Dispatches

[Barry Shnikov]

I agree that it's silly, but is it really harmful? Is it really a species of child abuse? The kids will grow up, unless they really are being abused and locked in cellars etc. They'll be exposed to other ideas and opinions (and hard facts) and they'll choose what to believe for themselves. Does it really matter when the moon was created? Is it harmful for someone to think it's only 10,000 years old? Should I be deeply concerned that, despite my best efforts to persuade him otherwise, my eight year old insists that he wants to believe in Adam and Eve?

There is no doubt that things we are taught when we are young are very difficult to un-teach, or un-learn. The problem here is not so much that these kids are being taught nonsense and untruths, but that they are taught it OVER AND OVER AGAIN with RELIGIOUS FERVOUR and they are taught that people who don't believe what they are told to believe will be TURNED INTO PILLARS OF SALT or BURN IN HELL FOR EVER and...

...well, you get the picture, I hope.

It really is brain-washing, and in any really civilised society children would be taken away from families who want to do this to them and given to parents who will love and cherish the children more than they love a fanatical and absurd belief system.

Secondly, if these kids are here at primary school level being indoctrinated with this - this - cretinous bilge, aren't their parents going to continue to do everything they can to continue the indoctrination right up to university level? Then these are the ones who now turn up in US universities and argue with biology professors that there is no hard evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection and can I please address the class just once about creationism, because Jesus loves us, and people who believe Darwinism are going to go to hell?

By the way: the parents of Madeline Neumann have now been charged with negligent homicide. Whether they will be convicted, given that Wisconsin has a freedom-of-religion defence - which is why the parents moved there - remains to be seen.

But do you see no link between teaching farcical rubbish to children and the chance that they will grow up to continue to believe farcical rubbish? And isn't it entirely possible that some of the farcical nonsense is going to be dangerous?

[Tiger Feet]

{stuff stuff...not agreeing with your picture doesn't mean that I don't get your picture...}

But do you see no link between teaching farcical rubbish to children and the chance that they will grow up to continue to believe farcical rubbish? And isn't it entirely possible that some of the farcical nonsense is going to be dangerous?

Oh Barry, of course it's possible that some of it is going to be dangerous. It's possible that anything is going to be dangerous. It's possible that people who haven't been indoctrinated or brain washed will be dangerous.

I really couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm going to Hell. My husband's father was pretty convinced we were going to Hell because we lived together, had a baby before we were married (so clearly, well, kind of, you know, had to have been AT IT before we were married) etc. It doesn't really matter to us. Obviously, if he takes a gun and decides to kill us because he thinks he should send us to Hell, then that will be a bit of a bummer, but I'll sit in Hell blaming him rather than religion or the person who first told him sex before marriage meant you should go to Hell.

I'm not sure if you believe everything you've been taught by your parents, but I don't. I'd like to think, in essentials, I'm as different to them as is humanly possible (Isis will need to comment on that one!). I know I'm far more accepting and open-minded. I know I don't have any of the prejudices that were prevalent in our household and I wouldn't dream of behaving to my children the way they behaved to us. I can't understand why you seem to equate religious belief (and being raised with a religious belief) with an inability to think for oneself.

I don't think these kids will be any more potentially dangerous than other children from normal schools.

Having said all that, I do wish that it wasn't possible to have separate faith schools. I don't think it's a good thing and I think that children would be better off with a rounded and balanced education. I'm not defending the school featured in the programme, I'm merely wondering if it's a huge danger to society.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I can't understand why you seem to equate religious belief (and being raised with a religious belief) with an inability to think for oneself.

I can't speak for Barry of course, but there is plenty of evidence in my experience that that IS the case. Of course its the minority that stand out and many people i have met who are closed minded due to religion become more open minded as they get older - so its not all bad. And I have met many more people who are very religious but are very excepting and open minded - so I don't judge and I don't think a close minded religious world view is any worse than non-religious world views, not that there are many of those.*

Having said all that, I do wish that it wasn't possible to have separate faith schools. I don't think it's a good thing and I think that children would be better off with a rounded and balanced education.

Too true, as far as religion in school goes we should be teaching our children everything we can, not cherry picking. Saying that, i think religious teaching should be minimal, its important that children actually understand things that drive other peoples lives but from a social aspect. Practicing religion should not take place in schools.



*note to readers: lack of smileys usually means i'm serious

[Barry Shnikov]

Oh Barry, of course it's possible that some of it is going to be dangerous. It's possible that anything is going to be dangerous. It's possible that people who haven't been indoctrinated or brain washed will be dangerous.

