Heartland

JAMES RAY wrote:

boudicca wrote:

Obviousman wrote: Whatever happens, just make sure you can tell us who stay at home exactly what happened

By the sounds of things, you might have to "contact" us on The Other Side...

fear not. the 4080peru gig will be an extention of the discussion

Marvellous.

(I'm wearing a bulletproof vest though, just in case... )

boudicca wrote:(I'm wearing a bulletproof vest though, just in case... )

This unrational fear is a part of the discussion as well, indeed

My catholic education (All Saints, Dukinfield, Manchester) was pretty evil. Nuns wielding truncheons put me right off religion. Each to their own and all that, or even do what thou wilt, just don't hit me if I can't accurately relay the finer points of Sundays sermon (that'll have been every week then). Or hit back. Bastichs.

I assume Mr Ray means the gigs gonna be transcendental. Excellent. I've just dug out my only JR disc - Third Generation. T'riffic. Techno, it's goth without the horror, the horror.

CofE school? check (which makes me as godless as the Quiffmeister said)
scared of dying? as much as the next man,but nevertheless i prefer not to be hoodwinked into doing anything by rules i don't agree with, just to guarantee "life-everlasting" (which is technically impossible if you're dead,right?)
religion as a social problem? like mrsRJ said -a pain in the arse,no more.

Planet Dave wrote:Nuns wielding truncheons put me right off religion.

Some people would pay good money for that, etc, etc...

andymackem wrote:Thanks for that. I'll try to avoid asking questions with literal answers.

OK, sorry, but I don't really know what you want me to say.

andymackem wrote: What practical difference does it make to the education they provide. Last time I checked, an act of worship was required by law in British schools. If your school is majority Sikh (eg the Heathlands School in Hounslow), should that act of worship be Christian?

Given the national curriculum is still binding on any school in the country, not a lot I suppose. Hmmm. Yeah, I concede that one, so I'll skip the rest about schools.

andymackem wrote:Is the incitement to religious hatred any different, morally, from the incitement to racial hatred laws which already exist? In some communities religion is a more relevant point of identity than race, no?

Well, the definition of what "religious hatred" is under this law is vague; there's a very real risk that valid criticism of religion could be threatened, with serious consequences for freedom of speech. Some people also seem to think that it's a new form of blasphemy law, providing blanket protection for all religions.

andymackem wrote:Controls on genetics, as I understand it, are not entirely confined to religious beliefs. In the case of IVF I'm unconvinced that in the face of global over-population allowing rich people to create their own children is a great idea. While I sympathise with childless couples, surely adoption is a more sensible alternative than creating extra people?

Hmm. Yes. I'll concede that too.

andymackem wrote:As for other genetic issues, I'd refer you to Huxley rather than waffle on indefinitely. Unfettered genetic engineering, especially led by sci-tech corporations, is unlikely to benefit the greater good in the way we might hope. Legislative regulation is the only (rather scant) defence we have against this. In principle, and without any reference to what's 'natural' or who's 'playing God', I'd support this.

Conceded. Bollocks that's my arguments (mostly) down the pan. Nice one!

andymackem wrote:I'm not sufficiently expert on the details to defend myself from your next devoted defence of the scientific community, but I'll look forward to it anyway

Odd that. I'm not a scientist. The closest I could come is a claim (perhaps) to be a "failed scientist" in that I dropped out of a chemistry degree course before I did my Visual Communications BA (poncy name for graphic design).

I've conceded all the points apart from the "religious hatred" law, so no "devoted defence" this time.

Stop conceding things Mark! It's no fun!

@ markfiend - wow! I doff my cap. I don't think I've ever seen anyone concede anything on an internet forum, under any circumstances. I feel slightly embarrassed now

On the religious hatred law I share your concerns for freedom of speech, but remind you that there is no statute actually giving us freedom of expression in the first place. One of the flaws of our unwritten constitution is that we are effectively legally entitled to bugger all. On the other hand, if they don't tell us we can't do it, it's assumed to be fair game (as I understand it).

In this specific instance our race laws already intrude upon our freedom of speech: if I genuinely find black people repulsive (for whatever reason) I'm forbidden from saying so. Probably justifiably, but unfettered freedom of speech is probably untenable in a functional society. Nine times out of ten social structures police this themselves: 'don't speak ill of the dead' is a simple example of this kind of social norm.

As for the 'devoted defence' bit, usually you're much better informed than me about scientific affairs (or better at hiding the gaps, I wouldn't know!) so I was half expecting a more detailed breakdown of legislation throwing out the test-tube baby with the lab water. And a cheap reference to devotion seemed to tie in the religious theme conveniently. The joys of rhetoric and all that.

And, back to the original point, an interesting snippet from Scandinavia where perhaps historically countries haven't been as secular as we can get after all .....

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local ... 125276.ece

andymackem wrote:And, back to the original point, an interesting snippet from Scandinavia where perhaps historically countries haven't been as secular as we can get after all .....

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local ... 125276.ece

Surprising that Norway have that quota. Always considered it one of the least observant countries.