Saturday, June 18, 2011

BBC exposes the inefficacy of the ‘morning-after’ pill. Where’s the uproar?

Funny, isn’t it? The BBC screens a documentary about ‘assisted suicide’ in which a man is shown drinking poison and dying on a comfy Dignitas sofa in snowy Switzerland, and most of the Church unites with the right-wing press in a furore of condemnation. The left-leaning media are largely content that another taboo has been broken, advocating that ‘assisted suicide’ is a bit like abortion and should be available to anyone over the age of consent.

Yet when the BBC screens a documentary about the inefficacy of the ‘morning-after’ pill, in which scientific evidence establishes that its widespread availability is actually exacerbating the problem of teenage pregnancy, there is silence from both the right and the left.

And the Church.

The programme was ‘Week In Week Out’ (still available on iPlayer).

The ‘morning-after’ pill acts to disrupt ovulation or fertilisation to prevent pregnancy. It is now freely available from pharmacies everywhere in Wales to anyone requesting this emergency ‘contraception’. Pharmacists are permitted to supply the pill to girls even as young as 13, without either parental knowledge or consent, in complete confidence. The producers of the programme set out to investigate whether this policy was helping or hindering the objective of reducing unwanted teenage pregnancies (and so abortions).

They interviewed a 15-year-old who is five months pregnant, who said: “I think handing out pills over the counter is just encouraging teenagers to have sex.”

You hear a GP express concern that pharmacists are supplanting family doctors, and being asked to assess the physical and mental health of young girls with the aid and guidance of a crass ‘tick-box’ questionnaire:


Dr Andrew Dearden of the BMA explained: “Doctors and GPs are trained to look at the whole person, not just one aspect or one part of care but the broadest aspect of their health.”

Pharmacists are concerned with the single issue of dispensing one pill.

Another GP, Dr Caroline Scherf, says that even after taking the morning after pill ‘there is still a very high chance they end up pregnant’.

We hear from the BMA that ‘there is no good evidence that it reduces teenage pregnancy rates’.

Professor David Paton of Nottingham University confirmed this, saying: “Contrary to what people were hoping, the introduction of the morning-after pill for young people didn’t have any effect in terms of reducing teenage pregnancies.”


And two-dozen studies in other countries say pretty much the same thing.

Further, Professor Paton said there is actually 12 per cent relative increase in STIs amongst under-16s in those areas where the morning-after pill is freely available from pharmacies.

So, the pharmacy scheme actually increases STIs by encouraging irresponsibility and riskier behaviour. This, of course, comes as no surprise to those who are concerned with the separation of sex and sexuality from the Christian moral framework. And yet state sex education largely detaches the physical act from the context of intimacy and love, from commitment and relationship.

The Welsh Assembly says in its ‘Sexual Health Action Plan’ that high rates of teenage pregnancy are a public health priority. The pharmacy scheme will cost Welsh taxpayers around £300,000 per annum, yet the BBC has established that it will have little or no effect on the rates of teenage pregnancy and so will not reduce the number of later-term abortions.

Health Minister Lesley Griffiths AM was asked whether she thought the pharmacy scheme was still a good way of reducing teenage pregnancies and invited to appear on the programme.

The request was declined.

Bizarrely, a spokesman said on her behalf that the scheme was an important part of the comprehensive sexual health service but it was ‘not part of our strategy to reduce teenage conceptions’.


Right.

If the ‘morning-after’ pill is not about lowering the rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion, what is it for?

This documentary was not only interesting; it was an excellent piece of investigative journalism on evidence-based policy. It is, in media terms, ‘a story’, every bit as newsworthy as Terry Pratchett’s descent into darkness.

So where is the uproar?

And why have those who were jumping over themselves to condemn the BBC for ‘Choosing to Die’ not been just as quick to praise the Corporation for this exposé?

Was it for lack of Sir Cliff as presenter?

Or is there something more to it?

104 Comments:

Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Or is there something more to it?"

It's probably because morning after pills aren't used or required by homosexuals. The church is not going to get more recruits by coming down hard on youngsters having sex before marriage, or on married people having affairs, or on divorcees and separated people having sex outside of marriage. In fact, by observation, it turns a blind eye to youngsters within the church having sex with each other before marriage. But gay and lesbian people are outside the catchment area and a minority to boot (literally) so the religious can dump all their sexual frustrations on them without undue worry. It's the safe option.

18 June 2011 at 10:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If the ‘morning-after’ pill is not about lowering the rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion, what is it for?"

If I were an adult woman and I had an unexpected 'casual encounter', possibly involving alcohol, without using contraceptives, or if I had used a condom and it broke, or especially if I was raped, then I'd want to do something about it immediately. The issue of STIs is trouble enough without a pregnancy resulting.

18 June 2011 at 11:02  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

DanJ0..."The church is not going to get more recruits by coming down hard on youngsters having sex before marriage"

You are so wrong. People are actually looking for someone to give them some boundaries ... just as Herod used to like listening to John the Baptist's condemnations of his behaviour. Congregations with liberal preaching are the ones that are diminishing.

Cranmer, there is one church which has not ignored this issue, which has raised it's voice continually. It is the church of Rome. The CofE on the other hand seems to love the praise of man rather than God.

Well done to the BBC for this exposé. I shall write & pass on my praise. I will also be bringing it to the attention of the governors of my children's primary school, who sadly seem to have been taken in by the fpa propaganda for more : more explicit, more frequent, more early.

18 June 2011 at 11:14  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Interesting post YG as my wife works in that field, shame about the Gay Mafia high-jacking comments straight away though. In my view I can't see what the heck has it got to do with the practitioners of perverted sex? All the gay mob should be concerned about is wearing a bloody condom.

Clearly we can see yet another example of Liberalism going too far and getting well away from the morals of Christianity. Unfortunately ever time this happens, there are bad consequences. Why aren't girls especially taught to value their virtue and have more self respect. What happened to the concept of Shame?

18 June 2011 at 11:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Maturecheese: "shame about the Gay Mafia high-jacking comments straight away though"

If you're hoping for a kiss on the lips before I metaphorically stick a stiletto knife between your ribs then you're going to be very disappointed.

How does one hijack comments anyway? One just adds a comment and other people add their own as they wish. You're kicking up a cheesy stink over nothing.

18 June 2011 at 11:40  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Danjo, If you were to try kissing me on the lips, you would regret it.
I am annoyed that a rightish wing Christian blog is attracting Leftie Liberal Gays and I find the promotion of Homosexuality immoral. Leave what you get up to behind closed doors and you will be tolerated, push it in peoples faces and you will elicit strong reactions.

18 June 2011 at 11:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Leave what you get up to behind closed doors and you will be tolerated, push it in peoples faces and you will elicit strong reactions."

I dare say we're not interested in merely being tolerated, and strong reactions work both ways.

I dare say you're not interested in merely being tolerated for being Christian either. The not-religious get Christianity pushed in our faces regularly.

