Fight fiercely Anglicans, fight fight fight
The Anglican church is worried that it might “lose its place at the centre of public life” in the UK because of the gnu atheists.
Why should it have a place at the center (or centre if you must) of public life? It’s a church. It’s an institution devoted to “worship” of a “god.” Why would that entitle it to a place at the middle of public life?
Besides, some of that place it has pretty well officially nailed down, at least for the moment. It gets its bishops into the House of Lords, where it can meddle with legislation. It gets to lay down the law on Radio 4 most days. It gets to run a hell of a lot of state schools. What more does it want? Just plain naming the archbishop as dictator?
Nah. It wants the gnu atheists to get lost, that’s all.
Drawing particular attention to the threat posed by a new movement of militant atheists, led by Dawkins and Hitchens, it says the Church must respond if it is not to be pushed from the public square.
Oh yes? There’s an actual, literal army of “militant” atheists, all marching behind Dawkins and Hitchens, is there?
Don’t be schewpid. There are some books; there are radio interviews and debates, there are blogs and websites. There is discussion. That’s all. Get a grip. Pull your socks up. Quit snivelling.
The Church is keen to address the rise of new atheism, which has grown over recent years with the publication of bestselling books arguing against religion.
And? We’re allowed to write or read books you know. We’re allowed to argue against religion. Go ahead and argue back, but do try to do it without calling us “militant.”
In recent years, a number of Christians have taken legal action against local councils and hospital trusts after being disciplined for expressing their faith by wearing crosses or refusing to act against their orthodox beliefs.
Aha! You see what he’s done there? (Jonathan Wynne-Jones, it is.) “Their orthodox beliefs” – that queers are feeelthy. As long as they’re orthodox, everyone ought to simply tug the forelock and obey, is that it?
No, sorry, pal – beliefs have to stand or fall on their merits; you don’t get to validate them by calling them “orthodox.”
So the CofE is much like the Holy Roman Empire? Not Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Christian?
Seems once again we pose a threat simply for existing. Well, we always have existed, but now people are noticing us, and we’re entering mainstream. The the only threat we are to the church is that we’re arguing on the side of reason, science and morality, and that inevitably means that religion will lose, unless it can shut us up or censor us for being terribly blasphemous (which still goes on by censoring comments online).
When Rowan Williams says things like this I always wonder whether this can truly be the same man who people gush and fawn over: “oh, he’s so smart, so nice”. This is – apart from its comedic elements – profoundly dishonest.
The self-styled Christian martyrs of the UK circa 2009 – 2011 have been nasty, small-minded, ignorant bigots who feel that they ought to be entitled to their exercise their misogyny, their homophobia, their blatant disregard for Health & Safety regulations in public and at work mark you, and that the laws of the country are just horribly unfair and should not be allowed to apply to them.
Are these really the people that Williams the enlightened & “nuanced” Christian wants to align himself with?
I suppose that all this really amounts to is a bit of window-dressing, a bit of flag-waving to rally the crowd in a feeble but frantic bid to hold on to dwindling congregations. But it makes me want to throw up when the pampered Williams whines about the threat of growing secularisation in the very same week that his Christian brother-in-arms, the bishops of Pakistan are begging for a secular country because they know it is their only hope for the freedom to worship their particular god without fear of being killed for it.
I’m amused by the prospect of the church Eddie Izzard talks about in his ‘Cake or Death’ routine holding the line on anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFyuhTwi_OE
As an aside, I’m glad you used the phrase ‘pull your socks up’. It’s one of my favorites.
A word of advice to any theist thinking about entering a profession that might require them to set aside their religious beliefs; don’t. Really not all difficult. If the sanctity of life or whatever is so important to you youwould set aside the patient’s wishes, everyone would be much better off with you persuing a carrier in undwerwater basket weaving.
Oh, now look at what you’ve done. You’ve gone and upset those dear, sweet Anglicans. (The English ones, not the African ones.) I hope you’re happy.
I think the difference between the new atheists and the old atheists is that they actually thought they had some arguments with which to confront the old atheists. Now they know they don’t, so it’s no longer about ideas. Now it’s about attack, the word you use for challenge when you are unprepared to meet it.
Exactly. Pursuing a career in healthcare is not compulsory service. You don’t get to claim conscientious objector status. Running a Catholic hospital? Maybe.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa and Wayne de Villiers, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Fight fiercely Anglicans, fight fight fight http://dlvr.it/FxczY […]
You couldn’t have thought back to all of Lehrer’s original lyrics before you gave this one its title. I mean, sure, it would be nice if this were true:
Of course, this is actually excellent news. Not that we’re being so misrepresented and described as so threatening. But it shows us that we’re getting to them and it also shows those observers not firmly entrenched in either camp that the church seems to have cause for concern. The best news is that it’s us they’re declaring war on and not the accomodationists. That shows more clearly than anything else who it is that they recognise as being effective for the atheist cause and who is already too useless to bother fighting.
@ Stewart #9
And that is their basic problem: how do you attack new atheists without attacking those nice atheists or those lovely accommodationists? Clearly attacking atheism itself will alienate the good cop atheists, and so it all comes down to a smear and scapegoat campaign of course. That is the only possible way they will attack us, but this is already old news, gnus have been fighting off smear tactics for years. There is really nothing new they can do.
