Pope says 'Sorry'.

[Admin]

The pope, God's representative on Earth, has apologised for offending Muslims by quoting a 14th Century Christian emperor who said "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5351988.stm

Good on him. He's only fallible after all..... isn't he? ;D

[Zendal Darkman]

In a statement read out by a senior Vatican official, the Pope said he respected Islam and hoped Muslims would understand the true sense of his words.

..so according to the pope's worldview, Islam is responsible for people going to hell, and he respects it? Seems rather odd to me.

Does seem to be the line people taking, that we should respect religions (even though at the very most only one can be right). Personally I tolerate religions (up to a point) rather than respect them

(of course respecting someone right to follow a religion is different to respecting the religion)

[kath23]

(of course respecting someone right to follow a religion is different to respecting the religion)



An atheist take on 'love the sinner, hate the sin' ;D

[wollery]

An atheist take on 'love the sinner, hate the sin' ;D


Love the believer, hate the belief? ;)

[Dr B]

It might also be a good idea to read the sppech and comments in context. My take on the full context is that he was saying religion and violence do not mix (not historically accurate i know - but that seemed to be what he was trying to say).

So, in essence, people who kill in the name of religion are not doing so for religious reasons. He needs to sack his speech writer - but i think if one takes a considered approach this sort of message is there.... :-\

I may of course, be completely wrong..... O0

[vbloke]

It might also be a good idea to read the sppech and comments in context. My take on the full context is that he was saying religion and violence do not mix (not historically accurate i know - but that seemed to be what he was trying to say).

So, in essence, people who kill in the name of religion are not doing so for religious reasons. He needs to sack his speech writer - but i think if one takes a considered approach this sort of message is there.... :-\

I may of course, be completely wrong..... O0


interesting statistics on who killed more in the bible - god or satan: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

[seren]

See, when I first heard about this, I thought he was a fool for saying it, but now I don't think Muslims have any right to protest about a quote. If I said right here:

Albert J Tompkins of 5, The Hollies, Dorchester, thinks all Irish people are thick

What right would that give Irish people to attack me? The pope didn't use the quote to elucidate HIS opinion of Muslims.

Their response is hysterical and unjustified, IMHO.

This worries me. Not so long ago someone in the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) tried to get a BBC article removed. Sunny Hundal, a Sikh and the editor of Asians in Media, was quoted in it. He has criticised some Muslim organisations in the past and therefore has a reputation for Islamophobia amongst some Muslims.

The article has the following sentence:

"Sunny Hundal says many young Muslims now prefer the web and the Asian digital channels to the mainstream media, and with good reason."

People took this to be getting an Islamophobe to speak "on behalf of Muslims" and demanded the article be taken down.

Utterly ludicrous IMHO. This is going to far. Soon I won't be able to use the word Muslim at all, in case it's misrepresentation.

[Admin]

I started reading the speech in full but got bored.

I was just amused that 'papal infallibility' is a somewhat, erm, fallible idea. ;D

[seren]

He's not wrong, he's differently right.

[Admin]

Well, it seems that the pope is infallible after all.....

Except when he's wrong. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm

That clears that up then!! :D ;D

[Hazen]

Utterly ludicrous IMHO. This is going to far. Soon I won't be able to use the word Muslim at all, in case it's misrepresentation.

Instead of 'muslim' I think the phrase 'retarded freak' would do just nicely.


http://www.ropma.net/main.htm

[chillzero]

Instead of 'muslim' I think the phrase 'retarded freak' would do just nicely.




I find that comment quite offensive.

[boffin]

I saw on the Daily Politics an interesting interview between Andrew Neil and a muslim from one of the many muslim groups who claim to represent muslims in Britain.
Andrew Neil asked him why it was that when 200,000 muslims in Darfur have been raped and murdered by other muslims, there are no protests by muslims, but when the pope quotes a 14th century emperor, there are mass demonstrations by muslims which include burning effigies of the pope, attacking churches and shooting a 60 year-old catholic nun in the back (how brave). The muslim chap was flustered and unable to answer.
It does appear that many muslims have got their priorities wrong and refuse to accept that there are muslims who are persecuted, raped and murdered by other muslims.

