Print
Wicked untruths from the Church
by Times Online
Thanks to Szymanowski for the link.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article3613649.ece
Wicked untruths from the Church
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is stoking up indefensible views
By David Aaronovitch
Traditionally Easter used to be the time when hellfire and stoppage was preached from the platforms of competing teachers' conferences. These days, regrettably, the Churches are getting in on the act. Over the weekend the fabulous Norman pile at Durham surrendered its calm to the far-from-pacific message delivered by its bishop, Tom Wright. Sermonising about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, currently before Parliament, the bishop criticised the Government for "pushing through, hard and fast, legislation that comes from a militantly atheist and secularist lobby".
Stop the sermon right there. My NUT/religion comparison is an even better fit than I realised. The legislation emanates from a "militantly atheist and secularist lobby"? Oh yes, that would be it. Haven't you seen them on the streets and on your screens, all got up in their God Is Dead, Christians Should be Deader atheist headbands and red robes, burning Bibles, insisting on the teaching of Dawkins and Hitchens in school RS lessons, smashing icons and creeping up behind bishops and lifting their cassocks?
Sermon continues: "This secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people..." Now, this is as close to a lie as makes no difference. Dr Wright may reply directly to the Times letters page, which, even in this fallen age, generally prints the words of high clergymen, to tell me which significant secularist body, or scientific group, or gaggle of atheists is it that believes "we" have the right "to kill surplus old people"? Or is he referring here to voluntary euthanasia, the idea that people may have a right to end their own lives? I challenge him.
This almost wanton disregard of fairness was being deployed for the specific purpose of attacking the proposals to allow the creation and use of hybrid embryo tissue in scientific and medical research. Or, as the Bishop put it, with what was intended to be withering irony: "Gender-bending was so last century; we now do species-bending." Now, the eminent theologian has confused Boy George with sex-change operations (a big mistake, one gathers from the singer's memoirs), so let me note instead that it was this kind of verbal looseness that so upset Lord Winston, when he heard about the Easter sermon delivered by the leader of a rival Church union, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh.
The Cardinal, referring variously to the proposals as "hideous" and "grotesque", suggested that animal-human embryos were to be created "with the excuse" that some diseases might be cured, and went on: "One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion." One might say it, but it would it be - as the professor argued - untrue, though it is possible that Lord Winston had read more Mary Shelley than the Cardinal, and that he therefore knew that no one was remotely suggesting or attempting to create a new form of life, as Baron Frankenstein was.
The Cardinal would have been closer in literary, though not factual, terms had he invoked The Island of Dr Moreau, upon which H.G.Wells located the eponymous lunatic's attempt to create man-beasts. And it may be this too that inhabits the imagination of those commentators made queasy by the very idea of cellular hybrids. William Rees-Mogg, on these pages yesterday, wrote entertainingly of the element of disgust conjured up by such a prospect, and the fear of sinful mixing has always had a strong place in religious taboos. The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, is devoted to nothing else. "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you," said the Lord, ruling out lobster. Nor could you partake of "the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat".
Somehow we have overcome the genuine feeling of disgust at the prospect of even touching a prawn, just as we have more recently learned to cope with homosexual acts and racially mixed marriages. These transitions can be wonderfully rapid - one notes that two thirds of the God-imparted stuff in Leviticus was rather summarily ditched in a single letter of St Paul to the Corinthians.
And I hardly need, do I, to point out that no embryo can be kept alive for more than two weeks? In any case the argument about what is actually in the Bill has been sidetracked by the mass complaints about the decision by the Government to put a three-line whip on Labour MPs. This has led, among other miracles, to the call by the Catholic hierarchy for there to be a free vote - a "conscience" vote - on the entirely contradictory basis that, according to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor: "Catholics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions." But these are not personal convictions, they're matters of doctrine. Churches constantly change their collective minds about what God says, so what is being asked is that MPs put their Church - not their conscience - above everything else.
Naturally, despite this, just about every editorial in every newspaper lined up, almost languidly, behind the free-vote demand. But in some cases only because they assumed that the Bill will be passed. It is an easy concession to make to the religious lobby - over reproductive rights, homosexual rights, human rights - providing that you don't believe they'll win. That way the churchy can go back to their bishops and say they've done their bit, and the rest of us can have our Bills to ameliorate or improve the human condition. Then, when the Bill becomes law and, over time, the advances save lives, the bishops and their flocks can quietly benefit from the measures they so denigrated, have the operation, swig the medicine and move on, sanctimoniously, to the next bit of opposition.
