Gregory Carlin

And it was precisely in answer to the "Argument from Design" - most recently (for Darwin) advanced by William Paley in his book "Natural Theology" - that Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.  It is also why Intelligent Design is not science.  Science is concerned solely with natural causation.

Darwin answered the argument from design quite well, in the Origin.  He even used the eye as an example, in a direct reference to Paley, who used the eye as Tim does - "it's too complicated".  But Darwin showed that even incredible complex structures such as the eye can evolve in a step-by-step fashion.

Teaching Intelligent Design in a science class makes as much sense as teaching Moby Dick in a math class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is taught in a science class will frequently depend on local culture, legislative circumstances and the judiciary. The blue-collar voter in Ohio will probably argue for something that makes him feel safe.

In the UK one of the sponsors of a number of  Christina fundamentalist academies is Reg Vardy, well known car salesman. Now if he were a true Christian he would condemn the sin of usury - lending money for interest. I know that since the reformation the church and Parliament  have changed their position on usury but being people of principle they would recognise that these changes were instigated by man and not sanctioned  by biblical authority. Mr Vardy - why no 0% finance on all your car deals?

If you sign up for Creationism - in whatever form - intelligent design you have to accept bibllical authority on everything else or else lay your self open to accusations of hypocrisy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The old testament has no absolute prohibition on charging interest. Thoughts on the subject vary from time to time, Christians have borrowed from Jews, lent to Arabs, built hospitals & fought wars with borrowed money.

Anders, I totally agree with you.

What is Sweden like today? In the US we hear all sorts of horror stories, of course, the US media is going to say very little good about a Socialist country.  For example how is the medical system, the quality of care and the timeliness of needed surgery? How is the school system? In general what is the quality of life? Level of crime, etc.

Thanks,

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sweden is one of the few ideological friends in Europe of the US Trafficking In Persons Office. The Swedes are admired for turning a corner. The Swedish Govt. are popular with many US conservatives. Finland for some reason is not so popular, I have never been able to find out precisely why that is.

Finland is usually given a Tier 2 categorization by the TIP office. Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, I understand (those countries are Tier 3), Finland should be Tier 1 rather than Tier 2. The Finns are more useful to the cause than the British.

The British are awarded a T1 gold-star verdict despite a reliance on compromised labour. The Morecombe Bay scandal for example had a solution applied because the shellfish were in danger rather than concern for the Chinese people who were being used as a disposable resource by gang-masters & criminals.

If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something,  because their god-of-choice says so,  it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Church and State can be separate, the ideology, the philosophy, they can be integrated into the personal or the collective politics of elected office. Opposition to abortion as a political idea is not controversial within a global context.

In the United Kingdom the State and Church are linked & Prime Minister Blair has the job of approving the Anglican hierarchy. The state religion may be running a poor second to the Roman Catholic faith with worshippers.

Yesterday a 25 year old female teacher from Sheffield was found guilty of having sex with a 15 year old pupil. She confessed that she had seduced the pupil and then had a 19 month relationship with the boy. Judge Michael Stokes gave her a 12 month suspended sentence. This is in stark contrast to the way male teachers have been treated recently. In all cases they have gone to prison. Is this a case of sexual discrimination?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Educator sexual misconduct is addressed by several agencies and may not always go to court nor necessarily be reported to the police.

Schoolchildren are generally reluctant to press allegations of sexual misconduct which in many cases they will view as a 'relationship'.

The public interest can be the deciding factor as to whether or not a prosecution of a teacher allegedly involved in sexual relations with a pupil goes to trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4727537.stm

and

'But a source at the General Teaching Council has told Scotland on Sunday that "our own internal disciplinary procedures will decide his fate" and that they "will not take into account the council's report or any evidence collected by police".' Sun 31 Jul 2005

http://news.scotsman.com/aberdeen.cfm?id=1707722005

Hello to everyone!

I am an IB student and I am currently writing a work assessing objectivity, reliability and usefulness of school textbooks. The idea came after reading a Russian history textbook published in 1975, which had a very curios section entitled "Drastic changes in the international environment after the end of the Second World War". The style and the interpretations included there were very interesting to me.

