In news that will surely delight Lib Dem Voice’s resident militant atheist (and at least one fluffy elephant), our new leader does not count himself amongst the nation’s theists, according a report over at the BBC.
The revelation came as part of a Radio 5 ‘rapid fire’ interview when he was asked whether he believed in God, and he replied no.
He later qualified his remarks, saying he had enormous respect for people with a faith (unlike LDV’s RMA) and that his wife and children were Catholic:
I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
An online conspiracy?
Alex Hosking
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
58 Comments
I’m warming to him already. Merry Yule!
Alex, you say it as if Laurence is the only one. He just got in first is all.
Still, nice to know, let’s see how it goes down with people, maybe more will be prepared to say it now?
WHAT!
You mean he doesn’t believe in Chris Rennard?
What a heathen
I’ve had a bit of a think and added another famous sure-to-be-pleased atheist to the list.
Chris Rennard isn’t God !!!!!!
According to my old Young Lib colleagues (young then, old now) my God had a beard, lived in Colne, and worked in Hebden Bridge.
Can you tell who it is yet??????????????
Yes, my initial euphoria soon turned to dismay. If Nick is going to keep an open mind regarding every batshit crazy idea that crosses his desk, then he will hardly have much time left for the job. I guess what he meant was that he is going to keep an open mind about the religion of whomever he is talking to at the time, for the sake of an easy life and a few more votes.
I really don’t understand why he was asked the question. Surely at Christmas we all have other things on our mind than God?
Anyway, I thought Chris Rennard was Father Christmas?
Yes, good point. What we really want to know is: does he believe in Santa?
Is Chris really santa?
Wonder what he’ll get me when he shimmys down the chimney…bet it won’t be better than my secret santa today ….:@)
Be careful what you wish for. I reckon he could do a lot of damage before he makes it down to the fireplace.
“shimmys down the chimney”
Surely there’s an easier way to deliver “Good Morning” leaflets?
Sure, there’s the front door and the back door. But we’re the party of the third way.
You mean the upstairs window?
The loft?
Which party gets ‘the back door’?!
Oh dear this is turning into a pub conversation…:@)
I suppose that’s us again. Coming up from behind. We’re all over the place!
That’s a lovely image – having all sorts of thoughts as I eat my ‘chomp’ bar with a cup of coffee…
Now what was this about God?
God? Oh God? He died sometime in the nineteenth century after a long illness.
Somehow Laurence sounds pretty pissed off. There is just no pleasing some people.
But seriously, this is fairly historic stuff. We (out) atheists are underrepresented in politics. And while some atheists and some believers don’t like voting for any of the other lot, my bet is that liberal atheists and liberal believers will be quite happy voting for a liberal of either stripe.
I LOVE YOU MR Nick!
I couldn’t have been happier with his answer. He says what he believes, and I think that is quite frankly refreshing…
I thought at last Nick and I had something in common when I heard this on Radio 5…then “He later qualified his remarks, saying he had enormous respect for people with a faith….and that his wife and children were Catholic:”
Sounds like he was back pedalling later – Why?
First he keeps using the word Liberal, then he doesn’t believe in God, then Brian Eno……… ah hang on I’ve got it! Eno bought him a set of his ‘Oblique Strategy’ cards as a Christmas pressie!! If so can someone please remove the ‘Throw it all away and start again’ card
Steve @23,
It is not back-pedalling to say that you respect Catholics or other believers. I try to respect everybody who deserves it irrespective of their religous affiliation.
For every Fred Phelps, there is a Vicar of Dibley.
Some of us are Liberals precisely because we DO believe in God. I respect (but regret) people who don’t, but let’s just remember that we are, ahem, a broad church united by our belief in Liberalism not by our religious or non-religious views. Merry Christmas!
That he doesn’t believe in a god is fine (who does?) but by his own admission he’s quite willing to indoctrinate his own children into a belief system he considers to be untrue. That’s not good.