Like most of the Godless (or Godfree), I have no desire to proselytise for atheism or to persuade people out of religions that may offer them comfort and companionship. But there is a growing shrillness and unpleasantness - yes, an unscrupulousness - about the way that some of the top faithful increasingly choose to conduct their arguments. This needs to be combated because, for all their talk of conscience, what Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want is to tell the rest of us how to live.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article3613649.ece
Wicked untruths from the Church
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is stoking up indefensible views
By David Aaronovitch
Traditionally Easter used to be the time when hellfire and stoppage was preached from the platforms of competing teachers' conferences. These days, regrettably, the Churches are getting in on the act. Over the weekend the fabulous Norman pile at Durham surrendered its calm to the far-from-pacific message delivered by its bishop, Tom Wright. Sermonising about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, currently before Parliament, the bishop criticised the Government for "pushing through, hard and fast, legislation that comes from a militantly atheist and secularist lobby".
Stop the sermon right there. My NUT/religion comparison is an even better fit than I realised. The legislation emanates from a "militantly atheist and secularist lobby"? Oh yes, that would be it. Haven't you seen them on the streets and on your screens, all got up in their God Is Dead, Christians Should be Deader atheist headbands and red robes, burning Bibles, insisting on the teaching of Dawkins and Hitchens in school RS lessons, smashing icons and creeping up behind bishops and lifting their cassocks?
Sermon continues: "This secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people..." Now, this is as close to a lie as makes no difference. Dr Wright may reply directly to the Times letters page, which, even in this fallen age, generally prints the words of high clergymen, to tell me which significant secularist body, or scientific group, or gaggle of atheists is it that believes "we" have the right "to kill surplus old people"? Or is he referring here to voluntary euthanasia, the idea that people may have a right to end their own lives? I challenge him.
This almost wanton disregard of fairness was being deployed for the specific purpose of attacking the proposals to allow the creation and use of hybrid embryo tissue in scientific and medical research. Or, as the Bishop put it, with what was intended to be withering irony: "Gender-bending was so last century; we now do species-bending." Now, the eminent theologian has confused Boy George with sex-change operations (a big mistake, one gathers from the singer's memoirs), so let me note instead that it was this kind of verbal looseness that so upset Lord Winston, when he heard about the Easter sermon delivered by the leader of a rival Church union, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh.
The Cardinal, referring variously to the proposals as "hideous" and "grotesque", suggested that animal-human embryos were to be created "with the excuse" that some diseases might be cured, and went on: "One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion." One might say it, but it would it be - as the professor argued - untrue, though it is possible that Lord Winston had read more Mary Shelley than the Cardinal, and that he therefore knew that no one was remotely suggesting or attempting to create a new form of life, as Baron Frankenstein was.
The Cardinal would have been closer in literary, though not factual, terms had he invoked The Island of Dr Moreau, upon which H.G.Wells located the eponymous lunatic's attempt to create man-beasts. And it may be this too that inhabits the imagination of those commentators made queasy by the very idea of cellular hybrids. William Rees-Mogg, on these pages yesterday, wrote entertainingly of the element of disgust conjured up by such a prospect, and the fear of sinful mixing has always had a strong place in religious taboos. The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, is devoted to nothing else. "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you," said the Lord, ruling out lobster. Nor could you partake of "the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat".
Somehow we have overcome the genuine feeling of disgust at the prospect of even touching a prawn, just as we have more recently learned to cope with homosexual acts and racially mixed marriages. These transitions can be wonderfully rapid - one notes that two thirds of the God-imparted stuff in Leviticus was rather summarily ditched in a single letter of St Paul to the Corinthians.
And I hardly need, do I, to point out that no embryo can be kept alive for more than two weeks? In any case the argument about what is actually in the Bill has been sidetracked by the mass complaints about the decision by the Government to put a three-line whip on Labour MPs. This has led, among other miracles, to the call by the Catholic hierarchy for there to be a free vote - a "conscience" vote - on the entirely contradictory basis that, according to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor: "Catholics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions." But these are not personal convictions, they're matters of doctrine. Churches constantly change their collective minds about what God says, so what is being asked is that MPs put their Church - not their conscience - above everything else.
