Letters

Rain (AM and PM) 5° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Letters: UK fisheries

Iceland's accession to EU could save UK fisheries

Iceland's application to join the EU should be welcomed (report, 16 July). Iceland already fulfils most of the community's membership criteria, and its application should be fast-tracked.

Had it not been for its lucrative fishing industry, Iceland would have joined the EU long ago. It needs only look to Scotland to see how the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has destroyed fish stocks and laid waste to great swathes of our coastal communities.

The European Commission's Green Paper on CFP reform, which has just begun its legislative passage, offers a glimmer of hope. The Commission has admitted that its management policies have failed. The Green Paper points the way to radical initiatives that will devolve control of fisheries management from the Brussels bureaucrats, handing it over to the stakeholders, the fishermen themselves.

Wary of opening their rich fishing grounds to Europe's fleets, Iceland's politicians are calling for a special deal, hoping compromise can be found that will exempt Iceland's fishing sector from the CFP.

I can assure Iceland that many of us in Brussels will follow negotiations with great interest, because any concessions given to Iceland will also be demanded for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

In this respect Iceland can act as a trailblazer. If Iceland joins the EU without having to sign up to the CFP, then the UK can surely make a case for opting out of the CFP too?

Struan Stevenson MEP

(Conservative, Scotland)

Senior Vice President of the Fisheries Committee, Brussels

Love, hate and wind turbines

When you watch the fight to keep wind-turbine manufacturing in the Isle of Wight and you see how pleased The Wight Against Rural Turbines (ThWART) were to defeat the planning application for six wind turbines near Yarmouth in 2006 you seem to have the UK's love-hate relationship with onshore wind in a nutshell.

I have just visited Orkney on holiday and watched red-throated divers on an RSPB reserve directly beneath a large wind turbine on Burgar Hill – I don't personally see why the hate part seems to win at the expense of jobs and the battle against climate change.

Prof Patrick Corbett

Energy Academy

Heriot-Watt University

Edinburgh

You are right to point out that research is essential for the growth of the UK's renewable industry ("A blow to renewable energy?", 24 July). Taking the offshore wind industry as an example, significant technical challenges still lie in the path of constructing the 7,000 turbines we need to help us reach our 2020 renewable targets. The next generation of offshore wind-farm sites lie many miles offshore, in water depths of up to 60 metres. Building wind farms in these challenging conditions is an expensive business, but we believe that research into cheaper and more efficient methods of construction could significantly cut the cost of energy production.

Our analysis also demonstrates that by getting the research and the regulatory framework right, the UK can lead the world in offshore wind power and capture some 40 per cent of the global market by 2020, and by 2050 generate 225,000 British jobs. The announcement of £120m of Government funding for offshore wind in the recent renewable-energy strategy will help but everyone – industry, government and the public – must urgently pull together to make this a reality.

Tom Delay

Chief Executive, Carbon Trust,

London EC4

It was reassuring to see from Ed Miliband's letter of 25 July that the planning rules for wind turbines are going to be changed.

A few years ago, I applied for planning from my local council, the Vale of the White Horse in Oxfordshire, to put up a micro-generating wind turbine on my small organic farm. I had already installed solar panels and, as the wind rushes past me at a good 6kmph it seemed sensible to take advantage of this open site on the Downs.

My application was turned down because this is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the wind turbine, though only the size of a telegraph pole, would be an unacceptable object when seen from the Ridgeway national trail. This despite the fact that one of the sights that can be seen from all the Oxfordshire and West Berkshire Ridgeway is the steaming towers of Didcot power station. And, latterly, to my surprise, a wind farm of giant turbines has appeared well within view at Faringdon.

Landowners should be obliged, or at least strongly encouraged, to have turbines of an appropriate size on their land. These could be connected to the national grid, and we could move forward on our quest for a greener, but still pleasant, land.

P A Reid

Wantage, Oxfordshire

During my recent visit to the Isle of Wight I enjoyed cycling along quiet country lanes – mostly against a fierce head wind. While the main topic on the local news bulletins was the Vestas controversy, the only reference to this was the occasional placard in a front garden or on a tree stating the local population's opposition to any wind-farm proposal in their community. No wonder that Vestas has given up on a local presence and has decided to go elsewhere.

