The new bandwagon (or meme): moan a deep moan about the persecution of Christians in places like the UK and the US. A guy called (inelegantly) Tom J Wilson does a particularly maudlin version for the Huffington Pest.
The fact that British police would consider the displaying of Christian scripture an illegal offence is a concerning indication of the mentality that British society has come to adopt towards all things Christian.
For anyone who follows the British media’s reporting of American politics, the continuous attempt to run down certain American politicians on account of their faith rather than engaging with their politics has now become a rather boring familiarity.
Bush and Palin are crazed evangelical fundamentalists we are forever being told, oh yawn, is this kind of cheap and lazy defamation really what we have to make do with for journalism?
Is it any more cheap and lazy than what he’s saying? And, is it not the truth? (And are we really forever being told that about Bush now?) And, is it not relevant and important? Do their evangelical beliefs not influence their policies? Is evangelical belief simply and safely inert?
Yet what is far more concerning is what is happening to Christians here in our own country. It is only when one steps back and takes an overview of the litany of cases where Christians have been discriminated against for their religious convictions, that it is possible to appreciate what resembles a sustained assault against the Christian communities in Britain.
He then proceeds to offer a list of apocryphal stories, exaggerated stories, and “yes; so?” stories, which do not add up to anything that resembles a sustained assault against the Christian communities in Britain.
It is as if there is a systematic effort to extrapolate British society from its Christian heritage and the values that have for centuries served as a basis for British culture and identity.
Ah, the poor guy – he doesn’t know what “extrapolate” means, and he went and used it in a published article. So embarrassing.
As much as I am not a Christian, it still seems clear that all of us who value the rights and freedoms afforded by a liberal democracy should ensure that there is fair treatment for Christians in Britain.
More than that, we as a society need to recognise that Christianity has played a major and for the most part extremely positive role, in forming our nation’s history and national identity.
More “positive” than a secular worldview would have played? Doubtful.
As much as I am not a Christian, it still seems clear that all of us who value the rights and freedoms afforded by a liberal democracy should ensure that there is fair treatment for Christians in Britain.
So, he’s an accomodationist?
Bwahahaha, poor guy indeed NOT. Actually, lousy for Director of the Centre for Transatlantic Affairs.
From his profile:
From the article :
To be fair this is a travesty, but I doubt if its been “the very same people” who’ve lent their support for this. Its Britain’s “multiculturalists” who’re Christians of the Tony Blair persuasion(like his Faith Foundation for inter-religious dialogue) who’ve allowed Sharia Law to take hold in Britain, with some support from the CoE (Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury once said “we already have Jewish courts so why not Sharia”) for political advances.
I wouldn’t say the “Chriztianz are being perzecuted omg” thing is a new meme, although it is experiencing a bit of an upsurge lately. If anything, it is in Christianity’s DNA, and features in the NT. Probably the only times they have not felt persecuted in some way is when their doctrine was in control of temporal power in their environment.
And I think the word he was looking for was extirpate. Extrapolating Christianity leads to pretty much the opposite of what he says is happening.
I’m glad you’re highlighting this trend – it’s such bollocks, but it’s a narrative that is being peddled with great alacrity by some opportunists over in the UK.
@Mazerunner (#3),
I might be wrong*, but I’m pretty sure there are no Jewish, Sharia or any other religious law courts in the UK and there’s certainly no “parallel religious legal system”. Parties to civil disputes can seek arbitration in a number of different places…if all parties to the dispute agree to that form of arbitration. The best known is probably ACAS (http://www.acas.org.uk), but Jewish and Islamic options also exist. I don’t know if there’s a Christian equivalent (do we need one in a Country with an established church?).
Not that I think going to an imam or rabbi is a good idea to resolve your business or domestic disputes, and they should not have the official endorsement they do. On the other hand, they should not be misrepresented as something they aren’t either. In doing so (consciously or not) we feed the paranoia or the likes of the Daily Mail/Express, the BNP, EDL, etc.
* In fact that’s frequently the case.
This is either a Christian nation or you’re a persecuted minority. Pick one, asshole.