Naturally, despite this, just about every editorial in every newspaper lined up, almost languidly, behind the free-vote demand. But in some cases only because they assumed that the Bill will be passed. It is an easy concession to make to the religious lobby - over reproductive rights, homosexual rights, human rights - providing that you don't believe they'll win. That way the churchy can go back to their bishops and say they've done their bit, and the rest of us can have our Bills to ameliorate or improve the human condition. Then, when the Bill becomes law and, over time, the advances save lives, the bishops and their flocks can quietly benefit from the measures they so denigrated, have the operation, swig the medicine and move on, sanctimoniously, to the next bit of opposition.
Like most of the Godless (or Godfree), I have no desire to proselytise for atheism or to persuade people out of religions that may offer them comfort and companionship. But there is a growing shrillness and unpleasantness - yes, an unscrupulousness - about the way that some of the top faithful increasingly choose to conduct their arguments. This needs to be combated because, for all their talk of conscience, what Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want is to tell the rest of us how to live.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 67 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #149183 by bugaboo on March 25, 2008 at 8:31 am
Meant to say: "My NUT/religion comparison is an even better fit.." and then "I have no desire to proselytise for atheism or to persuade people out of religions that may offer them comfort and companionship" Perhaps still half asleep?Other Comments by bugaboo
3. Comment #149191 by PJG on March 25, 2008 at 8:48 am
This needs to be combated because, for all their talk of conscience, what Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want is to tell the rest of us how to live.
Isn't this what all religions aim to do - and have always done?
Other Comments by PJG
4. Comment #149193 by irate_atheist on March 25, 2008 at 8:49 am
2. Comment #149183 by bugaboo -
Perhaps he is just starting to awake. When he stops yawning and really sees how poisonous religion and religious thought is, well, duck you theists, duck. Aaronovitch is not a man known for pulling his punches in any debate he is involved in.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
5. Comment #149202 by Ygern on March 25, 2008 at 9:01 am
I was arguing just this point with a group of friends this weekend.One of the things that struck me was that my friends had no idea what the research was about or even what the research might entail.
Frankenstein & Island of Dr Moreau are exactly right, if I were to sum up my friends' views and 'understanding' (and I use the word sarcastically) of the subject.
Other Comments by Ygern
6. Comment #149205 by bugaboo on March 25, 2008 at 9:03 am
Dougal.. I mean irate_atheist: Indeed: that's what i was alluding to.Other Comments by bugaboo
7. Comment #149209 by liberalartist on March 25, 2008 at 9:08 am
"Then, when the Bill becomes law and, over time, the advances save lives, the bishops and their flocks can quietly benefit from the measures they so denigrated, have the operation, swig the medicine and move on, sanctimoniously, to the next bit of opposition."
this is what really makes me mad about religious nuts; they complain about evolution, but then take antibiotics without even thinking how they are developed or why they need a new one. they are hypocrites and idiots living off the backs of others.
Other Comments by liberalartist
8. Comment #149214 by Double Bass Atheist on March 25, 2008 at 9:13 am
This needs to be combated because, for all their talk of conscience, what Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want is to tell the rest of us how to live.
And this is different from how Christians have always behaved, how???
Reminds me of a quote (with no attributable author that I am aware of)...
"If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
9. Comment #149223 by rod-the-farmer on March 25, 2008 at 9:22 am
creeping up behind bishops and lifting their cassocks
Hilarious. Good thing my mouth was not full of something....
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
10. Comment #149239 by clodhopper on March 25, 2008 at 9:56 am
"If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."
"Lead me not into temptation
I can find it by myself"
...works for me :-)))
Other Comments by clodhopper
11. Comment #149251 by jbath on March 25, 2008 at 10:22 am
The idea that conscience (when solely related to religious beliefs) is sufficient excuse for an MP to kick up a fuss about this Bill leaves me cold. It has, indeed, led me to question whether all MP's in this country should be vetted for unfounded religious beliefs before they are allowed to take office, much in the same way as they are vetted for a criminal record. For me, the idea that an MP should try to block such a fundamentally important piece of legislation on such trite and laughable grounds is far from amusing: It is this that is unconscionable and not the contents of the Bill. Other Comments by jbath
12. Comment #149253 by irate_atheist on March 25, 2008 at 10:26 am
11. Comment #149251 by jbath -
Here, here...
