…and this is a 
I'm feeling a bit uplifted at the word from the other side of the Atlantic: some doom and gloom from the Anglican church.
A long-serving Church of England bishop has predicted that the Church of England will cease to exist within a generation. In an article in the Sunday Telegraph, the Right Reverend Paul Richardson said declining church attendance and the rise in multiculturalism meant that "Christian Britain is dead".
The Church is rapidly declining, with attendances at its services in freefall, a proposal on the table at the next General Synod meeting to cut the number of bishops, and huge holes in its finances due to the economic downturn and a lack of congregants to donate to the collection plate.
Richardson said that the Church had lost more than one in ten of its regular worshippers between 1996 and 2006, with a fall from more than one million to 880,000.
The only concern would be that some other, more malevolent church could rise to take its place. Maybe the next step would be for the state to declare that the official state religion was atheism, just to preclude any nastier replacement.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 4:58 PM
The church of England will cease to exist in a generation? What a shame and ironic that their god will not do likweise.
Posted by: Robert | July 12, 2009 5:00 PM
As an Englander myself, I can say that while a lot of people are nominally Christian, most only visit churches when they are hatched, matched or despatched. Maybe at Xmas too for traditional reasons, but few actually believe in any of the God stuff - a few pensioners hedging their bets perhaps, and a handful of saddoes with nothing better to do.
Posted by: Mena | July 12, 2009 5:05 PM
Question for the Brits: doesn't/didn't being a member of the Church of England have patriotic overtones? I thought that there was a major campaign to position it that way back when Henry VIII broke away from the Vatican.
Posted by: atomjack | July 12, 2009 5:09 PM
The nastier replacement is already in place- as is the case for France- the principal religion there is Islam from all the immigrants. My French professor was lamenting that fact back in 1983 already.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 12, 2009 5:10 PM
I'd be a lot more worried about Islam increasing in that country, than be happy that the milktoast Anglican church is diminishing.
Not that the latter is any loss, naturally.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Attila | July 12, 2009 5:12 PM
I guess cake or death wasn't a good enough choice for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | July 12, 2009 5:12 PM
a good start
Posted by: Dieter | July 12, 2009 5:13 PM
If I remember correctly the Church leadership said the same thing in the 1880s. And in the 1960s. Church attendance and religious sentiment in Western populations tends to cycle and I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics that lead to this horribly unEnglish alarmism are a few years out of date.
Also, I study history in some seriousness and from what I remember making atheism the state religion usually leads to the shooting and freezing of religious people. I think we can all agree that this is a worse result than many alternatives.
Posted by: PeterKarim | July 12, 2009 5:14 PM
The Church of England is entwined with the local monarchy. It is a bit the same tangled web in my country, Denmark: The crown prince cannot get his job as king if he comes out as an atheist (or anything else except lutherian) according to the constitution.
Monarchy, State Religion and Constitution are a tangled mess, hard to change one without the others...
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 12, 2009 5:15 PM
[q}other, more malevolent church could rise to take its place[/q]
This is the problem. CoE is like a vaccine for religeon- have a little bit so the nasty stuff won't get you. Aside from the apathy, part of the problem is that the religeons that are 100% correct, don't argue with them, are gaining converts.
While Islam isn't all pervasive as some of the Right wing press would have you believe, it does get converts, both Christian, and apathetic. There are a number of white women round here who appear to have converted for 'romantic' reasons.
On the otherside there are the US style happy clappy evangelicals, who appear to be getting converts because of the 'happy clappy' bits- more fun than CoE. And we all know what they think of science.
Posted by: Brg | July 12, 2009 5:18 PM
Hello. I've just mailed the following because there wasn't a relevant post. But now there is.
"En España no se confiesa ni Dios" Under this headline, today El Mundo published the following article online: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/07/12/espana/1247356523.html
I do not believe there is an English version yet, but it says that confessionals in Spanish churches are being deserted by the faithful. "80% of Spanish Catholics do not confess any longer". Priests say that people have stopped seeing them as intermediaries between men and god, and joke with the idea that the today's faithful would rather talk to psychiatrists than to them.
The article also says that the Catholic Episcopal Conference publishes statistics of all sacraments but that of the confession, and that some would say that this is because it is embarrassed of the dwindling numbers shown there.
Furthermore, it adds that some Catholics view sin as an expression of primitive cultures; others as a mean of control by the church.
Empty confessionals, priests who have only one client per day; the article is much longer and very thorough. I believe it is starting to be heavily discussed here, so maybe an English media outlet will pick it soon.
Regards,
Brg
Posted by: Geoff | July 12, 2009 5:18 PM
The C of E is fairly harmless and sometimes benevolent, in contrast to many other churches. I have a real worry that our most unscrupulous politicians in the UK have started to take seriously all the fundamentalist nutjobs in xtianism and islam (capitals missed deliberately: why give then respect?).
Posted by: Dieter | July 12, 2009 5:20 PM
"(capitals missed deliberately: why give then respect?)"
Because that is how the words in question are spelled.
Posted by: spiny norman | July 12, 2009 5:21 PM
This isn't good news. Anglicans tend to be relatively sensible and it probably indicates a rise in loonier beliefs, whether it's fundamentalism or New Agey antivax wackoes, not rationalism.
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
July 12, 2009 5:26 PM
I live in a beautiful Victorian gothic flat in a redundant C of E church (and the irony of it makes me smile every morning!) Several of our local churches have been declared redundant; some of historic importance are preserved, one has become a restaurant, another is now a day-care centre for the homeless. Only one has been taken over by an evangelical group. In Wales, a lot of chapels are now homes, artists' studios, craft shops etc. Apart from an irritating and noisy minority who shout very loudly and get far more press coverage than their numbers deserve, most Brits aren't that bothered about religion. The average British person will put 'C of E' on the census form as the default option, or might go to church at Christmas for reasons of nostalgia, family tradition, aesthetic pleasure etc. but the religious obssession we read about from the USA is still comparatively rare here.
Long may it remain so!
Posted by: arrakis
|
July 12, 2009 5:28 PM
The Pope is probably doing cartwheels...er, would be doing cartwheels if they wouldn't snap every bone in his body.