If you kept it behind closed doors then we'd tolerate you more too. Welcome to minority status.

"I am annoyed that a rightish wing Christian blog is attracting Leftie Liberal Gays"

I want to save you from yourself. It's my duty, really.

18 June 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

We will have to agree to disagree as I'm sure HG would not want a slanging match going on that doesn't have a lot to do with his post.

18 June 2011 at 12:11  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

"So where is the uproar?"

There is no uproar because premarital and extra-marital sex is no longer seen as taboo. The question is simply how one avoids the 'inconvenient' consequences i.e. pregnancy and/or STI's.

You are right the Church should be making a noise about this. The debate about morality should not be secondary to the consequences.

It's not a 'public health' issue - it's an issue of 'public morality'!

18 June 2011 at 12:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo, teh whole point about XChristianity is that it is not 'religious'. The word religion (vague at the best of times, and cited as *the* classic vague word in Paul Edwards's Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Macmillan, 1967: s.v.'vagueness']) is actually a smear word among many groups of Christians - not only Barth and Bonhoeffer but also charismatics and evangelicals in general. Christianity is nothing to do with 'religion' -whatever 'religion' might be, and that is not clear. It is about reality; and it is about a relationship with God through Jesus.

18 June 2011 at 13:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry about the typos - Christopher Shell

18 June 2011 at 13:02  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

It's not a 'public health' issue - it's an issue of 'public morality'!

I whole heartedly agree, casual sex should primarily be looked at from a moral point of view rather than a public health one. The trouble is we have been dragged away from that way of thinking by the liberal left with their human rights and equality agendas. These people have infiltrated every influential organ of modern society, for example Parliament, Civil service, Media, Local Authorities, Police etc, so that any other point of view which tends towards the traditional conservative values we used to display, are shut down in an aggressive manner.

18 June 2011 at 14:08  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

If the ‘morning-after’ pill is not about lowering the rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion, what is it for?

If this is the thinking behind the issue then the Welsh decision makers have got it seriously wrong.

Obviously the provision of the MAP is to allow a woman in an 'emergency' situation to chose whether or not to become a mother. Simply addressing the issue as one of a first call opportunity of avoiding an under-age pregnancy should not be the primary function.
If anything, it is more likely to be used as a coercive lever by young men to engage in unprotected and opportunist sex.

Comparing this issue to the act of assisting the self deliverance of another is I think HG's own novel approach to igniting parallel moral debate with the latter - cunning.
However, in my opinion the two issues are completely different both in nature and of the potential consequences.

I don't agree with making the MAP available to girls under the legal age of consent or that it should be available available without a doctor's (and parent's) guidance. But I see teenage pregnancies as more of a societal problem than one of the morality or even illegality of assisting a person to effect suicide.

In deprived sections of society (post-industrial Wales is a good example*) getting pregnant is a lifestyle choice sustained and supported by over-generous benefit 'rights' for not so dumb teenagers.

Neither do I feel that teenage sexual activity is a moral issue any way. If it ever was, where is the evidence that supports the proposition that morality alone was ever an effective deterrant to teenage sexual adventure?

Teenagers by nature are highly driven by sexual urges. In Elizabethan times,with parental consent, a boy and a girl were allowed and often encouraged to marry at the age of 14 and 12; younger if the 'happy couple' are of royal lineage. Puberty exists as it does for a reason; it does not, or ever did consult mankind or the bible.

Banging the 'morality drum' won't make any difference if it makes better financial sense to get pregnant, be allocated your own house and be supported by the State.

What happened to the concept of Shame?

Shame - drove distraght females to the butchery of back street abortionists - this is a rightfully discredited and vindictive line of reccommendation - not the answer at all. More appropriate I suggest, the question should be - what has happened to addressing the of the lack objective parenting from adults that fail to takes responsibility for profligate offspring or of a corrosivly liberal benefits system?

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8534147.stm

18 June 2011 at 14:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJo,

The Church is not a social club or mutual society.

The rules for membership are not voted upon by a committee.

Those wishing membership, who fulfill the necessary criteria (repentance of sin and faith in Christ alone for salvation) are never black-balled.

Those wishing to join and change the rules, when they do not fulfill membership criteria themselves anyway, should, according to the Bible, be invited to repent and shown the door.

Watering down (abandoning, really) the strict requirement for sexual morality as defined by the Bible is killing the churches. If I want to be licentious, and be patted on the back by those of a similar disposition, I could go to a gay-bar or a brothel.

Imagine how stupid it would be to insist that the members of a gay-bar, or visitors to a brothel, should strictly adhere to the Bible's teaching on sexual morality. Then you'll see how stupid it is that all sorts of weirdos are inflicting their opinions and their presence on the Church, and even more sickeningly, the Church accepts them.

All this goes for those who are hetero and immoral too, don't think I'm gay-bashing.

18 June 2011 at 14:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking, I'm not advocating the churches change their views on sexual morality. If anything then I'd rather they denounced sex before marriage and sex outside of marriage with the same vigour and passion that homosexuality is denounced. I'd expect the churches would put the back up of lots of people if they did and that would suit me just fine.

As ever, what I actually want is for the churches, actually all religious institutions, to be treated as a private organisations as far as the State is concerned. If churches want to make political statements about how the rest of us should live then of course they should do so ... and be ridiculed or not, and criticised or not, as a result depending on what they say.

I actually resent religious people laying claim to morality as though there is only one view of what that is. Of course I have no doubt they think there is only one view of it and that their view is the correct one but I beg to differ. The rest of us need to keep pointing out that when people talk about morality then they're talking about their particular one.

18 June 2011 at 14:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

Relative morality is an oxymoron. What was right today was right yesterday and will be right tomorrow, regardless of faith or opinion.

You are entirely correct in the opinion that all forms of sexual immorality should be denounced by Christians. I dare say there are more divorcees in the C of E than pooftahs, and they are in just as much trouble, except they repent.

18 June 2011 at 15:19  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

So why are the Christian Churches
tolerating heterosexual cohabitation and premarital sex?

Could it be that the
majority of middle class Christians indulge in these practices and the Church does not want to alienate them and lose valued,( I was going to say clientele)but communicants is probably more appropriate.

I believe the average age for a first sexual encounter is 14.
I do not think you would have to be a Christian to be appalled by this statistic.

Banning the MAP will not change that.We live in a
sex saturated society with easy access to pornography via the net and unfortunately our children are a part of this morally diminished
society.

18 June 2011 at 15:28  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Maturecheese said...

Interesting post YG as my wife works in that field, shame about the Gay Mafia high-jacking comments straight away though. In my view I can't see what the heck has it got to do with the practitioners of perverted sex?

and then has the audacity to say

I'm sure HG would not want a slanging match going on that doesn't have a lot to do with his post.

The obsession with Gays here is so pathetic and Maturecheese reveals what an intolerant person he is but that is not the theme of this thread.

Which of the issues vex the Christians here the most?

