This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Prime Minister’s dissembling, hypocritical and disingenuous speech to religious leaders

Prime Minister’s dissembling, hypocritical and disingenuous speech to religious leaders - Comments

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 1 by sunbeamforjeebus

Unfortunately our prime minister is about as substantial as mist on an Autumn morning!

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:29:40 UTC | #932262

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 2 by aroundtown

Going to wrap himself up in that clock of filth if it serves his goals I would think. Religion is, as always, a delusion that keeps giving to the deluded ignorant fools that follow it's instructions. How depressing that educated men can suggest this foolishness and purport the ancient myth as truth. How dare he slink this low. Shame, shame, shame on him.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:40:17 UTC | #932263

Sample's Avatar Comment 3 by Sample

Even those of us who sometimes struggle with some parts of the message – the idea of resurrection, of a living God, of someone who's still with us – is fantastically important even if you sometimes, as I do, struggle over some of the details. It's a very important message. It's a message of hope (Cameron)

This looks like doublespeak. With the simple word, struggle, he appeases accommodationists and people of faith.

It's interesting in its own right that he would even feel comfortable making such a remark. We are light years away (well maybe light days) from hearing American politicians say such things (doubting the claims of miracles).


Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:42:55 UTC | #932265

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 4 by aroundtown

Might I suggest, respectfully, that your prime minister believe's in rape and adultery. I am sorry to keep bringing this point up but it is entirely relevant and on point. If god, the rapist, had sex with Mary without her knowledge and knocked her up he is for all, and every purpose, a rapist. If god knocked up Mary against her knowledge he made her an adulteress in relation to Joseph. It can't be any clearer than that my friends. Scumbags are scumbags and by every definition the main monkey in the sky is a scumbag rapist and that is the way it is. Get over it and accept it.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:51:00 UTC | #932270

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 5 by Vorlund

Cameron is unfit for office.

It is not clear what this "fightback" is against but he measures it in "the enormous reception of the Pope's visit."

Enormous reception? less than half of the intended crowd of travelling idolators turned up to get a pope goody bag. The only enormity was the hit on the British tax payers pocket and the outrage of the inhabitants of West heath and Cofton Hackett who had to put up with the fuf fuf peddlars on their doorstep.

He also failed to mention that his own Government's legal arguments in the European Court say that employers have the right to restrict the wearing of jewellery (not crosses –but any jewellery) in the workplace if it is necessary. I think he is hoping nobody notices that.

In his speech on the Elizabeth engineering prize he also referred to the longitude prize forgetting that it was a tory government that refuesd to hand over the money to Harrison who won it. The opposition were too thick to notice that.

Mr Cameron's craven speech in which he promises religion the key to the country is a gross insult to those of us who don't have religion and don't want religion. It is a warning to gay people that the tables are turning and that "religious rights" will soon pull ahead of everybody else's rights – particularly theirs.

Politicians knowing fuck all of their own business tend to set about righting the business of others.

He needs to read his bible especially the bits where jeebus condones slavery. He should also note that white supremacists justified their actions on xtian doctrine as did Hitler. Thankfully in the UK at least there is a ballot box and pandering to xtian mionorities is one way of winding up unemployed. Even Blair had more sense than that.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:57:06 UTC | #932274

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 6 by irate_atheist

Mr Cameron is beneath contempt.

I don't think we've ever had a more despicable Prime Minister.

At least with Margaret Thatcher, you could could trust that what she said was what she meant, even if you disagreed vehemently with her.

He may have the best of political intentions, but our current Prime Minister is a dangerous fool.

A real shame.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:58:22 UTC | #932275

mmurray's Avatar Comment 7 by mmurray

I think when politicians meet Christians they have in mind the Hope of the Re-election and the Promise of Eternal Office.


Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:15:10 UTC | #932277

chunkimunki's Avatar Comment 8 by chunkimunki

When's the next election? Awaiting the better Millibanana's return as we speak...

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:18:41 UTC | #932280

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 9 by Cartomancer

What is it with horrid people called Dave getting in the way of my life's ambition to marry my beloved James and live happily ever after?

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:32:53 UTC | #932282

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 10 by aroundtown

The important point to my mind is we continue to suffer the delusion of religion and keep addressing this madness to our ultimate frustration. We will never receive an answer to the questions everyone want's addressed but we continue discussing this nonsense trying to answer the goofy myth's of those days gone by. There is no god and trying to consider the myth is like suggesting the moons of Saturn are a plausible explanation to our occasional digestion problems. Religion is nonsense today, tomorrow, and for all time i'm afraid and the relief will never come until this crap is scraped off entirely. If and when that day comes, and if we are still here to contemplate the problem, we will still have to come to grips with our condition at large and that is our propensity to value greed and gain, at any cost, on an individual level. GOD is not going to help us because we are just complicated monkeys. Get over it and accept it. There is no God!

