MARY Honeyball is a member of the European Parliament. She has been a London MEP since 2000, and this week she came out swinging against the pernicious influence of religion in politics.
I for one object to this. I do not believe Christianity should have the kind of privileged place in our public life which it so manifestly does … Faith is and should remain exactly that: a personal eccentricity, not something to be forced on others in any way whatsoever.
In an article entitled Tony Blair’s Aggressive Christianity, Honeyball also described the Catholic church as an “extreme Christian organisation”.
Mary Honeyball MEP
She said:
While churches may be emptying – people having more sense than to pay even lip service to religion – Christianity is on the increase in the corridors of power. I have seen very obvious attempts to bring Christianity into the European Parliament during my nine years as an MEP.
And she pointed out:
Silvio Berlusconi attempted to appoint an intensely religious Catholic, Rocco Buttiglione, as a European commissioner. Though his efforts were thankfully rebuffed by the majority of MEPs due to Buttiglione’s anti-homosexual and anti-abortion stance, religion had reared its head. Likewise there was a strong movement to include a reference to “god” in the ill-fated European constitutional treaty.
She added:
Meanwhile back in the UK the Roman Catholic church and other extreme Christian organisations tried to defeat parts of the 2008 human fertilisation and embryology act …
There has, in fact, been a marked increase in political lobbying by Christian organisations over the last ten years. We are getting more of it in the public square not less.
According to this report, Honeyball’s views immediately sparked outrage. German centre-right MEP Elmar Brok branded her description of the RC Church as “absolutely ridiculous”.
Wailed Brok:
Let’s be clear about this: the church plays a very important role in society, every bit as important as, say, trade unions and politicians, and that is how it should be.
Europe is based on Christian values, it is part of our European heritage and long may it continue to do so. I totally disagree with her comments. They are intolerant and shows that she understands nothing about the Catholic church.
Honeyball has also come under fire from her own party colleagues in Westminster, including MP Stephen Pound, who said:
What she does not seem to realise is that many people seek to become politicians because of their Catholicism.
North West MP Jim Dobbin was also critical, saying:
She has no place in the Labour party because she demeans the beliefs of many secularists.
What on earth would Dobbin know about the “beliefs” of secularists? He is a devout Roman Catholic who has chaired the all-party “pro-life” group, and was one of a cross-party group of MPs who, in 2007, tabled an amendment designed to ensure that homophobic Christians could continue to express their negative views of gay people.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 28th, 2009 at 9:19 am
HOOORRRRAAAAAYYY There is some sanity left in politics. No doubt she will be denounced as an evil, racist, violent, homosexual loving demon and countless other things I don’t have time to list.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:52 am
We need more politicians like Mary Honeyball. Someone who has the guts to stand up and point out that the Emperor is naked! See sneaky Brown (economist of the century, who brought our finances to its knees) is trying to press his religion upon our Monarchy before he is voted into oblivion.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Well done| At last a politician who has common sense and says what she sees.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:02 am
‘many people seek to become politicians because of their catholicism’. Eh? I thought people became politicians because they are self-serving gimps/crooks/perverts/liars/cheats/useless tw*ts, not because of their religion.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Great article and a great reaction from the religious apologists. It always amuses me how whenever an article like this is published the godphuqt leave messages that prove how correct the writers analysis of religion is ( as if we needed proof) I especially like the one from the asshole who threatens to ‘ forward this article to the police’. You couldn’t make this shit up!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I hope this at least starts the ball rolling and more politicians “come out” against religion.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Just because people elect politicians on the basis of their religion does not make it a good thing, as Stephen Pound seems to be saying. Look what that led to in the US, and, through our global economy, everywhere. (Hey, no need to thanks us!)
March 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
At last, someone comes out, in your face, up front and says what so manyk people know – never mind think. Mary Honeyball hit the target and the reaction from the religious sleazeballs slurping at the troughs of political freebies will be based on “outrage” and nothing to do with facts.
I hope Tony “my faith is so important to me” Blair might be getting a touch nervous. If the enquiry into his fantasy WMD and assurances to his buddy Bush gets started in July then he will need some heavy prayer time. I hope our so religious Queen (the one in the Palace) also gets a call from the enquiry. Isn’t she supposed to “advise, consult and warn” the Prime Minister.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
We do need ALL atheist politicians to come out and be counted. In the past they may have been tempted to keep quiet about their lack of beliefs for fear of alienating the religious vote.
Perhaps there could be some kind of campaign on this before the next election. As the difference between the parties becomes ever more difficult to distinguish I personally would be tempted to vote for an atheist (if available) irrespective of his/her politics.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
quedula. Agreed. There is a politician in the Welsh Assemby, a woman, who states openly that she is an atheist and republican. Can’t remember her name. I heard her in a discussion a few years ago and she was accused of being a hypocrite because you have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen to get into the Assembly. Her reply was that she understood the charge, had felt very uncomfortable, had protested vehemently but the choice was between representing her constituents and doing what was demanded. However, immediately afterwards she said “I am doing this under protest”.
