…and this is a 
Those crazy Brits
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: October 13, 2008 8:00 AM, by PZ Myers
This is just the craziest thing I ever heard. Politics where you can actually have politicians who don't believe in god, and where you can talk about removing the privileged status of religion from the legislative body, and where all the major political parties have organized representation by freethinkers? Yeah, and they also have gumdrop trees and rivers of chocolate and beer volcanoes, too, I bet. Where is this magical place? Middle Earth, maybe? Nah, it's called England — which I could be persuaded is also a mythical fantasy land.
There is a great tradition of free thought in the Conservative Party. Many leading Conservative thinkers have not required religious belief or superstition to define their lives or their political views.
The creation of the Conservative Humanist Association means that all three major UK political Parties now have associations aligned with the British Humanist Association. We hope that all UK political parties will now recognise that the majority of our people want a more secular political system.
There is an opportunity for Conservatives - with our focus on individual freedom and choice - to create a real dynamic for change in our civil society.
Can you imagine a statement like that from either of our major American political parties?
Comments
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 13, 2008 8:03 AM
Thanks. I feel a brief resurgence of national pride after my countrymen so badly fumbled the ball over creationism in schools recently.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 13, 2008 8:06 AM
You should add, really, that "Conservative Party" would translated into American politics as "Pinko commie liberal socialized medicine-supporting party that just also happens to favor lower taxes". Not that I'd vote for them.
Posted by: ancientTechie | October 13, 2008 8:06 AM
It is a mythical fantasy land. England was invented by Walt Disney. It says so on the Internet: http://www.poormojo.org/cgi-bin/gennie.pl?Rant+5 .
Posted by: kai | October 13, 2008 8:08 AM
... or an article this critical of evangelism: The power of the pulpit in Africa?
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 13, 2008 8:13 AM
Compared to the USA political spectrum, almost every other countries' conservatives are left because USA doesn't have a left wing main party at all. Just a centre-right and a far right. The rest of the world (except for a few extreme exceptions) tend to be centre-left, or at least in Europe. Get your postal vote in early, avoid the last minute rush.
Posted by: CrazyFitter | October 13, 2008 8:20 AM
It gets even stranger. If you Wiki the Anglican church you will find that the head of the church is the monarch, who receives advice and communication from the church via the prime minister. Both of these people could be athiests, and probably have been! In the old struggle for power and influence the notion of not believing in god seems to have been irrelevant.
Posted by: Richard C | October 13, 2008 8:22 AM
Indeed, one of the great American news anchormen in the 1960s is supposed to have said something along the lines of, "In Britain there are two political parties - Labour, or as you would call them 'socialists' and the Conservatives or as you would call them 'socialists'."
Posted by: Burning Umbrella | October 13, 2008 8:26 AM
You only need to look at a map to see how the americas are farther right than any other place in the whole plate of earth.
On far left there's communist China.
Coincidence? You decide.
Posted by: varlo | October 13, 2008 8:30 AM
Does this mean that should McCain become president (hideous thought) that he will bomb, bomb, bomb London?
Posted by: CrazyFitter | October 13, 2008 8:35 AM
Bomb London? Ohh yes please
Posted by: Kimpatsu | October 13, 2008 8:36 AM
I wouldn't be too happy; the current Tory shadow education secretary is in favour of expanding the church's role in schools. (Get 'em while they're young, and all that...)
Still, at least the Tories (and even more so, the Lib Dems) are committed to undoing the Labour Party's authoritarian assault on civil liberties.
Posted by: Bob O'H | October 13, 2008 8:41 AM
The Church of England used to be known as "the Conservative Party at prayer". How things have changed.
Posted by: Lave | October 13, 2008 8:41 AM
Sorry to be pedantic, but it's actually called Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. England is just a part of it (the best part though).
But yes, I don't really think America really grasps how secular the UK is. If it did then its relationship with us would sour massively.
