Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Searching for Happiness ?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
alr7all11@gmail.com - 22 Feb 2007 12:14 GMT
Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain.
Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all
strived in search of the causes of happiness and ways to escape
anxiety.

The reality is, however, that the proposed solutions achieve only
partial or superficial happiness. They are more or less like drugs
which only provide temporary relief; when their effect wares off,
anxieties return two fold.

The following words invite you to ultimate happiness and will lead you
to true success. But before you begin reading, I hope that you to take
a moment to try to open your heart and mind - as the intelligent one
is he who searches for the truth no matter where it lies.

An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved
except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance.
Since it is He who created mankind, He is the one who knows what
pleases and benefits them, just as he knows what saddens and harms
them. A number of psychologists have affirmed that only a religious
person lives with true content and serenity. So if believing in God
leads to ultimate happiness, then how can this be achieved?

There are numerous religions and a variety of creeds. However, their
critical differences in core issues make it impossible for all of them
to be correct. So which is the correct religion? What is the correct
creed that God requires us to believe in and in the end pleases Him?
And which one of these creeds guarantees us happiness in this life and
in the hereafter?

Before answering these questions, a criterion must first be
established to be used as a basis for correctly determining the true
religion. I firmly believe that all sensible people will agree that a
religion is not deemed correct simply due to the fact that one was
raised in that religion, had parents that adhered to it, or lived in a
society that practiced it. Rather a religion's accuracy and
authenticity are based upon substantial evidence and firm intellectual
proofs. Intellect, the distinguishing factor between mankind and
animals, must be applied when studying the issue of religion, which is
undeniably the most important and gravest of all matters.

A short journey into the world of religions and sifting through
various creeds could prove to be a good method in arriving at the
desired conclusion. In order to save you the time and effort, I say
with full conviction and confidence that no matter how much you
investigate this issue, you will only arrive at one reality: that the
true and correct religion is Islam and that true happiness and content
lies within it.

Before you hastily rebut this statement and stop reading, please
realize that completing the rest would not harm you at all, and it may
in fact benefit you. Also, remember that you have an intellect by
which you can distinguish things and determine truth from falsehood.

Why Islam?

This is an important question, indicating that the questioner is
mature and enlightened. In response I say:

Islam is a religion that includes a number of merits and
characteristics that are absent from other religions. These
characteristics, alone, serve as convincing evidence that Islam is the
true religion of God. You can determine the authenticity of this
statement by contemplating them.

Islam's many merits and characteristics make it impossible to
elaborate on all of them. However, some of the most important can be
summarized as follows:

1. Amongst the greatest merits of Islam is that it fulfills the
spiritual aspects of the human being and enables those who embrace it
to have an ongoing connection with God. This makes it possible for
them to be at ease spiritually. It shields them from chaos, being lost
or feeling (spiritually) empty, and protects from mental instability.

2. Another of Islam's merits is that it coincides totally with common
sense. All of the Islamic legislation and its rulings are acceptable
intellectually and are never contradictory. One man who embraced Islam
was asked why he did so and replied, "Islam never ordered me to do
anything that I later wished wasn't obligated, and it never forbade me
from anything that I later wished wasn't forbidden."
Much of what is readily accepted in other religions causes great
confusion. This confusion makes it difficult to believe many of the
fundamental tenets/doctrines that these religions are based upon. On
the other hand, we find that Islam respects the intellect, prohibits
ignorance, and condemns blind following.

3. Islam is an all-inclusive way of life attending to both spiritual
and physical needs. Practicing Islam does not mean that one has to be
secluded or that he is prohibited from the finer things in life.
Rather, according to Islam, a person can be religious and still enjoy
a normal life - attaining prestigious ranks/positions and achieving
the highest academic degrees.

4. Among the merits of Islam is that it is a comprehensive religion.
Every aspect of a person's life is managed by Islam. There is not a
problem except that a solution for it lies in Islam, which makes it
possible to embrace and practice in every time and place. How can this
not be the case in such a well organized religion that has guidelines
and positive instruction for every aspect of life including: conflict
resolution, buying and selling, social and marital relations,
greetings, public etiquettes, and even how a person eats, sleeps and
dresses. These practices have not been addressed generally, but rather
in precise detail, causing the mind to wonder in amazement. Know that
Islam even provides direction on how to wear and remove footwear. It
encourages people to use their right hand when eating, drinking,
shaking hands, and when giving and receiving items. As for disliked
affairs such as using the bathroom, the left hand is to be used.
Islam also has wonderful instructions regarding going to sleep and
waking up. When two Muslims meet, Islam directs them on how they
should greet each other; a rider should initiate greeting the
pedestrian, the youth should initiate greeting the elderly, and a
small group should initiate greeting a larger group. These are but a
few of Islam's many comprehensive guidelines for all aspects of life.

5. Another of Islam's merits is that it establishes good for mankind
in all its regulations and safeguards them from evil. It is man
himself who benefits from these regulations. Islam's prohibition of
alcohol and drugs for example is only because of the great harm they
cause to a person's physical and mental health. You can witness the
state of a drunken man, no longer human except in appearance. A lot of
murders, disputes, traffic accidents and rapes would not have taken
place were it not for consuming these mind-altering products.
Islam's prohibition of premarital sex relieves societies of
destructive diseases (such as AIDS and other STDs), immoral behavior,
and the existence of a generation of illegitimate children. This
generation is often deprived of a mother's love and a father's
upbringing which can lead them to become burdensome on society. Islam
prohibits women from displaying themselves publicly. This is because
Islam considers women to be valued, preserved pearls; not some cheap
merchandise to be displayed for all to see. It does so to protect them
from the wolves of mankind - those who are only concerned with
satisfying their lusts, even if it is at the cost of a woman's honor,
nobility, status, and purity.
On the other hand, Islam permits all harmless and beneficial drinks.
It also permits married couples to enjoy one another within a happy
home.
In summary, Islam has not eliminated freedoms and desires. Rather, it
regulates them for the benefit of mankind and the society at large.

6. A radiant aspect of Islam is that it pays a great deal of attention
to values, character, and praiseworthy manners, while prohibiting
mankind from oppression, transgression and bad character. Islam is a
religion of love, unity and mercy. It defines an individual's
relationship with his parents, relatives, neighbors, friends and all
people. Islam embeds the best of manners in those who embrace it and
prevents them from living selfishly. It encourages its followers to
help others and take others' feelings into consideration - especially
the poor, orphans, elderly and widows. They all have rights in Islam
that must not be taken lightly by Muslims. Muslims shouldn't feel like
they are bestowing favors upon others when giving them their due
rights, rather these rights are obligations upon Muslims. It is
considered to be a great sin in Islam for one to go to sleep with a
full stomach knowing that his neighbor is hungry.
Islam even prohibits two people from whispering to each other in the
presence of a third, taking his feelings into consideration. Islam
goes even further than that, obligating kind treatment to animals and
prohibiting harming them. More specifically, Islam prohibits
slaughtering an animal while another watches, or sharpening a knife
while it is watching, so that it is not tormented along with being
slaughtered.
Truthfulness, trustworthiness, bravery, generosity, humility, abiding
by promises, visiting the sick, attending funerals, being dutiful to
parents, visiting relatives and neighbors, and striving to help others
are all etiquettes that are encouraged by Islam.
On the other hand, Islam strictly prohibits oppression, lying,
conceitedness, envy, and insulting or betraying others. It is
impermissible in Islam to speak ill of a person in his absence, even
if what is being said is true. Islam encourages people to moderate in
spending, being neither excessive nor misers.
During times when a lot of societies complain about cold heartedness,
materialism, selfishness and so on, we find that Islam has proven
remedies for all of these problems.

This summarized introduction should make it clear that Islam is a
logical religion that can be easily understood by all people. The
doors to Islam are wide open and do not shut for anyone looking to
enter.

Understanding all of Islam's teachings in a short article is
impossible. However, briefly discussing some of its fundamental tenets
should assist in further clarifying the religion for those who are
interested.

All of Islam's regulations and teachings are important, but some have
precedence over others. There are six essential articles of faith that
one must believe in, and five pillars that one's faith must be built
upon.

As for the six articles that must be believed in:

1. Believing in Allah (God) alone, associating no partners unto Him in
worship. This is done by believing that Allah alone is the Creator of
this universe and everything that is within it, and that it is He
alone who disposes its affairs as He sees fit. Consequently, worship
can only be offered to Him alone. Worship is implementing the
teachings of Islam and its legislation while believing that all other
religions are false.

2. Believing in the angels. Angels were created by Allah but we can
not see them. They worship Allah and never disobey Him. Allah orders
them to carry out many of the universe's affairs. The angel Gabriel,
for example, (peace be upon him) delivers Allah's revelation to the
messengers. Another is Mikayeel (peace be upon him), who is entrusted
with the affairs of rain. Still there are other angels responsible for
writing the deeds of mankind - deeds which they will be held
accountable for on the Day of Resurrection. It is essential to believe
that all of the angels act solely upon the order of Allah and do only
what He wills.

3. Believing in the Books of Revelation. This means to believe that
Allah revealed books to His servants comprising of His words. These
books contain bliss for mankind by clarifying what Allah is pleased
with as well as what He dislikes. The Angel charged with delivering
revelation to the Prophets is Gabriel (peace be upon him) - the
greatest of angels. A prophet then conveys the revelation to the rest
of mankind.
Allah has revealed many books, amongst them: The Torah, revealed to
Moses (peace be upon him), The Psalms, revealed to David (peace be
upon him), The Gospel, sent down to Jesus (peace be upon him) and the
Quran, which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him).
One must believe that the Quran has abrogated all books prior to it,
meaning that - after the Prophet (Muhammad) was sent - it is the only
book that can be acted upon, especially since the Quran combines all
the merits of past books and further supplements them.
Know that the Quran is from the greatest evidences that this religion
is the truth revealed by Allah (God) the Most High. The Quran was
revealed over 1400 years ago. Since then till this day, no
contradictions or mistakes have been found in the Quran, not even in a
single word. Many of the scientific discoveries of modern times were
mentioned in the Quran. Since that time until today, nothing has been
added to or subtracted from the Quran, while previous revelations have
been tampered with and altered.
It is for this reason that you can pick up a copy of the Quran in the
far East and find it to be exactly the same as one you pick up in the
far West. If you were to come across a copy of the Quran that is
hundreds of years old, you would also find that it is exactly the same
as the one being printed currently - you wouldn't be able to find even
one letter that is different. This is because of Allah's protection of
this Book, the Book of the religion that sealed all other religions.
Speaking about the Quran would take a lot of time. However, it is
enough for you to know that there is nothing like it whatsoever; not
by way of (literary) style, its effect on people, nor its information
about the unseen.

4. Believing in the Prophets. This is done by believing that Allah has
chosen the best of mankind to be recipients of His revelation and
ordered them to convey His religion to the people. There are numerous
Prophets, among them are: Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon, Lot, Joseph,
Moses and others (peace be upon all of them). Also from them is Jesus.
It is imperative to believe that he is among the best of Prophets and
to love and respect him. Whoever despises him or denies his
prophethood is not Muslim. Likewise it is compulsory to believe that
Allah created him from a mother only, with no father, just as Allah
created Adam with neither a mother nor a father.
Having mentioned this, we now know that Jesus is a noble messenger and
not God, nor is he a son of God. He foretold the coming of a prophet
to come after him; Muhammad ibn (the son of) Abdullah, the last of the
prophets.
Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him) was sent 1400 years ago. It
is compulsory for everyone who comes after him until the Day of
Judgment to believe in him and his message, and obey his orders and
prohibitions.
All those who studied the biography of this messenger have agreed that
he is a great personality who has been bestowed with the best of
manners and most noble etiquettes. He had characteristics which were
not present in anyone before him and will not be present in anyone
after him. Anything that you read about him, no matter how small it
is, confirms what I am saying.
Allah has also granted him proofs and evidences that establish the
authenticity of his prophethood, thus having doubt in this fact is
intellectually impossible. Having been given such proofs and evidences
of his prophethood, whoever denies his truthfulness, would make it
impossible for that individual to establish the truthfulness of any
other prophet.

5. The Last Day. This is fulfilled firmly believing that after this
life of ours is over, there is another more complete life. In it,
there are immense rewards and magnificent luxuries, as well as
punishment. Luxury is in Heaven and punishment in Hell. So whoever is
righteous and believes in the religion of Islam enters Heaven, a place
that contains untold pleasure and unimagined bliss. All the luxuries
on earth cannot be compared to it at all. Whoever enters Heaven will
continue to live in such luxuries for eternity as death does not exist
therein.
As for those who act upon evil and do not believe in Islam, they would
end up in Hell, which contains fires and punishment that can not be
imagined, all of the fires of earth and forms of punishment cannot be
compared to the punishment of the hellfire at all.
The existence of punishment and reward after this life is an issue
that is intellectually acknowledged, because it is impossible for this
world to exist and then just diminish into nothingness. This is
trifling about, and our Lord, the Creator, does not engage in such
activities.

6. Believing in Divine Decree. This is to believe that everything that
happens in this world is due to Allah's knowledge and will. Nothing
except what He wills takes place, and what He does not will, does not
take place. Allah has written everything in a great book (The
Preserved Tablet). Believing in divine decree also includes believing
that Allah created everything.

As for the five pillars that must be practiced:

1. Uttering a phrase that is the key to entering into Islam. It is a
contract between a servant and his Lord, signifying that he is upon
this religion:
"Ashhadu an la ilaha ila Allah, wa ashadu ana Muhammad 'abduhu wa
rasuluhu."
"I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah,
and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger."
This testimony signifies the acceptance, admission, and adherence to
the fact that worship must be offered to Allah alone. It also includes
the acceptance of Islam as the only correct religion, Allah as the
only true deity deserving worship, and that all other deities and
religions are false. The second part of the testimony entails an
affirmation that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and that he is to
be obeyed and believed in all that he says.

