Saturday, November 26, 2011

Cameron mocks Dawkins

Thanks to ConHome for bringing this little snippet to the attention of His Grace:

Richard Dawkins: "Why do you support faith schools for children who are too young to have chosen their faith, thereby implicitly labelling them with the faith of their parents, whereas you wouldn't dream of so labelling a 'Keynesian child' or a 'Conservative child'?"

David Cameron: "Comparing John Maynard Keynes to Jesus Christ shows in my view why Richard Dawkins doesn't really get it."

Quite.

80 Comments:

Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm not sure I get it too. Dawkins is making an analogy about the use of adjectives isn't he? He's not comparing Jesus to Keynes at all.

The problem for Dawkins is that it's rather more than just calling a kid a Christian simply because its parents are Christian, it's the parental choice of schooling and therefore, to some extent, socialisation. The two things are not the same.

26 November 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Dawkins is being quite ridiculous. Parents pass on their values to their children, just as their own parents passed them theirs. It’s how the world works. Never really rated Dawkins as an atheist flag flyer you know. Arguments are far too weak, rather half-arsed sometimes, what !

26 November 2011 at 12:00  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

DanJ0
Ah, but they are.

And it's not about labelling them, it's about teaching them and preparing them for adulthood.

'Socialisation', as you call it, is the transmission of values and beliefs from one generation to the next. At home, within families, children are nurtured, loved, learn about human relationships and about life's meaning and purpose. Parents are given rights to meet these responsibilities. If parents can't choose how their children are to be educated and what 'world view' they are 'socialised' into, then they would be denied a basic right and with it follows the abdication of one of their principle rsponsibilities.

You can be a Christian Keynasian or Conservative - or not. A Budhist, Hindi or Muslim Conservative - or not. That's the point!

Now do you get it?

As for Mr Cameron and his particular brand of cultural Christianity, lest said, soonest mended.

26 November 2011 at 12:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

It appears like some others that comment on your august blog and shown by Dawkins crass analogy, that the idea of choice as an essential to life is irrelevant, UNLESS of course you agree with their choices.

You would think that schools were somehow crammed full with little bible believing kids whereas the opposite is the case.

God forbid that Gove should send the complete works of Shakespeare to schools as this would be classed as the height of aspired elitism.

Ernst S Blofeld

They (atheist secularists) know the cost of everything but the value to society of nothing.

pps

How would donating a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species to every school benefit the young whilst growing up? About as useful as donating a copy of the Blairs autobiographies as a lesson in how to serve society selflessly!

26 November 2011 at 12:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Now do you get it?"

No. Do you think he's comparing Jesus to Keynes in the quote?

26 November 2011 at 12:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ooig

They never 'get it'! Hence the word disingenuous.

1. As the vast majority of schoools of faith are christian in this nation this is what Dawkins is 'getting' at.

2. The nation is christian in statute and by surveyance of the population by majority hence what Dawkins is getting at, not other faiths. Destroy Christianity and the others fall by inference and the need to show 'equality' *Chuckles at the dastardly insidiousness of the tactic*.

Hence the comparison of Jesus to Keynes and not keynesian to mohammedan etc etc.

"Do you think he's comparing Jesus to Keynes in the quote?" Err, yep!

Now do they 'GET IT'?

Ernst

26 November 2011 at 13:09  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Cameron ...Comparing John Maynard Keynes to Jesus Christ shows in my view why Richard Dawkins doesn't really get it."

What Cameron avoids addressing is the rapid proliferation of 'faith' schools of Islam, Creationism and the rest, with their preaching of sectarian supremacism.

It's Cameron's way of avoiding the real question as to why superstitious indoctrination should be deemed to trump education and reason. Like it or not Cameron can't legitimately follow the traditional 'the UK is a Christian Country' line any longer, so rather than give a considered response he deliberately obfuscates with a puerile ad hominem retort. What he doesn't 'get' is the irreversible damage multifaith, multicultural legacy, politicians of all major parties have left Britain's future generations to live with.