Posted by: SEF | October 13, 2008 8:43 AM
Eg The Vicar Of Bray. It's traditional. On the other forelimb-evolved-for-tool-using-dexterity, there's still far too much deference towards religious nutters of all stripes in all areas of society. There's also not enough slamming of lying politicians. As in the US, they tend to get away with it far too often in the UK.Posted by: AJS | October 13, 2008 8:44 AM
Don't forget that the Conservative (aka Tory) Party was the party to which Maggie Thatcher belonged. And some of us have long memories (Hands up who remembers: no prescription charges? free school milk? a manufacturing industry?)
On the other hand, Blair and Brown have been no better. If you didn't know that we had a (supposedly) Labour government, you could easily think that the Tories had stayed in power.
Posted by: Ann | October 13, 2008 8:46 AM
This makes me want to move to the UK
Posted by: MaryM | October 13, 2008 8:52 AM
This is a really old story but it is worth a gander
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-tricky-question-of-gordon-browns-god-450712.html
"All Western European politicians now blessedly follow Alastair Campbell's famous injunction - "We don't do God" - in public, knowing that even a hint of theism creeps out their secular electorates. "
So, I bet you Americans are jealous now eh? ;)
Posted by: Svetogorsk | October 13, 2008 8:53 AM
It's also well worth noting that Dr Rowan Williams, the present Archbishop of Canterbury and therefore the most powerful religious figure in Great Britain, is regarded as a dangerous left-wing revolutionary in a great many circles for having the temerity to be open-minded and thoughtful about a great many things that his predecessors considered cut and dried. Shockingly, he's in favour of female and gay equality, and he's not a creationist either.
On the latter subject, his response to whether he thought creationism should be taught in British schools was:
"I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... so if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories, I think there's - there's just been a jar of categories, it's not what it's about."
And when the question was repeated, his reply was:
"I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is - is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."
Posted by: Ed Baker | October 13, 2008 8:54 AM
..and that's our conservative party, you should see our liberals! One has an atheist for a leader.....
Posted by: R K Bulmer | October 13, 2008 8:58 AM
It's also worth noting that the leader of the Liberal Democrats (the UK's third party in effectively a three-party system), Nick Clegg, is an atheist.
Then again, the UK's upper chamber (sort of like the US's Senate) has a number of seats that are given to members of the Church of England clergy. And there's no separation of church and state.
If only we could marry the vision of the founding fathers with the secular mind-set of the UK populous, and we'd have ourselves the least worst form of government ever.
Posted by: MarkW | October 13, 2008 9:10 AM
That's probably the first good idea the Tories have had in a long time.
AJS at 15, my hand goes up. "Thatcher Thatcher, milk snatcher." And she still is a member of the Tory party afaik, she sits in the Lords.
Posted by: S.Scott | October 13, 2008 9:13 AM
" rivers of chocolate and beer volcanoes" ...
I am tempted! :-)
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | October 13, 2008 9:14 AM
Sort of makes you wonder why Dawkins is so worried about American fundamentalism, doesn't it?
Posted by: Matt7895 | October 13, 2008 9:17 AM
The Conservative Party here in the UK would be seen as commie liberals by the conservatives in America.
And just have to say I'm damn damn proud that there is a Conservative Humanist association at long last. Let's kick out the bishops and disestablish the C of E.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | October 13, 2008 9:18 AM
And she still is a member of the Tory party afaik, she sits in the Lords.
You're technically correct, but given the widely reported decline in her mental faculties, I doubt very much she's taken advantage of that position for some considerable time. Or rather, if she did, I suspect that would be considered newsworthy in itself.
Posted by: Philip Storry | October 13, 2008 9:26 AM
We have many long-standing traditions in the UK, most of which are (when looked at impartially) quite silly.
As others have pointed out, we don't have separation of church and state because it's traditional. We also still have a monarch, because it's traditional.
The thing about these traditions is that we'd change them - except that involves opening cans of worms.
We're not that dumb. When someone else comes along and opens cans of worms, we mutter "oh dear", and get on with the change. Sexual equality, racial equality, and latterly age equality - we make the best compromise, and discard "traditions" when they're no longer something we can just ignore and hope nobody mentions.
