201. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27280 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 5:44 pm

69. Comment #27275 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Brian, often these people try to claim that this is all Old Testament stuff, and Jesus bcame to correct all this (yeh, I know how weak that is). So I like to use the following quote from the New Testament:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:11-12

202. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27160 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 10:04 am

16. Comment #27130 by cerad on March 23, 2007 at 8:41 am
Seems a bit hypocritical to me that the wife is seeking the protection of German Law while at the same time remaining a Muslim. Muslims (like Christians) tend to believe that God's Laws transcend Man's Laws.

She should either take up her plight inside the Muslim community or else give up being a Muslim.

Oh, and by that logic people with stockholm syndrome deserve to be kidnapped?

How dare you take the attitude that this vulnerable woman should either become an atheist or just bugger off back to her abuser(s)? Have a bit of compassion!

We must remember that it's hard to let go all at once, and it seems that this woman is well on her way to escaping the mental prison of Islam (but of course that is besides the point, as she deserves our protection no matter what delusional beliefs she may or may not hold).

203. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27107 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 6:53 am

So Alister McGrath is supposed to have grown up here in Belfast? Where the hell is his Irish accent? Why does he talk like a toff?

Oh, and that silly Catholic Atheist / Protestant Atheist joke is soooo old it makes me cringe to hear it trotted out yet again.

*edit*
Oh, and how sad that he didn't like feeling insignificant when looking at the stars. Poor little lamb.

204. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27105 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 6:43 am

2. Comment #26988 by Aidan86 on March 22, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Perhaps the answer is to spread the word that gay sex ~does~ cause global warming?

Better to say that global warming causes gay sex ;-)

205. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27103 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 6:41 am

Sick! That poor woman!

Makes me wonder if muslims who insist on the veil / Burka are using it to cover up the bruises?

206. Piecing Together the Clues of an Old Collision, Iceball by Iceball

Comment #26960 by Luthien on March 22, 2007 at 4:09 pm

hehe, wot about the GOD particle, eh?

207. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26958 by Luthien on March 22, 2007 at 3:55 pm

So far, no one has mentioned the "child abuse" factor. This poor 12 year old girl who's parents sued the school, does she have to keep her face covered at all times? What would happen if she decided she didn't want to wear it? I think a child protection officer should investigate this issue further.

Think about it, if I had a kid, and forced them to wear a cardboard box over their head with eye holes cut out of it, social services would descend on my house like a biblical plague (and rightly so). What the hell is the difference?

208. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26883 by Luthien on March 22, 2007 at 6:35 am

Don't get bogged down in talk of BNP, or "security concerns", or even the issue of effective communication.

The purpose of the muslim "veil" (and all their talk of women having to dress "modestly") is to put the responsibility for men's sexual conduct on the shoulders of the women.

In light of this, should we allow these attitudes to be propagated in our schools?

If this becomes common, how do you think the boys in the class are going to treat the little girls who they do not consider as "modestly" dressed?

209. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26687 by Luthien on March 21, 2007 at 6:50 am

Denoir: Pretty much what the NS article is saying, right?

However, this is not at all the other thing that you suggested:

Luthien: While having more children could stretch your resources, a gay uncle / brother or 2 would offset this disadvantage.



This is group selection and would be immediately be corrupted from within. The genes of the gay uncles would be eliminated pretty fast by the not-quite-as-gay uncles who would have offspring of their own.

No, the point is that there is a combination of genes that are on average beneficial to reproduction (i.e the higher fertility) but sometimes misfire. If it is on average a beneficial combination, then those genes will survive even if on occasion the resulting phenotype will be unable to propagate the genes. The successful phenotypes will more than compensate for it.

You are assuming that women with higher fertility are going to have an automatic advantage. I think this is a flawed assumption. Large numbers of dependant children will stretch the resources of a human mother, because human offspring require so much attention. This will result in a disadvantage to a "hyper fertility" gene (and is probably why multiple births such as triplets are rare compared to other mammals).

My point was that the homosexuality in siblings would offset the above disadvantage of this combination of genes, making them more likely to be passed on as a direct consequence of causing homosexuality.

In the above case the homosexual genes would be passed down throught the female line. If this proves to be the case it would support my theory.

210. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26597 by Luthien on March 20, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Science and dimension project?

Guardian angel???

Yikes!

He lifted the stone and they all crawled out...

211. Your Mom Was Wrong: Horseplay Is An Important Part Of Development

Comment #26591 by Luthien on March 20, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Hey, I still like to play fight with people, but now only with people who are very close to me. I think it does help you form a bond, especially among siblings when they are children.

212. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #26532 by Luthien on March 20, 2007 at 6:30 am

I saw this when it first came out, and loved it. It put me on to Tom Paine's writings, particularly the "Age of Reason" pamphlet (full text freely available online if you google it). If you have not read it then it is a must.

213. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26413 by Luthien on March 19, 2007 at 6:49 am

Lots of people are asking how homosexuality can be positively selected for if they have no offspring to carry their genes (hi eddie.river). I found the following article quite helpful:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html

Essentially there is no "Gay Gene" for Denoir to remove, and the set of genes that are responsible for sexual attraction to men make women more sexually active, or more fertile, or for whatever combination of reasons cause them to have more children.

While having more children could stretch your resources, a gay uncle / brother or 2 would offset this disadvantage.

Denoir can remove these genes in all his children, but it may cause all his daughters to be lesbians. :-P

Bruno_burned:
How do the mother's genes benefit by starting off with sexually competitive male sons and then decreasing this trait in subsequent sons?

I have read that this is linked with the mother's immune system, which becomes more and more sensitised and hostile to the male hormones, affecting the foetus. If this is another cause, then Denoir has no hope of stopping the "gay gene" unless he intends to tinker with the mother too.

214. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26328 by Luthien on March 18, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Is this because they can't "gay bash" anymore, or is it because more people feel they can actually speak out against religious absurdity?

Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, who is a Catholic, said Christians must decide whether to "fight back or take it".

What, no mention of "turn the other cheek"? ;-)

215. God's dupes

Comment #26161 by Luthien on March 17, 2007 at 9:57 am

The rest is self-deception, set to music.

I'm soooo gonna use that one all the time ;)

216. Kissing Hank's Ass

Comment #26159 by Luthien on March 17, 2007 at 9:39 am

wouldn't go that far. It has about nothing to say about Judaism, for example. "Karl" is obviously a stand-in for Jesus. It certainly makes the point that the form of Christianity believed by a large swath of Protestants is bunk, though.

LOL!

"Karl" is a stand in for anyone who writes a book, and then claims that it was dictated to him by a higher power. Fine examples include the writers of the old testament, the gospel writers of the new testament, that bloke wot wrote the Koran, the book of Mormon, the gospel of the flying spagetti monster; i.e. basically anyone who says or writes anything that they claim came from some sort of deity.

217. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26150 by Luthien on March 17, 2007 at 8:42 am

These people are so sick I don't even know where to begin!

What is needed is therapy for people who are disturbed by same-sex attraction.

Precisely, there is something deeply wrong with someone who would even contemplate modifying their child like this.

I was reading an article in New Scientist about how someday they might be able to use gene therapy to change skin pigmentation as easily as we change hair colour today (so you could adjust yourself perfectly to your climate), can you imagine the outcry if a well known racist were to suggest that skin colour be "screened for" in the womb and "corrected"?

218. Did You Know? Shift Happens - Globalization, Information Age

Comment #25618 by Luthien on March 14, 2007 at 10:36 am

3. Comment #25542 by Newton30 on March 14, 2007 at 3:40 am

This video is based on wild extrapolations that historically have been discredited. Just look at what we thought the year 2000 was going to be like back in 1960. Intergalactic travel anyone?

Already, Moore's law is on its way out. If I check out my local computer store's stock, new, more powerful processors are much too expensive. The computational power of common PCs has not changed in the last 3 years or so, and prices for the same equipment have stagnated during that period. Even today's existing computers are already wildly overpowered for everyday applications. There is just no incentive to build more powerful computers (except maybe graphics cards for games).

Moor's law is not "on it's way out". If you read New Scientist you would know all about the latest developments in transistors that will allow it to continue for a long time to come (using a graphite like coating that is only one atom thick), not to mention quantum computing and photonics.

You seem unimpressed with Google world, I can remember looking at an atlas at school, now I can pick a spot on the globe and zoom right in to see what kind of area it is (like a hotel I might book for a holiday). In a few short years I have already gained so much knowledge and power at my fingertips. Long may it continue!

(And where the hell have you been buying computer parts??? If they still charge the same prices as 3 years ago they are ripping you off mate!)

219. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25182 by Luthien on March 10, 2007 at 5:38 pm

I'm sure the other side is wondering, 'Hey, how come he's not eating children and setting kittens on fire?'

"Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him." 2 Kings 6:28-29

220. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25160 by Luthien on March 10, 2007 at 2:43 pm

PS. what means lol? The others I can work out, well, at least, most of them. I wouldn't mind an explanatory list if anyone has the patience to write it for my edification. :)

LOL = Laugh Out Loud
ROTFL = Rolling on the floor laughing
LMAO = laughing my ass off
OFC = of course
BTW = by the way
IMO / IMHO = in my opinion / in my humble opinion
WTF = what the f*ck?
BRB = be right back
1337 = ignore the person who uses this, he is probably only 14 and is destined never to have contact with anything other than his keyboard :P

That's all I can think of off hand :)

221. U.S. Mint goof creates 'Godless dollars'

Comment #24906 by Luthien on March 9, 2007 at 5:50 am

Whats the chance of an atheist working down at the mint and did a little tampering with the press....naaaaaa couldn't be.

If I worked there I would do it ;-)

222. You can't trust science!

Comment #24903 by Luthien on March 9, 2007 at 5:34 am

Hey MelM, I also found this beauty on that page:

Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

223. Long live satire

Comment #24520 by Luthien on March 7, 2007 at 3:36 am

27. Comment #24508 by Myryama on March 7, 2007 at 1:22 am

For an enlightened view of Christianity and Islam, you could do worse than visit www.jesusandmo.net.

Ooh, I love that site!

If you like jesus and mo, you should also try http://russellsteapot.com

224. Ayaan Hirsi Ali Feature

Comment #24353 by Luthien on March 6, 2007 at 6:05 am

5. Comment #24275 by MelM on March 5, 2007 at 4:07 pm

The book "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is at #7 on the NYT best seller list and it's been on the list for 3 weeks.

Her journey from Islam to atheism is a wonderful theme running through a book which is readable by people who will never read Dawkins.

I ordered her book a while ago, but it was out of stock. Apparently they have posted it now, so I am hoping to get it any day now. I can't wait :)

225. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23839 by Luthien on March 3, 2007 at 6:36 am

"In a book of almost 400 pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false," Mr. Eagleton wrote. "The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history — and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry."

This reminds me of something the record companies do when they talk about the amount of money they lose through mp3 downloads. The assume that everyone who downloaded something for free would actually have gone out and bought it for £14 in the shops. In the above example, Mr Eagleton makes a similar unjustified assumption, namely that all the people doing "selfless acts" throughout the centuries would not have acted thus without the influence of a religion.

226. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23699 by Luthien on March 2, 2007 at 5:53 am

Taken by itself, a scriptural passage can wrongly rationalize negative behavior, he says.

Goodness, really??? You don't say!

Is their next study going to involve passages from the Koran and a flight simulator?

227. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23696 by Luthien on March 2, 2007 at 5:45 am

...the Cardinal said "the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist

Al Gore is the Antichrist?

228. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23693 by Luthien on March 2, 2007 at 5:37 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

*wipes tears from eyes*

So if he thinks God is very simple, and God (being God) is superior to him, then he must be exceedingly simple indeed!

229. If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Comment #23498 by Luthien on March 1, 2007 at 5:41 am

14. Comment #23479 by AbstractMonkey on March 1, 2007 at 3:21 am

I posted something about this to the comments section of the times website, but it never appeared. My point was along the lines that Portillo contradicts himself in the article:

He says, "I recognise that teaching religious belief may be a good way, perhaps the best way, to impart a sense of right and wrong to children and it is fundamental to our society's survival that most people should distinguish good from bad."
...
** If someone out there reading this has contact with that plonker Portillo, give him a kick in the ass for making such a mistake. Better still, get Andrew O'Neil on This Week to grill him about it! **

I sent him an email ang got the following response:

"I expected to be attcked by the religious community for my article but actually most of the criticism has come from those who like you are alarmed that during the course of the article I "copped out" over teaching etc. I accept that I did that and thanks for taking me to task."

230. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23358 by Luthien on February 28, 2007 at 5:44 am

8. Comment #23312 by Janus on February 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm

"I couldn't watch past the first minute. I'm sorry, but to say that labelling children is child abuse is such complete nonsense. What harm does mere _labelling_ do? "

Labelling children is child abuse.

I know, I'm from Northern Ireland!

Also, check out the Muslim Council's "advice" on how to "treat" so called Muslim children in state schools (both primary and secondary)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6391271.stm?ls

"It calls for special considerations for Muslims in almost every aspect of school life: collective worship, PE, dance, swimming, exams, school meals, sex education and parents' evenings...

