The divided house of humanism in Northern Ireland
Another day, another moment of history. Ian Paisley was quoting the Bible inside Stormont on the same day that the Northern Ireland Humanists were outside the building distributing books in the furtherance of a "godless" political system.
I was moved to recall a verse from the Bible myself this week while reading the current edition of the Humanist Association's magazine, Humani, which they kindly mailed to me. The verse that came to mind was this: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" ().
It seems that the Humanist fellowship across Northern Ireland is under some strain at present and a speech I recently gave to one of their meetings may have inadvertantly added to their difficulties. This month's Humani magazine features no less than eight letters addressing my visit. But the debate currently raging in the magazine is not really about me or my speech. It is, instead, a fairly bitter war of words between the two main humanist groups in Northern Ireland: the and the .
It is impossible to know when exactly the hostilities began. But there is clearly a battle going on about the future direction of humanism in Northern Ireland and about how humanism should be presented in the public arena here. Les Reid (pictured), chair of the Belfast Humanist Group, goes into print to remind Humani that they do not speak for his membership. He is unhappy about (what he describes as) a "deplorable" article in a previous edition of the magazine which discussed the recent meeting I addressed in somewhat critical terms. To be clear, the author of that anonymous article criticised as "gutless" much of the journalism in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles. Les Reid also expresses embarrassment at the "juvenile barracking" to which I was subjected by two Humani members at the meeting I addressed.
Brian McClinton, the editor of Humani and a director of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland, replies to some of the allegations levied against him, acknowledging that he is the author of the article in question, then challenges "the wisdom of attacking fellow humanists in public". These kinds of public claims, writes Brian, "only damage humanism".
William Burns, another director of Humani, questions Les Reid's motives: "Was his motive in creating such a fuss and friction among humanists a serious concern for the feelings of William Crawley, or was it a personal vendetta?" Les Reid, for his part, seems more concerned with the public profile of humanism in Northern Ireland -- and, more specifically, he wishes to challenge the "ranter" image that "Humanists seem to project to the the general public."
Do Northern Ireland's humanists have an image problem? And -- an odd question to ask on Devolution Day -- how can a Humanist ceasefire be achieved in Northern Ireland?
Comments
I dont know - all i know is that i get bored with humanist types - they just spout the same point over and over again - and they are obsessed with religion
i dont go to church - i dont go to humanists either - ive no idea why someone would leave church then spend so much time at a fake-church organisation - they a bit neurotic?
DumbDumb's being Dumb Again!!!
Humanism (for me) is an Ethos for living a moral life and NOT this ridiculous notion you have of a 'fake church organisation'. Me thinks it is you who is the neurotic?!
But once again I invite you to our next meeting so you can see for yourself.
Personally I do not see how you can make such a negative (& to me) insulting comments about a group whichm it is patently obviousm you know absolutely nothing about.
ITS A NORTHERN IRLAND THING I BELIEVE. GROUPS ALWAYS END UP DIVIDING . . . I BET ONE HUMANIST GROUPS IS MOSTLY FORMER PROTESTANTS AND THE OTHER IS MOSTLY LAPSED CATHOLICS!!!!
A pox on both their houses!
Did anyone follow the discussion Hull and I attempted to have with Les Reid and some of his friends (and now, I gather, his opponents) on two threads in this blog?
Has Belfast embraced Darwin?
Robert Winston and the Science Delusion.
We were introduced to ‘horses and carts’, 'cosmic conjurers', ‘drowning men clutching at straws’ and finally ‘mushy peas’.
Away with them!
Peace,
Maureen
Good God - One speech from Crawley shakes Humanism to its foundations!
He must have spoken from a heterodox text?
Regards,
Michael
William- What on earth could you have said to them?! Surely it couldn't be worse than asking a conservative Presbyterian audience if they "give a damn about God?"
Cripes. One of the best things about being a freethinker is that it removes the necessity to join a "group" as such, or adhere to a particular constitution.
We're so used to seeing various theist groups in open conflict, that we forget that it's part of the human condition, and not just a problem for "people of faith".
You must have really got up their noses, William! Come on, give us some hints as to what went on :-)
Hello people,
As a member of the Humanist Association of Norhtern Ireland who was present at the meeting where William Crawley spoke, I'm afraid I must disappoint you all a little. The great verbal fireworks of "juvenile barracking" were little more than a twice repeated question about Williams own beliefs. One member asked William about them and William replied he would not disclose them. So two others stated that they thought that the question was very relevant and repeated the question. In one of the letters in the latest edition of Humani magazine someone compared this to a politician being asked what party he belongs to and not wanting to tell. Some might think that that makes sense, others might think it doesn't.
