In-Seine lovers

If you jump into the river in Paris, are you in-Seine?

So goes the old joke.  (If you are not a geographer, you may want to Google to find out the name of the river flowing through Paris . . . or read on.)

Here is a photo from Pont de l'Archevêché bridge in Paris, looking toward the island which hosts the famous Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Pont de l'Archevêché in Paris - padlocks for lovers.

 
Thousands of lovers from all over the world, have secured padlocks to the bridge, before throwing the key into the River Seine (pronounced 'sane').

Padlocks on the Archevêché Bridge in Paris

Surprisingly romantic!  These have only appeared during the last two years or so.  The original favoured Paris spot was the Pont des Arts, but overnight the tokens mysteriously disappeared one night in May 2010.

Apparently it's not only the authorities who expressed doubts about the attractiveness of this feature in the middle of the city.  From time to time a dejected ex-lover has been seen desperately hacking at a padlock with a pair of pliers.

Good luck with the pliers.  Call an engineer (with a pair of bolt croppers)!

Sentamu for Archbishop of Canterbury

In The Independent you can find this article, which includes:

Among the slightly more liberal clergymen who have been suggested are the Bishop of Norwich, Graham Jones, and James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool. The media-savvy John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, is also a strong contender and would probably appeal to the secular masses despite his opposition to gay marriage. However, he is a divisive figure within the church and has a powerful lobby of detractors who are often nicknamed the ABYs – Anyone But Yorks. 

So . . .  media savvy means "a man who can't quite complete a sentence".   This is a man who is so spiritual that making sense to thinking people is not on the agenda.  See this post for one of the reasons why I hold this opinion.

From a secular disestablishmentarian point of view, John Sentamu would clearly be the best choice as the new leader of the Anglican Church.  With him at the helm, the Anglican ship would be heading inexorably for the rocks, and I can't think of a better way for it to die.

It is high time that it was put out of its misery.

Call mean ABABY - Anyone But Anyone But Yorks!

Clever humour is the worst kind

I was quietly giggling at the humour and rhetoric of Robin Ince, as I was listening again on episode 154 of The Pod Delusion yesterday.  This was the speech he gave at the March for a Secular Europe two weeks ago in London.

Asked why I was laughing, I said I thought Robin's humour was very clever and interesting.  I shared a couple of his comments and they brought a laugh too.

But then came another comment.  "Clever humour is the worst kind".

And this is one of the things that is wrong with a Christian viewpoint - particularly a Methodist viewpoint where eloquent sermons criticising eloquent speech were a staple of the Sunday services.  I remember being subjected to the 'eloquent speech' sermon often enough myself, while visiting a Methodist Church in Belfast, and at the time I thought it ironic.

What a shame that religious people fear intellectualism so much.

Things Christians say, part 34: Well, why don't you try praying?

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Well, why don't you try praying?

Piano

I often hear people saying that prayer does not change what happens but it changes the person who is praying.

After a mere few decades of prayer I think I can say that I never found it to work very well for me.  There comes a point where it is pointed out to you that there are other options instead of prayer, and if you open your heart to that message that brings a whole new world of possibilities.

A change in philosophy has not wholly changed my life, but why should I expect that?  However, I do feel a certain intellectual honesty in my life that was missing before.  Things are much more satisfactory, and nothing is missing.


***

Forte

Why don't YOU try 'not praying'.  Just for a change, get off your knees and do something useful.


Last episode:  You're not really an atheist!

Next week:  Faith is evidence of things unseen

Science sings new songs

Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks was speaking on BBC Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' spot this morning.  Predictably he didn't fail to be patronising and . . . to be blunt . . . wrong!

Being one of those people who has reached his position by being a master of rhetoric you might expect his metaphors to be more reliable than these.

Science is prose, religion is poetry.

Science speaks, religion sings.

These are the words of someone who is clearly scientifically illiterate - a technological luddite or philistine who seems to be constantly looking for ways to show how much his particular religion is supported by scientific discovery.  Let's take his metaphors at face value and work from there. 

Firstly, it is no insult to say that science is analogous to prose.  Prose tends to be more objective and accurate than poetry (admittedly not exclusively).  Prose is more easily modified and corrected, as its factual content is more important than than how nice it sounds.  Prose is not as constrained by rhyme or rhythm.  Prose is not necessarily less beautiful than poetry.

