1. Comment #80315 by Matt7895 on October 21, 2007 at 10:10 am

Signed.

Other Comments by Matt7895

2. Comment #80317 by Mango on October 21, 2007 at 10:19 am

Salman Rushdie then Richard Dawkins? I'm not sure the government is prepared to handle another controversy like that so soon.

Other Comments by Mango

3. Comment #80321 by Thor on October 21, 2007 at 10:43 am

I have no clue how these things usually work or how the candidates are chosen but isn't a public campaign the sort of thing that actually lessens someone's chances to be knighted?

You know, not "gentlemanlike" enough and unbecoming of "british understatement" - or maybe I am just buying into obsolete clichés here...?

Other Comments by Thor

4. Comment #80325 by decius on October 21, 2007 at 10:54 am

Would Richard really be interested in kneeling in front of the head of a church? Does he support the monarchy at all?
Personally I would never accept such a dubious honour, bestowed, as it were, by a despicable social parasite whose dwarf intellect is constantly engaged in lending credibility to homeopaths and quacks of all kinds.

Other Comments by decius

5. Comment #80328 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 10:58 am

Would Richard really be interested in kneeling in front of the head of a church? Does he support the monarchy at all?
Personally I would never accept such a dubious honour, bestowed, as it were, by a despicable social parasite whose dwarf intellect is constantly engaged in lending credibility to homeopaths and quacks of all kinds.

A bit harsh on the Queen, I think. Also, the honour really comes from the government, not the monarch.

I have signed, as why not?

Other Comments by steve99

6. Comment #80330 by BicycleRepairMan on October 21, 2007 at 11:03 am

Well, I cant vote, but good luck on it, Sir :)

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

7. Comment #80331 by NJS on October 21, 2007 at 11:08 am

I have as much contempt for the honours system and the monarchy as I do for religion.

How can we claim to be rationalists and then support a concept of priveledge by accident of birth followed by honours dished out as favours?

Religion and monarchy are two sides of the same coin.

Other Comments by NJS

8. Comment #80332 by epeeist on October 21, 2007 at 11:10 am

Comment #80328 by steve99

Also, the honour really comes from the government, not the monarch.

I thought that it had been taken out of the hands of the government after the cash for honours affair?

Other Comments by epeeist

9. Comment #80333 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

idolatry ...?

Other Comments by notsobad

10. Comment #80337 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 11:19 am

I too have signed. While I would describe Charles as

...a despicable social parasite whose dwarf intellect is constantly engaged in lending credibility to homeopaths and quacks of all kinds

I don't think I'd describe HM the Q that way. Perhaps decius was looking too far ahead...

It's about time we had some serious secular thinkers in the House of Lords. There should be at least one for every bishop and one for every other clerge in the place.

Incidentally, I noticed that the new European draft treaty doesn't have any reference to 'consulting faith groups'. To my mind, that was a serious deficiency in the previous draft Constitution and, for that reason alone, even though I am a fan of Europe, I could not have voted for it. The new treaty, if it ever comes to a referendum - is a much better document. If I get the chance, I'll vote in favour this time.




Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

11. Comment #80338 by NJS on October 21, 2007 at 11:23 am

Making someone a knight doesn't mean a seat in the Lords - life peerage needed for that.

Other Comments by NJS

12. Comment #80340 by decius on October 21, 2007 at 11:32 am

@Flagellant

A perfunctory google search returned several hits on "queen Elizabeth homeopathy".

For instance:

Scientific Research on Homeopathic Medicine: Proving and Improving Its Efficacy
Seminar Presenters:
Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II .

Other Comments by decius

13. Comment #80341 by IanRobinson on October 21, 2007 at 11:35 am

Rather than a petition it would be better to use the nomination system.
http://www.honours.gov.uk/nominate.aspx

Other Comments by IanRobinson

14. Comment #80345 by ashley on October 21, 2007 at 11:49 am

I'd be quite surprised if RD has not already been offered something. I assumed he'd turned them down. Has anyone asked him about this?

Other Comments by ashley

15. Comment #80346 by Ian on October 21, 2007 at 11:51 am

Before I sign, I'd like some idea of how Richard would feel about such an 'honour'.