Sex outside marriage

Sex amongst the young

Unwanted pregnancies

Juvenile health

“Aborted” pregnancies

Left wing conspiracy of silence


We now have a large degree of control of human fertility and so sex can be enjoyed as recreation and not just as a means of reproduction. So don’t get all hung up about the need to be married before you can enjoy it. Before contraception, with a high likelihood of pregnancy, it was natural for society to consider marriage as a necessary precursor to sexual activity but not any more.

The morning after pill is invariably used by irresponsible women who have had sex without contraception. As Cranmer says it has a high failure rate and so the real issue is to inform and educate young women. Contraceptive advice is foremost the responsibility of parents who should talk openly about sex to their kids. Mine are adult now and none are currently in a relationship but when they are they “sleep” with their partners under our roof if they want to. They have not had STI’s or got pregnant. I expect at some time in the future they will settle down and have families of their own in the meantime there is no reason for them to abstain from sex.

Sex can be a wonderful and tender thing with a loving partner, within a stable relationship. But it can also be enjoyed on a much more vulgar level, satisfying nothing more than lust and what the hell is wrong with that?

18 June 2011 at 15:32  
Anonymous Harriet Bowles said...

Mr Davis
Lust is a sin. If one must perform such beastly acts as part of conjugal duties,the decent thing to do is grit your teeth, think of England or any other preferred location and under no circumstances enjoy it!

18 June 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "Relative morality is an oxymoron. What was right today was right yesterday and will be right tomorrow, regardless of faith or opinion."

That's not quite what I said. I said that the religious talk as though there is only one view of it: their particular one.

There may be a absolute and universal morality but it needs justifying to all of us otherwise it's just one of many possibles which its proponents claim ought to be treated as universally applicable.

If you think, like lots of religious people seem to do, that without your absolute and universal morality we can all just do what we like then you're mis-describing the alternatives.

18 June 2011 at 16:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The obsession with Gays here is so pathetic and Maturecheese reveals what an intolerant person he is but that is not the theme of this thread."

To be fair, I regularly and willing hand over the club with which they beat us and then point meaningfully at their beating us with it.

18 June 2011 at 16:12  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Danjo said ...
"There may be a absolute and universal morality but it needs justifying to all of us otherwise it's just one of many possibles which its proponents claim ought to be treated as universally applicable."

And that my friend is where you are so mistaken!

There is one morality divinely ordained for man by God. All the have sages known it as the 'Golden Rule'. But it goes so much further and deeper.

To paraphrase Jesus, 'the law was made for man, not man for the law'.

God's way for us is shown in the Bible and yet it is impossible for fallen man in a fallen world to live according to the moral prescriptions that are written on all of our hearts.

That's the challenge of free will. We search for exceptions and for loop-holes. We think we know better. And when we don't live the way God intends the world becomes ever more corrupt. Homosexuality, abortion, ethenasia, divorce, contraception and fornication all have consequences for the world beyond the peril of individuals.

There is an easy way through this! Christians believe the answer is to die to our natural inclinations and obtain life through union with Christ who assumed our burdens and continues to do so.

Christian morality requires no justification. It is a morality given to us and revealed to us by our Creator. Accept it or reject it but understand it is non-negotiable. That's why all the man made systems don't work - facism, liberalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, masonry etc. They are not founded on God's word.

18 June 2011 at 16:30  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Viking said:-

Relative morality is an oxymoron. What was right today was right yesterday and will be right tomorrow, regardless of faith or opinion

Something doesn't ring true here - if this has been a Christian country for 2000 years then morality should have been constant no?
Yet in Christian Europe...

many other countries, increased the age of consent to 13 in the 19th century. Nations, such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, that adopted or mirrored the Napoleonic code likewise initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.

In 1875, England raised the age to 13 years; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony.

In the U.S., each state determined its own criminal law and age of consent ranged from 10 to 12 years of age


http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230i

If this is true, then morality is a moveable feast and has less to do with hard and fast Christian teaching and more to do with contemporary societal norms.

18 June 2011 at 16:31  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo @ 11:02

I agree with you entirely; there now!

18 June 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And that my friend is where you are so mistaken! [...] Christian morality requires no justification. It is a morality given to us and revealed to us by our Creator. Accept it or reject it but understand it is non-negotiable."

No doubt Muslims say much the same thing. You're not both right in your assertions.

18 June 2011 at 17:04  
Anonymous Oswin said...

People who are adamantly against abortion, birth-control and the 'morning-after' pill, should feel themselves morally obliged to adopt all 'unwanted' babies. Put up, or shut-up etc.

I've seen enough bloody misery to last me several life-times; all I want is a system that really works.

18 June 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I am not obsessed with Gays I can assure you. I am though, thoroughly fed up of homosexuality being thrust under my nose everywhere I look. I am also fed up with it being classed as mainstream and 'normal' when it clearly isn't. Something like 1.4% of the population are Gay apparently contrary to what the likes of Stonewall will have you believe but yet we are bombarded with the 'Gay Issue' constantly. There are similarities with Islam as not a day goes by when it is not in the media and yet they are only 2. something of the population. Where is the majority representation that I believe is still pretty conservative in it's outlook.? Too hideously White and straight perhaps.

18 June 2011 at 17:46  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

I think the high profile given to the Dignitas story has more to do with the nations obsession with celebrity than to do with morality. Had Terry Pratchett not been so intimately involved in the matter I doubt the programme would have been made. The matter of the MAP for teens is minor by comparison.

The prominance on the radar of teenage pregnancies is a red-herring andI think more to do with the state of low expectation amongst the young people in post-industrial communities in Wales or anywhere elese.

They seem to be of low self esteem or demotivated of ambition because they live in an environment blighted of the relics yesterday's residual decline.

We as a nation have little need for the low skilled manual labour of the Victorian'golden age', perfering to import from Asia or wherever where labour and lives come cheapest. What we once produced ourselves we now import - how convenient it is not to see kids of 6 or 7 picking lint from the clattering moving parts of of weaving machines or 12 year olds disappearing down the coal mines of South American to enable them to feed their families and fulfil our expectations for cheap energy.
Puberty is not the invention of any moral construct - it is a natural milestone in human development, and happens to teenagers because that is when the human body is at its best for the continued expansion of the species. To many of them it makes more economic sense to get pregnant, to get a house of your own and receive financial hand-outs as a result.

It is not entirely the fault of the teenaged individual who sees this as the only lifestyle choice available, but of the failure of sucsessive governments to reshape the County's demography to suit its long term strategic needs.

Profligacy with taxpayers money has been and still is used to disguise the natural coutcomes decades of poor management of the Country's resources and needs to be seen as the main culprit.

If there is such a thing as a breakdown in the Country's moral values it is not simply down to the aparent high profile of teenage sexual activity - they are merely responding what is the reality of their lives .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8534147.stm

18 June 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Oswin said ...
"People who are adamantly against abortion, birth-control and the 'morning-after' pill, should feel themselves morally obliged to adopt all 'unwanted' babies. Put up, or shut-up etc."