Dodging the question, rather, aren't you? I was putting my point mildly, more fool me, and you turned it around.
Let me put it this way.

Indoctrinating children in a way of approaching the world which avoids critical assessment and embraces outmoded and childish, black-and-white attitudes to the world is dangerous for those people and dangerous for society. Have you missed the way in which fundamental christians are trying to hijack the political process in respect of the parliamentary debate yesterday and today? Unsuccessfully, so far, but still.
The Today programme blahblahed about 'ethical and moral considerations' yesterday, and then interviewed a whole bunch of religious people and not one ethical or moral criticism was made, only religious ones.

If they succeed/had they succeeded, this has a direct effect on the lives and happiness of potentially hundreds of thousands of people - gay couples and single women, children with genetic defects and their families, expectant mothers who learn at 20 weeks that their baby is horribly deformed and defective, and people who stand to benefit from medical advances that may follow from stem cell research.

We live in a representative democracy, and we all accept that the majority decision should, in almost all cases, prevail. That is why religion is bad: it suborns the intelligence of people and they make decisions - voting decisions, protesting decisions, whatever - based not on the general good (best) or even their own interest (acceptable) but on a bunch of principles that are all but irrelevant these thousands of years after they were first expounded.

I really couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm going to Hell. My husband's father was pretty convinced we were going to Hell because we lived together, had a baby before we were married (so clearly, well, kind of, you know, had to have been AT IT before we were married) etc. It doesn't really matter to us. Obviously, if he takes a gun and decides to kill us because he thinks he should send us to Hell, then that will be a bit of a bummer, but I'll sit in Hell blaming him rather than religion or the person who first told him sex before marriage meant you should go to Hell.

The sort of thing I'm talking about is the possibility that people who believe the same way your father in law does might vote to criminalise adultery, or perhaps to return to the days when the adulterous spouse was 'blamed' for the divorce and lost out both financially and in respect of child custody - things like that.

I'm not sure if you believe everything you've been taught by your parents, but I don't. I'd like to think, in essentials, I'm as different to them as is humanly possible (Isis will need to comment on that one!). I know I'm far more accepting and open-minded. I know I don't have any of the prejudices that were prevalent in our household and I wouldn't dream of behaving to my children the way they behaved to us. I can't understand why you seem to equate religious belief (and being raised with a religious belief) with an inability to think for oneself.

I have absorbed a lot of things from my parents. To open doors for people; to say please and thank you (and mean it); not to hurt and offend people if it can be avoided; to take pride in things well done; to look after people who need help; and so forth. (NB this is not to say I do all those things perfectly, or even well.)
You seem to think that the ability to think for oneself arrives out of the blue, something that comes along as part of growing up, like puberty. I think that's wrong; it can come in many ways but really it needs to be taught.

I went to public school; naturally the authority figures were scoffed at - teachers, matron, housemaster, prefects. We learned from the older boys that it was expected that you would try to get away with whatever you could. There would be 'house runs' - a lazier teacher would send all the boys to a local village, to get the number from the phone box, and return. The fit boys ran, the fat ones walked. Some people simply got their parents - during a weekend visit - to take them on a trip around the local villages and noted all the phone box numbers. There are many other examples.

But did you see those older girls in the documentary about the vile Westborough Church? By the time they went to high school, they had been brainwashed. They weren't allowed to socialise with their schoolmates, go to their homes, etc; and the local parents didn't allow their girls to visit the Westborough girls - too much like handing them over to a cult. When you have been told repeatedly, weekly if not daily, from the time you were a toddler, that if you stray from the way and the truth that you will burn in hell for eternity, it must be more difficult to come to a realisation that - hey! - Mummy/Daddy/the Vicar isn't lying, but they might be mistaken...

I don't think these kids will be any more potentially dangerous than other children from normal schools.
Having said all that, I do wish that it wasn't possible to have separate faith schools. I don't think it's a good thing and I think that children would be better off with a rounded and balanced education. I'm not defending the school featured in the programme, I'm merely wondering if it's a huge danger to society.

Consider this. The people in the film are openly trying to change society. They want to live in a country that adheres to the rules of the Bible, full stop; and guess what? this is the country they live in, so this is the country they've picked.

I don't know about you, but for me the possibility of living in a Great Britain that is run on fundamentalist christian principles is both unpleasant and scary. I think it is a danger. The only thing that stops it from being a huge danger is that at this time they haven't a hope in hell of succeeding.