We've even legislated against these "traditions" where necessary.
But changing to a real secular state, with no monarchy - that would be a huge can of worms. So we ignore it and carry on.
Even out most senior clergy are like this - I quite like our Archbishop of Canterbury, because for a loony he's fairly reasonable. Certainly better than that Pope chappie, anyway.
Plus he's quiet, so I can choose to ignore him if necessary.
The Conservative party are majority Christian, being pretty much the party of tradition & capitalism. (The tradition part is the Christian bit, they're also for "traditional family values" and a bit homophobic etc.)
But even they know that to kick off about it is to be a bit dangerous - it risks alienating potential supporters who just couldn't care about religion. Or traditional families. Or whatever values the conservatives try forcing on them.
Most of the Conservative's "Christians" probably don't make it to church more than once a week, if that!
It ain't perfect. But we sure don't go looking for trouble - and because of that, I think you'd hate it here PZ! You'd die of boredom! ;-)
Posted by: FishNChimps | October 13, 2008 9:29 AM
It's all Henry VIII's fault, you know, and that hussy of his, Anne Boleyn.
Posted by: wai | October 13, 2008 9:34 AM
Oh, please. You guys are too smart to fall for this. Britain is now a total surveillance state where your every move is, literally, watched and they are continuing to institute MORE controls and monitoring. Is that your idea of a secular paradise? What do you think they intend to use that infrastructure for?
Posted by: Matt7895 | October 13, 2008 9:35 AM
Wai, did you get that off an Alex Jones website?
Posted by: bernard quatermass | October 13, 2008 9:35 AM
I'm just waiting for a beer-befuddled Amurrican to stumble in here and proclaim how this kind of godless fag thinking is only one reason why Reagan had to invent the H bomb to save Limey asses from Japanese Muslims in World War II.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 13, 2008 9:36 AM
where you can talk about removing the privileged status of religion from the legislative body
To be fair, in addition to atheists/agnostics/humanists/secularists (not to mention adherents of religions that don't enjoy the benefits of a connection to the state!) wanting to end church privilege, there has always been a strain within the Church of England itself (and, generally speaking, these are people who take their Christianity very seriously) that advocates disestablishment. They deserve respect for that position, at least, and they deserve political support as well. "The state doesn't interfere with your church, and your church doesn't interfere with the state" -- that's something I think we can all get behind.
Lave @13,
to be pedantic ... it's actually called Great Britain, or the United Kingdom
To up the pedantry a notch, only part of it is called Great Britain; the UK is the only name that refers to the state as a whole. Northern Ireland is British (a political designator), but it's not in Great Britain (an island).
England is just a part of it (the best part though)
Yes, well, gwell fy mwthyn fy hun na phlas arall, as I believe our Welsh friends say.
Posted by: MaryM | October 13, 2008 9:40 AM
Sorry - OT but FFS have you read this crap???
http://christopedia.us/wiki/Negroid
Negroid
From Christopedia, the Christian encyclopedia
A female Bushman.Negroid is a racial classification for a dark-skinned race originating from sub-Saharan and central Africa. They are known as Negroids, Negroes or Blacks. A female of the subspecies is a Negress. In the United States, the current politically correct term for Negroes in America is African-American.
Is this a joke or does someone need a good thump?
Posted by: Jeffrey | October 13, 2008 9:41 AM
Many thanks for the support. I'm the Chief Crazy I suppose as I'm Chair of the Conservative Humanists. Our launch meeting at Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago was one of the most popular at Conference...we had over 150 attendees and about the same number was unable to get in to the room! Needless to say, this was partly because Richard Dawkins was our guest speaker. But it's great to get your support from across the pond. And anything we can do to help establish similar organisations in the Republican and Democratic Parties...well just ask.
