I know. But the aim is not to eradicate religion. Honest! The aim is to ensure that the state is not complicit in religious indoctrination. Faith schooling is a monumental folly in my view – divisive, costly, restricting of choice, discriminatory, bad – and I think most people agree that we wouldn’t invent them if we were starting from now.

I’m pretty sure there’s more than one Lib Dem MP who would be on the wrong side of a division lobby on abortion.

Name names! I have a feeling that Paul Rowen is one of them.

The point is that it is easy to point the finger at education but many people get their religion from their family or friends or come to it in other ways, learning about it in school – particularly in the usual boring C of E way -isn’t really indoctrinating the masses.

If you’re interested in this kind of thing though you should read: ‘American Fascists, The Christian Right and the War on America’ by Chris Hedges – Good Book.

With regards to abortion; it is a woman’s right, hard fought for many years and I don’t think its for us to judge the hard decision these women had to make to abort their children. Having said that there should be more work done to tackle the problem of teenage pregnancy at an earlier stage in this country.

BTW I’m pretty sure there’s more than one Lib Dem MP who would be on the wrong side of a division lobby on abortion.

Not really. The Liberal Democrats are already the most secular of the parties. I’m just suggesting that maybe it needs to go further and deeper.

And, as a vote winner, you are suggesting that we put before the British people that we should become more like France?

Well when you put it like that, I agree it sounds like a terrible idea! We should be more like France in terms of a secular constitution, but in no other way whatsoever! How about that?

I’ll leave other readers to decide which of us is living in some fantasy land.

Principally, I’m talking about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That’s over four billion people. I think that’s enough to be going on with.

Why do you think religions are unfalsifiable?

Er . . . because they are.

Let’s meet up at the next Lib-Dem Federal Party conference and have a one to one on this.

Steady on, I only joined the party a few weeks ago.

Have you ever actually lived in France?

Only for a month at a time.

Clearly we cannot both be right if our beliefs are exclusive of each other, but we can both accept that the other has a right to believe what they believe.

Of course we can.

Are you effectively saying that you are right and I am wrong, and that I should not have the right to be wrong?

I’m saying that it’s high time religions played by the same rules as everyone else. If they want to interfere in the political process, then they had better start bringing some evidence to the table, not just continue to invoke ancient and irrelevant holy texts while wearing a silly hat.

France does liberalism and democracy better than we do?

Without a doubt, though if there are better examples then that’s fine.

Are we even both living on the same planet?

No. I live on planet Earth. I suspect that you live in some religious fantasy land.

Why do you think religions are unfalsifiable? Let’s meet up at the next Lib-Dem Federal Party conference and have a one to one on this. Some religions (like some philosophies, such as secularism) are unfalsifiable. Others are not. There is nothing intrinsic to religion that makes it unfalsifiable. Or, if you think you can prove that religions are unfalsifiable, demonstrate this.

Have you ever actually lived in France? I have, and in Belgium, Holland and Germany. Given the choice I would much rather live in Holland, where religious and political freedoms are balanced, than in France, where minority religions are heavily leaned on.

Why is it incoherent to believe that I am right, and also to allow someone else to believe that they are right? Clearly we cannot both be right if our beliefs are exclusive of each other, but we can both accept that the other has a right to believe what they believe.

Your notion — as put forward in your ‘strong language’ — is more exclusivist than most religions. Certainly your notion that there is no God excludes my notion that there is. Why should we not both have the right to believe what we believe? Or, are you effectively saying that you are right and I am wrong, and that I should not have the right to be wrong?

France does liberalism and democracy better than we do? Are we even both living on the same planet? If you want to hold up an example of liberalism and democracy, hold up Scandinavia, Holland, hey, even Switzerland. But not France.

You’re welcome.

The idea that you can put all religions in one bag and discuss them as a category is at best absurd.

Most religions are utterly absurd. They make no secret of it. That’s why you need “faith” to believe in them.

