![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Monday morning I walked past Trafalgar Square and two items were being constructed. The traditional Christmas Tree, 40 feet or so high and sent by the Norwegians every year, was sitting horizontally on its own articulated lorry. Also being put together was a geometric design which, on closer examination, turned out to be a 16-foot high representation of Chanukah candles, although it was a rather ugly triangular version sitting on a pyramid. Not sure where the pyramid comes into it. Perhaps it was a sop to the Egyptian sun worshippers.
I sometimes get the feeling that Britain is ashamed of its religion. Of course, as a confirmed evangelical atheist, my position on this is of necessity ambigious. I wouldn't be happy if Britain was fiercely religious in its governmental edicts (and it would be fairly pointless in a country where the majority of people are stoutly irreligious -- a point which separates the ordinary Englishman from the ordinary American to a significant degree), but I a also of the ilk that, well, if you are going to do a job, do it properly. France is fiercely secularist and al credit to it for being so. The US is now in the hands of Christian nutters, as far as I can see, but, well, give them credit for following through with their principles.
Meanwhile in the UK we have this nominal situation of being a "Christian" country that is also "multicultural". The ensuing contradictions seem to becoming harder and harder to cope with.
As Dawkins points out, much of the lunacy stems from the fact that you only have to say that a conviction is faith-based to deny any counter-argument. The French say "bollocks, pal, this is not a faith-based country. That just doesn't wash".
In England, it's harder, because we are a faith-based country. Therefore to deny someone else a faith-based conviction (say, a ban on wearing a burkah as part of the fight against terrorism) is to imply that "my religion is better than yours".
Then again, isn't that the point of religion, that "my religion is better than yours"? In Engliand the push of multiculturalism (and the necessity of such a push, given the multi-ethnicity of urban centres) cries out for a change in the rules. Either we stop being a Christian country and allow a whole raft of religions to apply faith-based principles, or we become a secular nation and tell the lot of them (including Christians) that faith-based principles just don't cut it here.
It's the illogicality of it that bugs me. Just because something was written in a book a few hundred years ago and "it's really important to my way of life", doesn't make it so. Is diversity good? When does diversity become ghettoisation? If female circumcision is "an important part of our faith", does that make it okay if the practitioner believes this to be the case most sincerely?
You will never stop this battle of the religions. You could throw out all non-Christians and the only result would be battles between different factions of Christianity. That's what religions do. And it's fine by me; let the fuckers get on with it. You get no kudos in this world for showing people how and why they are wrong. They won't thank you for it.
+++++++
Quote of the day:
George Rogers, Running Back, on his hopes for the coming season. "I want to rush for 1,000 yards or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first."
I sometimes get the feeling that Britain is ashamed of its religion. Of course, as a confirmed evangelical atheist, my position on this is of necessity ambigious. I wouldn't be happy if Britain was fiercely religious in its governmental edicts (and it would be fairly pointless in a country where the majority of people are stoutly irreligious -- a point which separates the ordinary Englishman from the ordinary American to a significant degree), but I a also of the ilk that, well, if you are going to do a job, do it properly. France is fiercely secularist and al credit to it for being so. The US is now in the hands of Christian nutters, as far as I can see, but, well, give them credit for following through with their principles.
Meanwhile in the UK we have this nominal situation of being a "Christian" country that is also "multicultural". The ensuing contradictions seem to becoming harder and harder to cope with.
As Dawkins points out, much of the lunacy stems from the fact that you only have to say that a conviction is faith-based to deny any counter-argument. The French say "bollocks, pal, this is not a faith-based country. That just doesn't wash".
In England, it's harder, because we are a faith-based country. Therefore to deny someone else a faith-based conviction (say, a ban on wearing a burkah as part of the fight against terrorism) is to imply that "my religion is better than yours".
Then again, isn't that the point of religion, that "my religion is better than yours"? In Engliand the push of multiculturalism (and the necessity of such a push, given the multi-ethnicity of urban centres) cries out for a change in the rules. Either we stop being a Christian country and allow a whole raft of religions to apply faith-based principles, or we become a secular nation and tell the lot of them (including Christians) that faith-based principles just don't cut it here.
It's the illogicality of it that bugs me. Just because something was written in a book a few hundred years ago and "it's really important to my way of life", doesn't make it so. Is diversity good? When does diversity become ghettoisation? If female circumcision is "an important part of our faith", does that make it okay if the practitioner believes this to be the case most sincerely?
You will never stop this battle of the religions. You could throw out all non-Christians and the only result would be battles between different factions of Christianity. That's what religions do. And it's fine by me; let the fuckers get on with it. You get no kudos in this world for showing people how and why they are wrong. They won't thank you for it.
+++++++
Quote of the day:
George Rogers, Running Back, on his hopes for the coming season. "I want to rush for 1,000 yards or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first."
