According to a spate of press reports, the Pope has recently told us that atheism was responsible for some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” and others shout that the Pope “blasts (or “slams”) atheism”.

An early response to such reports on Benedict’s second encyclical "Spe Salvi" (Saved by Hope) came from Raffaele Carcano, secretary of Italy’s Union of Atheists and Rationalist Agnostics:

“The Pope can relax: atheists don’t feel they have no hope. Far from it. They are fine as they are, living only within the limits of their life on earth, without having to reassure themselves with the hope of a blissful afterlife”. Carcano went on to urge Benedict to “open a history book”.

”Shall we talk about Nazism, with which the Vatican stipulated an accord a few weeks after it came to power? Or the Crusades? Or the Inquisition?” he said.

We may sympathise with some of those words and many other examples of the fighting words of atheists in response to the press reports. The press reports also include comments about the rising tide of secularism in Europe and the spate of books attacking a belief in God by such authors as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchins. By juxtaposition, it is easy for readers to assume all these words are extracts from the papal encyclical.

One of the hazards of taking the press too literally is that one can end up quoting misquotes all too often.

It goes without saying that the Pope does not approve of atheism. It is his job to promote God and to disapprove of those who don’t believe in God. But the Pope’s writing style is a little more careful and considered than press reports would have us believe.

Here is an example of how he wrote about atheists:

“If in the face of this world's suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope”.

Maybe it really is no coincidence that Spe Salvi follows a clutch of best-selling books on the theme that God does not exist - including The God Delusion by Dawkins, Harris’s The End of Faith, Dennett’s Breaking the Spell and God Is Not Great by Hitchens.

This papal encyclical is a really good read. It is philosophical, thoughtful and, for the God believer, full of comforting phrases. He really does attack atheism but his words are not couched in the half baked “blasting” jargon of our press.

A few weeks ago the Oxford Union Society invited controversial historian David Irving and BNP (British National Party) leader Nick Griffin to a debate about the limits of free speech, the motion being "This House believes that even extremists should be entitled to free speech". David Irving had been in prison recently in Austria for holocaust denial, though he no longer denies all aspects of the holocaust (he admits now that gas-chambers in Auschwitz were used to kill Jews and other perceived enemies of Nazi-Germany, but disagrees about their number). Nick Griffin had been accused of inciting racial hatred more than once but was acquitted. Many people objected to those two speakers being given an opportunity to propagate their views in public, and several hundred persons (mainly students) staged a demonstration in front of the building. Although the majority of those were not violent, many were impassioned and noisy and prevented some guests from entering the debating chamber. About 30 of the protesters broke through the barriers set up by the police and entered the chamber to disrupt the meeting for about 1½ hours. In the end the debate took place, but not without problems; the two invited speakers were separated and had to talk in separate rooms. Amongst the other speakers present was Lib-Dem MP Evan Harris (who is also a Humanist). But Tory MP Julian Lewis and several other members resigned from the Oxford Union Society in protest, saying those two racists should never have been invited. Some of the protesters shouted "kill Tryl" (Luke Tryl, president of the Oxford Union Society, endorsed the invitation of those two speakers). Some people criticised the police for not preventing that group of protesters from entering the premises illegally to disrupt the meeting.

One of the arguments of the anti-racists was the familiar "no platform for racists", while those in favour of the motion argued that "controversial views should not be silenced but exposed". Freedom-loving people should remember what Voltaire said in the 18th century: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Unfortunately the demonstrators did not share that ideal, they tried to prevent persons with other opinions to express their views. Nick Griffin and David Irving both demanded their right to free speech, though I wonder whether they would still defend that freedom if they came to power. Nick Griffin compared some of the noisy disrupting protesters with Nazis. He has a point there, as many Muslims and lefties do behave in a way similar to fascists and may be a greater threat to freedom today than the small number of neo-fascists in this country. In my opinion he was also right when he said (on a previous occasion) that Islam was a wicked, vicious faith (which has, of course, nothing to do with race).

What I particularly dislike about such demonstrations (where some are trying to prevent others from speaking) is the fact that many of those who protested hold views just as extremist and repugnant as the views of those they are accusing. They included Marxists and Maoists and Muslims, i.e. persons who are just as intolerant as fascists and equally likely to use violence as a means to achieve their aim. Their claim to moral superiority over their right-wing adversaries seems hypocritical to me if you look at past events in history, i.e. the persecutions and mass killings ordered or instigated by their idols. Many people feel intimidated and consider it now too risky to discuss the subjects of race and immigration due to the aggressive attitude of the anti-racist bullies. Many anti-racists are bigoted and prejudiced, just as much as the racists they accuse. I hope that Humanists and other liberal-minded people will not give in to any pressure from the enemies of freedom and will defend the ideas of the enlightenment, particularly the freedom of expression, regardless how unpopular this might be amongst many trendy lefties and their allies from some quarrelsome minority groups and other ideological opponents.

Alex Hill