2. The Prayer. It is a combination of statements, actions and
invocations carried out in a specific manner. It is performed five
times daily and doesn't take much time at all. In fact, a prayer may
not take more than five minutes. Prayer is the link between a servant
and his Lord. It enables a Muslim to be confident, mentally and
spiritually at rest, calm and untroubled.

3. The Zakaat. A wealthy Muslim must give a small portion of his money
to the poor, 2.5% of his wealth to be exact. Even though it is a small
amount, it enables the Muslim community to be conciliated and merciful
amongst each other. It propagates brotherhood, love and concern
amongst Muslims. And again, Zakaat is only to be given out by the
wealthy, not the poor.

4. Fasting. What is meant by fasting is that a person withholds from
eating, drinking and sexual relations during the month of Ramadan
[which is the 9th month of the lunar calendar] between dawn and
sunset. The sick, travelers, and those with valid excuses are pardoned
from fasting. They are permitted to eat and drink but must make up the
missed days once they become able.
Fasting has many health, personal, and social benefits. Amongst them
are: giving the digestive system a break, allowing Muslims to grow
spiritually and practice good mannerisms. It enables Muslims to be
conscious of their needy brothers and sisters, those who are unable to
find enough food to satisfy their needs throughout the year.
Consequently, the Muslims humble themselves and strive to help them.

5. Hajj. It is a form of worship that must be performed only once in a
lifetime, in Makkah. Those who are physically incapable or not
financially able to perform it are pardoned from doing so.
Hajj contains many magnificent benefits; the gathering of Muslims from
all around the globe in one place getting to know each other and
displaying love for one another, not to mention what a Muslim achieves
by way of spiritual purification and character refinement due to
experiencing such a spiritual environment in the shade of Hajj.

Hopefully what has preceded is sufficient in clarifying - in a
summarized fashion - some of the merits of Islam. I invite all who
have not yet entered into the fold of Islam to listen to a sincere
invitation from one who only wants good for you: save yourself before
death takes you by surprise, and thus you die upon other than Islam -
what a great loss that is!

Do you know what dying upon other than Islam means? It means that you
would enter the Hellfire, abiding therein for eternity. This is what
Allah has warned all those who die without embracing Islam. So why
would you take a chance with an issue as grave as this?

I'm going to ask you a question that I want you to answer honestly:
What would you lose if you embraced Islam?

If you embrace Islam, you can continue living your normal ordinary
life, but in a more spiritual, organized, and pleasant fashion...and
after death, tremendous delight and eternal pleasure await you.

If you have reached a level of conviction, believing that Islam is the
true religion, but fear that embracing Islam would prevent you from
enjoying pleasures that you cannot live without, then compare these
temporary pleasures with eternal pleasure. Which of the two should be
given preference?

Furthermore, you can embrace Islam and then gradually try to reduce
such pleasures. And if you were to honestly invoke Allah, He would
surely aid you in leaving them. In any case, embracing Islam and
having shortcomings is better than not embracing Islam at all.

If the barrier between you and Islam is due to having a weak
personality, the inability to make such a big decision, or because you
fear that people may talk about you or mock you, know that these are
just unrealistic thoughts. You would not be the first person to
embrace Islam; a lot of others have made the decision to do so. They
did not lose anything, their lives were not ruined, nor do they have
any regrets. Furthermore, does it make sense that you sacrifice your
own well being and happiness in this life and in the hereafter just
because you fear mockery or admonishment?

This affair is worthy of your time. Contemplate upon it deeply.

My last words: Do not lose yourself! I ask Allah to bless you with
true guidance.

One who wishes only the best for you,
Dr. Saleh Abdul Azeez As Sindee.
Archie Valparaiso - 22 Feb 2007 12:45 GMT
> Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain.
>Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>partial or superficial happiness. They are more or less like drugs
>which only provide temporary relief; when their effect wares off,

After that, I couldn't bare to read any more.

Signature

Archie Valparaiso

Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the
second best recyclers in Kent.

John Dean - 22 Feb 2007 13:52 GMT
>> Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain.
>> Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> After that, I couldn't bare to read any more.

Indeed. Should obviously be warez.
I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril.
Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of turquoise-y,
glas-y kind of colour.
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

Peter Moylan - 23 Feb 2007 11:11 GMT
> I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril.
> Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of turquoise-y,
> glas-y kind of colour.

If the nose cannot go to paradise, then paradise must come to the nose.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

John Dean - 23 Feb 2007 13:43 GMT
>> I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril.
>> Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of
>> turquoise-y, glas-y kind of colour.
>
> If the nose cannot go to paradise, then paradise must come to the
> nose.

A nose in time saves nine.
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

Robin Bignall - 23 Feb 2007 23:35 GMT
>>> I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril.
>>> Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>A nose in time saves nine.

She nose, you know.
Signature

Cynthia

Robert Bannister - 22 Feb 2007 23:15 GMT
> An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved
> except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance.

Like millions of other happy people, I deny this utterly.
Signature

Rob Bannister

the Omrud - 22 Feb 2007 23:21 GMT
> > An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved
> > except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance.
>
> Like millions of other happy people, I deny this utterly.

There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats.  
Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on
a retreat and why.  It seems that folk want to get away from the world
to have time to try to make sense of the world and seek answers to all
those big questions.

She was asked whether they take people of all faiths and people of no
faith.  She said yes, everybody is welcome and "of course" those with no
faith have more questions to be answered.

Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged.  As far as I
can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion-
shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill.

Signature

David
=====
Warwick Hilton

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mike Page - 22 Feb 2007 23:41 GMT
>> > An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved
>> > except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion-
>shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill.

I heard the same thing while desperately driving about to find a
tarpaulin to cover my leaking flat roof. WH was doing one of its
feminist rants and had one interviewee whose every other word was
"celebrate", if it wasn't "empower" or "share". It crossed my
mind that hell might be eternity trapped on a retreat led by one
such.

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 02:11 GMT
>Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged.  As far as I
>can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion-
>shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill.

I dunno about that.  I live in a country where - if I'm to believe
what I read here - believers are much thicker on the ground than they
are in the UK.  I don't see much in the way of a desperate need to
bring religion to others.  Not much, anyway, in proportion to the
general population of believers.  

There's a very visible and active minority that fits your description,
but the average church-goer doesn't seem very aggressive in this.
Believe it or not, I can go months without anyone discussing religion
in my presence.

My knowledge that America is full of religious whackos is based on
what I read in the newspapers rather than what I personally
experience.  I know many people who are church-goers and, assumedly,
very devout.  They're firm in their own convictions, but I don't know
any that recruit.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Archie Valparaiso - 23 Feb 2007 10:30 GMT
>>Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged.  As far as I
>>can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion-
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>very devout.  They're firm in their own convictions, but I don't know
>any that recruit.

Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in
much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one,
it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large
unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not
to be trusted.

If this wasn't the case, why do all senior American politicians
without exception make a point of declaring their religious
affiliation (and they all have one, and if they don't they make sure
they get one before declaring their candidacy)? In some cases (e.g.
Jimmy Carter) it was probably for real; in others (e.g. the Clintons)
it was so obviously a cynical charade that I'm amazed the electorate
didn't see right through it.

Let's also remember that the characteristic of communists that never
failed to stir up the desired knee-jerk repulsion of them was that
they were shamelessly "godless" (as Wayne reminded us the other day).

I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith -- and
any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or Scientologists
-- is still generally thought of as an essential, non-negotiable
feature of  "the American Way".

Or am I way off track with this?

Signature

Archie Valparaiso

Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the
second best recyclers in Kent.

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 10:40 GMT
> Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrought:
>>
>>>Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged.  As
>>>far as I can tell, believers consider that those with no faith
>>>have a religion- shaped hole in their consciousness which they
>>>are desperate to fill.

>>I dunno about that.  I live in a country where - if I'm to believe
>>what I read here - believers are much thicker on the ground than
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Perhaps not,

I'm sure that all Tony means by the disingenuous bullshit remark "I
don't know any that recruit" means only that none of his friends or
nodding acquaintenances are that species of theoskunk. He's certainly
had run-ins with plenty of evangelistic American missionaries in his
67 years in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida., He may not know their
names, but he's talked to them. You can't be a resident American and
not be bothered by the bastards[1].

> but isn't it also true that atheists in America are
> in much the same situation as homosexuals in most places?

Yep. To paraphrase Yoko Ono's "Woman is the Nigger of the World"[2],
"Atheists are the faggots of the world". Dig it. Some of my best
friends are atheists. Aren't some of yours?

> If you are one, it's not something you shout from the rooftops
> in society at large unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a
> some kind of weirdo who's not to be trusted.

Amen!

> If this wasn't the case, why do all senior American politicians
> without exception make a point of declaring their religious
> affiliation (and they all have one, and if they don't they make
> sure they get one before declaring their candidacy)?

Because there are no atheists in foxholes, and the White House is the
world's biggest foxhole. Bill Clinton proved that.

> In some cases (e.g. Jimmy Carter) it was probably for real; in
> others(e.g. the Clintons) it was so obviously a cynical charade
> that I'm amazed the electorate didn't see right through it.

You missed on that one. It was Nixon and Reagan who were the
religiously cynical charadists during their respective tenures in the
White House. The Clintons were no better or worse than most others
who've lived there.

> Let's also remember that the characteristic of communists that
> never failed to stir up the desired knee-jerk repulsion of them
> was that they were shamelessly "godless" (as Wayne reminded us the
> other day).

For a true-blue American, a Communist is always -- no two ways about
it -- always "an atheistic Communist".

> I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith --
> and any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or
> Scientologists -- is still generally thought of as an essential,
> non-negotiable feature of  "the American Way".

Well, don't ask Tony about that. He's never declared his atheism (I
don't believe he is one) to anybody. All he claims is that he's a
lapsed Catholic. I'll bet that he's just like the old man in that
Hemingway novel, the one who denied God until his deathbed and then,
like Scrooge, tried to sneak into heaven through the back door, just
like that monkey in the _Bruce Almighty_ movie that popped out and
then back into the Chicano gangbanger's bunghole.

> Or am I way off track with this?

No, you're right on point here. You have to be honest to know the
truth about this layer of American cultural slime. Anyone who denies
it is either culturally blind or without doubt a dissembler of the
first order.

NOTES:  
[1]Just like you can't be a born-and-raised resident American and not
be one kind of racist or another: just look at all the bullshit about
whether Mr Obama is "Black" enough to represent African Americans.
But all the goody-goodies will deny it. "What? Me racist?"
[2]"Woman is the Nigger of the World" was a 1972 song by John Lennon
and Yoko Ono. The phrase was originally coined by Ono during a
magazine interview in 1967. Lennon later said it took him until 1970
to 'dig it'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Is_the_Nigger_of_the_World

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 14:34 GMT
>> Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrought:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>names, but he's talked to them. You can't be a resident American and
>not be bothered by the bastards[1].

You are bringing up a different aspect of the true believer.  I was
responding to a comment that believers try to bring religion to the
non-believers.  Attempts at recruiting or conversion.

I can honestly say that I have not experienced that.  No one has ever
made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their religion.  Not
even an invitation to pursue a discussion in that area.  Never
bothered in this area.

"Run-ins", though, is a different aspect.  I've been involved in many
discussions with true believers where we differ, and differ greatly.
I wouldn't consider a run-in with a true believer over tolerance
towards homosexuals, teaching of evolution, or any of the other hot
buttons of the religious to be an attempt to bring me to religion.

I do omit the door-knockers from my observation.  JW's and Mormons do
come to my door with hopes of finding someone to bring to their
religion, but I don't allow a discussion to take place.  I also omit
them because this is a shot-gun approach rather than an attempt to
bring me - as an individual - to their religion.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 14:13 GMT
> cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote:
[...]
>>I'm sure that all Tony means by the disingenuous bullshit remark
>>"I don't know any that recruit" means only that none of his
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> was responding to a comment that believers try to bring religion
> to the non-believers.  Attempts at recruiting or conversion.

They do and they don't. If they're Christians, especially BACs,
they're supposed to bruit and bray the Good News about. That's part
of what it means to be an evangelical Christian.

> I can honestly say that I have not experienced that.  No one has
> ever made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their
> religion.  Not even an invitation to pursue a discussion in that
> area.  Never bothered in this area.

You and I have different definitions of "no one". In fact, your
definiion of "no one" would probably earn you a citation for contempt
and maybe even a trial for perjury in a court of law. Those JWs and
Mormons who come a knock-knock-knockin' on your door are not "no
one"; they are all "some one".

> "Run-ins", though, is a different aspect. I've been involved in
> many discussions with true believers where we differ, and differ
> greatly. I wouldn't consider a run-in with a true believer over
> tolerance towards homosexuals, teaching of evolution, or any of
> the other hot buttons of the religious to be an attempt to bring
> me to religion.

I wouldn't either, but that's not what I meant by "run-ins". I meant
what you dismiss as irrelevant to the discussion: the JWs and the
Mormons and anyone else who might have wanted score a few points with
God by scoring a soul for Jesus.

> I do omit the door-knockers from my observation.

But they are the essential Gabriels (messengers) of the attempt to
bring you and all the the world's heathens to their religion.

> JW's and Mormons do come to my door with hopes of finding someone
> to bring to their religion, but I don't allow a discussion to take
> place.

That does not negate their intentions. You may stifle them so that
their missionary attempts are stillborn, but that just makes them
more zealous at subsequent doors.

> I also omit them because this is a shot-gun approach rather than
> an attempt to bring me - as an individual - to their religion.

Good try, but this is just another rationalization redolent of
Anastasia's and Drizella's attempts to fit into the glass slipper.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 16:28 GMT
>> cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote:
>[...]
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>they're supposed to bruit and bray the Good News about. That's part
>of what it means to be an evangelical Christian.