S U Sjolin

Bury ST Edmunds

So the Vestas company is leaving the Isle of Wight because it cannot sell its turbines in the UK. This is a sad reflection on the public's awareness of the urgent necessity for sustainable power generation. In the past there were numerous windmills all along the South Downs and in many other places, as local place names testify. We accept huge electricity pylons striding across the countryside because we have got used to them. Could it be that our inherent nimbyism will ultimately lead to the lights going off ?

Laura Lesley

Steyning, West Sussex

Obstacles for wheelchair users

Thanks to David Prosser for "My life in a wheelchair" (27 July). I am the primary carer for my mother, who is a wheelchair user, so I am more than aware of the daily problems faced by wheelchair users.

In our town we have pavements which have not seen a repair done in many a long day, full of cracks, pot holes and loose slabs etc. We have long stretches of roadway without drop curbs, and many shops with high steps and/or heavy doors which make it nigh on impossible to access. But the biggest problem we have is a town and county council that simply does not want to listen.

I have written to local councillors inviting them to accompany myself and my mother on a regular daily trip from our house to our nearest shopping centre, a journey of about one mile, to see the problems we encounter at first hand. I have received exactly zero replies.

If our local councillors cannot be bothered to take an hour or two out of their schedules to experience the problems that many of their voters encounter in their daily lives, then what hope do we have of ever getting any real change in attitudes to, and facilities for, the disabled?

Kevin Rawlings

Clevedon, North Somerset

Falling for the forecast, again

So, we hear that the long-term forecast of a summer to put those of the last two years in the shade needs to be corrected (report, 29 July). The odds of a boiling summer in 2009 were 65 per cent it was proclaimed; a "barbecue summer" the Met Office (or should that be the media?) promised.

It's inevitable, of course, that as a nation we will be looking for someone to blame when another poor summer envelops our sodden isle – but this is surely inevitable when seasonal forecasting which, as the Met Office has admitted is "a very difficult thing to do", undeservedly grabs so many column inches just when we all start looking forward to the summer months.

Rod Dennis

Bristol

An admirable atheist camp

Sir: Much as I would like to accept the credit for Camp Quest (Opinion, 29 July), I have nothing to do with it.

From all I hear, Camp Quest is wholly admirable, teaching children how to think, not what to think. This makes a telling contrast to the religiously inspired camps in Pakistan you report on (29 July). An especially chilling paragraph tells how the boys are divided into three groups: the most intelligent to act as spies, the most athletic to become fighters, while those judged to be "less intelligent and more susceptible to manipulation" join the "stockpile" of suicide bombers. In the American "Jesus Camp", the children are drilled with dummy rifles to fight for Jesus.

For those who monotonously repeat the litany about "militant atheists" being just as bad as religious fundamentalists – is it possible that a comparison with Camp Quest might shake them into saying something less boringly predictable and more just?

Richard Dawkins

Oxford

Tube plans that bode ill for 2012

Your big question of 28 July asks how preparations for the 2012 Olympics are going, and what could go wrong.

If anyone needs evidence that Transport for London and Boris Johnson the Mayor will make London a laughing stock they need only to look at the upcoming chaos "planned" engineering work on the Tube will cause.

West Ham United play Tottenham and Liverpool at home in August and September; these will be sell-out games with 35,000 or so fans in attendance. West Ham, Plaistow and Upton Park underground stations will be the main route for most of these fans except – they are shut for planned engineering work.

David Loader

Esher, Surrey

The death of the British pub

Most pubs are closing because they are owned by greedy property companies that charge extortionate rents, with draconian restrictions on where the publican can source supplies, meaning that pubs cannot compete with supermarkets (letters, 29 July).

For the owner of the freehold this is the desired result, because a closed pub is a development opportunity.

The actual owners of the pub – the directors of the property companies – don't care a jot, because they all drink at the golf club.

Edward Collier

Cheltenham

Briefly...

Wise counsel

In your report on the visit by Joanna Lumley, Peter Carroll and Dhan Gurung to Nepal (27 July), Dhan is described as a "counsellor". Dhan is a local "councillor" in his home town of Folkestone – now serving his local community as he once served our country.

