And another thing…

“Evolution”?

I wonder how far this tradition goes back, most of the ones the Merrie Olde England brigade are so fond of seem to have been started by Prince Albert or in his era and don’t go back anywhere near as long as they like to make out.

PS Do you have any information wrt the average weight of an MP? My impressions are that (a) it’s crept up a bit over the years and (b) that the Tories are generally more overweight than our lot. Are the sitters down above or below average (he typed desperately trying to appear on topic)?

Can we not rid ourselves of the patently unfair and bigoted ‘tradition’ of the Queen being the head of state and ‘head’ of the CoE? Then we can stop our country being a Protestant country even though the vast majority of people are not very religious.

We should have a secular constitution that gives each person equality regardless of religon or lack thereof.

And if we don’t do it ourselves one day the EU may force it upon us.

Excellent attempt at diversion, Mr. Harris.

Why do some people feel the need to be offensive when they think that they are being ‘inclusive’? If I go to someone’s house and they say grace then I remain silent. I don’t interrupt and demand that my agnostic views are taken in to consideration. Likewise I wouldn’t expect a Christian to come in to my home and insist on saying grace out loud. It’s just bad manners (so I’m not surprised the Lib-dems are at it). If they want to reserve a seat but don’t want to take part in a religious ceremony to which they have no attachment then surely a quiet word with the Speaker would lead to a solution. Perhaps they could wait at the bar and pick up a green card at the end. Why the need for an ostentatious and rude protest?

Brian – I believe that this tradition goes right back to the early days of Parliament when the House of Commons met in St Stephen’s Chapel. The Speaker sat in front of the altar so when people bowed to him they were, effectively, bowing to the cross.

Well thats the most persuasive argument i’ve ever heard to vote Lib Dem!

Labour have a habit of wrecking tradition without a care for what will replace it or how it’ll work.

House of Lords and devolution anyone?

I bet Evan Harris sits down during prayers.

Ah, religious matters again. I see them also discussed here, today, on what appears to be a new blog.

http://jdoc303.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/leffe-with-my-leff/

No, it’s not mine. This here is my blog that I’m posting on right now. Tom’s been a big help though with setting it up for me. Credit where it’s due.

Oh yes. Prayers in the chamber. I’m sorry, but I think that’s just rude to sit down like that during other people’s observances. OK, you don’t believe in what others believe in, you don’t have to, but join in a moment of reflection in that case. Take a few moments to feel some humility at being where you are, some community of purpose. Show some bloody respect.

So Parliament doesn’t just discriminate against we atheists,and our simple-but-sweet agnostic cousins, but also against those of us who find it painful to stand for three minutes. I’m a pure martyr tae sciatica.

I couldn’t help noticing that them LibDems are a surprisingly godless lot…

Good. The Lib Dems are sounding better and better!

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” – Benjamin Franklin

“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
–Ferdinand Magellan

@Jim Baxter

So, it’s you that’s been refusing to approve my recent comments examining NewLab’s ******* tendencies. I thought it was Tom.

As for the prayers, the whole social engineering agenda has been about making a melting pot then stirring it up with hate laws and a system of favouritism leading to jealousy and distrust and the destruction of our way of life in case some feeble-minded person gets ‘offended’.

I don’t know how Christians, or indeed anyone remotely patriotic, can any longer be a part of a political movement that helped create this situation.

Secularism is the view that religious outlooks, though perfectly entitled to exist and have their say, are not entitled to a bigger slice of the public pie than any other self-constituted, self-appointed, self-selected and self-serving civil society organisation. Yet the religious persistently ask for special treatment: public money for their “faith-based” schools, seats in the House of Lords, exemption from laws inconvenient to their prejudices, and so endlessly on. They even have the cheek to ask for “respect” for their silly and antiquated beliefs; and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council the Islamic countries are trying to subvert the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it is inconvenient to their medieval, sexist, intolerant outlook.

Secularists in the west say to the apologists of the religions: your beliefs are your choice, so take your place in the queue. They also say: you’ve had it your own way for a very long time – and committed a lot of crimes in the process – and you still fancy yourself entitled, but you aren’t. You don’t smell too good at times, so don’t try to tell me what I can read, see on TV, do in my private time, think or say. In fact, keep your sticky fingers off my life. Believe what you like but don’t expect me to admire or excuse you because of it: rather the contrary, given the fairy-stories in question. And when you are a danger to the lives and liberties of others, which alas is too frequently the wont of your ilk, we will speak out against you as loudly, persistently, and uncompromisingly as we can.

@John,

Quotes eh? OK. Here’s a quote:

“Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.” – C.S. Lewis.

@Stewart Cowan

You caught me there. Tom found me sniffing aspartame out of old drinks cans on the Croftfoot Road one day last year and asked if I’d like a job as the janny on his blog. Simple duties: try to teach people that ‘defense’ is an American word, that principle is a noun but principal is an adjective, and also some light tidying of scattered arguments. He said that I might get help with my own spelling and powers of reasoning in return. He was wrong.