On the other hand, while poetry might also be aesthetically pleasing, I would suggest that it is more subjective, emotional and unreliable.  So I agree that his first metaphor has some value, but certainly not in the way that he meant.  It demonstrates very clearly that he does not understand the value and beauty of science.  I think it shows him up as having the sort of intellectual deficiency that the religious often accuse scientists of portraying.

The second metaphor is much more risible.  It is clear that the symphonies of science do not work for this man.  Although he is tone-deaf in this context he makes out that he stands on the aesthetic high ground.  I don't think this metaphor has much value for a few reasons.

Science sings wonderful new songs every day, striving for greater harmony all the time, while retaining the best and most successful melodies which then become well loved classics.  Many of the songs of science have greater beauty than the age-old unchanging dirges that religion chants to itself over the centuries.

Platitude of the Day, the parody site for Thought for the Day responded typically well to Sacks on this outpouring of nonsense.

It is worth a quick read! 

Papillons in flames - putting out a flame with electricity

A spectacular physics demonstrations with a candle flame in a high electric field.

Educational AND amusing.

A fond thing, vainly invented

The Anglican Church was more-or-less invented on the order of King Henry VIII, who had his own reasons for wanting to break away from the Roman Catholic Church.  Of course it is based on the Northern European protestant tradition.

His reasons were not the same as mine would have been (although I'm glad to say that I was never a Catholic).  I don't think there is any evidence that he considered it to be one of the greatest forces for evil in the world, so we differ on that topic too.

In order to make it perfectly clear how the Anglican and Catholic doctrines differed, the 39 Articles of Religion represent a final settlement after a few earlier attempts.  They could be found in the 1662 Prayer Book and have been slightly modified and updated by successive generations.  Although they are not intended as a complete statement of the Anglican faith, but to set out the differences from the Catholic position, I think they cover virtually every significant factor in the myth of christianity.

Whether you believe in what they say or not, it is possible to admire the language contained.  One of my favorite phrases comes in Article 22

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

You have to delight in such an expression don't you!

I think it might be instructive to go through them and generate 39 Articles of Disbelief.

Perhaps it could become the regular weekly feature on Wednesdays, to replace the Amazing Hitchslap Index series that ended a few months ago.

Serving Saki

In some of Japan - if not all - rice wine is served in a way that seems wasteful to us foreigners.  The cup is placed in a box and it is filled until it is overflowing.  The waitress doesn't even stop then.  She keeps pouring for several seconds longer, just to prove without doubt that you are not getting short measure.

Serving saki traditionally in Japan

Apparently it is not good form to pick up the box and drink the liquid that it contains.  

Of course sometimes it is served hot (not my preference) and sometimes chilled - mmm. Its a while since I had chance to visit Japan and I'm missing it.

The Giggleswick Test

People in England can sometimes be a bit self-conscious about their accents.  By no means does everyone worry, but people from the North who move to the South often naturally modify the way they pronounce their vowels.  For example the hard northern A in the word 'bath' transmutes into something sounding more like 'barth' in the South.

Most of us don't mind how people speak with regional accents, but sometimes it is fun to mock those who make a deliberate and sudden change because they perceive that they would otherwise be victims of discrimination.  One of the famous ways to to this is something called the Giggleswick-trap or Giggleswick-test, named after a place in Yorkshire.

A pre-existing and well known test was 'Love, Mother, Honey, Bus', but it is too familiar to potential victims and a practised dissembler would already have rehearsed it to perfection.

If you want a better one, this Giggleswick Test is to be read, sight-unseen, by the suspected culprit:

"Oh, blast! The brass strap that fastens the glass in my Dad's gas-mask has snapped; the glass has cracked, and my Dad's mad."

Northerners or Southerners who are comfortable in their accents will have no problem reading this, but pretenders will have to calculate, for each word, how much to tighten the vowel.  The word 'strap' is the first to make them pause, and then 'snapped', 'cracked' and 'mad' will probably get them too.

Do you have similar tests where you live?  Please share.

Small note:  I never did like that use of the word 'mad'!  Perhaps it is not northern enough?

Things Christians say, part 33: You're not really an atheist!

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

You're not really an atheist!

Piano

Surprisingly, some atheists, perhaps even most atheists, are really rather nice people.  You might find that you can agree with them about nearly everything.  As long as you avoid a few delicate topics, you wouldn't know that they were not Christians.

It is in these conditions that I have most often heard the words "You're not really an atheist", sometimes with a tiny question added on the end - "are you?"