Mike Simpson

Warlingham, Surrey

The forgotten war

My father was born in 1896 and enlisted in the army of the First World War three weeks before his 18th birthday. He shipped out from Dover to a campaign whose losses were dwarfed by the European carnage. His "forgotten war" deserves to be remembered. He served on India's North West Frontier and in Mesopotamia, now called, respectively, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Anna Raeburn

London SW8

It is almost incredible that Bruce Anderson, in his piece concerning the Great War (27 July), did not devote a single word to the actual results of that catastrophic war. One of the reasons that so much bitterness and controversy surrounds it still is that despite the horrendous sacrifices of the troops, the "war to end all wars" only helped sow the seeds for an even more terrible war a mere 21 years later.

Paul Morrison

Derry

School milk

I can confirm Harry Walker's memory of free milk in school prior to the 1950s (letters, 29 July). I enjoyed school milk at my junior school in Doncaster during the early 1930s, and I well remember graduating from ink monitor to milk monitor in my final year.

F L VAUX

Cheltenham

No change in Norwich

Using different hammers, your correspondents Gale, Pinkerton and Hills (letters, 27 July) hit the same nail on the head; the reason for the "30 years of Thatcherism" which the bloodthirsty, minority-choice Chloe Smith will perpetuate is our rotten, undemocratic electoral system. If we don't radically alter it, we will go on, with David Cameron, greeting the election of reactionary MPs as "a vote for change".

Colin V Smith

St Helens, Merseyside

Talk to the Taliban?

Your leading article "We should not be afraid to talk to the Taliban" (28 July) is an irony-free zone, with its reference to "moderate Taliban". Those would be the sock-and-sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading, potential Lib-Dem-voting Taliban, I suppose?

Bev Littlewood

Richmond, Surrey

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 07:40 am (UTC)
Ask the question, why does a camp that wishes to teach children how to think need specifically to be "atheist"?

Little, Profesor Dawkins, can be more monotonous than your relentless attack on Christianity: nothing, more of a deception than your prtetence that all you're really interested in is "teaching children how to think".

What you really want to achieve is to persuade them that God doesn't exist. You are Sir, intellesctually dishonest.

The nearest you came to honesty was in admitting (during your recent television programme) that you couldn't explain how it was that some people (including famous scientists) far more intelligent than you could believe in God. I'm pleased thaqt you admit to not understanding something: is it possible, then, that there are other things you might not understand?
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
Prof Dawkins constantly admits that there are things he does not understand. Furthermore, he accepts his mistake when an error is discovered in his work, and strives to work out where he went wrong. These are some of the very basic tenets of being a scientist.

The religious, on the other hand, figure that if they don't understand something, then it must be the work of some deity and they leave it at that.

I, too, cannot fathom how anyone with a certain level of intelligence can believe in any form of god, particularly when all the contradictions of doing so are evident for all to see.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 11:56 am (UTC)
1. Where is your answer to my question?

2. Professor Dawkins might admit that there are things he doesn't understand, but the most important thing he fails to admit is that it may be that, having the kind of tightly closed mind that no man who calls himself a scientist is entitled to have, it may be that he doesn't understand the existence of God.

3.The assertion contained in your second paragraph is demonstrably untrue and complete claptrap.

4. If you cannot understand why people who are more intelligent than yourself believe in God, is it really incredible that they might possess some insight not yet given to you? The contradictions you see (I cannot comment on them, because you do not describe them) may be contradictions only in your eyes, precisely because you fail to understand - or more likely, because you choose (having, like Dawkins), already made up your mind not to understand.

If I can't demonstrate it scientifically (you insist) then it can't POSSIBLY exist: nonsense.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]tatcawh wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 01:42 pm (UTC)
1. The only question you asked was; "is it possible, then, that there are other things you might not understand?"

this was more than adequately answered in the first sentence of ourmaninferney's post, and indeed this is effectively conceded in the first sentence of your point 2.

3. If it's demonstrably untrue of theism, feel free to go ahead and demonstrate - or is 'complete claptrap' your idea of a reasoned argument?'.

4. I can't understand why a relative of mine who, despite being a retired mathematics teacher, chooses to feed half her pension into fruit machines. But we need not infer that she has some special insight: human perversity is limitless.