...Muslim children "should not be expected to participate in communal showering".

The compromise of allowing Muslim pupils to shower in bathing costumes is not acceptable either, says the guidance, because Islam also forbids being in the presence of nakedness.

Sports involving physical contact (basketball, for example) should happen only in single-gender groups.

Swimming is fraught with difficulties. Again schools are urged "to make every effort" to provide single-sex swimming lessons, as well as allowing Muslim girls to wear full leotards or leggings in the water.

During Ramadan, some pupils might wish to be excused swimming if they fear that swallowing water would break their fast.

There are many other areas in which Muslim pupils need special consideration:

they cannot take part in dance
school meals must include halal options
Islamic Studies should be offered to all Muslim pupils in RE at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level)
schools "should consider" offering Arabic to Muslim pupils.
The list is long: there are stipulations covering music, drama, art, school libraries, provision for prayers, school visits, and raffles."

Once a child is labeled, it seems they are practically the "property" of that religion, and is open to the above abuse. Once you are labeled they can say they are doing anything on your behalf. What sort of sick people put out "guidelines" to reinforce the SUPPRESSION of little girls, to the point that they can't dance, swim, or play football? How do you think the boys labeled "Muslim" will treat little girls in their class who do not cover themselves? How will they react to girls that insist on playing foorball with them???

231. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23295 by Luthien on February 27, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Body of Christ?

... we could have communion wafers made from GM wheat containing genuine "Jesus genes"...


o.O

232. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23286 by Luthien on February 27, 2007 at 2:38 pm

2. Comment #23285 by DaveT439 on February 27, 2007 at 2:06 pm
"2. Can you really get viable DNA out of 2000 year old bones?"

"If the scientific backbone of Jurrasic Park (the novel) has any truth to it, then even old dinosaur bones have fragementary DNA (the DNA leap in JP was the finding of complete dino DNA in the belly's of insects encased in amber)..."

OMG, we could have "Jerusalem Park", with thousands of Jesus clones on display... but then a Fundie wants to steal his own personal saivour. So he steals a sample of Jesus eggs from the freezer and knocks out the electricity grid to make his escape, inadvertantly releaseing a Jesus plague on the southern states...

233. Pope speaks out against 'designer babies'

Comment #23179 by Luthien on February 26, 2007 at 4:07 pm

3. Comment #23128 by cassdenata on February 26, 2007 at 1:17 pm
"...but with improvements in genetic detection of the probability of getting diseases, cancer, etc. It seems like a dangerous slippery slope."

and

0. Comment #23171 by BaronOchs on February 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm
"...although i find the possibilty of designer babies along the lines of "doctor we want a blond-haired violinist" worrying though I haven't looked at the issue in any detail, if anyone can offer a good breakdown I'd be grateful."

DNA just doesn't work like this. We can screen for serious genetic disorders, but it would be impossible to remove all the "cancer" genes. This is because these are the very same genes that give us our vitality and fertility when we are in our prime, which is why natural selection has favoured them so strongly. The most we can do is warn the person about their potential predispositions, and in the future we will probably be able to give some sort of corrective therapy to help our immune system detect rogue cancer cells.

Something like musical talent will be the result of a subtle combination of environment and a host of different genes, I suspect that predicting the effects of genetic "tweaking" will be as difficult and error prone as trying to predict the weather (since they are both subject to chaos).

234. Atheists come in last

Comment #22938 by Luthien on February 24, 2007 at 6:35 pm

82. Comment #22935 by steveroot on February 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm
"both documents evolved under the influence of a "common ancestor", human ethics."

hehe, brilliant ;-)

235. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22934 by Luthien on February 24, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Hey, remember how people said the "Hobbits" could not have made and used the tools that were found with them, because their brain size was closer to that of a chimp's? Kind of challenges that idea!

When will people accept that animals other than humans are not "dumb"?

236. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22616 by Luthien on February 20, 2007 at 3:22 am

Hmmm... Well, after reading the "stationary earth" people's website... *sigh*

237. Kansas science standards evolve again, becoming pro-Darwin

Comment #22363 by Luthien on February 15, 2007 at 4:56 am

7. Comment #22312 by abilard on February 14, 2007 at 4:33 am

Does this mean they won't be teaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-(

You evil celestial teapot infidel! You will spend eternity in the great saucer below for believing in your false noodly gods.

238. Guinness 'Evolution' Ad

Comment #22140 by Luthien on February 13, 2007 at 3:21 am

4. Comment #22122 by scottishgeologist on February 13, 2007 at 12:56 am

LOL - good one - that should upset a few fundies. Guinness ads have often been good and thought provoking.

