Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Anchorman]

Can you explain the whole uniformed, quasi-military religious movement thing. I've always found it a bit odd and never really understood it. Genuine question.

Relatively simple;
William Smith was a memberr of a volunteer rifle corps - the precursor to the Territorial Army.
He saw what he perceived was a lack of discipline in kids in the Glasgow of the 1880's. and dedided to form a group based on his Christian faith with a discipline core.
There was no military ethos in the group, but the idea of a disciplined organisation had appeal and took off - big style.
By 1914, the year of Smith's death, the government was looking for recruits for cannon fodder - and they thought the BB being disciplined in outlook, was a prime candidate to become a cadet force.
That's where the militarism stopped.
The BB might look military on the outside, but we rejected the government's idea point blank.
Discipline still works today - and the rank structure means that leadership is encouraged and responsibility encouraged.
Indeed, it was as a result of my promotion to sergeant and the resultant instructor role which went with it, which led me to consider the claim of Christ and, in the privacy of my bedroom, ditch my atheism in favour of serving Him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?

Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

It's supply and demand. Clearly there is a demand in some parts of society for the religious privileges you mentioned to continue. Non-religious groups in society also seem to have extra privileges and influence - the wealthy, celebrities, people with titles and while enough people exist in society who are ok about letting those privileges and influence continue, not a lot will change.

No, for classical supply and demand to apply you’d need a free market. Here though we have a set of beliefs deeply embedded in public discourse (schools, legislature, media access etc) in an authority dynamic that doesn’t apply to your other examples. You’re not comparing apples with apples.   

When there is enough of a drop in the number of people wanting faith schools or when enough people want to reform the legislature etc  - when the demand drops, so too will the privileges. It's a bit like Brexit - and change will probably be equally contentious. We have to abide by the outcomes of the democratic process, but thanks to free speech you are allowed to complain about it.

“When” there is enough demand for change perhaps. It’s a rigged game though – a great deal of religious teaching seems grotesque to me, but so much of it hides in plain sight that it’s hard to imagine how change could happen. Conversely, if there was no such thing as institutionalised religion and you invented it and put to the vote embedding i society its various axioms (the misogyny, the banning of contraception, the science denying, the etc etc) it seems very unlikely to me that you’d get anything but a “you must be joking” in reply.         

And while we are on the subject of free speech, you can accuse any law-abiding person who expresses any opinion you don't like of giving "intellectual cover" for a third party's criminal behaviour. Your concept of "intellectual cover" seems to be a poorly disguised attack on free speech. In which case I think it is vitally important that I and anyone else who supports free speech continue to give intellectual cover at every opportunity.

This from a paid up member of a faith that embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its “prophet”?

Anyway, of course it’s not an attack on free speech – far from it. (After all blasphemy has no equivalent in secularism.) What it actually is is just pointing something out (ie, clerics with privileged positions in society will thereby have an assumed authority significantly greater than if, say, they were just members of the flat earth society). Not for one moment do I say that they shouldn’t be allowed to say anything they like – what I do say though is that they have an unfair (and often damaging) influence when those comments are privileged by right over those of others.         

The examples you gave about the cover-up of abuse or the sanctity of confession etc can't be used to generalise about every person's faith in action. There may well be many similar examples but given the cover-up of abuse in schools, charities, UN Peacekeeping forces, Hollywood, it seems like covering-up is a human behaviour which can exist with or without religion. These examples can't be used to generalise about every single person who has faith and who is not involved in these kinds of behaviour - to do so just comes across as bigotry on your part. Not that you necessarily need to care that you come across in that way.

That’s a straw man. At no time have I said my position on faith will “generalise about every person's faith in action”. Far from it. What I do say though is that in the public square privileging faith over just guessing is a bad idea, however often you point to someone who does something nice because of it. “But that’s my faith” is the same defence whether it relates to manning a soup kitchen or to flying ‘planes into buildings.     
           

ETA - I too could argue that your Islam and Christianity "makes my skin crawl" line provides intellectual cover for children being bullied because they are religious.
https://www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/bullying-abuse-safety/types-bullying/faith-religious-bullying/[/quote

Again, you’re conflating the phenomenon of “faith” with people who happen to have it. You’re also conflating beliefs with characteristics (in this case sexual orientation). You may as well argue that I’m providing intellectual cover to attack Tories if I espouse the views of Labour (or vice versa). These things can be discussed and debated. Say that Fred is “sinful” for his sexual orientation on the other hand and that’s the beginning and end of the matter. 