[Jocky]

Instead of 'muslim' I think the phrase 'retarded freak' would do just nicely.

I find that comment quite offensive.


I agree. Name calling does not address the issues at stake.


The link Hazen posted does not constitute a critical look at religious belief and its influence on violent acts throughout history, which would be an entirely appropriate discussion to have (and incidentally is probably what the Pope was intending to do, although he unfortunately did not go about it in the most productive manner).

Instead, it uses cartoons to draw a rather crude caricature of the link between Islam and terrorism. I don't like this kind of thing - not because this issue itself is not worthy of critical analysis (it is), but because publishing something which boils down to "Muslims are all morons who support terrorism" seems to me to be a instance of the Fallacy of Converse Accident (http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#accident). I felt much the same about the infamous "Mohammed with the bomb in his turban" cartoon.

I don't propose that such images should be banned (attacks on freedom of speech create more problems than they solve), and I don't think that religious belief should be exempt from satire. But I do think that crass cartoons of this kind should be clearly seen as what they are - mere caricatures, full of sweeping generalisations and failures of logic and critical thinking, which have no place in reasoned debate >:(

[Hazen]

I find that comment quite offensive

There's no reason why you should, unless you're a muslim, in which case I'd say the problem is yours.
It's not name calling, as far as I am concerned, merely a statement of fact. People whose world view, way of life (which includes as you know, the oppression/rape/murder of women, the murder of their own children in the name of 'honour' etc etc etc), basis for morality, willingness to commit mass murder etc, is based on belief in medieval fairy stories, merely because they were told to do so, in my opinion, are entirely deserving of the title.


The link Hazen posted does not constitute a critical look at religious belief and its influence on violent acts throughout history, which would be an entirely appropriate discussion to have

True. I would have thought it obvious that this was not intended as a basis of critical discussion or evaluation. I posted this link because it made me laugh. I am heartily fed up, unto the back teeth, with the now regular news stories along the lines of: outcry from muslim community over offence to their belief system by blah blah...
In the light of past & recent events, I am glad to see there are still some who are not cowed by these barbaric savages.

As for discussion, I see no basis for any: Invisible sky ghost told me to enslave/oppress/murder you because you don't believe in the absurdly ridiculous as I do?

I make no apologies.

[wollery]

Hazen, I've known a lot of muslims in my life, I had several muslim friends growing up, and the vast majority are educated, peaceful, thoughtful, kind, friendly and non-judgemental.

Yes, some muslims do horrible things to other muslims, and a lot of muslims say nothing, probably because they don't know enough about what's happening, or maybe they're too ashamed. But how is this any different to what has happened innumerable times with christians doing horrible things to other christians whilst the catholic or protestant churches said nothing? How is it all that different from what happened at the start of world war 2 when most so called civilized christian countries (including the UK) turned away thousands of jewish refugees despite knowing what was being done to them, and what would probably happen to them if they were forced to go back to Germany?

People do bad things to other people, and a lot of other people turn a blind eye to it. The religion that's used to justify the bad things varies, the religion of those the bad things are done to varies, and the religion of those who ignore it varies. Sometimes they're all of the same religion, sometimes all different. In the case of the USSR it was hardline atheism oppressing all religions.

So, are you going to condemn all of humanity for being human, when it's just a few humans doing bad things?

Condemn the acts, condemn those who perpetrate them, criticize those who choose not to condemn them, but don't condemn every single person who happens to hold vaguely similar beliefs. Because in doing so you reveal yourself to be nothing more than a knee jerk bigot.

[Jocky]

It's not name calling, as far as I am concerned, merely a statement of fact.