Why?

Abortion, birth control and contraception actually create the moral climate where 'unwanted' or 'unplanned' babies increase.

18 June 2011 at 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 June 2011 at 18:07  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

And besides as a committed Christian I doubt the State would approve any application to adopt I might make!

18 June 2011 at 18:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Maturecheese: "Something like 1.4% of the population are Gay apparently contrary to what the likes of Stonewall will have you believe but yet we are bombarded with the 'Gay Issue' constantly."

It's about 5%, os possibly more depending on the criteria one uses. That is, it's about the same number as church-going Christians in the UK. We're actually hoping to take the Songs of Praise slot on Sundays soon to proselyse and recruit.

18 June 2011 at 18:09  
Anonymous Helen Mayer said...

Mr Davis: "We now have a large degree of control of human fertility"

This isn't the Wannsee Conference.

No one is looking to control fertility.

It is a question of individuals attempting to control conception. And clearly many are failing.

"The morning after pill is..used by irresponsible women." Why are they irresponsible? According to your values what harm is done?

A bit of 'vulgar' sex, pop a pill and Bob's your uncle. All nicely under control.

Are men not responsible too?

Don't start playing the touchy feely liberal, it just doesn't wash.

You're simply using the gay bashing here to try and appear 'enlightened'. But when it comes to women you're no different.

What was that joke you volunteered in a previous thread...about the mother who crushed people.

Speaks volumes.

All of those crass assertions about 'who wears the trousers'. What a posturing little cock you are.

18 June 2011 at 18:29  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Mr. Dodo, your comments here are as illogical as your comments re' Masons being a greater 'threat' than Islam.

18 June 2011 at 18:30  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

A feature of the Established Church, rightly or wrongly, is that it is there as the default Church for all, no questions asked. If people request baptism marriage or burial we have to respond generously and with a welcome. A higher authority will of course judge the inner heart.. When people come we might point them in what we perceive to be the right way, but we have to leave the decision to their own individual consciences -and we have to let them in.

This is the difference between a National Church and a congregation gathered around a particular priest, a specific reading of the scriptures, or set of denominational beliefs. I am sure many of us may be discomforted by the sins/life choices etc of those around us but they, in their turn, may very well be be noting our own failures. It means that we have to be rather slow before heaving half bricks around the congregation.

Not all liberal congregations are small any more than all illiberal congregations are large.

18 June 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Oswin

Your observations on my comments contain no substance. If you have an opinion why not try to share the reasoning behind it, if there be any?

18 June 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Helen Mayer said ... (to G Davies)
"What a posturing little cock you are."

Please try to avoid comments that are disrespectful to the gender of my species

Mind you, in this instance, I tend to agree and will overlook your birdist remark!

18 June 2011 at 19:00  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Well said Helen Mayer --- Brava, Bravissima! Seconded, and supported, along with appreciation to the other ladies, and gentlemen (such as Oswin, Sydneysider, and Mature Cheese) who post here under the aegis of His Grace's blog!!!!

18 June 2011 at 19:33  
Anonymous Helen Mayer said...

non mouse
Thank you!

YG: thank you for tolerating the rant!

18 June 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

My name's not in the list! :O

*quietly weeps*

18 June 2011 at 21:09  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace sets so many thoughts running on this one .I sometimes why labour wanted to lower the voting age whilst running militant sexualisation of children in schools .perhaps sex was to likend to voting , a meeting of exciting propoganda and a lust for an X experience.

I am sure many get so far along the route of trying to make sex more special bound with true love , and then find the fairytale too much in a world of continual bombardment of sexual imagary to press it to our political enviroment , less they be labelled Mary Whitehouse.

Safe sex is a default position but alas sex still is pre requisit to love when discussing teens experience and views , the idea that one is a man or woman when one has had sex is somthing that perhaps 90% of the under 16-20s would agree with,in part because any alternative teaching has become laughable or comedic .

Yet sex initself can be so unhappy ,the modern insecurities of if its good enough sex have been on every post 9pm program going .Can anyone name a program that did not display the awkardness of virginity that was cured by sex. Yet the world is littered with the casualties of those for whom love is waiting to be written.
The downgrading of men into mostly sex has taken its toll on family life , desires have got the better of us , where are the men (and now the ladettes are upon us) that wish to move from dating to family life ? couples that can work out and share life in a way other than shopping or comparing ?

Marriage seems so poorley explained sometimes , or the new faith that couples need to survive modern day life , it should be making people who love life , not shot through with selfish doubts and weak closed and introverted individual lives .

18 June 2011 at 22:36  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

HG said The ‘morning-after’ pill acts to disrupt ovulation or fertilisation to prevent pregnancy.


YG:
Emergency contraception also works by modifying the uterine lining. In effect, the womb is made hostile to a fertilized embryo, ensuring that the newly conceived human life will be unable to implant, and will therefore die. Emergency contraception kills both women and children.

18 June 2011 at 22:58  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

DanJo: "I'm not advocating ... I'd rather they denounced ... I'd expect the churches ... that would suit me just fine ... what I actually want... I actually resent ... I have no doubt ... I beg to differ...
Me me me.

19 June 2011 at 00:04  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Oswin said ...

"I've seen enough bloody misery to last me several life-times; all I want is a system that really works."

A counsel of despair Mr Oswin!

There is a way that people can live by that would end misery caused by people.

Unforunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, people have free will to choose whether they follow that path. Some do, some don't and some do some of the time.

No 'system' of human invention can
remove human misery caused by man. That would require too much control of behaviour and a removal of free will. Attempting to control to much of the misery caused by material and natural circumstances can unduly diminish free will.

According to Jesus, the 'Kingdom of God' is within or among people, is approached through understanding and entered through faith like a child, spiritual rebirth, and doing the will of God. It is a tone of mind, it stands for an influence which must permeate men's minds if they would be one with Him and attain to His ideals. The sway of grace in men's hearts is opposed by the opposite kingdom of the devil.

A society with shared values and principles can defend its morality if it protects the foundation for it. Christianity is still (just)the basis of our culture - it needs protecting from corrupting ideas and influences that undermine faith. Take Christianity away and we are left with either anarchy or the imposed order of a secular State.

19 June 2011 at 00:37  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Mr Dodo

Christianity is still (just)the basis of our culture - it needs protecting from corrupting ideas and influences that undermine faith.

Only cultural inertia maintains this foundation. The religion that undergirds it has been rejected. Over time, the ideas that are sustained by the Christian faith will be discarded as well. One cannot remove the foundation and still keep the dwelling that sits on the foundation. People do not yet comprehend what they are going to lose.

Take Christianity away and we are left with either anarchy or the imposed order of a secular State.