The rest you know.

How do you ostentatiously sit down exactly?

If all they do is quietly take their seats and let those who wish to pray then I think those complaining about it are making mountains out of molehills.

Although on principle I dislike the notion of religion within government.

When I read a piece like the one by ‘Mark’ at 9.15 I start to grin, then I realise the danger of such beliefs.

The danger is that this increasingly vocal minority: secular humanists, who put their faith in ever-changing science, think they are justified in bullying everyone else around because their pantheon of gods are scientists and their prophet is Dawkins (pbuh).

It doesn’t matter that their gods are fallible and their prophet ties himself in knots with his contradictions, they just like to feel superior to people who ‘believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden’.

Mark believes in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but clearly doesn’t want it extended to religious people which is most people in some sense or another.

@Jim Baxter

LOL! I warned you about that aspartame.

Speaking personally, it’s what I’d do if I were faced, in the place of Government, with an ostentatious display that Church and State in this country are mostly sadly *not* separate.
Respectfully of course though. It is not my place to oppose or stand in the way of others religious observances, provided of course that they do not interfere with mine.

“That’s the way these traditions should change — gradually through evolution”

You’re a natural conservative. When will you be crossing the floor?

“But as soon as the chaplain starts his prayer, these rebellious souls ostentatiously sit down while the rest of us remain standing to pray.”

In the classroom we would call this “attention seeking behaviour”. We would also ignore it.

Loved the related tweet! Very witty indeed. Except I’ve been singing the wretched tune ALL DAY!

@Jim Baxter, it’s probably worth baring in mind that C.S.Lewis wrote fiction, rather wonerful fiction, but fiction non the less.

@Strewart Cowan, Atheists such as my self do not seek to stop you believing what you do or practicing your religion, that is the whole point. Religious beliefs or atheistic beliefs are personal choice, and though we may try and persuade each other of out point of view, forcing beliefs on people (as the states link with religion does) in simply unacceptable. In this case i see no problem with MPs quietly sitting down whilst other MPs pray, so long as they don’t interrupt the prayers.

Also, scientists are not my Gods, i have no gods. They are however human beings who have done great work for the advancement of man kind, medical cures, the internet, the telephone, sent men to the moon etc, for this i do not worship them i simply respect them.

Also, i put no ‘faith’ in ‘ever-changing science’. Each piece of evidence presented must be scrutinized and reproducible.It is hence forth assumed as best practice or the accepted theory until scientific advancement proves otherwise. What is the problem with this? An never ending quest for truth rather than settling for a comforting yet untrue belief in a mythical God.

I’m an atheist.

I still stand and observe prayers at weddings and funerals, if those involved are religious – it’s simply good manners.

And Mr Cowan? ‘principal’ is both an adjective and a noun, unless you wish to call the head of a school a ‘principle’.

It’s very heartening to me to hear my party described as godless, I have to say.

Surely prayer in the House is a complete anachronism? It flies in the face of secular values. You don’t have to be an atheist to believe in the separation of church and state, and it seems a completely legitimate target for a little quiet protest, if you ask me.

I don’t see why this ‘reserving a seat’ thing should have anything to do with the prayer. That *would* be discriminating against the secular and other religions. And why should anyone stay standing for prayers they don’t believe in? They do the same thing before county council meetings in Gloucester, and I attended a few when the issue of a Parkway station was a big thing. I stayed seated in the public gallery when everyone else stood. Don’t count it as bad manners on my part or their part. It’s a question of choice, and we are free to choose whether or not we observe a religious ritual, aren’t we?

On the nodding thing, I have watched debates on the web, and noticed that as people enter and leave the chamber (I think it applies both for coming and going), many of them give a little bow, presumably to the speaker. Others are more curt with their nods, and some don’t give any acknowledgement at all. Evolution at work, perhaps, but I think that with the current speaker, obsequiousness would be the best survival trait.

C S Lewis was a born again Christian who wrote fiction. His most well known set of fiction was the Narnia Chronicles, which were an analogy of Christ (Aslan), his eventual sacrifice and resurrection.

@Math Campbell-Sturgess

You don’t understand what separation of church and state means.

@Rapunzel

Good idea, but they tend to keep on and on until they get their own way and then they keep on expecting to get their own way ever after.

@Ben

How is the age-old tradition of having a couple of minutes of prayer and reflection forcing beliefs on anyone? Clearly you are very shaky about your own beliefs and rightly so.

Ben, you are not on a “never ending quest for truth” just like all ‘atheists’ because you turn off your mind to supernatural explanations.

Evolutionists admit that when Creationism offers the best explanation that they have to invent other theories, however absurd, because they cannot allow a ‘divine foot’ in the door.

Hardly open-minded is it? That’s the real laugh – atheists/humanists think they wallow in truth while shutting off a part of their mind to it.