Actually, I *think* it was Guinness he was talking about, or it may just have been alchol generally, but that loveable cuddly preacher from Northern Ireland, the Rev Ian Paisley once referred to it as the "Devils buttermilk"

:-)

LOL I think you are right.

He also thinks Cinemas are evil, and sing hymns on the podium when they are reading out the election results *sigh*

239. The God Delusion

Comment #21727 by Luthien on February 10, 2007 at 7:44 pm

"The first is that the mere fact that a book is intended for a broad audience doesn't mean its author can ignore the best thinking on a subject."

Hehe, I suspect that he would ignore the "best thinking" of Fairyologists when dismissing the existence of fairies. You can think about things all you want, it doesn't make them real (if it did, I would never have to phone for a pizza delivery).

240. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21527 by Luthien on February 9, 2007 at 7:23 pm

83. Comment #21480 by debaser71 on February 9, 2007 at 11:47 am
The way I see it is that these parodies do little other than compare Dawkins to God. I don't know how religionist / anti-Dawkins types think this is going to somehow help them.

/boggle

/nerd

:-P

241. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21321 by Luthien on February 8, 2007 at 4:19 pm

16. Comment #21316 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Just reread the top and a couple of links.
Now I'm a bit embarrassed by the fact that I found it funny.
I guess that's what happens when you tend not to take things personally.
I take that back, I still found it a little funny. :)

Hehehe I read that bit before watching it and still found it funny.

Though we should remember that all children are born Adawkinists, and it is only through the repetition of the Dawkins myth that children grow up to assume he actually exists. :-P

242. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21314 by Luthien on February 8, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Hehe. Richard, I'm not sure if you exist any more, and even 2 forum comments just isn't convincing...

Let's meet in person :-P

243. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20960 by Luthien on February 7, 2007 at 5:59 am

37. Comment #20933 by Student Grant on February 7, 2007 at 3:37 am

This interviewer is pretty typical of the local press in Northern Ireland. Despite thirty years of sectarian slaughter, the churches and their spokespeople invariably get an easy ride when presenting their mythology. Sadly, religious belief is still seen as the default setting for a 'normal' worldview, and rationalism is perceived as being weird, and potentially dangerous - again, despite approximately three thousand deaths in religious conflict. This is hardly surprising when you consider the influence that the churches still have on education here - practically all children are taught in sectarian schools and exposed to an inordinate amount of religious indoctrination. Though the virus didn't get us all, it still makes me EMBARRASSED TO COME FROM NORTHERN IRELAND.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I'm going to write a letter to the Belfast Telegraph, I suggest you do the same :-)

Last month The Derry Journal published a story about a woman who claimed that she had consumed no food or liquids for the past 8 years, other than Catholic communion wafers, and that God had kept her alive as some sort of miracle. The "journalist" doing the interview was all sympathy, and conducted the interview with the default assumption that what she claimed was true. (This woman was promoting a book.)

244. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20755 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 9:36 am

38. Comment #20746 by Riley on February 6, 2007 at 9:01 am

Even if feasible, can you not also see how easy it would be for the religious-minded majority or an authoritarian group to co-opt the intent of such laws to oppress minority and counter-culture groups? For example, how hard would it be for them to expand the definiton of 'hate' to include calling God a delusion?

I clearly didn't say "hate", I said "telling children that they should commit acts that violate the human rights of another person". This is a clear definition (in the law as well as in common sense), and if it is seen as oppressing a minority then we clearly have a minority that we need to worry about. Someone told those young men to blow up the tube, someone got to them while they were still vulnerable and ruined many lives in the process. Whoever they are, they should not have been allowed access to children.

245. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20753 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 9:25 am

"Reason itself is an act of faith; it is an act of faith to suppose that our thoughts have any bearing on reality at all."

LOL

Can someone tell him that Reason is not to suppose our thoughts have any bearing on reality, it is to allow reality to have a bearing on your thoughts.

246. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20752 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 9:18 am

5. Comment #20728 by alfonso on February 6, 2007 at 6:57 am

Drown Witches

Erm, if they are witches they float, like ducks, so let's see if they weigh the same as a duck :-P

247. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20716 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 6:07 am

"We think that there is actually an intellectual argument for pagan claims to be taken seriously," said Prof Bienkowski, "It is a different world view which, actually, like the scientific world view can be neither proved nor disproved. It is actually our responsibility to take those views into account." What right, he asks, do scientists have to speak for the bones either?

