I was reminded of this when I read about a recent high court case that found that Eunice and Owen Johns were not discriminated against after being overlooked for fostering children after they told a social worker that they could not tell a child that homosexual behaviour was acceptable. They claim this was part of their religious beliefs and so being overlooked as part of these beliefs is a form of discrimination. Personally I find it hilarious that a couple are claiming they are being discriminated against because they cannot pass on their prejudice to another generation of children. Because that’s what the main issue is here. It has nothing to do with their religion and has everything to do with children being raised in an environment where they are taught it is not fair to discriminate against people for who they choose to shag.

It is frankly hypocritical that discrimination laws that are supposed to protect minorities are trying to be used by religious groups to protect their right to discriminate because it is part of their religion. Eunice Johns, with no sense of irony argued;

“We are extremely distressed at what the judges have ruled. All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need (providing that child wasn’t gay)*, but because we are Christians with mainstream Christian views on sexual ethics (we think gays are the devils work), we are apparently unsuitable. We are prepared to love and accept any child (providing that child isn’t gay). All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing. We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society.”

There is a place for them in society and that place is away from children where they cannot pass on their prejudice to another generation. The court summed it up perfectly when they ruled;

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone** is equal before the law and equal as a human being … entitled to dignity and respect.”

*Emboldened comments in brackets are mine.

**Emphasis mine

This article from Rosamund Urwin in the Evening Standard seems to have come out of nowhere. I can only guess since its Christmas time she must have thought what better time to stick a metaphorical finger up at atheists for daring to question her faith. The title of her article, “So I’m religious. That doesn’t make me stupid” implies that she has been called stupid for being religious, although it is clear from the first paragraph that this is a thinly veiled mechanism for her to play victim.

“I believe in God. Right, that’s a few more points scrubbed off my estimated IQ by the most zealous atheists. It gets worse, though. I don’t just harbour some vague notion of a kind-hearted deity; I am a church-going Roman Catholic — I believe in Jesus, Mary and the donkey too.”

Or to paraphrase – ‘Look at me, I’m so persecuted by the evil zealous atheists because not only to I believe in God I also go to church. The horror!’ You know what Rosamund? I don’t care. I don’t care that you go to church, I don’t care that you believe in God, I don’t care that you believe in all that other Roman Catholic jazz either.

What I do care about, and what does tend to piss atheists off is when you go an say something silly like this;

“But what I’m most tired of hearing is that my faith is irrational. […] With two of the great intellectuals of philosophy of religion, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, now in their seventies, what theists need is a younger breed to argue for faith’s rationality.”

Of course people are entitled to believe whatever the hell they like; some people think that West Ham are the best  football club in the world or that the Conservatives cuts are fair. I could provide evidence against these things but everyone is entitled to think what they like. But when someone is trying to make an argument that her religion doesn’t make her stupid and then in that argument tries to make out that faith isn’t faith based at all but a rational belief then we have a problem.

Even if Rosamund did come to her faith position supposedly objectively during her study of the ‘philosophy of religion’ and when she “read and weighed up works by the anti-God Squad, the Doubting Thomases and the faith brigade.” at some point she still had to make a leap of faith to believe in something for which their is no empirical objective evidence for. That isn’t a rational position that is a faith position.

There is nothing wrong with being irrational, being irrational doesn’t make you stupid it just makes you irrational. I support Southend United, I know all about blindly following something that takes up a large proportion of my weekend and gives very little back in the way of joy. So yes there are plenty of irrational intelligent Roman Catholics out there I’m sure, just like there are plenty of irrational intelligent Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Jedi*.

So yeah I’m an atheist. That doesn’t make me think all religious people are stupid, just you Rosamund Urwin.

