Britain and Atheist leaders

bleg

Just thought I'd start a thread to kick off a discussion about the political leaders in the UK and atheism.

With Nick Clegg the only atheist leader at the moment he is soon (almost definitely) to be joined by David Miliband.

That would see two out of the three dominant parties in the UK led by atheists.

ChocolateSauce

bleg wrote: »

Just thought I'd start a thread to kick off a discussion about the political leaders in the UK and atheism.

With Nick Clegg the only atheist leader at the moment he is soon (almost definitely) to be joined by David Miliband.

That would see two out of the three dominant parties in the UK led by atheists.

Considering their atheism isn't an election platform (just as Cameron's theism isn't), and considering it is highly uncouth in Britain for politicians to discuss their faith, I don't really see it being an issue for anyone.

Best to keep it that way.

rgt320q

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Considering their atheism isn't an election platform (just as Cameron's theism isn't), and considering it is highly uncouth in Britain for politicians to discuss their faith, I don't really see it being an issue for anyone.

Best to keep it that way.

Absolutely bang on. We don't want faith/lack thereof to be just another angle with which to sway votes, as it is in the 'States. Should be a completely irrelevant issue for all politicians.

PDN

It was interesting to see Clegg was on the stump at a Pentecostal Church last Sunday seeking the votes of the faithful. He also said that Christian values were central to Lib-Dem policies.

In March 2008 Clegg stated in an interview, "My moral frame of reference is clearly a Judaeo-Christian one. My ethics are not insulated at all from the world of faith and organised religion. I think that fundamental concepts of tolerance, of compassion, of love for your neighbour run very deep in our culture but they are also intimately bound up with our Christian heritage. In fact, I'm very sort of proud of the fact that some of that ethos I very much espouse. You know, many members of my family are very religious and I have a great deal of admiration for the strength of their faith."

Zillah

I don't think there is anything I could honestly say that I am very sort of proud of.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

It was interesting to see Clegg was on the stump at a Pentecostal Church last Sunday

Do the Pentecostals have their own one of these?

Tim Robbins

I think it's great that Clegg and Mili have come out. The more prominent members in society that do this the better. Might help us see the end of the Stalin and Pol Pot arguments!

Galvasean

Ah, but all they need to do is mess up once and then we will be hit with the "Clegg was an atheist and look how that turned out!" argument.

Arcus Arrow

It could be that a declared atheist leader would be less likely to tackle organised religion in case they were seen to be biased. It just goes to show the gulf between the US and the UK that they can say they are atheist without it being a major deal.

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

It was interesting to see Clegg was on the stump at a Pentecostal Church last Sunday seeking the votes of the faithful. He also said that Christian values were central to Lib-Dem policies.

In March 2008 Clegg stated in an interview, "My moral frame of reference is clearly a Judaeo-Christian one. My ethics are not insulated at all from the world of faith and organised religion. I think that fundamental concepts of tolerance, of compassion, of love for your neighbour run very deep in our culture but they are also intimately bound up with our Christian heritage. In fact, I'm very sort of proud of the fact that some of that ethos I very much espouse. You know, many members of my family are very religious and I have a great deal of admiration for the strength of their faith."

Clearly trying to come off as a PC, respectful, cultural Christian. Which I've no problem with; he must be seen to be as agreeable as possible to the most number of people, and while I personally would prefer him to reference our humanist heritage (as the EU has in the past), it isn't going to turn me off him. The lib dems operate on a secular basis, which is enough for me.

Tim Robbins

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Clearly trying to come off as a PC, respectful, cultural Christian. Which I've no problem with; he must be seen to be as agreeable as possible to the most number of people, and while I personally would prefer him to reference our humanist heritage (as the EU has in the past), it isn't going to turn me off him. The lib dems operate on a secular basis, which is enough for me.

I doubt many political leaders that call themselves Christian belief a man went missing from a tomb or that you need to follow Jesus to get into heaven. I suspect most of them are agnostics, or just prone to some spirituality and then they lie and say they are Christian because otherwise they'd never get anywhere in politics.

What Clegg and Milli show is that an atheist can finally get somewhere in politics - which is just great. They also show you don't have to lie and pretend you believe in something you don't.

And then could give an alternative approach to political problems that are intertwined with religion. For example, Northern Ireland and Israel.

darjeeling

Tory leaders have tended to be religious (Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron? were/are all Christians of one stripe or another), but have kept quiet about it.