And you expect the rest of us to let you get away with thinking you are of superior intellect and more advanced. Atheists’ lack of wisdom and difficulty in empathising makes them very dangerous when they get into power, as the 20th Century showed only too clearly through the death of well over a hundred million people in wars and by regimes orchestrated by atheists who thought they knew best.

@aproposofwhat

I don’t think that comment about spelling is meant for me. Jim Baxter has generally been a good teacher since he came off the aspartame.

Cowan: I don’t understand what separation of Church & State means??
Funny, ’cause I thought I had a pretty firm grasp on the idea that no church or (in modern non-Christian-biased language) religion should have any official place in Government, that it should have no sway above and beyond any other religious faith or practice (although I’m willing to concede their should be some “religions” whose hierarchies are banned or outlawed for certain practices; dangerous cults and the like).
The Church of England holds many powers and influences, both official and otherwise in our State; members of the Church hold seats in our upper House, the nominal head of our State is also the Head of that faith; as Tom said here, prayers are offered up to the deity of that faith in our Parliament; the list goes on.
The more and more I think about it, the more I come to think that whilst they are a far more religiously oriented country, with a populous that believes in some strange if not dangerous ideas (like creationism over science), the USA do have some advantages over us in the area of legislative and executive governance. Particularly the bit about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”….

I do not want to get into a discussion about God or the validity of any Religion, as that is really not the problem here.

It should not be happening, I did not know it was and to be honest I am very shocked and surprised. What ever happened to we “don’t do God”?

I am an atheist, or a Pastafarian depending on who I am making a point to, but that does not matter.

Organised religion has no place in any public event, building or organisation. It is simply a way of excluding others who do not share your individual point of view.

Are there still bishops in the House of Lords?

Why should someone be there solely to make decisions based upon a moral system that I do not wish to follow.

@aproposofwhat

Re Principal. Quite so. Thanks for reminding the class. An exception that buggers up the rule. I is not before e except after c all the time either.

@Ben

C S Lewis was a writer of fiction (and an acedemic – even worse). True. Benjamin Franklin was a polymath (who also said ‘Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy’ – see there’s erudition for you – saw that written up above the bottles in a pub once so that’s how I know). Einstein can’t be classed as witless. He said, ‘I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research’.

What’s your point?

Sorry, I meant acadamic. When I make a spelling missteak it’s a typo you see? Aye, right. Hoist by my own, er, ehm, powder keg.

Mr Campbell-Sturgess – You’re a typical obstreperous jock – like me but in a different way. Offering up prayers is not validating a particular church, eg CofE. It’s what people do, or did before social engineering spoiled our country and produced a nation of atheistic haters.

Josh – you just depress me. Another child of the ’system’? We must destroy every mention of the Almighty just to stop anyone becoming offended? Well, I’m offended! But, guess what? I don’t count.

You’ve enjoyed living in a country based on Christian principles, but it’s going down the pan because you cannot have the benefits of a Christian society while disregarding Christ.

You’ll learn that one day, I promise.

@StewartCowan

I said I did not want to get into a debate about God or religion.

I am not a child of any system. I am 20. I go to the best science university in the world.

my guiding principle on all this is that not all religious principles can be can be observed, because some conflict with others. So there should be no official religion.

What you do in your own home is up to you. I am one of the strongest defenders of personal liberty and freedom. you have the right to worship whatever you want. You do not have the right to force your beliefs onto me.

Thankfully most of the fundamental Christian laws are either gone or on their way out. everything from anti-abortion to blasphemy.

Oh and Christ probably did not exist, and if he did he probably was not the son of God. – my personal opinion, yours is allowed to differ.

I apologise for going a bit off topic from your original post Tom. I am easily provoked. Will try not to let it happen again.

It’s worth looking at details of the short ceremony:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers.cfm

Although Christian in its basis I doubt if those of a different faith, or no faith at all, could, in fairness, take exception to it. I wouldn’t. I would stand in silence with the rest of them, trying to remember that there is quite a bit more to the life of the country, never mind the cosmos, than me and what I can think or perceive. Not a bad way to start the day’s work of the chamber. Perhaps a few of the ostentatiously seated might reconsider their sedentary position on this matter, unless they have a diability, of course. (There are all kinds of ways to sit ostentatiously, in reply to a previous commenter. I shall be giving ostentatious-sitting classes later in the term if there is sufficient student demand).

Unfortunately, the disability that most of those who sit during prayers will have will be a psychological one. That is, they will have an inflated belief in their own beliefs and a corresponding indifference to those of others.

“Evolutionists admit that when Creationism offers the best explanation”

Reaching back rather far into the past aren’t you?

“they have to invent other theories, however absurd, because they cannot allow a ‘divine foot’ in the door.”

There is no scientific evidence of God of its hardly astonishing that scientific hypotheses will not include Him. When creationists / intilligent design proponents push their ideas they are pushing faith. All well and good but not scientific.