What he also 'doesn't get' is that he his living in the bubble of isolation and privilege that is wealth, Westminster and Witney - he needs to get out more.

26 November 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

Dawkins does believe in God.

That God is Dawkins.

He needs to get over himself. Infernal
bore.

26 November 2011 at 13:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Dawkins is being perfectly logical. He looks at Christianity, Keynesianism and Conservatism, sees three ideologies, and is nonplussed why one of them should have the privilege of educating the children of its followers at public expense. If those who worship Keynes, Burke and Thatcher were allowed to set up their own, taxpayer-funded schools (along with the followers of Friedman, Marx, Hardie ad infinitum), Dawkins would, presumably, rest easy. His more practical solution would be to ban all such schools.

I take the view that Christianity and Judaism have been, on the whole, a blessing to Britain and I have no problem with Christian and Jewish schools.

26 November 2011 at 14:34  
Blogger Chris said...

Isn't Dawkins a nice guy? His benevolent attitude towards children to make their own choice in the world.

Little do the children know or can choose what their choice actually is, they might even having trouble choosing what sweets 'their parents buy' from the corner shop (Can I say corner shop, is that politically correct? oh well)

But of course, this benevolent attitude has made Dawkins a very rich man, indeed, get my point?

All bow down to Dawkins, the Godless man.

Of course another point or assumption Dawkins is making is that the child's parents don't have a right to impose their faith into their own children, so how are families supposed to bring up children without 'imposing their ideas/ideals and understanding of the world onto their children?'

26 November 2011 at 15:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Chris: "Of course another point or assumption Dawkins is making is that the child's parents don't have a right to impose their faith into their own children [...]"

Is that what he's saying? If so then he deviates from the secular reasoning that I read which argues for schools to be primarily places of academic learning given that they're State regulated and to leave the private sphere to itself. It's up to Muslim parents what they teach their kids about Islamic values and whether they attend madrasas out of school hours but I'm not that keen myself having Islamic faith schools pushing that faith during the day too. Similarly with Catholic and other faith schools. I think religionists are storing up trouble for yourselves and unfortunately for people like me too.

26 November 2011 at 15:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

I have to say that I thought that a very witty retort.

Dawkins is just about the only man that Cameron can look good standing next to.

26 November 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Dawkins is making an analogy about the use of adjectives isn't he? He's not comparing Jesus to Keynes at all.

Trying to say Jesus and Keynes are in the same category as adjectives is a kind of category mistake. It doesn't matter how you spin it.

If so then he deviates from the secular reasoning

Given that he is on record as believing teaching children religious beliefs is a form of child abuse, it follows he must be against parents having the right to educate their children (he, of course is well placed to do so for them) or he must admit that he doesn't think child abuse is wrong.

I read which argues for schools to be primarily places of academic learning given that they're State regulated and to leave the private sphere to itself. It's up to Muslim parents what they teach their kids about Islamic values

So it's up to the State to teach State values without reference to parents? Who is going to decide what "State values" are? You? Dawkins? Some kind of secular politburo? Or is the idea that academic learning can be without values? Is that really en education?

26 November 2011 at 16:05  
Blogger non mouse said...

Hmmm. I'm with those who suspect Cameron of ulterior planning. It's unlike him to uphold Christian values.

btw: at my first convent, they taught me a prayer. My grandmother and aunts had me recite it and were duly shocked to hear: "Our Farthing, which art in Heaven..."
You see, I needed some convincing that I had two fathers.

So I'd guess that even children aren't that easily indoctrinated, if they have active minds.
________________

26 November 2011 at 17:12  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Dodo said; 'Socialisation', as you call it, is the transmission of values and beliefs from one generation to the next. At home, within families, children are nurtured, loved, learn about human relationships and about life's meaning and purpose.
If only more parents would be a positive influence on their children in this way, caring what way their child will grow up and fit in to society whether they are Christian or not, there would be a major change in the social status of society. Youths would endeavour to find work and be more responsible. The summer riots might not have happened.