Not really sure why this line of argument is only directed at faith and those religious people who "know" they are right.

They’re the same thing when by “know” the latter also mean, “without admitting any possibility of being wrong”.

"I know I'm right because my morals tell me so" is equally dogmatic.

Yes it would be if that “know” was accompanied by a “no matter what”. For the most part though morality doesn’t work that way unless it has something else (like religion) to underpin it. Consider for example the remarkable progress on issues like equal marriage in just a generation or two. Now consider that attitude of most mainstream faiths to it, chained as they are t the certainty of their various “holy” texts.   

So for example how would you propose to argue against "I know I am right that equality should be paramount because my morals tell me so, and therefore my concept or interpretation of equality should be enforced by legislation"?

Easily if that person also said, “I certainly know no matter what evidence or argument may emerge”, just as I would (and do) when the religious say the same thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981

A period in the UK that included:
1. Major austerity with rationing through the first years
2. Systemic and legalising discrimination against women, gay people and ethnic minorities
3. Where institutionalised violence was still permitted throughout much of the time, e.g. corporal and capital punishment
4. Slow decline in influence and economic performance (sick man of Europe)

To name but four.

Thanks, but no thanks - I'd prefer to live in a society where we fully respect human rights and equality (so we don't beat people as punishment, or prevent people from marrying because of their sexuality). Where we recognise that people should be paid equally regardless of gender (even if we struggle to achieve this in practice) etc etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981

Yea, that NHS coming along in 1948 was when the rot set in I reckon. If only we'd just let all those kiddies keep dying of TB we'd be so much better off now...

[Nearly Sane]

Yea, that NHS coming along in 1948 was when the rot set in I reckon. If only we'd just let all those kiddies keep dying of TB we'd be so much better off now...

Vlad is surely saying the NHS was part of his golden period, not arguing that it was bad?

[floo]

Yea, that NHS coming along in 1948 was when the rot set in I reckon. If only we'd just let all those kiddies keep dying of TB we'd be so much better off now...

How right you are!!!!!!!!!!!!! The NHS might not be perfect, but thank goodness for it. 

[Nearly Sane]

How right you are!!!!!!!!!!!!! The NHS might not be perfect, but thank goodness for it.

Except bhs's post seems to misread Vlad's statement completely

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Vlad is surely saying the NHS was part of his golden period, not arguing that it was bad?

I read his answer ("Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981") to mean that that was when the tide turned (ie, for the worse) but I accept that it's ambiguous so he might have meant your reading of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except bhs's post seems to misread Vlad's statement completely

Only if the (entirely ambiguous) meaning was as you read it. The answer "Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981" to the question, "When was the golden age?" can be read either way.

If it's as you read it though, what disastrous event occurred in 1982 I wonder - the Falklands war? The release of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" perhaps? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Only if the (entirely ambiguous) meaning was as you read it. The answer "Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981" to the question, "When was the golden age?" can be read either way.

If it's as you read it though, what disastrous event occurred in 1982 I wonder - the Falklands war? The release of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" perhaps?

I think the context and Vlad's posting means that any ambiguity is ruled out. Whether it has any validity is another matter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No, for classical supply and demand to apply you’d need a free market. Here though we have a set of beliefs deeply embedded in public discourse (schools, legislature, media access etc) in an authority dynamic that doesn’t apply to your other examples. You’re not comparing apples with apples.

No you don't. Atheism is increasing in the UK. People might learn about different religions in school or discuss different religions in the media but there is plenty of opportunity to consider switching to atheism if it has utility for you. Consumers of religion especially teenagers and adults will decide to buy if religion adds value to their lives. Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families.

This from a paid up member of a faith that embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its “prophet”?

You have a real talent for this bigot schtick. Well done. There isn't a single faith, just lots of interpretations by individuals. But you already knew that.

Not for one moment do I say that they shouldn’t be allowed to say anything they like – what I do say though is that they have an unfair (and often damaging) influence when those comments are privileged by right over those of others.

It's like Brexit - you might not like it but there is currently a demand for that privilege to exist and the media generate revenue by disseminating those comments to a wider audience.           

What I do say though is that in the public square privileging faith over just guessing is a bad idea, however often you point to someone who does something nice because of it. “But that’s my faith” is the same defence whether it relates to manning a soup kitchen or to flying ‘planes into buildings.