Posted by: Pyers Symon | October 13, 2008 9:44 AM
A few years ago there was a comedy show of near-genius ("Yes Prime Minister") which described the relationship between the (Prime Minister Jim Hacker) and his senior civil servants (In this case Sir Humphrey Appelby) and in one of the shows there was this exchange:
Hacker: Is there anyone in the church who doesn't believe in God?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, most of the Bishops.
Posted by: Jonathon | October 13, 2008 9:44 AM
Oh, England! Home of my ancestors, home of my soul. How I wish that I were there instead of stuck in the Bible Belt.
There is hope for us yet. Remember, England's democracy is much older than our own. Yes, there is all that nonsense with the Queen and all, but insofar as being a government that is representative of the people, the UK has us beaten by miles.
I guess I know where I will be headed if McCain/Palin steal this election. McCain will croak within a few months post election and we'll be stuck with Palin. Makes me wish we had that nice "vote of no confidence" thing in our system. We could have rid ourselves of Dubya a long time ago!
Posted by: Matt7895 | October 13, 2008 9:46 AM
Leave the Queen alone! She does a good job as an ambassador and figurehead. She plays no political role.
All we need to do is secularise her by dis-establishing the C of E, and our monarchy will be on par with others in Europe.
Posted by: Julian | October 13, 2008 9:47 AM
The great irony is that Britain has an established church where the monarch is the head of the church and bishops sit in the upper chamber of government, yet religion plays very little part in politics. Very few British people, I'm sure, would cast their votes along religious lines, even if they knew the beliefs of the candidates, which usually they don't.
In the US, where there is constitutional separation of church and state, it is virtually impossible to run for high office and be an atheist.
It is a great mystery to me why this is so.
Posted by: Jonathon | October 13, 2008 9:51 AM
Oh, England! Home of my ancestors, home of my soul. How I wish that I were there instead of stuck in the Bible Belt.
There is hope for us yet. Remember, England's democracy is much older than our own. Yes, there is all that nonsense with the Queen and all, but insofar as being a government that is representative of the people, the UK has us beaten by miles.
I guess I know where I will be headed if McCain/Palin steal this election. McCain will croak within a few months post election and we'll be stuck with Palin. Makes me wish we had that nice "vote of no confidence" thing in our system. We could have rid ourselves of Dubya a long time ago!
Posted by: MF | October 13, 2008 9:52 AM
Ah, yes, our perch is a lofty one. Get with the times, America!
Posted by: Svetogorsk | October 13, 2008 10:00 AM
Yes, there is all that nonsense with the Queen and all, but insofar as being a government that is representative of the people, the UK has us beaten by miles.
Er... only up to a point. The first-past-the-post electoral system is ridiculously slanted in favour of the two major parties (the Liberal Democrats regularly poll roughly a quarter of votes in general elections, but have less than a tenth of the parliamentary seats, and other parties do even worse), nobody outside his constituency voted for our present Prime Minister, and the present government has majority representation in Parliament on the basis of just 35% of the votes.
Also, frothing right-wing types complain that the three main parties are largely indistinguishable these days, and while I'm not remotely sympathetic to their politics, I have to admit that they have a point: they're all free-market socially and economically liberal parties with far more in common than otherwise.
It would be interesting to see who would end up as Prime Minister in the event of a US-style voting system - I'm willing to bet John Major and Gordon Brown wouldn't have got anywhere near Number 10 Downing Street, though Blair probably would have done.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 13, 2008 10:04 AM
I find that pointing out that Great Britain is just the name of an island, not the name of any political entity, and the the full name of the UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" seems to clear up most of the confusion, followed by the fact that the island of Great Britain is divided into England Scotland, and Wales. The only remaining confusion is whether the constituent parts of the UK are really countries and the UK is some kind of supranational political entity, or if the UK as a whole is the country and the four (major) bits are some kind of sub-national division more like provinces. I suppose it depends on how one defines "country".
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 13, 2008 10:07 AM
Australia is much the same but with the following added advantages:
1. The weather's better;
2. the beer is colder;
3. while we share the embarrassment of Betty Windsor as head of state, she and her appalling are generally kept at a distance of roughly 10,000 kilometres.