So, my question is: do you think objectivity is at all attainable in school textbooks (in all states, whether democratic or totalitarian)? Whether yes or not, does it alter the value of school textbooks as historical sources for future generations? Do you think it is possible in general to write a historical account of an event without making judgements or having any interpretations?

I will appreciate any help and thanks to everyone in advance.

Zhenia

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Objectivity within the context of textbook provision is not really possible. Can the participants of Stalingrad or the Warsaw Rising agree a common history?

The dead tell few tales, historians and academics too many. School textbooks are brilliant material for researching the 'accepted' perspectives of the time.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is the favourite to become the next pope. Bookmakers have him at 7-2. He is the strongest supporter of doctrinal orthodoxy and has been nicknamed “God’s rottweiler”.

There are others reasons why liberals are strongly opposed to Ratzinger becoming the next pope. He was a member of the Hitler Youth movement and later served in the German Army. He has since said although he was opposed to the Nazi regime, any open resistance would have been futile. It is true that resistance would have been difficult. However, this is clearly a political rather than a moral argument.

Ratzinger also has another problem. He has been ordered to appear in a court in Texas over a sex abuse scandal. Ratzinger is accused of obstruction of justice in relation to a Vatican document that emerged in 2003 instructing Catholic bishops to deal with cases of sexual abuse “in the most secretive way”. As one can see, Ratzinger’s moral judgement is a subject worth debating.

Apparently liberal cardinals favour Dionigi Tettamanzi (Italy) and Jose da Cruz Policarpo (Portugal).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Roman Patriarch is a Head of State, his authority is comparable to that of an absolute monarch. I do not think Texas is generally well disposed to the law of nations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Very few of the Hitler Youth openly rebelled against the Nazi regime. It is perhaps unreasonable to expect in youth what very few German adults were prepared to venture in the same circumstances.

The Catholic Church was adopting essentially the same public confidence strategy as the British authorities are happy to rely upon in the present circumstances.

If 50,000 Catholic priests in North America were involved in X over the last fifty years, then the innumerable British teachers over the same period must surely have done *something* amenable to arithmetic, is that not so?

In Texas  they would send teachers to jail for 25 years for what they routinely get away with in the United Kingdom.  Britain is not a UNICEF advertisement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you explain this. What did the teachers do? Are you implying that teachers are doing similar things in the UK but are not being punished for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was implying that Texas imprisons more teachers than the United Kingdom. The two places are very different, the UK is far more free and easy.

Also we need to safeguard the censors. If these films deprave and corrupt imagine how depraved and corrupted the poor old censors must become.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"He who fights with monsters

should look to it that he himself

does not become a monster."

Sign for child pornography suites and forensic laboratories. There are victims of child pornography who ventured into hell as guardians only to find that they were aroused by it. There can be few moments of personal experience which are as lonely or as frightening as that discovery.

I am glad that you recognized that Christians have been behind some of the important reform movements of the past such as the abolitionist movement.  As I said, I think most of your post was very good and I also think your section on religious leaders is overall very fair and accurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The movement is not in the past. The cause of abolition was inspired to struggle until there are no slaves. There is no half-remedy acceptable to us.

The Salvation Army for example are still part of the abolitionist movement.

The emails and letters the Salvation Army send to me are usually signed - "Abolition!" rather than "Yours sincerely" or other form of courtesy.

It is no surprise that it is now these old Cold War hardliners are now supporters of Christian Fundamentalism. It also helps to explain why they are unwilling to speak up for the poor and the dispossessed today. Instead they are advocates of maintaining the privileges of the rich and powerful. How can they defend this position that is so different from that advocated by Jesus Christ? With great difficulty and helps explain why it will take a brave (or foolish) supporter of Christian Fundamentalism, to join this debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Conservatives in the United States are the anti-slavery movement to a greater degree than anything that exists in Europe or elsewhere.

The Christian right are increasingly engaged in humanitarian causes abroad, they have been yelling about Sudan for years for example.