Many very eminent British people have refused a knighthood.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in the same class as people like Sir John 'politics of envy' Banham.

Other Comments by Ian

16. Comment #80353 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Perhaps I was remarking more on the "dwarf intellect" bit. Besides which, Charles is much better known for his advocacy of daft ideas like quack medicine than is his Mum, even though she may use strange potions, too. Now, if you'd referred to her as self-absorbed, trivia-obsessed, and bad-tempered, I'd have been there a bit quicker...

And, while I think of it, I should pay more attention to the Court Circular pages and 'Hello' magazine. LOl.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults (and monarchs) in private

Other Comments by Flagellant

17. Comment #80355 by BAEOZ on October 21, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Arise Sir Richard the God-Slayer......

Other Comments by BAEOZ

18. Comment #80358 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Any chance Johnny Rotten might one day become Sir Johnny?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

19. Comment #80360 by BrandySpears on October 21, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Aren't knighthoods given by "The Fount of Honour" "The Defender of the Faith" aka the Queen? (at least according to Wiki) Now what decent atheist would accept such rubbish? Now come on British atheists, you can't have it both ways. Either the monarachy is god ordained or fleecing you.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

20. Comment #80361 by eno on October 21, 2007 at 12:51 pm

As much as I admire RD and am grateful for his literature for inspiring me I won't be signing the petition. I abhore the royal family and I wish us Brits could be rid of them. They represent an insulting heredity system that is out of touch with society and out of touch with morality at large.

Other Comments by eno

21. Comment #80362 by decius on October 21, 2007 at 12:53 pm

@Flagellant

Since I am not British, you certainly have a better insight into royal affairs than I do. However, I can perhaps better qualify the "dwarf intellect" part. As I see it, if one has all the free time one can ever hope for and access to the best education available, not to mention the comfort of endless luxury, ending up -not just using strange potions- but being a strenuous advocate of quackery, is testament to a very dim mind.
Many a subject probably follow Elizabeth's lead and example and this can be very dangerous to a seriously ill person, who perhaps doesn't enjoy a second opinion readily at hand.

Therefore, I disagree with your assessment of the queen's involvement with homeopathy as being just at a personal level. Being less known than her disgraceful son for her advocacy of magical thinking is not a mitigating circumstance. Among other things, she is also "a patron to the famed Royal London Homeopathic Hospital", "was always fascinated by astrology" and "believes in astrology". You can check it out for yourself, the web is full of such references.

All the best

Other Comments by decius

22. Comment #80380 by jaytee_555 on October 21, 2007 at 2:45 pm

The honour of a knighthood is for services to the nation (or at least, is supposed to be). Ultimately, it would be up to Richard himself to decide what to do if it were offered. I see no harm in signing this petition.

Would those who are so much against this also be against a brave soldier accepting a Victoria Cross just because it were presented by a royal?

As a paid up member of the National Secular Society, and deploring, as I do, that the Queen is 'Defender of the Faith', I'm not going to get all theological about it, and would like to see Richard offered the honour. Refusing or accepting the honour is entirely his own business.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

23. Comment #80382 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I thought that it had been taken out of the hands of the government after the cash for honours affair?

Well now you have me truly confused.

Other Comments by steve99

24. Comment #80390 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Hi decius. I think I'd stick to my original statement, based on my very limited and general knowledge of British royalty. It's interesting that you know more about the charming family than I do. As a confirmed republican, I don't bother with them if I can help it. However, I suspect that other Brits of my persuasion would think the same about your description: the queen is quite intelligent, even though she may go in for 'funny things'. I've never read about the astrology or the homeopathy, whereas I've read about Charles and his nonsense. He is very, very, dim and makes his views more widely known than anyone else from Disfunctional Towers.

This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with some Americans on a train, years ago. They expected me to know all about the Royal family but I couldn't name half of them. The Americans knew far more about them than I and they thought my ignorance 'frightfully bad form'. I thought it would have been a bit strong to refer to the Russian and French solutions then, but I'm sure you'll appreciate it more.

My observation wasn't meant to start an argument or even a discussion; it's certainly not meant as a criticism. There are newspapers over here that report everything going on with the royals and their hangers on. At election times, I publish my personal manifesto which would make it a criminal offence to report anything to do with the royal family apart from their permanent and total abdication. This would have to be done as part of disestablishment, of course.