26 November 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (15:38)—I think religionists are storing up trouble for yourselves and unfortunately for people like me too.

I hope your street cred will not suffer unduly if I agree with you. Christians, having welcomed other faiths, are now faced with the inevitable consequence of the multi-faith society: that conflicting creeds inhabiting the same land are a source of division and that, ironically, the only hope of sustaining the multi-faith ideal would be the emasculation of all religions and their banishment from public life.

26 November 2011 at 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "I hope your street cred will not suffer unduly if I agree with you."

I think I can live with it. :) We're exactly on the same page by the look of it, though by public life I mean structural stuff rather than stuff in public.

26 November 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0—I can live with structural stuff.

26 November 2011 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "I can live with structural stuff."

The chances of going back to a single-faith society are nil, I think. The chances of going forward to a society containing only Christianity are pretty small. The chances of going forward and ending up with just Islam instead are larger than that, though still small I think.

26 November 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hence, I think we're going to have to push the whole lot down onto an equal footing.

26 November 2011 at 19:01  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0—If religion is to be pushed down, I’d recommend an early start before Islam grows too large. Of course, if my fears about the Muslim birth rate are realized and Muslims do become the dominant community, they would simply push Islam back up again if they so desired. Perhaps exposure to British life will produce an insipid, Anglican version of Islam with imams in panama hats presiding over cucumber sandwiches and village fêtes. In which case, we have nothing to worry about...

26 November 2011 at 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Apropos of nothing in particular JR, I found this survey which was reported in the media recently. Thought you might be interested for your online library.

26 November 2011 at 19:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Is Dawkins a cunning evangelical atheist plotting to steal young minds with his new order, and has inadvertently let slip a modicum of his intention, or is he just a godless fool....

26 November 2011 at 19:50  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0—Thanks. Wind-Cowie had an article on the Telegraph website on the same theme. I had a lot of time for the understated patriotism of the English that surfaced on royal occasions and semi-seriously at the Last Night of the Proms but lay dormant for the rest of the year. As we move from being a nation to a country of competing interest groups, understated will get us nowhere.

26 November 2011 at 20:25  
Blogger bwims said...

This guy wants to legalise homosexual marriages in church. So for him to mock Dawkins is like a hippopotamus mocking a pig for being overweight.

(I've no time for either. Do I need to point that out?)

26 November 2011 at 20:32  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Did you know that most children who say they don't believe in God have atheist parents?

I think all atheists should bring their children up as Christians until they are old enough to decide for themselves if they want to reject the faith from an informed position.

27 November 2011 at 00:04  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Rebel Saint 0:04
“I think all atheists should bring their children up as Christians until they are old enough to decide for themselves if they want to reject the faith from an informed position.”

27 November 2011 00:04
I couldn't agree more. Christianity provides common sense, sound values, morals, & ethics it's a good foundation for life, and it's served us well until the stage was given to equality and diversity a license to destroy Christianity.


I hope all those schools read from Michaels gift of the Bible to the pupils in assembly and that it's not abandoned on a dusty bottom shelf of the school library.

27 November 2011 at 00:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Rebel: "I think all atheists should bring their children up as Christians until they are old enough to decide for themselves if they want to reject the faith from an informed position."

Why as Christians rather than as Muslims or as Hindus? You're probably as atheist as I am about Allah.

27 November 2011 at 06:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I wondered yesterday why you were off on one earlier in the thread and I just left it. Rereading my first comment today, I'm thinking it could have been misunderstood. When I said "The problem for Dawkins is that [...]", I mean the "The problem Dawkins faces [...]" rather "The problem from Dawkins' perspective [...]". That is, he's over-extending his point I think.

27 November 2011 at 07:22  
Blogger Albert said...

Here's a thought: how about letting the parents decide which religious or philosophical tradition their children should be educated in?

27 November 2011 at 09:47  
Blogger len said...

I believe in free will.
No one should be coerced into any religion unless they fully understand what is involved.
I believe it is basic right for children to reject their parents religion if they feel so inclined.
One should fully understand(as far as possible)their religion and accept or deny it as they feel led.