Some religions are unfalsifiable, while others have challenged opponents to falsify them from their very earliest days.

Er . . . but they’re still unfalsifiable.

While some religions are thoroughly militant, others are pacifist. . . . There are quite a number of universalist religions.

Sure, I can start a new religion this afternoon which doesn’t fit my pattern. Principally, I’m talking about the religions which are causing us a global problem. They are not a minority.

This runs completely counter to universal suffrage, the secret ballot, freedom of speech and conscience, and virtually all the other pillars on which democracy stands.

Look, I may have used strong language, but all I’m arguing for is a secular society such as that which pertains in, say, France.

I should have the right to believe that my belief is exclusively correct . . . And everyone else should have these same rights.

That is deliciously incoherent.

Liberal Democrats cannot occupy that place, unless we cease to be (in anything but name) liberal democrats.

I would say that France does both liberalism and democracy better than we do.

It’s entertaining to find a thread so broad in its misconceptions, and so unyielding in its prejudices.

The idea that you can put all religions in one bag and discuss them as a category is at best absurd.

Laurence Boyce describes religions as ‘unfalsifiable competing belief systems’. Some religions are unfalsifiable, while others have challenged opponents to falsify them from their very earliest days. He also says ‘the only way to decisively settle religious differences is with a fight’, which is interesting given that, while some religions are thoroughly militant, others are pacifist. Elsewhere he says ‘All religions at heart make exclusive claims…’. This is factually untrue. There are quite a number of universalist religions.

However, there is a rather more fundamental problem with his original point: ‘We should be seeking to drive the influence of religion out of the legislature, our schools, and the public square in general.’

This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy is about. Boyce is really suggesting that views and opinions that proceed from a religious belief should not be welcome in public life. This runs completely counter to universal suffrage, the secret ballot, freedom of speech and conscience, and virtually all the other pillars on which democracy stands. When I go to the ballot box, I vote in secret and have to answer to no-one as to who I vote for, and why I vote. As soon as we start excluding particular beliefs or perspectives from the political process, we have left democracy behind us.

I do not wish to live in a priest-run society, but I don’t wish to live in an atheocracy either. Provided that someone is not breaking the law (and the law should be framed so that it does not unfairly disadvantage any particular group of people), then everyone should have the right to believe what they like. And I, and everyone else, should have the right to try to persuade them of what I believe. I should have the right to believe that my belief is exclusively correct, and I should also have the right to choose to believe things which I can’t substantiate. And everyone else should have these same rights.

These things are all fundamental to liberal democracy, and should be fundamental to Liberal Democrats.

There may well be a place for ‘a radical secular platform’, and it may well prove highly popular. However, Liberal Democrats cannot occupy that place, unless we cease to be (in anything but name) liberal democrats.

Frankly if an argument is based on questioning the honesty of Roger Roberts I would suggest the person is losing it (the argument at least) big style

Like faith n superstition stay – to help you pass the time away”

From Ian Hunter’s God (Take1)

Claire: I can’t really share your complacency – not while we currently enjoy creationism in the classroom. The lunatics have escaped the asylum and are running our schools, an astonishing state of affairs which seems to go virtually unchallenged in the political arena. And I haven’t even got started on the problem of Islam.

There’s a far more respectable position than for which he gives credit that says “religion – what’s it got to do with me? I’m more interested in a nice cup of tea”.

Religion is dying out quite nicely in this country, so let’s leave it to whither on the vine. Creating a big debate about all this just plays into the hands of the theists.

I don’t know if Roger Roberts’s views fall into this group, though I think you’ll find plenty of non-Christians who respect him and wouldn’t agree with your casual dismissal of him as dishonest.

That’s how it appears to me as well – I wouldn’t claim to be a Christian but there are a number of people I hugely respect who are. Jerry Fallwell and Ian Paisley are two who use their religion to divide whereas someone like Roger Roberts would appear to have his religious and policitical beliefs closely intertwined.