I'll cheerfully admit that I don't get religion - any religion. And I doubly don't get why people tie themselves to a religion which seems to persecute them. As I read on, I was surprised to discover just how much I agreed with some of these thoughtful essays.

I think women should be able to wear whatever they want. Telling women they must strip if they want to be on the beach is as morally indefensible as telling them they have to cover themselves when breast-feeding an infant. People - men especially - have no right to tell women what to wear. If people choose to wear a head-covering, get tatto'd, or refrain from eating certain things - it's no business of mine. Some of those religious requirements are always going to seem a little strange to people who didn't grow up with that culture.

One author described her hijab as her "armour" - that's a sentiment I've heard before from some of my Muslim friends. Everyone sometimes needs a shield or refuge from the world. Or a way to show solidarity with their community. And, let's be honest, the only difference between a hijab and a nun's wimple is the religion of the wearer.

There were a few aspects I found challenging. Take these three quotes - from different authors - which all spoke to a common theme:

"I grew up in a Muslim community whose cultural understanding of Islam denied equality of the sexes and rarely left room for female voices, let alone female empowerment."

"I knew that the way women and girls were treated in Saudi Arabia was wrong and that this was not the Islam I was taught"

"[...] deeply problematic patriarchal and misogynistic views of marriage as a means of control – the exact opposite of what Islam teaches"

They left me asking where this misogyny comes from? How can so many people read a religious text and receive the opposite message from each other? It baffles my brain. Of course, mainstream Christianity is also in a current struggle to accept women as equals. And, again, you rarely see mainstream UK publications tackling discrimination in other religions.

Nevertheless, I found it to be an enlightening book - but I think it suffers from two small flaws. The first is that, by its nature, it is written by "outspoken" women. Where are the essays by women who are less ambitious, or those who prefer to be submissive? Secondly, it really focusses on fashion. I get that sartorial matters are part of its purview - but it rarely talks about, say, Muslim Women in Tech. There's a rich seam of stories there as evidenced by groups like Muslamic Makers.

The major thing which sent my head spinning was just how contradictory the book can be - even within the same essay. For example, one writer calls out the problem that "‘freedom to choose’ is limited to making the right kind of choices" which correctly identifies that society often imposes a boundary of acceptability and woe-betide anyone who finds themselves outside it. And yet, a few paragraphs later, she delivers a stinging rebuke to FEMEN for staging a topless protest as "an example of women’s rights and demands being mobilized as part of the sustained attack against the Muslim community".

All cultures have different boundaries. There will always be friction when they have contradictory norms. The book makes a somewhat convincing case that modern Islam is as compatible with feminism as most other mainstream religions. And it is compelling that, for lots of women, their religious expression is their personal choice.

I'll leave you with my favourite quote from the book:

We must cultivate compassion for our past selves, trusting that we did the best we could at the time, while simultaneously striving to do better.

A sentiment I hope we can all embody.

A man jumps into a taxi and starts chatting to the driver about philosophy. The taxi driver turns to him and says, “Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?”

The man says, “Well, I'm an atheist.”

The taxi driver thinks for a moment and says “OK, but is it the Catholic God or the Protestant God that you don't believe in?”

I've written before about the UK's rapid loss of faith, but it is always interesting to have statistics confirmed by lived experience. A few weeks ago, I was filling in a form that wanted some diversity information from me. You know the drill, rough age, race, disabilities or lack thereof, and religion.

This was their drop-down menu for "religion":

I find it interesting that all the denominsations of the world's major religions get lumped into one grouping. It doesn't matter if you're Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region - you're just "Christian".

But if you have no religion? Well! You've got a choice of three! You're either a non-believer but don't want to put a label on it, or a fully paid-up member of the Dawkins appreciation society, or a wishy-washy milquetoast who doesn't want to offend anyone.

I was a little miffed that I wasn't able to register myself as an "Apathist", but I got over myself.

I've previously written about the social construct of race. The same is broadly true of religion. In some communities, the exact sect you're in matters. In other communities, you're just "other".

Can you imagine what that drop-down menu will look like in a dozen years? It's easy if you try...

The CofE's statistics are for 2019 - before COVID messed up everything - and I think offer a fascinating glimpse into its future.

