Sunday, April 20, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Religion is 'the new social evil'

by Times Online

Thanks to Graham Dolby for the link.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_selections/religion/article3779988.ece

Religion is 'the new social evil'

Robert Watts

A CHARITY set up by an ardent Christian to fight slavery and the opium trade has identified a new social evil of the 21st century - religion.

A poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uncovered a widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution.

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the "dominant opinion" was that religion was a "social evil".

Many participants said religion divided society, fuelled intolerance and spawned "irrational" educational and other policies.

One said: "Faith in supernatural phenomena inspires hatred and prejudice throughout the world, and is commonly used as justification for persecution of women, gays and people who do not have faith."

Many respondents called for state funding of church schools to be ended.

The findings contrast with Rowntree's "scourges of humanity", which included poverty, war, slavery, intemperance, the opium trade, impurity and gambling.

Poverty and drugs remain, but are joined by issues such as family breakdown, young people's behaviour and fears over immigration.

Tom Butler, the Bishop of Southwark, rejected the indictment of faith. He said: "People meeting together, week after week, for worship, support and education in church, synagogue, temple, gurdwara and mosque can not only help people build local community but can teach children to become good citizens."

However, Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said he was "extremely pleased".

"Britain has had it with religion," he said.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, April 20, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 45 of 45 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #164538 by petermun on April 20, 2008 at 11:50 am

"Britain has had it with religion"

If only!

Other Comments by petermun

2. Comment #164554 by alexmzk on April 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Tom Butler, the Bishop of Southwark, rejected the indictment of faith.

predictable. Rev Butler is hardly the paramount of good behaviour himself.

certainly a very interesting poll. the actual results are linked to in the times comments, as a pdf file, but for some reason i can t paste the url into here. look em up.

Other Comments by alexmzk

3. Comment #164558 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 12:08 pm

This is encouraging.

WTF does impurity mean? Doesn't that require context to hold any meaning?

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

4. Comment #164565 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm

First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they attack you, then you win.
And then they whine.
Like milk-titted little bitches.

Other Comments by Diacanu

5. Comment #164587 by ghuckin on April 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I disagree with the word "new". Hasn't it always been the case?. There is a saying, "If you fail to learn from history, you are bound to repeat it." Have we learned nothing from the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch-hunt, Savronola, the crusades, etc. etc.?
And incidentally, how come the Pope is getting such a great reception in the US? How come Bush gave him such a special reception? When he was just plain old Cardinal Ratzinger, wasn't he in charge of moving the priests that were suspected of sexual abuse? I guess Boston won't be on his tour itinery.

Other Comments by ghuckin

6. Comment #164597 by MrPickwick on April 20, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Mitchell Gilks: WTF does impurity mean?

IMPURITY=SEX PLEASURE (in church lingo)

We all know how harmful that is...

Other Comments by MrPickwick

7. Comment #164608 by Duff on April 20, 2008 at 1:01 pm

If religion can be argued as being another form of tribalism, and who could possibly argue otherwise, how could it not be considered detrimental to the upward progress of societies.

According to the New York Times today, Pope Rat was getting a great reception, but at the same time the catholic tribe was under great pressure from forces of pentacostalism in the US. I'm not sure which is worse; the tribe blinded by pomp, or the tribe blinded by hysteria. Plenty of different tribes to choose from so the simple people can feel they belong.

Other Comments by Duff

8. Comment #164613 by Barry Pearson on April 20, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Links here:

Summary: "Consultation on today's social evils reveals deep unease about greed, individualism and decline of community":
http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/200408.asp

"What are today's social evils?":
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/

See links to PDFs on right hand side:

Summary, "What are today's social evils?" (111KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-summary.pdf

"What are today's social evils? The results of a web consultation" (415KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-report.pdf

"Modern-day social evils - The voices of unheard groups" (144KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-natcen-report.pdf

It is worth opening these and doing a search of each for "Religion". There is a mixture of views that religion is the problem and that decline of religion is the problem.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

9. Comment #164617 by Big T on April 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm

This is good news. Organized religion is a source of great evil in the world, a fact that needs to be recognized in America like it is in England.

Other Comments by Big T

10. Comment #164625 by Barry Pearson on April 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Terry Sanderson: "Britain has had it with religion".
petermun: "If only!"

I think we are becoming more polarised. Many people are fed up with it, and many others probably want more of it.

I think the only way to resolve this is to pursue seclarisation, (eg. disestablishment), then make it clear that religion is OK when practised by consenting adults in private. We are NOT (I hope) trying to establish an atheist state - but we should always be intolerant towards religious intolerance.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

11. Comment #164626 by Karlsson on April 20, 2008 at 1:22 pm

I would say, superstition is the biggest problem and in superstition religion is included.