They may feel they are supposed to, but that doesn't mean that they
feel they are supposed to at every meeting with someone who they don't
feel is on the right track.

I've worked with and known BACs and Evangelicals.  I know that they
hit the streets and door-knocked.  None of them ever instigated a
conversation with me that gave me any indication they were trying to
bring me to religion or their religion.
 

>> I can honestly say that I have not experienced that.  No one has
>> ever made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Mormons who come a knock-knock-knockin' on your door are not "no
>one"; they are all "some one".

None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their
religion.  Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion,
qualify as an attempt.  

I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my
doorstep.  If their conviction says to do it, then they should do it.
I have never encountered one who persisted after my polite rebuff of
any attempt at discussion.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

HVS - 23 Feb 2007 16:35 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote

> I've worked with and known BACs and Evangelicals.  I know that
> they hit the streets and door-knocked.  None of them ever
> instigated a conversation with me that gave me any indication
> they were trying to bring me to religion or their religion.

They've probably written you off as a hopelessly godless, non-
Christian catholic.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 16:56 GMT
>On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>They've probably written you off as a hopelessly godless, non-
>Christian catholic.

The hopelessly godless, non-Christians of my sort prefer that you
write "Catholic" with a capital "C" in this usage.  Our tastes are
very catholic in this.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

HVS - 23 Feb 2007 17:14 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote

>> On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> you write "Catholic" with a capital "C" in this usage.  Our
> tastes are very catholic in this.

Awwwww...I was trying to imitate the wilder-eyed BACs who I think
like to reserve capital C solely for "Christian".

Wouldn't they refuse to let godless heathens like yourself borrow
their special capital letter?

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

Eric Schwartz - 23 Feb 2007 18:11 GMT
> On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote
> > The hopelessly godless, non-Christians of my sort prefer that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Awwwww...I was trying to imitate the wilder-eyed BACs who I think
> like to reserve capital C solely for "Christian".

Not to my knowledge, though they do prefer to reserve "Christian" for
people like themselves; I doubt they'd bother with even a lower-case
variety for Catholics.

> Wouldn't they refuse to let godless heathens like yourself borrow
> their special capital letter?

They generally don't use the word 'Catholic' at all, regardless of
case.  "Romish" or "Papist" are more common.

-=Eric
R H Draney - 23 Feb 2007 19:19 GMT
HVS filted:

>On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Wouldn't they refuse to let godless heathens like yourself borrow
>their special capital letter?

They're not even all that chuffed about letting it stand for "carbon" or
"Celsius"...when you sit down at the Wurlitzer, they prefer you keep to the
black keys....r

Signature

"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 16:48 GMT
> cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote:
>>> cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> they feel they are supposed to at every meeting with someone who
> they don't feel is on the right track.

True. As Groucho and Siggy said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

> I've worked with and known BACs and Evangelicals.  I know that
> they hit the streets and door-knocked.  None of them ever
> instigated a conversation with me that gave me any indication they
> were trying to bring me to religion or their religion.

You must have sacred the sh.t out of them, then.

>>> I can honestly say that I have not experienced that.  No one has
>>> ever made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> religion.  Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my
> opinion, qualify as an attempt.  

I love it, Tony. Here you go constructing your own convenient version
of reality so that it conveniently supports your even more convenient
rationalizations.
 
> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my
> doorstep.  If their conviction says to do it, then they should do
> it. I have never encountered one who persisted after my polite
> rebuff of any attempt at discussion.

But they wanted to and you knew that they wanted to or you would not
have rebuffed them. But I suppose you don't think you're
contradicting yourself. I think you are.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 05:49 GMT
>> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my
>> doorstep.  If their conviction says to do it, then they should do
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>have rebuffed them. But I suppose you don't think you're
>contradicting yourself. I think you are.

What does their desire to do something have to do with it?  My
statement was that no one has taken the action of trying to bring me
to religion or their religion.

If having a desire to do something is the same as doing it, then I am
guilty of many things.  Many's the time, for example, that I have had
the desire to....  

Awww, never mind.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

cybercypher - 24 Feb 2007 05:28 GMT
> cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> What does their desire to do something have to do with it?

I guess you don't understand the legal notion of "intent" either.
Their desire has everything to do with it. They trod on your doorstep
with the intention of converting you to their religion. You knew
that, so you proactively prevented them from succeeding.

The next thing you're gonna tell me is that because firewalls and
antivirus programs prevent certain kinds of malware from attacking
your computer that no hacker has ever tried to attack your computer
simply because your firewall and AV program blocked their attempts.

You can argue that line all you like, but that's the argument of a
fool, I'm afraid.

> My statement was that no one has taken the action
> of trying to bring me to religion or their religion.

A journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. Simply by ringng
your doorbell or knocking on your door or walking toward your front
door they took the first "action of trying to bring [you] to religion
or their religion." Had you not recognized them for what they were,
they would have taken the second step, at which point you no doubt
would have stopped their intrusion.

Your arguments are disingenuous and dissembling to the ultimate
degree. You need to meet a guy called Diogenes and ask him what an
intellectually honest man might be. You certainly don't have a clue.

> If having a desire to do something is the same as doing it, then I
> am guilty of many things.

Read the Sermon on the Mount lately? Both you and Jimmy Carter are
guilty, as is every other human being.

> Many's the time, for example, that I have had the desire to....  
>
> Awww, never mind.

Cutsey sh.t like this is vapid fluff and faffle. It ought to be
beneath your dignity, but you continue to demonstrate that you have
none. My ad hominem remarks are honest and open. I don't try to hide
them.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95
setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 06:58 GMT
>> Many's the time, for example, that I have had the desire to....  
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>none. My ad hominem remarks are honest and open. I don't try to hide
>them.

Crank down that ego or paranoia or whatever it is.  I wasn't thinking
of you.  
Signature


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

cybercypher - 24 Feb 2007 06:44 GMT
>>> Many's the time, for example, that I have had the desire to....
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Crank down that ego or paranoia or whatever it is.  I wasn't
> thinking of you.  

It doesn't matter what or whom you were thinking of.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95
setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 07:03 GMT

>My ad hominem remarks are honest and open. I don't try to hide
>them.

Such an odd thing to be proud of.  Did you puff out your chest when
you wrote it?

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 06:49 GMT
>I love it, Tony. Here you go constructing your own convenient version
>of reality so that it conveniently supports your even more convenient
>rationalizations.

I think we all do that.  We all construct a version of reality that
coincides with what we'd like reality to be.  Or, at least, we filter
reality to achieve this.

You and I are very different.  In your reality, there are monsters
under every bed.  In mine, some of them are just dust bunnies.  I
think you *want* monsters there because you want things to rail
against.  You want examples of PC creep and examples of outrageous
religiosity.  They are mental fuel for you.  You're afraid if you
can't keep adding fuel, the fire will go out.

When I see those same examples, I want to filter them and think that
these are ordinary people doing ordinary things and it's really
nothing to get all het up about.  Some guy thinks that when he dies
he'll go up a golden ladder, pass through some bling gates, and be
fitted with wings...that's OK with me.  If it helps him get through
the day, that's fine.  It doesn't make him a moron; he's still smart
enough to refuse the extended warranty and not split a pair of sixes.

I draw the line when he tries to take some action based on his beliefs
where that action would encroach on my rights or the rights of others.
But I don't think the great majority of the religious in America do
that.  Most of them just go to church, say grace over meals, and put
"Honk if you love Jesus" stickers on their bumpers.  That includes a
lot of those BACs that you feel are all evil.

There are the fringe lunatics in that group, but they're just the
visible ones.  They want power over other people, and religion offers
them what they see as a respectable way to exercise power.  Take away
religion, and they'd find some other avenue to exercise power.  

Keep on railing and ranting, though, Franke.  It's your version of
testifying.  It sustains you.  Personally, I don't see much difference
between a religious zealot and an anti-religion zealot.  They both
devote far too much energy to insisting that the other guy's wrong.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Pat Durkin - 23 Feb 2007 18:29 GMT
> None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their
> religion.  Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion,
> qualify as an attempt.

Why do you think they are at your doorstep, if _not_ to provide you with
a spiel?

The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of
mind, doesn't it?
Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal telephone
annoyance-prevention department?  Don't you have a "No solicitors" sign
on your door or on the gate to your residential area?  (not that the
true BAC evangelicals, especially Mormons and Witnesses can or wish to
learn to read.  But you should really set yourself up for suing them as
nuisances.

> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my
> doorstep.  If their conviction says to do it, then they should do it.
> I have never encountered one who persisted after my polite rebuff of
> any attempt at discussion.

Well, if their conviction says they should hog the microphone, or at
least grab control of it for a while at any venue called together by any
group whatsoever, whether the attendees pay admission or get in free,
what do you do to protest their insistence on preaching to all and
sundry?

Do you get up and walk out?  Do you ask for your money back?  Do you
loudly protest that _their_ belief_ is not _your_ belief?

If they insist on supporting a war and put their trust in God to get us
out of it, what do you reply?  (I mean, in a public venue at which they
have hijacked the microphone/speakers/dais, or whatever.)
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 21:57 GMT
>> None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their
>> religion.  Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion,
>> qualify as an attempt.
>
>Why do you think they are at your doorstep, if _not_ to provide you with
>a spiel?

They stand at the ready, but if they don't launch the spiel they are
not attempting anything.

>The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of
>mind, doesn't it?

No.  My peace of mind is not so lightly disturbed.  

>Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal telephone
>annoyance-prevention department?

Yes.  Just because I utilize that option to deny this form of access,
you can't conclude that I feel it's necessary to deny all forms of
access to all who would approach me.  If the Mormons made a similar
option available, I'd probably take advantage of it.  Not because
their visits bother me, but because I don't want to waste their time.

>Don't you have a "No solicitors" sign
>on your door or on the gate to your residential area?

No.

>> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my
>> doorstep.  If their conviction says to do it, then they should do it.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>what do you do to protest their insistence on preaching to all and
>sundry?

I'd exercise the same form of protest that I would if someone with
Franke's position tried to hog the microphone:  ignore them.  It's not
the fact that person is espousing religion or anti-religion that would
bother me.  It's the fact that they have hogged the microphone in a
meeting not their own to assail the crowd with their personal
convictions.

I see no difference between your example and what we see at political
rallies.  If there's a Bush rally, I think it's perfectly acceptable
for an anti-Bush spectator to stand there with a sign expressing his
dismay with Bush.  I do not think it's acceptable for him to shout out
interruptions or mount the stage in protest.  He's interfering with
the rights of others to hear what they want to hear.

It's the conduct, not the content, that I would object to.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Pat Durkin - 24 Feb 2007 00:29 GMT
>>> None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their
>>> religion.  Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> They stand at the ready, but if they don't launch the spiel they are
> not attempting anything.

If you open the door, do they not introduce themselves and begin to ask
you questions about "knowing Jesus"?  Yes, my  visitors have been
courteous, waiting for me to say "Pleased to meet you".  But some have
then, even upon being told that "I am eating now", or "I am watching
television now", begun their spiel.  Godspell.  You know the routine.

>>The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of
>>mind, doesn't it?
>
> No.  My peace of mind is not so lightly disturbed.

OK.  I envy you.

>>Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal
>>telephone
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> option available, I'd probably take advantage of it.  Not because
> their visits bother me, but because I don't want to waste their time.

So you don't think it a waste of your time to answer the door.  Hmm.

>>> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my
>>> doorstep.  If their conviction says to do it, then they should do
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> meeting not their own to assail the crowd with their personal
> convictions.

You would let them use up your time and mildly accept their right to
spend your money?   Does "ignore" involve continuing the private
conversation you were involved in while awaiting the beginning of the
event for which you paid admission?
No?
How mild and Christian you are!

> I see no difference between your example and what we see at political
> rallies.  If there's a Bush rally, I think it's perfectly acceptable
> for an anti-Bush spectator to stand there with a sign expressing his
> dismay with Bush.  I do not think it's acceptable for him to shout out
> interruptions or mount the stage in protest.  He's interfering with
> the rights of others to hear what they want to hear.

But the people who go to those rallies are presumably going to hear some
political speech.  Do you think you want to hear a religious speech  at
a football game?  At a car race?

> It's the conduct, not the content, that I would object to.

Whose conduct?  Whose content?
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 01:14 GMT
>>>> None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their
>>>> religion.  Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>then, even upon being told that "I am eating now", or "I am watching
>television now", begun their spiel.  Godspell.  You know the routine.

Hasn't happened to me.  I don't know if the door-knockers down here
are more polite, or if there's something about my technique that holds
them at bay.   My usual spiel is "Hi.  Thanks for coming by, but I'm
really not interested."  This is delivered as I open the door, back
away, and close the door; all in one smooth motion.  I think you leave
yourself open if you stand there and offer reasons like "I'm eating
dinner".  That presents the challenge to them that you consider mere
food more important than Eternal Salvation.  

Trick #2 is to keep one hand on the door and one hand on the door
frame.  A loose hand invites something being poked into it.  A tract,
for example.

>>>The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of
>>>mind, doesn't it?
>>
>> No.  My peace of mind is not so lightly disturbed.
>
>OK.  I envy you.

These things just don't disturb me.  I'm not disturbed by the
door-knocker who wants to trim my trees or leave their card in case I
ever want to sell my house.  I'm not disturbed by the cashier who
wants to sell me an extended service plan on a flashlight.  I'm not
disturbed by the counter person who wants to know if I want to
super-size my order.  

>>>Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal
>>>telephone
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>So you don't think it a waste of your time to answer the door.  Hmm.

You value my time more than I do.  I'm perfectly capable of deciding
when the time I have is better applied to something else.  I can let
the doorbell go unanswered and the ringing phone unpicked-up.  I can
peek out the window and see if I want to spend 30 seconds dismissing
someone, or I can let the machine pick up the phone.