Posted by: Valdyr | July 12, 2009 5:32 PM
Oh no, multiculturalism! *rolleyes* Why is it I only hear that term used by people utilizing it as code for "dirty foreigners"? I'm not sure anyone even uses it in a positive context anymore.
Didn't British far-right-wingers in the 60's and 70's insist that the nasty blacks and Indians would overrun and ruin the UK if something wasn't done about all the tolerance going around?
As for Islam gaining more prominence, I dunno. It seems like Brits are becoming less interested in religion in general, and not just specifically the Anglican kind.
Posted by: James F | July 12, 2009 5:32 PM
#14
I agree with the giant hedgehog. Good luck finding Dinsdale.
Posted by: Alexander | July 12, 2009 5:34 PM
" that the official state religion was atheism"
Nooooo. it's lack of it. It sounds weird even in this context. Now try to explain to a fundie that atheism can not be considered as religion...
Posted by: BibleSmith | July 12, 2009 5:38 PM
In other news, the Temple of Zeus claims to also have lost another 10% of its worshipers from 1996 to 2006.
Posted by: PaulJ | July 12, 2009 5:49 PM
Apparently the General Synod announced today that they would reduce the number of Anglican bishops.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | July 12, 2009 5:56 PM
In Britain, 'multiculturalism' has pretty much become code for 'Islam' (the other euphemistic code word for Islam is 'communities'). Islam is a strong candidate for the greatest manmade evil in the world today, nastier even than Roman Catholicism, and certainly more dangerous. The poor old Church of England is a pussycat by comparison with either.
Posted by: David G. | July 12, 2009 6:06 PM
PZ, as good as this news is...
"Maybe the next step would be for the state to declare that the official state religion was atheism, just to preclude any nastier replacement."
...Is perhaps the worst idea you have ever had. I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but damn.
Posted by: Rob Clack | July 12, 2009 6:13 PM
I am an atheist, but I sing in a free-lance church choir because the music, sung in the context for which it was originally composed, is simply glorious.
It will be a disaster for us if the CofE fails. We depend on the continuing services to be able to sing the magnificent music that's been composed over the past 500 years in its correct context.
I despair that people continue to believe this junk, yet would be devastated if they all decided to believe, as I do, that religion was simple escapism.
Posted by: Roland Branconnier | July 12, 2009 6:15 PM
I was raised a Catholic, switched to being an Episcopalian, then became a Deist. I am now with Richard Dawkins a 6 on his 7 point scale of atheism. I am almost absolutely certain there is no God.
Richardson said: "that the Church had lost more than one in ten of its regular worshippers between 1996 and 2006, with a fall from more than one million to 880,000."
Let's shoot for zero.
Posted by: Cylux | July 12, 2009 6:16 PM
In regards to multiculturalism, I would say that a multicultural society is an ideal, but multiculturalism is a form of racism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU0rcFAX730 the example cited in this video, of a German judge ruling 'okay for thee, but not for me' smacks of it.
Posted by: Porco Dio | July 12, 2009 6:27 PM
Happy monkey!!!
now, with no congregation and low property values i'm gonna snatch me up an old church and convert into Porco Dio's Casa del Amore!
Posted by: Alex | July 12, 2009 6:32 PM
This actually isn't good news. Moderate churches like the church of England are disappearing, and fundamentalist, anti-science churches are taking their place.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2009 6:34 PM
That's more or less what's happening. Thanks to the Church sending out it's most extreme elements as missionaries over the last century, the African branch ended up (a) growing, and (b) radical.
Recently this has led to what amounts to a takeover by the African extremists, which is part of the reason for its accelerating decline in the UK.
Now it's in the same kind of death spiral that the US Republican Party is in: the extreme right drives off more and more of the less extreme elements, which leaves the whole even more extreme, etc.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 12, 2009 6:35 PM
Unfortunately, as usual, the priest is lying. The church will still be there. "Our nice christian church is disappearing and will soon be replaced by godless demons/rastas/muslims/etc" has been a favorite scare tactic for at least the past 100 years. It's fundamentally indistinguishable from "whitey will disappear in the next 10 years and be replaced by all those colored immigrants".
Posted by: M31 | July 12, 2009 6:44 PM
In other news, the Temple of Zeus claims to also have lost another 10% of its worshipers
They went from 2 members down to 1.8?
Posted by: Rheinhard | July 12, 2009 7:01 PM
Hey, does this mean we could pick up all these glorious old cathedrals for cheap? Because if atheism were the state religion, I think it would be awesome to attend atheism services in the middle of grandiose, awe-inspiring Gothic architecture. We could even sing some of those top 30 atheist songs from the other post as hymns!
Posted by: Lifewish | July 12, 2009 7:03 PM
Maybe the next step would be for the state to declare that the official state religion was atheism, just to preclude any nastier replacement.
Uh, speaking as a British atheist, thanks but no thanks. Having seen how badly the current state religion is tanking, I don't want the same to happen to us.
More seriously, I'm slightly worried about the "nastier replacement" issue. Most people in Britain are no more skeptical than e.g. the average American, it's just that the CofE tends not to be terribly interesting to the media round here so drops off everyone's radar.
All it takes is a little bit of positive media coverage of the nutjobs de jour, and the Barnum demographic is lining up round the block. Just look at the recent fun with the ultra-xenophobic British National Party winning a couple of seats in Parliament.
Posted by: James F | July 12, 2009 7:08 PM
Now this is what I call good news.
The SBC, home of Ken Ham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, the force behind Liberty University, Regent University, and pretty much every creationist ploy in the U.S. today. Could it be true? I'll take it...that, or having the SBC give up creationism.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 7:26 PM
Rob Clack @ 24
"The music, sung in the context for which it was originally composed." Yes, and that context was the glorification of a non-existent god. Does this in any way exalt the music so composed, considering it's subject, and would you have liked the music just as much if it were glorifying the wonders of nature without any religious reference?