I think the main problem was the Queen but I don’t know. Nor do I know if the situation remains they same.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Broga.
“I think the main problem was the Queen but I don’t know. Nor do I know if the situation remains they same.”
Yeah, we’ve still got a queen. Thought you would have known that.
Oh I see what you mean!
March 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Hang on. Atheists are not all (bloody) republicans. I, for one, am a staunch Royalist. Imagine what a mess this country would be in if it had a president. At least with a prime minister, his/her party can replace him/her if he/she becomes too much of a liability/embarassment/loony. This is unlike republics where their head of state has to be directly elected by the people and can only be removed by death, impeachment (nearly impossible) or expiry of the term (sentence). In many countries the choice can end up between 2 candidates, neither of which are suitable for the job but have gathered sufficient financial backing to attain that position, which, to me, smacks of corruption. An hereditary, or be it ceremonial, head of state, with a little clout and a lot of common sense, to me is a lot more appeal than, say, ‘President Brown’, Blair, Scargill, or even (bless her), Thatcher.
So kindly, please be careful when you assume atheists are also (bloody) republicans, I think the Queen is doing a great job and despite all the brickbats, Charlie has proved to be right in most of his more ‘outspoken’ statements, and I have a lot of respect for him too.
Nuff said.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I think we are moving off track here but when the Queen, the one in the Palace, whines away in a Christmas Message to her “subjects” that religion is the only game in town (yes, she did, and Barry will confirm) and that religious groups are the only ones who will help the victims of the tsunami (after my missus had sent £200) I am both a republican and an atheist and a democrat. I wonder how much Elizabeth Windsor sent with her reputation as one of the meanest payers of staff in the capital. Do you really think Charles Windsor is fit to be King? This is like saying David Beckham’s elsdest son must play for England.
Doing a great job? Look, she is 82, mouths what she is told to mouth, and in my view if she is doing a great job at that age, it cannot be too demanding.
As for Charles Windsor? This is the man who wants dotty therapies from charlatans paid for on the NHS. He, of course, like his mamma heads for the top of the queue when he needs the real stuff.
The Queen cannot be questioned or criticised in Parliament, has all sorts of fiddles going to avoid paying her whack on taxes and all the flag waving kids are set up in advance. When Charles Windsor was whinign a few yewars ago that he wanted to visit Cardiff they refused. Decided the couldn’t afford to fund the visit on the rates.
Philip Windsor. A bigot and racist. The Queen Mum, heavy gambler, loved lots of gin, paid her debts by offering to give The Royal Appointment instead of cash and was famous for being prepared to go anywhere as long as she could attract a crowd of sycophants.
Need I go on? If you want a replacement you could look to the President (female) present and past in Ireland.
It is simple. I am a democrat and I am not a subject of anyone, least of all that bunch. Dysfunctional, emotionally frozen and a totally messed up family.
Anyway, that is my view but I could be wrong.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
@Broga: Hells teeth, why don’t you say what you mean, not pussyfoot around. To argue with you would be like argueing with Bob so I won’t even try, even though I do find some of your rhetoric most offensive. What’s more, don’t mention democracy and Ireland in the same sentence. That’s a country where the people quite happily vote for convicted murderers to represent them and are proud of it. To say nothing of THEIR religion based constitution.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
–”What she does not seem to realise is that many people seek to become politicians because of their Catholicism.”–
That’ll be why government is so f*&%$ed up…….
March 30th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
newspaniard. If you find some of my rhetoric quite offensive then I must be doing something right. Let me know the bits you don’t find offensive and I’ll try to do better.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Newspanired you say WE IN ireland elect convicted murderers??? The queen ANd her family are only in there as there ancestors are more bloodthirsty. And our consitution may be underdevolped but why is that oh yes we were taken over ruled and muredered by your ruthless barbaraic idiotic kings queens and governments for 700 fucking years.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Has anyone else noticed that one of the first insults the religious reich uses to attack someone is “homosexual”?
Perhaps this is really just an expression of doubt in their own personalities. Why are they so terrified of homosexuality? You’d think gays were arming for a “holy war” against all religions.
I know several gay people and none are violent and some are deeply religious. The ones that are not only want the god-believers to leave them alone. Not a bad policy for everyone, but one the deists cannot seem to follow.
Why do all religions want to enforce their beliefs on everyone either through the threat of violence by passing laws or by actual violence?
Could it be that they really have no other means such as facts and logic to convert people?