When I do look out the window, and see two or three neatly dressed
people standing there with briefcases, I dismiss them politely and
feel I've done a minor mitzvah.  I've helped them make their quota of
attempts.  They can walk away satisfied that they tried to make
contact and it's my fault that I will rot in Hell.  

I feel that the worst thing that I can do is to allow them to make
their pitch and then reject them.  That makes it their fault.  They
weren't good enough to convince me.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 01:34 GMT
>>>Well, if their conviction says they should hog the microphone, or at
>>>least grab control of it for a while at any venue called together by
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>conversation you were involved in while awaiting the beginning of the
>event for which you paid admission?

I don't really follow you here.  

>No?
>How mild and Christian you are!

There's a time to be mild.  If you are at an event that is disrupted,
and you start shouting down the shouter-outers, you are just adding to
the disruption.  You become part of the problem.  The shouter-outers
take on momentum when you protest.  You are playing into their hands
because you are adding to the disruption.  They aren't seeking
agreement.  They are seeking to disrupt.

>> I see no difference between your example and what we see at political
>> rallies.  If there's a Bush rally, I think it's perfectly acceptable
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>But the people who go to those rallies are presumably going to hear some
>political speech.

Usually, people go to political rallies to hear a speech about what
they already know they support or to hear a speech by the scheduled
speaker to see if they will or will not support him.  They don't go to
rallies to hear the non-scheduled interrupters and hecklers.

>> It's the conduct, not the content, that I would object to.
>
>Whose conduct?

The conduct of the heckler or interrupter.

>Whose content?

Whatever it is that the heckler or interrupter says.  

If I go to a Hillary Clinton rally, I'll go because I want to hear
what she has to say.  I'm not interested in what the anti-Hillary
Clinton contingent has to say.  Not at that time, anyway.  If I want
to hear their views, I'll go to their candidate's rally.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 15:50 GMT
>> I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith --
>> and any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>don't believe he is one) to anybody. All he claims is that he's a
>lapsed Catholic.

Well, I'm not sure I am an atheist.  M-W says an atheist is someone
who believes there is no deity.  I fit that description.  Absolutely.

However, my views are a little more complex.  I don't accept that
there is a deity, and I don't accept any part of Creationism.  

However, I do believe that some people have an absolute conviction
that there is a deity.  That deity exists in their mind.  So if I
believe that someone else can absolutely accept that there is a deity,
but I don't accept the same thing, can I be an atheist?  

If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at all even
though you don't share that belief?

I told you my view is complex.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 16:44 GMT
>>> I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith
>>> -- and any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Well, I'm not sure I am an atheist.

I don't call myself an atheist either. I don't see the point to
taking sides when the issue is inherently moot.

> M-W says an atheist is someone who believes there is no deity.
> I fit that description. Absolutely.

I don't believe in supernatural beings. That doesn't qualify me as an
atheist, except in the eyes of those who believe in supernatural
beings.

> However, my views are a little more complex.  I don't accept that
> there is a deity, and I don't accept any part of Creationism.  

To accept the latter, you would have to accept the former. This is
not surprising.

> However, I do believe that some people have an absolute conviction
> that there is a deity.

Yep, the sun does rise in the east, doesn't it?

> That deity exists in their mind.  So if I believe that someone
> else can absolutely accept that there is a deity,

I can't believe that such people exist. They only pretend to exist.
They're teolologically stunted -- er, I mean, challenged. If their
DNA had worked well enough, they would've matured and become
emotionally and intellectually adult.

> but I don't accept the same thing, can I be an atheist?  

Lemme get this straight. You, Mr C, know that Mr A and Mr B are
delusional because God exists in their minds, kinda like in the mind
of that Muslim cleric who assassinated a Pakistani government
minister the other day because he believed that she was leading an
un-Islamic life and so, as happens with so many Christian murderers
of prostitutes, his god whispered into ear that she had to die. So
you believe that Messers A and B believe in the reality of their
delusions, and that somehow soils your intellect by forcing you to be
involved in their delusions simply because you know they exist?
Sounds like a cyberworm or trojan of some sort. Maybe you ought to
see if Symantec can fix your security holes.

> If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at all
> even though you don't share that belief?

There are gods and goddesses everywhere. Even Purl Gurl threatens to
fall into thlatter category: nice nipples and an enchanting face. And
then there are Osiris and Ra and Toth and Zeus and his pals, and all
those Hindu deities that we can actually see with our own eyes, an
even the Buddhists have gone and deified the Buddha, who was most
certainly a man like other men.

> I told you my view is complex.

Don't worry. One of these days you'll figure it all out. I've already
given you a few hints.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Archie Valparaiso - 23 Feb 2007 17:55 GMT
>> If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at all
>> even though you don't share that belief?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>even the Buddhists have gone and deified the Buddha, who was most
>certainly a man like other men.

I liked Richard Dawkins's reply to the same question in one interview.
I can't find the exact quotation, but it was along the lines of
"Nobody today is stupid enough to believe in Thor with his hammer or
Mercury with his wings. I just go one god further."

Signature

Archie Valparaiso

Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the
second best recyclers in Kent.

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 17:44 GMT
>>> If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at
>>> all even though you don't share that belief?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> lines of "Nobody today is stupid enough to believe in Thor with
> his hammer or Mercury with his wings. I just go one god further."

My land, but Dawkins is a caution, an't he?

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

HVS - 23 Feb 2007 17:58 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote

> Lemme get this straight. You, Mr C, know that Mr A and Mr B are
> delusional because God exists in their minds, kinda like in the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> intellect by forcing you to be involved in their delusions
> simply because you know they exist?

It depends on what you mean by "exist".

If someone believes that their delusion is real -- and acts on the
instructions of that delusionary reality -- it seems to me that it
does, in fact, qualify as having achieved a form of "existence".

The voice in the mind of a deluded person exists only for that
person:  but that *is* a form of existence.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 17:48 GMT
> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> The voice in the mind of a deluded person exists only for that
> person:  but that *is* a form of existence.

True enough, as far as it goes, but that's about as compelling an
argument as demanding that we recognize the validity and the truth of
the syllogism:

1: I am a man like all men.
2: I believe in God.
3: Therefore, all men believe in God

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:59 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote

>> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> 2: I believe in God.
> 3: Therefore, all men believe in God

I don't see it that way;  the syllogism, to me, is:

1: Your thoughts are part of your reality.
2: My thoughts are part of my reality.
3: Your thought-reality is unrelated to my thought-reality.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

Lanarcam - 23 Feb 2007 18:06 GMT
HVS a écrit :
> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> The voice in the mind of a deluded person exists only for that
> person:  but that *is* a form of existence.

The voice exists in reality in the brain, only its origin
is delusional.

Does the mind really exist?
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:13 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote

> HVS a écrit :
>> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Does the mind really exist?

It depends on what you mean by "exist".

It certainly exists for the one to whom it belongs, but beyond that
-- well, as I underestand it, Descartes never managed to verify
external/independent existence when he started from that particular
first principle.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

Lanarcam - 23 Feb 2007 18:24 GMT
HVS a écrit :
> On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> It depends on what you mean by "exist".

We could take for granted that atoms of the brain exist in reality
but what about ideas, are they part of a virtual reality?

Does a virtual reality have a real existence?

Does this newsgroup exist apart from the electrons?

Why am I sitting in this part of the universe? ;)

> It certainly exists for the one to whom it belongs, but beyond that
> -- well, as I underestand it, Descartes never managed to verify
> external/independent existence when he started from that particular
> first principle.
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:45 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote
> HVS a écrit :
>> On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote

>>> Does the mind really exist?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Does this newsgroup exist apart from the electrons?

All valid questions, the answer to which depend on what is meant by
"exist".

Until common agreement is reached on whether things and ideas which
are imagined or non-corporeal "exist", questions about what things or
ideas qualify as "existing" are unanswerable.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

Robert Bannister - 23 Feb 2007 23:34 GMT
> Why am I sitting in this part of the universe? ;)

Ah, but you only think you are.

Signature

Rob Bannister

R H Draney - 23 Feb 2007 19:23 GMT
Lanarcam filted:

>HVS a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Does the mind really exist?

The flag is not faffling; the wind is not faffling...Tao is faffling....r

Signature

"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"

Eric Schwartz - 23 Feb 2007 18:17 GMT
> However, I do believe that some people have an absolute conviction
> that there is a deity.  That deity exists in their mind.  So if I
> believe that someone else can absolutely accept that there is a deity,
> but I don't accept the same thing, can I be an atheist?  

You might consider Omniquantism:

http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm

-=Eric
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:17 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, Eric Schwartz wrote

>> However, I do believe that some people have an absolute
>> conviction that there is a deity.  That deity exists in their
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm

Who was it that wrote that one should never denigrate somebody else's
religion, because when we die we may discover that the tree-dwelling
spirit of some obscure African tribe was really top dog after all.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 17:49 GMT
> On 23 Feb 2007, Eric Schwartz wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> tree-dwelling spirit of some obscure African tribe was really top
> dog after all.

Pascal?

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:52 GMT
On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote

>> On 23 Feb 2007, Eric Schwartz wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Pascal?

Could be;  I must check it out.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed

Evan Kirshenbaum - 27 Feb 2007 18:43 GMT
> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Could be;  I must check it out.

Unlikely.  Pascal was the one who said that we can't know whether or
not the Christian god exists, but since the consequences for being
wrong if we don't believe in him are infinitely more severe than the
consequences of being wrong if we do, we should rationally choose to
do so.

   Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine
   this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side
   shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an
   infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the
   extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn
   up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose,
   let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose,
   the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and
   your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has
   two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more
   shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of
   necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness?
   Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us
   estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you
   lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He
   is.

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

He appears to have implicitly assumed that "Christianity is
wrong, but some other religion, which will punish you for being a
Christian, isn't" isn't an option.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Now every hacker knows
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |  That the secret to survivin'
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Is knowin' when the time is free
                                      |  And what's the load and queue
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |'Cause everyone's a cruncher
   (650)857-7572                      |  And everyone's a user
                                      |And the best that you can hope for
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |  Is a crash when you're through

cybercypher - 28 Feb 2007 03:22 GMT
>> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Unlikely.

Yes, it certainly wasn't Pascal. I'm quite familiar with his
argument. The point to my post was that it doesn't matter which
superstitious a.shole said it, it's still assholery. Even the great
Pascal was susceptible

> Pascal was the one who said that we can't know whether
> or not the Christian god exists, but since the consequences for
> being wrong if we don't believe in him are infinitely more severe
> than the consequences of being wrong if we do, we should
> rationally choose to do so.

Ah, yes, the wisdom of being rational about the irrational. I'm
sorry, but that is lost on me.

>     Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then
>     examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> wrong, but some other religion, which will punish you for being a
> Christian, isn't" isn't an option.

That's obviously contradictory. Anyone who would argue that the only
two options are believing in and not believing in the existence of
the Christian God must be a Christian and a believer and a person
speaking with a forked tongue.

But matters of faith are not easily understood in terms of human
reason, which, we hope, is logical and rational. It usually isn't,
though.

One of Pascal's basic premisses is incorrect. We are not forced to
choose between the heads and tails of ontology unless we are in a
society that punishes those who do not publicly broadcast their
politically correct choice. Pascal lived in a Christian world in
which ontology was a burning issue (on many levels). We live in a
significantly less enlightened world -- particularly Americans in
general and Muslims everywhere.

One part of his conclusion is false: "if you lose, you lose nothing".
This assumes that it costs you nothing to bet that God exists, but
even an idiot knows that this is patently false.

Faith is the willingness to believe even in the face of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. Faith is, for example, the irrational
belief that one's child, no matter how many children he's admitted to
molesting, kidnapping raping, and murdering, is still "a good boy who
wouldn't harm a fly".

But I suppose that whether one loses one's self-respect in the
embrace of faith is a moot question if it occurs only after death.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Matthew Huntbach - 23 Feb 2007 11:50 GMT
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:21:11 -0000, the Omrud

>>> Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged.  As far as I
>>> can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion-
>>> shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill.

>> My knowledge that America is full of religious whackos is based on
>> what I read in the newspapers rather than what I personally
>> experience.  I know many people who are church-goers and, assumedly,
>> very devout.  They're firm in their own convictions, but I don't know
>> any that recruit.

> Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in
> much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one,
> it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large
> unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not
> to be trusted.

As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way
round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're
likely to be dismissed as some sort of weirdo who's not to be trusted,
or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which
supports the accusation.

Matthew Huntbach
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 12:18 GMT
>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:21:11 -0000, the Omrud
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> be trusted, or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or
> done nothing which supports the accusation.

Being a believer in invisible non-entities is quite enough to put you
into the dustbin as all the other weirdos, don'tcha think? No, I
guess not. But that's okay. When Londistan really does turn Muslim,
you'll have something real to whinge about -- if they let you live,
that is -- you poor abused believer, you.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sara Lorimer - 23 Feb 2007 17:58 GMT
> > Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in
> > much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one,
> > it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large
> > unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not
> > to be trusted.

Not true in my experience, and I come from a long line of atheists. The
only group I think that's true for is politicians. One reason I liked
Howard Dean when he was running for president was that he wouldn't
discuss his religion... until he started losing in the polls.

> As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way
> round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're
> likely to be dismissed as some sort of weirdo who's not to be trusted,
> or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which
> supports the accusation.

How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
officially being religious?

Signature

SML

Mike Page - 23 Feb 2007 23:20 GMT
>> > Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in
>> > much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one,
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
>officially being religious?

Do you mean UK state schools? Most are not overtly religious
although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of
worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character.
The state also provides support to religious schools, including
Jewish and Islamic ones. The English[1] regard most school
teachers as weirdos who are not to be trusted[2]

[1] but not the Welsh or the Scots

[2] in the case of the most of the ones who taught me, with good
cause.

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Sara Lorimer - 23 Feb 2007 23:43 GMT
> >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
> >officially being religious?
>
> Do you mean UK state schools?