*sigh* Not another one!

*rolls eyes*

248. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20711 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 4:36 am

33. Comment #20705 by opposablethumbs on February 6, 2007 at 4:02 am

...and it really is that simple to improve the behaviour and results of students. I hope this gets introduced throughout the UK :-)

Pupils were more aware of their own and the feelings of others and classroom behaviour improved, the research said.

This also shows that the rational conclusion of critical thinking is to work well with others, and treat them as you wish to be treated.

Thanks for that link :-)

249. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20700 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 1:51 am

31. Comment #20690 by John Phillips on February 5, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Riley: We already have school inspectors who check on both the competence of teachers and how the subjects taught relate to the agreed curriculum. What difference would there be in having such inspectors for religious teachers and institutes, whether religious schools or religious establishments in general. Any that promulgated what are considered anathema to human rights can easily be dealt with under existing law. Of course, this doesn't prevent or interfere with what parents do in their own homes but would limit what could be taught in religious establishments. Of course, one problem is that it is likely to garner ridiculous headlines from the right wing press about curtailing general religious freedom as it would have to apply to all religions and not simply islam. But I would consider this a major step forward for our society.

If the policy was clearly promoted so people understood that they were only being vetted to ensure they were not teaching children that it is acceptable to violate another person's human rights, I don't see how any religion (or newspaper) could object. They all claim to teach "peace and love", so if they have a problem with their instructors being vetted to ensure they are not teaching violence, then they are going to look very bad indeed. Essentially they would be publicly saying that they wanted the right to tell children to harm their fellow human beings.

28. Comment #20657 by Riley on February 5, 2007 at 2:27 pm

There's a difference between checking someone's criminal history as a means of qualifying that someone before hiring, and intruding upon private day to day activities. The latter, which does sound like what you're suggesting, amounts to treating everyone as if they were a criminal suspect without probable cause and perhaps even would shift the burden of proof onto the accused.

Riley, this is not assuming people are guilty, this is a child protection issue. If someone wants to set up an institution teaching children, they will simply have to prove that they meet certain standards. The curriculum of study should be looked at, and any guest speakers vetted. If are found to be telling children that it is a Husband's "right" to beat his wife, or something else that is clearly illegal and a violation of human rights, then their right to have access to children in a teaching environment will be revoked.

250. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20652 by Luthien on February 5, 2007 at 1:10 pm

26. Comment #20648 by Riley on February 5, 2007 at 11:53 am
avatar

Luthien wrote:We could require the "Sunday schools" (or whatever the equivalent is for that particular religion) to be vetted on what they are teaching / exposing children to.



For much the same reason I would not want my government to interfere with daily family activities, I would also not want my government requiring families and organizations that cater to families to report on private matters.

However, what I think society and government can do for the sake of children is insist that all children receive the basics of education. It's common to think of reading, writing and arithemetic as the basics of education (that part of education that is considered the right of every child) . To deprive a child of these basics is considered criminal neglect in many places.

I think the best way to counteract the impact of faith-schooling is to expand the basics of education to include "critical thinking". Using the scientific method as the benchmark for "critical thinking", government could require all children to demonstrate at least an adequate ability to evaluate evidence and apply the scientific method. Such a test could be conducted much the same way that tests evaluating reading, writing, and mathematic capability are conducted with the goal of ensuring that every child is receiving an adequate education. Also, if a perochial school or "home school" is not providing adequate critical thinking skills, then such schools can be shut down for much the same reason they would be shut down if not providing adequate reading and writing skills.

It's the attempt to isolate children that I think is the biggest threat. "Sunday school" is less likely to cause too much harm if students manage at the same time to get adequate exposure to better alternatives.

You make a good point about making sure that children are not isolated, but I still think there is a good case for vetting religious education centres aimed at children. If they have a religious education program, I think the state has a duty to make sure they are not telling young boys that it is ok to beat your wife, and other such things that are a blatent infringement of human rights. In the same way that people who work with children are vetted to ensure they do not have a criminal record, people who are teaching children should be vetted to ensure they are not telling them that it is ok to commit acts that, if acted upon, would violate another person's human rights. If I were to set up a school teaching young children "joyriding" or burglary, I am quite sure someone from the state would be very quick to shut me down (and quite right too), so if a Muslim is telling children that it is a Husband's "right" to beat his wife, or that women who are not covered from head to toe are inviting sexual assult, then I do not think the state is intervening in "private matters".