4. One of our former PMs was not only openly atheistic, he was also a world champ at beer drinking.
Yes I mentioned beer twice.
I like beer.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 13, 2008 10:11 AM
Well, lets see who would have been PM with a US style election..
Now, first we will need an electoral college.. it wouldnt make sense to make them the nations of the UK as there are too few.. so given we need a few hundred to match the US system, lets say we could use constituencies...
Now.. each of these constituencies would have one electoral college seat which magically works out as the same number of seats they have in the House of Commons. So, it seems that our system is not that far away from the US system after all and would give much the same results for PM if we switched.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | October 13, 2008 10:12 AM
Australia is also led by a man named Kevin, which I think is a breakthrough of sorts.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | October 13, 2008 10:13 AM
I find this especially interesting because there is a fairly strong "flag and faith" section of the Tory party- which recently hit the news during the vote on the Embryology Act, by attaching amendments concerning abortion to it. Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" blog and column has quite a bit of information concerning Nadine Dorries, one of the more high-profile MPs on the religious right, and her unsurprisingly deep ignorance of science.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 13, 2008 10:14 AM
I don't understand. When there are too many politically active fundies in the USA, they elect one of their own president, and we all have to live with the consequences. "We all" as in "world population".
Hah. That's just to tell the electorate "look, we're doing something against crime". Do you really believe anyone is paid to watch all those years and years of utterly boring video?
Posted by: CrazyFitter | October 13, 2008 10:18 AM
Matt7895.
'Leave the Queen alone! She does a good job as an ambassador and figurehead. She plays no political role.'
I used to think that but then I read John Pilgers book 'A Secret Country' which explains exactly the opposite, About Australia in this case but its a big subject and she cannot be just dismissed so lightly.
I remember talking to a couple of vicars once (both married with families) and the subject of the queen came up and one said of the other, 'The only interest he has in the queen is that she's got a vagina'. This is the kind of irreverence I love.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 13, 2008 10:24 AM
Svetogorsk | October 13, 2008 8:53 AM #18
Creationism (at least, of the virulent American "Young Earth" variety) hasn't been considered a respectable position within the Church of England for many decades--perhaps more than a century. Anglican clergymen were some of the foremost dabblers-in and exponents of science during the nineteenth century, mainly because of the way our universities were set up and managed, so unlike the scientifically illiterate like the American fundies the anglican clergy has always had a highly educated, scientifically literate faction.
For similar reasons the Catholics have also tended not to back creationism.
On the distinction between United Kingdom and England, I think it really is necessary to single out England and Wales (which contain about 90% of the UK population). Scotland and Northern Ireland have distinct religious traditions, largely presbyterian, and some presbyterians seem to have annoyingly thick skulls when it comes to science.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 13, 2008 10:26 AM
Germany and Austria are "federal republics" composed of "countries"...
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 13, 2008 10:33 AM
Wasn't USA settled originally mostly by ultra-religious pilgrims? And that the separation of church and state was mandated in the constitution in an effort to prevent the ultra-religious sentiments taking over the country? So then UK became more secular over time, because they sent their most religious wackos to the Americas and USA are still under the influence of the said wackos and the separation issue has become just a formality as the government increasingly pandered to them instead of trying to control their excesses.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 13, 2008 10:33 AM
MaryM | October 13, 2008 9:40 AM #32
"Negroid" is an
i obsolete
anthropological term.
Posted by: scooter | October 13, 2008 10:35 AM
I call Bullshit. Britain has an anti-blasphemy law that criminalizes saying bad things about Jews and Sihks, soon to be extended to Muslims no doubt.
More here:
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner85.mp3
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 13, 2008 10:39 AM
scooter | October 13, 2008 10:35 AM #52
Britain has no such law.