Labour leaders have been more mixed. Foot and Kinnock weren't religious (and weren't elected as PM). Wilson, Smith, Blair and Brown were all Christian.

Blair was probably the most religious PM in recent times, mocked as 'the Vicar of St. Albion' in Private Eye. In office, Alistair Campbell kept him reined in, once intercepting a journalist's question on the PM's faith with the emphatic line 'We don't do God'. Out of office, Blair has set up a faith foundation, and converted to Conservatism - sorry, Catholicism. Brown frequently cited his upbringing as a 'son of the manse', but hasn't come across as religious as Blair.

And for the record, the Labour party has already provided at least one non-religious PM: Clement Attlee.

ChocolateSauce

Generally the British have gone from not really caring about being religious to not really caring about not being religious...But yes, I am thrilled that someone who has openly denied the existence of god can be a political leader.

Of course in France it's been acceptable for decades! If not longer.....

darjeeling

... and Wikipedia says we can add James Callaghan to the A&A column (who he?).

Tim Robbins

darjeeling wrote: »

Tory leaders have tended to be religious (Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron? were/are all Christians of one stripe or another), but have kept quiet about it.

Labour leaders have been more mixed. Foot and Kinnock weren't religious (and weren't elected as PM). Wilson, Smith, Blair and Brown were all Christian.

I don't think any of the aforementioned would be as serious about their Christianity in the sense Blair is.

I read Obama's books and I got the impression he doesn't believe in any of it, he was really just pretending. He kept on going on about how rational it was not to believe and how ridiculous it was to believe the bible literally. Then said he believed because he liked some of the charity work a christian church was doing.

I felt I was really reading a code language for I am really an atheist but for reasons beyond my control I can't say it.

darjeeling

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Generally the British have gone from not really caring about being religious to not really caring about not being religious

We hear a lot about how the media age / presidentialism has changed politics. Certainly there's a lot more focus on the personal lives of the leaders of the main parties, so we do tend to hear more about their religious beliefs. As you say, though, I don't think it affects how people vote.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't think any of the aforementioned would be as serious about their Christianity in the sense Blair is.

Yes, Blair was often compared by journalists to Gladstone, perhaps Britain's most openly religiously inspired PM.

robindch

darjeeling wrote: »

... and Wikipedia says we can add James Callaghan to the A&A column (who he?).

Ah, the youth of today.

He was PM before Maggie and remembered principally for producing the 1978/79 Winter of Discontent.

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

Ah, the youth of today.

He was PM before Maggie and remembered principally for producing the 1978/79 Winter of Discontent.

That was for the general audience. I'm not young enough not to remember him being voted out (using a double negative to create confusion over my age).

darjeeling wrote: »

Certainly there's a lot more focus on the personal lives of the leaders of the main parties, so we do tend to hear more about their religious beliefs. As you say, though, I don't think it affects how people vote.

Actually, thinking about this, I'm assuming that parties are led - as now - by mainstream, moderate Christians or atheists/agnostics. It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be to a party led by someone from outside these religious blocs.

mikhail

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I read Obama's books and I got the impression he doesn't believe in any of it, he was really just pretending...

I strongly got that impression too.

I don't think it's possible for an openly non-Christian to run for President for one of the big two in the US. Anyone know if the US has ever had a non-Christian president, openly or not?

mewso

It would be nice if sometime in the future we don't actually know what a political leader's beliefs or lack of them are because nobody could be bothered to ask. Long way off I know.

ChocolateSauce

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8672859.stm

Looks like Brown resigned.....will the next labour leader be non-religious?

MikeC101

mikhail wrote: »

I strongly got that impression too.

I don't think it's possible for an openly non-Christian to run for President for one of the big two in the US. Anyone know if the US has ever had a non-Christian president, openly or not?

You could make a case for Jefferson - though he certainly believed in a god, but he was more a deist than a Christian. (Or is that applying a modern understanding of the term deist / Christian where it might not really apply?). Definitely not a fan of organised religion though.

"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. "

"My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there."

iUseVi

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8672859.stm

Looks like Brown resigned.....will the next labour leader be non-religious?

Hmm. Well Miliband seems like the front runner atm. Good possibility.

Not a leader but Alistair Darling is non-religious. You know the one with the slugs for eyebrows.

pH

For those looking for a 'Christian' perspective ...