*OK maybe not Jedi

I saw this story in the Guardian today about how golfers at Stornoway golf course on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland are forced to break the law if they want to play on a Sunday. It turns out that the Presbyterian islands of Lewis and Harris are the only places left in Britain where sports facilities remain closed on Sundays for religious reasons;

“Over the past few years, the sabbatarians have lost a series of crucial battles with privately-owned businesses: ferries and flights now land on Sundays, while pubs and a petrol station in Stornoway are routinely open. All are heavily used.

But critics claim the sabbatarians’ influence over publicly-owned leisure centres, swimming pools, golf courses and football pitches remains total:”

The locals have understandably had enough and are starting to fight against this ridiculous ban with a petition to get the local leisure centres open and have appealed to the council to stop this clear religious discrimination that allows one belief system to dictate policy.

I think they are going about this the wrong way. If the sabbatarians think that leisure facilities should be closed on Sundays then let them have their own way but make sure that the ban is total. If they are so keen to stop people enjoying themselves or relaxing on a Sunday then don’t let them stop at just the leisure facilities but suggest the council ban all leisure at all on Sunday. Firstly all churches and places of worship should be closed on Sundays since this is clearly a leisure activity. Supposedly God rested on a Sunday so presumably He won’t be listening to any religious ceremonies that day anyway. When Christmas falls on a Sunday (2011) it will have to be banned that year because that is also a leisure activity. Television should be banned on Sundays, as should radio and newspapers. Talking should almost totally be banned other than for purely functional purposes, like asking what the time is or what’s for dinner. Come to think of it actually eating is quite leisurely so let’s just ban that as well, as should laughing, smiling, reading, drawing, walking your dog, gardening… actually, you know what, the only thing people should be allowed to do is sit. Sit and think hard about how much they love God and make bloody well sure they aren’t enjoying it. Perhaps by proposing that the ban should be taken to ridiculous proportions it might highlight its stupidity.

So I propose this is what the people of Lewis and Harris should petition the council for, but be sure they don’t do it on a Sunday.

First of all there is nothing progressive about religion; it is fundamentally dogmatic. It seems evident that the more religious a society then the less progressive the politics and the society is, so for someone to say that religions are essential in building a progressive society is, frankly, bollocks.

Mr Denham said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph that “Faith is a strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity – the very values which are essential to politics, to our economy and our society.”

Oh really! Faith as a source of honesty, like the honesty the Catholic Church has shown to the victims of child abuse? Solidarity? Like the solidarity the church shows homosexuals, or women who want to be bishops? Generosity? I’m not so sure that religious people are any more generous than atheists but even if they were generosity is hardly a trait I we should be basing public policy on.

“I don’t like the strand of secularism that says that faith is inherently a bad thing to have and should be kept out of public life,” Mr Denham said.

This completely misses the point. That secularists consider faith an inherently bad thing is not the reason it should be kept out of public life (policy), it is that faith is inherently bias. It is based on a set of scriptures which according to their institution, translation and interpretation tell you how to live your life and so inform its disciple’s opinions. I dread to think of some unelected ill-informed priest informing government policy about stem cell research or abortion laws.  

In the shadow of the undermining of an objective scientific panel this story spits in the face of evidence based policy making and secularism.

That is what equates to a candidate for the Livonia Michigan City Council.

You know its the other seriously deranged people I feel sorry for, if you can get away with talking this level of crazy without seeing the man in white coats come banging on your door what else can you get away with in the U.S?

Here is a quote from the speech below, I hope it attracts your interest to take the time to listen to it all.

“No God, no religious text, no organised system of faith is better at dictating right and wrong than that compass we are born with in our heads, the instincts that are coded in our genes. I’ve seen much good come from man but very little from God. If I must place my faith somewhere then I choose to place it in reason and thank God (!) I have the freedom to choose.”

Full speech here

Well this little study  conducted by Penguin books suggests that perhaps they aren’t all that bad after all, they are happy to say that family and friends are more important than religion and 59% are insightful enough to suggest that religion “has a negative influence on the world”.

That has brightened up my Tuesday afternoon.