In my case, I really am.  We can even stray onto a discussion of some of the delicate topics if you feel brave enough.  I could argue my point of view very robustly, but I would like to hope that I would have the sensitivity to tailor my comments to your tolerance levels.  In the end, it doesn't really matter to me what you happen to believe in, as long as you don't impose your beliefs on me.  That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to share my point of view though.

***

Forte

Having said above that you might not be able to distinguish between an atheist and a Christian (providing you avoid a few hot topics), I think this says one good thing . . . about Christians.

They can't be all bad if they are so agreeable.

If you and I should ever meet and discuss those hot topics, I should warn you that I don't accept the bible as evidence of anything relevant to the existence of God or Jesus, but only as evidence of what people later came to believe.  In order to know whether something is true or not, I do require evidence.

So I think it is safe to say that I really AM an atheist.



Last episode (2 weeks ago):  I can't believe that you are so arrogant (or offensive).
Next week:  Well, why don't you try praying?

Did Jesus really have a wife?

This papyrus has been in the news recently, and it appeared on the Daily Telegraph's gallery of pictures, here.

A tiny fragment of papyrus, apparently mentioning Jesus and his wife.

The caption says "This is a previously unknown scrap of ancient papyrus written in ancient Egyptian Coptic. The papyrus has four words written in Coptic that provide the first unequivocal evidence that within 150 years of his death, some followers of Jesus believed him to have been married.  Picture: REUTERS/Karen L. King/Harvard University"

The provenance of this fragment is hazy, from everything I have read.  It might be real, or it might be a forgery.  The discoverer, Harvard Professor Karen King still has an open mind on the question of its veracity, but she compares the text with the Gospel of Thomas which is one of the gospels that never made it into the canon of the bible.  (This is the one which seems to be a collection of the sayings of Jesus.)

Karen King with the papyrus fragment

Of course there are many people who don't actually believe that Jesus existed at all, so nothing is completely certain, and perhaps the new revelations don't matter at all.  But is it an interesting and surprising new twist to an old story, at least.  The question for me might be re-phrased.

Did the wife of Jesus actually have a husband?

And it is interesting to observe that the Vatican seems to be hoping that the whole problem will go away on its own.

So far they have said . . . absolutely nothing.

Secularist stars at the NSS conference

As I mentioned earlier, I went to London today for the National Secular Society's conference.  I'll probably write more about it another day, but here's a little comment about each of the speakers.  I should say that the event was attended by nearly 800 people from a range of backgrounds - including at least one gentleman wearing a clerical collar.

Professor Ted Cantle - business-like and well informed.  Being English and male might lead some to wonder how he is qualified to comment about people who are in neither category but I found him convincing.  Multiculturalism is to be replaced by 'interculturalism'. 

Nia Griffith (Member of Parliament), neither English nor male - was an entertaining and informative speaker.  Her best anecdote (of many) was about the Human Embryology and Fertilsation Act.  Constituents were worried that "there'll be centaurs running in the streets".  [Its odd that they will not be cantering or galloping.]

Pragna Patel was more successful than I expected at involving those of us who were not 'Southall Black Sisters'.  [I suppose I'm a little wary of positive discrimination or something - but being white, English and male, I hope you might make allowances for that . . . please?]  Speaking of minority groups who seek favours from the state she said "They use the language of human rights but actually seek to suppress it."  This was echoed by most of the following speakers.  Excellent points throughout the speech and good answers to questions.

Nick Cohen's brilliant speech was one of the highlights of the day.  He acknowledged that journalists and broadcasters were afraid to admit that self-censorship exists.  All like to pose as dissidents in a dictatorship, challenging establishments, transgressing boundaries, but they can't acknowledge that certain topics are just off limits.  He added that 200 years ago you would know that the finest minds in the world also had supernatural beliefs as a broad explanation of the world. Now that is no longer possible.  As soon as you reach some level of knowledge you will know that the greatest minds in the world do not hold supernatural beliefs now.  Religion is no longer able to be involved in high culture.  This makes people defensive and wary of learning.  Religion now knows itself to be intellectually on the back foot.

Maryam Namazie was next but I'll come back to her later.

Peter Tatchell delivered a fine speech as usual.  He emphasised that the enemy was organised faith itself, not necessarily the faithful people.  The clerics are the main threat and it is time we said so.  Afterwards someone commented that he had foundered a little when questioned about the ordinary faithful essentially lending support to the religious leaders, and about funding for improvements to human rights.  I think that was a reasonable assessment.