It is not a 'fact' that in excess of a billion people are all "retarded freaks". I severely doubt that such a 'fact' could be backed up with evidence. You are of course entitled to your personal opinion on the matter: I beg to differ.


I am glad to see there are still some who are not cowed by these barbaric savages.

Do you think that people only object to your point of view because they're scared? :D


As for discussion, I see no basis for any: Invisible sky ghost told me to enslave/oppress/murder you because you don't believe in the absurdly ridiculous as I do?

I agree that commiting crimes and then using "invisible sky ghosts" to justify them is utterly fallacious; and that using such things to motivate others to commit crimes is itself criminal.

However as Woollery rightly points out, a wicked act is equally wicked regardless of which religion or dogma is used to justify it. Criticising an entire culture in this manner runs the risk of not recognising the equal horror of similar atrocities perpetrated by other cultures, in the name of other religions or none at all.

[median]

People

I think this a prime example of when critical thinking is needed more than ever.

I agree with Jocky and Wollery. To take a small sample of individuals and make them representative of the majority is not scientific. >:(

However, Hazen, I think people reinforce their own stereotypes by experience.
If your experience has been that the majority of say, dwarves, have been violent thugs then it makes sense that you treat them with caution. The stereotype becomes a behavioural survival strategy.

However, the sad fact of life is that peoples 'experiences' tend to be built on media representations. Tabloids are sold on sensationalism.
A ranting muslim cleric makes for better news than a quiet family man. :(

[seren]

I'd just like to point out that although I fear that some Muslims are going overboard about being offended by things, this does not mean that
a) I think ALL Muslims are doing this
b) I think that their taking offence is always unjustified
c) I consider Muslims (or anybody else) to be "retarded freaks"

My concern is that those Muslims who pounce on anything that can be twisted to look like an anti-Islamic comment are doing damage to the perception of Islam by the rest of the world, as well as firing and spreading the kind of prejudice found in the lunatic fringe of their own religion.

[Jocky]

I agree seren - there has been over-the-top reaction in some quarters of the muslim world. I'm sure you're right that some of this is caused by extremists looking for a cause to use for stirring people up.

To some extent it also reflects cultural differences between the Western world view and that prevalent in many Islamic nations, where various events over a number of years has radicalised public opinion on issues such as this. IMO, this phenomenon does not constitute a justification for overreaction (which in one tragic case has apparently even extended to a murder) - it is merely an observation of reality.

IMO, the same sort of radicalisation process (although to a less extreme degree) can be observed in our own society ever since 9/11 - there has been an increase in racism directed at people of arabic appearance, and a growth in the kind of crass satire to which I was objecting earlier in this thread. IMO these things are no more justified than Islamic protesters burning the Pope in effigy in the streets.

This process is gradually making a meeting of minds between the two cultures more and more difficult (witness for example the disagreements between John Reid and some strands of opinion in the muslim community yesterday). I think this is an extremely worrying and dangerous trend ... once people stop talking, they tend to turn incresingly to violence :-\

[Hazen]

I had several muslim friends growing up, and the vast majority are educated, peaceful, thoughtful, kind, friendly and non-judgemental.
I have also known peaceful, law abiding muslims. Yet by the definition of the Koran, they are not muslims, since they have befriended, as they are commanded not to, the gentile, the jew, the un-believer and have thus become one of them.


how is this any different to what has happened innumerable times with christians doing horrible things to other christians whilst the catholic or protestant churches said nothing?

Where did I say it was?

I am equally scathing of the mindelss slaughter of catholics by protestants, and vice versa, the murder of doctors & nurses by 'pro life' advocates, the murder of gays by baptist fundamentalists etc.


So, are you going to condemn all of humanity for being human

I'm hardly condemning all of humanity, now, am I?


It is not a 'fact' that in excess of a billion people are all "retarded freaks".
What do you call it when, in 2006, people still maintain that their views/opinions/way of life are morally superior because of their belief in prehistoric ghost stories, and should be forced upon everyone else?


