In a court of law this week Lord Justice Laws censured religious faith and repudiated it saying it is "subjective as having no basis in fact".
Read the story here:

This senior judge was once a cathedral-school pupil and Oxford graduate who is now taking on the Church of England. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, is griping that Christians are being "persecuted in modern Britain."

The judge said that although everyone has a right to hold religious beliefs, such beliefs have no standing under the law. He told the court: "In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necesssarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." Religious belief cannot be protected under the law . . . It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective; but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. . . If they did . . . our constitution would be on the road to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic."

How does the rest of the world feel about this, especially in North America, for what amounts to a powerful punch in support of a move towards a secular state in Britain?"

Views: 254

Replies to This Discussion

An excellent ruling. Any lesser judgement would give one section of the community (Christians) priviliges over and above everyone else. Further, it would create a precedent for other religious groups (e.g. Muslims) to claim similar privileges.
one word...

I ... and I suspect many others in the US ... would give a lot to see a similar ruling come down here. That the likelihood of such an occurrence is right up there with hitting the MegaMillions is a testament to the grip which organized religion and most specifically evangelical christianity has on this country.

Still, with this example and perhaps others from overseas, maybe the SCOTUS or some other court can cop a clue. Would be nice, but I'm NOT holding my breath.

BTW ... is it me or does persecution to a christian amount to any time a court rules AGAINST them?
Yes, it does.


Same as the Muslims do when they're denied the 'right' to practice full Sharia Law in a sovereign nation with its own laws. I mean, how dare they?
It's too soon for such a ruling in the US. Not only is the current Supreme Court incapable of producing such a ruling (66% Catholic!), but with the current supermajority of nominal Christians in the US, such a ruling would likely spark a move to amend the Constitution to overturn it. I'm not confident that reason would prevail in that event. 30 years from now, perhaps. But the demographics need to turn more in favor of atheism. They're moving in that direction, but we're not there yet.
There is always the Kitzmiller decision in Dover, PA. It was a very powerful and clear-cut rejection of creationist/ID incursions into school curricula, handed down unchallenged by a Bush-appointed Republican judge:

Not exactly the same, but possibly, due to its focused and evidence-based content, an even better example of pro-secular jurisprudence.

(import stddisclaimer)
Good going Judge!
A great victory for common sense. Though the fella who lost his job here is not, primarily, a "devout Christian" as he would have himself portrayed for purposes of his tribunal, but a bigot. That he thought he could protect his bigotry with the cloak of Christianity doesn't put him in any better light. Still, it fits quite nicely with this Jesus and Mo cartoon.

In my opinion this is an excellent ruling. By separating church and state there is a guarantee that secular problems are solved by secular laws, and secular laws are not used to promote bigoted beliefs. It does not mean that any religious practice is prohibited except where it infringes on the secular rights of others. It should be made perfectly clear to anyone entering a profession exactly what his/her duties to the profession are. If the person's religious beliefs prevent him/her from carrying out his/her professional duties the person should be denied entrance to that profession.
I find it very interesting when Americans weigh in on the UK and it's status as a "religious state". Despite having a state religion, Britain is a far more secular country than the United States, and has been so for many decades. The influence of religion in public and private life is almost negligible in comparison with the US. While I fully favor disestablishment, it would make very little practical difference.
I don't find it surprising since you no longer live under the chopping block of a monarch.
ah, and there's the point - we still have a monarch who is technically also a religious leader... It's all very quaint really, but is also generally viewed as such, so relatively harmless



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service