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 13, 2008 10:42 AM
Jonathon (#35):
I'm not sure this is true - historically, it certainly isn't. For most of the 19th century, American democracy was rather more advanced (in terms of franchise and constitutional protection of civil liberties) than that in Britain, and the British establishment tended to regard the United States much as West used to regard the Soviet Union - as a politically radical regime bent on exporting dangerous revolutionary doctrines.
British liberals and radicals on the other hand looked to the US as a beacon of hope and inspiration.
Hence the way British support for the two sides in the American Civil War tended to split along political and class lines - the aristocracy and anti-democrats supporting the South (since they wanted to see democratic forms of government fail), and liberals and radicals supporting the North (since they wanted to see democratic forms of government prosper).
In short, your country was once justifiably held up as a beacon of progressive ideals. Although I'm not sure whether this thought will be a source of comfort or rubbing of salt in the wound.
Posted by: Dianne | October 13, 2008 10:42 AM
Australia is much the same but with the following added advantages
While I'm sure you're correct about all the advantages you listed and that there are even other advantages to Australia (interesting wildlife, further from the US), it lacks one critical advantage that England does possess: proximity to France.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 13, 2008 10:43 AM
And before somebody says it: we're not being taken over by Muslims either. There are only about 2 million culturally muslim people in the UK (3% of the population) and even then they are somewhat under-represented in Parliament and most other institutions.
Dunno why but I see that claim, mostly from American Christians, a lot.
Posted by: Josh | October 13, 2008 10:45 AM
This makes me really want to move to the UK...
Posted by: Daniel | October 13, 2008 10:47 AM
'"Oh, please. You guys are too smart to fall for this. Britain is now a total surveillance state where your every move is, literally, watched and they are continuing to institute MORE controls and monitoring. Is that your idea of a secular paradise? What do you think they intend to use that infrastructure for?"
Hah. That's just to tell the electorate "look, we're doing something against crime". Do you really believe anyone is paid to watch all those years and years of utterly boring video?'
I wish it were not true, but the UK is indeed becoming a surveillance society. See the following article from The Times, which outlines the plan of the UK intelligence services to monitor ALL electronic communications made within the country.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece
Unfortunately this outrageous scheme has been overshadowed by the current economic crisis.
We British are sleep-walking into a police state.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 13, 2008 10:47 AM
Do not forget the non-conformist movement in Wales, which has played a significant part in left wing politics (and Welsh nationalism) over the years.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 13, 2008 10:53 AM
The function of the monarch in the UK is almost completely ceremonial. The best reason for keeping a constitutional monarchy is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet can then exercise almost despotic powers in the name of the monarch, but we get to kick them out every four or five years. Which works reasonably well.
Posted by: scooter | October 13, 2008 10:59 AM
Tony Sidaway @ 51 Britain has no such Law
Then it was recently repealed.
Rowan Atkinsan spoke in front of the Parliament, and handed Tony Blair the first defeat in his career over extending the anti-blasphemy law to muslims.
I covered it as it happened: http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner85.mp3
try google
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 13, 2008 11:03 AM
scooter #52 , Tony Sidaway #53:
Tony is right that no blasphemy law in Britain has ever given special protection to Jews or Sikhs. There are on the other hand resrtisctions on public speech that wouldn't be possible in the US.
I think scooter is thinking of the law on inciting racial hatred which classes the jewish and sikh communities as ethnic groups. (IANAL but I think this was done through case law not statute).
Basically, calls to beat up Jews or Sikhs are treated as racism and calls to beat up Christians, Muslims or atheists aren't (which makes some sense because membership of the former two groups is very strongly correlated to ethnicity and membership of latter three not).
There was a new law bought a while back restricting the right to say "Beat up members/non-members of religious group X" (and the old (disused) blasphemy law protecting the established church was dumped).
Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 11:05 AM
One should never forget Michele Bachelet, the atheist who is also the elected President of Chile
Posted by: Matt7895 | October 13, 2008 11:09 AM
Scooter, who is 'Rowan Atkinsan'? I've never heard of him.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 13, 2008 11:10 AM
Scooter, you have your laws mixed up.