And, back on subject, the petition is inappropriately worded. We should be seeking a peerage for RD, not a knighthood.

Congratulations to Kimi, btw.


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

25. Comment #80397 by Jack Rawlinson on October 21, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Nah. I don't believe in that nonsense either.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

26. Comment #80408 by ChrisMcL on October 21, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Well said, Jack.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

27. Comment #80416 by octopus on October 21, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Why?

He has never been famous football player, he has never been James Bond and he has never sung in a girl band (not in public as far as I know).

Other Comments by octopus

28. Comment #80417 by Theocrapcy on October 21, 2007 at 6:32 pm

This petition is for Brits only right?

In any case I highly support such a move, and it would make a huge impact for the cause of reason and secularism. I kind of think that the current govt - being as it is so faith-headed - may not be so keen.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

29. Comment #80428 by oobigaloobi on October 21, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Argh. Makes me wish I was British.

Best of luck with it, though!

Other Comments by oobigaloobi

30. Comment #80482 by crabsallover on October 22, 2007 at 12:39 am

signed.

Other Comments by crabsallover

31. Comment #80485 by gcdavis on October 22, 2007 at 12:59 am

Theocrapcy Yes Brits only I'm afraid

Not much likelyhood, you need half a million sigs before the PR dept at no 10 sit up and take notice

Other Comments by gcdavis

32. Comment #80502 by Creeping Jesus on October 22, 2007 at 2:14 am

The honours system is pretty well devalued, if not completely discredited, by corruption scandals and the awards handed out to people for being potential passengers on Golgafrincham Ark B.

I predict future knighthoods being awarded for the likes of services to hair braiding, face painting, and Big Brother Winning.

Not worth the candle.

Think honours, think the type of people who get them.....

Think Lord Archer!

Other Comments by Creeping Jesus

33. Comment #80504 by Peacebeuponme on October 22, 2007 at 2:27 am

I have signed, as why not?

Much as I would like to see RD recognised by us for the contributions he has made, as a Republican, I can not. Signing would seem to me to be endorsing our undemocractic practice of having a hereditary head of state.

Honours should come directly from the state. The Royals should have no part of it.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

34. Comment #80563 by JanChan on October 22, 2007 at 7:02 am

To all those British out there who disagree on principle with Richard getting knighted but supports his work, please sign the petition anyway. It would be making a statement that the people are acknowledging Richard's contributions in evolution and also in rationality, enough to be willing to nominate him for a national honour. We can let the knighthood committee settle everything else later, and of course the decision to receive the knighthood will be up to Richard, but just by signing this maybe we can send the world a stronger message.

I would have signed it too but sadly I'm not a Brit.

Other Comments by JanChan

35. Comment #80570 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 7:33 am

Signing would seem to me to be endorsing our undemocractic practice of having a hereditary head of state.

I am also a republican. But I think there would be a wonderful irony if the knightood happened - the head of the Church of England having to knight the world's best-known atheist.

Other Comments by steve99

36. Comment #80577 by Peacebeuponme on October 22, 2007 at 7:48 am

But I think there would be a wonderful irony if the knightood happened - the head of the Church of England having to knight the world's best-known atheist.

I must admit that has a certain appeal! I was going to say "maybe but perhaps it would be better if she bowed to him", but then I realised I would get accused of "hero worship" for a throw-away remark.

As it goes, I have a more general unease with Knighthoods. Sure, its right that those who have made great contributions are recognised for doing so (though many of them have done it for nothing more noble than personal gain). But this business of a right to demand to be addressed as "Sir" does not sit right with me at all. Each of us can only chose who and what we respect or admire, it cannot be thrust upon us.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

37. Comment #80578 by USA_Limey on October 22, 2007 at 7:55 am

Comment #80358 by Dr Benway was:

Any chance Johnny Rotten might one day become Sir Johnny?

...Only under a fascist regime Doc.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

38. Comment #80605 by decius on October 22, 2007 at 10:12 am

@janchan and all the petition enthusiasts.