I don't think it constituted "juvenile barracking". Personally I thought that that particular Humani meeting was interesting enough. William did quite well at some point. He criticised humanists for always wanting 'to take a big ax to religion' whatever the original subject on which they speak to the media. So he asked why we don't channel our attention in what he would consider a more constructive direction, e.g. care for the environment. While I care a lot about the environment, it seemed much off-topic. Yet it seemed William managed to charm some in the audience into agreeing with him. So I don't think he would have felt too bad about it. He hung around for drinks with members of Humani after the meeting for long enough for us to be told to go when the hotel bar staff indicated they REALLY wanted to close the bar now.
I haven't been a member of Humani for too long, but I have picked up some rumours. Taking those into acount, I get the impression that the situation is mostly a matter of personal likes and dislikes being played out in public, not one of real division. Yet, I must admit that it doesn't make humanism in Northern Ireland look any better.
Peter, I was also at that meeting and the two people in the audience were rude and unpleasant. I agree with Les Reid's description (juvenile barracking). William is quite entitled not to talk about his personal views. The analogy with a politician is idiotic. He is not a politician, he is a journalist. the proper analogy would be this: if you pressed Nick Robinson on his political views, he wouldn't tell you. Quite right too, he's a journalist who wishes to remain impartial.
I dont thinkl William has thought twice about the meeting and I wouldn't imagine that he was upset in any way. It was a debate and debates are his bread and butter.
I think when dealing with a question about the Humanists media image he talked about the issues we never seem to address (eg the environment) and he made a good point. Your account here is a little patronising about what was easily the best meeting fo the year of the humanists (as one of the letters in Humani has ackowledged).
We shouldn't be surprised. It's Northern Ireland. Even the humanists are hung up about religion.
How do i get a copy of this magazine. I'm intrigued now!
Hello Jane,
As I recieve my regular member copy, I'm not too well up-to-date on where others can obtain a copy. But if you email Brian McClinton he'll probably be happy to send you one.
As a perhaps interesting detail, the latest issue contained a letter from William Crawley complimenting Humani on the quality of the publication.
Hello Humanist (post #8),
I see your point about Williams role as a journalist. I think it's a valid point.
And as I said, I certainly enjoyed that meeting too, 'juvenile barracking' or not.
Sounds like I missed some fireworks! Anybody know WHY the humanist groups are pulling the hair out of each other??
now that's getting impartial William,
hat's off.
PB
Humanist
Nick Robinson is a bad example because he supports the Conservatives and has said so (he was a chairman of the Young Conservatives!).
Many of the best journalists don’t conceal their political beliefs: John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Jonathan Freedland, George Monbiot. Robin Day who presented Question Time for many years was a Liberal and stood as a Liberal candidate in 1959. Robert Kilroy-Silk was a Labour MP for many years until he joined UKIP.
As for religious programmes, take two presenters: Joan Bakewell has made her views known as has Melvyn Bragg. Joan Bakewell supports a secular Thought for the Day. Bully for her!
What’s the big secret?
William Crawley was perfectly entitled not to answer the question about his religious beliefs if he didn’t want to.
This is a different issue from whether it was legitimate to ask him that question. In my view it was.
Mountains and molehills spring to mind!
My copy of the Humani May/June issue includes articles on global warming and a defence of the attitudes of Belfast Christians to the slave trade - by Philip Orr.
Contact details are available on the website.
As a regular purchaser of Humani magazine (from Easons), but a non-member, I think they deserve praise for publishing a letter from a non-member criticising them so vehemently.
There are not many other organisations who would take free speech to such lengths.
If there are any Humani members reading this? - you can expect my membership application in the post!!
I don't think anyone should be forced to stake out a position on anything if they don't want to. William, I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to not say it ;-)
Peter, I don't think it is necessary to take a big axe to religion, a lot of little ones will get the job done just as nicely.
I've always felt that the NIers had an inborn penchant to take sides and come out swinging...um, I mean shooting and that they'd be at war with each other if Catholic and Protestant didn't exist and frankly, this is their opportunity to prove it. The humanists can take up where the IRA and the Protestants left off. I'm sure a few phone calls and an arrangement could be made to obtain enough guns and money so that you'd barely know they missed a beat. Oh the humanity! the humanity!
Nick Robinson would do well to keep his mouth shut and not put his foot in it especially at bars. He said on his blog site some months ago that a drunk at a bar got angry at him for not having brought the troops home from Iraq and threw a plate of curried chips at him. Now how do you suppose that the drunk knew Robinson had anything to do with anything? Who wants to bet that a little bar oil loosened Nick's lips after passing through them and before long, everyone at the bar knew who he was? By the way Nick, when are you bringing those troops home? Hope the dry cleaning bill wasn't too much, next time I'll aim higher :-)
free thinker, yes mountains and molehills, just what I was thinking, a tempest in a teapot, not just William Crawley not wanting to commit but the whole damned thing.
Maureen, don't get rid of the mushy peas, you never know when there might be another potato famine and they'd come in handy. Put them in the cart, don't feed them to the horse. He can have the carrots instead.
