The slow, whiny death of British Christianity

[Haunted]

Apologies to Hennessy for starting another one of 'those' threads.

http://www.johannhari.com/2010/08/10/th ... ristianity

"And now congregation, put your hands together and give thanks, for I come bearing Good News. Britain is now the most irreligious country on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else. Some 63 percent of us are non-believers, according to an ICM study, while 82 percent say religion is a cause of harmful division. Now, let us stand and sing our new national hymn: Jerusalem was dismantled here/ in England's green and pleasant land.

How did it happen? For centuries, religion was insulated from criticism in Britain. First its opponents were burned, then jailed, then shunned. But once there was a free marketplace of ideas, once people could finally hear both the religious arguments and the rationalist criticisms of them, the religious lost the British people. Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims non-existent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end...."

Good news everyone! All we need to do now is remove the bishops from the Lords, abolish faith schools and end tax exemption for kooks (there's your deficit money George!).

[Humphrey]

How did it happen? For centuries, religion was insulated from criticism in Britain. First its opponents were burned, then jailed, then shunned. But once there was a free marketplace of ideas, once people could finally hear both the religious arguments and the rationalist criticisms of them, the religious lost the British people. Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims non-existent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end....".

Hmmm, the UK is certainly less religious but not just for the reasons cited; after the religious arguments and the rationalist arguments against them have been around since antiquity. Religious orthodoxy has been challenged en-mass since the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. There is a free marketplace of ideas in the U.S but they tend to be more religious over there. Instead historians and sociologists generally point to increases in social and geographical mobility that have fractured communities once bound by common religious values. The growth of capitalism, commerce and consumerism have threatened commitment to religious institutions and long term goals. Secular values have been heavily promoted in the sphere of education and in the media and religious solidarity has been replaced by national solidarity or by the ideology of political parties. Also people have better things to do on their Sundays.

Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel

Not just a religious pre-occupation, for example Joseph Stalin banned all three in 1933.

[Hennessy]

Apologies to Hennessy for starting another one of 'those' threads.

That's alright. I might as well venture my slack-jawed opinion in this thread, it might be mildly more amusing than another round with that intellectual behemoth redcelt.

Good news everyone! All we need to do now is remove the bishops from the Lords, abolish faith schools and end tax exemption for kooks (there's your deficit money George!).

I agree with removing the bishops from the Lords, it's illogical to have Anglican bishops sitting in as the House become democratised. I can't see myself agreeing to remove faith schools though. I went to a faith school and what possibly ins't considered from outside is how ludicrously ineffective they are at moulding the next generation of the card-carrying faithful. They are by and large good schools, and the case for abolishing them is about as strong as the one that replaced a good set of grammar schools with universally average comprehensive schools in the 1960's. What we need to do in education in this country is keep the good and remove the bad, rather than looking at a patient with a cough and a gammy leg and prescribing a triple bypass.

The idea of selectivity in schools shouldn't be a bad thing either. Surely everyone can remember the kid who sat at the back and took no interest in the lesson at all, whose presence was disruptive and who would have been better off farmed out to a school where he could have left at sixteen and engaged in a successful career as a plumber or other tradesman. I know several who did this, one bought his own flat a year ago, in South London, after six years at work. He never wanted to read Plutarch or study Twain, he had no interest in thermodynamics or pure maths. He's happy. I also know several who left sixth form with grades below a D in every one of their subjects. They went to study media studies in luton poly or somesuch and they left a year ago blindly expecting to walk into a 25k or over job a year. Still looking to fulfil expectations that were wildly hyped up by irresponsible promises from politicians and the educational establishment. So much for 50% of students in University.

So my point is, keep what is doing well and encourage students to have realistic expectations. It doesn't matter that I had Mass after school every Wednesday or had to say silent prayers every morning at registration. This country has already had a raw deal from the overhaul of its education in the 60's, let's not do it again.

[RedCelt69]

That's alright. I might as well venture my slack-jawed opinion in this thread, it might be mildly more amusing than another round with that intellectual behemoth redcelt.

