Set Religion Free

I've been pondering the concept of "secularism".

You see, for all that the court case against Bideford Council was sponsored by the British Sad Sacks, and the bloke who brought the complaint was a bit Mr Beanish - I can't see why prayers (presumably of the traditional "broadly Christian nature") should be on the agenda. If councillors want to pray, let them do so in their own cupboards, as the Lord said. Or, if they want to get together to do so - let them do so beforehand. I'll not begrudge them the electric. Not least as I don't pay the bills in Bideford.

It just bothers me that any religion should be expected to be privileged in a modern state. Why should it? The Church managed 3 centuries without getting to demand that the State did what the Church requested - and once it had State recognition, I'm not convinced it did such a great job with it all the time then. The Church was never meant to have power.

It strikes me that, if religion is in touch with the heart of God (or gods, for we at the Beaker Folk accept people of all faiths and nuns) then it doesn't really need this kind of  protection. Blasphemy laws are foolish, obviously - for if God can't defend Godself against blasphemers, given the divine sanctions of eternal damnation and thunderbolts, what can mere human beings do? But if religious morals are in accord with natural law - thosee mandates that in one sense don't need to be written down because they can be deduced from the way things are - why should we need to appeal to the Divine to back them up? As CS Lewis pointed out when he listed all the religions that have the Golden Rule, these things must be fairly clear. The Universe was kind of built round them, if God did indeed build the Universe.

Likewise I'm not too fond of bishops in the House of Lords. Or, let me clarify that - I'm quite fond of bishops, and I've no problem with bishops being in the House of Lords, provided that they've either been elected by the populace into a proper, democratic Lords or they've been appointed for their general contribution to the life of the Nation. Personally I'd have no problem with removing the whole of the "Great and the Good" that currently occupy that hallowed place en masse, and starting again with no appointment of retired politicians, party donors or John Prescott.

You see, Jesus will one day reclaim his right to rule the whole Universe. But he didn't tell his Church to. He expected his Church, as far as I can tell, to be few in number, often oppressed and rarely if ever in power. The idea of Cardinal Richelieu, Rasputin or bishops in the House of Lords did not, as far as the Good Book tells us, ever cross his mind. If the Church is running the show, if it's on the side of power, then it can't identify with or speak for the weak, that's what I reckon. Let the country have an even playing field, privileging no creed, that's what I say. Then the Faith can be set free.

Camp Woebegone

Whatever happened to Camp Quest? Asks Phil. A good question.

I guess the problem is that ironic disbelief is so last year. All the invisible unicorns have been captured. The Genie got out the bottle, went for a wander around, then realised that being out the bottle isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I hope both the young people going to the various Camps Quest have a good time, surrounded by anorak-wearing well-wishers as they will be. But if I were 14 again I'd rather be playing football or hanging with friends or looking in a confused and uncertain manner at the opposite sex, rather than being educated in the joys of sceptical rationalism.

In defence of Liberals

We note with interest the report in the Telegraph that a group of "liberal atheists" booed Johnny Ball from the stage for disagreeing with them on climate change.  And we don't know how to respond.  No matter how liberal Beaker Folk may be, they're never atheist.  They may not quite have a handle on what they think God is like - whether Triune, Incarnate, Immanent, plural, Monotheistic or just plain amorphous.  They may not want to judge on who Jesus was or is, whether religious beliefs impinge on human behaviour and the existence or otherwise of Heaven, Hell and Croydon.
But we're pretty sure we're liberal.
But this seems a new kind of "liberal".  Wasn't the point of being liberal that one could respect other views?  Accept that it takes all sorts?   Live and live let?  Isn't the idea of liberalness completely opposed to the idea that we should boo saintly old TV presenters offstage on the grounds - not of a disagreement on political views, not because they've turned out to be racist or sexist - but because they disagree on the interpretation of scientific evidence?  Do the "liberals" in the audience feel proud of themselves today? Do the "atheists" in the audience feel proud that they put blind faith in something and shouted down someone they disagreed with?  Can they look themselves in mirror this morning as they put on their anoraks?
There are two things that make us tentative.  One is that this is reported in the Torygraph.  Perhaps they're wrong?  Perhaps this was actually an evening for atheist fascists?  The two groups have been known to overlap, after all.  Or maybe the whole thing was mis-reported and Johnny Ball was met with polite respect as befits his outstanding contribution to British society?
We feel we should know.