[Tiger Feet]

Dodging the question, rather, aren't you? I was putting my point mildly, more fool me, and you turned it around.
Let me put it this way.

It's not dodging the question. You ask if I think it might be dangerous. I answered according to my feelings and opinions. I don't worry as much as you. I don't have to worry about it, because I have real, pressing concerns (like how to pay my astronomical gas bills, how to pay for the diesel to get to the supermarket in order to worry about paying for the weekly shopping). I don't believe there will ever be a fundamentalist christian majority in our parliament. I worry more about the pandering to very rich bank shareholders and multinational conglomerates.

[QUOTE]

Have you missed the way in which fundamental christians are trying to hijack the political process in respect of the parliamentary debate yesterday and today? Unsuccessfully, so far, but still.
The Today programme blahblahed about 'ethical and moral considerations' yesterday, and then interviewed a whole bunch of religious people and not one ethical or moral criticism was made, only religious ones.

If they succeed/had they succeeded, this has a direct effect on the lives and happiness of potentially hundreds of thousands of people - gay couples and single women, children with genetic defects and their families, expectant mothers who learn at 20 weeks that their baby is horribly deformed and defective, and people who stand to benefit from medical advances that may follow from stem cell research.

No, I haven't missed the way some people are contributing to the political debate. I'm so glad that they are as entitled to voice their opinions as anyone else and, to be honest, I find your constant attempts to persuade us that they shouldn't be allowed a voice to be fascist. It seems you don't deny yourself the right to an opinion on abortion, although you'll never carry a baby or actually be physically faced with the potential decision or consequenses of making that decision. Why, exactly, are you entitled to opinions which you want to deny to others? You don't have to agree with them, but they are perfectly entitled to hold their opinions, regardless of what motivates them.

I am entitled to disagree with proposed legislation and I am entitled to voice my opinions, just like you. I think it's a shame that you're so in favour of stifling debate and censoring opinions of religious people.

You seem to think that the ability to think for oneself arrives out of the blue, something that comes along as part of growing up, like puberty. I think that's wrong; it can come in many ways but really it needs to be taught.

Yes, I think the ability to think for yourself develops. I also think that the process is quicker if you're taught to be open and accepting and inquisitive. I don't agree that it's impossible to think if you're not taught to do so.

[Barry Shnikov]

No, I haven't missed the way some people are contributing to the political debate. I'm so glad that they are as entitled to voice their opinions as anyone else and, to be honest, I find your constant attempts to persuade us that they shouldn't be allowed a voice to be fascist. It seems you don't deny yourself the right to an opinion on abortion, although you'll never carry a baby or actually be physically faced with the potential decision or consequenses of making that decision. Why, exactly, are you entitled to opinions which you want to deny to others? You don't have to agree with them, but they are perfectly entitled to hold their opinions, regardless of what motivates them.

You're right, there is an anti-democratic tinge isn't there?

This is why it is religion that I complain about. I want to move towards a world where everyone is less prone to magical thinking and better able to weigh the real ethical and moral elements of what we as human beings are doing.

Unsurprising that many people don't agree with that point of view.

FAOD I would not support, for example, a suggestion that believers should not be allowed to vote in elections. I don't want to deprive them of their self-determination.

[CheesyRobMan]

Jesus, people, not for six/seven years old. At least, not when I was that age.

If I read that right, then would you mind watching your language? Jesus may only be a swear word for a lot of people but it means a lot more for a lot of other people, myself included.

[Dreadful Scathe]

If I read that right, then would you mind watching your language? Jesus may only be a swear word for a lot of people but it means a lot more for a lot of other people, myself included.

Sounds like an exclamation of surprise rather than a swear word - and its how a lot of people use it. What made you think it was swearing? bit sensitive aren't you ?

[Maxine]

I watched dispatches last night. I found their fundamentalist views on homosexuality, abortion and other religions particularly Islam quite disturbing, but not surprising as I have heard it all before. In my opinion the way they removed the pro choice protesters, could have been considered assault.

[Barry Shnikov]

I watched dispatches last night. I found their fundamentalist views on homosexuality, abortion and other religions particularly Islam quite disturbing, but not surprising as I have heard it all before. In my opinion the way they removed the pro choice protesters, could have been considered assault.

Assault, yes; but I guess the argument would be that they were trespassing and causing a breach of the peace and the removal of them by minimal force was necessary if the meeting was to proceed. I think most magistrates would be unsympathetic to the suggestion that you can sneak in to a private meeting, verbally harass the organisers and attenders by chanting slogans, and so forth, and then claim 'Foul!' when they throw you out. An unconditional discharge would be likely.