<cough>

Ragamuffin_artist, I apologise on his behalf for his attempt to flame this thread as well, he's a bit excitable today!

Are you going to apologize to Haunted, too?

Tsk! Who needs consistency, eh?

[macgamer]

Secularism's other apostle to the Christians, Christopher Hitchens, is still whining obsessively about his nemesis:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... edict-xvi/

Full article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... ens-201009

[macgamer]

The idea of selectivity in schools shouldn't be a bad thing either. Surely everyone can remember the kid who sat at the back and took no interest in the lesson at all, whose presence was disruptive and who would have been better off farmed out to a school where he could have left at sixteen and engaged in a successful career as a plumber or other tradesman. I know several who did this, one bought his own flat a year ago, in South London, after six years at work. He never wanted to read Plutarch or study Twain, he had no interest in thermodynamics or pure maths. He's happy. I also know several who left sixth form with grades below a D in every one of their subjects. They went to study media studies in luton poly or somesuch and they left a year ago blindly expecting to walk into a 25k or over job a year. Still looking to fulfil expectations that were wildly hyped up by irresponsible promises from politicians and the educational establishment. So much for 50% of students in University.

So my point is, keep what is doing well and encourage students to have realistic expectations. It doesn't matter that I had Mass after school every Wednesday or had to say silent prayers every morning at registration. This country has already had a raw deal from the overhaul of its education in the 60's, let's not do it again.

Well said Hennessy. The Secondary Modern - Polytechnical College / Grammar School - University, system wasn't perfect, but at least it was able to produce workers with skills employers actually wanted.

[Haunted]

I can't see myself agreeing to remove faith schools though. I went to a faith school and what possibly ins't considered from outside is how ludicrously ineffective they are at moulding the next generation of the card-carrying faithful.

Observe.
"I can't see myself agreeing to remove fascist schools though. I went to a fascist school and what possibly ins't considered from outside is how ludicrously ineffective they are at moulding the next generation of the card-carrying fascists."

You're not arguing that their doctrine is correct you are merely pointing out that they are inept at indoctrinating it. This is not an argument for the existence of such places. Presumably you would've enjoyed the same school experience had they removed the bullshit such as obligatory mass and morning prayer etc.

The idea of selectivity in schools shouldn't be a bad thing either.

Yes and no. Yes classes should be divided based on ability so that everyone gets the teaching that is most effective for them. But some subjects (maths, english, foreign language etc) should be compulsory up to a certain age. It's all well and good to list anecdotes about people who didn't enjoy these subjects and then went on to make a life as a carpenter or whatever but anecdotes don't represent the system. Personally, I find the idea of an educated populace an intrinsically good thing.

[Haunted]

Secularism's other apostle to the Christians, Christopher Hitchens, is still whining obsessively about his nemesis:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... edict-xvi/

Full article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... ens-201009

The contrast between those two articles is astounding. Damian Thomson is of course a notorious apologist who always seems to attract the most bizarre commentators. E.g.

"Poor man, instead of repenting, he is doing his damndest."
A clear case of demonic possession. I think he needs to be exorcised, more than prayed for.

I am angry that the fool has denied God, and bitter that so many souls have been seduced into an evil way of life by Hitchens' weasel words. Justice is mine, says the Lord, I shall repay. Hitchens will soon know that God is not mocked and repayment will be in full.

Poor man, instead of repenting, he is doing his damndest.

First off, instead of going after the Pope go after the victims themselves and their families for not going to the police in the first place and going to the bishops who did not report to proper authorities.

Yes I checked for sarcasm.

And personally, if you think demanding justice be served (or at the very least be investigated by the proper authorities) upon the head of the largest organisation of pedophiles (by number alone) on Earth is 'obsessive whining' then you're officially a cunt.

[Haunted]

Someone needs to fire the Vaticans current PR guru
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pope-B ... 30894.html
http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/m ... 50669.html

[wild_quinine]

I can't see myself agreeing to remove faith schools though. I went to a faith school and what possibly ins't considered from outside is how ludicrously ineffective they are at moulding the next generation of the card-carrying faithful.