I too am an atheist, but my interpretation and affinity to religious music is one of scorn and derision as it is composed to an imaginary thing which has wreaked so much havoc and misery in fostering it's existence. I love music with a passion, but do not ascribe any interest to religious music. The music is one thing. The words used to glorify that imaginary thing is another, and if I may borrow a quote on architecture which to me has meaning to my viewpoint, "Form follows function", which is the very essence of religious music and for which it was composed.
Perhaps my atheism is different from yours and may be misconstrued as missing something in music for no matter what purpose of composition, be it religious or secular.
This is just my opinion and one of which I have expressed before with varying degrees of incredulity from the comments of other posters. I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: David G. | July 12, 2009 7:43 PM
@M31 #31
"They went from 2 members down to 1.8?"
One of them got hit by lightening and lost the use of their legs.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2009 7:44 PM
O Shadenfreude, o Shadenfreude,
Du kannst mir sehr gefallen!
There's a certain poetic justice to seeing Santayana once again proven correct. The Right's political adventures of the last 40 years explicitly ignored the observation that mixing religion and politics isn't good for either.
Karma. Especially the "comes around" part.
Posted by: Rich | July 12, 2009 7:47 PM
One factor that is often overlooked in regard to church attendance is that there are a lot of faith schools in the UK. As in the area where we live, it is often the case that the only decent local school is a Church of England school. To get your kids into that school you need to show your face in church for a year, and get a form signed by the vicar to confirm this. Pretty much everybody we know attends church for one year then stops. Each year brings a new influx of attendees. As long as there is a Church of England school in the area, the Churches are guaranteed a few hundred extra attendees every week. Deduct these people (who make up a good 50% of the of the local congregation, in my estimation) and the figures start to look even more desperate.
Posted by: ellis | July 12, 2009 7:49 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8146460.stm
Posted by: raven | July 12, 2009 7:53 PM
The church down the road isn't doing so well. They are constantly sending me junk mail about attending. They seem to be Southern Baptist affiliated. They call themselves a "Community" church but their parent organization is the SB's. They can't really use the term Southern Baptist out here, it doesn't go over well on the west coast.
Posted by: ellis | July 12, 2009 7:55 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8146460.stm
Posted by: atomjack | July 12, 2009 8:02 PM
@11- Brg, the irony is that confession was invented either 900 year ago or in 900 a.d., I'm too lazy to go look. The same with purgatory- the church is going to give it up too, I hear. If this doesn't drive the point home to the faithful that it's all invented, then they are lost.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 8:03 PM
David G @ 36
Reminds me of an incident in a neighboring town last week during a heavy thunderstorm. Lightning hit a church steeple and set it on fire. It had to be torn down lest the whole chuch caught on fire. Many of the parishoners were dumbfounded, but not in the way I would have liked them to be. There was all this talk of rebuilding and community church spirit, but not one inquisitive question of why their god would allow such a thing to happen to one of it's houses of insanity. Never was the question posed, let alone voiced in hushed and disbelievable overtones. They just cannot fathom the enormity of their belief in things unseen and non-existent and apply it to the natural world, free of imaginary demons or spooks. Religion is all, and to many, that is all they have. Sad.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
July 12, 2009 8:05 PM
Holbach @35
Sorry mate, but I'll take the whole Bach (all of the them) as they are. The works stands on their own merits, regardless of the motivations of the composers.
Posted by: Tony P | July 12, 2009 8:14 PM
It isn't just the Anglicans, but Catholicism is losing ground too. Approach a Catholic cleric and they'll claim their parish is growing but the reality is that they're shrinking.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 8:17 PM
Eidolon @ 44
Oh, I'll take Bach (and his sons) and the English and French Suites, Harpsichord Concertos, Violin Sonatas, Concerti Grossi, Piano Sonatas, Orchestral Suites, and so many more of his secular works. I don't like J S any less for his religious music, for how can one who loves classical music be so imbued with this beautiful non-religious music disregard the total for the distasteful religious composition. Yes, the works stand on their own merits, but religious music has no merit in my estimation.
Posted by: David Utidjian | July 12, 2009 8:38 PM
David G. @ #23
I read PZs comment as 'Maybe the next step would be for the state to declare that it has NO official religion of any kind, just to preclude a nastier replacement.'
I am pretty certain that many fundies would interpret PZs statement as some sort of "proof" that PZ thinks that atheism is a religion and, therefore atheism is a religion because PZ said so (or some such.) In that sense I would agree that it is an unfortunate choice of words. Here in the US we have no 'state religion' and we don't seem to be the better off for it.
-DU-
Posted by: GeoffR
|
July 12, 2009 8:41 PM
The day we see similar articles about the Catholic Church I'll feel we're getting somewhere.
'Till then the bulk of the work lies ahead.
Still..it's a good sign
Posted by: Joe the Ordinary Guy | July 12, 2009 8:46 PM
As I summon my incredible powers of prognostication (Error Free Since 3:00PM Today!) it seems to me that our future will involve the disappearance of the “nice” religions and the strengthening of the “wackaloon” religions. This will be the result of a sort of “social centrifuge” that is going on: vocal atheists are challenging the faithful on their baloney, and those with the weakest faith are discovering that they are really atheist after all. And they may be OK with that, but they may not become “militant atheists”. Those faithful who are “left behind” (so to speak) will be free to declare themselves more pure in their faith, and engage in all sorts of lunacy. I won't guess what the numbers will be, but even if the “weak-faithful-to-atheist” numbers are very high indeed, the damage that can be done by a few concentrated wackaloons is considerable. It won't be pretty.
Posted by: CW | July 12, 2009 8:49 PM
I think that is actually very good news. It is the moderate, aw-shucks-we're-just-folks religious sects that give all the power to the more virulent flavours. When we point out the vicious, destructive power of religion don't we always hear that we're just talking about the lunatic fringe, while the "real" religious are all warm and fuzzy? Then good riddance to these lukewarm sects that (intentionally or not) front for the more pernicious layers beneath.If the polarization must increase as and in order for religion to be recognized for what it is, then so be it.
Posted by: David Utidjian | July 12, 2009 8:50 PM
Holbach @ 43
One wonders why they bother with lightning rods at all on such churches, no?