I wasn’t neccessarily disagreeing with Nick’s ‘later qualification’, just making the point that to the ordinary listener it just sounds like a “typical woolly liberal comment”, or “sittting on the fence.” That may be unfair, but it is a criticism often levelled at Lib Dems.
Mick had an opportunity to present his ideas with a clarity that he didn’t manage in his rather lacklustre leadership campaign. All I’m saying is that he needs to be clearer and more decisive in his answers to simple questions.
27 – Jennifer, yes, the bit about his children rather annoyed me. I was delighted when I heard this news, but as I read further into the story the notable backpedaling “but I’m bringing his kids up as religious!” was obvious.
Translated: “please excuse me atheism, because I am just indocrinating my children instead; they will suffer on my behalf”
Nice man, that Cleggy.
“then “He later qualified his remarks, saying he had enormous respect for people with a faith….and that his wife and children were Catholic:”
Sounds like he was back pedalling later – Why?”
Because he doesn’t want to lose the religio-fanatical vote either. Like Joe @20 (almost) says, /most/ liberals will happily vote for a liberal whether they are a God-botherer or not, but /some/ will only vote for one of their own.
I’m with Jennifer: I find it disturbing that he says his wife /and children/ are Catholic. I’m of the opinion that all children should lean /about/ religion, but you shouldn’t be allowed to actually sign up to a religion until you’re old enough to make an informed decision of your own… But then I lean to the Atheist side of agnostic, so…
Jennifer @27, Eldoc @29,
So are you guys suggesting that atheists should never marry Catholics? Or that when they do, the question of how they raise their children should be a matter of public debate?
You guys are just as bad as the Catholic church extracting promises to raise children as Catholics, in the way that it does, before permitting marriage.
Now maybe Nick has opened this can of worms by even mentioning his children’s upbringing. But does this mere mention really justify a minute examination of his family life? No, of course not.
You think he should put his foot down, and his wife should do as she is told? Very enlightened.
Perhaps the issue here is that we live in a secular society, and that means keeping the social reactionaries of the sky-father religions marginalised when determining policies.
And to allow your own children to be corrupted by an organisation as harmful to children as the RC church is a real worry.
Think it through Mr Clegg.
Joe @31, it’s not that “Nick should put his foot down” it’s that children shouldn’t be allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities until they are ready. IMHO this applies to religion as much as it does to driving, alcohol, and watching 18-rated movies. None of which are things I am against.
I read from this that a substantial number of Liberal Democrats would like to snatch little children away from their parents and put them in state institutions to be taught an approved national ideology, just in case those parents might “indocrinate” their children into some nasty habits of which they don’t approve. Why stop at Catholics? Why not ban Jews from allowing their children to participate in the pesach seder etc?
Matthew @34,
Many people will make that argument, although few will honestly believe it.
Of course it is reasonable for people to argue about how best to bring up children. It is NOT reasonable to accuse anybody who disagrees with you of wanting to snatch children away from their parents.
I think children should be allowed to play computer games. Am I likely to be accused of advocating the abduction of children who aren’t? Of course not. Why is it that when religion is the topic, people assume the worst of anybody who disagrees with them? Something to do, perhaps, with the belief that agreeing with oneself on religion is what makes a person good?
31 – Joe, my point was more that a lack of belief in a God does not quite square with allowing your children to believe in one. I would have thought, in such an asymmetric marriage, that they would go for the only sensible, rational position, which is to allow them to decide which religion, if any, they would like to choose only when they are fully able to.
The way Nick seemed to present his position was almost to excuse his lack of faith, aware that he had to protect against the risk of losing votes.
After all, why did he bring his children into the equation at all? The question was explicitly about his faith. Why did he feel he had to half-justify his answer by making reference to the religious “beliefs” of his children? (and, of course, children will know no better) Why was it not enough to just accept that he is an atheist and that’s that?
Eldoc,
Because there are atheists who are actively hostile to religion, no kidding. If you are an atheist who is not actively hostile to religion, than that is the sort of thing to make clear in a clarification.