In all fairness, there are other alternatives besides secularism and anarchy. All states impose order. That is their reason for being. The question to consider is "What order will the state impose? What standard will that order be based upon?" There are many answers to that question, and most of them are bad. The true secularist has no standard at all. (Well, beyond his own gonads, that is. This thread has wonderfully illustrated that truth.) Instead he has a 'movable feast.' That is the most frightening answer of all.

carl

19 June 2011 at 01:07  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Carl Jacobs

I'm more pessimistic as I believe the alternative is a bland secularism. A secularism without any sense of absolute moral standards - a code to live by and a means for helping us to live by it. This cannot hold society together and, in time, will require more and more imposed order, increasing state intervention and growing dependence on it.

Take away Christianity and capitalism descends into greed, sexual union into hedonistic pleasure, human life becomes devalued, family relationships are less secure and 'enlightened self interest' replaces genuine love of neighbour. Is this any 'better' or more 'efficientt' than fascism or communism?

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic!

19 June 2011 at 01:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "The true secularist has no standard at all."

Repeated assertion of that does not change its nonsense into reason.

19 June 2011 at 05:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The figure of 1.4% is what the British population itself has said on a massive survey. DanJO is spouting nonsense as usual, but he can't conjure his mythical "5% are homosexual" into existence.
The whole gay movement has been posited on gross exaggeration and invention - and very successfully, too. Of course, in areas like broadcasting, journalism and faux academia, the figure is likely much higher - giving the impression of being more than they are.
Anon3

19 June 2011 at 07:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The figure of 1.4% is what the British population itself has said on a massive survey. DanJO is spouting nonsense as usual, but he can't conjure his mythical "5% are homosexual" into existence."

Ah, well, you see I understand the nature and flaws of sexual surveys and you apparently don't. The validity of a survey is all about its methodology as most people know.

19 June 2011 at 08:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If you're referring to the IHS survey then the questions were asked of 16 years olds and older either face-to-face or by telephone. If I were asked in that manner then I would not say I was gay. Yet I'm gay. I think asking a 16 year old whether he is gay and expecting an honest answer is a bit optimistic unless they were 'out of the closet' already.

19 June 2011 at 08:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If the IHS survey rang up or met with David Laws a couple of years ago and asked him about his sexual orientation then what answer do you think he would have given? But would straight people say they were gay when asked? You see what I'm saying here? It's bound to underestimate the number.

19 June 2011 at 08:36  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

Mrs Patrick Campbell famously said, when her attention was drawn to a couple in a homosexual relationship, "I don't care what they do so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses".

I'm on her side; I don't care what "gays" get up to, I just wish they would shut up about it. I don't want to see "gay pride" marches and I don't want to hear activist zealots "outing" people who just want to lead their own lives in private.

19 June 2011 at 09:05  
Anonymous tony b said...

Dodo
I have always thought that if it were obvious that there were absolute moral standards people would not spend so much time arguing about morality. And capitalism has already descended into greed. Don't you read the papers? :-)

19 June 2011 at 09:06  
Anonymous tony b said...

Can anyone recommend a good book dealing with the intersection between science, philosophy, and Christian theology?

19 June 2011 at 09:09  
Anonymous ever anon said...

Something seemed to suggest that this thread was about the morning-after pill. Why would anyone imagine that had something to do with the roles of men, women, and procreation?

Oh dear; silly me. How could anyone get it so wrong about the beeds and the birs; and for all these years, too.

19 June 2011 at 09:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Windsor: "I'm on her side; I don't care what "gays" get up to, I just wish they would shut up about it. I don't want to see "gay pride" marches and I don't want to hear activist zealots "outing" people who just want to lead their own lives in private."

I agree to an extent, we need to get to a point where it is just diverse normality. But don't forget how quickly this has changed, there's still a lot of resistance, especially amongst the religious, and we're still in a position of solidifying our natural rights.

Of course, your point also applies to the religious too. Why can't they just keep their religiosity to themselves and behind closed church doors? I mean, I'm typing here now waiting for the shops to open and we know why they're not: bloody religionists still clinging to their notion of a day of rest for religious reasons and trying to impose it on the rest of us.

19 June 2011 at 09:13  
Anonymous tony b said...

I think a day of rest is a very good idea. It could be rest for it's own sake. It's not only religious people that need a rest!

19 June 2011 at 09:18  
Blogger len said...

We have seen countless attempts of various people to set up their 'Kingdoms'on Earth, and all have ended in disaster.Each of these 'Kingdoms' has been as corrupt as the last, whether these have been under Popes or Politicians.
The Kingdom Jesus spoke of was not of THIS World.
The Kingdom Jesus spoke of requires a new creation, a new order.
This World has been judged and found unfit for God`s purpose,, because it has been poisoned and corrupted by evil.
God`s final end time plan is to gather everything and everyone under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and destroy everything else.
Now is the time for salvation ,now is the time for decision .
Man is now setting up his final 'kingdom'based on his own corrupt impulses with a 'religious system' which is as corrupt as man himself.

19 June 2011 at 09:36  
Blogger len said...

This country is in a hopeless mess with its moral code.Once we departed from Gods moral law its really a question of 'anything goes' if you can get enough people to agree to it.
Or if you can manipulate public opinion.Or if you can legislate and force people to accept your 'moral code'( or lack of it!)
The Church of whatever denomination has lost any moral authority because it is riddled with hypocrisy itself.The 'World' has entered the church(been there all along with Catholicism and Islam)and is destroying it from within.

Maranatha.

19 June 2011 at 09:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"This country is in a hopeless mess with its moral code.Once we departed from Gods moral law its really a question of 'anything goes' if you can get enough people to agree to it."

At least we're not burning each other on bonfires for our beliefs anymore, or hanging people for stealing loaves of bread because they're hungry. Progress!

You're right though, if you can get enough people to believe in (say) Christianity then that version of "anything goes" is possible too. But not at the moment thank goodness.

19 June 2011 at 10:37  
Anonymous tony b said...

Len
I believe history shows moral progression rather than regression. When was this supposed golden age when everyone stuck to God's moral rules? There never has been such an age, has there?

19 June 2011 at 11:12  
Anonymous Springer said...

tony b

Can anyone recommend a good book dealing with the intersection between science, philosophy, and Christian theology?

Hi,

Quite a few good ones..perhaps not directly linked to theology, but certainly philosophy.

Recently there was Latour's short (quite broad) study: "On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods" - a strange title! but he devotes a very sharp chapter to 'how not to misunderstand the science and religion debate.' He's a great science writer..."We Have Never Been Modern" is a little classic.

Latour epitomises many interesting writers: Isabelle Stengers, Peter Galison etc...amazon links them all in!!

I'm also very fond of a book by Suzanne Gieser: "The Innermost Kernel". It centres on Wolfgang Pauli and the 'crisis' (personal and scientific) brought about by Quantum Physics - psychological and 'religious' connotations. (not sure if its in print)

Some GREAT work being done at the moment.

19 June 2011 at 11:44  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

DanJ0 said...

Repeated assertion of that does not change its nonsense into reason."