@John

I think you are rather setting up a straw man argument here. In fact, you are rather missing the point.

On your argument re: omnipotence

One of the key principles underlying the Christian faith if the concept of Free Will. What that means is that of course God could intervene to take complete control of the world and prevent evil. However, if give mankind the freedom to act independently He allows us to make our own mistakes and to suffer the consequences thereof.

(On a definitional point, I am defining evil as something with a driving motive – I wouldn’t include natural disasters, etc. as ‘evil’).

“You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.”

God doesn’t do hate. He is always willing to forgive those who truly repent. He hates the sin, but not the sinner.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

How many things has Marx been right on in general? This is a statement of his beliefs – a matter of faith – rather than an argument one way or the other.

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” – Benjamin Franklin

Most of the founders of the American state were Deists at least, if not Christians. Faith and reason can exist side by side and don’t conflict (Darwin was a committed Christian, for instance). Reason/science explains HOW, faith (if you believe) explains WHY.

“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
–Ferdinand Magellan

I think things have moved on since the 15th century!

Josh, as a scientist you are probably not very well up in standards of historical proof. However, can I assure you that your “opinion” that Christ “probably did not exist” is an odd one, and not one very well supported. Very, very few theologians and historians advance that one – most of them out of their own prejudices, like you.

Supposing I said that in my opinion gravity did not exist – you would think me loopy, wouldn’t you? And you’d be quite right, because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that gravity as a force of attraction between bodies with mass does indeed exist, and nobody has come up with a convincing alternative theory (which as I am sure you know, is the main way of doing down scientific theories, positive, hard evidence being hard to come by).

Yet I would say, speaking as a former scientist who decided it was all too vague, pointless and irrelevant and subsequently switched to history where you actually have to produce positive proofs, there is far more evidence that Jesus existed than there is for gravity. To take only the most obvious point – all the Gospels, written in the 70 years or so following his death, all name the same person, and the epistles of Paul, all of them of an earlier date, also name him. Are you suggesting somebody was invented, canonised, idolized and had myths grow up about him that founded an entire new religion with thousands of followers, all in the space of about the same time from now dating back to the Second World War – within living memory? This despite heavy persecution by the Judean and later Roman authorities – well you only have to say it, do you not, to see its essential improbability? Four to five hundred years would be more like it – as in the Arthurian legends.

Whether Jesus was the Son of God is of course another question entirely and the evidence for it is far more problematic, but if you genuinely think he didn’t exist, then I fear that you are simply displaying ignorance. If you wish to opine on the topic, then I suggest you investigate it further (it is an interesting one).

I hate debating with creationists. You have no path of reason or logic. In my mind these two things are the basis for forming an argument; moral, scientific, political….whatever! I have no rejected the existence of God out of hand; indeed i was raised in the church of England. I struggled for many years, trying to believe in a God, but there is such a mountain of evidence against it that i found it impossible to believe anymore. I didn’t discount the existence of God out of hand, i did so through rational consideration of scientific evidence or by my experience in the life i have led.

Christianity is part of all state occasions, whilst i acknowledge it has a part to play, it shouldn’t be the be all and end all. They should accommodate other faiths and secularists, as could easily be done in this case.

The very nature of science is of recognizing the limitations to our research findings and theories, constantly finding better explanations when we find better evidence. So in that way i suppose you’re right i am not completely secure in what i believe because what i believe evolves with the knowledge and evidence i accumulate. I would put it to you that someone who is completely secure in what they believe is the someone who hasn’t/doesn’t/won’t consider any other alternative. You are clearly an example of this kind of person.

Finally (although i could go on), you clearly have something of an interiority complex. I consider myself superior to know one, but clearly you are not rational. To conclude that every atheist is an immoral, serial murdering, illiberal, oppressionist based on 2 example is clearly idiotic!

@Ben,

You still haven’t told us what C.S. Lewis’s writing has to do with what he said about religious matters.

[...] intriguing snippet from Tom Harris, who reports on his ever-entertaining blog that some MPs are taking a stand – or in [...]

It’s becoming an interesting discussion.

@Josh

“I am not a child of any system. I am 20. I go to the best science university in the world.”

See, I was right: you are a child of the system! You have been receiving state indoctrination disguised as education for at least the past 15 years and probably been conditioned by the MSM for longer.

The Half-Blood Welshman has already chastised you for your ridiculous claims that Jesus never existed. Who ‘taught’ you that?

@Falco

You obviously aren’t aware of the vast amount of evidence that opposes the TofE and supports the Genesis creation account.

And the more we learn, the clearer it is becoming!

Like Josh, you are unlikely to have encountered it at school, uni or via the MSM.

There is a movement in the EU to have the teaching of Creationism banned from all schools – why? Not because it may be unscientific, but because the implications are at odds with the EU’s diversity/’equality’ programmes.

Politics before science.

@Ben

“I hate debating with creationists. You have no path of reason or logic.”