Do you think that people only object to your point of view because they're scared?

I think it is justified, based on many of the reports I have read on the BBC/CNN/Reuters etc, news websites in the days since September 11 2001, to say that there are many 'moderate' muslims who are afraid to come out and publicly condemn the extremists out of fear. As regards this thread, it seems that some object to my point of view merely because of my choice of words.



Criticising an entire culture in this manner runs the risk of not recognising the equal horror of similar atrocities perpetrated by other cultures, in the name of other religions or none at all
Agreed.
I made sweeping generalisation without justifying it fully. I have to admit that virtually all sweeping generalisations cannot be fully justified.
I did not, or it was not my intention, to criticise an entire culture.


Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan: There Is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006
.

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

[...]

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

[...]

Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
I am almost entirely in agreement with what this woman says, kudos to her.
Except 'other peoples beliefs are not your concern': They are when when they impinge upon our lives.
Whether you like it or not, these types of believers are instrumental in the formulation of certain English laws.
How so?
Did you vote for catholic/CofE bishops/cardinals to be your leaders? Did you vote for muslim 'clerics' to dictate what is/is not acceptable behaviour in this country?
Did anyone vote for these people?
No.
Yet we must bow to them.
They decide when 'immortal souls' enter the body and thus if/when abortion is/is not acceptable/justified
They decide how/whether the boundaries of medical science are advanced.
I'm sure I need not point out the ID issue, separation of church and state etc etc


If you are someone who has grown into adulthood whilst still maintaining preposterous beliefs in invisible ghost(s) without question, because of the 125th hand writings of some medieval ranting, despotic lunatic then, yes, I feel justified in saying that such a person is less intelligent than a sane, rational being.



'No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they considered as patriots. This is one nation under god. G. Bush (senior)


Next time your brother, or your sister-in-law, or your grandmother, or some guy in the booth next to you at the coffeeshop, starts talking about the Rapture or the End Times or the Second Coming or whatever crap they want to call it, just stand up, turn to them, and say loudly and clearly so everyone around you can hear it, YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT. And walk away. Treat them as the pariahs they should be. This will be especially effective if you do it in your church. Don't argue with them. Don't waste any effort on them. Just make your contempt loud and clear. It's not hard. And when the conversation with others turns to those nitwits, don't wrestle with their mental problems at all. Just say, THEY ARE DEMENTED FUCKWITS. It's a message we need to get out there more P.Z.Myers

[Jocky]

I have also known peaceful, law abiding muslims. Yet by the definition of the Koran, they are not muslims, since they have befriended, as they are commanded not to, the gentile, the jew, the un-believer and have thus become one of them.

Yes, but this presupposes that all those who subscribe to a certain creed share (or ought to share) the same interpretion of scripture. All religions subsume different points of view on which bits to take as 'gospel' and which bits to disregard. Perhaps some of your muslim aquaintances would be none too pleased to be defined by you as non-muslim behind their backs!

IMO, one has to take people at their word on matters of personal faith - you cannot judge from the outside whether or not they fall into a given faith group, on the basis of your outsider's interpretation of their rules.



It is not a 'fact' that in excess of a billion people are all "retarded freaks".
What do you call it when, in 2006, people still maintain that their views/opinions/way of life are morally superior because of their belief in prehistoric ghost stories, and should be forced upon everyone else?
I call it a strawman. Your argument seemed to presuppose that this position characterises all muslims. I accept that it is a fair description of some, but certainly not all. Remember the Fallacy of Converse Accident?


I think it is justified, based on many of the reports I have read on the BBC/CNN/Reuters etc, news websites in the days since September 11 2001, to say that there are many 'moderate' muslims who are afraid to come out and publicly condemn the extremists out of fear.

That is not what I understood your original post to mean. I agree with this point now you have been more specific.



