…and this is a 
That seems to be the idea behind forming a council of key policy advisors, whose qualifications seem to be the fervency of their obeisance to an invisible man in the sky.
The move has been criticised by secularists who warned that it represented a worrying development.
However, Mr Denham argued that Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues, such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change.
Oh, really? How? I suppose tithing and refusing to allow money to be lent at interest are a kind of economic strategy…just not a very productive one. And I don't quite see the point of consulting with a gang of grisly old virgins on parenting, or asking some bearded imam whose chief talent is the memorization of the Koran about what to do about carbon emissions. I wish Mr Denham had gone on with some specifics that he hopes superstition can address.
He does have a few general platitudes.
"Faith is a strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity - the very values which are essential to politics, to our economy and our society."
Ah, I see. I had no idea how different the government of the UK was from the government of the US. Here, honesty and generosity aren't exactly common currency in government, or at least are in conflict. I suppose one could argue that Washington has been very generous to defense contractors, but they aren't very forthright about it. I suppose there are principles of solidarity at work, with our most religious party, the Republicans, being monolithic in their opposition to equality, social support, and science, and Democrats straining to achieve some kind of unity — maybe they'd benefit from religious rigidity, too. I suppose if the UK government did model their political system after the Muslims and Christians, they could end up with a nice, pretty political system like ours, with Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe Denham should look more closely at our system. For instance, maybe he could pop over for the Bold Fresh Tour, and see how a couple of paragons of the idea of using religious principles in government represent honesty, solidarity, and generosity.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Valdyr | November 16, 2009 9:55 AM
"Faith is a strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity..."
Where's a laugh track when you need one?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 16, 2009 9:58 AM
Faith. Contribute. On climate change.
TSIB.
Posted by: Am I Evil | November 16, 2009 9:58 AM
There's an election coming up, we're prepared for politicians to spout absolutely anything for more votes.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood
|
November 16, 2009 10:02 AM
Oh no, we've done better - we improved on the system by getting rid of that pesky second variable. We now have Red Labour and Blue Labour.Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 10:03 AM
Just to head this one off because I can see it coming a mile away:
Posted by nobody, yet:
No, they just shouldn't be selected simply for being religious.
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 10:05 AM
Damn, PZ, you had to ruin my morning by making me look at numbnut twins.
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 10:08 AM
THE numbnut twins even.
Time for coffee
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 16, 2009 10:29 AM
Faith is a strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity - the very values which are essential to politics, to our economy and our society.
Translation:
Stupidity is a strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity - the very values which are essential to politics, to our economy and our society.
What is going on in the UK? Why are they trying to be like Idiot America?
Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 16, 2009 10:31 AM
Wow, what a slap in the face. I guess I (and all atheists) lack "honesty, solidarity, generosity" because I (and we) don't believe in God.
What kind of message does that send?
Posted by: maureen brian | November 16, 2009 10:37 AM
Hang on, PZ!
I'd have said John Denham was one of the (relatively) good guys. He's an out Secular Humanist, was one of the two government ministers who resigned over the Iraq war and was a fearless critic of BlairCo as chair of the back-bench Home Affairs Select Committee.
Admittedly, AC Grayling lays into him in today's Guardian but, pending further evidence, I'd be as inclined to believe that the man is giving the buggers something real to keep them busy - much better than angels and pinheads stuff or anti-abortion campaigning - while he gets on with running what is a key department in a country which for all practical purposes is secular. Occupational therapy for religious nuts has got to be better than, say, Texas!
The Torygraph may be more literate than the Daily Mail but it is no more progressive.
Posted by: Vole | November 16, 2009 10:38 AM
Before we all get carried away here, it says on the BBC website that Denham himself is a "secular humanist".
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 10:44 AM
I see little point in having policy advisors who have no
understanding of modern policies and who in fact want to get most of their policies from 2000+ year old sets of books.
HOW? Like what? Can he back up this statement? Does he think he has some secret knowledge or something from some secret magical place?
don't answer that...
