BS: Paxman/Davies

Subject: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:48 PM

When Paxman questioned Davies on TV (for those over the water Davies is standing to lead the Conservative party in Britain) his final question was;
"Do you believe in God?"
I was shocked.
Paxman must know that no politician dare answer no. Or am I wrong?
As a secular humanist I feel I will never get representation of my views treated as equal to those who believe in the supernatural.My beliefs are not allowed on "Thought for the week" on radio etc. and yet Britain is hugely secular compared with most other advanced countries. If Humanism was declared a religion we would have access to media and we would have to be taken into account. Why is not believing not treated with equal respect as believing. And is there any politician who dare say he does not believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:17 PM

To begin with, no politician wants to lose even a single vote when a minor lie may secure it. I thought you Europeans were somewhat more sane on that subject than we Americans are.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:19 PM

The UK parliament abounds with politicians who disavow belief in the gods, poltergeist and other superstitions. Probably the most celebrated in my lifetime was Aneurin Bevan, who was buried in a secular ceremony on a Welsh mountainside. Among the present crop Evan Harris (Lib-Dem) is probably the most evangelising aetheist.

You are right that Britain's secular character seems to be almost unique in the world. I saw an item the other day about a newly opened science museum in Kentucky that includes a recreation of the Garden of Eden, complete with Adam, Eve and ....dinasaurs. (According to the museum, dinasaurs arrived on earth about 6,500 years ago!) The truly staggering thing about this item was a claim that just one quarter of all Americans accept evolution rather than the six-day crap in Genesis.
Staggering, but also depressing.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:35 PM

Think back about 500 years- the peasants and serfs no doubt believed just about anything the priests and politicians told them. What goes around comes around - we don't seem to have changed all that much. Perhaps because we perceive this once again to be a complex, bewildering world.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM

yep, Fionn, I posted about that "Evolution Museum" awhile back. It is an awkward thing that such places can be take seriously by enough people to keep it solvent, but the USA is a big place, and we don't require folks to prove they are competent before opening a display...*wry smile*

It is really interesting that you have "The Church of England", yet have relatively fewer adherents, while we have no 'state religion', yet have a lot of folks professing belief.

It is really, really hard to run a political campaign here without religion being double checked by your opponents!

(As I understand it, when Dwight Eisenhower was running, he had to go find a church, as he had NOT been a member. He was advised to remedy that, so he picked a low-key place and put in semi-regular appearances)

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:06 PM

This is one for Boberts prosed History-Bee Ebbie, but about 500 years ago, i.e. 1505 people in Europe had begun to question big time what those in political and religious authority were claiming. They did this causing God knows what turmoil, with the end result that is was to for the greater advancement of mankind.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM

"Do you believe in God?"
... no politician dare answer no. Or am I wrong?
As a secular humanist I feel I will never get representation of my views treated as equal to those who believe in the supernatural....
If Humanism was declared a religion.... Why is not believing not treated with equal respect as believing. And is there any politician who dare say he does not believe?

Guest, in many areas where I am involved with things in my community, it is exactly the opposite. I think what you and I have in common is a need for courage.... and finesse-- how to say what we do believe without finding it necessary to attack what we do not believe when we reply to such questions.

I see this situation (aside from the political realities which, I acknowledge, do present difficult challenges) as being not so much an opportunity to say what one does NOT believe, as a chance to affirmatively say what one DOES believe. When a question is presented as yo describe, it is very hard to do this, but not impossible. Successful politicians are master at capturing the mic or the floor to say what they have come to say, in their own words and with their own spin.... we see this over and over again in every news interview with those who have made it to the top of the pile.

The trick (that I think we have in common) is to find the way to avoid the paradigm offered by the question, and instead present a positive reply based on what is good in what one believes. (And frankly, in the process, sell it and oneself if one is in politics.) We can but make that effort ourselves and support those also engaged in such efforts.

So, courage my friend!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:47 PM

Great thread! I was once talking (or rather listening) to a former Alaskan politico, from a well known political family. She had been interviewed on the radio in Glennallen, which is a town with a majority of fundamentalist Christians, including the radio station. The interviewer had asked her if she had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Her answer:

"It's personal."

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:28 PM

I don't think many politicians in the UK system would find a question like that much of a problem, just because they didn't feel like coming out with an enthusastic "Yes".

In fact it'd probably be a lot trickier for a born-again religious zealot to handle, because too much of that stuff, and there are millions of votes to be lost from people with a gut feeling that politicians who talk too much about religion in public are not to be trusted. And that would go for voters with a religious commitment as well - especially if it wasn't the same variety as the politicians, which in most cases it probably wouldn't be.

