It makes it harder for the British to produce critical editions of one of the most important literary works of our language, than it is for anyone elsewhere in the world. Its impact on religious uses of the Bible is more limited, as there are plenty of better translations: but some people do like the KJV and I see no reason not to let them do as they wish with it. Who ever wants to, for example, produce an edition with comments and notes, should be free to do so, whether they are a devout Christian, or an atheist attacking Christianity — I imagine many people would be interested in a Richard Dawkins edition, while others would like a Catholic version (Catholic Bibles include some minor books omitted by protestant ones) that incorporated the KJV.

The crown once controlled all printing in the UK, and this is an anachronistic remnant of it. It benefits no one, except those who hold letters patent. If one considers what letters patent are (arbitrary monopolies granted by the crown to private businesses) it is clear why they are no longer granted, and why the vast majority have been abolished. Why should this be an exception? There is no good reason.

If you are a British citizen OR resident, you can sign a petition to end this outrageous private monopoly.

There are two series of books which I know of which revolve around extremely powerful creature benevolent towards humanity. They are not omnipotent, and far from perfectly good (in fact ready to commit genocide of non-humans for little reason), but they are able, and wish to keep humans completely safe and comfortable. The creatures are Isaac Asimov’s robots and Larry Niven’s protectors.

In both cases they decide to allow humanity to live and develop without their constant presence and intervention — although both decide to intervene subtly without revealing themselves too openly. Sounds familiar?

They do this because human beings need to be able to develop. In Asimov’s books human world’s that use robots gradually die as their culture fails. Niven’s protectors decide that humans do not want or need to be cosseted.

The result is immense suffering, but no one reading either series could say that they would prefer to live in a world in which they were looked after by robots or protectors.

I will not go into the details (those who want them can read the books), but looking at the problem this way can make the argument that we need to live with our choices and their consequences more comprehensible.

In Europe, it is increasingly becoming accepted that people have a right not to be offended. In addition it is thought that religious belief is a matter of belonging to a community rather than an acceptance of certain facts, so it become a type ethnicity and ceases to be a matter of debate.

Now most people who are actually religious, would rather religion is a matter of debate – we want people to accept a belief, rather than belong to a club, and (in general at least) you cannot really believe without questioning and thinking, which open debate helps

The people who want this law are like a so-called Muslim I once met who said he would kill Salman Rushidie given a chance, but who said he never prayed (prayer is a serious obligation in Islam). He did not really believe there was a God (or he did not care), he was only upset that because he perceived his tribe as being insulted, rather like an American getting upset about their flag being burned.

This is also, of a piece with attitudes in countries that penalise people who choose a different religion from their parents. Malaysia and some Indian states have moved in that direction recently, for example, and there are lobby groups in Sri Lanka for anti-conversion laws. If it a matter of belonging, someone who opts out is a traitor.

Incidentally, I am a British-Sri Lankan Christian (officially a Catholic, although I believe that denominations do not matter), I was agnostic for many years, and my wife is an Anglican who used to be a Buddhist. I am also obviously a member of an ethnic minority in both countries.

My children will be taught about Christianity, but they will also be taught that it is dishonest to believe anything other than what your reasoning and experience lead you to. I am also opposed to laws that restrict racist speech (except when it is a direct incitement to violence).

The other problem faced by any poll of this nature. Ideas of the relationship between God and creation are varied and subtle. This leads to problems with words like “quides” that Pew use. If God creates the universe so that certain things happen is that guiding? What about guiding (supposedly random) event? Is guiding restricted to a miraculous type of intervention that has visible effects that would be verifiable miracles if someone was there to observe and test them?

Bear in mind that the orthodox Christian view is (and has been for a long time) that God created time. That gives him a very different range of potential interventions from any actor within time who wishes to intervene. This is how natural selection is reconciled with guidance and purpose. Perhaps Pew’s researchers have not managed to get a grip on ideas like eternity yet?

At first sight it appears that the school is merely admitting people who belong to the same tradition of Judaism – rather as a Catholic school might admit Catholics in preference to Anglicans. However, this school also admits atheists, provided they are ethnically Jewish. If your ethnicity makes a difference to how you are treated, it is obviously a case of racial discrimination.

The judge said that this was not different to Christian and Muslim schools giving preference to followers of their religions. The best rebuttal I can think of to this is to imagine an equivalent admissions policy for a Christian school.

Suppose a Church of England School had an admissions policy that stated that pupils must be either:

1. baptised and (the child of?) a practising member of the Church of England, or,
2. ethnically English.

I think it is obvious that this would be a racist policy. An ethnically English applicant would not have their religion considered, a Scot of a black would.

This policy is essentially the same as that of the JFS. Anglicanism is the traditional religion of the English, just as Judaism is the traditional religion of the Jews. If one is justified, why not the other? Why not a Catholic school that favoured the Irish even if the were atheists? Why not a Muslim school that took any Arab but insisted on tight religions criteria for other applicants?

I think the judge (and possibly the school themselves) are confused and unable to make the distinction between the Jews (the ethnic group) and Judaism (the religion). In a democratic society anyone (of any ethnic group) is free to follow any religion, so the distinction is important. Religion matters: what you believe reality to be forms the basis of your life and your other beliefs. Race does not matter: it is not something that a decent person should pay the slightest attention to.

Race is not the same as culture which does matter, but the two are linked only by historical accident. I know many brown skinned people who are culturally English, and many white skinned people who are culturally Sri Lankan.

There is no excuse, racism is racism. If it is legal, so much the worse for the law.