And you finish up with a straw man: neither Dawkins nor any other rationalist I know of argues that if something cannot be demonstrated scientifically then it can't possibly exist. Rationalists simply state that (i) if a proposition cannot be shown to be true then you don't insist that it's an eternal and absolute truth anyway just because a collection of bronze age myths says it is; (ii) if a hypothesis is not needed to explain observed facts then it is neither true nor untrue but simply redundant; (iii) if a hypothesis is by its very nature incapable of being shown to be true or false then it has no value as an explanation of observed facts.

But the distinction is probably a little subtle for the sort of mentality that would rather argue about who has the best imaginary friend.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]dawkinsr wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 01:51 pm (UTC)
You (Rendezvous) seem to set great store by your first question, and bizarrely regard it as significant that others have not bothered to answer it: "Why does a camp that wishes to teach children how to think need specifically to be 'atheist'?" It doesn't, and it isn't. It is called Camp Quest, signifying its commitment to getting children to ask questions, rather than feeding them answers. Look at the Camp Quest website (http://www.camp-quest.org.uk/news/response-to-the-sunday-times/) where you'll find the following:
"Camp Quest is often labelled as an ‘atheist camp’ as we have a non-religious ethos, but we are open to the children from parents of all belief systems and none. Articles frame Camp Quest as a ‘rival’ to other religious camps, but we do not seek to promote an agenda or change what children might think - we hope to change how they think by encouraging them to ask questions of us and themselves.

Recent articles that have used information from the Sunday Times have inadvertantly used incorrect information regarding the level of involvement of Richard Dawkins and his foundation. Camp Quest would like to apologise to Richard Dawkins and his foundation for any inconvenience."

Richard Dawkins
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
Professor Dawkins:
Thank you for replying - I respect you for taking the trouble to do so.

Really, it doesn't matter what the camp is called. The significant issue here is the difference between whether you MERELY argue the case for atheism, or go on to denegrate and obstruct those who subscribe to a faith and who believe in God.

The overriding impression you create (with me, at least) is of the latter - that you consider no one should be taught to believe in God. But why? After all, something about which one knows can always be rejected: on the other hand, what one has never learned can neither be accepted nor rejected.

You will accept that there are some atheists and agnostics who later come to believe in God - but I submit that many more people are brought up with a religious background who who later reject their faith.

On this evidence alone, (and I gather that evidence is what you insist upon having) it is nonsense to suggest that people who learn (for example) Christian doctrine are so damaged intellectually that they are incapable of forming any views other than those taught to them during childhood.

And yet, this is the ground (or one of the principal grounds) upon which you appear to despise the teaching of religion? Is that honest?

Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 03:19 pm (UTC)
1. Not so: my first question, oddly enough, came first. (At least Richard Dawkins spotted it.)

2. Do you think there have been no eminent scientists who believed in God AND worked to explain the universe around them? Do some research. The use the word "claptrap" was not used as a substitute for reasoned argument: it was used because it accurately described your implication.

3. If you can't understand why your relative pours money into a fruit machine, try asking her - otherwise, the observation has no relevance.

4. "... neither Dawkins nor any other rationalist I know of argues that if something cannot be demonstrated scientifically then it can't possibly exist": here, you are simply wrong.

Unless he has changed his mind, Professor Dawkins takes the view that God does not exist - but, of course, he cannot prove it. He is entitled to say, "I do not believe in God, because I have seen no evidence I would recognise." That is all.

5. It is a pity that you chose to finish on so sour and juvenile a note. It is, I agree, possible that you are able to draw distinctions too subtle for someone of my mentality to distinguish - but I am prepared to doubt it. Even Professor Dawkins does not attempt the ludicrous (and manifestly false) proposition that anyone who believes in God must necessarily be unintelligent.

Good luck to you.



Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 03:41 pm (UTC)
1. Not so: my first question, oddly enough, came first. (At least Richard Dawkins spotted it.)

2. Do you think there have been no eminent scientists who believed in God AND worked to explain the universe around them? Do some research. The use the word "claptrap" was not used as a substitute for reasoned argument: it was used because it accurately described your implication.

3. If you can't understand why your relative pours money into a fruit machine, try asking her - otherwise, the observation has no relevance.

4. "... neither Dawkins nor any other rationalist I know of argues that if something cannot be demonstrated scientifically then it can't possibly exist": here, you are simply wrong.