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:37:49 UTC | #932283

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 11 by Alan4discussion

You should not confuse anything Cameron says, with anything he does. He will pander to any audience, but when it comes down to business he will support the wealthy companies and millionaire elite at the expense of the community.

Let's look at his pledge to lead "THE GREENEST GOVERNMENT EVER"!

Only 2% believe David Cameron is leading 'greenest government ever' -

Poll reveals only one in 50 members of the British public agrees that the prime minister is delivering on his pledge. - Just 2% of the British public believes that David Cameron has been successful in his pledge to lead the "greenest government ever", a new YouGov poll reveals.

Meanwhile back in the real world:-

"This significant oil spill happened off the north east of Shetland just two days before the UK Government gave consent to BP for oil exploration in the deep waters off the north west of Shetland.
"How strange that we should only hear about it after that announcement, even though it happened beforehand and the UK department of Energy was aware of it! Once again, we see suggestions that the UK Government is in cahoots with the big polluters.
"Only yesterday we were warning that Scotland should be seeking to end its addiction to oil and instead investing in clean, renewable energy solutions, and today we see yet more evidence of why this really must be the case." -

They are giving grants of large sums of public money and encouraging investment in high risk oil based developments when they could be using similar investments and technology to build tidal turbines in the same area! _ Not to mention the oil industry record on the "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" in the calmer waters of the Gulf!

Jonathan Hughes, director of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said: "BP is a company making baby steps towards diversifying into a sustainable energy generation business.
"This is a business model it will absolutely need to embrace if it is to have a long-term future as a global corporate success story.
"Drilling under highly risky deep water off Shetland - one of Europe's most important marine wildlife areas - is a retreat into the past for BP, but also a wasted opportunity for Scotland.
"Their investment could instead have been made in clean, renewable alternatives." -

He added: "If Scotland wants to lead the world in the energy revolution we really need to move on from old oil to new technologies, a shift which will create many more skilled jobs in the long term, whilst protecting our oceans for future generations."

Scotland's first grid-connected, commercial-scale tidal turbine came online last week when Atlantis Resources Corporation flicked the switch on its AR1000 device at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney.
The 1MW capacity, three-blade turbine stands 22.5 metres high and has an 18 metre rotor diameter, making it one of the largest marine turbines ever built.
It will be tested for two years in the waters off Orkney before being deployed in Scotland's Pentland Firth. -

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:44:26 UTC | #932284

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 12 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Comment 6 by irate atheist

At least with Margaret Thatcher, you could could trust that what she said was what she meant, even if you disagreed vehemently with her.

What he says is what he means. He just doesn't have a clue what it is.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:47:26 UTC | #932287

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 13 by aroundtown

Comment 7 by mmurray

What might we expect after that condition Michael. Will we see relief from that frustration and what will the bill be for the expectation's. Please consider my question as a pleading and non-confrontational. Thanks

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:48:14 UTC | #932288

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 14 by aroundtown

Comment 9 by Cartomancer What is it with horrid people called Dave getting in the way of my life's ambition to marry my beloved James and live happily ever after?

The problem is in your asking permission based on the bullshit presumptions that have been imposed on you. That is it in a nut shell.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:53:08 UTC | #932289

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 15 by aroundtown

Might I suggest something that many may have forgotten and that is we are brothers separated by water only. The English and every condition spread about that area are the same people in the land called America. I am, you. Please do not forget me.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:00:54 UTC | #932293

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 16 by Stafford Gordon


Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:06:14 UTC | #932295

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 17 by AtheistEgbert

Remember over a year ago, Cameron went on about a more Muscular Liberalism? Most of us sceptically applauded him for it.

Well it's clear to me that Cameron, like most conservatives, doesn't understand liberalism.

The British liberal party also doesn't seem understand liberalism, neither does the British Labour party.

So my vote awaits a secular liberal party that actually understands liberalism, and seeks to get rid of the monarchy, state religion, the house of lords (especially sitting bishops), and then creates a new state with a constitution that provides individual rights and liberties for all.

Not an easy task.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:07:21 UTC | #932296

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 18 by hungarianelephant

It would be a shock to find that Cameron had managed a speech in which he said anything whatsoever of substance. So a reading of the speech was in order. And at the end of it all, I really can't see what Terry Sanderson is getting so fraught about.

