I was struck by interview on LBC Last week, that followed the news that a number of Premier League footballers refused to wear arms that represented pride.
This is how it happened.
Caller: “Marriage is between one man and one woman… and that is the good and the right of our society. And therefore it stands eminently in opposition to that which is promoted by gaiety, pride, and this abomination. She added that she is “free to say” that this is “the best way to live”.
Reporter teased: “I agree with you, of course…well, um, it is.” a way of life… you have a moral hierarchy based on your beliefs… I understand…”
What was incongruous was the speaker’s seeming discomfort with the speaker’s words: his tone belied his words. If so, why doesn’t he feel he can talk about jewelry rights? Did he answer? The speaker was a religious, CEO of Christian Concern, an evangelical non-profit organization. If the narrator had spoken to a non-believer, you would think his response would have been vigorous. but he seemed perplexed to be discovered. They defend the group and risk insulting others.
We do not prefer to notice the problem of religion, which often conflicts with beliefs and natural good. As a rule of thumb – at least in a progressive democracy – the first should give way to the second. All should be free to practice the religion of their choice: that is by canon law. But if women’s rights, gay rights, and free speech are defended against old fashioned morals and traditional customs, illiberal nations grow more rapidly. The fear of overturning religious systems makes us overly cautious. We must rise harder.
We can’t blame the radio presenter for jumping in when caught by a supposed caller. But people who were well-versed in this kind of thing were also being asked questions. Last week in Parliament, the work of the MP went up to to call the laws blasphemies — which would run directly against free speech. As a matter of fact, Keir Starmer muttered in vague agreement and then sat down again. It is unlikely that such laws are on the way, but why did the prime minister not feel the need to defend such a basic democratic principle?
Then again, we don’t hear many arguments about the principles of religion these days. Screeching atheism has long been obsolete in Britain. For about two decades there was the heyday of the “new atheism”, when books of the “Four Hundred Horsemen” by the same name dominated the bestseller’s lists: Sam Harris‘s The end of faithRichard Dawkins’s God of DelusionDaniel Dennett’s A breach of chant, and Christopher Hitchens’s god It is not great. This group scanned the bombastic talks and interviews, asserting that religion should be criticized, countered and overcome by rationalism. But their popularity has risen. Amid rising atheism and shrinking congregations in Britain, many believed that religion was a harmless dog, not a great threat to civilization. The new atheists, left by the confused bishops to Hector, seemed to be fighting a long-lost war.
But look at this. The Church of England employs about 20,000 people – it’s about the size of the BBC. But unlike in other public or private institutions, I mean, it is also allowed, read, to to discriminate openly in womenpreventing them from the dignified offices of the nobles according to their sex. It was only 10 years ago that women were finally allowed to become bishops after years of hair-tearing by their male colleagues. But the Churches are still perfectly within their rights to refuse applications from female vicars or priests, and they can still reject the authority of female bishops, if they wish, to “fly” males to stand in their place.
About 42% of Britons describe themselves as Christians; our second largest denomination is Catholicism. This church still lags behind when it comes to equality. Catholic women were encouraged last week to go striking from the duties of the church to protest the years of torpor in the matter of whether they can become deacons. Full discussions among the clergy are concerned with the concern that, if women are allowed to become deacons, it is only a matter of time before they become priests. Imagine.
Both churches, meanwhile, have serious discrimination against their gay colleagues. The Catholic Church has dictated that people with “homosexual tendencies” cannot be ordained as priests; who “rests” with “transient” cheerfulness, can only become deacons after three years of prayer and chastity. If clergymen wish to obtain an English civil partnership, they must first vow not to have sex.
Post Newsletter promotion
There is no way around it: in this country many places of worship are nurseries of prejudice of their nature. In any other employer, this policy has long been extinguished. But he dwells in the shadow of religion. What do we tolerate?
Does it seem like the content is too much to worry about? It may be difficult for a few clerics to start their careers around. The results of the superstition were spread from the clergy to the parish and to the community at large. It is a shame that the British state church – with the monarch as head – still does not allow gay marriage to be legal after 10 years. when Pope Francis has used the swagger Before this year, it should have been known to no one that his faith was surprising – his condition is that gay sex is sinful.
Is it time for shrill atheism to make a comeback? Without strong opposition to restrain themselves, disturbing beliefs can spread even further. I was delighted to read a The New Republic the article is entitled “Is the New Atheism Dead?”, published in 2015. It has been argued that in America the most secular work has been done: on social issues, the faithful must come into line with everyone else. Just seven years later, the Christian right arose as a result; Roe v Wade overturned.