Criticising an entire culture in this manner runs the risk of not recognising the equal horror of similar atrocities perpetrated by other cultures, in the name of other religions or none at all
Agreed. I made sweeping generalisation without justifying it fully. I have to admit that virtually all sweeping generalisations cannot be fully justified. I did not, or it was not my intention, to criticise an entire culture.

Understood O0 The sweeping generalisations to which I alluded were mainly those in the cartoon to which you linked. I'm sure you agree that just because something is funny, it doesn't make it true.


As regards this thread, it seems that some object to my point of view merely because of my choice of words.

To some extent, yes. I suspect I agree with much of your basic point of view, now that it is being teased out from behind the rhetoric. I do think that your choice of words left something to be desired, and to some extent obscured the point you were trying to make. My concern is not for 'Political Correctness', it's for ensuring that language is used fairly and with due regard to the facts.


I am almost entirely in agreement with what this woman says

Interesting interview, thanks for posting it. I only agree with her to a certain extent. I think she is being rather starry-eyed and unrealistic about Western society: of course she's right on the key points of freedom of speech and womens' rights, but I'm not so sure about the unquestionable virtues of Western democracy, nor do I think the dichotomy is as black and white as she chooses to present it.


Except 'other peoples beliefs are not your concern': They are when when they impinge upon our lives.

In principle, I agree. But ...


Did you vote for catholic/CofE bishops/cardinals to be your leaders?

No, but I didn't vote for the Queen, the Prime Minister or the House of Lords either. This issue is primarily constitutional, not religious.


Did you vote for muslim 'clerics' to dictate what is/is not acceptable behaviour in this country?

Strawman. They don't. If it were true that such people dictated the laws on abortion, medical research and so on, then you'd have a point - but actually, this is not what happens.


If you are someone who has grown into adulthood whilst still maintaining preposterous beliefs in invisible ghost(s) without question, because of the 125th hand writings of some medieval ranting, despotic lunatic then, yes, I feel justified in saying that such a person is less intelligent than a sane, rational being.

While I agree with you that belief in "invisible ghosts" is not supportable by critical thinking, I do not agree that any individual who professes such belief is therefore fair game for ad hominem attack or crude satire. In particular, I'm not sure that the correlation between intelligence/sanity and religious belief is as straightforward as you suggest.

I think people should be judged by their actions, not by their choice to employ freedom of speech to express belief in gods, ghosts, pixies, the FSM or whatever.

Herein lies my concern about the logical validity of the argument. There seems to be a prevalent line of thinking which goes "Terrorists commit terrible atrocities. Many terrorists profess to follow the teachings of Islam. Therefore, anybody who professes Islam must support terrible atrocities." This is manifestly fallacious.

I do not accuse you of this fallacy personally, Hazen :). I merely draw it to the attention of the forum.

[Hazen]

IMO, one has to take people at their word on matters of personal faith - you cannot judge from the outside whether or not they fall into a given faith group, on the basis of your outsider's interpretation of their rules
Point taken.


Strawman. They don't. If it were true that such people dictated the laws on abortion, medical research and so on, then you'd have a point - but actually, this is not what happens.

Okay, they don't dictate, they are consulted. I have no source to offer but I do remember doing some background reading on the article published by Ruth Gledhill (Societies worse off when they have god on their side) which, I think, Phaedra mentioned in her thread 'Atheist Trash' shortly afterwards. The upshot being that christian & muslim clerics were consulted on the issue after the bill had been passed and that the politicos involved did more than merely pay them lip service.

[Jocky]

Okay, they don't dictate, they are consulted.

Yes, they are consulted - and it's a fair point to question the role of faith leaders in the governance of the nation.

The problem is that this is enshrined in our "constitution" (such as it is). The Head of State is also by definition head of the C of E - and as long as this anachronism remains in place, I fear that we do not live in a secular society :( In this theoretical sense, we are every bit as much of a theocracy as places like Iran.

