UK political pledge needs more support

[Asolepius]

Apologies if this has already been posted here (I couldn't find it), but I have signed up to this pledge. It's half way there, so there's a good chance of meeting the target. I think it's worth doing.

 

[Ocelot]

Apologies if this has already been posted here (I couldn't find it), but I have signed up to this pledge. It's half way there, so there's a good chance of meeting the target. I think it's worth doing.

Pledged. One copy to be winging it's way to David Amess MP (Conservative) Southend West.

 

[Asolepius]

Pledged. One copy to be winging it's way to David Amess MP (Conservative) Southend West.

Great - thanks. Only another 300 odd to go.

 

[Ocelot]

Sucessfull pledge by the way. All MP's found a copy of "The God Delusion" in their mailboxes when they returned from their Easter Break. I recieved a thank you letter from my MP pointing out that though he was a practising Catholic he would read the sections I'd indicated as being relavent to policy makers if not the whole thing.

 

[Asolepius]

Yes, and it was well over-subscribed with over 800 signing up. Brilliant! Here is the reply I received from Robert Key MP, who is a member of the Church of England Synod (and whose father was a bishop):

Thank you for your letter of 10th April and for your kind presentation of Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion".

I have listened to Professor Dawkins views over many months now and I find them completely unconvincing. He may know lots about science - but he appears to know very little about belief.

I fear we will have to agree to disagree about the establishment of the Church of England. As the Venerable Bede reported in the 7th Century, the Church in England has always been closely intertwined with the State. The Reformation Settlement reaffirmed this relationship. I see no need to break that relationship.

Similarly, I am convinced that Faith Schools are of very great benefit to our country. Their popularity not only in Salisbury but across the country suggests that most people agree with that view.

Here is my letter to which he was replying:

Please accept herewith your copy of “The God Delusion”, by Professor Richard Dawkins. This is a personal gift from me. Every Member of Parliament is receiving their own copy, pledged mostly by private individuals.

Whatever your personal convictions (and you have made these plain publicly), I would urge you to read at least the first three chapters. If your beliefs are robust, you should be able to read the whole book without fear of losing them. Even if you disagree with the content, you will nevertheless find it an interesting and well written text.

I also have personal convictions and aspirations, and one of these is that the Church should be separated from the State. If the Church of England is strong and resilient, it should not need state support or endorsement. Why should it need politicians to back it up when it has God? In a related context, I am very concerned about the encouragement the government is giving to faith schools, of various religions. These are potentially divisive for society, and provide opportunities for wealthy partisan individuals to infiltrate the education system with extreme ideas. You will probably say that such schools get good academic results, but the possibility of pupil self-selection cannot be eliminated. I believe that faith schools of all kinds should be phased out. Do you share my aspirations?

Note that he doesn't undertake to read the book, and relies on ancient history rather than logic. What hope is there for reason, with such people forming legislation?

 

[Ocelot]

Ooh that response makes me seeth. "I see no reason to break that relationship" is rather pointless when he's clearly ignoring the many reasons presented in your gift he's so depreciating about not to mention the reason you provided in the letter he has clearly either failed to consider or to which he has chosen not to respond.

"Listening" to Profefssor Dawkins in five minute filler interviews over the last few months is hardly a substitute for reading the material.

The idea that Professor Dawkins' scientific specialism precludes him from knowing anything about belief not only tired but ridiculous. The man coined the term meme. In that one offhand flippant coinage he has done more to advance the study of belief than any member of the Synod.

As for the popularity of Faith Schools I have yet to see any groundswell of support for the idea that Sir Peter Vardy can buy for less than 5 million a city academy funded initially with £20 million of taxpayers money and unlimited continuing maintenance costs so that he can give equal time in the curriculum to his creationist claptrap. There's even less support for the segregating Islamic communities and providing them (from the public purse) an avenue to educate their children without them having to mix with the general population.

I would suggest an open letter in response to be published in the local papers.

 

[Ocelot]

Oh and my covering letter in case you're interested was...