Unless the accused had taken the opportunity for a bit of thuggery, of course.

[Barry Shnikov]

Sounds like an exclamation of surprise rather than a swear word - and its how a lot of people use it. What made you think it was swearing? bit sensitive aren't you ?

Surprise and humorous exasperation, yes.

[Tiger Feet]

This is why it is religion that I complain about. I want to move towards a world where everyone is less prone to magical thinking and better able to weigh the real ethical and moral elements of what we as human beings are doing.

There is absolutely nothing, anywhere, ever that you can find as evidence to prove that non-religious people are better able to weigh the real ethical and moral elements of what we do. Again, you've taken an extreme example of religion and are using it to insult and belittle all people of faith. You are not able to weigh up the moral or ethical elements of living any better than someone who believes in God. There is nothing to show that you are a better human being than a person who thinks God created us, unless the only criteria to be better is not believing in God.

Do you really think that politicians are concerned with ethics and morality? Suppose it depends if you're paying them enough or if you've offered them a job on your advisory board once they leave parliament.

I'm sure the laboritories and pharmacutical companies who'll benefit from this legislation are only interested in the wonderful benefits it will bring to humanity...

[Barry Shnikov]

There is absolutely nothing, anywhere, ever that you can find as evidence to prove that non-religious people are better able to weigh the real ethical and moral elements of what we do.

I can't prove that a particular person with two legs can do the 100 metres faster than someone who only has one leg. But I know who I'd bet on.

Again, you've taken an extreme example of religion and are using it to insult and belittle all people of faith. You are not able to weigh up the moral or ethical elements of living any better than someone who believes in God. There is nothing to show that you are a better human being than a person who thinks God created us, unless the only criteria to be better is not believing in God.

I don't claim to be a better human being than (hardly) anyone. But by definition I can weigh ethics and morals better than religious people unless they set aside their religion. Otherwise it's oranges and cheese.

Do you really think that politicians are concerned with ethics and morality?

Yes, I do. Though they may be concerned with other things too I've no reason to suppose that all 600-odd MPs and however many peers there are don't consider ethics and morality at all.

I'm sure the laboritories and pharmacutical companies who'll benefit from this legislation are only interested in the wonderful benefits it will bring to humanity...

Wow, aren't you cynical? Unless there are small companies set up purely to exploit stem cell technology, I don't spose big pharma gives a tuppeny toss about the legislation. They are gonna keep on making money either way.
But also, I have no reason to suppose that people who have chosen careers with pharmaceutical companies simply abandon their higher feelings once they start their job.

[Tiger Feet]

I can't prove that a particular person with two legs can do the 100 metres faster than someone who only has one leg. But I know who I'd bet on.

So? Does it make the person with one leg bad? Does it make the person with two legs able to think more clearly and think more ethically? Out of interest, are you comparing the religious with the physically disabled?

I don't claim to be a better human being than (hardly) anyone. But by definition I can weigh ethics and morals better than religious people unless they set aside their religion. Otherwise it's oranges and cheese.

That would be your definition, your ideas of morality and your ideas of ethics. I don't see why I should have more faith in your ideals than another person. I'd be happier to trust a religious person who is accepting of everyone else's beliefs, or non-beliefs, to make ethical and moral decisions than you, who is judgemental and willing to completely discount the opinions of those who believe in something you can't disprove.

Wow, aren't you cynical?

Cynical? Too right I am.

[Barry Shnikov]

So? Does it make the person with one leg bad? Does it make the person with two legs able to think more clearly and think more ethically? Out of interest, are you comparing the religious with the physically disabled?

Tiger, try to think clearly. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending, but if we are going to have an enjoyable debate, you need to keep things in order.
The example I made was nothing to do with good or bad, or comparing religion with sport or the disabled. It was simply to show that your statement -
"There is absolutely nothing, anywhere, ever that you can find as evidence to prove that non-religious people are better able to weigh the real ethical and moral elements of what we do."
- is limited in effect. Another example would be that I can't prove that a car (about which we otherwise know nothing) with a mechanical fault won't complete the journey from Land's End to John o' Groats but my money would be on the car with no mechanical fault.

That would be your definition, your ideas of morality and your ideas of ethics. I don't see why I should have more faith in your ideals than another person. I'd be happier to trust a religious person who is accepting of everyone else's beliefs, or non-beliefs, to make ethical and moral decisions than you, who is judgemental and willing to completely discount the opinions of those who believe in something you can't disprove.