Nick Robinson was head of the young tories at Oxford (20+ years ago) but he is not a member of any political party at present and is very careful not to express any party view. It's wrong to suggest that he answers questions about his political views in public. He doesn't.
I read something of this. Apparently Will told the humanists they came across very negatively in the media, and suggested that they lighten their image and stop appearing so nastily anti-religious. There's also something about gutless journalism. Brian McClinton got angry about all this and fired back at Will that journalists in NI have lacked the courage to take on power structures here. Then other humanists got angry at Brian because they think Will has done a lot to open up debate on all kinds of things.
A friend of mine was at the meeting and told me that Will raised the issue of humanist homophobia! Some humanists have opposed gay pride and Will wanted to know on what basis a humanist could be opposed to gay rights!!
I was hoping to read something from the humanists on this. Alan is a regular here, isn't he? Brian's still commenting on the Dawkins book post. Come on guys, come out come out wherever you are!! Your public needs you. Some questions to answer here, Brian and Alan ...
1. When and why did the Belfast Humanists split from the NI Humanists?
2. Why are humanists fighting each other just as the rest of the country is enjoying peace?
3. How can a humanist oppose gay rights or a gay pride parade in Belfast?
4. What exactly did Will say that irritated you so much?
I'm waiting ... ;-)
(1) Why did they split? The NI humanists thought that the gods they don't believe in really really don't exist. The Belfast humanists weren't so sure about two "really's" - one was probably enough to cover it.
(2) Why are they fighting when everyone else is enjoying peace? Because the NI humanists thought they should all be attacking God more often, and since the Belfast humanists prefer not to do that the NI humanists got the hump and declared - "You're either for us or against us, and hence with God!" So, they attacked them.
(3) Why oppose Gay Rights? Because we're evolutionists damn it! The survival and development of our species depends on heterosexuality!
(4) What did Will say? His just being there was enough! Smug git!
Cheers,
Stephen G
Hello Richard, you wrote,
"A friend of mine was at the meeting and told me that Will raised the issue of humanist homophobia! Some humanists have opposed gay pride and Will wanted to know on what basis a humanist could be opposed to gay rights!!"
This is definate proof that evolution is true, what you wrote is a completely different story than how things really are. So just a few generations of a story being told from person top person and it has grown into something barely recogniseable from it's original origin. March on Darwinism!
Humanists are most definately not against gay rights, on the contrary. There had been a bit of discussion of whether members of Humani who participated in the gay pride parade should do so as representatives of Humani (to show that humanists support gay rights) or just as individuals (since humanism supports gay rights but is not about promoting being gay). In either case, humanists supported gay rights. Painting a picture of humanist homophobia is really unfounded.
Peter,
I've checked the gay pride thing and you don't know your facts. In a previous edition of Humani magazine there was a debate about whether humanists should give visible support to the gay pride parade. In the end Humani decided to be there with a banner (and that's to their great credit in my opinion), but there were humanist members who opposed this. Whether you like it or not Peter, some humanists are homophobes!
Hello Richard,
Sorry if I may have stated things incorrectly. I followed the debate on the Humani email list on topica. There the debate was on whether humanists should represent themselves or Humani. I don't recall any homophodia in that discussion.
Which issue of the magazine are you referring to?
Regardless what I'll find when I look up the magazine issue, I couldn't claim 'There are no humanist homophobes'. Just that I hadn't encountered any at Humani sofar (and I have only been a member there for less than a year).
LOL Stephen G #20
Pete
sounds like Stephen G doesn't think much of Will. After that put down, maybe Stephen's planning to write a letter in Humani attacking Will!
Colin:
Just to clarify - the post was tongue-in-cheek...
SG
I don't see what atheism has to do with homophobia. Just because atheists are rational about not believing in a god they have no evidence for doesn't imply that they are rational or irrational about anything else including their prejudices and biggotry. The one thing I do not expect them to say is that homosexuality is to be condemned because it is a sin according to a religion. Other than that, they probably can rationalize their hatreds just like anyone else.
Colin- You may borrow some extra humour from me if you're lacking some. For your information, Stephen and Will go way back, as do their senses of humour(s).
Humanism is not a totalitarian regime. We Humanists do not march in step on every issue. Nor do we have a pope or holy writ telling us what to think on individual topics.
There are some core topics on which Humanists agree: no gods or goddesses; no angels or demons; no life after death; morality based on our common humanity .... etc. But away from the core there are many issues on which we may take very different views, eg some of us are vegetarians, some are carnivores.
The dispute over Brain McClinton's article on 'gutless journalism' and William Crawley's attitude to Humanists falls into the latter category. It is a minor disagreement, not a protestant-catholic divide. To describe the outcome as a "House Divided" is a complete misrepresentation of the level of disagreement. People should read the original article and my rejoinder in order to see just how far from a core issue the dispute is.