Posted by: Siamang | November 16, 2009 10:45 AM
He should have said "Faith is a strong and powerful source of unfounded pie-in-the-sky bullshit, setting neighbor against neighbor, and is especially good at talking grannies into opening their pocketbooks and mailing in their assistance checks - the very values which are essential to politics."
Posted by: Stuart | November 16, 2009 10:47 AM
Amazing that John Denham has managed to upset the secularists, as he is himself an avowed secular humanist!
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 10:49 AM
If anything, that's a reason to be more critical of this.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 16, 2009 10:49 AM
Another oracular guidance from the sibyl of the Random Quote:
Washington has been very generous to defense contractors...
And yet more so to the money-changers of Goldman Sachs, who haven't even had to produce anything in exchange. Now it's the insurance industry's turn!
Posted by: Sili
|
November 16, 2009 11:15 AM
To climate change. To.Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 11:25 AM
AC Graying has a good take on this in the Guardian's Comment is Free.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 11:36 AM
What is going on in the UK? Why are they trying to be like Idiot America? - bobxxxx
In this case, I'd guess it's an entirely cynical New Labour play for the godbot vote in next year's election. Unlikely to work, but they're desperate.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 11:42 AM
I was wondering just who they are trying to appeal to in doing this.
It is not going to appeal to the Daily Mail Christian readers, as Muslims are also to be included and that is anathema to the Mail readers.
Liberal Christians are probably already Labour voters, and if they switch it would be to either the Lib Dems or one of the Nationalist parties rather than the Tories.
Labour is already has a strong following amongst British Muslims, and those who will not vote for them because of Iraq and Afghanistan are not likely to vote Tory as the Tories had/have the same policies.
Posted by: David B
|
November 16, 2009 11:48 AM
I've sent the minister in question an email, as follows.
I wonder if I'll get a response.
'Dear Sir
I am concerned about reports I see saying that you wish to bring various faith groups into government as unelected advisers.
You are quoted in the Sunday Telegraph as saying 'Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of faith at their peril'
There is, of course, a sense, in which this is true.
It would be a mistake to ignore hate speech, like that by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor who claimed that atheists are not fully human.
It would be a mistake not to make it clear to other religious groups that arranged child marriages, genital mutilation of children, honour killings and the like are not acceptable in a progressive society.
It would be a mistake not to make it clear to religious organisations that any advertising they put up must be as verifiable as the advertising of any other business, so that, for instance, claims of miraculous healings need to be as verifiable as the claims of drug companies.
Sadly, though, this doesn't seem to be what you have in mind, which seems to be more that people who believe in varieties of sky fairies of one kind or other, generally those which are mutually incompatible, have a role as unelected advisers on policy.
This seems to me to be retrogressive rather than progressive, divisive and just plain wrong.
I remember with what high hopes I welcomed the election of the first Blair government.
It is hard to find words to explain how let down I feel by the results of it, for many reasons, but with the expansion of divisive faith schools, and now the plan to bring superstitious supernaturalists into government as unelected advisers looming large.'
David B
Posted by: inkadu | November 16, 2009 12:07 PM
I'm guessing that Denham thinks he can find liberal progressive religionists to pack onto his council and try to influence religion to be more progressive. That doesn't really fit into my conception of church-state relations, nor do I think it has a chance in hell of working... but it's another possible motive.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 12:13 PM
It could be a motivation, but if so it would seem to be unnecessary. Liberal and progressive religionists will already be willing to input ideas for the Government to think on. The Anglican churches in the UK do commission research into combating social ills, and often come up with sensible proposals. It would be a foolish Government that ignored such advice. However I see no reason to provide a privileged position to those providing such advice. Secular groups also come up with sensible proposals. Of course both religious and secular groups also come up with insane ideas.
Posted by: Peter | November 16, 2009 12:15 PM
"It would be a mistake to ignore hate speech, like that by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor who claimed that atheists are not fully human."