Observe.
"I can't see myself agreeing to remove fascist schools though. I went to a fascist school and what possibly ins't considered from outside is how ludicrously ineffective they are at moulding the next generation of the card-carrying fascists."

Whilst this may be an effective tool for making people stop and think about what they're actually saying, and I do applaud that, it is not a useful substitution to make vis a vis the undesireability of Catholic Schools.

You see Hennessy is trying to make a pragmatic assessment of the value of Catholic Schools based not on their doctrine, but on their success as schools. He's weighing up the benefits of their (puportedly) excellent schooling against the disadvantages of the indoctrination they provide.

To then substitute another undesireable value into place of Catholicism doesn't work. Why? Because the argument is a pragmatic one, and therefore rests on the specific undesireablility of Catholic indocrination.

If you throw facism into the mix instead, then you are making a completely different specific evaluation, which is not translateable as an assessment.

Now, I fully accept that it might be the case that we draw a line in the sand and say that no indoctrination is permissable at all, but there are a couple of problems with this, not least the fact that schooling itself seems to me to be about nine tenths indocrination.

You're not arguing that their doctrine is correct you are merely pointing out that they are inept at indoctrinating it. This is not an argument for the existence of such places.

Yes, exactly.

However we are not arguing to bring such places into existence. They exist already. Hennessy's point is about whether or not it is pragmatic to dismantle them, given that they tend to perform well by some measures.

I must say that I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion, but it's not the argument you're representing it as.

[Haunted]

Whilst this may be an effective tool for making people stop and think about what they're actually saying, and I do applaud that, it is not a useful substitution to make vis a vis the undesireability of Catholic Schools....

Yes I knew Fascist was a dangerous word to used (I almost went with flat-earth or marxist or whatever) but it was easiest to change from 'faith'.

You see Hennessy is trying to make a pragmatic assessment of the value of Catholic Schools based not on their doctrine, but on their success as schools.

No, he made a point of mentioning that the catholicness didn't rub off on him and presented this as a good thing. I agree, this is a good thing, but that doesn't make the school itself good, merely inept at doing a bad thing. I was pointing out that ANY other form of school (fascist, flat-earth, marxist) could be inept at indoctrinating other forms of bs and his point would be just as valid.

To then substitute another undesireable value into place of Catholicism doesn't work. Why? Because the argument is a pragmatic one, and therefore rests on the specific undesireablility of Catholic indocrination.

It works perfectly if I am arguing against the principle of such schools in general and not specific examples such as catholicism. The principle is that any old cult can take the reigns of an educational institution and provide a more 'faith based' approach to the children of parents of said particular cult (especially when it comes to sex education). Yes, some will be more harmless than others. For example, I wouldn't argue that a Wahhabi faith school was just as bad as an Anglican one, though they are both products of a bad premise, which is what I am arguing against.

not least the fact that schooling itself seems to me to be about nine tenths indocrination.

And I'd be making the same argument if the indoctrination was only one tenth of one percent. The principle I'm arguing against isn't changed by how much or how little or how (in)effective said indoctrination is.

However we are not arguing to bring such places into existence. They exist already. Hennessy's point is about whether or not it is pragmatic to dismantle them, given that they tend to perform well by some measures.

]
Was it pragmatic or not to dismantle slave labour given that they tended to perform well by some measures? I've heard that the GDP of the UK decreased 10% in the year that slavery was abolished, was it therefore a bad thing to abolish it?

I simply don't care how impractical it would be to dismantle faith schools (and how hard can it be to simply place a placard at the entrance "under new management"?)

[macgamer]

And personally, if you think demanding justice be served (or at the very least be investigated by the proper authorities) upon the head of the largest organisation of pedophiles (by number alone) on Earth is 'obsessive whining' then you're officially a cunt.

Of course I think bringing paedophiles to justice is a good think. However the likes of you and Hitchens demonstrate no sincere regard for the abuse victims by your use of that calumny: 'head of the largest organisation of pedophiles [sic]'.