In west, USA not included, almost nobody goes to church anymore other than for weddings and funerals. But we're still superstitious... New age crap, talking to "spirits", westernised buddhism, etc etc... that is a huge problem.

Other Comments by Karlsson

12. Comment #164633 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I thought this bit was interesting:

Poverty and drugs remain, but are joined by issues such as family breakdown, young people's behaviour and fears over immigration.

I can't help wondering how much of this antipathy towards religion (totally justified, I think) is in reaction to the growth of Islam in Britain due to immigration? I mean, there just isn't that much to get worked up about when discussing the "boring" Anglican Church!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

13. Comment #164634 by Clive on April 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm

***** END FAITH SCHOOLS!!! *****

THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT!

Faith is causing enclaves within our country and slowing integration!

Blair encouraged them and then converted to Catholicism!

IT'S MADNESS!

Check out http://skepticsannotatedbible.com
(for those who haven't already) - for a crystal-clear foundation of the problem. Need I say any more?

BTW, What the f.. is Mr Pickwick doing??
Whatever it is, it should be illegal!

Other Comments by Clive

14. Comment #164640 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm

ghuckin-

And incidentally, how come the Pope is getting such a great reception in the US?

Cuz Americans like me can't get within a mile of the fucker to ask uncomfortable questions about AIDS in Africa, or child molesters, or his Nazi past.

We'd have to get through a massive hoarde of awestruck blue haired old ladies, and soft-hearted soft-atheists who don't want the blue haired old ladies to cry.

Other Comments by Diacanu

15. Comment #164680 by D'Arcy on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the "dominant opinion" was that religion was a "social evil".

Rowntree may have been dismayed, but I am not. Mind you this was only 3,500 people out of a population of some 60 million, and probably most of those in cities where the pace of life is generally not conducive to religious contemplation. All those recent Eastern Euoropean immigrants from Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria etc. (essentially peasant Christians), probably didn't speak enough good English to be interviewed.

Plenty of ignorance to be combatted yet!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

16. Comment #164698 by IanLowe on April 20, 2008 at 2:29 pm

"We are NOT (I hope) trying to establish an atheist state"

I am! :D

Other Comments by IanLowe

17. Comment #164699 by ghuckin on April 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Re Comment #164640 by Diacanu

Cuz Americans like me can't get within a mile of the .....

Same thing whatever country he's in. But I'm disappointed that the news media are giving him such a free ride, and not raising these issues. Part of it, I'm sure, is the American way, praiseworthy in most cases, of treating a guest in their country with courtesy.

Other Comments by ghuckin

18. Comment #164700 by Geoff on April 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm

This one, linked to originally by Barry Pearson, seems to have the most detail.

It's all worth reading, but the religion part starts at around page 30.

Some quotes:

Some participants focused on the role of religion in politics arguing that "we should not be making any political or educational decisions based on religion". One person criticised the fact that there are faith representatives in the House of Lords, but a more common complaint surrounded the influence of religion in education. For example, citing religion as a social evil, one participant went on to say that "children should be taught to derive their conclusions from evidence and logic, not the ravings of deluded idiots". Another criticised the fact that "religious doctrinaires [are] increasing their grip on the UK education system with government support".

Some people saw religion as a social evil because it "undermines social cohesion" and is "a force for separating people". Participants also felt that religion can actively encourage intolerance, towards some groups in particular: "Faith in supernatural phenomena inspires hatred and prejudice throughout the world, and is commonly used as justification for continued persecution of women, gays and people who do not have faith".

Several participants felt that the irrationality of religion is so clear that our tolerance of it is unjustified: "The idea that a person can believe a proposition to be true in spite of no supporting evidence, and even in spite of evidence to the contrary, is something that should not be automatically granted respect, but treated with contempt".

Edit: forgot to include the link!

http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-report.pdf

Other Comments by Geoff

19. Comment #164701 by Richard Dawkins on April 20, 2008 at 2:49 pm

In pointing out that the word should be "might" not "may" I shall dispense with the usual apology for "pedantry". There is nothing pedantic about verbal precision, and in this case I found the error actively confusing. "May" suggests that the long dead Rowntree is still in a position to be dismayed. Or that what we have here is a historical report of the results of Rowntree's original survey 104 years ago.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

20. Comment #164705 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm

The responses may well have dismayed him.

That was annoying. It takes you aback in that it could be describing his reaction to his original survey. It's incredibly off-putting.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

21. Comment #164709 by Geoff on April 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Quite correct, Richard, and no need to apologise for pedantry: many of us positively revel in its exercise.