"It's personal" is the right answer for religion, as for David Cameron's (alleged) drug use history. Why the hell these allegedly savvy contenders couldn't realise that that should apply to questions about their preference in underpants as well is a mystery - Tory candidates disagree on pants...

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:53 PM

Nice pictures!

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:00 PM

RE: evolution and Genesis:

Well, consider how many Americans voted for Bush. Emotion (especially fear and hate) trumps logic depressingly often. And an awful lot want to have all their questions answered without doing any research or thinking themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

Ron, it could equally be said, an awful lot want to have all their problems resolved without doing any praying or Scripture study, themselves.

WHY do we all have such a lazy tendency to bash what is "other" instead of sharing what good we ourselves experience?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

Sorry there - I pushed the wrong button. Basic life rule, always check your links om the magic preview before you post them... Still, I think my Flickr pictures look a bit better than that pair of wannabees.

Here is the link I meant to give - Tory candidates disagree on pants

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 04:47 PM

You can pray, read Scripture, and still use logic to understand the world and make reasonable decisions (or we have big problems).

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 05:20 PM

Of course you can, Ron... (AMENNNNNN!) What I was referring to was the mirror to the phenomena you described-- the one where people tell all their troubles to we speerchul folks who listen well and who have a spiritual discipline that helps us do that-- people who are deaf to hearing how come our lives have come to work for us pretty well, because they still want instant answers, autofixes, and an easy way around everything they themselves have created including their lack of a spiritual life that leaves them peaceful. :~) I'm not talking about proselytizing. I'm talking about people who come asking, "How come your life is working so well?" but who can't stand to hear the answer. This isn't limited to Christians-- I am sure people who believe in ANYTHING encounter the same phenomenon all too often.

Call it laziness, call it denial-- people of all faiths or beliefs tend to it. One more thing we have in common, even when we may look like we're "arguing religion."

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:31 PM

Yes, but my question was why is it those of us who don't need to pray, read scripture or believe in the supernatural to live good and wholesome lives are not given equal billing?
At the Cenotaph today for the celebration of Rememberance, Dimbleby intoned all the religions that were represented, but there was no mention of Humanists and Atheists, and we know that many of the men who died shared our non belief in religion.
They should have been honoured too. Their sacrifice was the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:49 PM

"Billing" isn't given; it's made-- by the Billee.

Pols have to be savvy about that if they want to succeed.

Not saying this isn't a problem-- clearly it is unfair! I'm just suggesting that looking at it from a victim perspective is less likely to lead to solutions than a more opportunisitc approach. I could WRITE the speech you'd want someone to give, to clear it up, if I was there....

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:03 PM

Yes, so could I. But where's the platform?

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:27 PM

Perhaps adopting a name is the first step

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:06 AM

How about Walter.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST,mick
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:11 AM

Guest you write 'My beliefs are not allowed on "Thought for the week" on radio etc....' and then just two sentences later ask ,
"Why is not believing not treated with equal respect as believing "
Maybe it's because the unbelief of humanism isn't a belief - it's not a faith and shouldn't be treated as one especially by its proponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:21 PM

I have no proof God doesn't exist, you have no proof he does, but you claim faith should overide my belief in non-existence. i just feel the young who are being bombarded suddenly on all sides by fundamental prejudice should be able to hear that a good life is absolutely possible without any religious faith whatsoever. I don't understand why our public services should give airtime to any faith at all being as their beliefs are all so contradictory and inflamatory. However, as the airwaves do i feel non-believers deserve their time.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:55 PM

... you claim faith should overide my belief in non-existence.

Huh??? Who did that?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:26 PM

Same GUEST this last time as earlier in the thread? The point being, without some indication that that is the case, a sustained arguemnt ain't really possible, because each post has to be treated as an isolated statement, rather than as part of a continuing explanation of a point of view.

Responding to GUEST Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:48 PM - There is a case for having humanists and atheists on "Thought for the Week", and there have been instances of that happening. On the other hand it can be argued that atheist and humanist position are presented in a sustained way throughout most broadcasting and print media in England, whereas religious points of view tend in practice to be contained almost exclusively within a limited number of programmes ("God slots"), with "Thought for the Week" being one of the more significant ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:02 AM

I'm not sure where I read this so I can't attributite it, but:
"I contend that we are both Athiests. I just disbelieve in one more God than you do. When you understand why you disbelieve in all of the other possible Gods, you will understand why I disbelieve in yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Paxman/Davies
From: GUEST,mick
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:48 AM

Humanism/ atheism should get its own weekly shows, but it shouldn't be on the Faith slot for the same reason that religion shouldn't be introduced into science programs.