Supposedly, we British lack “Nativity knowledge”, according to the BBC report of a survey by religious think tank (Yuk. Sorry about the word). Only 1 in 8 British people know the Nativity story well, according to Theos. Really? As many as that?

What answers did they expect to these questions? 73% “knew” Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that an “angel” appeared to Mary to tell her she was pregnant.

Are they using a wholly novel sense of the word “know”? 73% must be a lot more than the percentage of British people who believe that angelic visitations are even possible.

However, that number falls considerably when people are asked slightly more difficult questions. 48% of people know that John the Baptist was Jesus’ cousin but only 22% that Jesus, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to escape Herod’s massacre of the innocents.

The evidence for Herod’s massacre and a flight to Egypt is well nigh non-existent, whatever sources you choose. So John the Baptist was Jesus’s cousin, then? Some sort of ongoing family business, this prophesying lark?

The “knowledge” Theos are looking for could most charitably be defined as “familiarity with one particular version of a myth.” All the same, Theos do a full scale attempt at treating this survey as serious. They weight the results, ffs. They analyse the meaningless results by age and geography… and belief….

Unsurprisingly, Christian churchgoers know the story best with 36% answering all questions correctly, compared with only 5% of atheists.

😀

I like this bit at the bottom of the page, which shows that even Theos have to acknowledge there is dispute over the actual content of the answers:

Although some claim that James could also have been Jesus’ cousin, James does not feature in the Christmas story, according to the Christian Bible, on which this research is based, and so was not deemed to be a correct answer.

I hate to spoil a good story with the facts. (No. I don’t. I love it.) Richard Dawkins net reported a Daily Express story which claimed that overworked nurses were having to move Muslim patients’ beds 5 times a day to face Mecca.This had no ring of truth to me. Basically this story smells of the rabid anti-Muslim tosh that’s contributing to making us all crazier and crazier and more terrified of anyone who looks a bit Muslim. The source – the Daily Express, for a start. Not exactly what you would call a newspaper of record. The content – it doesn’t even make sense. Even if faced with an hysterically devout Muslim patient, who somehow had a pressing need to face Mecca, one bed turn would do the trick.

So this is what the news release on the hospital website says:

Media coverage – 4 December 2007
A number of media have today ran an entirely inaccurate story claiming that we have ordered staff to move Muslim patients’ beds to face towards Mecca. This has stemmed from the above press release. We wanted to make sure that you understand the correct position and this story is completely untrue.
Tracey McErlain-Burns, our chief nurse and director of patient experience, said: “Our statement has been wrongly interpreted. The Muslim Moulana at Dewsbury and District Hospital is holding internal workshops for nurses to help develop their cultural understanding. Nurses are not being removed from their duties to move patients’ beds towards Mecca. Moving patients’ beds for prayer five times a day has not been suggested as part of this workshop and staff have not been ordered to do this.
“In the context of responding to requests from patients and families, particularly when faced with a very ill patient, it is entirely reasonable that nurses consider all practical steps to meet a patient’s cultural or religious needs. This may include adjusting the position of the bed, or escorting the patient to the chapel or faith centre.”

So, it’s basically what they would do for a patient of any religion. You would naturally hope it includes not sending local priests to the beds of sick atheists.

This is tucked on to the end of their page about their 28 November story, Hospital Staff develop Cultural Understanding . This is a dull everyday account of the sort of diversity awareness that well-meaning public bodies provide for staff as a matter of course. The ideas they promulgate might seem a bit naive but – given that a member of the hospital staff was so incensed at this challenge to their prejudices to contact a national newspaper – is clearly well overdue.

Nurses and other staff at Dewsbury and District Hospital are taking part in a training course to develop their cultural understanding as part of The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust’s continued commitment to meet the privacy and dignity needs of all their patients.
The training has been introduced after Catherine Briggs, hospital matron at Dewsbury and District Hospital, met with members of the black and ethnic minority community including patients, local groups and a local GP to find out what staff can do to further improve patients’ experience

Lame pun, based on whether or not you can “peddle atheism” (Peddle? Pedal? geddit? Look I’m sorry, ok?)

Well, it’s got Nicole Kidman in it and she’s not exactly one of my favourite actors (she says, as politely as possible*) but the Golden Compass movie can’t be all bad. According to the BBC:

The author of the book on which the new film The Golden Compass is based has hit back at critics who accuse him of peddling “candy-coated atheism”.
Philip Pullman dismissed as “absolute rubbish” accusations by the US-based Catholic League that the film promotes atheism and denigrates Christianity.

So now, I suppose we’ve all got to watch it then? Bah.

* Well, I have never seen her in anything good. She is a wooden actress. She has an annoying face. Plus, she’s responsible for appearing in the most irritating perfume adverts ever. And that’s in a field where the bar is set so low that an ant with a spinal injury would have trouble limboing through.

The story about the teacher arrested in the Sudan for letting kids call a bear Mohammed is too obvious a blog topic for an atheist blog so I’m ignoring it. Someone else is bound to do it better. I bet on Nullifidian and, oh yes,it turns out that he’s he’s done it.

I’m going with the more complex question of the BNP and David Irving getting to speak at the Oxford Union. (The links are to Wikipedia, by the way. :-))

To his great credit, a Conservative MP has resigned from the Oxford Union because of this. A Conservative MP no less. Dr David Lewis who makes some great points, so I’m quoting what he said to the BBC.

The MP, who studied at Balliol and St Antony’s colleges, said the right to free speech should not guarantee access to privileged platforms.
“Nothing which happens in Monday’s debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored,” he said.
“It is sheer vanity on your part to imagine that any argument you deploy, or any vote you carry will succeed in causing them damage.

He is supported by Trevor Phillips, who it’s less embarrassing to agree with, but I think the Tory makes the best point.

Freedom of speech is not the same as access to privileged fora for disseminating your ideas. The Oxford Union is a respected debating chamber. Being invited to speak at the Oxford Union gives one’s views a level of authority that doesn’t come from publishing hate-filled leaflets and getting your party’s name tattooed on the back of a fool’s neck – the forms of public expression normally associated with the BNP – or publishing fake historical holocaust-denying books – David Irving’s claim to fame.

Do I have some controversial opinions? Well, yes. Has the Oxford Union been bothering me with constant requests to take part in its debates? Strangely, no. Will I EVER be invited to share my wit and wisdom with Oxford undergraduates? Blatantly, no.

I am all for free speech. In order to cut down the number of things about the world that drive me to despair I keep trying to blot out how many journalists and bloggers are prevented from expressing their opinions, including those imprisoned or put to death for speaking out.

I don’t think the Oxford Union is a free speech issue. The right to be given a national and international platform for your views has nothing to do with a right to free speech.

Just because you believe in a principle of freedom of expression doesn’t mean you have to provide an arena for anyone who wants to express themselves. (You can’t even post an unwelcome comment on a fellow blogger’s site because most blogs moderate comments and refuse to print ones that they find to be offensive or spam.) The Oxford Union made this decision.

The only person who comes out of this well is a bloody Tory MP ffs. What is the world coming to? 🙂

A quick check on the BBC shows that protestors have forced their way into the building and it looks as if this farce won’t take place after all. Let’s hope.