Dawkin`s would presumably indoctrinate children into Atheism robbing them of their free will.

27 November 2011 at 10:28  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Albert
That's a radical notion so early on the Lord's Day.

27 November 2011 at 10:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "That's a radical notion so early on the Lord's Day."

The Lord's Day? For feck's sake Dodo, there's only 27 shopping days left until Christmas.

27 November 2011 at 11:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Dawkin`s would presumably indoctrinate children into Atheism robbing them of their free will."

Lol.

Dawkins: "Kids, you're not going to church today."
Kids: "What's church?"
Dawkins: "Nevermind. Get your football kit on and we'll have a kick-around in the park."

27 November 2011 at 11:04  
Blogger len said...

Cannot see Dawkin`s going that far Danjo, looks bit old for that but you are getting the general idea!.

When Evolution is taught side by side with Creation it might be a bit more of a 'level playing field though!.

27 November 2011 at 11:13  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Forget Dorkins. Let's talk about how Cameron mocks, and holds in arrogant contempt, the British people he is supposed to serve instead.

27 November 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "When Evolution is taught side by side with Creation it might be a bit more of a 'level playing field though!"

Evolution is a biological theory explaining speciation suitable for science classes given that it has supporting evidence across many disciplines, including various branches of science. Creationism is a religious explanatory myth (in the non-derogatory sense of the word) of our reality and therefore suitable for religious education classes. What's the problem with the separation there?

I mean, we could explain in a chemistry class how and why we think sodium chloride dissolves in water, and then go on to say that an alternative explanation is that god actually breaks the bonds between the atoms himself to maintain the chemistry norms he put in place but on a whim he might choose not to today. I'm not keen on that myself, but hey.

27 November 2011 at 11:37  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

DanJ0 said ...

For feck's sake Dodo, there's only 27 shopping days left until Christmas."

Yep, the advent of Christ-Mass.

What a wonderful time of year. Remember what it is we celebrate during this season.

27 November 2011 at 11:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Yep, the advent of Christ-Mass. What a wonderful time of year. Remember what it is we celebrate during this season."

You need to give me a clue I think. Is it the wonder of turkey and stuffing? No, no, it's the winter equinox isn't it? The traditional Green Man thing with evergreen trees, holly wreaths and mistletoe symbolism? Erm, consumerism? Hold on, Coca-cola! Nope? Fat men in red suits with white fur trimming, helped by mythical elves with pointy ears? Ah, the No 1 single (hopefully by the lovely Marcus Collins) from X Factor!! That's it isn't it?

27 November 2011 at 11:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Not one line of inanity, but three !

No one should be coerced into any religion unless they fully understand what is involved.
I believe it is basic right for children to reject their parents religion if they feel so inclined.
One should fully understand(as far as possible)their religion and accept or deny it as they feel led.


What kind of silly arse statements are those, coming from someone who thinks he’s a Christian. Bear in mind the NAZIs actively encouraged children to ‘shop’ their parents if they rejected the NAZI ‘religion’. Can only deduce that you are in fact one of Lucifer’s agents on this planet, undermining the conveyance of the true Christian spirit from parent to child. The beast reveals himself, what !

27 November 2011 at 13:04  
Blogger len said...

Inspector, Sometimes it would be better for you to remain silent than to open your mouth and confirm my opinion of your foolishness (and the beast that lies within to return your phrase to you).

Has it ever penetrated that cranium that encloses what you call a brain that children might actually oppose their parents bigoted views? whether these be Catholic,Islamic Atheist or whatever?.

You seem to have little faith in humanity or the power of the Holy Spirit which doesn`t surprise me at all!.


What!

27 November 2011 at 14:27  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Inspector
A tad harsh on len, old bean.

Our man len says: "I believe in free will.". What he actually means is leaving conversion and the understanding of Christianity to the Holy Spirit (helped by a few nutty websites, of course). He's not big on "religion", as we know, and I doubt he agrees with formal teaching and instruction.