Dear Mr Amess,

I am your constituent and a member of the British Humanist Association. With reference to the recent controversy regarding catholic adoption charities I am enclosing a copy of a book which I would be grateful if you would find some time to read. Whilst part of 'The God Delusion' makes the case that the existence of a God is unlikely, more importantly it also contains sections of direct relevance to policy makers like yourself - for example on the problems caused by communities being segregated in education and other areas of life, and how religion can have a negative effect on certain democratic principles such as equality and freedom of speech.

If you are only able to give the book a short amount of attention, I would suggest you start in the following places:
- chapter 8 (page 279), "What's wrong with religion?". I'd suggest you read the chapter to the end;
- chapter 9 (page 309), which deals with the impact of religion on children;
- chapter 6 (page 209), "the roots of morality; why are we good?"
- pages 11-27 on respect.

If you have time I recommend the whole book, which also makes the case for the non-existence of God, and explains how religious belief could have arisen as a by-product of natural selection.

If you already have a copy, could I suggest that you give this copy to a colleague in the House of Lords, or donate it to the library of a school in your constituency?

I am an ordinary member of the voting public, with no affiliation to either the author or the publisher. However I am concerned about the influence of religion on public life. I have sent this book as part of a grassroots campaign that has sent a copy to every MP. We are just ordinary people banding together to try to make a difference.

I hope you will make the time to read at least part of 'The God Delusion'.

The response I recieved was

Thank you for your letter and the book 'The God Delusion' thet you sent me recently. As you may be aware, I am in fact a practising Catholic, however I will certainly take the time to read the chapters of the book that you suggest, if not all of it.

 

[Darat]

That's a fair enough response, better then the complete dismissal Asolepius received - but then what's been published since the 7th century that's worth reading?

 

[richardm]

That's a fair enough response, better then the complete dismissal Asolepius received - but then what's been published since the 7th century that's worth reading?

That's completely unfair - his reference to the Reformation Settlement shows that he has some more modern thinking from the 16th Century to back him up.

 

[Ocelot]

That's a fair enough response, better then the complete dismissal Asolepius received

That's what I thought, I was suprised as I've pestered my MP a few time via www.theyworkforyou.com and never received a response. I don't know if the difference was that this was a higher profile campaign or that I wrote driect rather than via a website

- but then what's been published since the 7th century that's worth reading?

Just Harry Potter that I can think of.

 

[Mid]

I'd love to see the response from Ian Paisley wwhen he receives his copy

 

[Asolepius]

Not being one to let sleeping dogs lie, here is my reply to Robert Key:

Thanks for your letter of 19th April. I don't intend to make this a prolonged exchange, but some things weren't clear to me.

Firstly, will you read the book? You don't say.

Could you explain to me what Professor Dawkins doesn't know about belief? Having read the book, I now have a clear understanding of how faith arises in society, and why it persists.

Regarding the Church, I am not asking about ancient history. There is no particular reason why a concept that's say 1400 years old has to be correct. I am asking why an organisation which claims supernatural support needs secular support.

Popularity is no guarantee of value. Would you support the endowment of a school by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I am not making this up - it really exists, and has 10 million members - see http://www.venganza.org/. Or The Cargo Cult of Polynesia? Or Wicca?

....and here is his erudite response:

I think you're missing something. I have a job to do. I did not ask for the Dawkins book. I do not read books because someone tells me to. Dawkins doesn't know much about faith because he does not have it.

You can find out about the established church if you go to my website and click on church.

FSM is a very good spoof - didn't you get that?

 

[Ocelot]

His job which you pay him to do through your taxes is to represent your interests and the interests of his other constituents. 36% Of the population have an essentially humanist outlook http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2288

One of these humanist has taken the time and effort to provide him with a book which explains the outlook. If he spurns this gift and the opportunity to closer connect with 36% of the people he is paid to represent then he is not a great advertisment for the benefits of faith.

 

[geni]

His job which you pay him to do through your taxes is to represent your interests and the interests of his other constituents. 36% Of the population have an essentially humanist outlook http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2288

One of these humanist has taken the time and effort to provide him with a book which explains the outlook.