The two figures which struck me were:

• 89,000 baptisms during 2019
• 114,000 funerals during 2019

Back in 2014, the numbers were:

• 130,000 baptisms
• 146,000 funerals

The good news is fewer funerals. The bad news is fewer baptisms. In the intervening 5 years, the Church went from losing 16,000 members per year to now losing 25,000 members per year.

Now, not everyone who enters the Church does so via baptism. And not all of those that do will become a worshipper. Similarly, not every CofE funeral is conducted on behalf of a worshipper, and not every worshipper will want a religious funeral. But those are the numbers we have to work with. So let's take them as gospel.

So how many people does the CofE count as worshippers? There are many ways to count that.

• 690,000 - usual Sunday attendance
• 1,100,000 - regular worshippers
• 2,330,000 - attended churches at Christmas

How have those numbers changed over the last decade?

I know many people will be wary of drawing a conclusion from two data points over ten years. Helpfully, the report contains data going back to the 1960s.

(NB Electoral Roll refers to the Church's list of congregants. Not those for civic elections.)

The 2021 Census says that 46% of people describe themselves as Christian. It doesn't break down into denomination. And, crucially, it doesn't attempt to answer whether someone is religious or simply a member of the culture. There are lots of people who haven't stepped foot in a church since their infant baptism who, nevertheless, might say they are Christian.

There are many ways to be a Christian. They don't all involve sitting on a pew. And there are a great many Churches outside of the CofE. And the religion of the state doesn't necessarily apply to all those within its borders. The report does point out that Christmas attendance is up - and there are lots of outreach projects which are doing well.

But...

What now?

Personally, I think it's good that the Government is standing up for secular values. I also like the cognitive dissonance which this case must be causing the right-wing as it seems to be about the religious right using the much derided "Human Rights!" Act. Whoever wins, they lose.

What struck me was this statement from Andrea Williams, the director of the bullies at the Christian Legal Centre.

"What next? Will our courts overrule the Ten Commandments?”

I struggle to sink down to the depths of the mind which uttered those words. Does she really think that the Ten Commandments are enacted in civil law in this country? What does she think would happen if they were "overruled"?

Well, let's take a look! The Ten Commandments are (depending on who you believe) as follows:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods
   Well, Andrea, in this country we are free to worship whichever gods we want. Or none at all.
2. No graven images or likenesses
   Given all the paintings of the Chirstians' god & messiah I see in the UK's churches, this seems redundant.
3. Not take the LORD's name in vain
   Andrea thinks that it's illegal to say the word Jehovah. I hate to break it to her, but it isn't.
4. Remember the sabbath day
   Since the introduction of Sunday trading laws, this commandment has also fallen by the wayside.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
   I'm not entirely sure how one legislates either for or against this. It's nice to be good to your parents - but it hardly seems necessary to compel people to do so. Five down, five to go!
6. Thou shalt not kill
   I can agree with this commandment. I think all civilised societies can. As much as I dislike the current coalition - I can't see them repealing the murder laws.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
   This has been legal for a very long time. True, it's grounds for divorce - but I don't think anyone needs to be stoned to death for it.
8. Thou shalt not steal
   A pretty good commandment! Let's hope the government keep this one too!
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
   Perjury is a crime - and is likely to remain so if we want our legal system to keep functioning.
10. Thou shalt not covet
    Does Andrea seriously think it's against the law for me to look jealously on my neighbour's iPhone?

So, of the 10 commandments, there are currently only 3 which are legally enforceable in the UK. No killing, stealing, or perjuring. Let's be generous and add a half of a commandment for people opening their shops too early on a Sunday.

Is this really the best the minds who work at the Christian Legal Centre can do?

Interesting to note, the Ten Commandments don't say anything about rape or child abuse - even though these are illegal and rightly so. I also don't see a commandment preventing gay people marrying - yet the current crop of religious bigots are expending an awful lot of energy on the issue.

Finally, the Ten Commandments (and the Bible as a whole) is curiously silent about whether adherents should wear a cross around their neck. Unless, of course, you consider the crucifix to be a graven image or likeness, and its frantic worship the very model of idolatry. Much like the second commandment prohibits.