27 November 2011 at 14:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Presumably we are talking of the under 16s. The Inspector has no problem with older children rejecting their parents whatever, but at least give them something to reject first. And your indignant reply. What joy, you’ve been rattled. A direct hit on your conning tower. Most excellent result, sure the blog will agree – what !

Dodo. Hardly, old man. He’s a religious anarchist out to destroy Christian organised religion. Now that’s a sin, don’t you know...

27 November 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

NO
As usual, it's Camoron who doesn't get it.
Several posters seem to have realised this, fortunately.

ESB+t
I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU!
It would be Much, much better if copies of Shakespeare & The Origin of Species, and, probably Bronowski's book "The Ascent of Man" were distributed.
Let's have some real education.
Note - of course "origin" is wrong in some details, especailly on inheritance - since the mechanism wasn't known at the time. Maybe one could substitute "The Double Helix" ??

Generally:
"Faith" schools - any faith - are evil.
One only has to look at Ireland for a graphic demonstration of this.

Elby the breserk:
You really are mad, are you not?
I assume you have never read any Dawkins, or you would not make such a stupid and ignorant remark.

Johnny Rottenborough:
Oh christainaty has been a blessing to Britain & Europe?
Ever herd of wars of religion?
And the inquisitions set up by all of them, and the torture and the lies, still persisting to this day?

As long as the non-islamists continue to drink beer and wine and whisky, said islamists can get stuffed.
They don't actually stand a chance.
Because, if they push their luck too far, they will be treated as RC's were, with good reason then, 1583-1668, and with equal reason now.
( Note: I said "islamists" not "muslims" )

Jonny Rottenborough:
Oddly enough, the cucumber-sandwich muslims are coming, some of them - if they are allowed to by the extremist loonies.
Much the same as we had in this country approx 1639-1688, where the (christian) nutters were running the show.

Marie 1797:
Oh wonderful christian ethics.
Yeah.
You know where you can stuff that lie, and it is a lie - sorry.

Ien:
"Dawkin`s would presumably indoctrinate children into Atheism robbing them of their free will."
Bollocks.
You've obviously never read a word the man has written or said.
That is emphatically NOT his position.

Ien:
"When Evolution is taught side by side with Creation it might be a bit more of a 'level playing field though!"
Can I say FUCKWIT on this blog?
As near as anything is a scientific fact (99.999..99%). evolution is a fgact.
"Creation" is another piece of Bronze-Age goatherders' myths.
EVIDENCE for "creation" please, or shut up.
Grrrr .....

OiG:
Erm, the Nazis and the RC church had a very cosy relationship.
I call Godwin-violation on you, And you have therefore just lost the argument.

27 November 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tingey. What part of Bear in mind the NAZIs actively encouraged children to ‘shop’ their parents if they rejected the NAZI ‘religion’ do you object to.

The Third Reich represents a consolidation of all the evil man has ever come up with. Do name one they didn’t indulge in. AND, it’s still in living memory. What those blighters did should NEVER be forgotten – Godwin or no Godwin...

27 November 2011 at 15:56  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

You're doing the Godwin thing again.

Stop it again.

Len is, as usual (but not always) correct.

27 November 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Viking. Hmmm. Haven’t got this far in life without realising the man with the axe is ALWAYS right....

27 November 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking said ...
"Len is, as usual (but not always) correct."

Let's not fall out but you're very, very wrong. He's a lapsed Roman Catholic who's spreading confusion. I agree with assessment of him but for different reasons.

What's with the Godwin thing between you and our dear Inspector?

27 November 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ps
That's Tingey's assessment even if it is somewhat understated.

27 November 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger Anglican said...

We should encourage Turkey to become more democratic, stop persecuting Christians and be a stablising force among its Muslim neighbours. But it is not a European country, any more than the North African countries, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. (who might want to follow if Turkey became a member).

An afterthought.....has anyone suggested that Turkey should return Constantinople?

