withnail

To all those asking why all this matters, I think the answer lies in that this is another example of mumbo jumbo seeking to govern a further aspect of our lives where previously it did not. We are backsliding and the implications of allowing religion to insinuate itself back into public life are, frankly, disastrous.

You are of course correct but the relevance is that this is a further example of pandering to the so-called needs of one or other religious group raising the question of how acceptable this should be.

Yes I am. SHU hosts around 500 (can't remember the exact number) Chinese Malaysian students from a Chinese college in KL every summer. I have said nothing about Malaysian Muslim students in this country and so have not underestimated the number of them.

Directly relevant to this thread is this article from the Economist: Only halal meat and no pork available in University of Leicester’s canteens. http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8057928 (As a pedantic note, the final paragraph is in error as those Malaysian students at SHU are almost exclusively Chinese). What if I like pork chops, hot dogs, bacon rolls? I shall be putting this article in my growing file of ‘creeping resurgence of religious influence of Britian, sub-file: Islamification’.

What’s all this nonsense about Muslims/Jews ‘having’ to eat Halal/Kosher food? ‘Having to do’ something suggests an order or requirement. For example, I have to wear a seatbelt in the car and I have to drink water to keep my body alive. In the first instance, there is a law (for all and based on the fact that not wearing a seatbelt is very likely to endanger my life should I be involved in a car accident) that demands I wear a seatbelt, in the second, drinking water is a requirement of human life (without it I will inevitably die). Clearly in these cases, I ‘have to’ and there is good reason (legal or physical demand) to do so. However, there is no such good reason and ‘have to’ about not eating a particular food in the sense that I have described other than the order or requirement made by signing up to a particular belief system. The same may be said for vegetarianism (though there might be a much stronger case here for ‘good reason’ based around questions of eating another species and the environmental impact of raising those animals for consumption, but that’s another thread). This then is a self-imposed order or requirement – and why should those who don’t share that belief system be bound by it? Moreover, why should this faith based requirement be imposed on children, presumably by parents of faith (though in this case, the school’s head)? This may not seem to be that important in this case, but consider those parents of faith who impose on their children their faith based requirement not to accept blood transfusions, even if this would result in the child’s death. Why is the one acceptable and the other not for aren’t the both equally as valid if you sign up to the twisted idea that religion should guide us in such everyday matters? So, there is no ‘have to’ about eating halal/kosher food other than that constructed by believers and imposed on their children. This doesn’t, of course, attempt the question of whether or not non-muslims/non-jews should give a monkey’s about how the animal is dispatched but does bring the so-called ‘have to’ into sharp relief.

Precisely. Consider the two conversations: A "I have a pink dragon called Henry living in my sock drawer.' "Really. Could you prove to me that he exists?" "No. But you can't prove he's not there. And anyway, he exists outside the realm of your science." "Rrrrrright. You just wait there and I'm going to call the doctor, OK?" B "There is a God who created this world and if you don't do as he says, you will burn for eternity in hell." "Really. Could you prove to me that he exists?" "No. But you can't prove he's not there. And anyway, he exists outside the realm of your science." "Rrrright. You just wait there and I'll go and ask the government to fund some schools based on your beliefs, shovel some more of my tax money into hospital chaplains rather than medicines, refrain from saying anything that might offend your religious sensitivities and on and on."

Ah yes, the God of the Gaps concept. Pity you haven't read Dawkins's deconstruction of it.

How very convenient.

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

If anyone here has read the God Delusion, I'd love to discuss and/or debate the issues raised in it with you, particularly if you are a theist. For those who haven't, sorry, but entry to this seminar is based on having completed the required reading.....

That would be Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Hawking. And no, a much better read than the bible.

Must have missed that one....Church of England was still the established church and the head of state was still the head of the church last time I looked! I think the problem is that while we are one of the world’s most secular nations in practice (though this is under constant threat – faith schools for example), this is done by politely not talking about the elephant in the middle of the room. There are some serious fault lines in our polity that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. For instance, Church of England Bishops have the privilege of sitting in the House of Lords and debating on legislation that affects our lives. They are there for no other reason than that they belong to the established church. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and any other faith group do not enjoy this same privilege though increasingly, they are demanding it. And why not? Without the same status for their religions, they are de jure second class. The question then is, as the UK moves away from its Christian heritage to a broader ‘faith’ mix due to large scale immigration, should we create privileged positions for all faith groups or should we take the opportunity to be fair to all by favoring none? Seems as clear as day to me that the later course is the only viable option....unless of course anyone looks forward to seeing representatives from all the faiths (but if a Muslim, Sunni or Shia, if a witch - white or black?) including Morons, Scientologists, Satanists lining up in ermine behind Black Rod every year!

I have done before and can't be bothered to again. Shocking as it may seem to you, I've also taken note of reviews - why wouldn't I? Any critique is, in my mind, useful and expands understanding. You, on the other hand can't be bothered to read the book, and consequently I really can't see that there's anything more to say. Ignorance must be bliss.

What mawkish, emotive drivel. I am an atheist and feeling lonely, afraid, insecure, helpless and without hope for the future, does not in any way shape or form describe 'my lot'. How presumptuous of you! If you require the psychological crutch of religion to get you through your life, good luck to you. But what shocking arrogance to presume that your life is better than my life because of it! Unwittingly, you've exposed in your post the deep, fundamental and divisive nature of religion that elevates the believer above the non-believer- why not go the whole hog and remind me that I am unclean, untouchable, and destined to burn for eternity? Your next step, as the Christian religion instructs you, would then be to pity me and even to pray for my soul! What sanctimonious rot! Dear oh dear.

Just last week you trotted out this same line. I strongly suggested then that your thinking was confused and even offered to send you the God Delusion from Amazon so that you could see where you are going wrong. To date, you have declined to take up that offer, even though you said you would be happy to do so, and continue to post these base errors. Why can you not pick up what is clearly one of the most important books on these issues in a decade or more and objectively evaluate your opinions? I even offered to gift wrap it!!! Surely, as the scientist you profess to be, there is nothing to be frightened of in challenging and extending your knowledge and understanding? I sincerely believe you wouldn’t trot out these lines if you just had the courage to do so.