And protected predatory paedophile priests from the law. A great contribution to a progressive society that one was, Cormac.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 16, 2009 12:28 PM
"Faith is a strong and powerful source of honesty..."
Lost me right there.
Posted by: Lynna | November 16, 2009 12:29 PM
Look who has a #1 New York Times Bestseller. You mean you can look like that on the cover of your book and it will still sell?
Posted by: Ibis3
|
November 16, 2009 12:32 PM
"Progressive" doesn't mean what he thinks it means.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 16, 2009 12:36 PM
Mr Denham argued that Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues
Buddhists and Hindus can go stuff themselves, of course.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 16, 2009 12:41 PM
As much as the Labour party seem to be pandering to the religious cretins, it appears the Tory party is already aiming for the sky fairy support after reading this article in the Daily Mail. David Cameron could possibly be Prime Minister after the next election, and already he's outing his christard beliefs! As much as i'm not personally a fan of any of the major parties, at least that Nick Clegg guy from the Liberal Democrats is a professed athiest, hence more rational, maybe only on the religious front, but it's something, sheesh.
Posted by: xenithrys | November 16, 2009 1:00 PM
In New Zealand the christians' contribution to parenting policy at the moment is a vocal movement to repeal a law that removes parental discipline as a defense to a charge of assaulting a child. Apparently something about the bible saying spare the rod and spoil the child, or something, makes them think it's their duty to beat their kids, and our "Nanny State" government is discriminating against them by making child assaults illegal.
Posted by: mpatter | November 16, 2009 1:41 PM
#29 - yeah, it looks like we're in for 5 more years of religious pandering and state funding of faith school indoctrination centres.
I will keep voting Lib Dem but it won't do any good.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 1:53 PM
I've been doing that since 1997. I voted for Labour in the General election that year, but have not done so since.
Last time a Tory won the Westminster seat where I live, and although he had some problems working out where he lived, he could be a lot worse.
I live in Wales, and there is another good reason for not voting Labour. Those who know Welsh politics will know what I mean when I say that reason is Jane Hutt.
Posted by: mpatter | November 16, 2009 1:59 PM
Matt, do you live in Westminster or Wales? :P
Posted by: mpatter | November 16, 2009 2:00 PM
Oh sorry, you meant Westminster MP as opposed to Welsh Assembly.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 16, 2009 2:03 PM
Yeah. Sorry, was not very clear.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 2:37 PM
"Last year, the Church of England was highly critical of Labour, with bishops questioning the morality of its policies and accusing it of giving preferential treatment to the Muslim community."
No problem with critical points of view on Labour, but the Church of England are bare faced cheeky bastards moaning about preferential treatment of Islam.
After all it was A of C Rowan aka 'catweazle' Williams, that pompously complained that it was not fair on Islam having to abide by British law.
He advocated they get Sharia law unto themselves and in their own communities.
Then feigned surprise and dismay at his 'misinterpreted' speech when the pungent backlash got blown fully in his face and lodged in his beard by the fan of indignant righteousness from his own flock.
Funny how when a religious pompous twat makes a fool of themselves it is because other people fail to interpret their words properly.
Pope 'Benny the babe' had the same problem recently when he accused certain aspects of Islam of being 'evil and inhuman' that got him into strife and a quarter.
But Benny being a willy coyote of papal demeanour blamed the long dead Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.
And again folks just are not intelligent enough to interpret his words,
'well speak plainer fuckwad or at least in Latin then we lesser mortals might appreciate the true meaning of your rants.'
Which we all know just boils down to... ID is good...Atheists are sub-human...women scare me...little boys are cute...abortion loses us punters...and homosexuals ruined my gang!
But not necessarily in that order.
As for C of E Bishops wringing hands about morality it is they that managed to split the church in half by a gang of the neer' do well's threatening to jump delusion.
Just because they are misogynistic and homophobic...and claiming the moral high ground!, well understandable really!
Unbelievably inane are these fools, and there is now't like an old one.
Posted by: jeremy | November 16, 2009 2:43 PM
Is three stars good?
