The militant atheists are at it again

The Parish Church of Benátky nad Jizerou reflecting Czech cultural heritage © Ricky Yates
The Parish Church of Benátky nad Jizerou reflecting Czech cultural heritage © Ricky Yates

I awoke this Easter Monday morning, after a tiring but exhilarating Easter Day, planning to write a blog post all about our worship yesterday in Prague and Brno. I still plan to write that post, but in the meantime, I hope my readers will excuse this little rant in response to a prominent news item that was on the home page of the BBC News website this morning.

During Holy Week, the ‘Church Times’ published an interview with the British Prime Minister David Cameron, in which, amongst other things, he said that Britons should be “more confident about our status as a Christian country”. He then rightly added that saying this did not mean “doing down” other religions or “passing judgement” on those with no faith. The interview was widely reported, such as here on the BBC News website. Whilst I’m not normally in the habit of defending conservative politicians 🙂 , I have to say that on this point, I totally agree with David Cameron. I also believe that in his position as Prime Minister, he has every right to say what he said in that interview.

Today, one of the leading headlines that greeted me on my early morning visit to the BBC News website read, ‘David Cameron risks ‘alienation’, public figures claim’. According to a letter written to the ‘Daily Telegraph’ by over fifty ‘public figures’, David Cameron referring to the United Kingdom as a Christian country, ‘fosters alienation and division in our society’.

Firstly, I do wonder what makes someone a ‘public figure’. I think I have a fairly good knowledge of British life and culture yet I struggled to identify even ten of the signatories that I knew. And even if you are a ‘public figure’, what makes your opinion any more important or relevant than that of anyone else?

However, what did immediately get my attention and made me realise where the letter was coming from, was that the lead signatory was Professor Jim Al-Khalil, president of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Here I hope that long-standing readers of my blog, will forgive me for returning to a topic I previously wrote about two-and-a-half years ago.

According to the website of the BHA, they have ‘over 28,000 members and supporters’. Their website has said this for at least the past three years. Clearly their level of support hasn’t increased in that time, otherwise I’m sure they would have broadcast the fact. Notably, they do not differentiate between ‘members’ – those who have put their hands in their wallets and paid a fee – and ‘supporters’. What makes someone a ‘supporter’? A person who sent a friendly email over five years ago? Or someone who clicked ‘like’ on Facebook?

Back in August 2013, I wrote to the BHA, asking for a breakdown between paid-up members and ‘supporters’ and asking for their definition of a ‘supporter’. Whilst I got an out-of-working-hours acknowledgement of my email, I never got an answer to my questions. There is a clear reason why I got no reply. To reveal their actual membership numbers, showing that they are ridiculously small, would be embarrassing and would damage the credibility of the BHA, as it should. In my opinion, their lack of transparency borders on dishonesty.

The timing of the intervention of the BHA could not have been more apposite. On a normal Sunday, over three million people attend Church services in the UK – somewhere between five and six percent of the population. Yesterday being Easter Day, that number would have at least doubled if not tripled. Once the BHA has that level of support, then it has a right to be heard. Until it does, it remains an irrelevance and in no way justifies the column inches and air time, news organisations unfortunately give it.

The UK has a Christian heritage and culture and there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying so. Whilst I would like the numbers who actively attend Christian worship to be larger than they are, they are infinitely greater than the supporters of humanism and militant atheism. I rest my case!

The New Atheism and the BBC

Charles Bridge, Prague © Ricky Yates

As I’ve written previously on this blog, ever since moving to the Czech Republic in September 2008, I have happily lived without having a television. Even in my latter years of living in the UK, I only tended to watch television in order to keep up-to-date with the News, together with enjoying the occasional major sporting event if it still was on terrestrial television. I refuse point blank to pay for satellite or cable TV, particularly as most of it is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. And we all now know quite clearly what journalists and others in his organisation do!

Therefore now, in order to keep abreast of what is happening in the world, I have become a very regular visitor to the BBC News website. I find its coverage to be fairly comprehensive, regularly updated and that it provides news without any particular political bias.

I do however, have a couple of gripes. As one who used to happily pay his annual licence fee, I am someone who always enjoyed the BBC as it was totally free of advertising. Because I now access the BBC News website from a foreign country, unfortunately advertising also appears.

Secondly, as my first degree is in geography, I get irritated by the complete geographical ignorance of some BBC journalists. A couple of years back, a news article about something that had happened in Pau in south-central France, was accompanied by a map showing Pau as being on the Atlantic coast of France when it is 125 kilometres from the sea! More recently, a news article about Serbia included a map purporting to be of Serbia, which showed Montenegro as being wholly within it’s borders when the two countries had separated several years previously and mutually recognise each other.

But my real frustration comes whenever there is a news item that involves some aspect of the Christian faith. Firstly, the theological and ecclesiastical ignorance of many BBC journalists is even greater than the geographical ignorance that I referred to earlier. But what really annoys me is that, if the Archbishop of Canterbury is quoted, or the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster has made a pronouncement, then you can be sure that the news item will also include the completely opposite view of Terry Sanderson or Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, or Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association.

The BBC do this because they want to comply with their obligation to be unbiased and balanced in their reporting. But the reality is that, by giving undue prominence to the views of the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association, and on BBC TV & Radio, giving them airtime, they are actually being highly unbalanced.

On the average Sunday in the UK, there are around one million people worshiping in Anglican Churches, about one million in Roman Catholic Churches, and a further million in a whole variety of Free Churches. This accounts for about 5% of the UK population. At least six million people in the UK attend Church at least once a month which is 10% of the population. I wish these figures were higher but even so, it still is a significant number of people.

Being aware of this, I set out to try and discover the membership numbers for the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association. In doing so, I discovered two things. The first is that this information is far from being freely available. The second is, I am not the first person to try to do so and to recognise that both organisations are being given absurdly more recognition than they realistically deserve.

The website of the British Humanist Association states that it has ‘over 28,000 members and supporters’.  However, it doesn’t state the difference in numbers between ‘members’ – those who have paid an annual membership fee – and ‘supporters’. What is a ‘supporter’? Someone who made a £5.00 donation in the past or who wrote a friendly email five years ago?

The National Secular Society is even less clear. No membership numbers are published and an email I sent many months ago, asking the question, never got a reply. However, this blogger has looked at their financial returns and has come up with a figure of less than 5,500. Another writer has analysed the figures and come to the conclusion of no more than 7000.

These figures speak volumes. As Gavin Drake says, “If, as the (National Secular) Society claim, the Church is irrelevant on the basis of numbers; then on what basis is the National Secular Society relevant?” The answer is quite obvious – neither the National Secular Society nor the British Humanist Association are relevant. If they were, people would be flocking to join and support them in droves. Quite clearly, they aren’t. I rest my case and hope that, in the interest of balanced reporting, the BBC also takes notice.