Wait... so the second commandment agrees with the Human Rights Act? And the Government are fighting for Christians by preventing them from breaking their own god's laws...?

It's a funny old world.

So, when the 2011 census rolls around, how should I identify myself to the state?

The Census Campaign

An offshoot of the Atheist Bus Campaign, the Census Campaign wants non-religious people to identify as "no religion".

Last census, hundreds of thousands of people stated that their religion was "Jedi" - more that all the Jews and Buddhists combined.

So, am I a Jedi? Is it my religion?

The Case For

• I got married in a Star Wars ceremony
• I dedicate my sabbath to studying and recreating the events from Star Wars (sometimes through the medium of video games)
• I can recite large sections of the text from memory.
• I try to do live by Yoda's teachings.

The Case Against

• I occasionally dabble in Whovianism. Am I an apostate?
• ...
• ...
• Jedi is a fictional religion (although, so are all religions).

Who am I kidding. I'm not a Jedi. Not because I am too old to begin training, but because telekinesis is beyond my ability.

Actually, it's more profound than that.

I Have No Religion - And I Want My County To Reflect My (non) Beliefs

The census campaign sums it up rather well, and I want to expand on their points.

There are many state activities which could be curtailed if politicians and newspapers knew that the malign influence of religion was on the wane.

There are a few specific issues which convince me that I want to renounce Jedi-ism and let the country know I have no religion.

• The wicked and divisive institutions which purport to be "faith" schools.
• The religiously motivated attack on women's reproductive rights.
• The sexist space in the House of Lords reserved for Bishops. (Sexist because the misogynists in the church won't ordain women.)
• The willful murder of innocent contractors on a building site.
• Religions' ruinous drain on the state and its tax-exempt status.
• The entrenched homophobia of many religions
• I could go on, but you get my drift.

It would be remiss of me not to include some opposing views from Church Mouse and "Archbishop" Cranmer. Both of whom, I concede, put up a reasonable argument as to why "Cultural Christians" should not say "no religion".

Ultimately, I have a very small chance to make a difference. I intend to use it. I urge you to do the same.

At its very root is the fact that I just don't care.  Arguments about religions and their various gods are tedious; by their very nature there is no way of resolving them.

So, lets take some points.  See if you agree or disagree with my reasoning.

• There is no evidence of gods.
• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• Pascal's wager shows (when corrected for high numbers of gods[^gods]) that it is irrational to worship any one god for fear of angering any of the other gods.
• Most religions hold that gods can only be understood supernaturally - usually this means post-mortem.
• It therefore holds that any gods who may exist will be reveal themselves after death.  Traditionally, in the West, this means a day of reckoning and / or being consigned to heaven, hell or purgatory.
• I cannot know gods in life - nor can anyone else - after death I will either experience nothing or I will find out which gods I should have been worshipping.
• The probability of my death is 100%
• So, at some point I will either have the definitive answer or be in no position to care.

There is no way to know - the very discussion of the subject is pointless**.  Hence apathy.

This rock we're stuck on is billions of years old.  I'm going to be on it for a handful of years (time-travel, cryogenics and reincarnation not withstanding).

I can choose to worry about whether something, somewhere, cares who I love, what I eat or how many thetan souls reside in me.

Or, I can choose not to worry.  To have fun. Do good. Leave the world in a slightly better state for those who are left after I've gone.

Footnotes

*Pascal's Wager is simply explained as "If there is a god and I don't worship her - I'll go to hell. Whereas, if there is no god and I worship her - I've lost nothing.  Therefore, it's more rational to worship god on the off-chance she exist becuase the punishment is so terrible."

This falls down in several areas

• What if you are worshiping the wrong god?  Most gods seem rather vengeful; there are lots and lots to choose from.
• Have you lost nothing by spending a portion of each day venerating an imaginary friend?
• Finally - and this depends on the rationality of any gods - would they welcome you with open arms if they knew you didn't really believe but were just playing it safe?

**So, why spend so much time talking and blogging about it?  Sadly, we live in a world where rationality is under assault.  It is necessary to gently let people know that they are not alone.  That there is rationality in the world.