The very smug priest George Pitcher

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100039487/the-con-dem-coalition-an-intriguing-union-of-daves-christianity-and-nickys-atheism/

(Clegg's atheism is "numbskull" don't you see!)

sublunar

i think it's great. not because atheist leaders will do anything out of the ordinary - except maybe have more rational approaches to equality laws, education and so on - but because the more atheists there are in the public eye, the more acceptable it becomes, and therefore less remarkable. it'll be a great day when being an atheist isn't noteworthy.

philologos

I don't know if anyone else has been following, but one of the interesting constituencies in this election from an A&A forum perspective, was the loss of Dr Evan Harris' seat in Oxford West and Abigdon to Nicola Blackwood.

Dr Evan Harris had been a president of numerous groups for the advocacy of secularism including being Vice President of the British Humanist Association, and played a major role in removing blasphemy from the statute books in the UK. He's been referred to as "Dr. Death" by many pro-life groups for his desire to liberalise abortion laws even further.

Nicola Blackwood on the other hand is a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, and has worked extensively on human rights.

Many on the pro-Harris side of the discussion have been swift to label Blackwood as a Christian fundementalist, and many who were opposed to Harris have taken to celebrating at the fact.

Andrew Brown also wrote an article in the Guardian about what he thinks is a swing towards Evangelical Christianity in the Tory ranks.

The Westminster Declaration also noted an increase (I don't know how exactly this is calculated) in those MP's who are supportive of Christian conscience after the election. They will admit also that they don't know how much this amounts to Christian votes or not.

Ickle Magoo

Harris lost his seat by only 176 seats after the Oxford West and Abingdon boundary was altered prior to the 2010 election to remove most of the colleges of oxford university from the constituency.

Between removing some of the greatest minds from voting in the consituancy and the swathe of blue to be seen across the whole of england, electing a tory who is also a member of the christian fellowship is hardly a ringing endorsement of religion in the UK...highlighted perhaps by the 53.9% of the Oxford West and Abingdon electorate who didn't want Ms Blackwood as their political representative.

philologos

I never said it was an endorsement of religion.

We are discussing here about how atheism seems to be having a greater role in British politics. Yet there is another angle to this. Out of the new MP's elected to the House of Commons quite a few of them are openly Christian, in all three parties, Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories. More MP's than before are open to Christian conscience according to the Westminster Declaration team, and there is concern about Christian influence growing in the Tory party in particular.

By the by, I wasn't commenting about Harris as a means of triumphalism, but rather to get people commenting about the impact that will have on the current House of Commons. Harris was one of the foremost secularists in the House of Commons if not the foremost.

Ickle Magoo

I appreciate that, but to suggest Harris was voted out when he lost only by a couple of hundred votes despite boundary changes made specifically try to oust him is not telling the whole truth, is it?

I don't think "atheism" is having a greater role, some atheists have greater roles, perhaps. AFAIK, there has always been hatfulls of christians in the political ranks, that's nothing new. From maggie to blair, I can think of very few who didn't get their photo opps in traipsing wholesomely to church while I can count those that declared their atheism pretty much on one hand. I also can't think of very much about the tories that doesn't warrant concern...the fact their right wing politics attracts more with right wing religious tendencies is hardly a surprise - and if more tories are elected it follows that more right wing religious types have been elected.

I still think it says more about the general malcontent of the british electorate with regards to gordon brown than a ringing endorsement or support of cameron, the tories, or any tory leanings. Sorry.

philologos

Again Ickle Magoo, I never suggested that he was "ousted out". Please read what I am writing rather than what you think I am writing.

Boundary changes aren't really an excuse in terms of winning of losing, politicians in other constituencies managed to keep their seats even when the boundaries of their constituency have changed. I just thought I might add that in there.

The point of why I brought up Harris was to discuss what impact his loss would have to the House of Commons, and the point why I brought up the increasing numbers of those sympathetic to Christian conscience was to allay any such ideas that British politics was suddenly becoming more atheist than ever before, and you agree that it isn't. That's fine, I was just clarifying incase other posters may have thought this was the case.

Ickle Magoo

Ah, come on now Jackass, be honest.

You laid it on thick about Harris the secularist loosing his seat to Blackwood the tory member of christian fellowship like that is what swung the vote, completely omitting the fact the boundary had changed and ignoring that the tories had pretty much a clean sweep south of the border regardless of candidate, creed and competency, as Zac Goldsmiths election to Richmond Park proves.