At the risk of simply repeating myself - it's like Brexit - if the public want to remove the privilege, they can set that in motion by lobbying their MPs - or do something similar to Nigel Farage to bring about a referendum on the issue. 
           

Again, you’re conflating the phenomenon of “faith” with people who happen to have it.

Is that your version of love the sinner but hate the sin?

You’re also conflating beliefs with characteristics (in this case sexual orientation). You may as well argue that I’m providing intellectual cover to attack Tories if I espouse the views of Labour (or vice versa). These things can be discussed and debated. Say that Fred is “sinful” for his sexual orientation on the other hand and that’s the beginning and end of the matter.

Are you arguing that you can choose your beliefs? 

They’re the same thing when by “know” the latter also mean, “without admitting any possibility of being wrong”.

Yes it would be if that “know” was accompanied by a “no matter what”. For the most part though morality doesn’t work that way unless it has something else (like religion) to underpin it. Consider for example the remarkable progress on issues like equal marriage in just a generation or two. Now consider that attitude of most mainstream faiths to it, chained as they are t the certainty of their various “holy” texts.

Some people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is wrong whereas other people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is perfectly fine. Some people who claimed to "know" God exists dedicated their lives to abolishing slavery. Not seeing why religion is a special problem.

Easily if that person also said, “I certainly know no matter what evidence or argument may emerge”, just as I would (and do) when the religious say the same thing.

Ok so you're saying it's pretty easy to argue against someone who says "I know I am right". Again not seeing what the problem is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think the context and Vlad's posting means that any ambiguity is ruled out. Whether it has any validity is another matter.

Cleary I didn't, and when you drew my attention to it I conceded readily that's its perfectly possible to read it the other way too. As pretty much every social indicator has improved since then in any case though, I have no idea why he thinks there was once a golden age that's now lost.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Cleary I didn't, and when you drew my attention to it I conceded readily that's its perfectly possible to read it the other way too. As pretty much every social indicator has improved since then in any case though, I have no idea why he thinks there was once a golden age that's now lost.

What sense would before 1945 - 1981 make as a answer to what do you see as a golden period?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

No you don't. Atheism is increasing in the UK. People might learn about different religions in school or discuss different religions in the media but there is plenty of opportunity to consider switching to atheism if it has utility for you. Consumers of religion especially teenagers and adults will decide to buy if religion adds value to their lives. Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families.

Yes you do. The extent to which choice is unfettered is moot, and perhaps given enough time the C of E will disestablish, faith schools will end, bishops will cease to have automatic rights to the legislature, clerics will stop having their views broadcast automatically on matters of moral import etc. My point though was that these things are harder – not impossible as you imply I think - to achieve given how heavily the dice are loaded just now.

The day that Justin Welby’s views on, say, homosexuality are afforded the same privileges as Fred McBonker’s views on a flat earth though, then you’ll have a point.     

You have a real talent for this bigot schtick. Well done. There isn't a single faith, just lots of interpretations by individuals. But you already knew that.

Yes, but faith itself is the common underpinning for all those interpretations. “But that’s my faith” is the beginning end of the conversation, regardless of what the interpretations might happen to be. And that’s what I was actually talking about when you accused me of attempting to close down free speech. But you already knew that. 

It's like Brexit - you might not like it but there is currently a demand for that privilege to exist and the media generate revenue by disseminating those comments to a wider audience.

It’s not like that at all. Are there special schools to teach children the certain facts of Brexitism? Guaranteed places set aside in the legislature by right for those who would promote Brexit because that’s their “faith”? How about a slot for Brexiteers every morning on Radio 4 with no right to reply and no equal time for counter-argument perhaps? Or perhaps you think that leading Brexiteers are routinely consulted and have their views broadcast on matters that have nothing to do with Brexit, but on which they choose to pontificate in any case?

Can you see now how hopeless that analogy is?                 

At the risk of simply repeating myself - it's like Brexit - if the public want to remove the privilege, they can set that in motion by lobbying their MPs - or do something similar to Nigel Farage to bring about a referendum on the issue.

Not even close – see above. You seem determined (wilfully perhaps?) to ignore the argument. Brexit (or fox hunting, or funding for the NHS, or whatever) are one thing. Privileging the views of those whose only argument is, “but that’s my faith” in all sorts areas of public life on the other hand is loading the dice.   
           