27 November 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Inspector
He's only right if you've left your Thompson at home!

27 November 2011 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anglican. Turkey is democratic, and it’s not democracy that’s the problem. It’s Turkish muslims. And what do muslims do....??

Dodo. Is not invoking Godwin one of the Archbishop’s standing orders by chance. Both Viking and Tingey on his case, you know.

Tingey. Still there ? Where’s this evil the NAZIs didn’t employ. Lots to choose from when it comes to what man has done against his fellow.

27 November 2011 at 19:06  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Inspector
Godwin's Law - dooh, got it!

27 November 2011 at 19:15  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I am of the opinion, that incedibly evil though the NSDAP was, the atrocities committed by Imperial Nippon were even worse.
One of my uncles (just) survived the dreaded railway ....

Furthermore, Germany & the Germans learnt from their dreadful lesson - remember their nation suffered apallingly, too.
I'm not so sure that Japan has learnt - the refusal, even now, to acknowledge things like the "Rape of Nanking" gives one the shivers.

27 November 2011 at 19:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Feck Turkey.

Len is alright by me.

OoIG keeps blasting on about our German friends, and it betrays a lack of logic.

You've got to admit they had way better uniforms, surely?

Grey and black? It's the new blue, dear.

27 November 2011 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Viking. Battledress khaki - circa 1939 to 1945. Now that’s a uniform to admire...

27 November 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

From a man which has worn a jolly good one,

See an SS officer for the way to do it.

Black leather. What more do you want to command respect?

27 November 2011 at 20:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Viking. SS uniforms look quite sinister in monochrome, as in “Schindler's list”

27 November 2011 at 21:14  
Blogger len said...

So now I am a 'lapsed Catholic 'according to Dodo at least.Must add that to my ever lengthening list compiled by Dodo and the Inspector.
A lapsed Roman Catholic(which I am not) would at least stand a chance of getting saved!. Excommunication would give an even better one!.

Go for the SS uniform Inspector it will suit you admirably ,a word of warning though don`t wear it to Church, might cause embarrassment and stir up a few unfortunate memories.

27 November 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
I'm actually ashamed to admit it but once I rented some SS costumes with a couple of University pals. We ended up in one almighty fight, provoked by us and leading to some nasty injuries.

The uniforms had a very weird effect on us. Leather boots, jompers, leather jacket, dark glasses and hand crop. It represents domination, brute force, power and evil. Hate the uniform and all it represents.

Nasty, nasty, nasty.

27 November 2011 at 21:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, weasel on site...

27 November 2011 at 21:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Power is to be respected, not hated.

How on Earth could the British claim to have won?

Won what? Just look at the place: what a shithole.

27 November 2011 at 22:08  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
I happen to believe we did 'win' that particular battle against the sheer evil of Nazism. Of course evil will never be completely defeated, it just manifests itself in a different form.

The cold, inhuman power of the SS can never be respected.

Inspector
Thanks for the alert. Have you still got a shovel to hand?

27 November 2011 at 22:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Viking . You know damn well our post war politicians are responsible for EVERYTHING. Don’t take away the victory that generation of Britons achieved. In hindsight, it would have been better if Churchill had rejected the 1945 election result and ruled the country with the help of the military. Stalin expected him to do that. Perhaps he would have if he’d have known what 2011 would be like...

27 November 2011 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. You saw the way he appeared from nowhere and sank his teeth into the Inspector’s behind. Anyway, had him rattled earlier on, heh ! A ‘Dear Diary’ day methinks...

27 November 2011 at 23:11  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Inspector
Yes, it is strange the way dear len went for you and made that mendatious suggestion about the Roman Catholic Church and Nazism. Totally off topic.

He does get rattled from time to time and his real nature shows through. And yes, most certainly a "Dear Diary" day.

27 November 2011 at 23:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "We ended up in one almighty fight, provoked by us and leading to some nasty injuries."

I doubt anyone will be surprised by your past behaviour.