-DU-
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 9:06 PM
Heck, there's a Catholic Insurance Company. Never underestimate the power of religion to immunise against the harmful effects of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: karol | July 12, 2009 9:31 PM
PZ Myers,
We already have a new religion in Canada and it is called "Church of Secularism, Abortion and Sexual deviancy"
We have holy sacrament of abortion for women
and another holy sacrament of sodomy for men.
Huge White Marble Phallus is one of the secred symbols of that religion. Head Faggot sits on top of it while he gives lectures to the followers on issues of sexual diversity; homosexuality, zoophilia, necrophilia bestiality etc.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 9:42 PM
This reminded me of a comment during the great RU486 debate of '06 in Australian parliament. For background, the debate was not over whether abortion should be legal or not, rather that the minister had final say over a particular treatement and that should be in the hands of the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
So with that in mind, the debate inevitably descended into trading barbs over abortion. And there was one right-wing Christian who came out and said "we are aborting ourselves out of existence" - of course "we" referring to non-muslims.
Is abortion a suitable epidemic that it is causing the decline of "white" Australia? Of course not, it's an emotive rallying cry whereby our threatened existence is going to rally around another cause. And this doesn't seem too different.
Down 10% in a decade? Fuck, better start writing an obituary. Forgive my scepticism, but this seems like nothing more than a rallying cry to get people to go against another cause.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 9:43 PM
David Utidjian @ 51
Good old Benjamin Franklin applied good science when he invented the lightning rod to protect buildings from the happenstances of nature, and yet those churches could not stand on their own merit with or without their god. They reject science in lieu of nonsense, and yet it is pure, raw science that comes down from the clouds and strikes their house of insanity, the bolt not realizing that it is intelligently designed and deigned to spare the church and strike elsewhere. It is science that will protect the church from an act of nature, but even more science that renders the belief absurd when it reduces it to rubble. "Praise be god, it has given us a sign." Morons.
Posted by: Canuck | July 12, 2009 9:51 PM
I'm sure someone has already said this, but I haven't read the thread, ... so... this is only good news if, as you state in the last paragraph, there is not some other "woo" that takes its place. If the trend is to unbelief, then we're all good. If it's Islam that becomes the larger number, it's even worse. All "woo" is bad, but some woo is worse than others.
Posted by: genesgalore | July 12, 2009 10:05 PM
Maybe the next step would be for the state to declare that religion is delusion and atheism is reality.
Posted by: foxfire | July 12, 2009 10:13 PM
Canada can has Phelps-level fundies? Who Knew!
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2009 10:20 PM
One wonders why they bother with lightning rods at all on such churches, no?
I was going to say that there was quite a bit of opposition to lightning rods for that very reason, but I can't verify that it's not a just-so story. The most reliable things I could scratch up are here and here, which isn't much.
Posted by: Canuck | July 12, 2009 10:21 PM
I've got to agree with the post at #22 with the name Richard Dawkins on it. Whether it's actually him, or someone posting under his name fraudulently, I totally agree with the post. My parents are Church of England, and they are as passive as milk toast. As are all of their fellow Anglicans.
Reduction in CoE attendance is a good thing over all, but there are other measures that need to be seen to determine the health of the nation. Some bad measures may emerge. I don't have any access to numbers.
Posted by: David G. | July 12, 2009 10:41 PM
@David Utidjian #41
"I am pretty certain that many fundies would interpret PZs statement as some sort of "proof" that PZ thinks that atheism is a religion and, therefore atheism is a religion because PZ said so (or some such.) In that sense I would agree that it is an unfortunate choice of words. Here in the US we have no 'state religion' and we don't seem to be the better off for it."
Yeah, it's the words he chose that bothered me most. It's true that PZ needn't be bothered to carefully control his rhetoric to avoid any possible misuse of his words by people that will find a way to misuse them anyway, but as Nanni Moretti says in Palombella Rossa: LE PAROLE SONO IMPORTANTI! (Words are important)
And to those that don't get the reference, fix that. :)
@karol #53
Nice country you've got there.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 12, 2009 10:44 PM
Meanwhile, a short distance away, Ireland has passed Blasphemy Laws, just in time for the latest report on Church-sponsored Pedophilia (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/catholic-clergy-braced-for-fallout-from-abuse-report-1818145.html). Maybe they'll say the report is blasphemous and the investigators must be punished.
Posted by: MS | July 12, 2009 10:45 PM
Generally good news, although I hope this doesn't destroy the wonderful British choral--and other sacred music--traditions as collateral damage. My wife and I are going to spend the fall semester in London, and one of the things we are looking forward to are the sung services, organ recitals, and other musical events in the churches.
Posted by: Dale Husband | July 12, 2009 11:06 PM
I hope you were joking. Communist nations tried that in the 20th Century, and most of them are failures.
Posted by: CW | July 12, 2009 11:15 PM
Causality: you're doing it wrong.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 12, 2009 11:30 PM
pictures or it didn't happen
Posted by: Tulse | July 12, 2009 11:32 PM
...and Toronto just had its holiest of rituals, one of the largest Pride Parade gatherings on earth. I for one am delighted to live in a place where gay marriage is legal and there is no abortion law. Fortunately such "unbelievers" as karol are not that common in Canada.
Posted by: jimBOB | July 12, 2009 11:57 PM
I went to a catholic high school in the mid 70's which had clergy sprinkled throughout the faculty and administration - priests and nuns appeared in most departments, not just the religion classes. Today I understand that in this same high school there are no clergy in the faculty, and basically none there at all on a permanent basis, due to the extreme shortage of ordained clergy in the church generally. The Catholic Church is running out of shepherds, whatever is happening to the size of the flocks.
Of course they won't even consider ordaining women or allowing the priests to marry. Perish the thought.
Given that the Church is one of the last major unapologetic authoritarian patriarchies, good riddance.
Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 12:22 AM
Christopher Hitchens says that the Church of England is, for children, like being inoculated against worst strains of the religion virus.
Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 12:26 AM
Karol @53, Boy you really want to break out of your self-built prison, don't you?
Hankering after some sin so badly that you have to imagine others partaking.
OCD?
Has anyone called Poe on Karol? Play that song, Unbelievable.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 13, 2009 12:30 AM
No, no, you wouldn't want that. As Colin Patterson said, the surest way to kill off a religion (or a substitute) is to make it part of the government!
Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 12:42 AM
Philip Larkin said it best in his poem "Church Going"
See http://www.artofeurope.com/larkin/lar5.htm Excerpt below:
Posted by: Chris | July 13, 2009 2:21 AM
As a nation the UK has seen over the centuries quite a bit of sectarian violence, (Northern Ireland is another story), and the emergence of the Church of England under Henry was, strangely enough, a good thing at the time. The catholic v protestant killings and burnings slowly dwindled until just the one major church took control. Now the CoE is somewhat like an old toothless dog (a bit like the rest of the country)
and despite still having bishops in the House of Lords it does no great harm. As a lifelong atheist I don't care for it at all, but what does worry me is the rise of the more militant and increasingly vocal sects that seem to be springing up. Not perhaps as bad as in the USA but they're catching up.
Posted by: FishNChimps | July 13, 2009 2:37 AM
The death of the CofE isn't something to crow about: it's not evangelising, is too fragmented for dogmatism, and it's not particularly religious either. There's no threat of excommunication nor stoning for apostasy, and many of its churches are architecturally and aesthetically very beautiful. Even as an atheist, I'd hate to see our town's 13th century church fall into disuse or be taken over by one of the more dangerous religions.
Posted by: FishNChimps | July 13, 2009 2:42 AM
The death of the CofE isn't something to crow about: it's not evangelising, is too fragmented for dogmatism, and it's not particularly religious either. There's no threat of excommunication nor stoning for apostasy, and many of its churches are architecturally and aesthetically very beautiful. Even as an atheist, I'd hate to see our town's 13th century church fall into disuse or be taken over by one of the more dangerous religions.
Posted by: FishNChimps
|
July 13, 2009 3:01 AM
The death of the CofE isn't something to crow about: it's not evangelising, is too fragmented for dogmatism, and it's not particularly religious either. There's no threat of excommunication nor stoning for apostasy, and many of its churches are architecturally and aesthetically very beautiful. Even as an atheist, I'd hate to see our town's 13th century church fall into disuse or be taken over by one of the more dangerous religions.
Posted by: FishNChimps
|
July 13, 2009 3:07 AM
The death of the CofE isn't something to crow about: it's not evangelising, is too fragmented for dogmatism, and it's not particularly religious either. There's no threat of excommunication nor stoning for apostasy, and many of its churches are architecturally and aesthetically very beautiful. Even as an atheist, I'd hate to see our town's 13th century church fall into disuse or be taken over by one of the more dangerous religions.
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney | July 13, 2009 3:57 AM
Also from the Telegraph (in the Science News section, just above the article about record UFO sightings) is this article, claiming the exact opposite - that the CoE needs more bishops, not fewer, because of "higher expectations."
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 13, 2009 4:14 AM
Thankyou fish n chips for NOT reading the "busy" message when you posted.
I think we should be pushing some kind of no religious interference in government rule similar to the Americans while we are in a good position. That way if fundamentalism does start getting a hold, we are already one step ahead.
Posted by: XD | July 13, 2009 4:25 AM
I wonder if it is possible for religions to pass through a memetic bottle-neck?
As for atheism becoming a "state religion", I assumed that PZ was joking, but it would be nice to get written confirmation, just to have something to point to when it gets quoted by paranoid theists.
As a Brit, I am in two minds about the decline of the CoE. It's good to see religion declining, but the only reason the CoE is doing so is because it is a largely harmless religion, i.e., it doesn't use particularly devious methods to recruit new members, and doesn't use popularism and bigotry to swell theie numbers. And it certainly isn't a sign that the UK is becoming a beacon of rationality, alas.
I think it may be an opportunity for the Church to become completely modern. Let the homophobic and misogynistic 'foreign' section break-away, and instead fully embrace tolerance. The CoE has some very good schools, maybe it should concentrate on education, reason, and the arts, and let the theology dwindle to a kind of Deism. Simply regard Jesus as more of a philosopher -- akin to Siddhartha -- and acknowledge the fallibility of the Bible, rather than embarrassingly try to defend it. I guess it would become a bit like secular humanism, but with fantastic buildings!
Oh, and if the CoE dies out, those fantastic buildings wouldn't become libraries and art galleries, they would become the headquarters of multi-national companies. I'd rather St. Paul's cathedral remain religious, than become the HQ for BP.
Posted by: John M | July 13, 2009 4:28 AM
Holbach @ #35 "...my interpretation and affinity to religious music is one of scorn and derision as it is composed to an imaginary thing..."
Would you stop children singing and enjoying "Rudolf the Red -nosed Reindeer" at Yuletide? Surely this is the principle you are expounding here? What about songs that had their origin in war?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 13, 2009 4:49 AM
This is good news. Punks like that just get in the way.
Now all we have to do is wait for the old Catholic hippies of the '60s to die out and the real work can begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
Posted by: Muffin | July 13, 2009 4:52 AM
"Maybe the next step would be for the state to declare that the official state religion was atheism, just to preclude any nastier replacement."
You know, they're just going to quote you on that... "PZ Myers finally relented and admitted that despite his earlier claims to the contrary, atheism is a religion as well!" and all that.
Posted by: SEF | July 13, 2009 4:54 AM
It does seem to work a bit that way - like cow-pox to everyone else's smallpox (though still not as good as having natural immunity and hence avoiding catching any pox at all). The people who only came across religion much later in life, eg at university, especially in a sexually transmitted fashion, eg via a girlfriend/boyfriend (classic folie à deux!), tended to go off the rails in their train of thought much more than those for whom it was nothing new.
Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez
|
July 13, 2009 5:57 AM
The extincion of the Church of England is undoubtedly good news. However, other Churches are taking its place (mainly Catholicism). The raise in Islam in Great Britain is not due to conversions but mainly to the introduction of foreign people (foreign species according to Kilmeade, 2009). For a long period of time, British imperialism destroyed whole countries. Now, as a consequence of that same imperialism, Great Britain is de-Britainized beyond recognition. If we weren't atheists, we see a sort of divine punishment in these later developments.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 13, 2009 6:18 AM
@atomjack #4: that's just immigrant-bashing. The last time I checked France was running along as usual; the government even managed some positive policies such as banning the bhurka in schools. I hope they ban the bhurka in public as well. If you get majority muslim representation in the legislature and they try to pass the sharia off as law then you can call for another revolt. Reproductive rates in immigrants tends to be high if you tend to take in poorly educated people, so you need to ensure that the immigrant children receive a good education. There is little to fear despite the claims of being overrun by muslims.