Why do we "republicans" have to sign in spite of ourselves, while we don't know yet how Richard feels about the whole thing?

Must we thrust a dubious honour down Richard's throat because a minority has presumptuously decided, motu proprio, that "it may be useful"?

How tactless, sorry to say.

Other Comments by decius

39. Comment #80704 by Jack Rawlinson on October 22, 2007 at 5:27 pm

To all those British out there who disagree on principle with Richard getting knighted but supports his work, please sign the petition anyway.

Sorry: no, I won't. Absolutely not. I am an anti-monarchist. I will not support a vile, exploitative institution founded on hereditary privilege and oppression; nor will I support the distribution of stale breadcrumbs from its big, fat table which it attempts to dignify with the term "honours".

I suspect you need to actually live under a monarchy to understand this. And if you happen to be American, look to your history and feel shame for trying to support or justify the trappings of the very system your country quite rightly rejected at its founding.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

40. Comment #80748 by Jiten on October 23, 2007 at 12:41 am

I agree with decius and Jack Rawlinson.This is a very bad idea.Why o why o why has the bandwagon started rolling on this?RD is hugely respected by his peers and by his readers and has been honoured with numerous presigious prizes already.He doesn't need this tainted 'honour'.

Now,I'd get on a bandwagon that calls for his nomination to recieve the Nobel Prize for Literature!Why is this rectricted to fiction only?I don't understand it.I mean the best writing today is done by the scientists.

Other Comments by Jiten

41. Comment #80752 by Robert_OBrien on October 23, 2007 at 1:16 am

Well, if the Queen of England can bestow knighthood on Elton John and others who have done little to nothing for the common weal, then it appears Richard Dawkins makes for the perfect candidate.

Other Comments by Robert_OBrien

42. Comment #80758 by JanChan on October 23, 2007 at 1:36 am

I suspect you need to actually live under a monarchy to understand this. And if you happen to be American, look to your history and feel shame for trying to support or justify the trappings of the very system your country quite rightly rejected at its founding.

I'm from a former British colony (not telling you which one), and one thing's for sure, life sucks after the British left. Britain and America might have flaws, but comparing freedom, they're the closest to a dream. In my country, no one even have the guts to write petitions, and maybe you'll need to experience that to know how it feels.

Other Comments by JanChan

43. Comment #80759 by scottishgeologist on October 23, 2007 at 1:49 am

Roberty_Obrien wrote:

the Queen of England

She's actually the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The last time England had a queen was some time ago....

So if you are going to make snide remarks, at least try to be accurate...

Anyway, whats wrong with Elton John? He has brought a lot of good music to a lot of people, he's a great entertainer, and he has lasted the pace.

Oh of course, silly me, he's gay....... cant possibly be of any worth at all now can he? Except maybe as hell-fuel? Is that it?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

44. Comment #80760 by Robert_OBrien on October 23, 2007 at 2:04 am

"She's actually the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The last time England had a queen was some time ago....

So if you are going to make snide remarks, at least try to be accurate..."

I certainly do not recognize Elizabeth as Queen of any part of Ireland. Furthermore, only a Celt deserves such a title; my use of "Queen of England" was purposeful.

Other Comments by Robert_OBrien

45. Comment #80791 by Chris Davis on October 23, 2007 at 3:59 am

Is not the important point being sidelined here? The key feature of awarding a K to Dr. D would be the message it would send about the British establishment's support for him and his position.

Brenda the Q's involvement is entirely symbolic - hell, the award itself is symbolic. But it's as a symbol that such an event will have its impact, in the same way that it did when Rushdie received it.

After all this time, and given all that Dr. Dawkins has done for the world, it's his lack of a knighthood that's starting to look anomalous.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

46. Comment #80794 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 4:12 am

"I certainly do not recognize Elizabeth as Queen of any part of Ireland. Furthermore, only a Celt deserves such a title; my use of "Queen of England" was purposeful"

Well many Northern Irish people DO recognise her as their Queen, that is the Queen of the United Kingdom, and long may she and her heirs continue to be so.

I also find your use of the term 'Celt' quite prejudiced and xenophobic.