Other Comments by irate_atheist
13. Comment #149266 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 11:07 am
It is not a vote of conscience. conscience, from L. conscientia "knowledge within oneself, a moral sense,". These people are not contemplating their own navels they reflexively going with Mr. Infallible.The cabinet members who are catholic. Ruth "Opus Dei" Kelly, Des Brown and Paul Murphy. I think Des Brown has said he's going with the bill. The others haven't said.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
14. Comment #149269 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 25, 2008 at 11:15 am
"Haven't you seen them on the streets and on your screens, all got up in their God Is Dead, Christians Should be Deader atheist headbands and red robes, burning Bibles, insisting on the teaching of Dawkins and Hitchens in school RS lessons, smashing icons and creeping up behind bishops and lifting their cassocks?"
No, actually I haven't. Where are they? And WHY wasn't I informed?!
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
15. Comment #149270 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 25, 2008 at 11:17 am
"Hilarious. Good thing my mouth was not full of something...."
Ooo...so many jokes. Must...resist...the...obvious...ones... ;)
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
16. Comment #149274 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 11:26 am
Leviticus, is devoted to nothing else. "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you," said the Lord, ruling out lobster. Nor could you partake of "the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat".
"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Leviticus 19:19 (King James Version)
Not big fans of mixing these Christians!
EDIT: Most up to date info
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
17. Comment #149278 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 11:35 am
The three areas where Mr Brown said there would be free votes during the passage of the bill through the Commons are:
* Preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women and lesbians - under current legislation clinics must take account of the welfare of the unborn child including "the need for a father". This will be replaced by the "need for supportive parenting".
* Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister.
* Creating so-called hybrid animal/human embryos to aid stem cell research.
Is anyone else uneasy about number 2 "Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister." or is it just me?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7312715.stm
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
18. Comment #149280 by Szymanowski on March 25, 2008 at 11:37 am
Reminds me...
Other Comments by Szymanowski
19. Comment #149293 by steveroot on March 25, 2008 at 11:58 am
8. Comment #149214 by Double Bass Atheist on March 25, 2008 at 9:13 am"If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him kill me, not you."
This is what you really mean!
Ste5e
Other Comments by steveroot
20. Comment #149368 by stubbins on March 25, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Be advised to go to the timesonline link, and read the comments on the page, (44 at present).
There is much animosity.
Other Comments by stubbins
21. Comment #149379 by FightingFalcon on March 25, 2008 at 2:24 pm
"God is Dead, Christians Should be Deader"LOL - an awful banner but absolutely hilarious :-)
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
22. Comment #149415 by rod-the-farmer on March 25, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Colwyn Abernathy copiedHaven't you seen them on the streets and on your screens, all got up in their God Is Dead, Christians Should be Deader atheist headbands and red robes, burning Bibles, insisting on the teaching of Dawkins and Hitchens in school RS lessons, smashing icons and creeping up behind bishops and lifting their cassocks?
and then said
No, actually I haven't. Where are they? And WHY wasn't I informed?!
OK, such a deal I will make you. Whosoever hears about this first, will tell the other. We will draw straws on who does what. I will bring the headbands.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
23. Comment #149424 by justdust on March 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Churches constantly change their collective minds about what God says, so what is being asked is that MPs put their Church - not their conscience - above everything else.
If you have religious faith - can you have a personal conscience? I would not vote for any MP of any persuasion if they were going to be voting on my behalf based on their religious beliefs - where does it stop?
Not big fans of mixing these Christians!
Pity Leviticus didn't mention democracy.
Other Comments by justdust
24. Comment #149427 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm
justdustIf you have religious faith - can you have a personal conscience? I would not vote for any MP of any persuasion if they were going to be voting on my behalf based on their religious beliefs - where does it stop?
Yeah doesn't it make a mockery of the mockery that pretends to be democracy.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
25. Comment #149593 by theantitheist on March 26, 2008 at 1:31 am
But what if the personal conscience is being advised by the Muslim, Scientology, Mormon, Saturn worshipping faiths?I presume his holiness will be okay with this??
Other Comments by theantitheist
26. Comment #149595 by notsobad on March 26, 2008 at 1:32 am
"I am an atheist but" people are starting wake up?And the usual message to religious people:
Do you want to irrationally limit your life because an adult man in a costume told you to?
Fine!
But don't expect the same from me.
And don't dare force these habits through laws.
Other Comments by notsobad
27. Comment #149597 by Steve Zara on March 26, 2008 at 1:37 am
Comment #149593 by theantitheist But what if the personal conscience is being advised by the Muslim, Scientology, Mormon, Saturn worshipping faiths?
I presume his holiness will be okay with this??
