Religion plays no part at all in the lives of the vast majority of the population – apart from when it forces its way in. I’m thinking of when some “believers” think it perfectly all right to murder random London commuters, or when you try to get your child into the local state school but find that one religion or another has monopolised the admission’s policy.
Faith, says Baroness Warsi, needs “a seat at the table in public life”. That, I think, can be translated as “faith should be allowed to influence public life”.
Why? Why should we allow minority beliefs to influence public policy?
Why should you allow any views with which you disagree influence public policy? This is the voice of totalitarianism.
[blockquote]Why? Why should we allow minority beliefs to influence public policy?[/blockquote]
That’s the sound of the right to freedom of speech going the way of the Chesire Cat.
For a long time freethinkers, deists, atheists, agnostics and the like were the minority beliefs in our liberal democracies, and yet they influenced public policy. Judaism similarly. Freedom of speech was established, at least in part to enable that to occur. But now the secularist thinks he’s in a majority he wants to reintroduce some structural solutions that ensure that ‘the majority’s rights’ are respected in public policy – rights that go beyond simply being able to speak and vote freely according to one’s convictions.
I don’t think anyone has found a way to articulate it yet in a way that isn’t just a form of polemics, but I think in a similar way to how ‘freedom of religion’ is being reinterpreted as ‘freedom of worship’, ‘freedom of speech’ is being reinterpreted as something that isn’t quite it, and the ‘not quite’ bit is having huge effects.
What a yawn – this pseudo-intellectual goes from “only 2 Million brits attend Anglican services or Catholic mass each Sunday” to “Religion plays no part at all in the lives of the vast majority of the population”
Last time I looked, failing to attend mass on a particular Sunday is not remotely the same thing as religion “playing no part at all” in one’s life.
But apparently logic and reason are not concepts that Mr Penman bothers with!
We should learn a lesson from Penman’s article: euphemisms like “faith” and “believer” ultimately fail at the most critical points.
Speak boldly instead of Christ. What is the exact action of Jesus Christ to which Penman objects? What is the exact teaching of Jesus Christ that Penman feels should be suppressed from public discourse?