On the radio on Sunday morning there was a debate on whether you should hide your faith at work like Tony Blair apparently did for 10 years, or said another way, whether people should be banned from talking about their faith at work.
A couple of points struck me. The first is that these debates are usually completely pointless. 'Believers' all think they should be allowed to talk about their faith because it's an essential part of who they are. 'Non-believers' or atheists think that no-one should be allowed to talk about their faith. Nobody ever changes their mind as a result of the so-called 'debate'. The media are largely filled with humanists, atheists, liberals and 'unbelievers' and I am always slightly dubious about whether we get a representative picture from the callers chosen to take part. But in any case, after the debate everybody thinks the same as they did before. So why bother?
Well the second point is maybe the reason to bother. Within the debate one guy said something I thought was notable, a little bit different and not normally heard on the media. The reason I thought it was so good is because it's what I think too! He said that atheism is a faith system too. To not believe in any God also takes faith. As far as I'm aware it's impossible to prove that he doesn't exist. Therefore to believe he doesn't exist is on a similar faith footing as believing that he does exist. Therefore the insistence to not talk about any faith (apart from atheism) must be one of the worst kinds of bullying and intolerance around. Surely it's tantamount to saying 'You're not allowed to talk about any faith except mine.'
Or am I just opening myself up to be labelled as a stupid, delusional believer that doesn't get it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Moose you are neither stupid or delusional!
In much the same way the debate about Free Speech at the Oxford Union is proving to be so news worthy today. By inviting the controversial characters, the Oxford Union have provided a platform for all sorts of comment and criticism.
The whole thing about a debate on Free Speech and inviting far right attendance is that it gives them a chance to espouse their political views in a "safe" environment. I say "safe" because the debaters can't lose, if they get shouted down, you are denying them free speech. If they get to say what they wish, then truly they have experienced free speech, but got their political views and manifesto heard by a wider audience, irrespective of whether the audience takes their views seriously. At the end of the day there is no such thing as bad publicity!
DD out
Post a Comment