In fact, despite the boundary changes to exclude swathes of his supporters, Harris received only 606 votes less than he did in the 2005 election, indicating support for Harris was actually on the rise. :cool:

In my experience the UK in general is pretty apathetic when it comes to religion, especially religion in politics or matters of the state. It enjoys a pretty secular system in general and I don't see any indications that that is likely to change any time soon regardless of who is scrabbling around for a majority at westminster.

NB Sorry my Pc seems to have gone a bit bonkers and now it's both posting and deleting in tandem...

philologos

Ickle Magoo - I am being honest. I never said that Harris was ousted on the basis of his humanism / advocacy of liberal abortion policies. I've told you why I've brought up Harris, there is little point in discussing my motivations when I've made them clear. I don't think the boundary is an excuse. Other politicians no doubt have maintained their seat despite boundary changes.

According to Harris himself, he believes that fearmongering over the prospect of a hung parliament was mostly down to it.

I said that it was one of the more interesting races to follow, and indeed it is. Harris losing his seat is going to change politics until the next election at least. Surely that's worth talking about?

Is it possible to post something, and actually have a discussion about it rather than you questioning why I post it? :pac:

darjeeling

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said it was an endorsement of religion.
[...]
Out of the new MP's elected to the House of Commons quite a few of them are openly Christian, in all three parties, Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories. More MP's than before are open to Christian conscience according to the Westminster Declaration team, and there is concern about Christian influence growing in the Tory party in particular.

I don't think the electorate was endorsing Christian candidates per se either. The increased Christian (as defined by Westminster 2010) make-up of the commons is just a consequence of having more Tories in the place.

Westminster 2010 proposed a 'declaration of Christian conscience' pledge that required commitment to a conservative Christian position. Parliamentary candidates were classed as pledged/supportive, unpledged/unsupportive or don't knows. Tory candidates were judged 44% pro and 2% anti, Labour 8% pro and 44% anti.

Inevitably, more Tory MPs and fewer Labour ones post-election means overall that there are more MPs supportive of the Westminster 2010 goals. But as any Bill Clinton knows, it wasn't religion that swung the election, it was the economy.

That said, a look through the cabinet shows 10 unknowns, 12 deemed 'supportive' of the declaration (though unpledged), 4 deemed 'unsupportive' (of whom 3 are LDs) and one anti (Clegg), plus two peers, one of them Muslim. Does this mean we'll see a shift to a conservative Christian agenda? I don't think the public would wear it, and I think Cameron knows this well - the media thinks that's why he sidelined Chris Grayling after B&Bgate.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Harris losing his seat is going to change politics until the next election at least.

I think it unlikely that Harris loosing his boundary altered seat by a 176 votes and more voters voting against Ms Blackwood than for will "change politics"...

Jackass wrote:

Irrespective of whether the UK is apathetic on religion, more MP's who are support Christian conscience are in the House of Commons. That's what I'm saying. I don't know why that happened, but it did.

It doesn't matter what the MPs personal views on religion are, the UK electorate is much less supportive of religion and state mingling than the US or Ireland. If any politician tries to use their parliamentary powers to push a religious agenda, I am willing to bet their career will be short-lived.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it unlikely that Harris loosing his boundary altered seat by a 176 votes and more voters voting against Ms Blackwood than for will "change politics"...

You're missing the point again.

Irrespective of Nicola Blackwood, his absence from Westminster, itself is a loss. That's my point. He's been the major driving force for further secularisation, and now he's gone. That will in my opinion make a difference if you look to his previous track record (irrespective of whether you regard it to be good or bad).

This is the reason why I thought Harris might be interesting to discuss.

As for the electorate being less supportive of state / religion mingling, that isn't even why it is important. It is important in respect to cases such as nurses being suspended for offering to pray to patients and other freedom of religion issues that are arising in the UK. That's why I personally would consider it good that more people who support freedom of religion are being elected to Westminster rather than those who think that faith should be restricted and pushed to the private.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

You're missing the point again.

Irrespective of Nicola Blackwood, his absence from Westminster, itself is a loss. That's my point. He's been the major driving force for further secularisation, and now he's gone. That will in my opinion make a difference if you look to his previous track record (irrespective of whether you regard it to be good or bad).

This is the reason why I thought Harris might be interesting to discuss.