When it comes to the monarchy I agree with the Fabian Report into the future of the monarchy, that is making it purely secularised, and the transferral of the very few powers left invested in the Queen to Parliament (which is already being done, as the PM is wanting to make Parliament able to call and dismiss itself).

To any American here criticising our system of constitutional monarchy: It is none of your business. Why are you worried about it? Who-ever we, the British people, would like as our head of state has no bearing on your own political system. You live in an executive republic as it is your right to do so. I don't comment on American political matters, I have no business saying who I think should be the next President or how effective the present one is at leading his country.

Here in the UK many people like myself (actually, the majority) prefer to live in a system with a permanent, non-party political head of state with no executive power, with the only person making such decisions being the Prime Minister who is responsible to Parliament and the country. The only bias the Head of State has is in regarding to religious matters because of her status as Head of the Church of England. However as the Fabian report suggests, she should give up that position and formally give it to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who already has it de facto.

The Monarchy is now purely a figurative institution, a representation of Britishness, an icon for people to rally behind and feel proud of. The Monarchy may have done some terrible things in the past but so have some Presidents: do you judge your Presidents now on what their predecessors have done?

There is no avoiding Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is massively popular in the world and she and her family have done much for charity.

I for one cannot wait for His Royal Highness Prince William to become King. He will make an excellent role model and representative of the UK in the wider world.

Other Comments by Matt7895

47. Comment #80797 by decius on October 23, 2007 at 4:19 am

@ Chris David

The symbolism involved will have an impact, indeed.

The message will broadcast loud and clear as follows:
"The most influential atheist intellectual and rationalist kneels down in front of the head of the Anglican church and notorious quack patron".

A hell of a symbolism, I'll give you that.

Next, we could petition the pope for a Ordine di Malta or Ordine del Santo Sepolcro knighthood to be bestowed on Richard.

After all, it would be entirely symbolic, but can you imagine the impact?

Other Comments by decius

48. Comment #80801 by Philip1978 on October 23, 2007 at 4:49 am

Matt7895
"I for one cannot wait for William to become King. He will make an excellent role model and representative of the UK in the wider world."

May I remind you this boy likes the Spice Girls! hehehehe I quite like him as well, not a bad chap

As for the Monarchy, this is a tough one for me, I can't be arsed with all the religious nonesense that doth spew forth from them, its silly and daft and I understand Jack Rawlinson's comments, they make sense to me mostly.

I do however like the charity work and opportunities they give to kids etc that they wouldn't have had before, I like the environmental and humanitarian work they do as well, it does help a lot.


However, a choice between the Queen or a politician? I cannot stand politicians!

I much prefer having the Queen as a representative of my country, she at least has some modicum of intelligence and manners. She at least has a least a presence and demeanour that commands more respect than a smarmy politician, politicians are far more fake and annoying in my humble opinion. Gordon Brown vs the Queen? No Contest at all!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

49. Comment #80806 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 5:03 am

The Monarchy is now purely a figurative institution

If only that were the case. In reality, the monarch has considerable power, such as to be able to refuse or accept the dissolution of parliament, and to be able to select prime ministers. That power has been used in recent history.

Other Comments by steve99

50. Comment #80808 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 5:05 am

Well hopefully we shouldn't have to worry about their religious bias for much longer. The Fabian Society recommended in their report that the Queen should no longer be head of the church of England and instead be a 'Defender of all faiths' (and presumably none at all). The Monarchy have been well adaptive to changes in British society over the years and that should apply to religion as well. Britain is a lot different to the Britain in 1952 when Her Majesty was coronated. We're now a multi-racial, multi-faith society and the Monarchy should reflect that.

The government is already reforming the House of Lords into a democratically elected upper house. They are also following the Fabian report in areas relating to powers invested in the Prime Minister by the monarch, being removed and given instead to Parliament. All they need to do now is ask her to step down from the religious role, I'm sure she will do so if prompted.

Steve99: That particular issue is being addressed. The Monarch will no longer have the power to call or dismiss Parliament, as I have mentioned in this post. As for selecting Prime Ministers, the protocol is that the leader of the majority party becomes Prime Minister, of course she could choose to not do that but it would provoke a constitutional crisis, therefore it is EXTREMELY unlikely the Queen would go against protocol and not do that.

Other Comments by Matt7895