Yes, that's the term I couldn't think of.

> Most are not overtly religious
> although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of
> worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character.
> The state also provides support to religious schools, including
> Jewish and Islamic ones. The English[1] regard most school
> teachers as weirdos who are not to be trusted[2]

So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on.
And American schools are officially not religious, but there certainly
is plenty of it in there. I _think_ I prefer it your way...

Signature

SML

Mike Lyle - 24 Feb 2007 13:53 GMT
[...]
> So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on.
> And American schools are officially not religious, but there certainly
> is plenty of it in there. I _think_ I prefer it your way...

But there are special provisions, though, under the Thatcher-Blair
principle of bargain-basement privatisation. If some looney sectarian
wants to cough up two million quid, the Government will hand him a
brand-new school in which to push his creationism or whatever he
pleases.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:23 GMT
> > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
> > >officially being religious?

> > Do you mean UK state schools?

> Yes, that's the term I couldn't think of.

The term "state school", though widely used, isn't entirely accurate.
They are officially run by local government (under very strong
direction from national government), rather than national government.
"State school" would imply being run directly by national government.
A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that
this term is often used.

The term "public school" (UK usage) derives from the time before
education was compulsory and paid for through taxation. It refers to a
school which is open in general to all members of the public (so long
as they pay the fees and meet the entrance requirements), as opposed
to education through privately hired tutors (which in the past would
have been how aristocrats educated their children, and was how the
royal family did up to very recently). Given this meaning had already
been established when county schools were first established, "public
school" came to mean "fee-paying school, open to all, but run
privately" as opposed to "non fee-paying school, run by the county
council". Compare also with "public transport", which means "transport
open to all", it doesn't imply the transport is free of charge or run
by national or lcoal government.

> > Most are not overtly religious
> > although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of
> > worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character.
> > The state also provides support to religious schools, including
> > Jewish and Islamic ones. The English[1] regard most school
> > teachers as weirdos who are not to be trusted[2]

> So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on.

Some county schools are officially religious, but most aren't. The
situation dates back to the time before county schools were set up,
when there were already schools run by the parts of the Church of
England. In order for these to be incorporated into the county school
system, the CofE was allowed to maintain some control over them.
Later, the Catholic Church in particular sought and gained similar
status for schools it constructed. There are a very small number of
schools with a similar status but Jewish. The setting up of schools
with that status and Islamic or Hindu or Sikh religion is a
controversial issue - it is only in recent decades (large scale Hindu/
Islam/Sikh immigration only started in the 1960s) that there were
sufficient people of these religions to make it an issue, and for some
of them to demand schools under the same principles that the Catholic
Church had long established. There are only a tiny number of them, it
is not like the Catholic School system where there are enough Catholic
schoools for most Catholics to send their children to them.

Those schools - the majority - which do not have any religious status
are obliged by law to give religious education. In the past this would
have been straightforward Christianity because it was just assumed
that everyone in the country was at least nominally Christian. Now,
particularly in areas with large number of people practising non-
Christian religions, the education will generally be divided amongst
the religions - everyone learns a bit about every religion. Religious
education is taught in a stultifyingly boring way which avoids
anything controversial, and for many schools it is done in a fairly
obviously "going through the motions" way. There is some law which
suggests Christianity should predominate in the religious education,
but also a get-out clause for those parts of the country where most
children would be associated with non-Christian religions. It would
certainly be a mistake to suppose this means that these schools are in
any way "religious". Most people in England grow up knowing almost
nothing about religion.

Matthew Huntbach
Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 22:14 GMT
> The term "state school", though widely used, isn't entirely accurate.
> They are officially run by local government (under very strong
> direction from national government), rather than national government.
> "State school" would imply being run directly by national government.
> A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that
> this term is often used.

For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name
and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public
school in the end, my choices were Buckhurst County High or Wanstead
County High. I lived in Woodford, but I couldn't go to Woodford County
High because it was a girls' school.
Signature

Rob Bannister

Wood Avens - 24 Feb 2007 22:21 GMT
>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name
>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public
>school in the end, my choices were Buckhurst County High or Wanstead
>County High. I lived in Woodford, but I couldn't go to Woodford County
>High because it was a girls' school.

Weren't those just the grammar schools (the top rung of a three-tier
system), or am I misremembering?

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

LFS - 24 Feb 2007 23:08 GMT
>>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name
>>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Weren't those just the grammar schools (the top rung of a three-tier
> system), or am I misremembering?

"County" seemed to be a feature of school names at both primary and
secondary level WIWAL. None of our local grammar schools had "high" in
their names, though.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 22:36 GMT
>>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name
>>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Weren't those just the grammar schools (the top rung of a three-tier
> system), or am I misremembering?

Absolutely. The "Secondary Mod." part of the name of the other schools
usually seemed to be omitted in conversation, if I am remembering
correctly, so yes, I did have another choice: St Barnabas or possibly St
Barnabas', which was the local secondary modern.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 23:27 GMT
>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name
>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public
>school in the end, my choices were Buckhurst County High or Wanstead
>County High. I lived in Woodford, but I couldn't go to Woodford County
>High because it was a girls' school.

I can't imagine an American saying he went to a minor private school
or a minor university.  That would imply that the school was
second-rate at best.  ("Public" switched to "private" to adjust to how
an describes a non-state school)

 
Signature


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Mike Lyle - 25 Feb 2007 13:46 GMT
>> For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their
>> name and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> second-rate at best.  ("Public" switched to "private" to adjust to how
> an describes a non-state school)

"Minor public school" is almost a technical term in BrE, and doesn't
refer to quality of education. On the surface it means, pretty well,
"public school whose name you wouldn't expect to find in a crossword
puzzle". The sub-text of "minor public school" is variable, but often
includes "I'm not posh, even if you think I sound it" -- or sometimes
its opposite.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 22:42 GMT
>>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name
>>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>  

Unless you went to one of the better known "public" schools in England,
it's best to keep quiet about it or dismiss it as minor. Eton, Harrow,
Rugby, etc. undoubtedly had a superior method of flogging the boys. Mine
was run by the Honourable Drapers Company, so we were only beaten with a
cat-of-tape-measures, although the school uniform of 3-piece suit (black
jacket and waistcoat [AmE vest] and pin-stripe trousers were up there in
spirit.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 22:50 GMT
>> > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
>> > >officially being religious?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that
>this term is often used.

Local government is not an arm of the state? 'County' and
'borough' now sound terribly old fashioned in this context,
especially as the boroughs have either been integrated into the
counties, or become unitary authorities.
...>
>> So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on.

I'm not sure what is meant by this 'officially religious' bit,
other than having to have this 'act of worship'.

....> Most people in England grow up knowing almost
>nothing about religion.

My children learned a reasonable amount about a variety of
religions in PSVE at school, more than I knew about most of them.

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:03 GMT
> >> > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
> >> > >officially being religious?

> >> > Do you mean UK state schools?

> >> Yes, that's the term I couldn't think of.

> >The term "state school", though widely used, isn't entirely accurate.
> >They are officially run by local government (under very strong
> >direction from national government), rather than national government.
> >"State school" would imply being run directly by national government.
> >A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that
> >this term is often used.

> Local government is not an arm of the state? 'County' and
> 'borough' now sound terribly old fashioned in this context,
> especially as the boroughs have either been integrated into the
> counties, or become unitary authorities.

Why should "county" and "borough" sound old fashioned when that's the
name of the local authorities? In London and the other metropolitan
areas, the main local authorities *are* the boroughs, they are the
local education authorities.

As to whetehr it's appropriate to call this "state", other local
authority services are not called "state" services, so I think
otherwise "state" does imply run by national government.

> ....> Most people in England grow up knowing almost
> >nothing about religion.

> My children learned a reasonable amount about a variety of
> religions in PSVE at school, more than I knew about most of them.

Yes, as others have also said what they now learn is a little bit
about every religion, rather than a lot about Christianity. I would
suggest that schools "being religious" would mean they have am
inclination to one religion, which English schools no longer do. Sara
may clarify what she meant, but I don't think she meant she supposed
English schools teach a little bit about all the major religions.

Matthew Huntbach
Mike Page - 26 Feb 2007 20:27 GMT
>> >> > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
>> >> > >officially being religious?
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>authority services are not called "state" services, so I think
>otherwise "state" does imply run by national government.

As you have pointed out, local authorities have precious little
influence over what goes on in schools these days. A little
googling restricted to UK sites will show that "state school" is
more common than "county school" and "borough school" put
together, and many of the last two refer to the names of schools
which might be expected to be more persistent than the usage of
the broad mass of ordinary working people.

I thought I had caught a usage of "borough school" in the wild on
the Basingstoke website, but since the next item referred to a
"borough stream", the Basingstoke PR people obviously just use
the adjective as elegant variation from Basingstoke. And what, I
have to ask, would not be more elegant than Basingstoke?

The usage of 'state' for schools is probably somewhat peculiar
because the usual way of referring to something generally
available and paid for out of taxation is 'public', as in 'public
library', 'public art gallery', but as 'public' in relation to
schools has been hijacked by the private schools, another word
has to be found.

...

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
LFS - 24 Feb 2007 23:05 GMT
 Most people in England grow up knowing almost
> nothing about religion.

Not these days. Learning about a range of religions seems fairly central
to the curriculum. The number of school groups, of all ages, visiting
our synagogue as part of their study of Judaism grows exponentially each
year.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 10:41 GMT
mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:

> > > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools
> > > >officially being religious?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that
> this term is often used.

There was an attempt a few years ago to rename local government
schools as "Community Schools", but it seems to have failed.

Signature

David
=====

Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 00:09 GMT
> Do you mean UK state schools? Most are not overtly religious
> although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of
> worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character.
> The state also provides support to religious schools, including

I wonder just how firm this requirement is. When I was first applying
for promotion in England (c. 1969), I turned down one job because I
would be required to take assembly (including the prayer, hymns and
bible-readings) once a week. The job I finally took as Head of Modern
Languages was at a school that had no hall large enough for its 1500
pupils, so we only had House and Year assemblies. The former were about
twice a year and mainly about sports teams; the latter were once a month
and did include hymns.

Certainly my own schooling included daily, religious assemblies,
although only in secondary school. I can barely remember what happened
in primary school, but we didn't have whole-school assemblies very often.
Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Moylan - 24 Feb 2007 11:20 GMT
>> As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other
>> way round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense)
> schools officially being religious?

Anglicans have an interesting approach to religion. Belief in a deity
is, I gather, optional.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

the Omrud - 23 Feb 2007 19:30 GMT
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:

> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:21:11 -0000, the Omrud
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which
> supports the accusation.

I firmly stand by "arrogant", not as a general description of those
with faith but specifically in the case I related.  The woman on WH
stated plainly that atheists "have more questions to be answered"
than those with a faith.  She (like some with faith, but obviously
not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching
for meaning in their lives.  Arrogant.  I could use a stronger word.

Signature

David
=====

Wood Avens - 23 Feb 2007 20:50 GMT
>mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching
>for meaning in their lives.  Arrogant.  I could use a stronger word.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems to me that if an atheist
signs up for a retreat in a religious setting it's not entirely
unreasonable to suppose that they (the atheist) may well have more
questions than a signer-up who's already an affiliate of the religion
concerned.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 00:01 GMT
woodavens@askjennison.com had it:

> >mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> questions than a signer-up who's already an affiliate of the religion
> concerned.

I can agree with that, but I took the statement to be more generic,
along the lines of "atheists have more questions to be answered than
religious people".  Prefixed by "of course" which is, I think, what
got my goat.

Signature

David
=====

Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 21:36 GMT
>mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching
>for meaning in their lives.  Arrogant.  I could use a stronger word.

My own observation is the UKians brag that they are not religious, and
Americans brag that they are.  Which is the most arrogant?

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Sara Lorimer - 23 Feb 2007 23:45 GMT
> My own observation is the UKians brag that they are not religious, and
> Americans brag that they are.  Which is the most arrogant?

I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've
taken two of them.

Signature

SML

Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 09:31 GMT
>> My own observation is the UKians brag that they are not religious, and
>> Americans brag that they are.  Which is the most arrogant?
>
>I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've
>taken two of them.

I'm curious, why do you go to church?

(I go myself at Christmas, but that is a family ritual.
Otherwise, I'm a buttress of Quakerism - I support it from the
outside.)

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Sara Lorimer - 24 Feb 2007 14:03 GMT
> >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've
> >taken two of them.
>
> I'm curious, why do you go to church?

It has a book group, parents' group, game night, playgroup, lots of
music, an interesting Sunday school for the kids, bake sales, and
sermons that are usually thought-provoking. It's a chance to hang out
with a bunch of friendly, politically active, and intelligent people in
my neighborhood.

Is it possible to reclaim the word "community" from the mealy-mouthed?

Signature

SML

the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 14:45 GMT
que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:

> > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've
> > >taken two of them.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Is it possible to reclaim the word "community" from the mealy-mouthed?

That sounds like you are going into a church, rather than "going to
church".

Signature

David
=====

Sara Lorimer - 24 Feb 2007 16:00 GMT
> que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> That sounds like you are going into a church, rather than "going to
> church".

Hmmm. What does "going to church" mean to you?

Signature

SML

the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 16:12 GMT
que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:

> > que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Hmmm. What does "going to church" mean to you?

It means you are attending services and taking part in them.  My
choir rehearses in a cathedral, so I enter the building every week,
but I haven't been to church for 45 years.

Signature

David
=====

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 16:34 GMT
>que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>choir rehearses in a cathedral, so I enter the building every week,
>but I haven't been to church for 45 years.

If she attends the service, I think she's going to church.  She
commented about the sermons, so she evidently attends the service.  

Neither praying nor accepting the sermon as gospel is required to make
going to church be going to church.  "Taking part in them" is kinda
open.  We Catholics have some taking part involved since we have to
bob and duck on cue, but I'm sure there are services where just
sitting and listening is all that's required.