Unless he has changed his mind, Professor Dawkins takes the view that God does not exist - but, of course, he cannot prove it. He is entitled to say, "I do not believe in God, because I have seen no evidence I would recognise." That is all.

5. It is a pity that you chose to finish on so sour and juvenile a note. It is, I agree, possible that you are able to draw distinctions too subtle for someone of my mentality to distinguish - but I am prepared to doubt it. Even Professor Dawkins does not attempt the ludicrous (and manifestly false) proposition that anyone who believes in God must necessarily be unintelligent.

Good luck to you.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 06:27 pm (UTC)
1. Not so: my first question, oddly enough, came first. (At least Richard Dawkins spotted it.)

2. Do you think there have been no eminent scientists who believed in God AND worked to explain the universe around them? Do some research. The use the word "claptrap" was not used as a substitute for reasoned argument: it was used because it accurately described your implication.

3. If you can't understand why your relative pours money into a fruit machine, try asking her - otherwise, the observation has no relevance.

4. "... neither Dawkins nor any other rationalist I know of argues that if something cannot be demonstrated scientifically then it can't possibly exist": here, you are simply wrong.

Unless he has changed his mind, Professor Dawkins takes the view that God does not exist - but, of course, he cannot prove it. He is entitled to say, "I do not believe in God, because I have seen no evidence I would recognise." That is all.

5. It is a pity that you chose to finish on so sour and juvenile a note. It is, I agree, possible that you are able to draw distinctions too subtle for someone of my mentality to distinguish - but I am prepared to doubt it. Even Professor Dawkins does not attempt the ludicrous (and manifestly false) proposition that anyone who believes in God must necessarily be unintelligent.

Good luck to you.

Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]jollythecat wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 08:50 am (UTC)
Er..so what? Finally atheists voices are permitted to be heard. It's Professor Dawkins opinions. It's not an attack on your faith, for if you are secure in your faith, then you shouldn't be bothered by his views.
It takes a lot of courage to come out and say that God doesn't exist.
It's not like militant atheists are burning down churches or beating up people who don't believe.

I don't understand lots of things. But I do know that deep within my heart, I don't believe in God.
So what?
If your faith is challenged or questioned and you come out of this with a stronger faith, then all the better.

I feel exactly the same way about the opposite view.
Cool eh!
People can finally discuss this, without resorting to beatings or burnings or ostracism.
Now that's progress.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
1. You didn't address my initial question either: I wonder why not?

2. "Finally, atheists are permitted to be heard": but when (unless you wish pointlessly to refer to the distant past, well beyond our lifetimes) were atheists not permitted to be heard?

3.You are simply wrong to say that Dawkins launches no attack on my faith: everything he does and writes is directed towards just such an attack: if you believe otherwise, then, with respect, I submit that you've paid very little attention. Professor Dawkins is not content with promoting atheism: he wishes to prevent those who would promote Christianity, even to their own children, from doing so.

4. I absolutely agree that faith should be (and is) tested by those who disbelieve. I'm not "bothered" (afraid?) of Dawkins' views: what I object to is his determination that I ought not to have mine, because I can't prove (and here is the crux of the matter) in scientific terms that God exists. Science only deals with questions about material universe: the existence (or non-existence) of God is not about the material universe: it is not a scientific question?

5. "People can finally discuss this, without resorting to beatings or burnings or ostracism." An observation unworthy of anyone seeking a rational discussion. In the first place, religious fanatics have done all of these things, it is true - but their claim to have done them in God's name always was (and remains) a lie. They behaved so out of self-interest and usually for political reasons. In the second place, you can hardly need reminding of the many atheists who have behaved no differently?
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]jollythecat wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 12:36 pm (UTC)
Er...about point 3.
What you choose to do in your own house or church is entirely up to you. You don't have to listen to Professor Dawkins, or read his books for each Dawkins there are thousand of believers and commentators who can reinforce your beliefs.

You can choose to believe or not to believe without (hopefully) continuous criticism. Perhaps it's just me, but I was born in the early 60s and atheism was just not spoken of.

I'm afraid I just don't get it. What is the point of getting all angry and defensive over one man's views? If it doesn't change you and who you are in your heart, then listen, read and move on.