Richard Dawkins came last - I can listen to him any time.  He was advertised as the keynote speaker for very obvious reasons.  The first half of his talk was excellent, with comments on dealing with potentially violent people "I fear you because you are mad but don't confuse fear with respect."  Actually telling people that they are "behaving like a spoilt brat having a temper tantrum" might not be the best advice.  He spent some time on American politics, obviously with the impending election in mind.  Christian scriptures are genuinely ancient. The Book of Mormon is not ancient but ludicrously anachronistic [and he explained why, in some detail, and with great wit]. Many of the core beliefs are measurably more preposterous than claims of Christianity.  At least it is arguable that Jesus existed. All of that was delivered with his usual verbal dexterity.  The less I say about the second half of the speech, his confusing satire about Tony Blair, the better, but Richard is not a stand-up comedian by profession.

Now back to the real star of the show.  It is clear why Dawkins was the keynote speaker, but the only one of the day to get a standing ovation, along with the longest applause, was Maryam Namazie.  Her speech was exactly what you would expect from her, and on the basis of the four times that I have heard her, she delivers it to the same high standard every time she speaks.  She combines a passion for justice with a deep understanding and knowledge of the subject.  It will be hard to do justice to her but in a few days I will write more about what she said.

Aside from that - it was a great day out and I met a lot of very interesting people who had travelled much further than I had to attend.  Hello to anyone among them who is reading this.  I expect all my readers to try to attend next year if geographically feasible.  Thanks to Terry Sanderson and crew for organising it all at a very reasonable price and reaching out to so many people.

Small note: published hurriedly on the day of the event.  Please forgive the larger number of typos than usual.

Update!  Most of the talks have now appeared on the Pod Delusion Extra site - although at the time of writing (2012-09-30) the best one is still awaiting permission.  Hopefully we can all hear the words of Maryam Namazie soon.

Charging for secularism pays

I'm on the train to London again this morning, just like last Saturday.  This time I am going to a conference called Secularism 2012, organised by the National Secular Society.

I think it is highly amusing that this event is sold out, and 800 people have actually paid to be there to hear some great speakers.  By contrast, last week's March for a Secular Europe was free to attend, but fewer people took the opportunity to have a lovely sunny day outside and hear some other great speakers.

What an odd world!

The other interesting observation is that Secularism 2012 is such good value for money.  At just over £30 - including lunch - it is much cheaper than any day events that I attend professionally.  They tend to cost at least £250, and lunch is extra.

Small note: I understand that the extra price for professional conferences isn't all profit - but still ... 

A short account of the great event can be found here.  A wonderful day out.

Satire must do everything it can

There is a German saying which translates roughly as "Satire must do everything it can", and today as France closes 20 embassies around the world because of a cartoon, that saying ought to be our motto.  Standing up for freedom of speech is THAT important.

This morning I actually heard a Muslim speaker, Fatima Malik saying that violent reactions to the publications of images of Mohamed were unjustified.   Now don't get too excited.   She didn't condemn the criminals outright, or mention what an outrageous concept it is to go wrecking property just because someone somewhere drew a picture.  She didn't even call for the perpetrators to be publicly ostracised or imprisoned . . . or even stoned to death as is the penalty for really serious crimes like damaging a copy of the qu'ran.

What is all the fuss about?  You won't find a copy of this cartoon on the politically correct pages of the BBC.  There is no doubt that the picture is designed to be inflammatory but it does need to be seen, not censored.

Charlie Hebdo magazine's controversial cover,
featuring the latest Mohamed cartoon to hit the news.

Whether you think it is funny or not, one thing is certain in my mind.  Radical and violent Islamism needs to be mocked.  We must not stand for censorship in our own countries because some other culture doesn't like what we say.  What do you do when a three year old child has a temper tantrum?  Certainly you shouldn't change your actions because  of their irrational actions, so what is the difference here?

I'll be in Paris for a few days of the next week.  I might try to buy a copy of the magazine, because I do believe that satire must do everything that it can and that it is time for the Islamists just to grow up.

'And there is no health in us'? Ridiculous!

For all these years, at every Holy Eucharist and every Sunday, the same words have come from the mouths of Anglicans (and others):

“Almighty and most merciful Father;
We have erred,
and strayed from Thy ways like lost sheep.
We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts.
We have offended against Thy holy laws.
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done;
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;
And there is no health in us.

But Thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders.
Spare Thou those, O God, who confess their faults.
Restore Thou those who are penitent;
According to Thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And grant, O most merciful Father, for His sake;
That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of Thy holy Name.
Amen.”

I venture to suggest that most of them have never thought carefully enough about what the words mean, what the devices and desires of their hearts might have been.  How many have taken the time to decide whether they agree with them.  'And there is no health in us' is one of the most utterly ridiculous things that you ever hear Christians saying too.

For Anglicans this General Confession is the substitute for attending confession with the priest, which let's face it, is an even more peculiar tradition.

I'm sure that the concept of confession originates from the opportunity to (effectively, if not literally) blackmail the penitent.  Even if not deliberately and fraudulently demanding money, I'm sure that the tradition persuades people into being more compliant and perhaps paying a little contribution towards the cause of the church.  For centuries this was literally in the form of 'indulgences', and at least that particular manifestation has stopped.  Scientologists seem to take the concept even further, and I've heard stories of literal blackmail being used when people attempt to leave that particular cult.

Perhaps we need to work on a modern replacement.

Without requiring supernatural intervention and according to the law of the land, we all need to get off our knees to work constructively and enjoy life without hurting others.   Sometimes we fail; sometimes we forget; but we make the best of what life we have, and we endeavour to remain positive.

Since many of us do not trust the promises of any invisible friend in the sky, for all our sakes, surely it is our duty as citizens of the world to support each other to resist the religious strangle-hold on society.  Let's campaign for a rational and secular life in the name of reason and science, and not tolerate interference from those self-confessedly grovelling, miserable but penitent Christians who claim that all good works come from their particular god.

What does an atom REALLY look like?

From and enthusiastic presenter, here's a lesson in atomic physics that anyone can enjoy.

Tooth hurty

One of my staff came into the office this morning to tell me that he has to go to the dentist tomorrow at half-past-two.  If I tell you that he is British through and through, and is a native English speaker but his ethnicity is Chinese, you might understand why I found myself laughing.  (It is not that I'm not being a racist.) 

I'm just surprised that he looked unusually bewildered.  Normally he's way ahead of me when it comes to quick wits.

Apparently he had never heard that classic old schoolboy joke that used to be a favorite of my father's.

What time does a Chinese man go to the dentist?

I have been chucking to myself about it all day!

Mad Cow Juice

In London on Saturday lunchtime I found a shop that sold the sorts of things that you need for a picnic, and then went to choose a drink.

Along with the vast array of sweet and fizzy stuff in the refrigerator, there was a choice of bottled waters (from around the world), and there was milk.

Milk cheaper than water?  Deranged!

Imagine my surprise when I realised that a bottle of water cost over a pound, and a similar size bottle of milk cost just 60p.

Now you can see why UK farmers are complaining about lack of revenue.  Milk can't possibly be cheaper to produce than water - not in England at least!

I sympathise,  The world is just mad!

The Pod Delusion's birthday party

Welcome to Conway Hall, in London, home of the South Place Ethical Society.  From the outside the building looks like a small non-conformist church.  'Tardis-like', it seems to be much bigger inside than out.  Over the stage is the slogan "To Thine Own Self be True".

Conway Hall - for the Pod Delusion's birthday party.

After the march for a secular Europe, it was quite a short walk to Red Lion Square to reach the venue for a 'birthday party'.  The Pod Delusion has gathered a good audience these days, and a couple of hundred of us were in London to attend the live event.  I joked to one of the organisers of the march that he should have extended it to reach Conway Hall, because so many of the people had ended up here after finding suitable 'refreshments' along the way.

We were told that there would be an opportunity for questions after each segment, and threatened with James O'Malley's holiday photos if we were not able to fill the time available.  A lively participative audience ensured that there was little risk of that happening, but he wasn't able to resist the temptation to tell us a 'programmer's joke'  

A Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) consultant walked into a bar . . .pub . . tavern . . . inn . . .

Ha ha! The first half of the event got off to a good start.  Liz Lutgendorf gave us an entertaining history of Conway Hall.  Then Guardian Blogger Martin Robbins explained "Why The Daily Mail Is Evil!".  This really was the low point of the event.  Much as I love to ridicule 'The Daily Fail,' any attempt to rouse to audience to chant anything about the miserable rag was embarrassingly pathetic.  Bad form Robbins!  And to be honest, all your ranting about Suri Cruz might have been a good point but it was just boring.