I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required.  When I
was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and
still considered myself to have attended the service.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 16:39 GMT
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:

> >que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and
> still considered myself to have attended the service.

Sorry, I missed the mention of sermons, amongst the social stuff.  If
Sara sits in a pew facing the right way during a service then I agree
that she's going to church.  But all the other activities put
together don't amount to going to church in my mind.

Signature

David
=====

Sara Lorimer - 24 Feb 2007 17:23 GMT
> Sorry, I missed the mention of sermons, amongst the social stuff.  If
> Sara sits in a pew facing the right way during a service then I agree
> that she's going to church.

I do, indeed. I'm a member, I go to the service almost every week, and I
fully partake. There aren't any prayers, although there are times for
silent reflection during which I presume many people are praying.

Signature

SML

Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:55 GMT
> I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required.  When I
> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and
> still considered myself to have attended the service.

That's Catholics for you. Sermons just don't have the importance to
Catholics that they do in many Protestant denominations. In England at
least, most Catholics switch off at the sermon - I guess if you asked
members of the congregation after mass what the sermon was about, half
wouldn't remember at all. It's usually regarded as the mark of a good
priest that he keep his sermons short.

Matthew Huntbach
Amethyst Deceiver - 27 Feb 2007 11:59 GMT
>> I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required.  When I
>> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> wouldn't remember at all. It's usually regarded as the mark of a good
> priest that he keep his sermons short.

Out of interest, what makes you think Catholics are different from
Protestants in this regard? I've attended Methodist, CofE and Baptist
churches and would confidently say those congregations also have a
tendency to switch off at the sermon.

Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

Matthew Huntbach - 27 Feb 2007 12:17 GMT
>>> I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required.  When I
>>> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and
>>> still considered myself to have attended the service.

>> That's Catholics for you. Sermons just don't have the importance to
>> Catholics that they do in many Protestant denominations. In England at
>> least, most Catholics switch off at the sermon - I guess if you asked
>> members of the congregation after mass what the sermon was about, half
>> wouldn't remember at all. It's usually regarded as the mark of a good
>> priest that he keep his sermons short.

> Out of interest, what makes you think Catholics are different from
> Protestants in this regard? I've attended Methodist, CofE and Baptist
> churches and would confidently say those congregations also have a
> tendency to switch off at the sermon.

I'll take your word for it, I was assuming that for Catholics the
sacramental aspect of the mass was the most important part, so the
earlier part involving scripture readings and sermon tends to be
seen as a sort of warm-up to the holy communion part. Protestantism,
however, is more centred around scripture. I've always had the
impression that in the traditional Protestant denominations, the
sermon was considered a much more central aspect of the service.

Matthew Huntbach
Peter Duncanson - 27 Feb 2007 15:07 GMT
>>>> I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required.  When I
>>>> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>Matthew Huntbach

Yes. There is also the point that in many Protestant denominations
holy communion is not an essential part of a service. The position
of HC in their scheme of things is very different from that in the
RC world.

The Methodist congregation of which I was a member years ago
celebrated holy communion once a month. In Methodism holy communion
is lead by an ordained Minister.[1] As many services are conducted
by Local (lay) Preachers it is not possible to have HC at every
service. The participation of an ordained minister in a service does
not automatically mean that HC will be celebrated.

The current schedule of services at Wesley Memorial Church, Oxford,
(where my father's memorial service was held) is at the URL below.
There are two services each Sunday. HC is celebrated at 6 of the 24.
http://wesleymem.org.uk/whatson.shtml

A Presbyterian woman I used to know in Belfast was a regular church
goer but never attended HC. To her Christianity was a purely
spiritual matter. She perceived HC as being excessively physical,
and verging on paganism.

[1] Unless something has changed since I was a Methodist, there is
no doctrinal bar to anyone leading the service of holy communion. As
a matter of practice and discipline this task is normally reserved
for ordained ministers. However, if a group of lay Methodists were
to be isolated on the proverbial desert island it would be in order
for any of them to lead acts of worship including HC.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Mike Lyle - 24 Feb 2007 16:36 GMT
> que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> choir rehearses in a cathedral, so I enter the building every week,
> but I haven't been to church for 45 years.

Uh-oh! Here comes "in hospital" again. In the near future.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Pat Durkin - 24 Feb 2007 19:16 GMT
>> que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Uh-oh! Here comes "in hospital" again. In the near future.

Oh, not "in future", then.
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:51 GMT
> que.sara.saraDEL...@gmail.com had it:

> > > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've
> > > >taken two of them.

> > > I'm curious, why do you go to church?

> > It has a book group, parents' group, game night, playgroup, lots of
> > music, an interesting Sunday school for the kids, bake sales, and
> > sermons that are usually thought-provoking. It's a chance to hang out
> > with a bunch of friendly, politically active, and intelligent people in
> > my neighborhood.

> > Is it possible to reclaim the word "community" from the mealy-mouthed?

> That sounds like you are going into a church, rather than "going to
> church".

No, "going to church" means going to the activities of the Church one
feels affiliated to. That does not necessarily mean one is a
fundamentalist or that one believes that Church is the "one true way"
and everyone else will go to Hell. Perhaps you can't understand this,
with your readiness to accuse religious people of being "arrogant"
without any real evidence except your own prejudiced suppositions.
Sorry if I am sounding rude, but I really was rather shocked by what
you said, because I really felt it wasn't justified at all, and said
much more about you than it did about the person you applied it to.

"Going to a church" means just dropping in without any feeling of
affiliation, maybe out of curiosity, or to look at its architecture,
or whatever. That's quite obviously not what Sara is doing.

Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:42 GMT
> > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've
> > >taken two of them.

> > I'm curious, why do you go to church?

> It has a book group, parents' group, game night, playgroup, lots of
> music, an interesting Sunday school for the kids, bake sales, and
> sermons that are usually thought-provoking. It's a chance to hang out
> with a bunch of friendly, politically active, and intelligent people in
> my neighborhood.

Indeed, one may enjoy the ritual and sense of community, and yet
regard the beliefs as essentially allegorical.

The problem in modern England is that as most people have no religious
attachments at all, and as what they see of religion tends to be
extremists and "fundamentalist" types, they suppose *all* of us must
be like that, they simply can't understand the more relaxed postion
that are actually very common amongst those who attend religious
services. To them, we are all "arrogant" "God-botherers" who believe
they will all "go to Hell" and wish to "push religion down our
throats".

Matthew Huntbach
Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 23:01 GMT
..>
>The problem in modern England is that as most people have no religious
>attachments at all, and as what they see of religion tends to be
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>they will all "go to Hell" and wish to "push religion down our
>throats".

What a splendid rant? Can you do them to order or do you have to
work yourself up to them?

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:14 GMT
> On 24 Feb 2007 10:42:17 -0800, "Matthew Huntbach"
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Mike Page
> Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 22:20 GMT
> It has  an interesting Sunday school

I always thought the sole purpose of Sunday school was to get the kids
out of the house long enough for mum and dad to engage in marital
activities.
Signature

Rob Bannister

Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:35 GMT
> m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:

> > As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way
> > round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're
> > likely to be dismissed as some sort of weirdo who's not to be trusted,
> > or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which
> > supports the accusation.

> I firmly stand by "arrogant", not as a general description of those
> with faith but specifically in the case I related.  The woman on WH
> stated plainly that atheists "have more questions to be answered"
> than those with a faith.  She (like some with faith, but obviously
> not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching
> for meaning in their lives.  Arrogant.  I could use a stronger word.

Well, I didn't hear the broadcast, but from what you have written it
sounds to me like your supposition says more about you and your knee-
jerk reaction to religion than it does about the woman in question. It
looks to me like she was making a straight factual point which
reflected on the particular situation she was in, and your jump from
that to this accusation of "arrogance" stems from a pre-existing
belief of yours that religious people are arrogant, so you look for
what you expect to find.

The problem is that most of us in England who have some vague
religious connections but don't like to make a thing about it, find if
we even mention  it we get jumped on, and accused of being "arrogant"
etc. So we keep quiet, and the only people who are vocal about
religion are the extremists and "fundamentalists". The consequences of
this is that the non-religious majority in England come to think that
the vocal fringe of religion is actually what all people who have any
sort of religion are like. It is the sort of thing I was writing about
elsewhere, the squeezing out of the moderates.

Matthew Huntbach
Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 23:04 GMT
>The problem is that most of us in England who have some vague
>religious connections but don't like to make a thing about it, find if
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>sort of religion are like. It is the sort of thing I was writing about
>elsewhere, the squeezing out of the moderates.

Is this a different 'the problem' from the one mentioned two of
your posts back up the thread?

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:13 GMT
> >The problem is that most of us in England who have some vague
> >religious connections but don't like to make a thing about it, find if
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >sort of religion are like. It is the sort of thing I was writing about
> >elsewhere, the squeezing out of the moderates.

> Is this a different 'the problem' from the one mentioned two of
> your posts back up the thread?

I think it's saying the same thing. That is, as religion is
increasingly becoming something people in England don't even have a
remote personal link to, their image of it tends to come from what
they see on the news (often negative), or from those religious sorts
who do go out on the streets and shout out their message - they often
tend to be of an extremist or fundamentalist nature.

Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 23:07 GMT
mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:

> > m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> belief of yours that religious people are arrogant, so you look for
> what you expect to find.

Nope, I know dozens of people of all faiths who are all moderate and
effectively silent about their religion unless asked direct
questions.  My children went to a CoE primary (it was the local
school);  I was at school with Baptists and Methodists who invited me
to their services;  there are many Muslims and Hindus at work;  I
sing in a choir in an Anglican cathedral and I worked in a Jewish
summer camp when I was a student.

I reacted against this woman's view that those with no faith are
desperately searching for meaning in their lives.  I agree that the
vast majority of Europeans with a religion would not go out of their
way to express the opinion without prompting - in this case she was
being interviewed about it - but I suspect that a considerable number
of them would agree with it.

Signature

David
=====

Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 23:21 GMT
>Nope, I know dozens of people of all faiths who are all moderate and
>effectively silent about their religion unless asked direct
>questions.

The above statement would lead me to conclude that you have asked
dozens of people direct questions about their religion.  Even
Americans aren't that brassy.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 10:33 GMT
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:

> >Nope, I know dozens of people of all faiths who are all moderate and
> >effectively silent about their religion unless asked direct
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> dozens of people direct questions about their religion.  Even
> Americans aren't that brassy.

That's not what I intended to impart.  I know religious people (they
might wear symbols or special clothing, or attend the office
Christmas service at which I play in the band) who have never spoken
to me about religion.  I do sometimes chat to my Muslim friends about
their religion, for example after they've just spent several months
getting a visa for Saudi Arabia so that they can visit Mecca.

Signature

David
=====

Tony Cooper - 25 Feb 2007 14:19 GMT
>tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>That's not what I intended to impart.

I knew that, of course.  The turnip truck that brought me to aue
passed this way several years ago.  

I have been here - in a watching the monitor sense - long enough to
know that I am supposed to point out that false conclusions should be
jumped at when any opening is presented by the construction of a post.
It shows that I'm paying attention.

Ash Wednesday fell last week.  My wife's co-workers now know that my
wife is Catholic.  She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort
of dirt smudge on your forehead" comments.  Also, as usual, some were
intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some
were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 14:32 GMT
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:

> Ash Wednesday fell last week.  My wife's co-workers now know that my
> wife is Catholic.  She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort
> of dirt smudge on your forehead" comments.  Also, as usual, some were
> intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some
> were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was.

You, or another American, have mentioned this before.  I don't
recognise the practice.  Do UK Catholics do it?

We UK folk know it was Ash Wednesday last week, because we had
pancakes on Tuesday.

Signature

David
=====

Tony Cooper - 25 Feb 2007 14:44 GMT
>tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>You, or another American, have mentioned this before.  I don't
>recognise the practice.  Do UK Catholics do it?

Watch the phrasing, there.  Your statement and questions are quite
clear to me, but Matthew may find some buried attack on Catholics in
it.  
Signature


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Mike Lyle - 25 Feb 2007 15:49 GMT
>> tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> clear to me, but Matthew may find some buried attack on Catholics in
> it.

Nice touch in, it must have been, _Whisky Galore_. One of the
communicants was so hung over that he exposed his tongue at the wrong
juncture, and Fr Mac..? duly put the ash on it. Not at all politically
acceptable in today's Scotland, but Compton Mackenzie's a lot of fun: I
rather wish I'd kept the books.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:07 GMT
> tony_cooper...@earthlink.net had it:

> > Ash Wednesday fell last week.  My wife's co-workers now know that my
> > wife is Catholic.  She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort
> > of dirt smudge on your forehead" comments.  Also, as usual, some were
> > intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some
> > were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was.

> You, or another American, have mentioned this before.  I don't
> recognise the practice.  Do UK Catholics do it?

Yes. Though I guess most of us wipe them off as we leave church
because we don't want to draw attention to ourselves.

Matthew Huntbach
Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 22:48 GMT
>>tony_cooper...@earthlink.net had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Yes. Though I guess most of us wipe them off as we leave church
> because we don't want to draw attention to ourselves.

That must be the case, because I never once saw it (or at least noticed
it) during all my years in England. We even had Irish Catholics living
with us for a couple of years and I never saw it on them either. I had
never heard of the practice till it was mentioned in this forum.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Skitt - 25 Feb 2007 18:18 GMT
> tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:

>> Ash Wednesday fell last week.  My wife's co-workers now know that my
>> wife is Catholic.  She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> We UK folk know it was Ash Wednesday last week, because we had
> pancakes on Tuesday.

I seem to recall that in Latvia we played a little game on Ash Wednesday --  
pinning a very tiny sack of ashes comewhere on other people's apparel while
they were not looking.  Then we'd snicker or laugh ...
Signature

Skitt
Jes' fine!