Dave is speaking to religious leaders. What do you expect him to say? "Listen up, dweebs, we've all had enough of your religious crap, and there are going to be some changes around here."? Of course he isn't. He wants the churches onside - partly for his weird and ill-defined Big Society project, and partly because faith schools are one of the few bits of the English education system which actually work. Few here will agree with him, but it's hardly the collapse of the Enlightenment.

I suspect that Dave is genuinely a "believer in belief". If you think of religion and moral values as intertwined, most of what he says makes sense, and it's pretty clear from the context that he regards the "Christian fightback" not as against militantseculardogmaticatheistintolerantmilitance, but against a (possibly imaginary) decline in standards generally. He is wrong, but that doesn't make him a liar.

Some of Sanderson's arguments are just plain nonsense. It's perfectly legitimate to think that anyone should be able to wear a cross without mandating it by force of law - go over the threads here and you will find lots of posters arguing that precise point perfectly cogently. There is nothing in here to suggest a backing down over gay marriage. Cameron supports it - he said so in unusually clear terms, despite the likely reaction. He was making the perfectly reasonable point that it might not be a bad idea if the debate were conducted in terms which didn't utterly alienate the other side.

As to Bideford council, Sanderson needs to read the judgment properly (as well as the road signs). The judge rejected most of the secular arguments, and decided the case on the very narrow ground that prayers could not be part of the agenda. The council could still have prayers if they want to, or for that matter a group rendition of Knees Up Mother Brown - just not include them on the agenda. And the provision which prevented this has now been repealed anyway.

Not many people like Cameron. He even provokes irate into saying something complimentary about Margaret Thatcher, which I have printed and will use in evidence. But you can't blame him for making insubstantial magic-and-kittens speeches like this, any more than you can blame a cat for scratching the table.

There's no point getting upset with him. It will just bounce off him. If you don't want politicians like this, then just stop voting for them and they will eventually go away. The same goes for those stuffed suits on the other side of the house, and indeed both the likely White House candidates in November.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:22:42 UTC | #932299

busterbrookgb's Avatar Comment 19 by busterbrookgb

Well said AtheistEgbert

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:23:17 UTC | #932300

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 20 by hungarianelephant

Comment 17 by AtheistEgbert :

So my vote awaits a secular liberal party that actually understands liberalism, and seeks to get rid of the monarchy, state religion, the house of lords (especially sitting bishops), and then creates a new state with a constitution that provides individual rights and liberties for all.

I will back a secular liberal party whether or not it tries to do any of those things. All I require is that it:

(a) supports any legislation which advances secularity and/or individual freedom; and

(b) opposes any legislation which reduces secularity and/or restricts individual freedom.

(Homage to AP Herbert's "Which Is The Liberal Party?")

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:33:08 UTC | #932302

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 21 by Mr DArcy

Come on guys! Don't you want God on your side?

Good politicians are always chameleons. He knows it's twaddle, but he has to blend in!

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:34:00 UTC | #932303

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 22 by Jos Gibbons

Alan4discussion, most people thinking this government lacks its claimed green credentials doesn't mean it lacks them. I'm no expert on how well they've done; the only fact I know about it is that, in the past 12 months, UK CO2 emissions fell 7 %. Still, I bet most of the 98 % don't even know that much, and it's a more pertinent observation than that they are 98 %. (Does anyone else on the thread have a detailed knowledge of the environmental successes or lack thereof of the Cameron Ministry? I'd love to hear more.) All the same, I agree with your general idea that Cameron's statements don't match his actions. Unfortunately, I don't like either, or what I can discern of his ideas.

Back on the secularism topic: Sanderson brilliantly exposes the irrational techniques our enemies use in this effort, such as unilaterally declaring themselves winners rather than winning with a good legal case. Of course, I realise some people on this website, e.g. Steve Zara, don't like secularism anyway, but that's only because they don't think it goes far enough by merely objecting to Church-State entanglements like these. So, in the context of this thread, I think we're probably all on the same "we should all be treated the same" page, as per this Jesus & Mo summary of the issue.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:36:20 UTC | #932305

GPWC's Avatar Comment 23 by GPWC

I presume "Call me Dave" is an atheist. It's a pity and greatly to his discredit that he feels compelled to suck up to the religoons.