The point of a moral standard is that it originates external to man. What in the secular universe exists external to man that is capable of originating a moral standard? Since the answer is "Nothing" each man is reduced to originating his own moral understanding according to whatever bit of boiled beef he ate last night. (Hence the reverence to 'gonads' as a standard.) You yourself admitted this on this very thread when you said:

The rest of us need to keep pointing out that when people talk about morality then they're talking about their particular one.

That is a universal statement. If it is true, then it applies to you just as well as me. Each man's particular morality becomes an isolated private assertion with no intrinsic authority.

You believe (without any proffer of proof I might add) that most men will believe mostly the same things and will negotiate a reasonable set of common rules for behavior. That isn't a standard. It is the 'moveable feast' to which I made reference.

Even more so, it presumes the existence of negotiation. It presumes an abstract equality among men that is itself a part of the morality you are negotiating. Why should the man next door agree that you have any part in determining moral behavior? Why should he agree that you are his equal? Why should he even agree that you are a man and not a thing to be used? The man next door might have an entirely different understanding, and if he has the power to enforce that entirely different understanding, who will gainsay him?

In your universe, there cannot be a moral standard. There can only be the competition among creatures for dominance. One group ascends to power and imposes its moral understanding. Another group replaces the first, and so a second moral understanding replaces the first. Everything you believe to be good and right and true will exist only so long as you have the power to enforce it.

It does not matter how many books by David Hume that you may list. It does not matter how many finely constructed systems you can imagine. It does not matter how many appeals you can make to empathy. All that matters is that you have the power to enforce what you believe. That is not a standard.

carl

19 June 2011 at 13:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "The point of a moral standard is that it originates external to man."

Well, you're not off to a great start there are you?

19 June 2011 at 13:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "All that matters is that you have the power to enforce what you believe."

The same applies to your moral 'standard' of course. It'd be forgotten over time if we destroy all the records and stop passing on the knowledge of it. You conceptually universalise your chosen moral standard and claim it is an absolute one appparently maintained, though one never sees the evidence of this in the real world, by a placeholder you call your god. Have you considered adopting Kant's deontological reasoning instead? It answers some of your concerns and doesn't require an invisible and apparently absent god.

19 June 2011 at 14:06  
Anonymous Mere Kant!? said...

DanJ0
Kant's deontology simply replaces the 'placeholder' called God, with that of Good Will.
Neither has an ontology that can meet any visible criteria.
Kant was writing before the invention of modern psychology, and before the watershed of our previous century.
His "Good Will" became a catch-all expression for some horrific agendas (and violence), alll of which proclaimed 'the greater good'. (I realise the same can be said of religions)
Kant takes us nowhere.
Even as a psychological category 'good will' finds no essential ground. It simply dissolves in front of the stark assessment of reality - we can only say (very feebly) "they meant well!"

19 June 2011 at 14:46  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

The same applies to your moral 'standard' of course.

Of course it does. I never said otherwise. But there is a difference between the power of an Infinite Eternal God, and the power of a limited finite creature.

It'd be forgotten over time if we destroy all the records and stop passing on the knowledge of it.

See, here you have slipped into your secular presuppositions. You presume there is no God, and so you reason that there can be no word of God to uphold. You presume there can be no revelation because you presume there exists no Revelator. Why should I accept this? Are you an authority on the things of God? As it is written: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." Matt 24:35.

Have you considered adopting Kant's deontological reasoning instead?

Another creature. Another system. They all smash on the same rock.

carl

19 June 2011 at 14:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Of course it does. I never said otherwise. But there is a difference between the power of an Infinite Eternal God, and the power of a limited finite creature."

Yes, the latter observably exists and the former doesn't as far as we can tell. That's the point. Merely asserting that one idea of morality is universal and absolute doesn't make it so.

"See, here you have slipped into your secular presuppositions. You presume there is no God, and so you reason that there can be no word of God to uphold."

Indeed. Deliberately. To contrast your assumptions that there is a god to your liking. The thing is, we're here and we have to go on in life. That's what ethics are for: to go on in life in some regulated fashion. You can wave the product of your imagination around all you like but until there's a good reason for us all to follow it then it remains a mere proposal for a real world set of ethics and supporting morals which people buy into or not at their whim in the absence of State power to back it.

"Another creature. Another system. They all smash on the same rock."

I'm no fan of it myself. I think morals are a rather different beast altogether. People like Kant make an unstated assumption in their life's work: that there is a single moral framework to find, or describe, or construct. I don't think there is that'd suit our shared perceptions of reality.

19 June 2011 at 15:14  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

which people buy into or not at their whim in the absence of State power to back it.

Not just religion, of course. By your logic, any competing notion of morality is by definition the product of whim. Do I give a man a cup of water, or do I heard him into a cattle car? What difference does it make? In the long run, we're all dead anyways. Who remembers the deeds of a man after he is sealed in his grave?

carl

19 June 2011 at 15:40  
Blogger len said...

I think we are already experiencing the results of the 'new moral code'.

Is life getting better for anyone out there?.Apart from a few minority groups I mean?.

19 June 2011 at 15:45  
Anonymous tony b said...

Springer
Thanks, will look into those.

19 June 2011 at 15:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Not just religion, of course. By your logic, any competing notion of morality is by definition the product of whim. Do I give a man a cup of water, or do I heard him into a cattle car? What difference does it make? In the long run, we're all dead anyways. Who remembers the deeds of a man after he is sealed in his grave?"

I'm afraid I don't recognise your characterisation, caricature even, of what it means by not buying into there being a universal and absolute morality maintained by your god. I think, hope actually, that when I die physically my consciousness dies too and no spirit element remains either. Yet I enjoy being alive, I enjoy helping people, I enjoy the company of non-human animals, and I have high moral standards which are shared by people around me. You know, I don't do it to get into some sort of heaven, or because I think god is helping me towards certain decisions thorough spiritual means, or because I have bought into a concept of mankind's shared purpose. I do it because, ultimately, it feels right, and I can see the consequences of my actions for better or worse, and I recognise through empathy and communication what other people feel. Almost all of us are not monsters and when the chips are really down you will see the core goodness of your fellow man irrespective of religious belief.

19 June 2011 at 16:21  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Mr. len @ 15:45 ...
Q:"Is life getting better for anyone out there?. Apart from a few minority groups I mean?"

A: No. It's getting worse in here, too. What with the minorities hi-jacking the discussion, and then replacing God and British culture with franco-german claptrap, and all.

Dynamics in the microcosm reflecting what's happening in the outside world?

It does make me wonder why anyone would even have children, though - if the only alternative is to hand them over to this lot. Unfortunately, they can't/won't produce their own by nature - let alone nurture them properly. So Brave New World here we come: battery farms and all.

19 June 2011 at 16:24  
Anonymous tony b said...

Len,

Getting better in what way, and since when?

19 June 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What must it be like to be so bitter and twisted, and to have such a depressing outlook on life? I actually pity the crone.

19 June 2011 at 16:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What must it be like to be so bitter and twisted, and to have such a depressing outlook on life?"

Well, tell us.