Excellent point.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
28. Comment #149602 by clearthinker on March 26, 2008 at 1:43 am
The idea that conscience (when solely related to religious beliefs) is sufficient excuse for an MP to kick up a fuss about this Bill leaves me cold. It has, indeed, led me to question whether all MP's in this country should be vetted for unfounded religious beliefs before they are allowed to take office, much in the same way as they are vetted for a criminal record.t
Indeed - noone should be allowed into office who has 'unfounded' religious beliefs. Are there any 'founded'? Ban everyone who has a religious belief. People should be tested and 'vetted'. Speaking of vets if they do not recant perhaps they should have a lobotomy to remove the infected part of their brain, or at least castrated so that they are not allowed to produce offspring who will be infected by the pernicious disease of religion. We need to rid our society of this virus. How else can we have a Brave New World?
Other Comments by clearthinker
29. Comment #149607 by Steve Zara on March 26, 2008 at 1:58 am
Comment #149602 by clearthinker Oh dear. I detect the genesis of another "atheists think that..." opinion.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
30. Comment #149613 by Quetzalcoatl on March 26, 2008 at 2:12 am
Steve-
it's less of a genesis and more of a resurrection of an opinion.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
31. Comment #149617 by Philip1978 on March 26, 2008 at 2:19 am
DavidFor a guy who is doing all he can to make the image of his own church less dreary, you seem to be doing a really crap job!
Cheer up! :)
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
32. Comment #149624 by Peacebeuponme on March 26, 2008 at 2:24 am
I agree with clearthinker that you cannot preclude anyone from being an MP based on religious belief. However, we can ask that they only allow in proper evidence when debating issues in the chamber; that they make decisions for the good of the people after taking the appropriate expert advice. Bishops, Cardinal and Priests are experts at nothing and should be ignored in these matters.This issue has nicely highlighted how dangerous religious belief (even amongst "moderates") can be. We have a bill before us that will save lives, and muddled, silly superstition is trying to shoot it down.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
33. Comment #149630 by fides_et_ratio on March 26, 2008 at 2:59 am
The legislation emanates from a "militantly atheist and secularist lobby"? Oh yes, that would be it. Haven't you seen them on the streets and on your screens, all got up in their God Is Dead, Christians Should be Deader atheist headbands and red robes, burning Bibles, insisting on the teaching of Dawkins and Hitchens in school RS lessons, smashing icons and creeping up behind bishops and lifting their cassocks?
The irony of him using secular lobbyists to deny the existence of a secular lobby was consistent with the...
what Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want is to tell the rest of us how to live.
...comment at the end. Cardinal O Brien was calling for MPs to be given a free vote. It's this sort of oppresive, intolerant behaviour that athiesm inevitable leads to, and that seems to be a mark of the secularist lobby in this country. It roughly translates as, 'religious people shouldn't have an opinion because...well... because they're religious and their opinion differs from mine', as it seeks to tell people how to live. It' a secularist lobby that Aaronovitch is both fully aware of, and fully a part of despite his extravagant denial.
Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
34. Comment #149632 by Quetzalcoatl on March 26, 2008 at 3:02 am
Fides et ratio-
Cardinal O Brien was calling for MPs to be given a free vote
No, what he was actually calling for was for Catholic MPs to be able to vote following their conscience. And by conscience he meant Catholic church doctrine.
It's this sort of oppresive, intolerant behaviour that athiesm inevitable leads to
Wrong. Atheism does not "lead" to anything specific. It is not a doctrine.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
35. Comment #149633 by irate_atheist on March 26, 2008 at 3:03 am
30. Comment #149613 by Quetzalcoatl -it's less of a genesis and more of a resurrection of an opinionWe have no good reason to believe that it was intelligently designed.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
36. Comment #149635 by Quetzalcoatl on March 26, 2008 at 3:07 am
Irate-
We have no good reason to believe that it was intelligently designed
Agreed. There is no evidence of irreducible complexity; or any complexity at all, for that matter.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
37. Comment #149636 by Peacebeuponme on March 26, 2008 at 3:07 am
fides_et_ratioCardinal O Brien was calling for MPs to be given a free vote.I would rather MPs were given free votes more often. However, I doubt we would see the Cardinal pipe up if the situation were reversed. The Church's line on this has been to lie and pressure MPs with words like "morality" and "conscience" into voting in line with an ancient fable. Its laughable that they think they are "good".
Of course, we could never accuse the catholic church of "oppresive, inolerant behaviour"...