28 November 2011 at 07:23  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0
Get over yourself, you're sounding like an old queen.

28 November 2011 at 08:48  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0
A little song for when life gets tough:

I've lived a life that's full
I traveled each and every highway
(not that particular one)
And more, much more than this
I did it my way

Regrets I've had a few
But then again too few to mention
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption

I planned each charted course
Each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way

Yes there were times I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out, life, that is
I faced it all
And I stood tall and did it my way

I've loved, I've laughed and cried
I've had my fill, my share of losing
And now as tears subside
I find it all so amusing

To think I did all that
And may I say not in a shy way
Oh no, oh no, not me
I did it my way

For what is a man what has he got
If not himself then he has not
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way

Yes it was my way

28 November 2011 at 08:59  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@DanJ0 said ... "Why as Christians rather than as Muslims or as Hindus? You're probably as atheist as I am about Allah."

Sorry for delayed response ... don't do the internet on the Lord's day.

I'd be happy for them to be raised in any theistic worldview as long as it was not that of their parents ... after all, that's child abuse isn't it?!

But you are correct in your assessment (well, almost) regarding other religions - I'm a non-believer in them as much as you are. However, I probably have more in common with them than with a devout humanist. (I don't have a problem with Allah per se, but with Mohammed's false representation of Him. Therefore think it's best to avoid the name and stick to Yahweh or Jehovah IMHO)

28 November 2011 at 09:21  
Blogger DerekS said...

When someone claims that so-and-so "doesn't get it" the speaker doesn't generally specify what the "it" is as they can't or don't want to grasp it themselves, and certainly not be cross-examined about it.

In the context of an exchange about religion the phrase "you don't understand the meaning of faith" is a put-down with a similar effect, used against someone who assumes all parties are committed to the use of reason, and employed when the speaker has run out of reasoned argument.

28 November 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger Jon said...

If I were an evangelical christian type still, I would probably want religious schools abolished. The CoE ones, whilst providing an excellent education, in my personal experience, did very little to encourage adherence to Christianity.

Most CoE schools seem to provide such a watered down version that it serves more as an inoculation against it in later life than a positive nudge in a churchy direction.

I'd suggest that the CoE get out of the state's affairs and out of universal education, and get back to its core values, preaching its message, and tending to the weak and the poor. I don't think that mass education of middle class kids ought to be high on the list of fruits that the Church should be known for.

28 November 2011 at 13:57  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Jon said... "Most CoE schools seem to provide such a watered down version that it serves more as an inoculation against it in later life than a positive nudge in a churchy direction.

An even more watered down version of the gospel than than presented by anglicanism ... is that possible?!

Alas, you are probably right. However I'd change your qualifier from "most" to "many". I get to visit a great deal of schools in the course of my work. On entering ANY Roman Catholic school you are immediately aware of it's faith basis & it's ethos. As with many of their churches, many CofE schools seem to work harder at hiding their faith than it would be to proclaim it.

However, there are many (such as the one my own children are fortunate enough to attend) where the Lord Jesus is honoured & exalted, explicitly & implicitly, through the whole of the school, from the moment you enter the grounds.

I'd suggest that the CoE get out of the state's affairs and out of universal education, and get back to its core values, preaching its message, and tending to the weak and the poor. I don't think that mass education of middle class kids ought to be high on the list of fruits that the Church should be known for.

This, on the other hand is utter BS. The church was educating children before the state. It could be argued that the state should get out of the Church's affairs in this regard. And CofE schools do not serve middle-class children. The one my own children attend (as well as many, many others I could point out to you) serves one of the most highly deprived areas of England, yet produces outstanding results (by every measure). This is one of the few places where the CofE does still serve the poor in a truly practical & relevant way week-in & week-out. We should be applauding them. Yet in all-to-typical foot-shooting style, the CofE hierarchy often seem willing to believe the propaganda of their opponents rather than letting their brightest light shine like a city on a hill.