Posted by: Dave | July 13, 2009 6:40 AM
Didac L-M: "For a long period of time, British imperialism destroyed whole countries."
Off topic perhaps, but I'm curious to know which countries we're supposed to have "destroyed". Looking at the world today, the former colonies that have retained much of the legacy of British imperialism (e.g. India) seem to be in pretty good shape - it's the ones that have ditched it (e.g. Zimbabwe) that have become basket cases.
Posted by: la tricoteuse | July 13, 2009 6:41 AM
Didac Lopez-Martinez @85: I don't think it's particularly accurate to say that Britain is "de-Britainized" by the presence of people from other countries. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's complete balls. The diversification of a population, or the addition of multiple and varied cultural influences, need not take anything away from the existing culture. Britain is just as British as it ever was. It just also has so much MORE to offer in addition to that than it did before.
American culture/society is no less American thanks to the large number of Hispanic (for lack of a better catch-all term than "Non-European Spanish Speaking Populations" or something equally unwieldy)immigrants, or indeed any other immigrants, calling the US home, nor are those immigrant families any less Mexican/Cuban/Puerto Rican/South or Central American/Russian/Asian/etc for making themselves a part of the place where they've chosen to live.
I am no less Italian for having been raised primarily in the US, and I am no less American for having been raised in an Italian household. It is not necessary to lose one in order to gain the other.
Multicultural (in the true sense of the word, not the rife-with-fearful-nationalistic-undertones one) societies are often greater than the sum of their parts, so they need not lose in one area in order to gain in another. It's a false dilemma.
Posted by: Dave | July 13, 2009 6:42 AM
Didac L-M: "For a long period of time, British imperialism destroyed whole countries."
Off topic perhaps, but I'm curious to know which countries we're supposed to have "destroyed". Looking at the world today, the former colonies that have retained much of the legacy of British imperialism (e.g. India) seem to be in pretty good shape - it's the ones that have ditched it (e.g. Zimbabwe) that have become basket cases.
Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez
|
July 13, 2009 6:55 AM
Deeply sorry about my first comment (#85). Both #87 and #89 express very similar opinions which are completely right: India and Zimbabwe (sorry, South Rhodesia) were far more developed during British enhancement than they are now. Moreover, #88 is completely right in the fact that Great Britain is now utterly improved through the population enrichment she has been experiencing since the 1960s.
Posted by: MarkW | July 13, 2009 7:08 AM
According to the 2001 census, 2.7% of the UK population is Muslim. (1.6 million) Compare with 15.5% "no religion" (9.1 million) and 7.3% "not stated" (4.3 million)
OK, it's not all good; 71.6% Christian (42.1 million) but it puzzles me that people rail against "the increase in Islam" here when there seems to be more than five times as many atheists as there are Muslims.
Perhaps it's that we're less vocal than the Muslims.
Posted by: abz | July 13, 2009 7:50 AM
perhaps the answer is to create a replacement now - ready for the huge power vaccuum caused by the death of the CofE.
It needs to have some familiar elements and something new to engage the young who will in their turn inspire the older ones as well as future generations to join up.
I'm thinking we could put Daniel Radcliffe in a dodgy jumper, have him handing out cup-cakes in the streets of London to anyone who proclaims themselves
"THE NEW FOLLOWERS OF THE MIGHTILY LOL"
It doesn't have to make any sense, it just has to be loud and sound vaguely modern.
Then set up a paypal account, charge them 10% tithe and we're all laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted by: Evan | July 13, 2009 9:23 AM
Bukowski by Modest Mouse
Woke this morning and it seemed to me
That every night turns out to be
A little bit more like Bukowski
And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read
But God, who'd want to be
God, who'd want to be such an asshole?
God, who'd want to be
God, who'd want to be such an asshole?
Well we sat on the edge of the river
The crowd screamed, "Sacrifice the liver!"
If God takes life, he's an Indian giver
So tell me now why, you'll tell me never
Who would want to be
Who would want to be such a control freak?
Well who would want to be
Who would want to be such a control freak?
Well, see what you want to see
You should see it all
Well, take what you want from me
You deserve it all
Nine times out of ten
Our hearts just get dissolved
Well, I want a better place
Or just a better way to fall
But one time out of ten
Everything is perfect for us all
Well, I want a better place
Or just a better way to fall
Here we go
If God controls the land and disease
Keeps a watchful eye on me
If he's really so damn mighty
My problem is I can't see
Well who'd want to be
Who'd want to be such a control freak?
Well who'd want to be
Who would want to be such a control freak?
Evil home stereo
What good songs do you know?
Evil me, oh yeah, I know
What good curves can you throw?
Well, all that icing and all that cake
I can't make it to your wedding but I'm sure I'll be at your wake
You were talk, talk, talking in circles that day
When you get to the point make sure that I'm still awake, okay?
Went to bed and didn't see
Why every day turns out to be
A little bit more like Bukowski
And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read
But God, who'd want to be
God, who'd want to be such an asshole?
Posted by: Brian X | July 13, 2009 9:31 AM
Cake or death?
Wait, where are you going...
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 13, 2009 9:55 AM
Firstly the BBC and the Guardian are reporting that Synod voted to increase the number of bishops, despite a collapse in the number of clergy and parishes that they have to administer. Apparently the money it all costs is not important . . .
Meanwhile I wouldn't worry too much about old churches. Up here in Scotland we used to be a truly priest ridden society and as such have a lot of ex churches. Around here, let me think, yes: one is flats; another a nightclub; the one at the bottom of the hill is an Indian Restaurant on the ground floor and a snooker hall on the first; one in the village has just been converted to offices for an architects company etc.
