Dispatches: In God's name

[danny la rouge]

I don't entirely follow you.

So I see.

There have, of course, been improvements in conditions brought about by legislation. Some I would even campaign to see happen. However, I am not a supporter of liberal meddling. It often does more harm than good, by not thinking through the consequences.

Let me start from first principles (since that seems to be the way this discussion is heading). Each of us is an autonomous individual. We may direct our lives however we so please, so long as doing so does not impede the ability of others to do the same. If you thus impede another, you are infringing his/her liberty (imposing authority). Your action may therefore be resisted by that person. (Just as I should not use force against you to impose my will, but if you attempt to use force against me I will use force to repel you).

If you impede the liberty of a group, then that group may resist your attempt to impose authority upon them. Supporters of that oppressed group may want to help them resist your authority. (This is called solidarity).

So, freedom does not include the freedom to limit the freedom of others. Therefore you may say that you think their freedom should be restricted, but you can expect that to be challenged. Indeed it should be challenged.

If we are in a situation where one person employs another, then we are in a situation where there is unequal power already. Unequal power between people is by definition an infringement of liberty: if you have power over me, then you are limiting my freedom. So the notion that you have the right to employ a person according to your own prejudices is already starting from a point of structural inequality/authority.

Let us say an employer can refuse to employ a person because they are gay, black, Jewish, Irish, ginger, female, whatever. That is a state of affairs that can and must be resisted.

 

[laptop]

those of us who go to Church.

Excluding for the moment the possibility that this is some storefront church in soithern Illinois, have you been... entirely open with your congregation?


I have nary a good word to say for the churches. But, generally speaking, I find they're opposed to your kind of person. Maybe something to do with your weakness for Odinism...

 

[Fledgling]

Channel 4 is going through a real "crazy-mofo-pr0n" season at the moment.

Beats all the property development shite, I suppose . . .

I'm waiting for the Wife Swap special between a gay couple and a religous fundamentalist family, presented by Sarah Beeny. It's on its way.

 

[Fledgling]

Do you not accept that there may be more than one way to view the situation? That people may disagree on what constitutes good behaviour and the propriety of placing children with homosexual adoptive parents?

This is the most extreme form of totalitarianism. Not just one that insists that everyone should act the same way, but that they must think the same way, too. As if no other way exists.

I'm quite sure you think this situation exposed the "homophobia" in the Catholic church, but in fact the church has never hidden its views on this matter. What it really exposed was that many so-called liberals are in fact the worst kind of authoritiarians.

There are, it is true, a good number of people (thankfully) who oppose the authoritarian attitude of some liberals. Fortunately the programme maker didn't allow their own bias to show too strongly (although it seemed desperate to burst out sometimes). Watching this though, and seeing this thread, I have to say no one's won me over to their side.

I don't have a massive problem with Christian Voice, they're just another pressure group shouting their opinions and trying to influence us all. I understand that there are criticisms of Islam which they could make and express. If these criticisms are well founded and based on reasoned scholarship, and if those who make such criticisms make them in a spirit in keeping with their religion then I at least understand and respect them.

But Christian Voice didn't appear to be following this approach. I could be wrong but I suspect they've looked up all the "bad bits" in the Koran and have combined these with their own personal hatreds to campaign against something they dislike. Sometimes this is how they came across, although I'll admit it's a fine distinction between opposition and hate.

I'm reading a short, interesting book about the Bible at the mo. The author goes through Biblical positions on homosexuality and makes observations about Islam. At no point does hatred enter into the book. This is imo, an acceptable attitude to hold. Sadly I feel that a lot of Christians or so-called Chrisitians seem to fail in their own belief,because hate is really not on the agenda. Opposing for example gay couple adoption is a bit like opposing straight couple adoption, all couples (people) are sinful right? I don't understand singling out homosexuality as "the sin", if you're going to tell me all sin* is equally bad at least apply this to your practice.



*(I'm personally uncertain as to whether homsexuality is a sin but have presumed most Christians think it is).

 

[wishface]

Never watched it but read the preview write up which said it was about the increasing influence of fundamentalist Christians.

Now call me old fashioned but after 10 years in which we have seen Gays being allowed to effectively marry, seen the Catholic Adoption agencies forced out of business despite then doing a superb job and a whole host of other things which go against Church teachings and it strikes me that far from being able to influence things, Christians are are on the losing end time and time again.

You Dawkos are the ones with the increasing influence and voice of those in charge, not those of us who go to Church.

the only people forcing catholic agencies out of business are the catholics who refuse to accept that being gay isn't evil. if they can't see that then good riddance to them.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't have a massive problem with Christian Voice

What did you think of the school (can't just recall the name of the organisation)?

I certainly believe people should be left to bring up their children as they see fit and proper, but extreme cases show us that we do place limits on that, since children are people, too (despite what the Daily Mail might think). Most of us think parents should not abuse their children. Most of us are appalled by the way Fritzl saw fit to treat his daughter and grandchildren/children.

Should a school treat children the way that school did? In my opinion every scene involved a degree of child abuse. The way the teacher talked to those childrenabout sin, about people in OT times really living in fear of God turning them into pillars of salt. The way the children responded with nonsense about people really being swallowed into the earth. The way the science books and papers were filled with questions about one of the Genesis creation myths (though, entertainingly, if you'd answered according to the other, you'd have been marked wrong). The head teacher was not, in my opinion, a fit person to be in charge of a school.