36% haveing a "an essentially humanist outlook" does mean 36% would express themselves in the way the "The God Delusion" does.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"Dawkins doesn't know much about faith because he does not have it."

What a cringemakingly stupid statement.

Would he demand that a doctor treating him for cancer must have cancer, or would he accept that having studied it he might actually have learned something about it from that route as opposed to experiencing it directly.

 

[Brian the Snail]

"Dawkins doesn't know much about faith because he does not have it."

What a cringemakingly stupid statement.

Would he demand that a doctor treating him for cancer must have cancer, or would he accept that having studied it he might actually have learned something about it from that route as opposed to experiencing it directly.

So let me get this straight. The only way to know about faith is to have it. So, since only those who have knowledge of a subject are qualified to be critics, this means that only people who already have faith can criticize it. Which, of course, they're not likely to do.

How convenient.

 

[Ocelot]

36% haveing a "an essentially humanist outlook" does mean 36% would express themselves in the way the "The God Delusion" does.

36% of people choose the following three responses

- feel scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe (rather than feeling that religious beliefs are needed for a ‘complete understanding’)

- believe that ‘right and wrong’ can be explained by human nature alone, and does not necessarily require religious teachings, and

- base their judgments of right and wrong on ‘the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’.

These themes are very much expressed in Dawkins book. Another question releated to life after death. 41% responded

- This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence

Again a strong theme in Dawkins book.

The theme Asolepius chose for his covering letter was faith schools. The Right Honourable Member for Salisbury responded that faith schools were popular. In fact 64% opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools, ICM poll 2005; 80% believed all schools should be open to those of any religion or belief, MORI poll 2001; 80% opposed the expansion of faith schools, YouGov poll 2001

Again this is a theme to be found in Dawkins book.

I doubt you'll find a single person outside the Oxford University Zoological faculty that believes that the book perfectly expresses everything they think about faith however the statistics I cite show that there is a groundswell of support for many of the themes of the book.

Mr Key would be well advised to apraise himself of these viewpoints as many of them will undoubtedly be held by a significant number of the constituents he is supposedly busy representing with his well below average 50% voting record.

 

[geni]

36% of people choose the following three responses

- feel scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe (rather than feeling that religious beliefs are needed for a ‘complete understanding’)

- believe that ‘right and wrong’ can be explained by human nature alone, and does not necessarily require religious teachings, and

- base their judgments of right and wrong on ‘the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’.

These themes are very much expressed in Dawkins book.

Any in any one of anthor 10K books what of it?

Should all politicians be required to read watchmen?

Another question releated to life after death. 41% responded

- This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence

Again a strong theme in Dawkins book.

Again many books have been writen on that theme.

Surely If I want to undertand humansists I would be better off reading the Humanist Manifesto

The theme Asolepius chose for his covering letter was faith schools. The Right Honourable Member for Salisbury responded that faith schools were popular. In fact 64% opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools, ICM poll 2005; 80% believed all schools should be open to those of any religion or belief,
MORI poll 2001; 80% opposed the expansion of faith schools, YouGov poll 2001

And yet strangely parents appear to work rather hard to get their kids into them. Odd that. If over 50% of the population was outright opposed to them you would expect them to have plenty of spaces. Generaly they do not.

 

[brodski]

And yet strangely parents appear to work rather hard to get their kids into them. Odd that. If over 50% of the population was outright opposed to them you would expect them to have plenty of spaces. Generaly they do not.

Except that faith schools have distinct advantages over non-faith state supported schools, especially in regard to selection and exclusion criteria.
It is perfectly rational for a parent to work like hell to get their kid into such a school, but to object to the privileged status given to faith schools over other state supported schools.

 

[geni]

Except that faith schools have distinct advantages over non-faith state supported schools, especially in regard to selection and exclusion criteria.
It is perfectly rational for a parent to work like hell to get their kid into such a school, but to object to the privileged status given to faith schools over other state supported schools.

I wasn't aware there was a movement for expanding selection.