Getting back to the survey, though, some of the quotes lead me to believe that TGD has already had a measurable effect in "consciousness raising".

"children should be taught to derive their conclusions from evidence and logic, not the ravings of deluded idiots".

Other Comments by Geoff

22. Comment #164711 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 3:14 pm

"May" suggests that the long dead Rowntree is still in a position to be dismayed.

As the old saying goes:

"If he were alive today, he would turn in his grave"

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #164715 by Raiko on April 20, 2008 at 3:23 pm

There are some good news for a change! That and the lizards today made me quite happy. I agree with D'Arcy. However, the statistics might only be representative for a certain group of people, but that still makes them positive news.

On a random note: Nice change of icon, Mitchell!

Other Comments by Raiko

24. Comment #164718 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I can't help wondering how much of this antipathy towards religion (totally justified, I think) is in reaction to the growth of Islam in Britain due to immigration?

Given the Polish Catholics haven't had the same effect, I'd guess no. Maybe as a reaction to what Islam is asking for, yes. You have to admit, it has been a bit forceful...
Anyway, I think religion as a social evil does have reasons outside of what we think. Conflict, for example...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html?ei=5087&em=&en=61c2c7872234ab0a&ex=1204779600&pagewanted=all
However, sometimes religion is on the ascendant because it steps in...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html?ei=5087&em=&en=61c2c7872234ab0a&ex=1204779600&pagewanted=all

Other Comments by Goldy

25. Comment #164725 by Nova on April 20, 2008 at 3:46 pm

The comments on this article on the Times Online are encouraging.

Other Comments by Nova

26. Comment #164726 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I am a christian, I believe in God and that the Bible is a representation of absolute truth. I choose to be so not because I was spoonfed these ideals, but because at some point in the past I made a careful decision based on independent observations. To be dismissed as "weak-minded" or "stupid" for holding to heart a set of absolute principles, I find quite amusing, given my own background and contributions to genetics and oncology, as well as the courage to go against the grain of societal pressure. Many commenting on this issue are not philosophically inclined. Most cannot even challenge the precepts they've internalised since early childhood through a liberalist education and media. The reactions below almost mimic coping patterns, and are quite predictable; seven or eight years or so back I would probably have done the same.

Jim, London, UK

Be interesting to have him come here....

Other Comments by Goldy

27. Comment #164787 by SurfDude on April 20, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Goldy,
I agree it would. I smell a McGrath type of sophistry just waiting to be eviscerated.

Other Comments by SurfDude

28. Comment #164789 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Thanks Raiko. I just wish I could have fit the whole picture in. It is an exceptionally beautiful picture, and I am always pained when I am forced to cut any amount of such excellent art-work in order to fit these little avatar boxes. Because I like this one so much, I am planing to go and recut it, and see if I can get the whole thing in without making it too small to make out.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

29. Comment #164834 by dragonfirematrix on April 20, 2008 at 6:26 pm

If I may be so bold...

Religion is not a new social evil. Religion is the same old social evil.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

30. Comment #164846 by ghuckin on April 20, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Comment #164711 by Steve Zara

"If he was alive today, he would turn in his grave"

I was taught "were" is the correct usage when the circumstance described is impossible (i.e it is impossible for Rowntree to come back to life. That's reserved for only the most "special" people)

Sorry to be pedantic, but RD started it.

Other Comments by ghuckin

31. Comment #164880 by Teratornis on April 20, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Comment #164705 by ThoughtsonCommonToad:

The responses may well have dismayed him.

That was annoying. It takes you aback in that it could be describing his reaction to his original survey. It's incredibly off-putting.

While we're being pedantic, I should point out that we have no idea of whether or not a dead person is feeling dismayed just now. All we can say is that we don't know. We can't even put a probability on it because there isn't any information available on which to base a probability.

There does seem to be an assumption among religious people that dead people should continue to have the same opinions and tastes they had before they died. I don't see how that follows at all. Maybe when people die, they change all their opinions completely.

I too was bothered by the sloppy phrasing, but the distress was minor compared to the distress I feel about the fact that we still have to talk about religion.

Other Comments by Teratornis

32. Comment #164884 by Teratornis on April 20, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Comment #164726 by Goldy:

I am a christian, I believe in God and that the Bible is a representation of absolute truth.
...
Jim, London, UK

Be interesting to have him come here....

Yes, it would be nice to have a believer who can write coherently. I have a few questions about the meaning of "representation" in the above quote. It sounds vacuous on the face of it. One squirrel, for example, can represent one duck, or one brick, or one of anything. Representation is unavoidably a subjective mental construct.