This is a step away from parents teaching children about religion at home. Should we tolerate teachers who damage children in this way?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Certain things have become unsayable and to an extent, unthinkable.

Like having a gay Pope, you mean?

 

[danny la rouge]

Like having a gay Pope, you mean?

It's fine that he is gay, but there would be problems if he acted on that. That would make him like a murderer or paedophile.

 

[Orang Utan]

Except there is a fundamentalist group in the town where I live. It is growing in strength, and has its claws into one of the primary schools. The self appointed pastor runs the assemblies every week and has done so for eight years. (The mainstream church here is obviously the Church of Scotland. The C of S minister has been invited once in the last two years).

This pastor is homophobic, Creationist, and every bit as "humorous" as the people in that film. And yet he has quite unprecedented access to a state primary school.

He also runs a youth group for older kids, on Friday evenings, where they chat about sexuality etc. It regularly has attendances of 60 kids. Kids who have grown up hearing this man's message, and so turn to him for support.

This is a small town, you couldn't get 60 kids to turn up to a free Buckfast night. That is a significant power base this guy has built himself.

I know people who have been sucked into this group, and they prey on the vulnerable, and, I have no hesitation in saying, ruin their lives.

So, no, I don't think these people can be brushed aside the way they once could.

Righto - I guess my exposure to them is just as minor irritants

 

[poului]

dtr7igubhjp97

Whilst they're obviously contemptible people I do think the film-maker was over-stating their influence on the national level.


Respect to those two women who stormed the anti-abortion rally, though didn't you notice how empty the place was? The narrator spoke of this group's skyrocketing influence whilst the camera was filming a hoard of empty seats in the background.

 

[danny la rouge]

Righto - I guess my exposure to them is just as minor irritants

Fair enough. And lucky you!

 

[likesfish]

quite enjoyed there mad rants against Islam would have enjoyed it more if there'd been a full scale ruck between gods warriors and Islamic nutters deep joy that would have brought me

if the majority of people in the uk actually went to church then I'd have to live with christen morality based laws. THEY DON'T SO FUCK OFF YOU GOD BOTHERING FUCKWITS.

 

[Stoat Boy]

the only people forcing catholic agencies out of business are the catholics who refuse to accept that being gay isn't evil. if they can't see that then good riddance to them.

I am sure this arguement has been done to death on here but surely the primary concern about adoption agencies should be the service they provide for the Children entrusted to them ?

And as I understand it the Catholic agencies did a very good job, especially when it came to Children who had proved difficult to place. And they were also willing to be flexible when it came to the question of gays wanting to be involved but could not,obviously, offically endorse it.

So what harm would have been caused by altering the legisaltion to allow those agencies to continue by allowing them to opt out of the gay equality bit ? Our legal system makes all sorts of allowances for peoples religious beliefs and it would have harmed nobody to do the same here.

But no. It had to be forced through. And in my opinion it was done because the Gay lobby wanted to directly attack the Catholic Church. Pure spite. Sod the kids, lets just drive the Catholic Church out of this area even if it was doing a good job.

 

[dylanredefined]

Never watched it but read the preview write up which said it was about the increasing influence of fundamentalist Christians.

Now call me old fashioned but after 10 years in which we have seen Gays being allowed to effectively marry, seen the Catholic Adoption agencies forced out of business despite then doing a superb job and a whole host of other things which go against Church teachings and it strikes me that far from being able to influence things, Christians are are on the losing end time and time again.

You Dawkos are the ones with the increasing influence and voice of those in charge, not those of us who go to Church.

Thats evolution for you ain't it

 

[Fruitloop]

I was just amazed at how totally maladjusted they all were. The idea that there is no strict demarcation of madness and sanity, but rather a continuum on which we're all situated kept occuring to me with some force.

I found the whole thing pretty painful to watch to be honest - could only manage it in short bursts...

 

[poului]

rs68uft7ou

Quite, the three people they focused on were quite evidently unstable mentally. Andrea's cynical scheming and awareness of her public image made her somewhat detestable, but the other two just seemed hopelessly lost.

More pitiful than anything else really, considering how irrelevant they are on the national stage. Exactly why it's such a big deal that David Cameron occasionally listens and politely nods to an evangelical representative is beyond me, and it was clear that even Norman Tebbitt was being a tad 'diplomatic' in his meeting.

In regards to dangerous fringe groups, surely a much more pressing issue in the UK these days is the alarming rise in support for the BNP, who we caught a glimpse of in the programme?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

voluntarily doing this work in the first place, motivated by their values.

Values like 'come here little boy and see a grown priest naked' I suppose

 

[Fledgling]

What did you think of the school (can't just recall the name of the organisation)?

I certainly believe people should be left to bring up their children as they see fit and proper, but extreme cases show us that we do place limits on that, since children are people, too (despite what the Daily Mail might think). Most of us think parents should not abuse their children. Most of us are appalled by the way Fritzl saw fit to treat his daughter and grandchildren/children.

Have to fess up that I ddin't see this bit so my opinion might alter in light of what happened in the school. I agree, parents bear the larger responsibility for their child's upbringing but there are limits; brainwashing someone is also I think, rather unChristian as free will and choice come into the religion.

 

[Dandred]

What a bunch of nutters, finally got to watch this.......


I hope that this movement doesn't start growing in the UK like it has in the US