Aggressive assaults on belief

I normally don't go too near contentious subjects but I can't really let this one pass. I've just read the transcript of Tony Blair's address to the National Prayer Breakfast. Now the very existence of such an event, previously unknown to me, bothers me on any number of levels - not least of which is the fact that it seems to be a political event and, call me old fashioned if you like, I believe whole-heartedly in the separation of church and state.
We'll let that pass though, as I'd rather look at the content of the speech.

It's a mix of religious rhetoric, personal reminiscences about his religious experiences and a kind of deliberate all-encompassing ecumenicalism that attempts to include all branches of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and even Buddhism. All of those faiths are quoted in what looks very much like a cynical attempt to appear even-handedly tolerant. I may be doing him a disservice. Maybe it isn't cynical; maybe it's perfectly sincere, but the shoe-horning in of quotes from religions which have beliefs and tenets so far from his own surely looks calculated rather than spontaneous.

That isn't the thing that bothers me though. I said "all-encompassing" but it isn't. In fact there is one group of us who are not only omitted but openly derided, in fact referred to as if we are the enemies of the world.

"From without, religious faith is assailed by an increasingly aggressive secularism, which derides faith as contrary to reason and defines faith by conflict. Thus do the extreme believers and the aggressive non-believers come together in unholy alliance."

That's it for me then. As a non-believer I am clearly part of that increasingly aggressive secularism. I deride faith as contrary to reason and define faith by conflict. Really? That's all news to me. As it happens I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they choose and, however unlikely I may find it all personally, I don't express those views, try to convert people to my point of view or, usually, deride people for believing it. And as - let's not use the weasel word "non-believer" - as an atheist, I have suffered a whole lifetime of being assailed by "aggressive" religion. Now that's not to say that everyone I know who is religious aggressively tries to convert everyone they meet. That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? Nevertheless atheists don't generally go around knocking on doors or stand on street corners preaching or offer to not pray for someone.
It's a trite thing to say, but I've had, and have, good friends who are of all sorts of persuasions: Christian, Jewish, Sikh and even Mormon, a religion with beliefs that many find risible. I admit that I once wrote an article on how scary I find Salt Lake City, because I do, but the truth is I find most religious fervour rather scary because the very religious may disagree about the nature of God, the practice of their faiths or even the number of gods; may be so fundamentally at odds with each other that no true reconciliation is possible; but they do all agree on one thing, I am bound for hell simply because I disagree with them.

I find certain assumptions implicit in Tony Blair's speech to be deeply offensive to my beliefs.

"There are a million good deeds done every day by people of faith."

"'I'm afraid my father doesn't believe in God'. I said. 'That doesn't matter' my teacher replied 'God believes in him. He loves him without demanding or needing love in return.'"

'The 21st Century will be poorer in spirit, meaner in ambition, less disciplined in conscience, if it is not under the guardianship of faith in God.'

'We can perform acts of mercy, but only God can lend them dignity. We can forgive, but only God forgives completely in the full knowledge of our sin.'

All of these statements are offensive to my beliefs, not because he believes them - that's his business, not mine - but because there is an implicit criticism of my beliefs involved in each of them, and for that matter in the whole tone of the article.

True, towards the end, he throws a sop to "humanism" but only up to a point and frankly I find the use of the word "humanist" to be a kind of mealy-mouthed hedging.

The thing that disturbs me most is that while bending over backwards in his efforts to include every religion he can think of - it's a wonder he didn't quote Obi-Wan Kenobi - he has deliberately and specifically excluded me and the approximately 150 million people like me worldwide (source Wikipedia, 2.3% of world population). We are, at best, "doing God's work" and therefore "God's people" even if we don't believe it. And we are "limited" in even that. Well, I'm sorry but that's the most incredibly patronising thing I've ever heard.

Tony Blair talks about how religion is also under attack from within, "corroded by extremists who use their faith as a means of excluding the other", but it seems to me that his words are just as extreme in the way that they deny my beliefs.

OK. That's it. I have deliberately not gone into the other religious story of the last few days about the rise of fundamental belief and creationism in the UK. Although I find it very disturbing, it isn't really relevant, except to the extent that I would like to hear his views on it.

*

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.I'll try to stay away from contentious stuff for a while, and I sincerely hope that this doesn't lose me any of my more religiously inclined friends whose views I respect completely even while not agreeing with them.