It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:25, Matthew 19:24 and Luke 18:25

This rather lefty sort of idea is clearly discredited. So lets have a more capitalist replacement:

It is easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, for if God has made you rich it must mean He likes you.

There, that must make you feel better.

We next need to make some amendments to keep up with the media age. How can we get sound bites and photo-opportunities if we follow advice like this?

When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward.
But you, when you pray, enter into your inner chamber, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

Mark 6:5-6

This is slightly more difficult as it needs to be done in a culturally sensitive manner that varies from country to country. I would suggest the following. For Europe

Pray in secret, for otherwise the media will call you a religious nutcase.

For the US, Asia and North Africa:

Pray publicly, for by that means you may gain the trust of the pious but naive masses. If you do not already follow the religion of the majority in your country, pretend to convert.

Jesus also seemed to encourage people to not participate in the economy:

Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Luke 12:27-28

Fortunately modern world has already updated this example for us:

Consider the lilies. They made no economic contribution and have been swept aside by profitable crops. How much more will you be swept aside if you neither have wealth nor make it?

Finally, the beatitudes. There is a collection of dangerous ideas that need to be dispelled, if there ever was one. Feel free to skip the original, now obsolete, version:

³ Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴ Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
⁵ Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
⁶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
⁷ Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
¹⁰ Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
¹¹ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Matthew 5:3-11

There is a lot of change needed there:

³ Blessed are mindless consumers, for they shall be one with the zeitgeist.
⁴ Blessed are those who move on, for society will be comfortable with them.
⁵ Blessed are the aggressive, for they shall control natural resources.
⁶ Blessed are those who accept things as they are, for their life shall be easy.
⁷ Blessed are the ruthless, for they shall need no-ones mercy.
⁸ Blessed are those who make necessary ethical compromises, for their boss shall reward them.
⁹ Blessed are those who start a war, for they shall profit from it.
¹⁰ Blessed are those who say the right things, for the powerful shall return the favour.
¹¹ Blessed are those who do the persecuting, for they shall escape justice.

Quotes above are from the King James Version and the World English Bible, because they are unencumbered by copyright (and the KJV is a beautiful work of literature). There are better translations available, but the differences in the quoted texts are insignificant for my satirical purposes. I used Bibletime to read above texts and others.

Eric Rasmusen, who is undoubtedly very intelligent and usually rational, thinks that the wave of emigration of the rich and Christians from Iraq does not show that anything is wrong in the country. He has “no doubt” that they wanted to leave before (i.e. under Saddam Hussein).

Why does he have no doubt? Does the Christian flight Iraq have nothing do with the persecution they are facing from increasingly powerful Islamic fundamentalists, which they did not face under Saddam’s oppressive but secular government.

If the rich “no doubt” wanted to leave before, why did they not leave before? The affluent and those with valuable skills have always been welcome in many countries.

Those who fled from Saddam’s Iraq were member of ethnic minorities (such as the Kurds) who he persecuted, and political opponents. Now it is the Christians and anyone who can get out. I think we can draw a valid conclusion from this.

I live in a country that has one of the world’s highest emigration rates. I know that many people still prefer to live in their home land. I know lots of people who have dual nationality (mostly British), foreign spouses, who have given up residence rights in a developed country to live here, or who are rich or highly skilled enough to easily obtain a residence visa in the US, Australia or even Europe (which is harder).

Apart from a few adventurous sorts, most people have a homeland and want to cling to it whatever. They leave when they are desperate. I have no doubt that many Iraqis, especially members of religious minorities, are desperate.

My argument is simple. Most people simply do not have the evidence to conclude that there is a God. Neither do they have the evidence for the beliefs of non-theistic religions. Therefore they should be agnostics.

I do not say that they should be atheists quite deliberately. Most atheists have not followed a sophisticated line of thought. If, for example, they had read Hume and been convinced by his arguments, that would be rational.

In fact, most atheists have been convinced by very naive and incomplete arguments, and frequently by misconceptions. This is partly because popularisers of atheism generally misrepresent the beliefs of the religious, and then proceed to effective known down either a pure straw man or a weird variant of faith. I intent to return to this topic in the future.

Returning to religious belief there is little to add to the basic argument: it is irrational to believe without evidence, or at least convincing argument. The question is whether religious beliefs are generally that irrational.

I suspect that the answer varies from society to society. Where only a minority are religious, as in most industrialised countries, they probably do require a positive reason to maintain a non-mainstream stance – particularly as the values of almost all religions are at odds with consumerism and many other contemporary values.

I think things are different for people most in more religious countries (most of the world) and communities, and for many even outside them.

A key piece of evidence is that most people who follow a religion, follow the same religion as their parents. Is it really true that after weighing up all arguments and evidence that they have come to the same conclusion as their parents?

We certainly do not expect such as high degree of agreement within families in other areas. We expect disagreement on questions of science, politics, sexual mores, social issues etc.

My own experience (I used to be an agnostic) has been that in countries where almost everyone follows some religion, people may often not even understand what an agnostic or atheist is. They have clearly not contemplated many possibilities. They have simply accepted what they were told. They were brainwashed.

Some people may argue that people should believe something because it is good for them, even though it may not be true. I simply do not believe it is ever right to be dishonest. It also leads to endless arguments between various religions and atheists, each trying to show that the other’s beliefs leads to greater hard. It is no suprise that, given the dishonesty of their starting point, the argument itself tends to be carried out very dishonestly as well.

All this of course begs many more questions. What are the rational grounds for belief? What is the impact of belief? Is belief the same thing as faith? I will blog more on all those over the next few weeks.

One more thing I need to make clear. I do not think that the people who should believe are in some way better than those who I argue should not. If anything, Jesus could be interpreted as saying the opposite.