Maybe the National Secular Society could ask Dave for a similar Downing Street reception for non-believers. Then we can compare and contrast what he says.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:37:40 UTC | #932306

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 24 by Cartomancer

most people thinking this government lacks its claimed green credentials doesn't mean it lacks them. I'm no expert on how well they've done; the only fact I know about it is that, in the past 12 months, UK CO2 emissions fell 7 %

The relevant calculation is, indeed, almost impossible to make. The vast majority of our environmental policy, and the application thereof to achieve results, is shaped not by government but by the civil service - the professionals at the department for the environment and climate change. Given that I am planning on marrying one of them, I'm perhaps somewhat biased, but I don't think it is too controversial to say that what the government does is only half the story. In order to assess whether it is government policy that has caused these emissions reductions, rather than the stirling efforts of my beloved James and his colleagues in Whitehall, we would need to know what emissions would have been like were someone else in power - a counterfactual we have no real way of determining.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:55:34 UTC | #932311

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 25 by SaganTheCat

I want to comment on his speech but there isn't a sentence in it that i don't take issue with.

in general however. awful lot use of the word "fight". who are we fighing? is there a civil war going on? lots of "what better way to say [example of current social norm], than [obscure 17th century teminology for current social norm]?" sorry, these are not rhetorical questions and there are as many answers as there are decent parents.

the popes reception was enormous depending on criteria. in this case security bill

this country was brought up with human values and pagan festivals. christianity was brutally enforced while the values and festivals remained the same in order for christianity to be workable.

Cameron is a pathetic excuse for a prime minister. his appeals to the importance of faith, the assumption that it's easier to hold values if you have faith is insulting (a rhyme or mnemonic is easier for the sociopaths who can't manage to understand basic human values).

while we're waiting for the next election i do hope there are some decent conservatives in there planning to take him down "Thatcher style".

actually same goes for the liberal party


agreed on every point

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:20:37 UTC | #932313

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

He's a vacuous windbag, just like Blair was. At least he hasn't developed those glazed, distant eyes yet, but he has time.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:22:13 UTC | #932314

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 27 by drumdaddy

Abrahamic religions are toxic rubbish. Is that so difficult to express, Davey?

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:22:49 UTC | #932315

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 28 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:34:29 UTC | #932316

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 29 by strangebrew

That anyone is a surprise!

Cameron [edited by moderator] is a conservative born bred and raised...educated at schools which are more familiar with the great and the good of society (read rich) for generations and finally the pinnacle of Tory wet dreams Eton and all from a family that can boast 'old money' and 'connections' to the very core of their being.

He is more involved in the Tory old guard (1922 committee not withstanding and which Cameron has now successfully rigged in his favour) then he likes to publicise...after all they are the king makers in Conservative terms..and they provide the leverage for ambition for the ones they smile on...the right body...with the right the right circumstances....for a every good Tory before him the price is Tory morality enacted and practised.

The front bench is littered with [people who believe fairy stories - edited by moderator], because Tory morality means kowtowing to the church, it always has done for over 1500 years well certainly since the Romans scooted off and left the nouveau riche in charge but guided by the 'new religion'

And ever since Tory morality is fuelled aimed and fired at the target by religious influence if not insistence.

After all is not the C of E the Tory party at prayer?

He might have had some vague and airy fairy idea of modernising Brit society so what better way then to allow Gay marriage as a proof positive that the modern Conservative is less like the live fox tearing gang of over privileged militarized thugs and their hangers on along with the mine and mill owners of yesteryear and more the mischievous jolly avuncular imp playing the flute at the bacchanalian orgy that the religious portray as contemporary society, a give-away to the so-called secular and liberal press and chattering classes.

He can ditch that notion any-time he wants, looks like he has already decided it is, not priority. Or...He is lying to jeebus droolers as much as to the voters...but I doubt that just as I doubt his commitment to a just reality for anyone not of blue or rich bloodline and happen-stance.!

It is what they are holders of a twisted morality and a total disregard for all not of their class...

This is not a democracy...just a thinly veiled dictatorship.

From dragging heels on Bankers bonuses to pandering to 'little Englander' rabidity to education and the insurance that dumb rich kids get to University well before smart poor ones can afford it, to braking up the NHS because is was an anathema to Tory sensibilities, always has been since its inception, simply because it was a smack on the nose to those that believe that the rich deserve more privilege and care then the masses, to renegotiating workers rights including pay...these principles are Tory...and Tory is religion beholden to religion, and has been for a very long time.

Check out the small country parish churches that dot the rural landscape, the ones erected before the reformation, the Knights tombs especially from the Crusades. The rich and the ruling classes buried on their own land in their own churches, this was a time before religion learnt some valuable lessons it was a time before the church hierarchy managed to became the masters of the patron!

And the ruling classes of the Tory party is now very much the patron oh so many ways!

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:37:03 UTC | #932317

S. Gudmundsson's Avatar Comment 30 by S. Gudmundsson

Sounds like a typical career politician to me. Staunchly holding onto and defending his convictions until such a time as discarding them might win him a few more votes.

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:45:24 UTC | #932319