Wynne-Jones has, as is his job, sensationalised a report to the Anglican synod. The poor dears have noticed that Christianity is attracting some cogent criticism, and mildly suggest that the bishops should attempt to counter it. They admit, with understandable sadness, that Christianity no longer enjoys the stanglehold it had ‘in the early years of thenineteenth century’.
Stray thought, but since accomadtionists vs atheists seems to be the flavor of today, I was wondering how vocal a response we can expect from GoodAtheists Inc. I mean, I thought we all agreed faith should be a private matter with little impact on public poliicy and the like.
…[t]he Church faces many internal problems as well, from ageing congregations to rows over homosexuality.
Note: how all that is not alright is uttered in one part of a single sentence. No differentiation at all. The latter obviously brought about by its own very discrimination.
I’ve said it many times before, but it deserves saying again: ‘militant’ atheists are rude about the Pope’s ruby slippers: ‘militant’ theists kill people. Is it really that hard to see the difference?
@Egbert #10:
Well, the quote makes clear how they think they can do it:
They are explicitly singling out the vocal ones. Or in other words, they’re saying, “Fine, don’t believe if you can’t, but don’t talk about it, don’t attack religion and don’t try to ease us out of any of our privileges. Stick to that and we’ll tolerate your existence. Otherwise, expect combat.” All I can say is, bring it on.
Heh. Yes, where is Hammill, tut tutting about how uncollegial it all is.
Very good point, M-T. Aging congregations and “rows over homosexuality” treated as exactly the same kind of thing. “The roof leaks and the poofters want to join up.” “The steeple has fallen into the High Street and women want to be ordained.” Problems problems.
What this report — and the archbishop’s response — shows is that the church is walking on eggs, and the funny thing is they don’t know how to do it without breaking them! The archbish must know that, in the cases where people have been called on their use of faith to discriminate against others, there is a real problem with Christianity. It’s not just the secular society intruding in sacred space, it’s a much more sensitively moral society demanding appropriate respect for the dignity of human beings. But the church can’t have it both ways. It can’t say that it is the source of the freedoms we enjoy, and then say that we should restrict those freedoms in ways that discriminate against people, gays, women, etc. But that’s what they do. They want to have it both ways, and they just can’t do that any more. People know better, and they will be called on it. Damn good thing too. And that comes out so clearly in what you just said Ophelia….
Tut tut! Archbish just caught with his trousers down!
But you see if the church can’t go on discriminating against people because of its orthodox teachings, why then, how will it be Special any more? It won’t, and that would be unendurable.
Yes, that’s true. It’s kind of a fix. They want to be central, and there’s no reason for them being central any more. Yes, so, that’s easy, just stick to some old fashioned prejudices, and voila, you become central again! Easy! I’m not sure that’s quite the reputation Rowan was looking for. What I can’t understand is why he can’t see this himself. He’s supposed to be a bright guy …., although I read his Isaiah Berlin lecture, and, gotta say it: he’s really been overplayed in the intellectual department. Interesting, Mary Warnock in her new book refers two or three times to his obscure style, and then quotes one thing he said, saying he managed to be ambiguous even in a simple sentence, which he does. What he said was that there is “a deep crisis of faith in government”. Ha!
Ooh look, the Catholics have found the wonders of secularism!
http://www.secularism.org.uk/pakistani-christians-discover-th.html
I will be busy scanning Anglican statements for similar cries for secularism!
@ 20: “It is imperative to separate religion from state matters.” Oh, my! Those bishops have made the religious fright in this country very unhappy, once they hear that!
Eric @ #19:
Beneath his formal exterior, the archbishop possibly is quite bright. it’s just that the intellectual baggage that he’s lumbered with makes for heavy going. It’s like trying to dig a hole in a quicksand bog. Negotiating all the pitfalls, gaps, contradictions and inconsistencies in ‘orthodox’ doctrine in the face of even halfway intelligent commentary is a helluva task. So I incline to give him full marks; for trying, that is.
He’s like Indiana Jones in the Temple of Doom, but without that stockwhip.
Brilliant about the Christians in Pakistan. Item 25 in the passage that Nicholas quoted is explicitly anti-secular, but then Anglicans have state power in the UK; in Pakistan, they don’t. Secularism looks better when you’re a religious minority. Anglicans are intent on preserving their privileged status. Most impressive.
Since an mportant stream of Anglicanism (the one Samuel Butler belonged to) is barely distinguishable from atheism, we can all hope that Arch will be pushing more Anglicans out of the church. In Canada the Anglican Church has had excessive privileges (for example, in colonial days a substantial percentage of Upper Canada was reserved for it as its property, gratis, and the government had to compensate it to get it to renounce this right), and still today the Anglican Church of Canada is falling apart because of the compensation it must pay to victims of resdential-school abuse. so I dont think it has much mral authority left to promote in the public square, anyway.
Yes, I’ve always regarded that as at best an example of a truth claim based on revelation rather than evidence.
[…] Benson wrote the following a few days ago: Drawing particular attention to the threat posed by a new movement of militant […]