K. Edgcombe - 25 Feb 2007 22:17 GMT
>> intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some
>> were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was.
>
>You, or another American, have mentioned this before.  I don't
>recognise the practice.  Do UK Catholics do it?

Not just Catholics.  I have been to Anglican services where it was done (ash on
the forehead), and last week to a United Reformed Church, ditto.
But we sang a lot of luscious Byrd and Purcell and Gibbons, and enjoyed
ourselves more than we were supposed to.

Katy
Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 23:58 GMT
>>>intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some
>>>were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> But we sang a lot of luscious Byrd and Purcell and Gibbons, and enjoyed
> ourselves more than we were supposed to.

I am surprised at the United (I thought it was "Uniting") church, but of
course, with anglicans you can expect anything. The music sounds good. I
don't know much Gibbons. What do you recommend?

Signature

Rob Bannister

K. Edgcombe - 26 Feb 2007 14:58 GMT
>> Not just Catholics.  I have been to Anglican services where it was done (ash on
>> the forehead), and last week to a United Reformed Church, ditto.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>course, with anglicans you can expect anything. The music sounds good. I
>don't know much Gibbons. What do you recommend?

Yes, it's an unusual URC (formerly Presbyterian, and still very Scottish).
They seem to have no objection to Popish practices such as the imposition of
ashes (though the minister was keen to say they weren't imposing anything on
anybody), and the singing of "Adeste Fideles" in the proper language.

As for Gibbons, we sang "Drop, drop, slow tears", it being Ash Wednesday, but
there's lots of other good stuff, both sacred and secular.  "O clap your hands"
(double choir) is one of the best cheerful sacred pieces ever written.  And
there's a very good Mag and Nunc, "This is the record of John", many other
sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which
"The silver swan" is the best-known.

Katy
the Omrud - 26 Feb 2007 15:14 GMT
ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk had it:

> As for Gibbons, we sang "Drop, drop, slow tears", it being Ash Wednesday, but
> there's lots of other good stuff, both sacred and secular.  "O clap your hands"
> (double choir) is one of the best cheerful sacred pieces ever written.  And
> there's a very good Mag and Nunc, "This is the record of John", many other
> sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which
> "The silver swan" is the best-known.

Swans sing before they die - 'twere no bad thing
Did certain persons die before they sing.

Signature

David Taylor Coleridge
=====

Robert Bannister - 26 Feb 2007 22:13 GMT
> As for Gibbons, we sang "Drop, drop, slow tears", it being Ash Wednesday, but
> there's lots of other good stuff, both sacred and secular.  "O clap your hands"
> (double choir) is one of the best cheerful sacred pieces ever written.  And
> there's a very good Mag and Nunc, "This is the record of John", many other
> sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which
> "The silver swan" is the best-known.

Thanks for that. I must look out for some of these.
Signature

Rob Bannister

Roland Hutchinson - 27 Feb 2007 15:27 GMT
> Yes, it's an unusual URC (formerly Presbyterian, and still very Scottish).
> They seem to have no objection to Popish practices such as the imposition
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> other sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which
> "The silver swan" is the best-known.

There are no actual lute songs by Gibbons[1] as far as I know (perhaps they
are arrangements by others?).  There are a couple of consort songs,
however--and a few dozen viol consorts (mostly fantasies, but also some
dances, variations, and in nomines; a few of these may not have been
intended originally or specifically for viols, but we lay claim to them all
nontheless).

[1] invariably known to ex-choristers and otherwise musical (ObAUE:) grammar
school boys of my acquaintance as "Gibbos".

Signature

Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

Mike Page - 25 Feb 2007 08:43 GMT
>mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>being interviewed about it - but I suspect that a considerable number
>of them would agree with it.

I heard the broadcast, too, and the item was a splendid example
of 'Woman's Hour' at its self-satisfied, PC, matronising worst.

--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 10:35 GMT
mikeorang.page@ntlworld.com had it:

> >I reacted against this woman's view that those with no faith are
> >desperately searching for meaning in their lives.  I agree that the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I heard the broadcast, too, and the item was a splendid example
> of 'Woman's Hour' at its self-satisfied, PC, matronising worst.

Still listen though, don't we - there is much to be grateful for.  
And Jeni Murray is back after her initial cancer treatment.

Signature

David
=====

LFS - 26 Feb 2007 07:26 GMT
> mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> being interviewed about it - but I suspect that a considerable number
> of them would agree with it.

Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Mike Lyle - 26 Feb 2007 13:56 GMT
[...]
> Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html

Thanks for the link, Laura: a good piece.

But -- sincere question -- why do 6000-year literalists have to believe
T. rex was vegetarian?

Off the topic, I wondered at the expression "Richard Dawkins, . . chair
for the public understanding of science at Oxford University".

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

the Omrud - 26 Feb 2007 15:00 GMT
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk had it:

> [...]
> > Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> But -- sincere question -- why do 6000-year literalists have to believe
> T. rex was vegetarian?

If they hadn't been vegetarian they would have eaten all the people.

Signature

David
=====

Peter Duncanson - 26 Feb 2007 19:06 GMT
>[...]
>> Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Off the topic, I wondered at the expression "Richard Dawkins, . . chair
>for the public understanding of science at Oxford University".

From:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml

   Professor Richard Dawkins is the first holder of the newly
   endowed Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of
   Science at the University of Oxford.

This is tricky to abbreviate.

We are used to shortened forms like "A N Other, Professor of
Physics", but "R Dawkins, Professor of PUS" might give his
detractors too much ammunition.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Sara Lorimer - 26 Feb 2007 14:37 GMT
> Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html

That is interesting. I was distracted by this:

       In the US, two and half million people are educated
       at home because their parents don't want them exposed
       to Darwinian thinking," says [philosopher A.C.] Grayling.

...because that number is far higher than any I've ever seen. The US
government says there are just over one million children being
homeschooled in the US, and that a third of those are being homeschooled
for religious reasons.

<http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/index.asp>

Signature

SML

Evan Kirshenbaum - 27 Feb 2007 23:08 GMT
>> Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/index.asp>

According to table 4 there, 72.3% cited "to provide religious or moral
instruction" as a reason.  29.8% listed it as the primary reason.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily translate into "Creationist".

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If a bus station is where a bus
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |stops, and a train station is where
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |a train stops, what does that say
                                      |about a workstation?
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Peter Duncanson - 25 Feb 2007 21:21 GMT
>As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way
>round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Matthew Huntbach

There is an example in an article in The Sunday Times (UK) which is
adapted from extracts from a blog which is to be published as a
book:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_ext
racts/article1400071.ece


[The writer has moved from London to a rural location in the North
of England. Her husband spends long periods away from home working
in London. She has difficulty making friends.]

   One couple have been immensely generous and welcoming, but I
   can't say it's not disconcerting when someone you had previously
   thought entirely sane admits he is waiting for Christ to return
   to earth.
   
   He told me: "I believe the world will end, the four horsemen of
   the apocalypse will come among us, death and destruction, the
   whole package you know. I would only say this to another
   believer." I shifted uncomfortably in my seat at this. Evolution
   he dismissed as a "theory", homosexuality an "abomination". Even
   slavery was okay providing it met the biblical caveat of justice
   within it.
   

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 21:37 GMT
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:50:24 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which
> >supports the accusation.

> There is an example in an article in The Sunday Times (UK) which is
> adapted from extracts from a blog which is to be published as a
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>     slavery was okay providing it met the biblical caveat of justice
>     within it.

Do you quote this to support or to oppose my thesis?

Matthew Huntbach
Peter Duncanson - 25 Feb 2007 22:22 GMT
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:50:24 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>Do you quote this to support or to oppose my thesis?

Interesting question. I intended it to support your thesis.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 15:14 GMT
>>My knowledge that America is full of religious whackos is based on
>>what I read in the newspapers rather than what I personally
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in
>much the same situation as homosexuals in most places?

I would say that this is a great exaggeration.  Where homosexuals are
in a "situation" it is when someone believes that being homosexual is
being depraved and being morally corrupt.  That same person, viewing
an atheist, feels that the atheist is wrong and on the wrong path.

The person who views a homosexual as being depraved and morally
corrupt usually extends that view to some form of proposed action.
The person doesn't want to rent an apartment to a homosexual, doesn't
want a homosexual living near him, doesn't want a homosexual in the
same workplace, doesn't want a homosexual in political office, and so
on.   That person would not advocate similar actions against atheists.

>If you are one,
>it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large
>unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not
>to be trusted.

Well, no, but the rooftop shouter usually has some agenda, and it's
the agenda - not the atheism - that marks him as a weirdo.  It's
perfectly OK over here to *be* an atheist - even a declared atheist -
but when an atheist starts shouting from the rooftops that everyone
else should be an atheist or that putting up a Christmas tree in the
mall is unacceptable, the atheist starts to be viewed as a weirdo.
It's the agenda, not the fact that the person is an atheist, that
labels him.

>If this wasn't the case, why do all senior American politicians
>without exception make a point of declaring their religious
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>it was so obviously a cynical charade that I'm amazed the electorate
>didn't see right through it.

Yes, politicians make a point of declaring some religious affiliation.
That's done in an effort not to alienate a sector of the voting
public.  They don't want to be non-acceptable to some of the voters.
But you've gone from atheists being viewed as the same as homosexuals
to a declaration of some affiliation as being a repudiation of
atheism.  Too big a jump.

>I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith -- and
>any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or Scientologists
>-- is still generally thought of as an essential, non-negotiable
>feature of  "the American Way".

>Or am I way off track with this?

I think you are.  It may be a feature of American politics that all
candidates need to at least hand-wave at their acceptance of religion,
but that's not "the American way".  If we're not running for office,
and hoping to be acceptable to anyone who votes, a religious
affiliation is neither necessary nor generally beneficial.  

I can't think of any situations that I would be in where I would be
reluctant to have it known that I am not currently affiliated with a
religion or that I'm an atheist.  I wouldn't go around shouting it
from the roof tops, but that's only because I don't think that any
views should be shouted from the roof tops.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 16:28 GMT
> Archie Valparaiso <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> political office, and so on.   That person would not advocate
> similar actions against atheists.

Have you actually asked Tim Hardaway what he thinks about atheists?

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;  
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

the Omrud - 23 Feb 2007 19:26 GMT
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:

> >Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged.  As far as I
> >can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion-
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Believe it or not, I can go months without anyone discussing religion
> in my presence.

Ah.  You misconstrued my sentence because of its incompetent
construction.  For "they" above, please understand "those without
faith".

English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence.  For
the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers.

Signature

David
=====

Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 19:00 GMT
> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
> desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence.  For
> the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers.

And, for the record, I am not desperately seeking to be rescued from
my priest-ridden guilt-provoking unhappy "superstition". No matter how
much English non-religionists pity me and assume that's where I am,
even if they don't press their non-religion on me.

Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 23:09 GMT
mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:

> > English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
> > are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> much English non-religionists pity me and assume that's where I am,
> even if they don't press their non-religion on me.

I don't like the word "atheist" but taking it as convenient
shorthand, anybody who tries to do that is not what I would call an
atheist.  Nor if they apply those adjectives.

Signature

David
=====

Peter Duncanson - 24 Feb 2007 23:42 GMT
>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Matthew Huntbach

<some would say...>
The fact that you are not "desperately seeking to be rescued" is a
sign of the tragedy of your condition. I makes it all the more
urgent to rescue you from your piteous state and to help you
overcome your addiction.
</some would say>

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 15:53 GMT
> >> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
> >> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
> >> desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence.  For
> >> the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers.

> >And, for the record, I am not desperately seeking to be rescued from
> >my priest-ridden guilt-provoking unhappy "superstition". No matter how
> >much English non-religionists pity me and assume that's where I am,
> >even if they don't press their non-religion on me.

> <some would say...>
> The fact that you are not "desperately seeking to be rescued" is a
> sign of the tragedy of your condition. I makes it all the more
> urgent to rescue you from your piteous state and to help you
> overcome your addiction.
> </some would say>

Yes, that's the point I'm making - David accused religionists of
harbouring such attitudes towards non-religionists. As I am hinting
at, it is at least as common the other way round.

Matthew Huntbach
John Holmes - 25 Feb 2007 03:06 GMT
> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
> desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence.  For
> the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers.

I pity those religious types who waste their time trying to answer "Big
Questions" that turn out to be just figments of terminology, with no basis
in reality.

Signature

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Peter Moylan - 25 Feb 2007 13:50 GMT
>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "Big Questions" that turn out to be just figments of terminology,
> with no basis in reality.

When I was a Catholic, I put considerable time and effort into
contemplating those Big Questions. Only after answering them to my
satisfaction did I become an atheist.

That probably puts me in a minority. It seems to me that most people
simply adopt the religion of their parents, without ever bothering to
ask themselves why. I've never fully understood that attitude. If they
sincerely believe that failure to believe could result in eternal
punishment, surely they ought to spend at least some time considering
the consequences of picking the wrong god.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Leslie Danks - 25 Feb 2007 14:15 GMT
>>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
>>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> punishment, surely they ought to spend at least some time considering
> the consequences of picking the wrong god.

Can you pick your god? Surely belief in a supernatural being who is
personally interested in each individual is a deep, emotional and
essentially irrational trait which most believers acquire through exposure
to corresponding influences while still at an impressionable age. I always
think it's a bit like smoking: young children start to smoke as a result of
peer pressure and a certain proportion become hooked for life. They may
change their brand, but they never escape their addiction. No adult in
their right mind who had never smoked before would decide to take up
smoking. I suspect that adults who become believers having never been
believers before must undergo some kind of deep psychological trauma in
order to make their conversion possible. I imagine dying can be fairly
traumatic, which probably explains many "deathbed conversions". To return
to the "pick a god" aspect, I can't imagine a god with any nous at all not
being able to see through the motives of the "just in case" merchants.