@XD imagine St Pauls as a much more permanent version of the Dome, Party Central instead of corporate centre.
Anyway I am reasonably relaxed about the centrifugation, lets clear the non combatants out of the way so us defenders of Secularism can take clear, justified aim at the ignorant bigots. A significant portion of the Liberal Wing of the exAnglican church would stand with us in that fight. Recently the Rev Giles Fraser in the Guardian wrote a very grumpy column about how there should be schism from those nasty gay hating Evangelicals. After all they ambush poor defenceless Liberals by quoting scripture at them, it's intolerable! It is quite funny in how they think it all matters.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 13, 2009 10:31 AM
Here I agree with Dawkins and Terry Pratchett: one of the nice things about the C of E is that it prevents us from getting something much worse.
Or at least it did. Consider the following:
Come now, Professor. You must have heard that the theme is "Out with Anglicanism, in with Wahabi Islam". Incidentally, a recent poll shows that 72% of Muslim men in Britain want to see homosexuality recriminalized. Round abouts thirty-three percent of all British Muslims are in favor of the death penalty for apostasy.
So let's keep the Champagne corked, shall we?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 10:35 AM
Hah, let's drink the Champagne but hang onto the bottle in case we need to hit someone around the head with it.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 13, 2009 10:40 AM
Point, Matt. After all, no idea how much longer we'll be able to enjoy booze here in Merry Ol' England
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | July 13, 2009 11:16 AM
An established church and a monarchy pretty much go together.'No bishops, no king,' one of the Stuarts said. As churches go the C of E is fairly harmless.
I'm told that The Unitarian -Universalist church is growing but only at about the same rate as the population - not gaining ground. Our local UU church is in deep decline. The last time our membership went up, it was when a fundy attacked us for our pagan membership and rites.
Posted by: jak hdfk | July 13, 2009 11:28 AM
mena(@ no. 3): patriotism is, like, rilly, rilly uncool. ok? esp. if you used to be a world power but are no longer one.
our charming american friends (with your flags and your anthems, how quaint!) will surely start to understand this soon enough!
Posted by: DingoJack | July 13, 2009 11:39 AM
gaypaganunitarianagnostic -
Actually I believe 'No bishops, no king" was a rallying cry for the more extreme wing of the Roundheads. [/pedantry]
Ok, I've got that out of my system now, carry on. - DJ
Posted by: la tricoteuse | July 13, 2009 11:58 AM
jak hdfk (@ #100): "patriotism is, like, rilly, rilly uncool. ok? esp. if you used to be a world power but are no longer one."
You should probably send that memo to the Romans.
Posted by: MarkW | July 13, 2009 12:05 PM
Cimourdain: 72% of half of 2.7%? We're quaking in our boots (not). The homophobic and otherwise would-be-theocratic Xians probably make up bigger numbers in absolute terms.
The threat of Islam to good ol' Blighty is overstated IMO.
Posted by: matt | July 13, 2009 12:14 PM
threat of Islam "may be" overstated but muslims will play it up as a victory for islam
Posted by: Oeditor | July 13, 2009 4:16 PM
A CofE vicar of my acquaintance has recently pointed out that it only needs about 10% of the population to be dedicated to a cause for it to take over. He cites Constantine making Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire when it was at about that level.
No room for complacency then.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 13, 2009 5:13 PM
MarkW,
Would-be-theocratic Xtians, hey? Hmmm... Thing is, there's a whole bunch of Christians, including many fundies, who'd raise hell about any real attempts to be theocratic. Don't talk to me about gay marriage, I mean the real, dominionist style thing. How many Muslims are similarly willing to raise hell against Shariah?
Hello? Anyone? Don't all stand up at once.
Incidentally, in Holland they've got gay marriage; they also have a lot of chaps who are willing to take a knife to gays for Allah. Christian fundies have trouble getting gay marriage banned; Muslim fundies have no problem getting gays whacked. They almost succeeded with Paris's first openly gay mayor, as I recall.
And, what's this? I notice that the UK police is being told to lay of Islamic radicals for fear of inflaming them still further. Oh, well...
Finally, we've already got Shariah courts operating in Blighty.
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 13, 2009 6:25 PM
The Sharia thing is a right wing lunacy
http://lasthussar.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/sharia-in-the-uk/
Jews are allowed the same rights- in fact in granting it to Islam we are just letting them 'catch up' with Judaism.
The problem with Islam in Britain is that they do seem to allow the bonkers ones have the loudest voice- a bit like the GOP. I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable Republicans over their, who can calmly explain their politics in a reasonable and freindly way. It's just they will let Rush be their voice.
While we are about it
http://lasthussar.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/an-angry-man-in-corduroy-says-it-best/
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 13, 2009 6:28 PM
Yes, I've spotted the typos... AFTER I hit submit.
Posted by: Li'l Innocent | July 13, 2009 9:20 PM
Well, Anglo-Christism generated some damn fine architecture and poetry and music in its time, working through the gifts of people like ol' Chris Wren, Jack Donne and Tom Tallis.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 14, 2009 2:48 AM
Innocent, amen, as it were.
Hussar, if you seriously can conflate the Beth Din courts with Shariah, then I submit you know very little about either. Further, equating the GOP with Wahabi Islam is just unserious. Please get real. There's a very good documentary by Channel Four: Undercover Mosque. I suggest you watch it.
Posted by: MarkW | July 14, 2009 5:45 AM
Cimourdain, I'm not denying that Islam (especially Wahabism) is a problem in the UK. I can hardly forget the 7/7 bombings...
I just think that Muslims, at 2.7% of the population, are a very small minority in the UK, and the radicals are a minority of that minority. You ask me "How many Muslims are similarly willing to raise hell against Shariah?" I don't know. Why don't you ask them?
Posted by: Oeditor | July 14, 2009 6:34 AM
"I just think that Muslims, at 2.7% of the population, are a very small minority in the UK,"
That was 2001. Any bets on what it will be in 2011?