Just tons of evidence (and reason and logic).

Believe me, Ben, I have considered alternatives. I have only been a Creationist for about four years, thanks to the internet and DVDs made by Creation scientists who used to believe in the TofE but realised it was impossible for the sheer complexity of life to exist without a Creator’s hand being involved.

Learn about the complexity of living things and the more you learn the more you will see how ridiculous the Theory of Evolution is. And it’s real science you will be studying.

I’m not concluding that every atheist is an immoral, serial murdering, illiberal, oppressionist, just making it clear what atheists who bask in their own glory can do to us.

“You obviously aren’t aware of the vast amount of evidence that opposes the TofE and supports the Genesis creation account.”

I am but I’m entirely unimpressed by it. There are two distinct catagories of such “evidence”. The shrink to fit, (only the most myopic could view it as evidence for the events in Genesis) and the just plain wrong, (claiming the Grand Canyon is evidence for the great flood for instance).

“There is a movement in the EU to have the teaching of Creationism banned from all schools”

Even I, loathing the EU as I do, think that you will find the movement is to prevent creationism being taught in science lessons rather than not taught at all. This is not unreasonable because Genesis is a myth, not a scientific theory.

“Learn about the complexity of living things and the more you learn the more you will see how ridiculous the Theory of Evolution is.”

The theory of evolution simply states that species can change over time, with beneficial adaptations being more successful. This can in time give rise to new species and subspecies. This is not just some crazy idea, with short lived species such as bacteria and fruit flies you can see it happen.

Creationism vs Evolution

There’s a fascinating writer called Karen Armstrong – a former nun whole left the Church, went on to teach English Lit before become a writer on faith and theology.

She wrote an excellent book on fundamentalism (I believe called ‘The War for God’) which explored belief in the Bible. Her thesis – which I find extremely plausible – is that the challenge is the post Renaissance world doesn’t have the tools to understand it. That is to say, the Bible was written in a culture which lived by Mythos (a concept stronger than our ‘myth’ which implies ‘made-up) while the modern world is based on ‘Logos’ (fact/knowledge).

From this perspective, the Bible was not intended to be literally true ona word-for-word basis, but that it was a means to convey great truths and messages that could be remembered and transmitted in a world where the oral word was more important than the written.

From a Creation standpoint, therefore, God created the world. Not in 7 days (although the original Hebrew refers to 7 ‘periods of time’ not 7 ‘24 hour periods’). However, the order and the structure which Genesis sets out is broadly right, and if God chose Evolution as the mechanism for executing on his Plan, who am I to argue? It’s pretty impressive, though, that a society so long ago could get the order right!

Incidently, on the Flood, as another example, there is plenty of scientific evidence that an cataclysmic event of this nature happened at some point. I’ve always liked the idea that it was the point at which the Med broke into what is now the Black Sea, forcing the people to flee south and populate what is now the Near East.

“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
–Ferdinand Magellan

Apparently this quote has no authoritative source, and is made up.

See:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan

Can you give a proper source? Or indeed any evidence that belief in a flat earth has ever been more prevalent amongst the religious than the secular?

I think we all have our cherished myths.

Falco – Why is claiming the Grand Canyon is evidence for the great flood for instance “just plain wrong”?

That’s a ridiculous assertion considering that it is possible.

I have mentioned the soft tissue in T. rex bone before and here is the latest find – from a hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) fossil, even more proteins and ‘the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before’.

As I said before, new discoveries are increasingly discrediting the Theory of Evolution.

If you have time, you should also read ‘Power of the paradigm’ underneath this article.

Falco, you’re right about the EU, well actually the Council of Europe (my mistake), wanting to ban the teaching of Creationism as science, but it is purely political.

Look at CofE Resolution 1580 (2007) The dangers of creationism in education:

“If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.”

“Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.” = total lie as evidenced by thousands of Creation scientists.

“There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds.” in other words, no real thinking is allowed in schools.

“However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.” Danger?

“Denying it (evolution) could have serious consequences for the development of our societies.” This is a particularly wicked inaccuracy. Nobody is denying that evolution exists, but that the TofE is the explanation for life on earth. This in no way risks ‘medical research’ or anything else the Council of Europe lies about as being in danger from Creationists.

And I could go on. Belief in Creationism is growing in Europe, as the CofE admits, and so they are telling lies because somehow they see it as a risk to their own agenda of controlling the masses in a godless continent.

The Grand Canyon has been formed by a very long slow process rather than a catastrophic event. This is evident in the sedimentation patterns and further, take a look at the canyon itself; the reason that it has those characteristic bands is because of prior sedimentation, taking it back yet further into geological history.

Re the soft tissue info – contamination is the most likely explanation, (either from the examination process or, however careful they were to avoid that, the fossil has been in the ground, not a clean room). If the collagen found is not a contaminent then it is very interesting but serves equally well as evidence that collagen can endure for a very long time under certain conditions. Carbon dating, could at least narrow down the options on this.