Anon3

19 June 2011 at 17:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 June 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hopefully that made the trip.

19 June 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger len said...

When the proponents of the 'brave new world' have reduced us all to their level of mediocrity ,stifled free speech,freedom of expression, banned all religion(the good and the bad ones) and made us all conform through legislation and coercion to our elitist masters demands, we will have something akin to Stalinist Russia. Then all who advocated this 'brave new world will find themselves imprisoned by the 'Orwellian nightmare'.
They will see, in retrospect, that they actually helped to make this happen.

19 June 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger PaulineG said...

Forgive me if this has already been covered (I haven't time to read through all the comments).

The morning after pill does not just "disrupt ovulation or fertilisation to prevent pregnancy" it may also prevent the newly fertilised egg (a new human life) from embedding in the womb. It may thus cause an early abortion.

Except that in the bizzaroworld in which we now live "pregnancy" is not deemed to start until the embryo embeds in the womb, the embryo in the fallopian tube is not "carried" by the mother, no "miscarriage" is thus caused and thus the MAP is not an abortifacient!

See: http://spuc-director.blogspot.com/2008/08/international-media-ignorance-and.html

19 June 2011 at 21:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Someone, somewhere, probably wants this Brave New World some people seem to talk about here. No idea who though, it seems a bit unlikely, especially in the UK where we're thankfully a liberal democracy by tradition.

19 June 2011 at 22:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm glad we've left the Crappy Old World of the last few hundred years behind though. Now if there was a time of the Thought Police and repressive, illiberal society in the UK that was it. When the religious were in charge.

19 June 2011 at 22:21  
Anonymous tony b said...

Len
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

19 June 2011 at 23:21  
Blogger len said...

It is sad to see that a small majority have hijacked Society for their own ends, to fulfil their own particular tastes and desires.They have dragged Society along with them.
I must admit they have been very clever the way they have accomplished this.
Political Correctness is a tool for manipulating Society and it works well for those who know how to work it AND have the authority to implement laws to enforce it.
As for Christianity 'manipulating Society'well that is a joke!
Christianity must be one of the most tolerant 'systems' on the planet.
If those who oppose Christianity were honest enough to state their true motives for opposing Christianity it is because it makes them feel uncomfortable about their practices.
Christianity exposes peoples true nature and people do not want to 'come to the light' and they would prefer for the light to be extinguished.
Those who shout(very vocally) about their 'freedoms'are quite prepared to trample on others freedoms to get their way.
As I have said the tolerance of Christians towards those who wish to overturn our moral foundations for their own ends will/is having a detrimental effect on the majority of people in Society.

20 June 2011 at 08:15  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629

A linky for Danjo 1.5% Gay :)

This is a survey from September 2010 that comes to the conclusion that the Gay population is around 1.5%.I ask the question again, should 1.5% of the population get the amount of publicity for their 'cause' that they get.

20 June 2011 at 10:54  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Absolutely well said Len, Christianity is about tolerance and Homosexuality IS tolerated but clearly that is not enough for those of a radical nature.
We mess about with the status quo at our peril because from what I can see, radical reformers over the years and especially from the Left, have tinkered with good intentions but brought about unforeseen bad consequences by their actions.

20 June 2011 at 11:04  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Maturecheese: "A linky for Danjo 1.5% Gay :)"

Hey look, it's the IHS one to which I referred earlier when I undermined the validity of the figure. It's obvious really. The figure has been discussed before too, in particular with regard to other sources of data. Hope this helps.

20 June 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

"I'm glad we've left the Crappy Old World of the last few hundred years behind though."

Like the renaissance, discovery of anti-biotics, ending of the slave trade and the invention of modern parliamentary democracy. If only those things hadn't happened. Nothing but chronological snobbery.

When the religious were in charge.

Surely you realise that the Church has always been in delicate balance with the state. One could not survive without the support of the other. I hardly see how living in such times was so terrible anyway. Because history only concentrates on the bad (i.e. interesting) things we see past times as terrible to live in. By all balanced accounts they actually seem to be somewhat better. Infectious disease may have been more common, but not only was crime much much rarer, but personal freedom was actually much greater. In fact, the Victorian era had the lowest rate of crime in our nation's history. I expect that's the combination of conservative Christian morality, the death penalty and the horrible state of prisons.

20 June 2011 at 13:19  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Maturecheese: "Absolutely well said Len, Christianity is about tolerance and Homosexuality IS tolerated but clearly that is not enough for those of a radical nature."

Again, it works both ways. If you and your fellow religionists merely want to be tolerated for your beliefs then carry on the way you are. You ought to back the Christian Institute, the militant and radical atheist's best friend I reckon.

Len: "If those who oppose Christianity were honest enough to state their true motives for opposing Christianity it is because it makes them feel uncomfortable about their practices."

This is a great example of truly blinkered vision. You have to put yourself in the shoes of others to properly understand. You're just thinking like an evangelical god botherer. I am no more umcomfortable about my sexuality than I expect you are about yours. It's entirely natural to me now as an adult. It's you who have the problem with it, it's your issue for you to solve in your own head. I'd say the same to a racist for holding racist views.

20 June 2011 at 13:21  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "If only those things hadn't happened. Nothing but chronological snobbery."

Context, dear boy, context.

"Surely you realise that the Church has always been in delicate balance with the state."

Yes. The church essentially used the State to supply the power to control the minds of the people. The church involved itself heavily in geo-politics, and the State in the form of the monarchs used the church to back and maintain their so-called divine right to rule.

"I hardly see how living in such times was so terrible anyway."

It probably wasn't to the people back then, with poor life expectancy and very limited horizons. What did they have to compare it with? But I wouldn't be very happy going back knowing what I know now and understanding what could be instead.

You can take umbrage as you wish but the context of this is a load of wooo-scary picture painting about what could happen if the church ends up its proper place in society. The claim is that it would be illiberal and horrible yet it would be illiberal and horrible to go back in history from now when the church had the sort of place in society it can only dream of now.

20 June 2011 at 13:35  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "Those who shout(very vocally) about their 'freedoms'are quite prepared to trample on others freedoms to get their way."

I'm guessing you're not talking about the people who the Christian Institute steer towards legislation to further its own befarious ends? Though your comment would apply very well in those situations too. Blinkered vision etc.

20 June 2011 at 13:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^nefarious

20 June 2011 at 13:40  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
Are you a frequent visitor to the 'Christian Institute'?, I find this intriguing that one so opposed to religion yet seems so drawn to it?

20 June 2011 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Are you a frequent visitor to the 'Christian Institute'?, I find this intriguing that one so opposed to religion yet seems so drawn to it?"

Fairly frequent. Usually because there's a news story referring to the Institute involving their using some poor sap to try to further their agenda. But not always. The place is like the Daily Mail, always good for a laugh at the outrageous spin they put on things.

I have to point out though that "so opposed to religion" overstates my position. You will probably remember, mainly because I post it regularly to stop misinformation, that I fully support Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, my being a liberal and all.