I must say I am amazed at how much grumbling this story has generated from my fellow atheists.
Joe@35
I think it is obvious that I am exaggerating to make a point. Why is it that even the slightest attempt to have children understand their parents’ culture is described as “indoctrination” when that culture happens to be Catholicism? People who make that point should understand where their argument they are using goes when you take it further. Force-feeding bacon sandwiches to the kids of Jews on the grounds that growing up in a kosher household amounts to “indoctrination” in Judaism?
I’m sure Nick’s kids are being brought up as liberal Catholics.Santa will be bringing some Hans Kung books for the household shortly.
It is not back-pedalling to say that you respect Catholics or other believers. I try to respect everybody who deserves it irrespective of their religious affiliation.
What, even Catholics?
For every Fred Phelps, there is a Vicar of Dibley.
Give me Fred Phelps any day.
That he doesn’t believe in a god is fine (who does?) but by his own admission he’s quite willing to indoctrinate his own children into a belief system he considers to be untrue. That’s not good.
No, it’s not good at all. It’s very ungood in fact.
So are you guys suggesting that atheists should never marry Catholics?
Having been raised a Catholic myself, it’s not a course of action I could honestly recommend.
I must say I am amazed at how much grumbling this story has generated from my fellow atheists.
The reason you are amazed Joe, is surely only because you have bought into a set of prevailing cultural biases which religions have been working furiously to uphold for centuries. Try these for size instead:
– I don’t believe in God, but I’m going to raise my children as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
– I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I’m going to send my kids to voodoo classes as soon as they are old enough.
– I’m a liberal, but I am going to bring up my children as Marxists.
He’s basically saying that he’s going to teach his kids stuff that he doesn’t believe in himself. So not only will Clegg’s children be taught a pack of lies, they will also grow up with a somewhat compromised grasp of the value of honesty. Frankly, it’s utterly dismal.
He’s going to allow his kids to have some experience of his wife’s culture.
What should he have done, Laurence? Say “Shut up woman, I’m the big papa and my kids do what I say”?
Sheesh, look how thin some of these “liberals” liberalism is when it comes to people doing things they personally don’t like.
Laurence
Doesn’t a wife get a say in the upbringing of the children?
No Laurence, I haven’t bought into that. But I am not going to criticise Nick’s family life, however much bluster my fellow atheists react with. Or for that matter however much tolerant acceptance the Christians can muster.
I have seen Song for a Raggy Boy, I have no illusions regarding what a Catholic upbringing can be like. Somehow, I doubt chez Clegg will be quite the same as that.
So let’s, as a party, leave people’s family life alone, shall we?
What should he have done, Laurence? Say “Shut up woman, I’m the big papa and my kids do what I say”?
Of course not, but the Catholic church does say that catholics can only marry outside the faith if the partner agrees to bring up the kids as Catholics. So she is saying “I’m the big mama and my kids do waht I say”.
For the record I am also an atheist who was brought up a catholic. perhaps there is hope for the kids yet!
Alternate perspective. There’s a difference between being raised catholic and being indoctrinated to believe in god(s). Going to church, learning the sacraments, being taught the basic structures of the faith are one thing, being told You Must Believe are another entirely.
Many people were raised in a faith (I wasn’t), but being culturally catholic doesn’t make you a believer.
I’d not be happy if they were being indoctrinated to believe, but we don’t know that they are, just that they’re being taken to church and taught the tenets of the faith. Pretty sure that if the kids ask Dad what he thinks, he’ll tell them—they’ll then be able to make up their own mind.
And once they’re old enough to choose, they can stop going to church, etc if they wish. I got myself removed from the local CofE school and sent to the slightly less local secular school when I was 7.
Clegg gave an answer designed to not offend those who take these things seriously. Meh. Not a huge issue really.
Come on, Guys. I’m an agnostic atheist myself but family life (as I understand it) is all about compromise!