The law you are talking about covers incitement to racial hatred. There was an attempt to introduce a law covering incitement to religious hatred, which was defeated.
The laws regarding blasphemy only ever covered Christianity, and not even all denomination of that. It had seldom been used in recent years, and was repealed earlier this year.
Posted by: SimonG | October 13, 2008 11:14 AM
I'm not much interested in my MP's religious views. (I'm not sure what they are or even if I could find out easily.) Politicians who talk about their religion tend to make us feel rather uncomfortable.
I'd like to see disestablishment of the CofE, but I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. I can see it happening eventually, if only to prevent other faiths from seeking similar privileges.
I'd also like to see the monarchy done away with, ideally, but it just isn't important enough to bother with. (Apart from the idiot son, Charles.)
Like any good Englishman I save my energies for important matters, like cricket.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 13, 2008 11:16 AM
scooter: ahh you posted again while I was posting.
It wasn't actually extending the blasphemy law. It was replacing the crime of blasphemy with this "Incitement to religious hatred" thing.
It probably wasn't to clever because puts religion in a special place in law and gives a chilling effect on religion trashing while the things it was meant to do (topping people from inciting others to beat people up on grounds of religion) could well have been dealt with under public order law.
But it's not blasphemy. You can tell peoples prophets and messiahs to eat the dicks of forbidden animals quite legally now in Britain as long as there is no threat to the followers.
Also for what it's worth, the cases I've heard about it being used for have mostly been against imans calling for the murder of kaffirs.
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 13, 2008 11:17 AM
Dave Godfrey (#45):
And many of the Tory front bench (including party leader David Cameron) voted to lower the permissable time limit.
The fact that the Tories have a decent showing of secularists and social liberals within their ranks is certainly to be applauded, but shouldn't be allowed to obscure the fact that the Conservative Party still tends to be the natural political home of our worst religious reactionaries, and that they are not without influence within the party.
Incidentally, and apropos of nothing in particular, last year a survey was done of British MPs' summer reading habits. The title being most widely read by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats was a biography of William Wilberforce. The title most widely read by Labour MPs was The God Delusion.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 13, 2008 11:22 AM
Matt Penfold @65: Oh that's right. It was even defeated. (I've been out the country a while, I forget things).
So was Abu Hamza convicted for inciting racial hatred, in the end or just inciting violence? I know they hit him with one of those laws?
Posted by: SteveM | October 13, 2008 11:23 AM
comedian, actor:
Black Adder
Mr. Bean
Posted by: Muzz | October 13, 2008 11:23 AM
I have little to add of use, but must say:
" Posted by: Pyers Symon
A few years ago there was a comedy show of near-genius ("Yes Prime Minister"..."
near genius? Yes Minister/Prime Minister was utter genius.
Posted by: Muzz | October 13, 2008 11:26 AM
I have little to add of use, but must say:
" Posted by: Pyers Symon
A few years ago there was a comedy show of near-genius ("Yes Prime Minister"..."
near genius? Yes Minister/Prime Minister was utter genius.
Posted by: Ross_S | October 13, 2008 11:27 AM
Pyers @ 34,
I remember it well but the other classic Yes, Prime Minister line re the C of E was as also from Sir Humphrey:
"The Queen is inseparable from the Church of England. God is an optional extra"
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 13, 2008 11:28 AM
If I recall correctly it was both, with incitement to murder thrown in as well. In fact it was the incitement to murder that got him the longest sentence I think.
Posted by: SteveM | October 13, 2008 11:35 AM
Yes, though I thought Yes, Minister was the better of the two. Nigel Hawthorne (Madness of King George) was particularly brilliant as Humphrey.
Posted by: Penny | October 13, 2008 11:35 AM
In Europe, religion in public is about as acceptable as sex in public. It draws gasps of semi-amused disapproval. Like when I was in Germany and an American family got their poor daughter to say grace in public in a restaurant. The whole room gasped and stared. Many were put off their lunch.