In Texas they would send teachers to jail for 25 years for what they routinely get away with in the United Kingdom. Britain is not a UNICEF advertisement.

One of the most disturbing trends over the last 50 years is the growth of Christian Fundamentalism in the United States. It has become the new ideology of the far right. In many ways it is a reaction to the move to the left in the 1960s. During this period great progress was made in obtaining equality for women and racial minorities. With the use of progressive taxation and an increase in state spending on health and education, greater economic equality was achieved. This move towards economic equality also increased people’s freedom to act in they way they wanted. They could now buy things that before were only enjoyed by the rich. Governments responded to this new mood of equality by passing laws that increased people’s freedom. This included measures that legalised divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc. Developments in technology also increased people’s freedom and dramatically improved the life-styles of the majority of the population.

The far right was in a difficult situation. For a start, it was the far right that had gained power in Germany during the 1930s. This led to the Second World War. The defeat of fascism was a terrible blow to the far right. Conservatives also suffered image problems by defending the racism that existed in the Deep South and in South Africa. The far right also suffered defeats over foreign policy as the use of guerrilla warfare forced the super powers to abandon attempts to gain or maintain an empire.

The ultra-conservatives could not use logical arguments to explain why they were right in the 1960s and 1970s. They had lost every argument that had taken place. The power elite was in serious trouble. Then they came up with a solution: Christian Fundamentalism. The main attraction of this strategy was that it persuaded people not to think logically about politics. That approach had completely failed the far right in the post-war world.

The Christian Fundamentalist movement was inspired by what had been going on in the Islamic world. Religious leaders in these countries had become very concerned about the moves towards sexual equality. Muslim Fundamentalism was an attempt to move society back to a time in the past when males controlled the political world.

Christian Fundamentalism is an attempt to recreate the situation in Medieval Europe where the Christian Church dominated the development of ideology. A world where your local priest told you what to think. It was a time where the masses were not allowed to read (most European countries had laws that stopped peasants, the vast majority of the population, from learning to read). Instead you relied on the priest to interpret the Bible. It is no surprise that this interpretation favoured the status-quo (the real teachings of Jesus Christ were only taught by rebel preachers like John Ball who invariably ended up being executed by the ruling class). 

Of course, people who read the Bible to discover what is  morally “right” or “wrong” are bound to be confused. It is a book that was written by a lot of different people and is full of contradictions. There are also great contrasts between the Old and New Testaments. I would have thought that Christians would have relied more on the teachings of Jesus Christ but it is clear from the views expressed by Christian Fundamentalists that they rely heavily on the Old Testament for their opinions: “an eye for an eye” and all that.

Christian fundamentalists remind me most of the people they hate so much – the dogmatic Marxist. They search through the Bible in order to find quotations that support their reactionary views. This is why they usually end up with quotes from the Old Testament as Jesus was a very progressive thinker. He of course rejected ideas such as “an eye for an eye” and was into turning away from violence and forgiving his enemies. It is the correct reading of the New Testament that inspired people like Martin Luther King. Not the words of revenge and hate in the Old Testament.

Christian fundamentalists tell us they are “pro-life” when discussing issues like abortion. However, when it comes to the invasion of another country they are very much pro-death. They appear to see nothing wrong with killing people as long as they can be portrayed as the enemy. Even if they are innocent civilians, if they make the mistake of living in the same town as Muslim fundamentalists they are an acceptable target for American bombers.

They don’t seem to be very “pro-life” when it comes to capital punishment. The rest of the western world brought an end to this barbaric activity many years ago. Yet the Christian fundamentalists in America are all in favour of it and pillory any leading politician who does not go along with them.

The same goes for people who believe in the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first few weeks after conception. They are condemned by Christian fundamentalists as being “murderers” and doctors who carry out what is a legal act are abused and physically attacked.

What they don’t seem to grasp is that they are the mirror image of the Muslim Fundamentalists that they hate so much. Unable to reach their own moral decisions they commit intellectual suicide and blindly follow their leader, currently, George Bush.