I'm not missing the point. You seem to think Harris's loss and a tory right-wing gain is going to have far reaching repercussions in UK politics. I think that's little more than wishful thinking. Harris was but one politician, there are many who share Harris's views on many issues - he wasn't the lone driving force for secularisation, women's rights, LGBT rights and pro-abortion/euthanasia in british politics, either from within westminster or the general electorate.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the electorate being less supportive of state / religion mingling, that isn't even why it is important. It is important in respect to cases such as nurses being suspended for offering to pray to patients and other freedom of religion issues that are arising in the UK. That's why I personally would consider it good that more people who support freedom of religion are being elected to Westminster rather than those who think that faith should be restricted and pushed to the private.

It isn't really important because the public are not going to be supportive of overtly religious mp's abusing their political power to further their privately driven agendas, I think you are going to be sorely disapointed if you think religion will suddenly get special treatment in state jobs or issues. Any mp's following in the footsteps of right-wing religiosity such as chris greyling are most likely going to be following his footsteps out to the political wilderness.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It isn't really important because the public are not going to be supportive of overtly religious mp's abusing their political power to further their privately driven agendas, I think you are going to be sorely disapointed if you think religion will suddenly get special treatment in state jobs or issues. Any mp's following in the footsteps of right-wing religiosity such as chris greyling are most likely going to be following his footsteps out to the political wilderness.

I'm not referring to any abuse of political power, but rather MP's being more willing to stand up and say that it is wrong that Christians risk being sacked for offering a mere prayer to a patient, preachers being arrested and other such scenarios that have arisen in the past few years under Brown's government.

I'm not referring to "special treatment" either, rather equal treatment to all others in the polity in respect to freedom of conscience and speech.

Ickle Magoo

Again, it's not a popular opinion in the greater voting electorate. If a discussion were to arise regarding reintroducing religion into state matters, whether that be the behaviour of state paid nursing staff while on duty or religion in schools because of the rise in right-wing religious types within the tory benches, it would be deeply unpopular nationwide...cameron knows that, that's why greyling and his only vaguely homophobic sentiments were ignored when picking cabinet positions post-election despite being elevated to home secretary in the shadow cabinet. Regardless of any amount of wishful thinking, I can't see the UK going back down the christian right-wing road again - ever - thankfully, there is just too much opposition and too much support of secularism.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not referring to any abuse of political power, but rather MP's being more willing to stand up and say that it is wrong that Christians risk being sacked for offering a mere prayer to a patient,

We've done this before, public services are there for *everybody*, I'm pretty sure you'd be offended if a satanist wanted to pray for you, why should someone who went to a hospital for treatment they're entitled to find their visit is now about you persuading people to leave them alone and get on with the treatment. Also it's sinister, many people in these situations are vulnerable, and doctors and other medical professionals have positions of power over them, these people need to allow all of us receive the medical treatment we're entitled to without any pressure.

preachers being arrested and other such scenarios that have arisen in the past few years under Brown's government.

That really is a ludicrous statement, what preachers are you referring to here? (I'm guessing it's this one). Really? It's not acceptable to try and generate hatred and mistrust against any members of society, the law is clear, sorry but gay-bashing (in the verbal sense) is now illegal, get over it.

I'm not referring to "special treatment" either, rather equal treatment to all others in the polity in respect to freedom of conscience and speech.

You're looking for special treatment, what things can a Christian not do that an atheist or member of another faith can? It's the equality you and others aren't liking.

MikeC101

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not referring to any abuse of political power, but rather MP's being more willing to stand up and say that it is wrong that Christians risk being sacked for offering a mere prayer to a patient, preachers being arrested and other such scenarios that have arisen in the past few years under Brown's government.

To be fair, this isn't specifically a Christian aimed thing - what about the atheist arrested for handing out leaflets, convicted of "causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress". The arrest of the preacher - if what I've seen in media reports is true - is another absolute disgrace. But it's just a symptom of over the top enforcement of bad legislation, rather than a pointed attack on any one religion or belief.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not referring to "special treatment" either, rather equal treatment to all others in the polity in respect to freedom of conscience and speech.

I'd agree with you on this - as long as the notion of "freedom of conscience" doesn't mean things like the state or employers being forced to accomodate people refusing to perform their job due to their religious beliefs.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not referring to any abuse of political power, but rather MP's being more willing to stand up and say that it is wrong that Christians risk being sacked for offering a mere prayer to a patient, preachers being arrested and other such scenarios that have arisen in the past few years under Brown's government.

As you are very well aware, the nurse was sacked for repeatedly breaking one of the terms of her employment, that is was for praying is somewhat irrelevant.

MrP