The fact that Bible so easily supports an endless variety of conflicting views proves this.

If "the Bible is a representation of absolute truth", what absolute truth about, say, the question of slavery does the Bible represent?

Millions of devout, Bible-believing Christians read their Bibles and concluded slavery was fine. Millions of others read their Bibles, worked considerably harder, and concluded slavery was not fine.

The Bible may be a representation of absolute truth, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly clear representation, as evidenced by all the Bible believers killing other Bible believers down through the centuries.

I think even as a finite human, I could have done a better job of writing a book that represents one coherent representation of absolute truth than the Bible does.

I would bet that "Jim, London, UK" will stick to writing about the Bible rather than actually quoting the difficult bits.

Other Comments by Teratornis

33. Comment #164890 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Goldy wrote:

Given the Polish Catholics haven't had the same effect, I'd guess no. Maybe as a reaction to what Islam is asking for, yes. You have to admit, it has been a bit forceful...

Well, perhaps. However, I recall from critiques of The God Delusion and other atheist books (which I read because I like to know what others are thinking!) that one accusation made towards these books is that their success is "really" in response to 9-11 and the rise of fundamentalist Islam, both in the Islamic world and in Europe and America; all the other critiques of e.g. Christianity are just window dressing. OF COURSE I thik that's crap, but there might be a point in there about how fundamentalist Islam has done so much to bring the worst of religion right under the noses of otherwise indifferent Europeans (simply because religion is so often a total non-issue in many European societies). In America, of course, the issue of the baleful effects of religion is very real and very pervasive, so no further reason for the popularity of such books is needed!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

34. Comment #164946 by Damien White on April 20, 2008 at 10:01 pm

While we're on the subject of pedantry:

"Tom Butler, the Bishop of Southwark, rejected the indictment of faith. He said: "People meeting together, week after week, for worship, support and education in church, synagogue, temple, gurdwara and mosque can not only help people build local community but can teach children to become good citizens."

I'd just like to point out that 'can' is not the same as 'does'. interesting wording, Bishop.

Other Comments by Damien White

35. Comment #164975 by rod-the-farmer on April 20, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Anyone else having trouble opening the PDF files with the source material for this survey ? And another thing, whenever I see a survey reported, it includes much more detail than I saw here. Things like

The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

But also things like

How the people were approached ? e.g. by telephone

Where were these people located ? It did not say, but based on the source, most probably only in the UK, and maybe even tighter than that, i.e. England.

If the source data was only those who responded to a web advert, that will likely skew the answers considerably. Word of mouth among some groups will cause extremely high levels of response if the topic is controversial, at least to them. You need random selection, or the survey may be meaningless.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

36. Comment #165071 by babrock on April 21, 2008 at 2:57 am

Goldy
At t risk of looking like an idiot( I am sure it is neither t 1st or last time), I'd like to ask, What is that Jim London quote in that box? Where is it from? Who is Jim London? ect.

Useally, text in a box, like that (another thing I still have not yet learned to do, btw) is something that someone has previosly posted, or it is from t initial article. I looked but did not see it either place.

As such, it seems to me some random statement by some random guy put there for no reason. I am fairly sure I am wrong on all those and that you have a good reason for putting it there, and that I am just ignorent regarding t reasons is why I am asking.

Other Comments by babrock

37. Comment #165078 by Raiko on April 21, 2008 at 3:30 am

Goldy,

I agree. I wonder whether he thinks that making a 'careful decision based on independent observations' isn't more likely to lead to the rejection of religious dogma, after being spoon-fed with it; not the other way round.

---

Mitchell: I would love to see the full picture. :D

Other Comments by Raiko

38. Comment #165089 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

rod-the-farmer : If the source data was only those who responded to a web advert, that will likely skew the answers considerably.

From the main report:
"The consultation was conducted online on the website www.socialevils.org.uk. Anyone could take part and 3,500 people did so, sharing a wide range of views about the underlying social problems that cause the most damage to British society or the most misery to its people. This group is unlikely to be representative of the British population generally and it was recognised from the start that conducting the survey online would exclude some groups. In order to address this, the National Centre for Social Research was commissioned to explore today's social evils with groups that were less likely to be reached through the online consultation. The results of this strand of work are detailed in a separate report."