On the EU stuff: I don’t believe that anyone should feel threatend by creationism but it is not scientific. If you view creationism in scientific terms, as a hypothesis, then there is an overwhelming volume of counter evidence.

I’d be interested to know your views on creationsim, (timescale etc), but it may be better at another forum, (leave a link here I suggest). I think we’ve wandered a little from the subject of the post.

It dawns on me, Tom, that if you were properly giving attention to your prayers, then you wouldn’t notice what anyone else was doing.

I think it says more about you than about the Lib Dems if you are prepared to use the word “godless” as an insult. Why is it a bad thing? Am I any less moral than you because I don’t believe in God and you do?

And how do you know anyway? In some churches the tradition is to sit to pray.

I have a lot of respect for people who don’t believe who don’t pretend that they do for appearance’s sake. It’s not like they are running through the chamber making fun of the “godly”, they are just sitting quietly, but being honest about their own beliefs.

It’s intolerant and unaccepting attitudes such as in this posting that led me to question my Christian faith may years ago and I came to the conclusion that I couldn’t carry out the prejudice in many things practiced by the Church. That’s why I don’t go any more.

To be honest, I think this posting is more needing of an apology from you than the pop you had at Nick last week – that wasn’t great, but I guess it was within the rules of political engagement.

Oh, for Godlessness sake, Caron! It was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek comment! Congratulations for confirming that LibDems are far too busy being worthy to be able to have a laugh at themselves.

Good old LibDems, indeed! No fuss, nom prayer, just a comfy seat. Sounds exceedingly wise.

And?

I don’t really see your point.

As a teenager I had something similar with compulsory school church services which I had to attend but refused to join in. I’m not sure what the headmaster thought he was achieving by forcing me to go – except he turned a young atheist into a very militant atheist.

I had been active in politics for over 40 years and apart from John Kerry in 2004 have never once worked for the election of a god-botherer. (I always asked.)

There are far too many of the ******s in the Commons already – though attempts to find out quite how many have thus far proved fruitless.

Simon – in the past a number of readers have expressed an interest in an MP’s perspective on life inside Westminster. The only point of the post was to cast a little light on one of the more arcane traditions of the House. I thought some people might find it interesting, that’s all. If some of you were offended by what I wrote, then tough.

Creationism explains everything, but the explanation is completely useless. The question you have to ask of anything purporting to be an explanation is, what observable consequences follow from it? For creationism, the answer is “none.” Because it has no consequences, it cannot be disproved.

There’s an unlimited number of equally explanatory but untestable “explanations.” For example, perhaps everything was created just last Tuesday, complete with historical records. You can’t disprove that, and it explains everything. Or maybe it was last Monday? Schism!

Science comes up with explanations that *can* be tested.

In part II: how to suck eggs.

Thanks for tip Tom. The Lib-Dems will be getting my vote next time now.

Matt – the House of Commons is not a private home, it is a public place, paid for by British taxpayers, where representatives of all Britons, not just Christians, meet to discuss government policies that effect all UK citizens. Now that Britain no longer has an entirely ‘Christian’ population, the tradition of Christian prayers taking place at the home of our democratic system is both ridiculous and discriminatory, giving Christianity a privileged prominence that it does not warrant.

Matt, you are free to practice your Christian beliefs if you so wish but please do not presume to insist that others, by default, must do the same.

OK Tom. A bit of local colour.

But again, I’d like to make sure people don’t knowingly vote for god-botherers. It’s dashed hard to find out in the normal run of things; though your tip to vote Lib Dem was helpful.

Jim Baxter – “Oh yes. Prayers in the chamber. I’m sorry, but I think that’s just rude to sit down like that during other people’s observances. OK, you don’t believe in what others believe in, you don’t have to, but join in a moment of reflection in that case. Take a few moments to feel some humility at being where you are, some community of purpose. Show some bloody respect.”
Hmm, good old religious deference again. How would you feel if it was compulsory satan worship? It’s a legitimate belief after all (you can’t have the xtian god then ignore satan) that should be afforded the same respect. How about Oden or Zeus? Where do you draw the line?
You are, as all religious apologists, a bigot by omission. No single belief system can be given precendence. Where is the respect for all those that do not share your faith? Where is the humility that Jesus Christ instructed you in with his Sermon on the Mount? You should not pray in public but go to a quiet place where there is no one else. That’s what Jesus told you to do when he gave the sermon the mount. Wearing your piety in public is a sin. So, you’re wrong from every angle. Even the son of god told you, but hey, you obviously know better. Have fun explaining your arrogance to St. Peter.

@Billious,

You’re a berk.

I don’t happen to have any religious beliefs. I merely believe in courtesy where courtesy is due. Have fun explaining your report card to your mummy.

Tom – as a New Labour MP, are you happy with the success of your new ‘hate’ laws?