And Europe really is secular: religious demographics in my high school were something like: Atheists/agnostics >85%, 'Traditional', i.e scarcely believing Christians c.9%, Slightly religious or secular Jews c.4%, Hindus 1 (individual), Real Christians 1 (individual), Muslims, Bhuddists and Other 0
I wish PZ hadn't told everyone about the beer volcanoes though.
Posted by: Walton | October 13, 2008 11:38 AM
For once, I agree with Professor Myers' remarks for the most part. As you know, I'm British and an active member of the Conservative Party. I know plenty of British conservatives who are atheists/freethinkers of some description. I don't think there's one simple explanation as to why our countries' attitudes to religion in politics are so different.
Aside from Britain being a less religious country (which it is, statistically, in terms of church attendance and the like), it's also the case that religion plays a rather different role in our society, compared to that in the US. Overt religious sectarianism ("my beliefs are right, yours are wrong") is not usually viewed as socially acceptable by most people in the UK, and religion is kept out of politics to a much greater extent. Nick Clegg, leader of the Lib Dems, is an avowed atheist; as to David Cameron, leader of my own party, I don't even know what his religious beliefs are, nor am I particularly concerned.
We do, of course, have some political issues that are inevitably argued along religious lines (abortion, stem cell research, etc.), but those issues tend not to be partisan. The Conservative Party has some very religious, socially conservative politicians (such as Anne Widdecombe), as does the Labour party (Ruth Kelly), but in both parties they are a minority. Issues such as abortion tend to be free votes (i.e. non-partisan) in Parliament.
I do think our political culture is preferable to that of the US in this respect - religion should be kept out of politics - but it stems, in the end, from a cultural difference, and any short-term change in the system won't affect matters, IMO.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 13, 2008 11:43 AM
Thanks Matt (#74).
OK, now this thing about blasphemy laws is cleared up I'd like to say "Fuck the Tories".
It's nice that lack-of-religion is now no issue in the Tory Party and that they have openly gay MPs and that the mainstream of the party has tacked to the centre on social issues but screw them. David Cameron is still the policy advisor who wrote most of the furthest right manifesto they ever stood on and his "nice chap" act does nothing to change that.
Posted by: Barnard | October 13, 2008 11:48 AM
The brilliant thing about the repeal of the blasphemy law, was that it was partly due to crazy christians calling for the law to be applied to Stuart Lee for writing Jerry Springer the opera.
Lee said that they didn't prosecute due to it not being the middle ages, im paraphrasing slightly there, really funny and intelligent guy though and an atheist to boot.
Posted by: Snarla | October 13, 2008 11:52 AM
Would anybody have a link to a good article contrasting the US political spectrum to the rest of the world's? Specifically, that both major US political parties would be considered right-wing by everybody else? Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 13, 2008 12:04 PM
Emmet @41,
I wish it were that easy here; Germans constantly refer to the UK, even in quite formal documents, as Grossbritannien. I suppose that if Northern Ireland's nationalists get what they want some day, the Germans will thereafter become serendipitously correct (unless the Scottish nats also get what they want).
Though the Germans are very bad about this, they are not, of course, as bad as the English. (For example, if you ever find yourself in All Saints' churchyard in Sutton Courtenay, check out Asquith's gravestone to see what country his family imagined him to have been prime minister of.)
As for your more metaphysical question at the end, obviously E, S, W & NI are countries: each has its own football association.
Posted by: yago | October 13, 2008 12:15 PM
"Politicians who don't believe in god, and where you can talk about removing the privileged status of religion from the legislative body, Where is this magical place? it's called England"
Sorry to rain on your little parade but the British Government has instituted Sharia (Muslim) courts:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS QUIETLY SANCTIONED the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html
"Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. THE GOVERNMENT HAS QUIETLY SANCTIONED THAT THEIR RULINGS ARE ENFORCEABLE WITH THE FULL POWER OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims"
Guess the good professor doesn't read the papers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 13, 2008 12:17 PM
This is complicated by the fact that when it comes to rugby, the whole island of Ireland has one association and one team.