As for the existence of two Humanist groups in Belfast, I must admit that is a disturbing fact. Given that Belfast has more than 500,000 inhabitants, there should be dozens of Humanist groups here - as there are of Presbyterian churches, Catholic churches, Methodist, etc. Only having two Humanist groups in a city this size is a disgrace. We really do have a long way to go.
Gossip-hunters will be even more disappointed to learn that the two Humanist groups co-operate in all their endeavours. Quite a few people are members of both groups. When it comes to providing officiants for funerals and weddings, the two groups work from a common list. And both groups co-operate with the North Coast Humanists, based in Coleraine. (Gossip-hunters looking for a protestant-catholic divide in Humanism will have to come to terms with the fact that there are THREE groups here, not just two, which does spoil the analogy somewhat)
Sorry to have let all the hot air out of the inflated House Divided. Humanism does tend to bring things back down to earth. But no doubt the fantasists will get busy trying to reinflate it!
Peas - in our tin
Les
Re Post 29:
Peas - in our tin
I am missing something here - I don't get this obsession by Les Reid concerning peas.
Sometimes he informs us that they are 'mushy' and now we are informed that they are 'in our tin'.
Is this an Irish expression that I have not come across yet or is there some other significance to it?
Les Reid, do you think the Pope goes out of his way to tell Catholics in Northern Ireland to join the IRA so that they can kill Protestants until they re-unite with the Irish Republic? I think that they thought that up all on their own. Having a religion with a divine dogma you can twist around to back up whatever you decided you were going to do anyway is a convenient excuse to commit crimes or just hate people. It pays to have a big thick book so that there is lots of ammunition to rationalize your predeliction. Humanists don't have that luxury, they have to come up with a different explanation for their crap. Most find one way or another to do it. Maybe they just hear inner voices telling them what to do.
Les Reid:
It's not the fact that there are 2 humanist groups that makes you a divided house. It's the rancourous exchanges in the recent edition of Humani, which you're not really addressing here. It's obvious that the gloves are off between your group and Brian McCinton's. When Brian chose to publish your letter alongside correspondence having a go at it, he was calling for this kind of debate I'm afraid. No point complaining now that the gutless media have picked up of your spat and are reporting it!
In post 32 Mark wrote:"Humanists don't have that luxury [of a pope or holy writ providing instructions], they have to come up with a different explanation for their crap."
Why do you call Humanist beliefs 'crap'? Humanists try to use reason and evidence to arrive at a sensible world-view and morality. Thus, for example, they do not believe in life after death because the evidence (from ageing, from comparison with other species, from brain functions, etc) all points to sheer mortality.
Do you have some other way to arrive at beliefs, by virtue of which the Humanist method is shown to be wanting? You must have, since you have called ours 'crap'. Please do not keep it to yourself. If there is an alternative to reason and evidence then you should tell the world and collect your royalties.
Re "peas - in our tin".
Have you forgotten Neville Chamberpot coming back from Munich waving a bag of frozen peas and shouting "Peas - in our tin"?
Sic Transit Vain Gloria
Mr Reid:
Sorry but pleese again - who is this Mr Neville Chamberpot you mention?
I googled him but nothing came up.
Thanks
New Yorker;-
Neville Chamberlain
"Peace in our time"
To Mr. PB
Thank you for helping me. I get the reference now. Please help me again. What have Peace in our Time and Neville Chamberlain to do with Irish humanist peoples having a big fight?
Is it because one of them are the fascists? And is it because peas being green like Ireland that's why you say peas instead of peace?
Les Reid #34
You are so obsessed with your athiesm in a land of the the theocratically deluded that you completely missed the point of my posting. What makes you think that many atheists don't have their own brand of lunacy. Just because they don't fall into one trap doesn't mean they haven't stumbled into a whole lot of others. The human mind is so flexible and inventive it can rationalize anything even when an entire convenient chunk of superstition isn't available it.
I posted elsewhere that I was concerned initially that humanist didn't necessarily equal humanitarian before I was willing to pin a label on myself. It doesn't necessarily equate to rationality either. It is necessary but not sufficent. I confine its definition to atheist, total belief in the natural and total rejection of the supernatural. Don't think there aren't plenty of atheists in nut houses around the world...or on thrones shouting orders to their hapless slaves. As for me, I march only to the beat of my own drum. Neither a follower nor a leader be because as soon as you imagine yourself or someone else as god, you fall into the same trap as the inhumanists. Besides, as soon as you worship someone or something, somebody comes around with his hand out asking for your money, your time, or for you to go out to fight their war for "the cause." Screw the cause. The only cause I believe in is my own.
Correction.
Earlier I wrote:"Sic Transit Vain Gloria"
That should of course have read "Sic Transit Van Morrison Gloria"