Is that your version of love the sinner but hate the sin?

No.

Are you arguing that you can choose your beliefs?

Isn’t that what you’ve been doing all along (while ignoring the actual argument about how free choice can be in a loaded game)? But yes, people clearly do choose their beliefs if the remarkable changes to social attitudes to all sort of issues in the last few decades are anything to go by (equal marriage, gender rights etc). It’s mostly religions that lag behind, presumably because their supposedly inerrant “holy” texts can’t adapt.     

Some people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is wrong whereas other people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is perfectly fine. Some people who claimed to "know" God exists dedicated their lives to abolishing slavery. Not seeing why religion is a special problem.

Clearly, despite having it explained to you many times now. If someone thinks that an inerrant god has decided that homosexuality is a “sin” because it says so in a “holy” book, how would you propose to argue against “but that’s my faith” exactly?   

Ok so you're saying it's pretty easy to argue against someone who says "I know I am right". Again not seeing what the problem is.

It’s, “I know I’m right no matter what reasoning or evidence there may ever be” and the problem with it is, as you well know, faith. That’s a faith position and when its objects are very bad ideas, there’s no possibility ever of changing them (at least unless the person who holds them abandons his faith).

Why is this difficult to comprehend?

[SusanDoris]

Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families.

What a great pity it is then  that they have to spend all those years believing in a system that requires 100% faith.

There isn't a single faith, just lots of interpretations by individuals.

Interpretations of words written by people wwho believed they were in contact with a god of some sort.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What sense would before 1945 - 1981 make as a answer to what do you see as a golden period?

FFS! Because when asked, “And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?” he replied, “Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981” I read the attaching of the “1945 -1981” epithet to mean that’s when the thought the tide turning had occurred – ie, between those dates, so the golden age must have been before then. Had he punctuated it though, I would probably have read it as you did. 

[floo]

NS,

FFS! Because when asked, “And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?” he replied, “Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981” I read the attaching of the “1945 -1981” epithet to mean that’s when the thought the tide turning had occurred – ie, between those dates, so the golden age must have been before then. Had he punctuated it though, I would probably have read it as you did.

That is how I read it too.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

FFS! Because when asked, “And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?” he replied, “Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981” I read the attaching of the “1945 -1981” epithet to mean that’s when the thought the tide turning had occurred – ie, between those dates, so the golden age must have been before then. Had he punctuated it though, I would probably have read it as you did.

who when asked for a period give the entirety before 1945 and 1981. It makes no sense and that's leaving aside Vlad's posting history and his support for Labour and what he raised as bad now which promoted Prof D to ask the question about the golden period.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The turn of the tide IMHO begins around 1981.
That's when things started to get worse. In my Golden period
Quantum leap developments in.
NHS
Education reform
Welfare
Full employment
Improved housing stock
Improving working conditions and employment conditions
Improved human rights

What's happening to all that now?

[Nearly Sane]

The turn of the tide IMHO begins around 1981.
That's when things started to get worse. In my Golden period
Quantum leap developments in.
NHS
Education reform
Welfare
Full employment
Improved housing stock
Improving working conditions and employment conditions
Improved human rights

In todays golden age wither the NHS, education reform, welfare, housing, working conditions?

You probably need to address that to Prof D or bhs as all I have been saying here was it was obvious you meant 1945 - 198 as your 'golden period' as opposed to some time before 1945.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You probably need to address that to Prof D or bhs as all I have been saying here was it was obvious you meant 1945 - 198 as your 'golden period' as opposed to some time before 1945.

Yes, you were right thanks.

[jeremyp]

The whole point about our culture is that is does not change. As far as we are concerned the RCC is a heretical group that broke away from us in the eleventh century.

So you are fine with slavery.

Things change. Cultures change. Moral values change. There is a word for things that don't change: "dead".

[jeremyp]

NS,

I read his answer ("Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981") to mean that that was when the tide turned (ie, for the worse) but I accept that it's ambiguous so he might have meant your reading of it.

I think he meant that 1945 - 1981 was the golden age. To be fair, I only really remember the last decade of that period and it was characterised for me by strikes, power cuts and the three day week.

Never mind though, we did win the World Cup.

[jeremyp]

What sense would before 1945 - 1981 make as a answer to what do you see as a golden period?

It was a Vlad post. Why does it need to make sense? Let's be honest, the tide turns four times a day most days and did so throughout the 20th century.