“More than that, we as a society need to recognise that Christianity has played a major and for the most part extremely positive role, in forming our nation’s history and national identity.”
Many nasty institutions have played a roll in most nations’ histories–human sacrifice,slavery,civil war and theocracy for example,that really doesn’t justify their retention.
What’s very annoying is not so much malapropisms, which obviously can be amusing, but the misuse of terms like ‘refute’ and ‘beg the question’.
Perhaps he meant ‘extricate’.
I wish every time I had to read such nonsense on the internet it came with Ophelia’s commentary already included. It keeps me sane as I read to already see the important remarks in reply are already there on the internet after each paragraph. Could you consider getting a gig at Huff Po where they create an atheists’ version of every article in the “religion” section, with your commentary helpfully added?
Heh. Sure, I’d consider it, but I don’t think the Huffington Post would.
Exactly! @Brother Yam #7
This is a very irritating trend and one propelled in part by the distortions of the tabloid press, whose misrepresenting of cases such as those outlined by Wilson get picked up and repeated by people like him without further research or understanding.
I don’t always agree with the course of action of organisations and authorities involved in such cases, but the principle at heart here is nothing to do with atheists/multiculturalists/muslims trying to remove the rights of Christians in the private sphere, as implied; it is simply the application of secular thought to try and create a fairer society, as a consequence of which Christians may lose some privileges in the public sphere, which they’re so used to having they seem blind to the fact that they are privileges.
And don’t get me started on
something which is simply not true, as highlighted in several posts on blogs such as tabloid-watch.
That is particularly sneaky: most individuals find themselves on the wrong side of the law not because of their views but because of how their views affected their ability to do their job.
This is itself a ‘yes; so?’ narrative. The fact that Christians don’t seem to be able to agree amongst themselves what their religion entails, the fact that the Christianity of a century ago, or two, or three, is different to today’s, the fact that Britain has adapted its laws and values over time as society has changed and become more open and plural all suggest to me that simply asserting that ‘Britain is a Christian country and always has been, so there!’ isn’t really a good enough argument.
Sorry to go on so; the issue vexes me.
Whaddya mean sorry?! The issue vexes me too. By all means go on so.
@Ophelia
Thanks! Well I suppose there was no need for me to apologise as such; I just feel there’s an unspoken etiquette about not turning the comments thread on someone’s blog into one’s own personal blog by rambling on too much – seems rude to the host somehow, like loudly drawing attention to oneself at someone else’s birthday party.
I think he knows what extrapolate means, and he’s using it in the manner he intends to use it. He just thinks its bad to de-Christianize the western world.
So are the walls of society crumbling in Britain or is the tacky crucifix themed wallpaper just peeling off?
Really, Patrick? You don’t think he was aiming for “extricate”?
Aliasalpha @15
Well, if you read and accept all the bollocks that UK tabloids (especially/inevitably the Daily Mail) go with, the walls of society are always crumbling, for any number of reasons. A bit of that wallpaper stripping sounds good, though it’s always really hard work. Odd, that.
Re this article, I doubt Mr Wilson ever bothered to read the judgement from the Court of Appeal in, IIRC, a christian adoption case. It’s educational, both legally and historically, and was given by a christian judge, and notably included a steaming pile of STFU to George Carey, the ex-archbishop of Canterbury re this very issue.
Anyone else remember this?
AsqJames at # 6 :
(Emphasis not mine)
Yes there are no Sharia law courts but civil disputes including marital disputes such as divorces and child custody disputes are arbitrated by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals(MAT) whose rulings have been made binding in law by the Arbitration Act of 1996.
And in cases where rulings by the Sharia council or MATs can not stand in a civil law court, they enforce their rulings by threats of ostracisation and boycotts to Muslims who approach law courts or challenge their rulings in law courts.
From the 2010 report on Sharia Law by Maryam Namazie’s One Law for All :
Here’s the original link which summarizes and links to the full report. So while criminal law is completely secular and the same for all, civil law is defacto Sharia for many Muslims, especially those trapped in the social ghetto of “devout” Islam.