Christian Fundamentalism is a reaction to the sixties progressive movement. It is an attempt to give the power back in society to the male ruling class. They have course been very successful in America. However, they can only go so far. They will not convince young women to give up control over their bodies.

In time Americans will wake from this nightmare and will start asking serious questions of their politicians. They will want to know about global warming and budget deficits. They will want to know why so many of their young men are dying in foreign countries. They will start asking questions about how certain companies can get such lucrative government contracts. Why the income gap between the rich and poor grows increasingly wider? Most importantly of all, they might start to ask questions about who controls mass communications and if they are being told the truth about what is really happening in this world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Islam is inherently fundamentalist because it just is. Protestantism is also in theory in the constant business of reformation.

When the average Jihadi is told about devil worship on RN ships, OFCOM decisions in relation to TV programmes about sex with animals, Theo Van Gogh or Bern Fine Art Museum's recent exhibition which used the head of a baby, then he will believe absolutely everything he is told about the crusaders.

Many of his kind will view this life as a lost battlefield populated by sexually deviant infidel. In summary they view the west quite differently to Europeans.

Fifty faith family & flag candidates from Oklahoma allied to a few oriental visitors from Afghanistan would have Bern Fine Art Museum attacked by cruise missiles if such things could be decided by a focus group.

I am going to give an Irish person as i feel i must but i will also give a world figure if that is ok.

First, Padraig Pearse. He led the Rsing in 1916 and was one of the instigators in the struggle and eventual independece of Ireland from Britain. He was excecuted in May of 1916 a week after the rebellion. He was a great figure in history.

Caroline Hall

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In order to promote struggle as a national identity it is useful to make it a religion.

I do not grudge them: Lord, I do not grudge

My two strong sons that I have seen go out

To break their strength and die, they and a few,

In bloody protest for a glorious thing,

They shall be spoken of among their people,

The generations shall remember them,

And call them blessed;

But I will speak their names to my own heart

In the long nights;

The little names that were familiar once

Round my dead hearth.

Lord, thou art hard on mothers:

We suffer in their coming and their going;

And tho' I grudge them not, I weary, weary

Of the long sorrow--And yet I have my joy:

My sons were faithful, and they fought.

-- Padraic H. Pearse

'Mack The Knife' by Bobby Darin

'Tous les garçons et les filles' by Francoise Hardy

The Velvet Underground & Nico

Has anybody developed a lesson on synthetic fuel production by the Hitlerian regime in Europe during WWII?

John D. Clare has also objected to my postings revealing the lies and corruption of Tony Blair. John is a New Labour Party loyalist who knows Tony and thinks he is a great chap and should not be criticised. We have engaged in vigorous debate about these issues. Maybe, he is now of the opinion that he has reached the stage where defending Blair is no longer possible and that I have to be banned from exposing his lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The public are victims of a paltering mischief which has set standards in ethical conduct which fall short of what one expects from gentlemen.

The problem with this administration is that obfuscation and prevarication have become political philosophy and routine practice.

From next year all pupils at the Broadstone Middle School in Poole, Dorset will have to wear long trousers. Headteacher Marilyn Warden said the decision had been made: “in order to give girls the same opportunities as boys for a safe, active and healthy lifestyle, while maintaining their modesty.”

Last year Kesgrave High School in Ipswich banned skirts. Headteacher George Thomas claims the decision has been a big success: “We no longer have teachers spending their time trying to stop girls wearing skirts halfway up their back.”

What do members think? Would you be in favour of a ban on skirts in your school?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Talking to the parents can be a reasonably good idea.

Boards of Governors should also read Governornet, call the EOC, speak to the DfES at length and try to avoid publicity as far as humanly possible.

School backs down in row over ban on skirts

http://www.thisisdorset.net/dorset/archive...S_NEWS12ZM.html

School dress codes are defined by standards of acceptance which are set by society and to go against general practice is to invite a lawsuit.

Generally speaking one must keep a close eye on what could be possible should any 'dress code' precedent become established.

Gregory Carlin, Director of the Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition & spokesperson for the 'Rights of the Scottish Child' parental action group.