Humanists Hiding Behind Anglicans (and Children)

As I minded my own business and went to collect the Twins Aculae from school this afternoon, some little chap or other pushed a high-gloss high-price leaflet into my hand. I confess to thinking that he didn't look like the sort to be pushing the next pizza place, so I read the thing. 

What you see here is the front top portion of the 120gsm publication. Wow, I thought, a faith group getting militant. Someone doesn't like Catholics, I mused. Naughty Catholics, I pondered, if this is right. I also thought happy-happy joy-joy thoughts for the kind  non-Catholic group who seemed concerned with the rights of my Anglican flock. 

Brothers and sisters: all is not as it would seem. This publication is from Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign, and they have a website too: http://www.richmondinclusiveschools.org.uk/ Among the plaudits is just a small amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric and couched in the language of bile and stereotype (in my opinion). Me being me, I wanted to know who RISC were - a faith group? Some disgruntled parents who had failed by get baby Johnny admitted elsewhere? The leaflet and the website were no help whatsoever. The Humanist website was, however. They gave the game away, and blew the cover of our Humanist brothers and sisters who seemed at some pains to avoid their true identity. 

Now - I have no real objection to inclusiveness in our faith schools. Actually, I favour it over a tight admission policy because I don't think that any facet of church life should be that of a private-member's club. What I absolutely do object to is to campaigns that fight for our children and for other faith groups as a subterfuge for the real agenda. To argue a case for what you do want as a front for what you don't want is underhand, in my opinion (and dishonest). Let us be clear - the BHA don't give a rat's derriere for me as an Anglican, any other Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. To them we are all deluded.

For my part, I think that the debate should be open, that we have a meaningful debate about school admissions policies - but in the open, as conspicuous interested parties - not behind campaign slogans and some disingenuous text. There is an increasing sense in some Christian circles that loving our neighbour (you know, that key Christian tenet) doesn't work well with "our neighbour isn't allowed in our school though". There are Christians who will debate this issue without resort to glossy semantic prestidigitation. I confess to being even more disappointed in the Humanists than I was before - and I didn't think that was possible. 

Give me a true atheist any day - at least we can talk properly. 

Ricky Gervais Finds Religion

I would like to thank my Honourable Friend from Husborne Crawley for bringing this to my attention. It is a matter of considerable celebration for me and should be for all men and women of faith.

Ricky Gervais has found religion (and I don't refer to the long observed Messiah Complex of his). 

And he is also guilty of an infraction of the Trades Description Act.

Why? Let me explain. Were he an atheist, as his chest proclaims, he would have no business on the cover of The New Humanist magazine. Furthermore, were he still amusing (like the old days of the Eleven O'Clock Show when he was still funny) he wouldn't need to resort to a poor impersonation act. Had he researched in a professional manner, he would have discovered that denim emerged in around 1853, nearly two thousand years after the man he is impersonating. Also, I think that is re-working of Jesus of Nazareth is wholly too camp, and nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that the Palestinian carpenter had a collection of Scissor Sister albums. So, given that he has fallen on hard times and has to busk as a poor impressionist, I shall light a candle and pray earnestly for him and those who depend on him for their daily needs. 

Back to my contention about his place as an atheist on the cover of New Humanist (what happened to the old humanists, did they die of boredom - I wonder what they said when they got to heaven?) Look at the cover. Look at it. These people claim to have no belief in a god and have no time for religious faith - or so you would think. This cover is obsessed with it. In fact, it is a little known fact that Humanists are more concerned about God and Jesus than I am, and I am professional God botherer. Were he an atheist as he claims, he would be no more interested in Jesus than I in Ben 10. I have never appeared on a cover looking like a homoerotic Ben 10. 

The thing is, as a Christian, my time is devoted to God and all that proceeds from that encounter. Same for the Humanists - if only they were honest enough to say so. True atheists, like the ones I know, are generous hearted, open minded people who have made a choice. Then they got on with their lives. 

Yes, Mr Gervais, you have the right to offend us. Only you failed. I haven't laughed at you this much in twenty years. No, I am wrong - now am I laughing at you; I used to laugh with you quite a lot.

Why I Couldn't Be a Humanist

I have a paper to write on the subject of funerals, so like all diligent writers, obtained some material from other sources in order to make an honest and informed comparison. I bought and paid for the Humanist Association book on 'how to do a funeral', and the title on the cover typifies the very reason why I have something of an issue with them as an organisation:

'Funerals Without God' - it is called. Now, I can accept that some people cannot confess a faith in a deity, and as such I am at peace with that. This title, though, is odd. I am guessing that most Humanists don't believe in Flying Green Elephants or tooth-fairies (one assumes), so a book entitled 'Funerals Without Toothfairies' or 'Funerals Without Flying Green Elephants' would seem equally odd to me.

I took a toddle throught the pages of this noble work, whose strapline is 'A practical guide to humanist and non-religious funeral celebrations' (I am also a little flummoxed as to why 'non-religious' automatically translates into 'humanist' which is, after all, a belief-structure with texts and dogmas, like a religion); anyway ... some quotes for you.

"In circumstances rather less extreme that a climber's death [high up on a Himalayan mountainside] there may be no Humanist officiant conveniently available" (p3) - just us Christians, then, who are available at all times and in all weather

"There is an intimacy about a ceremony that is organised by those immediately involved, which cannot be achieved when it is conducted by an outsider" (p3) - not true, according to the mourners whose loved-ones I have despatched to Heaven

"Perhaps after the success of your 'Do It Yourself' ceremony ... you'll decide to join our ranks" (p4) - join us, the B&Q of funerals - here is your orange apron - anyway, all dignity and class flew away with 'Do It Yourself' ceremony

"Five or six minutes is perhaps the minimum time for a meaningful and dignified ceremony" (p4) - especially if ...

"...on the rare occasions when the relatives are quite unable to come up with any pleasant memories at all, because there was no loved lost between them, or because your subject was clearly a bad-tempered, selfish, unkind or thoroughly unpleasant person!" (p17) - sorry aunty, but you had a beard too, and your kisses were all slobbery. 

"There might be a cross and candles up in front and also prayer or hymn books set out on the pews. These are inappropriate for Humanist ceremonies, as indeed they are out of place for many other funerals. Crematoria are public buildings and do not belong to the churches, so we have a right to ask that the cross be removed by the staff before the ceremony starts" (p13) - welcome to the world where most people don't seek a DIY funeral

"Where there is no cemetary chapel in use ... there are a number of alternatives:

...a church hall ... ...a hotel..." (p14) ...though only the bravest would make those phone calls to book them

 "At the graveside ... if an aeroplane or some other outrageous noise drowns your voice, simply wait until the sound subsides" (p15) - I am wondering where outrageous planes fly too, making their outrageous noise, outrageously [speak up, love, they are 30-odd thousand feet up]

I could carry on. My beef is not  that they are Humanists, but that as Humanists they are not being humanists, but rather an anti-religion lobby. Their agenda seems to be set purely to counter us faithful folk and what we believe in, and even as an expression of atheism, it seems odd. I chose the picture above because it seems to illustrate well what I mean here. As a person with a belief in God, and in the context of that diagram, I would argue that I have faith (and largely no proof) that a white triangle is at the centre of the picture. I claim this because I can see its effects on other things. Humanists would spend all their efforts telling me that there is no triangle and, actually, they will spend all their time devoting effort to telling you not to believe in the triangle that isn't there. If I were an atheist, I think I would be focussed on the things that are there, the circles and the lines. The end result is this: if you have Christians, Humanists and other non-Humanist Society atheists, you would have two of the three groups talking about God. The third is just isn't interested in the subject matter.