Of course, the actual reality here is quite different to what one might conclude from looking at the constitutional theory. Questionable though it may be, I don't think the peripheral involvement of faith leaders in framing legislation is actually a major issue, in comparison to some of the really big consitutional problems which IMNSHO this country has.

[Hazen]

Do we actually have a constitution? I can't find any evidence of such.


I don't think the peripheral involvement of faith leaders in framing legislation is actually a major issue, in comparison to some of the really big consitutional problems which IMNSHO this country has.

Care to elaborate on that?

[Jocky]

Sure - a bit OT, but it's very interesting how discussions like these can lead from one area to another. :)

I think you put your finger on the underlying problem:


Do we actually have a constitution? I can't find any evidence of such

Exactly - we don't have a written constitution. We have a complex morass of a thousand years worth of precedent, which IMO is not fit for purpose. It is this morass to which I was referring. Virtually all our consitutional arrangements are in place not because they were considered or debated, but merely as a result of historical accident and short-term expediency which have become entrenched in custom and practice.

*** WARNING - lengthy off-topic political opinion follows ***

These considerations have lead to a number of glaring anomalies in our present system:

* The Executive and Legislative functions of government are hopelessly mixed up, leading to a systemic inability of either branch to do its job without becoming mired in the petty politics of the other. This has consequences both for quality of legislation which becomes law, and for quality of decision making.

* The senior figures of the Executive are unelected by and unaccountable to the people, and the only body to which they are accountable contains a large number of people who depend on the personal largesse of the PM for career advancement.

* Half of the legislative is not elected at all, but rather appointed for life on the basis of a byzantine system which is incomprehensible and unaccountable.

* There are no properly enshrined protections for basic civil liberties, and consequently such liberties can (and sometimes are) easily compromised by parliament.

*Because there is no written constitution, there is also no proper mechanism for changing it. This means that such constitution as exists could be changed at the whim of the legislature of the day.

* "The nation" is actually a union of two nation states, plus one nation which didn't evolve a state and a one province which is so bitterly divided on whether it belongs to the nation or not that its politics cannot sustain progress on any other topic. The constitution has never properly reflected this reality, and present arrangements are riddled with obvious contradictions and difficulties which could potentially paralyse the government.

* The electoral system is antiquated, failing to reflect the real will of the people by disenfranchising dissenting voters in safe seats, and allowing governments to assume almost unlimited power without a direct mandate. This is laughably known as "strong government".

And so on ...

Of course, religious issues like the presence of bishops in the House of Lords and the existence of an Established Church with the monarch at its head are certainly points of legitimate constitutional concern: but I think they have to join a pretty lengthy list of other concerns. IMO, important as they are, they're not at the top of the list.

Considering these problems, it's amazing that our system manages to work as well as it does. I think this is because the whole mess is held together by a sort of "decent chaps" principle. Parliament could (for instance) suspend elections and appoint someone PM for life, but in practice it does not choose to bring about such catastrophic change - basically because most people agree that it's just not cricket.

[Nettles]

Does seem to be the line people taking, that we should respect religions (even though at the very most only one can be right).


This is not necessarily true. There are religions which do not claim that other religions are "wrong".

As well, one can respect aspects of a religion without agreeing that its theology or other premises are sound. For the latter point, I'd cite the Salvation Army, a religion which has theology and practices that I don't accept as sound or useful, but which (in Canada at any rate) has the lowest overheads of any major charity, and which does a great deal of work very efficiently to help a lot of people.

(I do think that Benny the Rat was lacking in moral fibre in this case.)

[Hazen]

I have some background reading to do before responding to Jocky's last post but as regards Nettle's post, I have a question:
I was not aware that the sally army was a religion in itself, I was under the impression that this was merely a christian based organisation. Is this correct?
(Also, W. H. Davies' 'Autobiography Of A Supertramp' made it plain in no uncertain terms that the salvation army is (was) not a charity at all, but a business).