I once taught music in an international school and encountered an extraordinarily intelligent family who believed that every word in the Bible was true. The 15 year old, whom I taught was horrified at the very thought that man was descended from apes.
I told her - 'well if man was descended from apes and not from Adam - does that change who you are right now at this moment?
No, of course not.
But her reply was 'well, I don't even want to think of coming from monkeys' (well, dirty monkeys was her comment).

No amount of discussion will ever change people's minds at each end of the spectrum of belief - belief in God or atheism.


Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]tatcawh wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 01:52 pm (UTC)
"but when (unless you wish pointlessly to refer to the distant past, well beyond our lifetimes) were atheists not permitted to be heard?"

You don't have to go back beyond living memory to find a time when admitting to atheism could have rather detrimental cansequences for a person's life and career, and it's no credit to religionists that the situation is now changed. And if you step outside the borders of our tolerant, secular, cosy little island then even today there are plenty of places where repudiation of whichever grey bearded sky pixie the state favours is a capital offence, and plenty of people who would happily import and impose those laws on us.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 02:01 pm (UTC)
But you admit that you DO have to go back beyond living memory; therefore my statement was accurate.

On the oether hand, you DON'T have to go back beyond living memory at all to find that people who believe in God are under attack - because it's happening here and now.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]tatcawh wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 02:44 pm (UTC)
Are you illiterate? is someone typing your posts out for you? I wrote 'you DON'T have to go back beyond living memory' and then I pointed out that outside Britain you don't have to go back at all, so no, I admitted nothing of the sort.

And yes, people who believe in god are under attack - but, as ever, mostly from other people who believe in god but who draw some insignificantly different metaphysical conclusions from their books of rambling bronze age gibberish. No change there.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 03:39 pm (UTC)
First, no, I'm not iliterate: the error was acknowledged prior to your ignorant response, but not posted until after.

Second, regarding the admission: "And yes, people who believe in god are under attack - but, as ever, mostly from other people who believe in god": utter rubbish!

A rhetorical question, but do you know anything about (for example) how Christians are treated by the Chinese government - or about the way in which the Chinese government treats the people of Tibet?

Are these, then, cases of "people who believe in God attacking "people who believe in God with insignificantly different metaphysical conclusions from their books of rambling bronze age gibberish"?

Bronze age?

(Incidentally, since you questioned my literacy, you ought to have used a capital "G" for God.)

God bless.

Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]jollythecat wrote:
Friday, 31 July 2009 at 08:37 am (UTC)
Why do you disagree with that second paragraph?
Catholics versus Protestants
islam versus Christianity
Hindus v Sikhs
Muslims v Jews

The common denominator is that they ALL believe in God and commit violence in God's name.

All of these attacks and hostility are going on right now around the world. When I was growing up the local Catholic school kids seemed like a race apart.

We used to live in Glasgow. You will regularly hear quite foul rhetoric about the two main Christian religions.
I'm not repeating it...it's just too horrible, but completely commonplace there. The people speaking were highly-educated professionals by the way.

Right now in the world, there is no militant Atheist army fighting Christians on the streets. Why bother? It's how you treat your fellow man, even though he disagrees with you that counts.

I watched Professor Dawkins' interview with Ted Haggard at the Creationist Museum. Professor Dawkins was charming, polite and questioning.
Ted Haggard was, well anyone who wants to find out about that hypocritical bigot, can do so by reading the news stories.

I'd love to have been taught about humanism and atheism in the late 60s and 70s. But no, it was rarely discussed. A great shame really.

Still, it comes down to this. You feel threatened by Professor Dawkins and atheism. I don't feel threatened by religion. I know what I believe in. The redeeming good inside mankind, that one day will transcend bigotry and move into a better society where all viewpoints are accepted as equal.
I don't think this will happen in my lifetime though.
Re: Re Richard Dawkins & Monotony
[info]rendevou5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 02:41 pm (UTC)
Apologies for misreading - I see that you DON'T accept it is necessary to go back beyond living memory to find a time when atheist views were not allowed to be heard. On that point, we must agree to disagree.

My second point holds good.

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Enough of the philosophy, Mr Cameron.

Think-tanks play an important role in politics. But they have their limits.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Very nice - but forgiveness is overrated

Sometimes, as Lydon sang, in his post Sex Pistols band, 'anger is an energy.'

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Why not call Blair now and wrap it up?

The enquiry already seems like a sideline as the queues dwindle.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion