No 'carte blanche' to pray for patients

Caroline Petrie was in the end reinstated after an NHS trust overturned her suspension for offering to pray for a patient. But the case led to an international outcry and the Christian Medical Fellowship has received calls from all over the world demanding to know what is happening in Britain, and why religion is under such attack from secularists. Cancer doctor Bernadette Birtwhistle argued the case for freedom for spiritual care in the NHS at the British Medical Association meeting today but in the end, as the National Secular Society reports, the BMA voted against a carte blanche for prayers for patients, although patients who wish prayers can of course request them. 

St Aidan to Abbey Manor sums it up helpfully: 'The BMA conference recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients, but doesn't believe that medical staff should take the initiative in offering it. Mood seemed to be that it's the spiritual professionals (chaplains etc.) who can do this, but medical staff shouldn't, as that's not their job.' David also summarises the other ethic debates of interest at the BMA, including motions on assisted dying and on advertising abortion services on television.

BMA debates can be followed live via this link, ht David Keen.

On the Lapido Media blog, Jenny Taylor writes: 'A controversy over praying for patients goes to the heart of our cultural crisis.  Only a fool would deny the influence of Christianity on medical provision around the world.  The religion was founded by a healer, after all, not a technocrat or a warrior. It was on this government’s watch that a report was sanctioned saying the spiritual mattered in successful service delivery. 

'Yet there have been so many examples of local authorities stamping on the impulses of carers who reach out with the love that motivates them, that the General Medical Council is having to debate the issue today.

'Prayer is a way of loving, someone once said.  If it is treason to love, it is treason to be human. 

'If you censure the goose you will lose the golden egg. When Christian motivation is constrained, what will be left? The Bible tells Christians to pray for the sick, and to ‘go on praying’ at all times, and with sensible guidelines, there need be nothing to fear.'

Jennifer Ruby, MA journalism student at City University and working at The Times this week, reports:

In January, the NHS published a guide that they believed would clear up misunderstandings over proselytising entitled Religion or Belief: A practical guide for the NHS. It says: “Members of some religions, including Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, evangelical Christians and Muslims, are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions and beliefs could feel harassed or intimidated by this behaviour.”

The General Medical Council released a guide last year which followed a similar, if not slightly more diplomatic route. “You should not normally discuss your personal beliefs with patients unless those beliefs are directly relevant to your patient’s care. You must not impose your beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or any other beliefs or views.”

While these guidelines make it clear that imposing fervent religious views on patients is not allowed, simply discussing your own religious beliefs could not necessarily be seen as being unlawful.

Article 9 of The Human Rights Act states that: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief should be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.”

While it could be argued that Caroline Petrie was imposing her religious views on a patient by offering her a prayer, it would be hard to see this offer as intimidation or harassment.

Putting the motion forward to the BMA, the doctors claimed that they were afraid to even raise the subject of religion or belief in the presence of their patients for fear of disciplinary action. The main motion, put forward by the BMA’s Agenda Committee states: “Offering to pray for a patient should not be grounds for suspension.”

Many of them felt that this could be a hindrance to patients who could want and benefit from religious discussions whilst in hospital. Many atheist and secular organisations believe that faith and medicine should be kept completely separate.

Follow Jenny on Twitter.

Follow Ruth Gledhill on Twitter.

Comments

[cp36]

To Coel,

>>Not true, it is very easy to observe death and what happens to someone afterwards.

Sure, you can see the dead person doing the disco dance after death with ...

Wait for your turn.

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36 claims: "Science can only deal with experimental or observational data. [...] The question of what happens after death is a Theological one and cannot be dealt by Science."

Not true, it is very easy to observe death and what happens to someone afterwards. Science can tell us far more about that than the empty, evidence-free concoctions of theologians.

[cp36]

A point of clarification. When I said there is probably no Intermediate State I meant it is for those who believe in Christ because St Paul said to be absent in the body is to be present with Christ. For those who don't believe in Christ they certainly are not going to be "present with the Lord" and they will have to wait somewhere else. In what state, I don't know. Theology is a very interesting subject.

Cheers

[cp36]

To J Perece,

Science can only deal with experimental or observational data. Beyond that it is Philosophy which can neither prove or disprove anything. The question of what happens after death is a Theological one and cannot be dealt by Science.

You are quite right that the Church has used scare tactics in the past. They used to preach hell-fire and brimstone sermons. People are no longer scared. Now it has swung to the other extreme and have more or less swept the subject of hell under the carpet. But the question still remains. What happens to the dead?

Those who believe in Christ will be saved. What about the rest? Christians say that hell was not created for man but for the devil and his angels and so if a man goes to hell, he does so by his own choice.

According to Revelation the beings who will be tormented forever and ever are the dragon, the beast and the false prophet. (Note that the false prophet is singular). What about people? Will they also be punished for ever and ever? Actually my friend and I have debated for about 30 years on this subject. We are unable to come to a definite conclusion. I don't think anybody knows for sure.

What we are sure of is that sometime in the future all the people who have ever lived on earth will be resurrected and will be judged for their works. Keith Ward, a liberal theologian from Oxford, thinks this will be outside history. I think he is probably right.

If so what happens between the time a person dies and the resurrection. This is called the Intermediate State. Will they be conscious or not or will they be somewhere suffering? I don't know. But then based on our present understanding of time there may be no Intermediate State. Time is not a constant in the universe.

One of the possibilities is that those who are not saved through faith in Christ will be annihilated and go into non-existence. Some Evangelicals like John Stott are inclined to think so. Once again nobody can really sure or prove this sort of thing. Revelation says that those whose names are not in the Book of Life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. What happens after that? I don't know. Mind you Revelation is in symbolic language.

The majority of the people in the world regardless of their religion believe in some sort of a life after death. A few atheist don't. The problem is atheists can't prove anything. A scientific minded person will try his best to investigate what is the truth and real scientists are aware of what they don't know. Fools don't know what they don't know and are willing to take chances.

Oh, btw, almost everything that was said about hell was said by Jesus Christ. The English word "hell" comes form three different Greek words. They say, "A little knowledge is dangerous".

Cheers

[cp36]

To Alan,

>>People only worship if they choose to. And many don't. I certainly don't.

If you are talking about the worship of God it may be a choice but all people worship something because it is an innate tendency. For some it could be Micheal Jackson. Apes don't worship anything. Only man worships.

Religion is an invention of man. I don't believe the true God has anything to do with religion. You won't be going to hell for saying what you said. God is not waiting to send you to hell. But without Christ you will have no defense for sin and that is something you many want to investigate. Sin is fact of life. I don't expect anyone to change his minds just because of what I say. Life is a journey and if you seek the true God you will find him.

Cheers

[J Pearce]

"If you don't believe in Christ you will have no defense for your sins on the Day of Judgement and you will go to hell. Don't tell me that you have no sin."

Deary me CP36, you seem to have drifted off into that murky netherworld where the oldest and least credible Christian argument rules supreme, i.e. if you don't believe, God is going to get you.

Aren't you cogent of the fact that morally and spiritually bankrupt Christians have been using this "weapon of choice" for hundreds - thousands - of years, in order to scare their victims into kowtowing to whatever insane, anti-human agenda they happen to be peddling at the time.

Aren't you aware that trying to frighten people with unprovable theses about their alleged eternal torment in the afterlife, is one of the most basic forms of psychological manipulation going?

And aren't you aware of the fact that we live in a world of scientific progress and manifestly superior quality of life, precisely because our theist forebears decided that tales of impending Godly vengeance were at best, questionable - and therefore decided to carry on anyway with what was then decried as "heretical" investigations into the nature of our reality?

Ask yourself one simple question. Do you actually think all those proto-scientists - many of whom were Christians, who pushed the boundaries of knowledge in the face of accusations of sin, heresy and prophesies of the wrath of God going to befall them - do you think they, who have contributed to the wealth of human knowledge, were punished by God upon their death?

[alan]

CP36 - you say to Coel:

"It is impossible for you not to worship anything ..."

I think that sums up your world-view rather nicely.

You obviously refuse, or are unable, to grasp the FACT worshipping is a choice.

People only worship if they choose to. And many don't. I certainly don't.

Worshipping is an irrational act, a product of religious faith, grovelling to an imagined supernatural.

Do you think I'm destined to hell for having said this? (I expected so.)

[cp36]

To Coel,

>>Morning CP, you still seem to be struggling with the concept that I don't actually believe in God ...

I thought you said you are an atheist. You mean there are some atheists who do believe in God?

Oh btw, I don't greet you because I don't know which part of the world you are living. I guess it is in the West in which case your morning is my night. Time zone problem, you know?

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "The conscience of man tells him that there will be some kind of retribution for sin."

No it doesn't. Yours might; mine doesn't.

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "What about sinning against God himself? Should you or should you not be punished?"

Morning CP, you still seem to be struggling with the concept that I don't actually believe in God (and hence I don't accept that there is any such thing as a sin against God).

[cp36]

To Coel,

The word should be "conscience" and not "conscious". The conscience of man tells him that there will be some kind of retribution for sin. You have failed to prove that there is no God. Okay, as I expected, nobody can prove that there is no God. Now prove that death is the end and there is no conscience after death. Let's see how smart you are.

Cheers

[cp36]

To Coel,

>>'m sorry CP, but I don't consider your posts worth "thinking" about.

Right, but what you are going to do about your sins is worth thinking about. When you sin against your fellow human-beings the conscious of the majority of people demands that you should be punished. What about sinning against God himself? Should you or should you not be punished? And what form should that punishment take? If everything ends at death where is justice?

If you don't believe in Christ you will have no defense for your sins on the Day of Judgement and you will go to hell. Don't tell me that you have no sin.

Prove to me that there is nothing after death if you are so smart.

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "Here is something more for you think about."

I'm sorry CP, but I don't consider your posts worth "thinking" about. Re-hashing standard Christian dogma at me, while providing no evidence at all for it, is pointless. Do you really think I haven't heard people like you babbling this stuff oodles of times?

[cp36]

To Coel,

Here is something more for you think about. Atheist or no atheist you still serve the will of Almighty God because he is your creator and has a right over you. He can make use of you in any way he wants for his purpose and leave you to your atheism till the Day of Judgement or bring you down to your knees before that if he wants to. You are nothing in God's hands.

There many millions of Christians who have a real personal experience with God through Jesus Christ. You really know nuts about Christians. But you pretend to be smart and try to talk big. All you are doing is making a fool of yourself. No atheist can ever prove that there is no God. So don't talk big with a Christian. Christians will one day rule the world. You will be in a place that is "suitable for you". The choice is yours.

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36 babbles: "Atheist or no atheist you do "worship" something. It is impossible for you not to worship anything. You are kidding nobody but yourself if you think you don't worship anything."

Morning CP, how's life in the crackpot bin today?

[cp36]

>>Right, that's you firmly established in the "crackpot" bin.

Ha ha! so you think you are smart. I don't think so. Scientists look into the unknown and discover new things. An atheist like you on the other hand, close your mind and claim knowledge of things you know nuts about.

Atheist or no atheist you do "worship" something. It is impossible for you not to worship anything. You are kidding nobody but yourself if you think you don't worship anything. In any given population there will always be some atheists. So what? Not everybody is chosen.

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36, in reponse to my request: "So, tell us, what is this "Theory of Probability" ..." answers:

"It has to do with the greatest minds since Isaac Newton and it all goes back to one single sentence in the Bible. God said "Let there be light".[snip subsequent babbling]".

Right, that's you firmly established in the "crackpot" bin.

"The latest invention in the West seems to be "New Atheism". Like the other ...isms it will give way to something else."

It's not an "ism", it's an absence of an "ism", that's what the "a" prefix means. "without theos-ism". And it's not "new" either. Plenty of people have said such stuff before.

[cp36]

To Coel,

>>So, tell us, what is this "Theory of Probability" that you make such a big deal of? State it for us, will you? Can you?

It has to do with the greatest minds since Isaac Newton and it all goes back to one single sentence in the Bible. God said "Let there be light". Quantum physics cannot be understood by the majority of people. I am not going to pretend I understand it. But it seems important to me to understand what God is like. If you think the Bible is all a load of rubbish then there is nothing much to say. As I said there will always be some atheists around. The latest invention in the West seems to be "New Atheism". There are several books on it in the bookshops recently. Like the other ...isms it will give way to something else. There is now a big increase in the interest in religion in most parts of the world. While religions may be an answer to atheism I don't believe it necessarily leads to finding the true God. The true God is a mathematician. He is brilliant. Contrary to what most people think the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not simple. I comes from the mind of God and it cannot be simple. It is one of the main reason why you see the Christians fighting each other so much. You have to stop being simple minded and start thinking.

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "Oh, btw, the fact that you ask me to predict lottery numbers shows you know nuts about the Theory of Probability..."

Really, how does it show that? You seemed to be making a big deal about the fact that I don't claim to predict tomorrow. I was simply responding by point out that neither can you.

"If you can't even understand what has been discovered by the scientists ..."

So, tell us, what is this "Theory of Probability" that you make such a big deal of? State it for us, will you? Can you?

And as for the other stuff, are you competing with Perer in the deluded crackpot stakes?

So you think I deserve eternal torture in hell for the so-called "crime" of lacking belief in God? That's nice of you! How kind! Do you know what, in my opinion, you deserve? A bit of derision, that's all.

[cp36]

To Coel,

"The fool has said in his heart that there is no God" has often been quoted by other Christians but I didn't grasp its real meaning until my encounter with you. If you want to display your peanut-size brain in public there is nothing I can do about it. But the Bible also says if a fool were to shut-up other people may think he is smart.

Oh, btw, the fact that you ask me to predict lottery numbers shows you know nuts about the Theory of Probability. If you can't even understand what has been discovered by the scientists who are all human beings it seems perfect stupidity to me for you to take on Almighty God in whose hands you are nothing.

The Bible is clear that not all the people will go to heaven and those whose names are not in the Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire. God will have the last laugh. There are no atheists in hell.

Many people including Christians have asked how can a God of love send people to hell. But after my encounter with you I am fully convinced that God is perfectly fair and just. God has already shown to everyone that which may known of him and no one will have any excuse on that Day. The choice is yours.

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36 babbles: "The Einstein quote was for me to estimate the size of your brains. It was not to discuss anything about Einstein."

You haven't got your attributions right, both that quote and the sentence you ascribe to me were posted by TC.

"Being an ex-atheist I now find peanut-size brains quite interesting, ..."

Your posts always were disconnected, stream-of-consciousness babble, showing little insight or knowledge. And no, I don't believe your "ex-atheist" claim either, it's a standard rhetorical ploy by Christians with nothing worthwhile to say.

[cp36]

To Coel,

>>That Einstein quote was to show you that he actually identified himself as an agnostic, ...

The Einstein quote was for me to estimate the size of your brains. It was not to discuss anything about Einstein. Being an ex-atheist I now find peanut-size brains quite interesting, especially of those who run around with Phds trying to tell me that there is no God.

I now know that all of creation is Statistical. So it doesn't bother me that there will always be some atheist around. So what? As I said God will send these people to a place which is "suitable for them" or he could easily bring them down to their knees if he wants to. It doesn't depend on the will of man but of God.

Cheers

[Coel]

T C writes: "I was about to ask you what page these atheists comment on, that is the majority that you claim accept the historical Jesus, ..."

It's true, majority opinion among atheists accepts the existence of a historical Jesus (which is not a big deal).

"So, no point in asking anything now that you admit that you attend these pages to twit Christians, ..."

Absolutely!

"why would anyone take you, and some of the other twit lovers seriously?"

Why would anyone take your god delusions seriously?

"We show some of you way too much respect, ..."

Whereas some of us are quite good at showing disrespect to Christians!

[Coel]

TC writes: "That Einstein quote was to show you that he actually identified himself as an agnostic,... and certainly to an atheist for he said he was not such!"

No, he said he did "not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist". But he was clearly both an agnostic (meaning lack of perfect knowledge) and an atheist (lack of belief in gods).

Most atheists today are also technically agnostics (I've never encountered one claiming absolute and perfect knowledge).

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "Right, so you admit you can't predict the future, not even tomorrow."

I await your posting of lottery numbers a day early ...

"Round one: you couldn't prove there is no God."

Nor have you proved there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster! Perhaps you think that's sufficient reason to take the FSM seriously?

"Round two: you obviously don't know anything about the Theory of Probability."

Who says, you?

[T C]

By the way, Coel,

That Einstein quote was to show you that he actually identified himself as an agnostic, (you and CP were discussing this) that is to the public, and certainly to an atheist for he said he was not such! He ended up being a scientist, and maybe we should leave it at that, and decide for ourselves what we actually believe or not.

[T C]

I wonder why I have not heard anyone suggest that Jesus was such an absurd person full of egoism, the perceived personality of Jesus is one of humility, and usually the approach of anti faith against Jesus is to suggest that he did not exist. My comment.

Coel in response : “No it isn't, most atheists accept the historical existence of Jesus. That's not a big deal, religious leaders are not rare.”

I was about to ask you what page these atheists comment on, that is the majority that you claim accept the historical Jesus, when I read your next sentence.

“ Having said that, denying the historicity of Jesus is kinda fun to twit Christians, the evidence is far weaker than most of them realise.”

So, no point in asking anything now that you admit that you attend these pages to twit Christians, certainly there is much of that here, and it explains why many atheists visit faith pages! Such character you have, why would anyone take you, and some of the other twit lovers seriously? We show some of you way too much respect, and I think that should change!

[cp36]

To Coel,

>>You are very keen on this sort of strawmaning, trying to imply that we have claimed to predict the future! I can't.

Right, so you admit you can't predict the future, not even tomorrow. In that case don't try to make fun of the Christians who are very sure of the life of the world to come because they all belief in the risen Christ as their Lord.

>>I think you'll find that I'm subject to exactly the same physical laws as you are -- whether you like it or not.

What physical laws? Form whence cometh these Laws? Laws are expressed with Mathematics. You can't have Mathematics with a Mind.

Round one: you couldn't prove there is no God.

Round two: you obviously don't know anything about the Theory of Probability.

The Communist, with all their power and might, couldn't get rid of God and I read that there are now more Chinese Christians than the Party itself. I think it was Confucius who said, "He who knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him". I think it is good advice.

God knows how to deal with people like you. You will be sent to a place which is suitable for you and that for your info, comes from Sir Isaac Newton.

Cheers

[T C]

Albert Einstein: “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "People like you talk big ..."

People like you talk empty and largely meaningless stream-of-consciousness babble.

"...but you have no idea what will happen to you tomorrow."

You are very keen on this sort of strawmaning, trying to imply that we have claimed to predict the future! I can't. Nor can you (post next week's lottery numbers if you want to prove me wrong).

"If you don't believe in God then you are completely subjected to the Laws of Probability whether you like it or not."

I think you'll find that I'm subject to exactly the same physical laws as you are -- whether you like it or not.

[cp36]

TO Coel,

>>No, you don't have to "believe in" either of those. You certainly don't need to believe in a capitalised (and deified?) "Pure Chance".

You don't seem to know much about the Theory of Probability. Get yourself a good book on the subject and read it first. Then come and talk. People like you talk big but you have no idea what will happen to you tomorrow. If you don't believe in God then you are completely subjected to the Laws of Probability whether you like it or not. You don't have a choice. It is either God or Chance.

Cheers

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "Einstein was not an atheist but he was believer in the god of Spinoza."

The same Spinoza who was excommunicated by the Jews for atheism? Einstein saying he believed in Spinoza's God was really a way of declaring his atheistic lack of belief in a way that was palatable to the Jewish community, and to highly theistic America.

"I don't believe in an average person pretending to understand the mind of a genius."

What rubbish.

"Nothing in Darwin's theory proves there is no God."

Nor does it prove the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that does not make it sensible to take the notion seriously.

"Darwin may have changed his mind about God towards the end of his life."

More wishful thinking on your part, based on zero evidence?

"Your job is prove to me that there is no God."

I decline the job; you haven't yet shown that your notions are worthy of being taken seriously.

And please disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just to show us how such "jobs" are done. Once you've failed you might realise the sillyness of your stance.

"Prove to me that there is no God."

Whenever a believer, instead of presenting evidence, resorts to that line, it shows that they've given up any pretence at an evidence-based stance.

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "If you don't believe in God the only other choice you have is to believe in pure Chance."

No, you don't have to "believe in" either of those. You certainly don't need to believe in a capitalised (and deified?) "Pure Chance".

[Coel]

T C writes: "Einstein said so, it must be true!"

Well it was a believer (CP36) who raised the issue of what Einstein thought and asked "Do you think you have a greater mind than Einstein?".

"... usually the approach of anti faith against Jesus is to suggest that he did not exist."

No it isn't, most atheists accept the historical existence of Jesus. That's not a big deal, religious leaders are not rare.

(Having said that, denying the historicity of Jesus is kinda fun to twit Christians, the evidence is far weaker than most of them realise.)

[T C]

“Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish
such thoughts." A quote from Einstein, posted by Coel.

Well that’s it then, we will all die as if we never were, if Einstein said so, it must be true!

I find it interesting that Einstein presented the most distasteful and egotistically proud comment I have ever heard regarding faith, at the same time he called the faithful egotistical! I heard this one many years back and have not considered Einstein’s personality to be one I would appreciate, ever since.
I wonder why I have not heard anyone suggest that Jesus was such an absurd person full of egoism, the perceived personality of Jesus is one of humility, and usually the approach of anti faith against Jesus is to suggest that he did not exist. I can see why some atheists would revel in such a comment from one known as having genius qualities like Einstein.
I find it a most bewildering comment, because by saying, “nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death” Einstein appears to be voting entirely in favor of death, even if he had a choice. What kind of personality type does this represent, and do others feel the same way?

[cp36]

To Coel,

>>Pure Chance alone cannot produce the Mathematics which governs the universe." Who says it does? It's amazing how often belivers go on about chance, even Deifying it with Capital Letters!

If you don't believe in God the only other choice you have is to believe in pure Chance. If you don't understand this it is too bad. As I said your thinking is out-of-date.

Cheers

[cp36]

To Coel,

Einstein was not an atheist but he was believer in the god of Spinoza. I don't believe in an average person pretending to understand the mind of a genius. A genius can change his minds by the minute without telling anybody about it. You kid yourself when you try to talk about people like Einstein. It is the same for Charles Darwin. Nothing in Darwin's theory proves there is no God. Darwin may have changed his mind about God towards the end of his life.

Your job is prove to me that there is no God. When you talk in terms of probability you are not proving anything. And that is all an atheist can do. There isn't an atheist anywhere who can prove there is no God. That is what I am interested in. Prove to me that there is no God. Let's see how smart you are.

Cheers

[T C]

Don’t stop there Alan,

go ahead and keep the tall from the short, the faithful from the believers, the Irish from the black, yes what could be more natural than too separate one half of humankind from the other, for then we can step back and wonder why Armageddon hangs over our stupid heads!

If male and female, do not belong together than what does?

[Coel]

Alan writes: "It is a remarkably stupid statement."

Nah, it's a fairly sensible and innocuous statement when read in context. It was in response to an interview question "Do you accept the historical existence of Jesus?". Einstein's reply was that the personality of Jesus was sufficiently clear in the gospels that, yes, he considered they derived from the life of a real person. Big deal!

Anyway, here are some more Einstein quotes:

"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into
every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came - though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. [...] For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish
such thoughts."

[alan]

Two points:

CP - I don't know why Einstein said "you can't read the Gospels without feeling the presence of Jesus Christ" (if he really did say it).

It is a remarkably stupid statement. If he did say it, he must have meant that he himself couldn't. He cannot speak for the rest of us.

I certainly can read the Gospels and not feel the presence of anybody - least of all Jesus Christ. And a lot of other people can too.

Now to all-girls schools. I am convinced that all-girls and all-boys schools are better than co-eds.

You may call this discrimination if you wish. (Coel says "discriminate" means "treat differently". Well, there are times when girls and boys ought to be treated differently.)

I believe keeping the boys and girls apart in secondary-school makes for more efficient and less stressful education. Again I'm speaking from (direct and indirect) personal experience. Boys and girls will come together outside school - sexual attraction will take care of that.

I realize some people will think this is backward-looking or even reactionary - but after much thought I've come to the conclusion that during puberty it is better for the girls - and better for the boys too.

Faith schools, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. Theirs is religious discrimination. They truly drive a wedge between children taught to have differing beliefs.

Outside school they will regard one another with suspicion, hostility. The "faith" difference is not attractive but divisive.

[Coel]

CP36 writes: "Try "proving" that your wife or girlfriend really loves you."

It is astonishing how often believers ask this, as though it is some sort of telling point. It is very easy to discern the presence of love from the behaviour someone exhibits. Have you really not noticed the behaviour in a spouse or partner that demonstrates love? (Solomon figured out how to discover who loved a child long ago!) Furthermore, love is a purely material thing, produced by chemicals, for example oxytocin. If you block the role of oxytocin in a mother giving birth, they don't bond with or love their new-born.

"Albert Einstein once said in an interview that you can't read the Gospels without feeling the presence of Jesus Christ. Do you think you have a greater mind than Einstein?"

Einstein regarded Jesus as a human being, a moral teacher, but not a divine being. It was his moral-teaching "presence" that Einstein felt in the gospels. Einstein was an atheist.

"All the great scientists in the past believed in some sort of a Deity."

That is simply wishful thinking on your part. Besides, mankind's knowledge and understanding has improved over time. We understand now a lot more than the great scientists of the past.

"Pure Chance alone cannot produce the Mathematics which governs the universe."

Who says it does? It's amazing how often belivers go on about chance, even Deifying it with Capital Letters!

"There has to be a very intelligent Mind somewhere."

That's your opinion is it? But you've not presented a decent reason for thinking so. And Einstein didn't believe in such a thing. Do you think you have a superior mind to Einstein?

Anyhow, your "explanation" doesn't explain a thing. Where did your "very intelligent mind" come from? If you're willing to just start off with it, unexplained, then how is that better than just starting with a material, mathematical universe?

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith quotes my "All-girl schools discriminate on grounds of sex." and responds "Rubbish."

Geoff, my statement is straightforwardly factual. You might defend and desire such discrimination as a good thing, but it remains a fact that all-girls schools discriminate over sex and faith schools discriminate over religion. That is what the word means!

"It wasn't the school that let you down, it was your parents. They should have taught you in the home what your school had no time to teach you in class because the curriculum was so tight."

So, out of a total of 1000 assemblies it is quite obvious that all 1000 had to be CofE-led, because it is quite obvious that they "had no time" to expose us to any other opinions!

Geoff, two posts ago you were advocating that non-Catholic kids in non-Catholic schools be taught about Catholicism. When I said yes, good idea, you then do a 180 degree U-ey and declare that the schools have "no time" and the parents should do it.

[cp36]

>>Once you've failed, you'll realise that "unable to disprove" is not a very notable characteristic, and certainly not an adequate reason for believing something or even taking it seriously.

The proposition is either there is a God who made the heavens and the Earth or there is no God. Beyond logical reasoning there is Intuition and Feelings which you often use in many situations in life. You can't fit everything into logical reasoning. Try "proving" that your wife or girlfriend really loves you. If you can't feel her love, I don't believe your thinking is not going to help you very much. Love is something you have to feel.

Albert Einstein once said in an interview that you can't read the Gospels without feeling the presence of Jesus Christ. Do you think you have a greater mind than Einstein? All the great scientists in the past believed in some sort of a Deity. Pure Chance alone cannot produce the Mathematics which governs the universe. There has to be a very intelligent Mind somewhere.

Cheers

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Want a bet?"
- Coel, 10 JUL 2009, 20:52

You will not live long enough to collect it.

"All-girl schools discriminate on grounds of sex."
- op. cit.

Rubbish. A state school specifically for girls in my local area is recognised as the best school in the county, with an over-subscription that would fill the school three times over.
A STATE school, Mr Coel. Better than any boys' school, Catholic or public.
Full of middle- and working-class girls because that is the social profile in this town.

As a baptised Anglican, you took advantage of an excellent education in a C of E school. It wasn't the school that let you down, it was your parents. They should have taught you in the home what your school had no time to teach you in class because the curriculum was so tight. Your parents failed you, and so you now blame the faith school you attended for your perceived ignorance of other faiths.
I guess that's the life story of most atheists.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "You just hate being outsmarted by a Christian, don't you?"

I wouldn't know, since I cannot recollect it having occurred.

"It is not discrimination to offer Catholic children places in Catholic schools ..."

Yes it is. Buy a dictionary (discriminate: to make a distinction, or to treat differently). Catholic faith schools treat differently an application from a Catholic compared to an application by someone non-religious. That is discrimination.

"I suppose we are discriminating when we admit Muslim girls to our all-girl schools?"

Of course, all-girl schools discriminate on grounds of sex. (State the bleeding obvious!)

"If you persist in this fiction that we discriminate, then you are forced to admit that we are only doing what the law allows us to do."

I'm well aware that it is currently legal. I think it should not be legal (and so, polls show, do vast fractions of the population).

"and you have no chance of changing the status quo."

Want a bet? In the short-term perhaps not, but the religious need to realise the amount of resentment they are storing up because of an education system rigged in favour of religious families (who get preferential entry to taxpayer-funded schools that get to preferentially select middle-class kids, and so are more desirable, whereas others have to make do with comprehensives which can't select kids).

[Geoffrey Smith]

Nonsense, Mr Coel, you really are becoming absurd in your eagerness to grind me down. You just hate being outsmarted by a Christian, don't you? It is not discrimination to offer Catholic children places in Catholic schools on the understanding that they really are Catholics and not members of another religion, or of no religion at all. I suppose we are discriminating when we admit Muslim girls to our all-girl schools? Without a requirement that they attend Mass? What do you have to say about that?
If you persist in this fiction that we discriminate, then you are forced to admit that we are only doing what the law allows us to do. Face it, your argument is purely academic, if you will forgive the pun, and you have no chance of changing the status quo. The Government recognises that our schools are of a high quality and an asset to the nation. The Department of Education will continue to help us to keep it that way.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "The requirement that a prospective Catholic pupil should give a Catholic school some evidence of a de facto association with the Church is a perfectly reasonable one,..."

It is still religious discrimination, and in my opinion state-funded schools should not discriminate over religion. That's also the opinion of 64% of the nation according to a poll!

"Apparently it is perfectly in order for our schools to teach non-Catholic pupils all about the Catholic Church and her teaching ... They have your permission to do so."

Why sure they do, I've said repeatedly that I think schools should be about broadening the kids' education, presenting them with a range of opinions and encouraging them to think. Wouldn't you agree?

One way in which my (CofE) school was remiss was that it never told us anything about Catholicism, or how Catholicism differed from Anglicanism, nor about any other religions really (nor any atheist perspective of course). All we got was unremitting CofE.

"Our grateful thanks to you, Mr Coel."

You're most welcome Mr Geoff. I take it you'll reciprocate by enouraging Catholic schools to teach their pupils a range of perspectives?

[Geoffrey Smith]

The requirement that a prospective Catholic pupil should give a Catholic school some evidence of a de facto association with the Church is a perfectly reasonable one, as the State recognises. Only in the case of non-Catholic pupils is this requirement waived, again reasonably so.
I notice that you have studiously avoided commenting on my final point. Apparently it is perfectly in order for our schools to teach non-Catholic pupils all about the Catholic Church and her teaching, and through them teach their parents also. They have your permission to do so. Our grateful thanks to you, Mr Coel.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "Leaving aside the fact that our faith schools do NOT discriminate over religion, ..."

Sorry Geoff, they do discriminate on religious grounds, that is quite clear in their admissions. E.g. "Certain types of school may apply other admission criteria: church or faith schools may ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship."
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ChoosingASchool

"... the interesting thought arises that you would be willing to see the State continue its policy of funding such schools, subject to the above required condition!! It rather contradicts your previous comments that such schools should have their funding withdrawn."

Fairly obviously I'm not advocating the closing of a thousand-odd schools and the opening of a thousand-odd new ones. But the state should enforce standards appropriate for state-funded schools, namely no religious discrimination and no coerced religion.

[iain rae]

If a pretty nurse wishes to pray for my "soul" that would be lovely. As an athiest reluctently ,i would prefer she serves out the mince and tatties.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The state should simply prohibit [faith] schools it funds from admissions policies that discriminate over religion."
- Coel, 9 JUL 2009, 22:21

Leaving aside the fact that our faith schools do NOT discriminate over religion, but admit an appreciable number of non-Christian pupils, especially Muslim girls in our all-girl schools, and in spite of the fact that some Catholic children are thereby deprived of places in our own schools, the interesting thought arises that you would be willing to see the State continue its policy of funding such schools, subject to the above required condition!! It rather contradicts your previous comments that such schools should have their funding withdrawn.

"It's more about exposing the kids to alternative viewpoints, along with the Catholicism,..."
- op. cit.

In other words, teaching their non-Catholic pupils all about the Catholic Church and its teaching.
Yeah, right.

[T C]

>>Evidence?
"Actually such thinking is out-of-date nowadays with the New Science. And there is such a thing as Intuition or Gut Feelings by which you know things but you cannot tell why. Do you know that in a court of law the only person who really knows whether he murdered or not is the murderer himself and God? Nobody else can be 100% certain including the judge. If nobody hears a tree falling did it actually fall? That is one of the question in Quantum Physics. I am not going to pretend I understand Quantum Physics. Where do you think Mathematics come from? Was it an invention of man or was it already in existence and man is discovering it? God is a mathematician and a physicist. Man with his peanut-sized brains can no way prove or disprove the existence of God who made the universe. If you think you are so smart try and look for a method to prove that there is no God. I'll be interested to look into it."
Cheers

Does anyone speak with more honesty and an unassuming nature? CP36 is truthfully honest; he says what he means to say! Thanks for your honesty CP36!

[Coel]

CP36: "If you think you are so smart try and look for a method to prove that there is no God."

First, you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just to demonstrate how such things are done.

Once you've failed, you'll realise that "unable to disprove" is not a very notable characteristic, and certainly not an adequate reason for believing something or even taking it seriously.

[cp36]

>>Evidence?

Actually such thinking is out-of-date nowadays with the New Science. And there is such a thing as Intuition or Gut Feelings by which you know things but you cannot tell why. Do you know that in a court of law the only person who really knows whether he murdered or not is the murderer himself and God? Nobody else can be 100% certain including the judge. If nobody hears a tree falling did it actually fall? That is one of the question in Quantum Physics. I am not going to pretend I understand Quantum Physics. Where do you think Mathematics come from? Was it an invention of man or was it already in existence and man is discovering it? God is a mathematician and a physicist. Man with his peanut-sized brains can no way prove or disprove the existence of God who made the universe. If you think you are so smart try and look for a method to prove that there is no God. I'll be interested to look into it.

Cheers

[Coel]

Geofrey Smith writes: "In short, [faith schools] do the same job as the comprehensive school that you attended,..."

Sure, and comprehensive schools are controlled by the state; so are faith schools, since the state pays for them.

"Together with your fellow-secularists on this blog, you are under some sort of delusion that our faith schools do nothing more than teach religion, ..."

You are crackers if you really think that any of us are under that delusion!

"you [are] clamouring for their financial starvation and the ruination of the future well-being of thousands of our children. That a crisis in education would result from the immediate transplanting of so many children into state schools already bursting at the seams does not concern you in the least."

Dear Geoff, nothing would be ruined, and no kid need be transplanted. The state should simply prohibit schools it funds from admissions policies that discriminate over religion.

Just as there is no way that it would be accepted if NHS hospitals discriminated over religion in their admissions!

The faith schools would bleat, whine and throw temper tantrums -- and then they'd get on with it. What's their alternative? Sack all their teachers? Dismiss all the kids? Remember that the state pays for these schools and is perfectly entitled to set the rules. The "faith" schools would just grumble and then continue under the new policy. No child's education or intellectual development would be harmed!

"But hey, who cares about that as long as we can bash those bloody RCs and stop them teaching their kids about God and the Catholic Church."

It's more about exposing the kids to alternative viewpoints, along with the Catholicism, thus broadening their education and teaching them to think and to question. Do you object to that? I certainly think you would have benefited from more of that in your schooling.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Lewis (09/07/09 - 00:59:02). Thank you for having "understood" the motivation behind my action in the perfectly true anecdote which I related. I am glad that you would have responded in a similar manner. Your account of your own experiences in Papua New Guinea serves to show how important it can be when patients who ask for "assistance", can receive that from someone in whom they have confidence. It is not a question of "religion" or "no religion", but a matter of a perfectly human reaction to help someone who might feel in need of, and request, some "help".

In Spanish, there is a very nice saying, phrased in the imperative tense, which goes as follows: "Haga bien sin mirar a quien", which means:"Do good without looking at whom". I think that sums up in a very few words how humans should interact with each other in, e.g. a "patient in a hospital" environment.

Kindest regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Pearce, this is very much off-topic because you have seen fit to make it so, but all faith schools receive state funding because they provide an education in the secular subjects demanded by the state, and conduct examinations in those subjects, such as the GCSE and A-Level exams, as required by the state. In short, they do the same job as the comprehensive school that you attended, only I should think to a much higher level.
Together with your fellow-secularists on this blog, you are under some sort of delusion that our faith schools do nothing more than teach religion, and play no part in the intellectual development of our future citizens.
But you won't allow a little thing like a prejudice to stop you from clamouring for their financial starvation and the ruination of the future well-being of thousands of our children. That a crisis in education would result from the immediate transplanting of so many children into state schools already bursting at the seams does not concern you in the least. But hey, who cares about that as long as we can bash those bloody RCs and stop them teaching their kids about God and the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Geoffrey Smith | July 09, 2009 at 01:37 PM

[Geoffrey Smith]

Well, Mr Coel, are you going to answer my question? Does God hate the dead because very few of them have been resurrected?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Thanks to a system rigged in favour of the religious by religious politicians"
- Coel

You and Mr Pearce have a persecution complex. You should get rid of it by becoming Christians.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Mead, when will you realise that no one is asking hospital employees, such as doctors, nurses, or ward orderlies, to fail in any way to do the jobs for which they have signed contracts and for which they are paid?
Any spiritual work they perform, such as offering to pray for patients, is entirely voluntary and offered on the understanding that such an act would be done without prejudice to their normal professional work.
Only chaplains are expected to do this work as a full-time occupation.
Furthermore, as I stated in an earlier post, patients in a hospital ward have usually been asked to give their religious affiliation, as well as their personal details, to the staff who admitted them. Every one who works on the ward is well aware of who is a religious person and who is not, and a chaplain is not likely to impose himself on some one who is not a member of his own denomination.
Any approach from a non-professional, such as a nurse, can be courteously rejected by an anti-religious person, and nothing more will be said. To suggest that such an offer could be 'harmful' or 'injurious' to the patient concerned is just plain daft.

[Jason Mead]

C3PO

"I think the worst thing that can happen to a person is when God gives up on him or her. It can also happen to nations. There is such a thing as divine retribution or the wrath of God"

Evidence?

[cp36]

"Thus, because they have not seen fit to acknowledge God, he has given them up to their own depraved way of thinking, and this leads them to break all rules of conduct." Romans 1:28, REB.

I think the worst thing that can happen to a person is when God gives up on him or her. It can also happen to nations. There is such a thing as divine retribution or the wrath of God.

Cheers

[Lewis Winders]

Andrew, a wonderful anecdote, which captures both sides of this argument (or at least the rational ones!).

As an atheist I would unhesitatingly do the same as you did if asked. That's not proselytising (in your case), or selling out one's beliefs (in mine), that's basic human decency.

I once lived in Papua New Guinea. An Australian doctor worked at the local hospital, where conditions were less than ideal. Although a Christian himself, this doctor realised and accepted that although many of the local indigenous people were nominally Christian, their underlying beliefs were those which pre-dated the white man's arrival by millenia.

He would therefore often call in a patient's "masalai man" (witch doctor, for want of a better term) if the patient was not responding mentally or physically to Western treatment. It would not always work, of course, and Western arrogance would have us assume that when it did work it was purely the result of the placebo effect, but as far as the doctor was concerned, a cure's a cure, and I couldn't agree more.

My point is that things have to be at the patient's request, and relevant to that patient. Whilst many patients, including many non-religious ones, would be happy to have a chaplain etc attend to them, I have also seen a number who, no doubt for their own good reasons, were openly hostile to the presence of such a person, and whose situation would have been exacerbated by their continued presence.

[Jason Mead]

Geoff,

"and that little hitler,"

How dare you? My "Hitler" is in no way little.

"Jason Mead, would dearly love to shut us up and deprive us of our civil rights."

No - just sacked if you're unable to do the job you have been contracted and paid to do.

[Jason Mead]

Geoff,

"What a nasty little fascist he really is!"

What a repulsive little fantasist you are.

[Jason Mead]

Geoff,

"In short, keep your religious trap shut and your Bronze-age beliefs in your home and nowhere else."

That's the general idea - you're getting used to it already. That's very good to see.

Yes, that's right. Just keep your personal delusions entirely to yourself.

No one is remotely interested in your sordid little barbaric beliefs and just want you to act like a professional in the work place.

Get on with the job you have been contracted and paid to do or get out and make room for someone who can.

"Dream on."

That's rich, coming from a serial fantasist who has replaced his brain with book of backward Bronze age bigotry, that's very amusing.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "According to Oftsted, of the 200 top primary schools in the country, no less than 120 are Christian faith schools."

That's because faith schools have control over their own admissions (bog-standard state schools do not) and thus can play their usual game of preferentially selecting middle-class kids with supportive families. It's not hard to do better than average if you get to select your pupils.

"With such an excellent education, it's surprising that they don't want to drop their religious character and convert to purely secular establishments."

They'd instantly lose their control over their intake (thanks to a system rigged in favour of the religious by religious politicians).

"The more education, and the better education, that children receive, the more appreciative they are of the Christian faith."

Are they? The vast majority of kids who go through these religious schools do not attend church when they leave, when religion is no longer compulsory.

[J Pearce]

You are a desperate man, clutching at straws Mr. Smith.

Why is the Catholic establishment so desperate that faith schools should receive state funding? Simple:

1. Without state funding, faith schools would wither and become a niche of the rich and upper middle classes. Essentially, private schools. Good education, but an enclave for a minority.
2. As a result, Roman Catholicism loses its only remaining mass propaganda conduit in this country.

The RCC is desperate to retain state funding as it is the last remaining guarantee of spreading its perfidious ideology under the guise of “education”. You know this as well as I do - you are perfectly well aware of how damaging to the RCC it would be to lose state funding of faith schools.

I have not argued that the state education system is flawless (although your intellectual snobbery shines through in your last post as clear as day - a religious elitist AND a class snob! Who would have thought it of a Christian, eh? Not surprising from a Catholic, though).

The point is, education for all has destroyed religious influence in this country, which itself has always been allied to vested class interest. The more egalitarian we become, the more obvious it is that the Church - especially the RCC - works only to further its own self-interest. The majority of people are coming to realise this, Mr. Smith.

Bottom line - if you were so confident in your Church, then you would not fear the withdrawal of state funding. But you do. You are a classic Roman Catholic snob, Geoff. You are part of the repressive system. You are allied to the oppressor. You represent everything that Jesus fought against.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Mass education in the West has now given the bulk of the people, for the first time in history, the intellectual tools, etc."
- J Pearce, 8 JUL 2009, 14:12

You should try telling that to the Ofsted inspectors. It might persuade them not to downgrade so many schools and threaten them with closure if they did not improve their standards.
According to Oftsted, of the 200 top primary schools in the country, no less than 120 are Christian faith schools.
With such an excellent education, it's surprising that they don't want to drop their religious character and convert to purely secular establishments.
Or maybe you are just plain wrong, Mr Pearce? The more education, and the better education, that children receive, the more appreciative they are of the Christian faith. I do, of course, concede that if you go to a bog-standard comprehensive, you will most likely receive a sub-standard education, and therefore all the more likely that you will turn out to be anti-religious.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Having previously expressed an opinion in favour of the complete and absolute freedom of patients to request "assistance" if they so wish, the following example from my own experience could indicate how medical professionals might have to "react" in a surprise situation.

During my onetime duties in an NHS hospital, I had to make visits to patients in the wards. When in the "Womens' Surgery Ward", I would always be accompanied by a Staff Nurse, for ethical and other such good reasons. There was a dear lady patient who always drew a laugh from the others on announcing "watch out girls, here comes Dr. Frankenstein" when I appeared. Everyone's spirits went up at the mutual friendly exchanges.

One day, the lady was crying her eyes out, and in great distress, because she was about to be operated on. She was holding a BCP in her hands, and had been trying to read Psalm 28 ("Ad te, Domine"). She asked me to please read that Psalm to her so, with the Staff Nurse holding her hand, I complied with her request. She became "composed", and said thank you to the Nurse and me. She actually smiled when I said that the Staff Nurse and I were "going out together".

The post-op prognosis was unfavourable, and the lady was sent home (unfortunately, to die there). On her being discharged from hospital, I got a call to ask me to go urgently to Women's Surgery. "Mrs. B.", as she was affectionately known to all, introduced her husband to the Staff Nurse and me, and they both - privately - thanked us for our "help" in the reading of Psalm 28. The memory of their sincere "God bless you both" remains with me even today, and I would have no hesitation in "going through the motions" should such a request be made personally to me by a patient. No proseletism in favour or against any expression of religious belief or disbelief - just a bit of "help" to a patient who may request any such assistance.

I hope this innocent anecdote may prove interesting to other commentators.

Regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Personally, I think that religious opinions should be part of the private sphere."
- Merseymike, 8 JUL 2009, 15:33

In short, keep your religious trap shut and your Bronze-age beliefs in your home and nowhere else.
Dream on, Mike.

[Geoffrey Smith]

I suppose God hates the dead also, Mr Coel? After all, very few of them have been resurrected, right?
One small point: how do you know that God has not healed an amputee somewhere in this world, at some time or other? You don't. It's pure conjecture on your part with no evidence to back you up.
Do you want God to heal ALL amputees? Do you want Him to cure ALL infirmities and diseases? Do you want Him to raise every dead person back to life? In short, do you want Him to give us a paradise on earth when we do not deserve it?

[Merseymike]

Religionists have the civil right to practice their religion, but that does not extend to unprofessional behaviour - such as offering to pray for patients or introducing their religion into their professional work.

Personally,I think that religious opinions should be part of the private sphere.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith fantasizes: "You are the one who is trying to eradicate all vestiges of the Christian faith from public life in this country."

Have you joined Perer in his fantasy la-la land, where you just make stuff up?

"... you are trying your damndest to expunge the very thought of God from human memory."

Yeah, right, as if I ever could.

"but the likes of you and that little hitler, Jason Mead, would dearly love to shut us up and deprive us of our civil rights."

Dear Geoff, you do not have a "civil right" to proselytize while performing professional duties such as teacher, policeman, doctor, etc.

"You intend to destroy us if you can, and we intend to stop you."

Personally I'm more interested in equality and freedom. But your warlike intent is revealling about the religious predeliction for oppressing heretics and burning each other at the stake.

[J Pearce]

"We Christians, for our part, are quite willing to allow those who strongly disagree with us to compete with us for converts in a democratic society, but the likes of you and that little hitler, Jason Mead, would dearly love to shut us up and deprive us of our civil rights."

But what do you assume are your "civil rights"? To tell people that they are "wrong" for not believing in a Christian God? To tell people that they are "wrong" for engaging in private sexual liaisons that are nobodys business but their own? To harass and deny equality to various minority groups? To casually demonise anyone who fails to tow the orthodox Christian dogmatic line?

In essence, your "civil rights" amount to little more than a charter to interfere with people's lives, harass them, bully them and demonise anyone who happens not to adhere to your peculiar morality.

That’s not "civil rights", Geoff, its religious persecution. If you kept your religious beliefs to the private domain then there might not be such a problem. But you don't. Ergo, your attempts at persecution and special case pleading are challenged both by individuals and increasingly it seems, the State. And damn right too.

"You intend to destroy us if you can, and we intend to stop you."

This is where you and PererB get it so, so wrong, Geoff. People - the general public at large - are doing absolutely nothing to deliberately "destroy" Christianity. Christianity is being destroyed by the inevitable consequence of mass education.

You see Geoff, both you and PererB are hurling invective at completely the wrong targets. Mass education in the West has now given the bulk of the populace, for the first time in history, the intellectual tools with which to analyse themselves, their history and their place in society.

The unquestionable, observable consequence of this new paradigm for the bulk of western societies, is the inexorable and inevitable decline of religious observance and, indeed, religious belief.

Education, i.e. knowledge, is the real enemy of religious belief. It destroys the fear and superstition that religious elites require to maintain a semblance of control over their followers. It provides people with the ability to question, rationalise and contextualise the mythos of Christianity.

This doesn't necessarily result in atheism, because according to census data, many people in this country stil self-identify as "Christian". But lets be honest, they aren't practicing Christians. Declining church attendance verifies that.

Its more to do with common cultural identity, rather than any deep affection and loyalty to Christianity. And it is no coincidence that religious observance in this country has declined whilst education has been rolled out to the bulk of the populace, my friend.

Growing atheism, secularism and agnosticism are merely the flip-side of this revolution. Education for the masses is what has really done it in for the Church, at least in the West.

No wonder the Vatican is so keen to recruit as many poorly educated, economically deprived Africans as it can - it wants to keep them that way! If Africa and South America were emancipated from their economic problems and adopted western economic and democratic models, the Roman Catholic Church would become about as relevant and popular as the Jehovahs Witnesses!

You and PererB can keep hoisting atheists and secularists as your "enemy", Geoff - but you are so very, very wrong. They are only a symptom. The education genie is out of the bottle and however much you huff and puff, there's nothing you can do to stop it.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "It was entirely due to the intercession of Bl. John Newman with Our Lord on Mr Sullivan's behalf."

And the reason that your lord never accepts intercession on behalf of amputees (or anything else that never gets better anyhow) is because God hates amputees.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "Are you reading this, Mr Coel? Rather puts the kibosh on your belief that atheists don't do that sort of thing, dunnit?"

Obviously you missed the sarcasm.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Your conscience clause would excuse the 9/11 terrorists." - Coel

A doctor who refuses to perform an abortion is not trying to kill 3000 people. A pharmacist who refuses to prescribe an abortifacient or contraceptive is not trying to kill 3000 people. Mostly, Mr Coel, your argument is simply illogical, but sometimes, as in this case, it is utterly absurd.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Well, well, well, Mr Winders (8 JUL 2009, 08:31), so now we have an atheist going round the wards trying to convert the patients to atheism! Are you reading this, Mr Coel? Rather puts the kibosh on your belief that atheists don't do that sort of thing, dunnit?

[Geoffrey Smith]

No, Mr Pearce, it wasn't a placebo effect that healed Jack Sullivan's crippled spine. It was entirely due to the intercession of Bl. John Newman with Our Lord on Mr Sullivan's behalf.
You may be aware that another miracle is required for Bl. John to be canonised, i.e. to be declared a saint, as St. John Newman. Maybe the miraculous healing of your son would be accepted as that miracle? You should try it, my friend. What have you got to lose?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"You really are an obnoxious bigot, aren't you, Geoff?"
- Coel, 8 JUL 2009, 11:45

Now that I've managed to stop laughing, I can answer your question.
Obnoxious? Hopefully, to you atheists, yes. Bigot? No, Mr Coel, you are the bigot. You are the one who is trying to eradicate all vestiges of the Christian faith from public life in this country. Just like your bully-boys in the United States, the ACLU (the Anti-Christian Litigation Union), you are trying your damndest to expunge the very thought of God from human memory. We Christians, for our part, are quite willing to allow those who strongly disagree with us to compete with us for converts in a democratic society, but the likes of you and that little hitler, Jason Mead, would dearly love to shut us up and deprive us of our civil rights.
We Christians are not fools, Mr Coel, even if you think we are. Not for one moment are we taken in by your Grecian charity, your wooden horse offerings of peace and friendship, if only we will stop worshipping the Lord whom we love, honour and serve.
You intend to destroy us if you can, and we intend to stop you.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "... if it is "commonplace" for Christian workers in the hospitals to encourage patients, even atheists, to pray to God ... then I am delighted to hear it, and long may it continue!"

You really are an obnoxious bigot, aren't you Geoff? Fortunately, atheists have better morals and more respect for people than you, and won't reciprocate your ambulance-chasing tactics.

And as for calling Jason a "nast little fascist" for saying that the religious should have no "conscience clause" that allows them to ignore rules, well, Geoff, your "conscience clause" would excuse the 9/11 terrorists.

Mohammed Atta: "My religious conscience obliges me to fly this aeroplane into this building".

Geoffrey: "Oh, in that case it's perfectly ok, be my guest!"

[J Pearce]

"So Jack Sullivan still can't walk?"

Placebo effect.

[Lewis Winders]

Well at least my conscience will now be clear when I troop around the palliative care wards telling people "There is no god and no afterlife, so say your goodbyes to your family and friends now, because you will never see them again."

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The so-called 'conscience clause' should be scrapped." - Jason Mead.

Obviously my reference to a fanciful führer in Mr Mead's case was closer to the mark than even I realised.
What a nasty little fascist he really is!

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It is entirely unproven that the application of prayer either a) alleviates a patient's suffering or b) is an act of altruism."
- J Pearce, 7 JUL 2009, 12:05

So Jack Sullivan still can't walk?

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Coel, if it is "commonplace" for Christian workers in the hospitals to encourage patients, even atheists, to pray to God for their own physical and psychological well-being, then I am delighted to hear it, and long may it continue!

[Jason Mead]

Geoff,

"After all, what can these tyrants do to stop God's work from being done?"

Why can't "God" do it himself?

Why does he need anyone to do what they believe to be "his work" for him?

What makes them think that they can do "work" that God is unwilling or unable to do?

"Sack all the nurses who refuse to obey a diktat,"

Yes.

We should be a far more secular society like they have in France or the Scandinavian countries where religion or whatever rubbish people believe in private is excluded from the public sphere and remains exactly that - private.

If they make themselves unemployable because they refuse to do the job that they are contracted to do then they should be properly sacked. The so-called "conscience clause" should be similarly scrapped if Doctors refuse to recommend abortions or pharmacists refuse to dispense contraception.

For professionals to refuse to do their job because it conflicts with their "personal",
"strongly-held" beliefs is as ridiculous as someone joining the army and then refusing to fight because they are a pacifists. Such people would soon be thrown out the army and there is no reason why any other profession should be any different.

"and wreck the NHS?"

Considering that the NHS is already a wreck this would be a great argument from disbanding it altogether. It is supposed to a national health service not a public platform for morons to preach their private delusions to those who are sick.

"That'll be the day"

It may be happening sooner than you think. Here is the brilliant A C Graylin on the disproportionate influence that religion has on the public sphere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/01/religion-euthanasia

"How can this be tolerable? All religious organisations should be relegated to the status of private self-selected and self-constituted NGOs like trade unions and other lobby groups, should survive on what money they can raise from their adherents, should have the same and no more than the same rights and entitlements as any other such organisation and should stop getting privileges, money and an amplification for their views (views, never forget, derived from the beliefs of illiterate goat-herds in ancient times) from government."

Hear, Hear.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "why don't you ask atheists if they object to atheists being told they are wrong, but don't object if Christians are told they are wrong?"

Every atheist I've asked that question of has stated that neither sort of patient should be told their views on religion are wrong.

This could be why I've never heard of atheists making a point of going round hospitals telling religious patients that their views are wrong, whereas it is commonplace for Christians to do that to atheist patients (as I experienced several times).

[Geoffrey Smith]

Yes, Jonathan, and no one is more offended by Christian belief and practice than our secular posters on this blog.
As you say, Caroline Petrie should never have been disciplined, but such is the song and dance staged by our anti-Christian fanatics, it's a wonder she didn't end up being crucified.
I hope the Petrie episode will make our Christian nurses realise that they have more political clout than they think, and that it will encourage them to continue their spiritual work of mercy, regardless of the fanciful führers like Messrs Coel, Winders, Pearce, Mead, et al.
After all, what can these tyrants do to stop God's work from being done? Sack all the nurses who refuse to obey a diktat, and wreck the NHS? That'll be the day.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Winders, why don't you ask atheists if they object to atheists being told they are wrong, but don't object if Christians are told they are wrong?
I don't expect you to answer my question, by the way. You never do.
Incidentally, I'm sure Jack Sullivan spent some time in a palliative care ward. Maybe more than you. Happily, he is a rational, thinking person who realised his best chance of a cure was through prayer to Almighty God, aided by the intercession of someone to whom God is prepared to listen, such as Bl. John Newman.
You should try it some time.

[Lewis Winders]

Coel: "You [GS] are wrong [about their being no atheists in fox-holes or cancer wards], as usual, there are plenty of atheists who stay atheists in the face of death. Your claim is wishful-thinking religious propaganda, a state of denial that some people really are atheists."

Coel, that is perfectly put. Having spent a bit of time in both, I can honestly say that (a) the only people who maintain that there are no atheists in fox-holes are those who've never been in a fox-hole; and (b) that if any experience was going to make a rational, thinking person question the existence of a benevolent, loving and caring God, it would have to be a few nights in a palliative care ward.

[J Pearce]

"Since the BMA is a secular organisation interested only in secular values, it can safely be ignored by Christian nurses."

No, they cannot. Nursing is a profession governed by rules administered by the BMA. To flout those rules on the grounds of personal opinion is not only unprofessional, but violates medical ethics. Said nurse is therefore justifiably open to the charge of professional misconduct and concomitant penalties.

This is why it is essential to keep religious meddling out of medicine - religious belief only blurs and distorts the application of stringent, patient-centered professional medical care.

"After all, a patient facing death should welcome the approach of someone who truly cared for their mental well-being."

It is entirely unproven that the application of prayer either a) alleviates a patients suffering or b) is an act of altruism.

In my experience, neither was the case. It seemed more an attempt at self-serving piety.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith asks: "... are you aiming to have all religious chaplains excluded from state hospitals,..."

I've no objection to them being available to patients, though I don't think they should be taxpayer funded.

"You seem quite eager to eliminate any Christian influence from our schools,..."

That's not what I've said; I've said that Christianity should be one of the views pupils encounter and learn about in schools, but not a monopoly that pupils are coerced into.

"... why should you worry if Christian nurses, doctors and orderlies co-operate with the chaplains in providing spiritual care?"

The initiative should be the paitent's. Plenty of patients do not want nurses pushing religion at them.

"There are no atheists in a fox-hole - or a cancer ward."

You are wrong, as usual, there are plenty of atheists who stay atheists in the face of death. Your claim is wishful-thinking religious propaganda, a state of denial that some people really are atheists.

[Lewis Winders]

Coel: "But whenever I've asked Christians about this, they don't object if an atheist patient is told they're wrong, but they would object if a Christian patient were told they're wrong. Strange."

"Strange" is one word for it. There are others, and I commend you for using the least offensive one you could find.

[Jonathan]

People get too offended by small things these days. Caroline Petrie should never have been suspended.

[Merseymike]

I hardly think that the employers expect nurses to proselytise either...after all, it isn't considered professional. That is why on the whole, they won't do it.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "Since the BMA is a secular organisation interested only in secular values, it can safely be ignored by Christian nurses."

Not so, nurses cannot ignore the policies of their employer, and the NHS takes note of the BMA's opinion.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Tell us, Mr Coel, are you aiming to have all religious chaplains excluded from state hospitals, regardless of whether any patients want them or not?
You seem quite eager to eliminate any Christian influence from our schools, so I think it rather likely that you would aspire to do the same for the hospitals. If your answer is yes, then I can well understand your irritation when some people frustrate your ambition in this manner.
If your answer is no, why should you worry if Christian nurses, doctors and orderlies co-operate with the chaplains in providing spiritual care? After all, a patient facing death should welcome the approach of someone who truly cared for their mental well-being.
There are no atheists in a fox-hole - or a cancer ward.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Wrong, Messrs Merseymike and Coel.
The BMA is not the law of the land, but can only give 'guidelines' to its members, who are physicians and surgeons.
Since the BMA is a secular organisation interested only in secular values, it can safely be ignored by Christian nurses.