It is a bit like calling the NHS the largest organisation of pensioner murders, given the amount of old people that die as a result of a few bad doctors and nurses. However coming out with such ignorant comments suggest a lack of compassion for the victims.

Instead you demonstrate an irrational hatred for religion and Catholicism in particular. Carefully, for we know where that has lead some:

[macgamer]

Someone needs to fire the Vaticans current PR guru
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pope-B ... 30894.html
http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/m ... 50669.html

They don't have one, that is part of the problem. Certain Bishops and Cardinals need gagging orders; the number of PR disasters caused by clerics opening their mouths before engaging the grey matter is astonishing.

[macgamer]

I simply don't care how impractical it would be to dismantle faith schools (and how hard can it be to simply place a placard at the entrance "under new management"?)

Once again proving my point, you don't care. Your will over the will and freedom of others. If your views increase in Britain, Catholics had better to start building priest holes and hedge schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_schools).

What about the rights of parents to educate their children in the faith? (Although admittedly, most Catholic schools are pretty useless at it) Have you ever considered that there is something about faith schools which makes educational quality better and parents pretend to be of the faith in order to get their children into them?

Although a bit of persecution does wonders for faith, just look at China.

Now please review your use of Fascist above and check for irony because I didn't detect any sarcasm on your part.

[Haunted]

It is a bit like calling the NHS the largest organisation of pensioner murders, given the amount of old people that die as a result of a few bad doctors and nurses.

To an extent yes. However, pensioners die as a result of time and/or neglect (i.e. it's passive and they would die anyway) whereas children simply cannot rape themselves, that takes active participation from eager men of cloth.

However coming out with such ignorant comments suggest a lack of compassion for the victims.

Hyperbole != Ignorance. What I stated was merely a fact and as such cannot hold any compassion (or lack of it) for victims of said atrocity. What you are doing is trying to redirect criticism toward me for my crime of hyperbole which (I will argue) is slightly less of a crime than systematic child rape over decades (if not centuries). Why not try the same tactic on the general public when they were outraged against Ian Huntly or Gary Glitter or <insert any other rapist/murderer here>.

To borrow from Johann Hari:
Imagine you discovered that at the BBC, there was a group of employees who were raping the children at the BBC creche. Clearly as a human being you would be outraged and demand justice. But now imagine that the head of the BBC decided not to inform the police but instead to move the offenders to another BBC office, say Glasgow, in order to protect the reputation of the BBC. Imagine again that the offenders begin raping again, and again the head moves them on another parish and so on.
If this actually happened, would you accuse me of showing contempt for the victims if I described the BBC as the largest organisation of pedophiles (assuming the numbers supported this)?
If no, congratulations you've gained another hypocrisy badge.
If yes, then you're a sociopath.

Instead you demonstrate an irrational hatred for religion and Catholicism in particular. Carefully, for we know where that has lead some

Irrational implies there is no reason. Clearly there is a reason, you just acknowledged that victims exist ergo crimes against them have been committed. But yes, I rank catholicism higher in the charts of 'worst human endeavour ever' than other nonsense such as anglicanism, astrology and tarot cards.

[Haunted]

Your will over the will and freedom of others.

And just wtf is dividing and segregating children (incapable of consent) into faith schools?

If your views increase in Britain, Catholics had better to start building priest holes and hedge schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_schools).

How about they just keep their shit to themselves at home and out of the state? Why should my tax money go to impose your doctrine exactly? I have no problem with freedom to believe, just do it on your own time with your own money.

What about the rights of parents to educate their children in the faith?

Two points.
1. If this is a right then so is indoctrination into marxism or fascism.
2. Do it at home, own time and own money.

Have you ever considered that there is something about faith schools which makes educational quality better and parents pretend to be of the faith in order to get their children into them?

Yes it's the selection criteria that they apply. State schools have to take on all pupils whereas funny hat schools get to pick and choose. Are you surprised they will pick the brighter students over the less able ones?

Although a bit of persecution does wonders for faith, just look at China.