One of the more unpleasant chores that comes with writing an atheit blog is to glance over what the religious folks write. With regards to Christians feeling persecuted, I recommend a site called Christian Today. I read the Australian edition every day, and from their posts you get the impression that there are like, 29 Christians left in the world, the rest has been maimed, killed or oppressed out of existence by a vast conspiracy of atheists, Muslims and other god-hating riffraff.
“As much as I am not a Christian, it still seems clear that all of us who value the rights and freedoms afforded by a liberal democracy should ensure that there is fair treatment for Christians in Britain.”
I assume this means that he is not after privileges for the congregations or the clergy such as were enjoyed by them from the 17th to the 19th C. Right to destroy atheists: that sort of thing.
“More than that, we as a society need to recognise that Christianity has played a major and for the most part extremely positive role, in forming our nation’s history and national identity.”
Material for long debate there. The sectarian strife before and after the 17th C English Civil War taught a lot of people the art of arguing and debating, as wars of religion always do. But having risen to ideological supremacy over their separate constituencies, the Catholics and Protestants were ruthless with one another. (This was pretty well inevitable with the internal life of both Christianity and Islam, as each divides humanity into two classes: the saved and the damned.)
The modern Anglophone world came out of that, rather than being consciously created by it. For example, the Puritans went to America as refugees from it.
It’s old news, but I observe again: you can, quite clearly have the mental and psychological wherewithal to reject the cosmology of a socially-dominant religious group, and still imbibe an awful lot of the rest of the deceptions they do foist upon the world.
A conjecture I’ve nursed a while is: religions, also, in fact, vend quite a lot of nonsense precisely for this purpose. It’s an evolved feature of sects that are still attempting to maintain a social hegemony even in contexts in which they can’t keep people entirely in the fold, buying the whole package. We can’t get you to intone the creed verbatim, can’t actually get you to sign off on water into wine ‘n bearded patriarchal creators ‘n all, what with this whole problem of your being educated in the late 20th century and early 21st?
Fine. Let’s see, then, if you’ll buy instead that we’re terribly persecuted if we can’t exercise our traditional privilege to dictate law and exercise control over the social lives of all and sundry in the name of our creed, and that it’s a fundamental human right to proselytize without being gainsaid. And that, in fact, it’s somehow terribly gauche publicly to point out what codswallop is our cosmology, never mind how big a belly laugh it gives you privately. If we can’t get you to believe, we’ll settle for getting you to shut up about it. Past this, perhaps we can convince you to encourage all like you who don’t believe to shut up about it, too? That, too, would be terribly helpful to our keeping going with what social power we have remaining, and thanks kindly.
Shorter: Mr. Wilson may, indeed, not believe the whole of the Christian creed. But it looks to me he lapped up uncritically a whole pile of the nonsense they do so endlessly sell all the same.
Patrick –
Yes I know that’s what he thinks, but that’s not what he said. He said
For that to mean it’s bad to de-Christianize the western world, “extrapolate” would have to mean “separate” or “disentangle” or similar. It doesn’t.
Good one, AJ. I mostly think of it as a social habit rather than a cunning plan…but your suggestion is plausible.
The self-pitying meme about poor, persecuted Xtians was built into the religion from the beginning and serves it well. It is one of the chief sources of the religion’s power over believer’s minds and a great instigator of schism, intransigence and violence. I am just reading the sermons Newman preached at the university of Oxford between about 1826 and 1846, and they are pervaded by the assumptian that Xtians are a beleagured and oppressed minority; as is, from an earlier century, William Law’s beautifully written ‘A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life’, and, from an earlier century yet, the writings of Jihn Bunyan, for whom I have huge admiration (he is such a wonderful storyteller) even as I reject virtually everything that motivated him. In all these writers, this ‘meme’ is an unexamined assumption, as of course it is in Wilson’s self-pitying and ill-written screed which could almost certainly be published nowhere else but the Puffington Host. The assumption is a very dangerous one that lies at the very heart of Xtianity and it needs to be examined.