2nd September 2008

“There are sixty religious missions to the EU, but only one non-religious one, the European Humanist Association. It has little power and is rarely consulted. This model of representation entirely disenfranchises the majority of the population who are either non-religious, non-practising or whose views differ substantially from their religious representatives – who are almost always male.”

Keith Porteous Wood

3 Responses to “2nd September 2008”

  1. Critic Says:

    60 religious “missions” to the EU?

    Un-fucking believable!

    I thought Europe was mostly secular? All my hopes were nailed to Europe’s secularization! Sounds like southern Alabama (the middle of the inbred bible belt) to me!

    All hope is lost.


  2. Rhos Says:

    “All hope is lost” – maybe not. Secularism is still on the increase despite their best attempts.

  3. Terence Meaden Says:

    Something should be done about this.

    What is more, something should be done first in Britain where the situation is woefully inadequate regarding news reporting of religious affairs. Bad are the toadies at the BBC (worse is the government) who pander to the religionists such that the secular, the humanists and the atheists rarely get an opportunity to offer their sounder opinions.

    What is needed is an umbrella organisation that speaks up when Canterbury, York and others gabble and gibber.

    Here is an idea. I may put something similar on the Enlightened Observer.

    In these days of political correctness it could be time to found a consultative body with a title like The Non-Religious Council of Britain (NRCB). This could be a voluntary association welcoming discussion and comment with news reporters and legislative bodies when occasions arise in the news regarding the question of morals, beliefs and religious issues. Such a body or ‘mission’ could develop into an umbrella organisation that speaks for any and all of the non-religious groups of Britain.

    Bodies that support religious causes have existed for too long in benefitting from a largely timid, quasi-protective news environment (particularly the BBC radio and television) that rarely provides a proper balance by allowing intellectual challenges from freethinkers. Major matters merit consultation at each and every opportunity. The current largely one-sided situation is ‘politically’ unjust.

    Thus the NRCB would serve to rectify the media’s reporting imbalance, and would promote the truths of science that underlie the flawless natural philosophy that is atheism, at the same time protecting any non-theists who come under pressure from the dictates of indoctrinated religionists.


    The basic principle, as we all know, emanates from the unconquerable fact that no evidence has ever been produced to support the existence of superhuman beings that believers call gods. Because of this, freethinkers hold the intellectual high ground, including the view that the faith-holders’ gods are simply products of the mind and nothing but fictions inside human heads. A common riposte of the religious is to say that an absence of proof for their faith does not matter—but this is only because they have no better recourse. It is the age-old trick by which dishonest or hoodwinked priests try reassuring doubters.