Oh the persecution ace is played! Me arguing that religious groups shouldn't have control over state education with tax payer money, that's persecution is it? I'm not even wanting to ban it by all means teach your kids that condoms cause AIDS, but do it and home without the authority of the state and the tax payer. True persecution would be driving you out of the village, burning your church down and murdering your kids, don't you even dare to suggest that you are suffering like the people who unfortunately do experience those things.

[macgamer]

To borrow from Johann Hari:
Imagine you discovered that at the BBC, there was a group of employees who were raping the children at the BBC creche. Clearly as a human being you would be outraged and demand justice. But now imagine that the head of the BBC decided not to inform the police but instead to move the offenders to another BBC office, say Glasgow, in order to protect the reputation of the BBC. Imagine again that the offenders begin raping again, and again the head moves them on another parish and so on.
If this actually happened, would you accuse me of showing contempt for the victims if I described the BBC as the largest organisation of pedophiles (assuming the numbers supported this)?
If no, congratulations you've gained another hypocrisy badge.
If yes, then you're a sociopath.

Well the BBC, or any other large organisation for that matter, have divisions and levels of responsibility. Law takes account of the criminal act as well as the state of mind i.e. whether some was intentional or not. Transferring a known paedophile without informing the authorities was clearly intentional. So that is a clear cut case and the person who moved the paedophile shares some responsibility for subsequent crimes ever having taken place. Someone higher up the organisation the superior of the official who made the decision to move the paedophile, may not know what the subordinate is doing. However if the superior instructed his subordinate such that it was official policy to not inform the civil authorities and just move the paedophile, then they too are complicit and share responsibility for subsequent crimes.

It really depends on the extent to which the corruption goes, whether the upper eschelons 'presided' over institutionalised paedophilia.

So you the onus is on you to demonstrate to me that the Pope at any point during his career acted in such manner. Given how badly Church PR is run and the poor organisation of the Pope's visit, I doubt the Vatican knows much about anything that happens outside the Holy See sometimes.

Instead you demonstrate an irrational hatred for religion and Catholicism in particular. Carefully, for we know where that has lead some

Irrational implies there is no reason. Clearly there is a reason, you just acknowledged that victims exist ergo crimes against them have been committed. But yes, I rank catholicism higher in the charts of 'worst human endeavour ever' than other nonsense such as anglicanism, astrology and tarot cards.[/quote]
Yes but you have expressed other reasons for hating Catholicism, child abuse is about the only rational basis you have. Just out of interest do you have any Catholic friends? If so do you treat them like any other, or do hold back some respect? Or do you pity them for being deluded?

[macgamer]

And just wtf is dividing and segregating children (incapable of consent) into faith schools?

Are you saying that parents are not to be considered the primary educators of children. After all children do not have the right to chose their parents do they? Most parents chose to delegate the responsibility of educating their children to a school, which acts in loco parentis.

IHow about they just keep their shit to themselves at home and out of the state? Why should my tax money go to impose your doctrine exactly? I have no problem with freedom to believe, just do it on your own time with your own money.[/i]

Well it used to be that way until the Education Act (1944) (See section of Church Schools: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/hist ... ter03.html ) where by Church (later faith) could apply for maintained status but sacrificing their independence with the LEA with majority representation on the board of governors. Although originally I think this money was for maintenance and building costs rather than teachers' salaries. So actually I would probably agree with you, in the sense that if Catholic Schools became independent they would teach the faith better.

Two points.
1. If this is a right then so is indoctrination into marxism or fascism.
2. Do it at home, own time and own money.

Actually I think you have convinced me. Although, but independent schools should be able to maintain charity status. That arrangement would be better for everyone.

Yes it's the selection criteria that they apply. State schools have to take on all pupils whereas funny hat schools get to pick and choose. Are you surprised they will pick the brighter students over the less able ones?

You are thinking about independent schools, grant maintained comprehensives can only select on the basis of religious practice for the quota allocated to which ever denomination the school is a member of. These schools cannot make themselves 100% Catholic or whichever. Grammar schools can select on ability.