20 June 2011 at 18:57  
Blogger Connie said...

As a christian trying to avoid commenting from either the left or right about the efficacy and appropriate use of the 'morning after pill' (a massive and really interesting issue!) I am absolutely riled by the inference that 'Pharmacists are concerned with the single issue of dispensing one pill'.

Whilst his comments are true, I doubt that Dr Andrew Dearden of the BMA meant to infer this next deduction about the role of pharmacists, when to those working in healthcare it's clear that interprofessional working is necessary when 'caring for the whole person, not just one aspect or one part of care but the broadest aspect of their health.”

As a pharmacy student, I think you have undestated role of pharmacists in the holistic care of individual patients and public health issues. Whether we fundamentally agree with administration of this medication or not, examining with a critical eye the social 'efficacy' of emergency contraception is sensible, but not the same as assuming Pharmacists are incompentent to assess the indication for it's use of in individual cases.

Just saying! Interesting debate,
Grace and peace in abundance.

20 June 2011 at 21:21  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

DanJo Said

Again, it works both ways. If you and your fellow religionists merely want to be tolerated for your beliefs then carry on the way you are. You ought to back the Christian Institute, the militant and radical atheist's best friend I reckon.

How can you even think of comparing Christianity with homosexuality. One has shaped the culture of this land, given us moral guidance, given us laws and a system of governance that a lot of the world has copied and the other has given us what, aids maybe? sorry to be so brutal.

20 June 2011 at 21:29  
Blogger Peter Saunders said...

As one who attacked the BBC over Pratchett programme there were two reasons why I did not not raise a similar stink over this one on the morning after pill

1. I had already blogged about it both on 1 February and on 1 April and thought it was old news.

2. I didn't know about this BBC programme until I read this. I suspect many others were in the same category.

See 'Evidence shows Welsh move to make morning-after pill available free over the counter to teenagers will badly backfire' - http://bit.ly/fEbzS3

20 June 2011 at 23:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Maturecheese: "How can you even think of comparing Christianity with homosexuality."

Well, that's fairly easily answered. Both categories of people have freedoms, rights, and interests, and some of those appear to be clashing at the moment. Whatever formative influence Christianity has had in the past, at its essence and in the grand scheme of things it's just like the Labour Party or other political organisation with special interests promoted by its members.

I fully support article 9 of the Human Rights Act as I'm a liberal. People ought to have the freedom to hold beliefs that are manifestly wrong to the rest of us and the rest of us ought to have the freedom to argue against those beliefs.

Obviously I think gay people ought to have their rights recognised in a civilised society on the basis that like should be treated alike. It's the same sort of argument with race / ethnicity. We're pretty much there with both of those, thank goodness.

Obviously there will always be some social luddites lurking around but so what? Let them moan and thrash about as they wish as long as they do no actual harm. In doing so, they just attract opprobrium on themselves. I mean, no-one really likes or wants to be associated with (say) a racist in real life do they? We barely tolerate them, except under blogs like this and on the Telegraph comments section, but I wouldn't want to see them censored of course.

21 June 2011 at 05:40  
Blogger len said...

Just a thought here, there are two Universal Laws(there are a lot more, but these two will do for illustrating my point.)

1, The Universal law of Sin and Death.
2,The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

These Laws are facts, not open to discussion,you may not like them but they exist.They are as real as the Law of Gravity only difference is that these Laws are Spiritual, but if you break the Law of sin and death you will bear the consequences of breaking that Law.
Simply a matter of cause and effect.
The basic point of Christianity is to remove yourself from living under the Law of sin and death and to place yourself in the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.This is done by God with out co-operation.
It is simple matter of free will whichever course of action we decide upon.
All Christians do is present these facts to people.
Its not a case of hating gay people, or adulterers or thieves but telling them this lifestyle is killing you, sin draws people like a magnet, but it is short lived, and is basically a misdirecting of natural impulses,a disruption of the 'Godly order',Satan takes what God means for good and distorts and corrupts it, otherwise no-one would be drawn to it, but there is an alternative as illustrated in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

22 June 2011 at 10:28  
Blogger len said...

with OUR co-operation (typo)

22 June 2011 at 10:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"These Laws are facts, not open to discussion,you may not like them but they exist."

Can you demonstrate that to us in any way at all, other that people eventually physically die? If not then they're potentially just stuff and nonsense and best ignored by the rest of us.

"Law of sin and death you will bear the consequences of breaking that Law. Simply a matter of cause and effect."

The ancient greeks solved the obvious dilemma of this being observably incorrect, where the bad often prosper and the good often suffer, by introducing the idea of a set of capracious gods playing with people. The best Christianity can come up with is: "god moves in mysterious ways". Not great, really.

22 June 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,

I think you need to look at this on a slightly deeper level.
I would think it strange (as we are living in a kingdom dominated and under the authority of satan )if the bad didn`t prosper and the good suffer.
However we are only briefly passing through this world and it is where we will spend Eternity that is paramount.
What good does it do to gain the world(wealth, position, power,) and loose your soul? Death in God`s eyes is spiritual death and this is the result of following the law of sin and death.
However this can be reversed by transferring to the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
Where are all the bad who prospered in life now?
Where are all the good who suffered.?
Jesus is a supreme example of this the suffering servant who gave up His life that others might be saved.

Of course if you take a very superficial view of life why not enjoy yourself and to hell(literally) with the consequences.

23 June 2011 at 00:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "I think you need to look at this on a slightly deeper level."

In all likelihood, the middle-level workings of the world are just as they seem.

You can imagine that you are storing up wealth in heaven, or that others are storing up hideous punishments in hell, or that you are fulfilling your purpose and you take some comfort in that. You can even think that, contrary to all observation, the meek will inherit the world at some point.

The rest of us must get on with what we know.

Of course, if I were designing a religion in a time when societies were very hierarchical, people had a pretty tough life, and power at the top was a bit shaky then I'd put about exactly what you say in order to control the minds of uneducated people and make them accepting of their poor lot in life. Have you considered that you're just living in the legacy of that historical hegemony?

23 June 2011 at 07:15  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
I have considered many things.
As I have said before I spent the greater part of my life as an Atheist.
I have had spiritual experiences for which there is no logical explanation. God has given us His word, and given us prophetic scriptures to validate His Word.
We either accept this or reject it.Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) also walked this Earth as living proof of God,Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies, healed the sick raised the dead, was crucified and rose again.
We say to God show yourself and we will believe.
God says believe and He will show Himself.
It was not trusting the word of God , the integrity of God, that led to the fall of man.God has reversed the sequence and asks that we trust in the Word of God and the integrity of God.
These are the conditions that God has laid down we either accept or reject these.
I believe the suffering in Hell will be the realisation that people either in ignorance or defiance missed their chance of salvation. Once one has passed through death any chance of redemption seems to have been lost.To be lost for eternity seems to be the worst thing that can happen to a person in my opinion.That is why I keep preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ hoping some will hear.

24 June 2011 at 00:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older