Then Drew Rae offered us a "Risk Assessment for the Apocalypse!" (in which he committed the classic risk assessor's faux pas of confusing a hazard and a risk) and fire scientist Claire Benson (@pyroclaire) managed not to burn down Conway Hall with an interesting demonstration of spectroscopy! (I'm not completely convinced that a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher is the appropriate one for a methylated spirits fire.  Fortunately Liz didn't have to use it.)


After the interval things got even better.  Deborah Hyde (aka Jourdemayne, author of Jourdemayne's blog and Editor of the Skeptic Magazine) got us off to a really good start with "Psychology of the Supernatural!", including an explanation of the origin of the meme of driving a stake through the heart of a vampire.  Deborah was THE star of the show. 

@KateRussell then gave us some interesting insights about the growth of the internet, with a warning to bloggers to avoid making unnecessary links to unindexable, data-hungry, subterfuge-laden and often unreliable infographics.  (Or at least, remember to use the no-follow tag if you must make a link, ensuring that the subterfuge of the SEO-savvy authors is defeated).

Alom Shaha's 'magic show' kept us entertained for a while too.  It isn't completely obvious that he would make it as a professional magician, but he could get away with doing kids parties . . . and birthday parties for us 'adult-kids'.  (I would warn him that the eight year old grandson of my friend in the audience possesses his eight-of-clubs trick!  As if he doesn't already know that.)  The main point was that he is a great speaker and has an enviable sense of humour and he entertained the audience, using technology as well as 'conventional' magical props.  The greatest shame was that he had a bottle of white wine for one of the tricks.  Why?  Because there was no white wine left at the bar in the interval and I would have enjoyed a glass of it!

Helen Arney, whose 'Voice of an Angle' joke was hardly noticed by the majority, then completed the evening very nicely.

After the March for a Secular Europe in the afternoon, this was the conclusion of a great day out.  I'm looking forward to the fourth birthday party, and hoping to help The Pod Delusion out with a feature about Fusion in the next year.  More on that another day.

 

Thoughts about the Secular Europe march

Yesterday's March for a Secular Europe went ahead successfully and finished up with a rally featuring a number of great speakers.  Most notable from my point of view were Sue Cox, Peter Tatchell, Terry Sanderson, Robin Ince and Chris French, but the efforts of the others can not be denied.

Reflecting on the day's events I'm left with a number of potentially opposing thoughts.

First, I wondered about the choice of route.  I assume that it was the best of the options available, but compared with last year's event it seemed second class.  Granted it started off near Parliament, but it ended up in an obscure little road where nobody could have noticed that a rally was even taking place.  Last year's rally was in full view of the end of Downing St.

The rally at the end of the March for a Secular Europe.

It was a shame that so few people attended.  We must have numbered only about 1000.  It is hardly enough to be noticed in a city where there is a protest march almost every day.  How do I know this?  I asked one of the policemen whether this was a regular weekly event for them.  He said that it was more like daily at the moment, since the end of the Olympics.  He also volunteered that not many of them were as polite and well behaved as this one.  (Corollary - well done to all of us for behaving well but polite and well behaved marches don't really get noticed at all.  I'm not complaining - just saying.)

Peter Tatchell - powerful and natural orator.

Then I was left wondering what we were actually marching about, having tried to explain it to someone on the train home.  I felt that I hadn't been very convincing.  I know what it says on the website and I should point out clearly that I agree with all the issues.  However, the recent furore over Atheism+ where the antagonists are discussing what qualifications are strictly necessary in addition to atheism leads me to ask a similar question about secularism.  What exactly do women's rights and gay rights have to do with a desire for a secular Europe?  Certainly they should emerge naturally from a fair secular government, but I wonder whether their inclusion might confuse the message slightly.  On the other hand, their inclusion clearly boosted the number of attendees, and Tatchell's oratory power without the use of notes definitely enhanced the experience.

The spirit of the march!

Having been a little too open about my doubts and inviting your comments on the matters, I'll reiterate that it was a really great way to spend a sunny afternoon with a lot of lovely, well-intentioned, like-minded people.  I conclude with two of Robin Ince's humorous but deep insights.  When asked how you can have morality without God, he said that he wondered, in the case of certain of the churches:

"How can you have so LITTLE morality WITH God?"

and an interesting observation that

"Nowadays, if you think about it, it is the racists who are oppressed!" 

Good!