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
38. Comment #149637 by irate_atheist on March 26, 2008 at 3:14 am
33. Comment #149630 by fides_et_ratio -
Total bollocks from end to end.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
39. Comment #149638 by Peacebeuponme on March 26, 2008 at 3:14 am
ThoughtsonCommonToadIs anyone else uneasy about number 2 "Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister." or is it just me?I'm very uneasy on that one. I'm very uneasy on IVF in a lot of cases. Children being born for a purpose, or without the chance of knowing who their biological father is is not something I am comfortable with.
We could have an interesting debate if the religious lobby did not hijack the issue.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
40. Comment #149639 by Steve Zara on March 26, 2008 at 3:26 am
fides:It roughly translates as, 'religious people shouldn't have an opinion because...well... because they're religious and their opinion differs from mine', as it seeks to tell people how to live. It' a secularist lobby that Aaronovitch is both fully aware of, and fully a part of despite his extravagant denial.
Of course religious people can have opinions! What they should not do is justify opinions in public based on ignorance combined with a hunch about what God thinks.
I watched a rather good Mitchell and Webb sketch recently, parodying all the news sites that want lots of e-mail contributions. It contained the following (or words to this effect):
"It seems vitally important that you e-mail us about everything! You may not know anything at all, but I'll bet you reckon something! Why not tell us what you reckon? Just go to our website, click on the button that says "what I reckon" and bash the keyboard with your head."
Bishops are rarely biologists, but they sure do want to tell us what they reckon.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
41. Comment #149640 by fides_et_ratio on March 26, 2008 at 3:29 am
Atheism does not "lead" to anything specific. It is not a doctrine
If athiesm doesn't lead to anything specific, such as a better world than theism for example, then I wish you'd all agree on that and stop saying that it does.
Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
42. Comment #149641 by Steve Zara on March 26, 2008 at 3:30 am
fides:It's this sort of oppresive, intolerant behaviour that athiesm inevitable leads to
Which atheism? Perhaps you could be specific, or do you feel that a belief in the Mayan Snake God would be of assistance here?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
43. Comment #149642 by Steve Zara on March 26, 2008 at 3:32 am
fides:If athiesm doesn't lead to anything specific, such as a better world than theism for example, then I wish you'd all agree on that and stop saying that it does.
No-one says that. Atheism is one of the common symptoms of rationalism, which would lead to a better world.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
44. Comment #149643 by Quetzalcoatl on March 26, 2008 at 3:33 am
Steve-
do you feel that a belief in the Mayan Snake God would be of assistance here
I certainly do!
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
45. Comment #149644 by Peacebeuponme on March 26, 2008 at 3:33 am
StevePrivate Eye do a really good column now satirising email contributions.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
46. Comment #149645 by Steve Zara on March 26, 2008 at 3:36 am
fides:If you feel that a ball of cells that arises from fertilisation has a soul, or is an actual "person", perhaps you could say when it happens. Fertilization is a complex business. Why not review this:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/112587.html
and let us know what you believe.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
47. Comment #149646 by irate_atheist on March 26, 2008 at 3:40 am
41. Comment #149640 by fides_et_ratio -
Atheism is not believing in gods.
It is not a set of doctrines.
It does not 'lead' to anything.
But it can lead away from ignorance, bigotry and intolerance, to name but a few of religion's pernicious traits.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
48. Comment #149647 by Steve Zara on March 26, 2008 at 3:44 am
Comment #149646 by irate_atheist But it can lead away from ignorance, bigotry and intolerance, to name but a few of religion's pernicious traits.
I wouldn't really say "lead"...
It can allow for those. In the same way as not believing in banging your head against a wall can allow for a lack of headaches.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
49. Comment #149649 by Quetzalcoatl on March 26, 2008 at 3:45 am
Steve-
It can allow for those
So then you wouldn't be able to say that it "points the way", would you?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
50. Comment #149650 by Peacebeuponme on March 26, 2008 at 3:47 am
I wouldn't like to assign anything else to atheism, even indirectly. Better arguments are made by pointing out problems with theism.Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
Upcoming Events:
No events
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Pointing to another world will never stop vice among us; shedding light over this world can alone help us."
Walt Whitman
"Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles."
Richard Dawkins
"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
Richard Dawkins
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
Christopher Hitchens
"Justifying space exploration because we get non-stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinists right arm."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
Your Inner Fish
Neil Shubin
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
Evolution
Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #149173 by bugaboo on March 25, 2008 at 8:18 am
Sounds like Aaronovitch has just awoken from a deep slumber.Other Comments by bugaboo