Yet again in these comments (and I guess you have deleted worse) we see evidence that there is more hatred than ever in our country. Mission accomplished then – to divide and rule; to destroy our way of life to weaken society in order to betray us into a united Europe and then a global system of government – all to combat ‘hate’, terrorism and climate change, of course.

This is why the globalists hype the idea of AGW: global laws and global taxes leading all the quicker to that long awaited one world government of theirs.

At this point can I just point out that Stewart Cowan is an absolutely untypical Christian. Most Christians actually don’t believe in creationism – or if they do, they don’t regard it as an article of faith or denigrate those who don’t share that view. Neither do most Christians obsess about “world government” and black helicopters or believe in weird 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Please don’t assume that Stewart is at all representative of other Christians.

Now, Stewart – if, in response to this comment, you try to post a hyperlink to one of your nutty 9/11 conspiracy sites, be warned: I will edit the link the link so that it doesn’t work, as my masters in the Global Government want me- oh, damn! I’ve said too much…

Tom – thanks for caring so much to write that, although you didn’t say whether you were happy with the way the ‘hate’ thing was going. Let’s go through it together:

1) What is a typical Christian? Someone who repents of their sins and believes that Christ died and was raised again and is the only way to salvation because he defeated death and Hell and was our perfect Sacrifice to enable us to be worthy of being in the presence of the Almighty, having had our sins washed away in the Blood of the Lamb.

2) “Most Christians actually don’t believe in creationism”

Actually – you’re probably right. And I was one of them until four years ago. It’s called getting an education that the state denies you.

For this reason I try not to ‘denigrate’ any Christian that believes we are descended from pond slime. I try to correct them. Think about it. Why would an all-knowing Deity leave His creation to the whims of genetic mutations over billions of years instead of just getting on and using His infinite knowledge to make man in His own image? And design all the various plants and animals as he sees fit? (If anyone wants to complain about fierce creatures, stingy plants, etc., these came after the Fall).

3) “Weird 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

No, I believe in the mainstream conspiracy that elements in the US Administration authorised the attacks and blamed their CIA asset (yes he is) bin Laden in order to a) ransack the Middle East for geopolitical and economic reasons and b) use the threat of terrorism to rip up the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And both are happening. Shock, horror!

As for ‘black helicopters’, Tom, YOU’RE the one who always goes on about them. Is this the best straw man argument you have?

4) “Please don’t assume that Stewart is at all representative of other Christians.”

I’ve already explained that I qualify under the simple rules of being a Christian – repentance and faith.

5) I wonder why you don’t want any links to websites showing that 9/11 was almost certainly an inside job.

If you want to believe that the only three steel framed skyscrapers ever to collapse due to fire all happened on the same day, and one wasn’t even hit by a plane, and there was no extra foul play involved, then go ahead. I would rather differ.

I wonder why YOU keep trying to denigrate my thoughts on this. Remember that half the world doesn’t believe the official 9/11 story. Why do you think you’re so right, even to the point of banning links?

6) No offence and it’s not how I would describe you, but MPs are veritable ‘useful idiots’ to the globalists.

If Parliament represented the people then we would have had our promised vote on Europe. The globalists couldn’t allow that because they know which way we would have voted.

Even when referenda have happened: France, Netherlands and Ireland – they get ignored.

Democracy? Freedom? No: Globalism; fascism.

Tom, I suggest you climb aboard your black helicopter and head for Realsville.

Stick on a bit of New Age music, or is the proselytising what it’s all about?

What an interesting observation you’ve made:

But as soon as the chaplain starts his prayer, these rebellious souls ostentatiously sit down while the rest of us remain standing to pray.

Here’s a thought: why not pray to whatever gods you have before getting down to the practicalities of day’s business on behalf of your constituents? Unless every single one of them is an adherent of your particular flavour of theism, as indeed they must be, surely?

But of course it’s in the nature of the followers of the ruling class of a de jure theocracy to expect to inflict their own prejudices and precepts on all members of society, whether they adhere to its dogmas or not, and to cavil when The Others (or heretics, if you prefer) are not completely deferential to their rituals.

But what if you’re not a Christian? Why should an atheist or Jew or Muslim have to sit through an act of Christian worship just to secure a seat?

I notice that you completely fail to answer your own question. Was this because you were unwilling, or simply unable?

Anyway, here’s the answer: they shouldn’t.

This is kindergarten-grade secularism.

Your appeal to tradition is especially baffling considering that the purpose of Parliament is to ensure that the framework of society represents the needs of the citizens of the day, not the anachronistic demands of yore. How often do you wear your court sword into the House?

And it might be worthwhile considering the merest hint of a possibility that it’s not a “sit down protest”, merely a “sit down”. They’re patiently waiting for you to finish your punctilio so that they can actually get down to the nitty-gritty business of the day. I’m sure if prayer actually had any efficacy whatsoever there’d be no need for the rest of the things you get up to down there and you could all go home early and file your expenses claims.