Posted by: FishNChimps
|
July 14, 2009 7:40 AM
Apologies for the multiple duplicate post. My excuse: working from home on crappy connection ; didn't get the message ; pc froze etc. sorry sorry sorry
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 14, 2009 4:44 PM
Mark,
I've tried. Believe me, I've tried. I've written to organizations and asked representatives, and studied every poll I can find about the views of Muslims worldwide and in the UK. Every single one has been a horror show.
It's not just me. When I asked Daniel Dennet about this - and, yes, that's a shameless bit of name-dropping - he said the same thing. He could name only one outspoken, anti-totalitarian Muslim: Irshad Manji.
You're right about the relative numbers of population, but the most recent numbers on this I have access to show that - due to immigration and demography - the Muslim population of Britain is growing at a rate ten times that of the Non-Muslim. The non-Muslim, right? That is, including sikh, hindu, Christian, Jewish and atheist immigrants.
That's not even the worst of it. The key factor is youth and will. The Muslim population is much younger than the rest, and, as we've seen time and again, it's much more forceful in getting what it wants.
What's that mean long term? Well, first off, any fantasies about a giant Caliphate are nonsense. That's not going to happen, no way, no how.
What could happen is that Islamic radicalism destroys the liberal Western order. And that's something to think about. Have you read Sam Harris's essay "The End of Liberalism"? In it he notes that those who speak most plainly about Islamic Jihad in the States are its own religious lunatics, while on Europe it's mainly various fascist parties. He concludes mordantly "To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization."
Quite. It doesn't take that much to crash civilization, as Lee Harris points out. You don't need that much chaos and fear before people, out of the simple desire for survival, quit acting rationally, and start acting tribally. Look at the success of various fascist parties in the recent EU elections. The BNP has become the first British fascist party in history to get elected. Mosley never pulled that stunt off.
Or look at Denmark where the thuggish Hells Angels are getting popular support because of Muslim gangs. I see cracks in civilization, and I'm not happy with where this is going.
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 14, 2009 7:39 PM
Cirmoudain
I have seen Undercover Mosque. That doesn't negate the fact that what was being talked about was placing Islam on the same footings as Jewish Beth Din. No one was saying 'free reign'. It's Kosher and Halal- not who owns the 'holy land'. The UK government has acted against certain so called 'cultural practices', such forced marriage. Honour Killing is prosecuted as murder.
Yes, the extremism is worrying, but given that the net is full of liberals explaining that the fear is greater than the threat, and used as an excuse to suppress human rights, should we not take a deep breath before deciding Islam is 'destroying Britain'.
Pakistani immigrants to Britain (which in my experience is the bulk of muslims) are only on the 3rd/4th generation, and I have seen plenty of evidence of integration comparing the teens and their 1st Gen grandparents.
Most patriachies evolve into equality over generations. Islam in the west has seen the men thrown in at the deep end, and their daughters and grand daughters are working with, and going to school along side, westerners, and suddenly thinking "Hey- there is more to life than cooking and kids". How do you expect the patriachs to react. They pull the trick that has always worked in the past- SIN. But the kids will keep watching TV and playing on the internet, and deciding they really do not want to share bedrooms with uncle when all their mates have their own rooms.
They are playing the religeon card because that has always protected societies from change. I do not think it will work this time.
Nazism worked because it appealed to people- "Here is the problem- let us solve it". Islam isn't going to attract nearly as many recruits.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 15, 2009 5:04 PM
Hussar,
Shariah and Beth Din are very different things. The idea that you can start the Islamic truck and stop it when you want, and reverse it, and then inch it a bit forward, and then a bit back, however you please, is nonsense. The truck's handbrakes are cut and its rolling downhill. Takes alot to stop that.
The UK government is timid when it comes to Islam. We have Ken Livingstone palling around with the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat e-Islami. The number of honour killings keeps rising; neither our weakling government nor our Eloi media seem to want to touch the, as it were, root cause. Take a look at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3828255.stm
Notice the words that aren't there.
Ever since I started noticing and learning, I've been looking for someone who'd prove me wrong. Someone who'd be able to say "Yeah, I see why you're worried, but you're wrong and here's why". I've not found anyone. Sorry, but that includes you.
Take the idea that each generation is more liberal and tolerant. Not so. Every poll we have on this shows greater support for Shariah, for suicide-murder, for the killing of apostates, in later generations. Radicalism is a young man's game.
As to the number of potential recruits, there are a billion Muslims worldwide. I remember Walid Shoebat putting it succinctly: "You're looking at not one, but twenty or thirty Nazi Germanies if these guys get their way".
Posted by: Peter | July 20, 2009 9:16 AM
If current demographics trends continue in the UK, and several other major European countries, then they will have a Muslim majority by the mid-21st century. The non-Muslim indigenous population may be less religious than ever, but they are also getting older, dying off, and not breeding at a sufficient rate to sustain themselves. OK, there is always some uncertainty when extrapolating such trends too far, but er... but don't we do something similar for climate change? And that's OK isn't it?
As a UK citizen, my impression is that the UK government knows full well what is coming and have concluded it is inevitable. They have decided to quietly do whatever they can to smooth Islam's rise in the UK so as to avoid too much trouble and disruption. (Yep, UK government are treasonous cowards one and all.)
Sharia law is already well established in the UK for minor arbitration disputes, where it is formally recognised by the UK government. So, the principle of one law for all has already been officially abandoned, since women are not given equal status with men in these Sharia courts.
Laws against 'publicly insulting religion' have also been introduced, thereby curbing the civil liberties of the non-Muslim population. (Yes plenty of people insult Christianity in public, but are never prosecuted. But insult Islam in public and you will almost certainly be arrested on the spot. So we know which religion they are trying to protect from insult. It's Islam only.)
This is happening in the UK right now. Try to point any of this out in public and you will be immediately shouted down as a racist, the standard tactic to stifle any argument. Sure, yes, some racists do use such arguments, but since they're based on facts, then what 'other' facts are non-racists use?
I may welcome the demise of one religion, but religion is not going away in the UK, it is simply that Christianity is going to be replaced by Islam, and with UK government connivance.
The UK, and much of Europe, truly is a culture walking towards its suicide. I don't think you'll like what's coming after.
Sorry if I spoiled your day, but think what UK citizens betrayed by their own government, are feeling about their 'Islamic' future.