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 2:53 PM
Matt Penfold@20,
Reasonable points, but in a general election you are mostly trying to get your vote out, not change people's minds about who to vote for if they do vote.
Posted by: Skeptic Animal | November 16, 2009 7:48 PM
PZ writes:
"I suppose there are principles of solidarity at work, with our most religious party, the Republicans, being monolithic in their opposition to equality, social support, and science, and Democrats straining to achieve some kind of unity — maybe they'd benefit from religious rigidity, too."
PZ needs to add some facts to his collection. In keeping with my previous criticism that PZ is overly obsessed with Christian whackos, I'd like to point out that fully 40% of campaign funds for the Democratic party comes from Jewish organizations like AIPAC and private donors. This is a fact you can look up. Bear in mind that the US Jewish population is only 2%. So 2% of the population effectively establishes 40% control of the Democratic party. This is why the Democratic party supports the Israeli government unconditionally, and is why the Democrats in Congress oppose President Obama's every attempt to install an even-handed US policy in the Middle East. In order to keep their House and Senate seats, the Democrats support the oppression of millions of non-Jews (Palestinians) in an open-air prison in order to appease Jewish lobby groups and their network of political fundraisers. All of this, because "God gave us this land" is the prevailing dogma amongst the rank and file. And yet for some strange reason, PZ Myers is muted when it comes to this obvious criticism of the liberal party. Democrats are in fact PEP, which stands for "Progressive Except for Palestine". And the reason they're not progressive on Palestine always falls back on the baseless and insane argument held by the US-funded Israeli settler movement -- which is, "God Gave Us This Land!. C'mon folks. Tell PZ to get with the program.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 16, 2009 7:57 PM
It is this kind of bullshit and pandering to the deluded that is setting society back.And why stop with christians and muslims, where's the advisory seat for pagans, wiccans and leprechaunists?
I am really not sure what is going on in the U.K., I knew about Mr Blair being some sort of fundie, but this seems to be a general trend over there, to creationism and fundamentalist religion.
There seems to be quite a powerful religious lobby not unsimilar to the US in the UK, that something like this is even possible.
I hope there will at least be a loud public outcry over this.
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 16, 2009 11:30 PM
The UK Parliament already has Bishops of the official, established Church of England sat in the House of Lords voting on all legislation that passes through it. Our head of state, the Queen, is the defender of the faith and head of that Church. Secular campaigners have lobbied quite strongly in recent years for disestablishment and the removal of the Bishops from Parliament. Some progressive multi-cultural advocates have pushed in the opposite direction demanding that other religions gain un-elected representatives in the Upper House to 'balance' the C of E Bishops already there (presumably arrant nonsense cancels itself out).
As you no doubt know, we just saw our New Labour government dismiss a qualified scientist from its drug policy advisory body because the argument he presented in a report (based on decades worth of evidence) contradicted the official line.
So, up with the non-empirically based religious 'values' and down with the science based policy seems the preferred direction of the ruling party.
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 16, 2009 11:48 PM
The big difference between the UK and USA regarding religion comes down to the fact that the supposed progressive party (New Labour, an avowed socialist party is actually to the left of the Democrats) has pushed religion far more strongly than the conservative party. The former Prime Minister, Mr Blair, started out an Anglican and converted to Catholicism shortly after leaving public office; his successor, Mr Brown, belongs to the Scottish Church. The government featured two cabinet ministers who belonged to the extreme Opus Dei sect. This socialist party enacted laws in the last few years that make it a criminal offense to discriminate against the religious but actually exempts those who hold religious views from this requirement if not discriminating would involve going against their beliefs e.g. the Church of England can legitimately tell a group of pagans who want to rent one of their halls to get lost but someone who professed no religion would be subject to prosecution for doing so.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 17, 2009 11:28 AM
Thomas Winwood @#4:
No way! Labour went Wet Tory long before the Tories went New Labour. We don't have Labour at all; it's just Red Careerist versus Blue Careerist