what you can wear and what you can say. That, after all, is what totalitarians do.
Yeah, that's so true. I'm doing that all the time. Every Sunday I'll hang around outside one church or another (I have to spread the totalitarianism about; after all, there's only one of me) telling worshippers what to wear and what to say.
People like Tobias Jones are permitted to say such things in the public arena and people like me would be remiss to say that they should be prevented from making such pronouncements, no matter how inane they may be. As I said at the start of this entry, there's a gap between perception and reality. Jones thinks he's being persecuted when no such thing is happening. His claims are another example of how self-deluding believers can be.
(I now find there's another entry about religion in the commentisfree section, except at this point it's attracted a whole raft of comments.)
Comments
Sorry, but this post brought back bad memories of my younger days, when I spent a lot of time sitting in a variety of churches thinking "God gave you a brain for a fucking reason, you know. Use it!".
It's not just a gap between perception and reality. We are all afflicted by that to a certain extent. There's also a willing suspension of not just disbelief, but all powers of reason and logic. Sitting in an evangelical/fundamentalist church is like watching a perfectly ordinary Hollywood film which the audience have decided will be a Theatre of the Absurd play.
Oh, and the evangelical and fundamentalist branches of the Church are really the same. The difference is only one of degree, in that evangelicals are marginally easier to talk to and reason with.