28 November 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger Jon said...

Sorry - Rebel Saint - you're right. I hadn't wished to impugn the work that CoE schools do across the board (nor to deny the fact that many of the best fee paying schools were started by the Church to educate the poor, but have wandered off piste somewhat!)

My point was supposed to be that the ability of wealthier people to move house into the catchment areas of a good CoE schools probably wasn't what they had in mind when they started them!

28 November 2011 at 14:43  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Mr. Rebel Saint, @ 14:30:)

29 November 2011 at 05:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Non Mouse

Ernst in total agreement, my fine lass.

Most excellently expressed, Mr. Rebel Saint, @ 14:30 ;-)

29 November 2011 at 13:01  
Blogger Chris said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 November 2011 at 16:56  
Blogger Chris said...

Dawkins "thereby implicitly labelling them with the faith of their parents, "

I think that's what Dawkins is saying.

DanJo "....If so then he deviates from the secular reasoning that I read which argues for schools to be primarily places of academic learning given that they're State regulated and to leave the private sphere to itself. It's up to Muslim parents what they teach their kids about Islamic values and whether they attend madrasas out of school hours but I'm not that keen myself having Islamic faith schools pushing that faith during the day too. Similarly with Catholic and other faith schools. I think religionists are storing up trouble for yourselves and unfortunately for people like me too."

If a parent chooses to take their kids to a faith school, then shouldn't that choice be left down to the parents, not the state? Is the state pushing its beliefs on how the world was created onto these vunerable children? What one could argue is the point of choice... in reference to Dawkins "too young to have chosen" ..chosen what?

"to leave the private sphere to itself", understandable argument, though funnily enough, shouldn't cultural values (ie faith) and the opposition (scientific origin) be taught in conjunction with one another to provide kids with choice, rather than to be taught one thing at home, then to be questioned by it as they attend school.

Religionists don't store up any trouble, the Bible teaches people to respect other faiths, its athetists that don't see the faith.

"Evolution is a biological theory explaining ..."

Hmmmm..nicely put, evolution is biological theory, and faiths are always asked to provide absolute proof, let the argument of sciencifc origin can be easily justifable to theory only, neat choice of an argument.

One question I would like to ask, only one; How are morals taught in a world that cannot prove itself, whether it be with faith or science.

29 November 2011 at 17:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Chris: "Is the state pushing its beliefs on how the world was created onto these vunerable children?"

I'm afraid I don't understand a lot of what you've written but this bit stands out.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (often shortened to Evolution these days) is an explanatory theory about how speciation might occur. It says nothing as far as I know about how the world was created.

You say that the State is pushing its beliefs about our world's creation onto children. You mean how our specific planet was formed? I'm not sure that it's best described as a belief. Are you talking about gravitational forces, or its surface cooling, or what? I don't recall that ever being taught at my school but perhaps they do these days.

29 November 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Chris seems to have made one of the "standard" mistakes.

In science a "Theory" is as good as it gets.
A THEORY is an underlying general explanation for a wide range of phenomena.
There are not many real Theories in science, because they ARE general and multi-explanatory.
Evolution, Periodic Table, Plate Tectonics, Relativity-&-Quantum Mechancs (note later!) ... not many more.

What you are looking at is what a scientist would call an Hypothesis.

Come on!
Evolution is as true as anything in science: 99.99 ... 99%
If you want an alternative explanation, it must fit all known available facts at least as well as evolution does.

"Religionists don't store up any trouble, the Bible teaches people to respect other faiths, its athetists that don't see the faith"
I don't think you are lying, but you art seriously deluded, if you bleieve that.
I refer you to the various religious wars and persecutions, and not just in christianity, either!
And wrong again, atheists DO see the "faith" and know that it means beleif without evidence".
And some of us are escaped christians, anyway, so we know all the lying bullshit put out by the blackmailing priests.


(Note: Yes I am aware that Relativity is multiply-proven-"true" AND that QM is multiply-proven-"true" and they erm, don't agree, or rather match up at least. The recent Gran Sasso results MAY be a start at resolving that problem.

30 November 2011 at 08:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older