Oh the persecution ace is played! Me arguing that religious groups shouldn't have control over state education with tax payer money, that's persecution is it? I'm not even wanting to ban it by all means teach your kids that condoms cause AIDS, but do it and home without the authority of the state and the tax payer. True persecution would be driving you out of the village, burning your church down and murdering your kids, don't you even dare to suggest that you are suffering like the people who unfortunately do experience those things.

I was not sure whether you were for the abolition of all teaching of religion in any school in Britain, state funded or otherwise. You object to state funded faith schools I can appreciate and respect.

Sometimes your shrill polemic comes across a bit like that of a latter day atheist Titus Oates or John Knox to a subversive papist like me.

[Edited to fix quotation tag error]

[Haunted]

Well the BBC...

Excellent, so the BBC is not above the law? Neither is the catholic church I assume?

So you the onus is on you to demonstrate to me that the Pope at any point during his career acted in such manner. Given how badly Church PR is run and the poor organisation of the Pope's visit, I doubt the Vatican knows much about anything that happens outside the Holy See sometimes.

You really should make it your own responsibility to familiarise yourself with the case against the pope since he is (for lack of a better term) your spiritual boss.
Begin with the wiki page (which is itself quite a tome)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
Specifically the criticism section pertaining to the secrecy.
Then there is the lengthy NYTimes article collating some of the evidence against Ratty personally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world ... .html?_r=1
There is also the Ryan report and the Murphy report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission ... hild_Abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Report
And there is benedicts signature on the document protecting American pedophiles from facing trial for "the good of the church".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm
But don't take it from me, listen to Cardinal Schoenborn
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6481D420100509

Yes but you have expressed other reasons for hating Catholicism, child abuse is about the only rational basis you have.

You are correct, even if there was no child rape going on within the catholic church I would still be an opponent of it though I would not be calling for the arrest and trial of it's head.
The inquisition, the trial of galileo, the idea that condoms cause AIDS, the churches irrational hatred for homosexuals and women.... I could draw up a longer list given time. Plenty of reasons to dislike the catholic institution. The child rape is a big one though and saying that's my only reason for *hating* the catholic church would be like saying the only reason to hate the third Reich was the holocaust, as if it's just a minor thing.

Just out of interest do you have any Catholic friends? If so do you treat them like any other, or do hold back some respect? Or do you pity them for being deluded?

Indeed I do and I respect them too much to respect their beliefs. I do not hold back for fear of offending because if someone was offended that I dare to criticise their almighty church for raping children then they probably aren't worth having as a friend.

[Haunted]

Are you saying that parents are not to be considered the primary educators of children. After all children do not have the right to chose their parents do they? Most parents chose to delegate the responsibility of educating their children to a school, which acts in loco parentis.

Parents don't have a right to educate their children, they have a duty. Whilst I would consider it immoral to narrow a childs education to only one of the millions of popular cults that have sprung up and down over the ages, it would be more immoral to remove said child from his or her parents purely because of this. As I have said, do it at home.

Although originally I think this money was for maintenance and building costs rather than teachers' salaries. So actually I would probably agree with you, in the sense that if Catholic Schools became independent they would teach the faith better.

Address the issue not the practicality. Why should the tax payer be forced to fund Wahhabi and Hindu faith schools? Why should Wahhabi and Hindu faith schools have state endorsed jurisdiction over children who cannot consent? Is it or is it not moral for you to pay for children to be educated as Wahhabi Muslims?

Actually I think you have convinced me. Although, but independent schools should be able to maintain charity status. That arrangement would be better for everyone.

Wonderful, so you would support a government bill to remove state funding for all faith schools?

You are thinking about independent schools, grant maintained comprehensives can only select on the basis of religious practice for the quota allocated to which ever denomination the school is a member of.

It's not as simple as that. Admission to faith schools is controlled by the school governors. Of course they select for the faith but why wouldn't they also select for ability and background given the pressure on schools to perform well?

I was not sure whether you were for the abolition of all teaching of religion in any school in Britain, state funded or otherwise. You object to state funded faith schools I can appreciate and respect.

Religion should of course be taught. I would even make it compulsory up to standard grade level since there is so much to teach. You could spend years on the Greeks and Romans alone.