The latter is the 3rd report I cited at #164613:
"Modern-day social evils - The voices of unheard groups" (144KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-natcen-report.pdf

Discussion groups were held with:
- People with learning disabilities;
- Ex-offenders;
- Carers;
- Unemployed people;
- Vulnerable young people;
- Care leavers; and
- People with experience of homelessness.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

39. Comment #165098 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 4:00 am

Adding to the quotes from Geoff at #164700:

There are too many of them [religions], and none make any sense. We need to develop a consensus around rules for a decent, open and honest society, perhaps based on a refined Human Rights Act.

Gradually humanism is becoming more recognised as a school topic:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3773661.ece

"Teenagers are to be given the chance to study humanism as part of a religious education GCSE for the first time.

"The leading exam board OCR has published proposals for a new "philosophy and ethics" course to cover issues such as euthanasia and abortion.

"Pupils will be encouraged to examine topics from the standpoint of humanism, a philosophy that rejects religion as irrational and advocates reason in its place.

"The course will include units on the nature of good and evil, medical ethics, death and the afterlife."

In fact, at least one of the other exam organisations already includes humanism.

See also:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2439
Also, spot the names at:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1162

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

40. Comment #165104 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 4:15 am

Following up on the following from the report:

... perhaps based on a refined Human Rights Act

I found this worrying:
"Speech To European Humanist Federation To Mark The 60th Anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
http://www.secularism.org.uk/speechtoeuropeanhumanistfederati.html

In particular:

The proposition I start out with and will go on to justify, is that the body overseeing international Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, is ineffective. Worse, it is in grave danger of shielding Human Rights abuses and abusers from public scrutiny. Worse still, it is starting to be used to legitimise â€" even initiate â€" attacks on the basic human right of freedom of expression.... It soon became obvious that much of the debate, especially on topics such as freedom of expression, was polarised along religious lines. The dominant voices were coming from the countries that belong to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). There are over fifty of them, and on their own form a powerful bloc vote, which is often strengthened by other countries (for example China, Cuba and Russia) for a variety of disparate motives. Up against this, the European states, and others which share their commitment to freedom of expression and other basic human rights seem powerless, certainly in terms of votes.

Islam, in particular, is incompatible (even in theory) with Universal Human Rights, and I guess there will be continual attacks on human rights across Europe as well.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

Fortunately, there are relatively few Islamic states in the Council of Europe, the source of our Human Rights Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe#Membership

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

41. Comment #165105 by Greyman on April 21, 2008 at 4:16 am

Goldy
At t risk of looking like an idiot( I am sure it is neither t 1st or last time), I'd like to ask, What is that Jim London quote in that box? Where is it from? Who is Jim London? ect.
Useally, text in a box, like that (another thing I still have not yet learned to do, btw) is something that someone has previosly posted, or it is from t initial article. I looked but did not see it either place.

It's Jim, from London. He's one of the respondants in the the "Have Your Say" comments section of the Times online article.

Text in a block quote, by the way, is accomplised by wrapping it in HTML tags:

<blockquote>just type some text here</blockquote>.

Other Comments by Greyman

42. Comment #165120 by thewhitepearl on April 21, 2008 at 4:57 am

"Britain has had it with religion"

Can't wait for the day when Britain is replaced with America

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

43. Comment #165195 by Crystal on April 21, 2008 at 7:45 am

Comment #164701 by Richard Dawkins
I was a little confused at the 'may' and 'might' myself. And I am not known for great grammer.

Other Comments by Crystal

44. Comment #165284 by humanist on April 21, 2008 at 9:47 am

I submitted a response to this, which concentrated heavily on how I feel the world would be universally better without organised religion - assumed it'd be dismissed as a minority opinion. Didn't realise how deep the concern is among my fellow compatriates.

It's a good thing - I sense the UK as a whole teetering on the fence with regards to Faith schools / taxpayer funding - once that collapses, there won't be any more childhood indoctrination aside from that done by credulous parents, which in turn will lead to a more inquisitive populace, leading to a humanist utopia.

Right?

Right?

hello?

Other Comments by humanist

45. Comment #178383 by jalavally on May 11, 2008 at 10:28 am

I think that there will always be bullies, tyrants and mobs in the world who are causing disturbance and fear. However Religion has NOTHING to do with it. I am a practising Muslim and have read the Quran several times over. It is a Religion of Peace and community and if people bothered to read it rather than jump on the media bandwagon they might realise. There are a few crazy people who have tainted the name of millions of Muslims. Visit your local muslim community and you will see the truth. Religion is not what causes men to fight, hate, or commit unspeakable acts. Man is predetermind towards violence and people use Religion as an excuse. People need to open their eyes, read and research rather than joining the latest hate campaign. First it was the Black Slaves, then The Jews, then the Irish now its Muslims turn to be the scapegoat. Use your intelligence and think with an open mind!

Other Comments by jalavally