Tom – Sorry, I should have started the final sentence of my last comment with, “With respect”. You have my apologies as it sounds a bit disrespectful.

@Falco

“If you view creationism in scientific terms, as a hypothesis, then there is an overwhelming volume of counter evidence.”

I don’t believe that is so. Like that article tried to explain, people are trapped in an evolution paradigm and so, for example, rather than rethink the age of dinosaur fossils in the light of new findings, you instinctively want to change the evidence of the collagen, blood vessels, etc. to suit your theory.

That’s not science! You don’t change the evidence to suit the theory, you adjust the theory in light of the evidence!! And it’s happening all the time.

Have you stopped to think that if soft tissue can last for millions of years then why aren’t there remains of dead animals piled up everywhere.

Even in the alleged 65 million years since the dinosaurs died out, the amount of bones lying around should be staggering. Add the dino fossils and we should be literally tripping over fossils.

I have a domain name http://www.darwinism.org.uk that I was hoping to have done something with by now to explain things in my own words. I will try and do something with it soon or you can leave a message on my blog – new one coming soon, by the way.

Tom, why don’t you and Stewart have a discussion, possibly including TB’s claim of “education, education, education.”

When you Christians have reached a consensus come back and discuss sensible things. Like the economy. Or nuclear proliferation. Or civil liberties.

Will you at least admit that Stewart is a better Christian than you?

Thought not, but he is!

Paul, I don’t think I’ve met another Christian who I didn’t consider to be better at it than me.

@Tom
A very Christian attitude, full of humility. I applaud your self-delusion. Not intended to be as harsh as it sounds, I simply mean there are many ‘bad’ Christians that you are both a better person than and a better Christian than, Ted Haggard springs to mind.

Anyone whose views are slightly (ok, greatly) different from yours about your religion is doing it wrong. However, if you follow The Bible to the letter you are a bad person, but, surely, a VERY good Christian.

People have to realise that the fundamentalists, of any religion, are more religious than the apologists. They (apologists) place their religion on a pedestal and see it as something to aspire to, but ignore all the nasty parts or call them ‘metaphors.’

I have no problem with people taking strength or finding their way out of problems via religion but please, please keep it personal and don’t impose it upon the rest of society. Or your children. And certainly not my children!

Will the half blood Welshman kindly supply details of one repectable disinterested historian (not a theologian) who can point to any example of the “positive proof” that he suggests is available re JC.

As it is fairly easy to see which myths the JC myth was derived from it seems pointless to look for historical evidence where none is to be expected. This explains why not one shred has been found despite many of the deluded searching frantically.

Aach, don’t you hate old threads?

‘Aiken’ – “it seems pointless to look for historical evidence where none is to be expected.”

So, the documentation, including eyewitness reports, to be found in the many books of the New Testament, the Apocrypha and elsewhere is not ‘historical evidence’ in your book.

What about Josephus’s account of the Lord’s brother’s arrest – “…brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”?

Time and the ‘flu prevent me continuing.

@Paul

Methinks you speak with forked tongue. You did, in a roundabout way, raise a valid point that the faith that unites us should be far more important then the politics which divide us.

We should be able to edify each other in truth and righteousness.

As for keeping religion out of politics? Does that include your atheist beliefs? Thought not!

Mr Harris I read your story and think that you use your polotics as many MP’s do for their own ends. You define the problem then condemn “the godless lot” for not being able to have a fair crack at the whip.
you sate:-

the only way you can reserve your seat for the rest of the day’s proceedings is to put down a green “prayer card” in your place before the House sits. Then, provided you’re present during prayers, the seat is, theoretically at least, yours for the rest of the day and other members should (but don’t always) respect that.

So they HAVE TO DO IT. but ow they are in the wrong for doing it…anf then for sittting down minding their own business while you go through your ritual. so damned either way for doing what they have to do to get a seat. WHY do you se it as a protest? surley the rules are the problem let them put down something else and leave the chamber if they want with a guarantee their seat is reserved. SIMPLE!! but thats so logical isn’t it.

Instead it is your bent to protest, posture and find a fault rather that find a solution. logic and reason seem to abandon MP’s so easily. Sitting quetly is not a protest! they do not wantto participate in your ritual,but you would want them to tand in observance…WHY? RESPECT? respect is earned it is not automatic respect is not a right. So please earn some respect and work mutually rather than just sounding off as to why you don’t get what you want when you want it and how you want it. Enjoy your rituals and prayers. But don’t force your wants and views on others who do not wish to partake. Sorting out Living together with differnet views is your job start at home and do what your paid to do. If you cannot sort your own house out with reason and logic how can the public trust you to sort out our country?

Stewart,
NT contains no eyewitness accounts and, like Josephus, dates from much later than the period it sets its fiction in.

References in Josephus were almost certainly inserted by a notorious Christian forger and propagandist – they first appeared in his copy of the Antiquities and nobody seemed to have noticed before!