Signature

Les

Peter Moylan - 25 Feb 2007 14:31 GMT
> order to make their conversion possible. I imagine dying can be
> fairly traumatic, which probably explains many "deathbed
> conversions". To return to the "pick a god" aspect, I can't imagine a
> god with any nous at all not being able to see through the motives of
> the "just in case" merchants.

That was one of the many flaws in Pascal's famous wager.

If I were a god, I'd also be at least a wee bit cynical about those
deathbed conversions.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Pat Durkin - 25 Feb 2007 16:37 GMT
>>>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
>>>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> exposure
> to corresponding influences while still at an impressionable age.

I like Unamuno's view: we create God in our own image or in an image of
what we would like God to be.

He frequently lets us down, of course, and then we have to recreate him
or go God-shopping.  Depending on how deep His betrayal is determines
how radical a God we buy, and how strenuously we hold onto belief in His
existence, deciding that it is our faith that is false, and not His
existence.

> To return
> to the "pick a god" aspect, I can't imagine a god with any nous at all
> not
> being able to see through the motives of the "just in case" merchants.

I wonder what "any nous at all" means?  I haven't been able to figure
out what "nous" is a typo for, unless it is a term Pascal used (since
Peter refers to P in his post).

Oh, I looked it up.  Wonderful word to find, though I doubt I will be
able to use it in any future writing or speaking.
Encarta has:
     nous [ nooss, nowss ]
     noun
    Definition:

     1. intellectual ability: in ancient Greek philosophy, the capacity
to reason and acquire knowledge, as distinguished from sensation

     2. intellect: in some philosophies, the part of the human spirit
that is capable of rational thought

     3. U.K. common sense: good sense or intelligence ( informal )

     [Late 17th century. < Greek, "intelligence"]
Peter Duncanson - 25 Feb 2007 17:16 GMT
>I wonder what "any nous at all" means?  I haven't been able to figure
>out what "nous" is a typo for, unless it is a term Pascal used (since
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>      [Late 17th century. < Greek, "intelligence"]

In my experience the "nowss" pronuciation predominates in the UK.

Until I gently corrected him, a cow-orker used to pronounce it more
like the French "nous" (noo).

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Frank ess - 26 Feb 2007 01:02 GMT
> Can you pick your god? Surely belief in a supernatural being who is
> personally interested in each individual is a deep, emotional and
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> aspect, I can't imagine a god with any nous at all not being able to
> see through the motives of the "just in case" merchants.

In my long experience and that of many of my fellow
monitors-of-miscreants, gods were in jail. At least that is where most
miscreants found them. It didn't seem to matter which of the many they
found, but he-she-it invariably caused changes of life rendering the
finder more fit for life on the outside.

A congruent conclusion was that the jail gods' influece was
short-range: the farther from jail in time and distance, the more
likely a backslide.

Signature

Frank ess

Sara Lorimer - 25 Feb 2007 14:46 GMT
> It seems to me that most people
> simply adopt the religion of their parents, without ever bothering to
> ask themselves why.

I suppose that's what I've done, in a way. My parents were a Catholic
and an atheist, and I ended up -- to use the technical term -- a wussy
atheist. I'm the sort who doesn't believe in any gods, but would go
along with it if a flaming bush started talking to me (although I would
check for wires and hidden cameras). An atheist, but hey -- I could be
wrong.

Signature

SML

Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 14:54 GMT
>> It seems to me that most people simply adopt the religion of their
>> parents, without ever bothering to ask themselves why.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> (although I would check for wires and hidden cameras). An atheist,
> but hey -- I could be wrong.

If we wanted to be really pedantic about it, we're all agnostics. I
can't imagine any reasonable person claiming that it's possible to know
anything with absolute certainty. That, however, is a quibble. In
practice we all make up our minds what we believe "beyond reasonable
doubt", or some such qualification.

If a burning bush spoke to me, I like to think that I'd have the courage
to mention it to my psychiatrist.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Evan Kirshenbaum - 28 Feb 2007 22:25 GMT
> If we wanted to be really pedantic about it, we're all agnostics. I
> can't imagine any reasonable person claiming that it's possible to
> know anything with absolute certainty. That, however, is a
> quibble. In practice we all make up our minds what we believe
> "beyond reasonable doubt", or some such qualification.

"Agnostic" is a statement about belief in knowledge.  "Atheist" is a
statement about belief (or, rather, non-belief) in existence.  If you
are willing to posit the existence of gods as a possibility, once
you've decided to believe that either their existence is unknowable
or, at least, unknown (at least to you), you then need to decide
whether or not you actually believe they exist.[1] Pascal's wager is a
statement that we should all be agnostic theists--recognize that we
can't know and then believe anyway.  Other agnostics choose to say
"until I get some actual evidence, I'm not going to believe".  They
are agnostic atheists.

[1] Strictly speaking, you don't have to decide unless the the
   question comes up, but if you don't, you're probably not going to
   have an active belief in a deity, which pretty much makes you an
   atheist.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |All tax revenue is the result of
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |holding a gun to somebody's head.
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Not paying taxes is against the law.
                                      |If you don't pay your taxes, you'll
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |be fined.  If you don't pay the fine,
   (650)857-7572                      |you'll be jailed.  If you try to
                                      |escape from jail, you'll be shot.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |                  P.J. O'Rourke

Pat Durkin - 25 Feb 2007 17:13 GMT
>>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who
>>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> contemplating those Big Questions. Only after answering them to my
> satisfaction did I become an atheist.

AOL

To me, the unexamined faith isn't worth believing, so I find those who
don't ask themselves questions about the nature of their belief, and who
are not able to explain the how or why of it, to be in drastic need of
the shepherds their churches provide.  But they don't seem to question
their leaders until the leaders are caught out in some foul deed.  Then,
they look for another person whose bonafides they can accept without
question.

I do have to stop talking with them about the topic in general, because,
I admit, I get frustrated and sarcastic.  Not very Christian.  Not at
all.

> That probably puts me in a minority. It seems to me that most people
> simply adopt the religion of their parents, without ever bothering to
> ask themselves why. I've never fully understood that attitude. If they
> sincerely believe that failure to believe could result in eternal
> punishment, surely they ought to spend at least some time considering
> the consequences of picking the wrong god.
John Holmes - 26 Feb 2007 11:01 GMT
>> I pity those religious types who waste their time trying to answer
>> "Big Questions" that turn out to be just figments of terminology,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> contemplating those Big Questions. Only after answering them to my
> satisfaction did I become an atheist.

So, what is the meaning of "what is the meaning of life?"?

(Double question marks seemed somehow appropriate for that one. If a two
negatives make a positive, what do two interrogatives make? Something
imaginary, perhaps?)

Signature

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 13:45 GMT
>>> I pity those religious types who waste their time trying to
>>> answer "Big Questions" that turn out to be just figments of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> So, what is the meaning of "what is the meaning of life?"?

The meta-question is too difficult for me - and, I must admit, not very
interesting to me - so I'll answer the inner question instead.

In my (genuinely, for once) humble opinion, life has no meaning other
than the elementary fact that some things are alive and some aren't.
Notwithstanding that trite but profound observation, we as living beings
can choose to give our lives a meaning. The answer doesn't have to be
the same for every person. We find ourselves here, alive, and we can do
what we like about it. Valid answers range from immediate suicide to a
life of striving for some major achievement.

For obvious evolutionary reasons, a live being will usually try to stay
alive, and for self-aware beings like us that often translates into a
wish for immortality. There are different ways to strive for
immortality. Some people believe they get it by having children, who
will in turn have children, and so on. Some go for fame, so that their
name will live on. Many of us get our immortality by living our lives in
such a way that we feel that we've made a difference to the universe.
Then, of course, there are those who can't think of any way to make
their lives worthwhile, so they console themselves with the hope that
they'll get another chance in their next life. What makes them think
that they'll have any ambition the next time around is something only
they can answer.

In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like the
question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free will, but
I can decide to act as if I had it.

> (Double question marks seemed somehow appropriate for that one. If a
> two negatives make a positive, what do two interrogatives make?
> Something imaginary, perhaps?)

A questionable question.

Anyway, I'm with you on this one. Style manuals tell us that only one
question mark is needed. In the case of a question within a question, I
can only say that the writers of the style manuals have their heads
stuck in a dark place. Two question marks it is, as far as I'm concerned.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Oleg Lego - 26 Feb 2007 14:20 GMT
>In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like the
>question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free will, but
>I can decide to act as if I had it.

Well, if you don't actually have free will, you can't really make the
decision.
Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 15:06 GMT
>> In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like
>> the question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free
>> will, but I can decide to act as if I had it.
>
> Well, if you don't actually have free will, you can't really make the
>  decision.

Who cares? My personality and education are such that I have the
illusion of making the decision, and feeling good is good enough for me.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Oleg Lego - 26 Feb 2007 15:51 GMT
>>> In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like
>>> the question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Who cares? My personality and education are such that I have the
>illusion of making the decision, and feeling good is good enough for me.

Good enough for me.

(and Bobby McGee).
Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 15:03 GMT
> Then, of course, there are those who can't think of any way to make
> their lives worthwhile, so they console themselves with the hope that
>  they'll get another chance in their next life. What makes them think
>  that they'll have any ambition the next time around is something
> only they can answer.

Addendum (I hit "send" too soon): I'm not suggesting that everyone who
believes in an afterlife is a wimp. Many religions teach that your
status in the next life will depend on how well you handled this one.
For this I give them credit, especially when it motivates those whose
sense of morality would otherwise be a bit shaky. I do condemn as evil
those who teach that faith is sufficient, and I'm equally contemptuous
of those who suggest that points may be gained by harming one's enemies.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Matthew Huntbach - 23 Feb 2007 11:47 GMT
> There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats.
> Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged.

Arrogant atheist nonsense. It is quite obvious that what was meant here
is that people who don't come from a religious faith background are going
to be more curious about it and more questioning about the basis. If they
have chosen to go on a "retreat", which from what you say has some sort
of religious theme to it, then the likelihood is that they're doing so
becuase they have a curiosity about religion. Of course, one may be curious
or interested about it, even enjoy studying or participating in its rituals
without having to have any sort of supernatural belief.

Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 23 Feb 2007 19:35 GMT
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:

> > There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats.
> > Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> is that people who don't come from a religious faith background are going
> to be more curious about it and more questioning about the basis.

That isn't what I understood.  The section went into much more detail
about how people go to retreats in order to have time to contemplate
the big questions to which they are seeking answers.  It was clear
that she thought that those without a faith had more such questions
to be answered.

> If they
> have chosen to go on a "retreat", which from what you say has some sort
> of religious theme to it, then the likelihood is that they're doing so
> becuase they have a curiosity about religion.

The retreat was not explicitly religious although it is run by people
with faith.  I don't think that attendance there implied an interest
in religion - just a wish to withdraw from the world for a while for
a period of peace and reflection.

> Of course, one may be curious
> or interested about it, even enjoy studying or participating in its rituals
> without having to have any sort of supernatural belief.

Of course.

Signature

David
=====

Robert Bannister - 23 Feb 2007 23:46 GMT
> Arrogant atheist nonsense. It is quite obvious that what was meant here
> is that people who don't come from a religious faith background are going
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> or interested about it, even enjoy studying or participating in its rituals
> without having to have any sort of supernatural belief.

My own first thought at hearing of an atheist trying to go on retreat is
that the person is simply a trouble-maker.
Signature

Rob Bannister

Roland Hutchinson - 24 Feb 2007 21:33 GMT

> My own first thought at hearing of an atheist trying to go on retreat is
> that the person is simply a trouble-maker.

That rather depends on the specific nature of the retreat, wouldn't you say?

It would be hard sustain the thesis that the need for peace and quiet,
pleasant but unostentatious surroundings, and contemplation is created only
by a belief in a deity.

Signature

Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 22:26 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> pleasant but unostentatious surroundings, and contemplation is created only
> by a belief in a deity.

Except that it surely can't be that hard to find something similar that
is not run by a religious organisation. I suppose if the atheist were
desperate, it might be excusable. I know that, for my mother, I
gratefully accept services from the Joint Churches of Christ* because
the government does not provide anything like that.

* That might not be the exact name, but it's something like that. I
think it is run by a number of anglican, Catholic and whatever the
congregationalists call themselves these days - unionists?

Signature

Rob Bannister

tinwhistler - 23 Feb 2007 16:29 GMT
[snip]

> There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats.
> Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on
> a retreat and why.  It seems that folk want to get away from the world
> to have time to try to make sense of the world and seek answers to all
> those big questions.
[snip]

Big questions, like "should I be a homosexual?"  See a recent news
article:

http://tinyurl.com/ytokdh

"...[Anthony] Venn-Brown was born in Sydney in 1951..... it was a
friendship with another boy at the age of 15 that would open him to
his first experience.  The confusion that followed led to his first
attempt to come out as a 17 year old. The family reaction was
predictable.  Soon afterwards he was packed off to a "retreat" in
Cronulla to be "cured" of his homosexuality..."

Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Arcadian Rises - 24 Feb 2007 05:32 GMT
On Feb 22, 7:14�am, alr7al...@gmail.com wrote:

> Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain.
> Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all
> strived in search of the causes of happiness and ways to escape
> anxiety.

Not really.

Epicurians, hedonists and the like make hapiness their (only)
priority, but many other philosophers, doctors, etc recommend
abstinence, frugality, even suffering to build up character, apud
Nietzsche

[...]

> Why Islam?

You seem like an erudite, wise person, so I beg you to pardon my for
ignorance when I ask a simple question. It's already common knowledge
that Islam promises heroic men 70 virgins in the Sky when they die.
What about heroic, Allah-worshiping women, what is their reward in the
afterlife? Seventy virgin men of suitable age, or af any age, don't
seem like a reward; to a healthy, normal woman even seven virgin men
is too much of a boring thing.

> read more

I think it's enough for today.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.