Matthew @38: “Why is it that even the slightest attempt to have children understand their parents’ culture is described as “indoctrination” when that culture happens to be Catholicism?”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m an equal opportunities anti-religionist. I object to children being indoctrinated into Islam, Judaism, Jainism, and Pastafarianism too. I just like the idea of people being able to make their own choices. Obviously this shouldn’t involve children being snatched away from their parents, but IMHO state education should teach the basic tenets of all religions without championing any one or the other so that at least people have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
* shrug *
I don’t see that as such a controversial opinion, but I recognise that “indoctrination” is an emotive word, and will try to use alternatives in future. It’s just that it takes longer to type “instructing nchildren that a set of fallacious beliefs is, in fact, true, and thereby lying to them”
* innocent expression *
Reading this thread makes me wonder whether a lot of my fellow Lib Dems understand what being liberal means.
Nick clearly realises that there are doctrinal atheists who demonstrate the same bigotries that the more unpleasant religiosos do. Quite rightly he wants to make it clear he ain’t one of those. He also might just happen to love his wife. I’m amazed particularly at the female posters here who think he should indoctrinate – yes, the word is just as applicable – their joint offspring into atheism. Shame!
* pokes Denis *
OK, so I said “IMHO state education should teach the basic tenets of all religions without championing any one or the other so that at least people have the opportunity to make an informed choice.”… perhaps I should have inserted an “or lack thereof” in between religions and without.
Also, am amused that you think Laurence is female. Or is it OK for Laurence to use the “I” word, but not us girls?
I don’t object to /anyone’s/ children having the opportunity to learn about Catholicism (or any other religion) but seeing children described as believers (or, for that matter, confirmed atheists) makes me uncomfortable. There’s a difference between “learning about” and “being indoctrinated into” which applies to any religion, or for that matter, any number of other thought systems. Including liberalism.
I come from Northern Ireland. I know about indoctrination and bigotry (oops is that a bigoted comment?)
But the Catholic church does say that Catholics can only marry outside the faith if the partner agrees to bring up the kids as Catholics. So she is saying, “I’m the big Mama and my kids do what I say.”
Yes. Exactly. And Clegg signed on the dotted line like a girl’s blouse.
Being culturally Catholic doesn’t make you a believer.
If it’s just a cultural thing, then why does Clegg have to make solemn promises at theological gunpoint? And why does he have to reassure the nation of this fact? What next? Is he going to tell us that he has promised to raise his children as Sheffield Wednesday supporters? Though naturally he has the highest respect for Sheffield United?
And once they’re old enough to choose, they can stop going to church.
Which of course should read, “And once they’re old enough to choose, they can start going to church.”
Reading this thread makes me wonder whether a lot of my fellow Lib Dems understand what being liberal means.
So what does liberalism entail exactly? Teaching children demonstrable falsehoods? Count me out.
Also, am amused that you think Laurence is female.
I do try to keep in touch with my feminine side.
“I do try to keep in touch with my feminine side”
I dare not speak of the images /that/ sentence put in my head… 😉
Which reminds me, must go see the new St Trinian’s movie.
Here’s a great quote from Lord Steel: “People who purport to be God’s messenger on earth are a danger to politics.” I wonder who he might be thinking of. Moses? Jesus? Mohammed?
Theist and atheist of course aren’t the only two options available. Indeed, if Clegg keeps an open mind, he is likely to be closer to an agnostic.
Great insight Anonymous.
I expect all party leaders to be highly intelligent: as such, I assume that none believe in god. If Brown/Cameron/Clegg said that they were theists, surely this would be a big reason not to vote for them?
Well done Clegg.
Denis, in message 49 says:
“I’m amazed particularly at the female posters here who think he should indoctrinate – yes, the word is just as applicable – their joint offspring into atheism”
How on earth is not raising your kids in a religion “atheist indoctrination”?
People are not saying he should teach them that God is a fairy tale and all believers are idiots, simply that they should be not be raised explicitly as Catholics (or any other religion), so that when they’re old enough they’ll have an unbiased view of all viewpoints.
Why do so many people fail to see the massive difference here.