With respect, that's your prejudice. Ethics and morals are essentially objective issues; if they are subjective then they become completely useless. That's what the big debate has been over the last 4000 years - what are the moral or ethical considerations that everyone should follow. It is on the basis of such considerations that the world's legal systems have gradually arisen - someone should not be allowed to go back on a promise, no-one should be allowed to use things belonging to others without permission, etc.
Why would someone who is accepting of everyone's beliefs be better at making such decisions? Don't you think that some beliefs are unwarranted?
The sort of thing I'm thinking of is, e.g., puritanism. The puritans defaced and destroyed some of the great medieval art in this country in the name of a 'higher' goal - devotion to their particular version of god. Thereby the painstaking and life-absorbing effort of untold numbers of people were removed from the world and generations of people in the future were deprived of the enjoyment of and wonder at them. And the actions of those puritans achieved - what? Any person such as me would not have permitted let alone instigated such a disgusting episode, because I can think more clearly than they - not being hampered by ridiculous beliefs in sky fairies.

Can the moderators PLEASE split this thread!!!!!

[bigdjiver]

...It is on the basis of such considerations that the world's legal systems have gradually arisen - someone should not be allowed to go back on a promise, no-one should be allowed to use things belonging to others without permission, etc...

I was in a contract dispute that cost me more than I had. As I understood the law anybody can go back on a promise provided there was no consideration gained for it.

We also suffered from squatters (not at the same time). We ere told that the law permitted them to use our house.

[Dreadful Scathe]

So? Does it make the person with one leg bad? Does it make the person with two legs able to think more clearly and think more ethically? Out of interest, are you comparing the religious with the physically disabled?

Oh my word! does your brain hurt when you think or do you not know ?
None of what you say is related to Barrys analogy, and its rather "out there".

That would be your definition, your ideas of morality and your ideas of ethics.

I think the suggestion is that a non-religious persons idea of morality and ethics are not constrained to those pushed by a particular religion and can instead accept the global social themes that are rather more up to date and relevant. It just sounds as if you're prejudiced against Barry here.

Backed up by this....

I'd be happier to trust a religious person who is accepting of everyone else's beliefs, or non-beliefs, to make ethical and moral decisions than you, who is judgemental and willing to completely discount the opinions of those who believe in something you can't disprove.

Which sounds like "you're judgemental, therefore you are wrong and i hate you". Say it isn't so

I don't see why I should have more faith in your ideals than another person. I'd be happier to trust a religious person

The point here is - with a religious person their "ideals" are likely to come directly or indirectly from their religion rather than something they have intelectually built themselves. It can be a subtle difference but it could be a significant one. Society as a whole suffers when ethics and morals do not progress.

Cynical? Too right I am.

Thats not really a good thing is it. Try to be a bit more open minded

[Barry Shnikov]

I was in a contract dispute that cost me more than I had. As I understood the law anybody can go back on a promise provided there was no consideration gained for it.

We also suffered from squatters (not at the same time). We ere told that the law permitted them to use our house.

Mm. Sorry to hear about your problem.

Look up 'estoppel' in wikipedia; that's what I was thinking of. Equity does prevent you going back on a promise unless doing so involves no hardship for the promisee.

The law certainly does not allow squatters to use a house, unless they have been squatting there for 12 years. What it does say, much to many people's surprise, is that you can't use self-help remedies to get rid of them (send round several rugby players with baseball bats, or an east end villain with a gun, or wait till they are all out and change the locks), you have to issue proceedings.

This is because until the evidence has been heard and a judgment delivered, the law is neutral as between any two parties who have a dispute. It may seem obvious to a home-owner that he has a right to live in his own home, or to rent it out to other people, but from the law's point of view that is a matter yet to be arranged.

If you reflect on the multitude of occasions on which property owners have tried to eject occupiers who later turn out to have a legal right to occupy (husband vs wife, landlord vs tenant, deceased's friend vs executors, spy vs spy), it may become clear why courts don't jump to conclusions.

[Maxine]

Assault, yes; but I guess the argument would be that they were trespassing and causing a breach of the peace and the removal of them by minimal force was necessary if the meeting was to proceed. .

Where is the line drawn betwen minimal force (which did not look that minimal) and taking the law in your own hands?

[Dreadful Scathe]

Where is the line drawn betwen minimal force (which did not look that minimal) and taking the law in your own hands?

If all you saw was dragging, pushing and pulling then it was minimal force - striking with a fist or a weapon would probably be too far. Is that what you saw?