1. Comment #67953 by monkey2 on September 5, 2007 at 11:08 am

Polly Toynbee is a media savvy journalist / commentator. An excellent choice for President.

If anyone hasn't heard President Toynbee before this was her being very polite.

Other Comments by monkey2

2. Comment #67957 by steve99 on September 5, 2007 at 11:27 am

It was a good interview, with Toynbee having excellent responses to Roger Bolton's questions.

Other Comments by steve99

3. Comment #67961 by detox on September 5, 2007 at 11:48 am

Very restrained, very insightful. Never thought about the euthanasia issue before: another one of those things that makes you grate your teeth.

Other Comments by detox

4. Comment #67963 by Friend Giskard on September 5, 2007 at 11:58 am

Bolton accused Toynbee of wanting to put a stop to religion having any influence on the way we run our society. She should have responded to this calumny by pointing out that the aim of secularists is to ensure only that religion does not have undue influence.

Religion should have no more political influence than other special interest groups such as political parties, trade unions etc.

It is exasperating to me how one will never hear a member of the British government endorsing this morally unassailable goal.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

5. Comment #67971 by gcdavis on September 5, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Polly has been a trenchant voice in British journalism for a long time. She comes from a tradition of social justice and liberal values and is a long time member of the National Secular Society and this is where her real strength lies, in challenging the privileges and special pleading that religion has enjoyed within the British political system. British humanism is a bit sandals and beards and I do not think that it is offers a platform worthy of her talents, of course I hope that I am wrong.

Other Comments by gcdavis

6. Comment #68006 by ericcolumba on September 5, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Polytoynbee deals well with the typical faith head arguement.
It really is pathetic how many of our fellow humans can be so blind.

Other Comments by ericcolumba

7. Comment #68040 by AJ Rae on September 5, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Very good, very good, not shrill at all. May I ask what drugs Magnus Linklater is taking, and where I can get some?

Other Comments by AJ Rae

8. Comment #68048 by sabre_truth on September 5, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Friend Giskard said:
Religion should have no more political influence than other special interest groups such as political parties, trade unions etc.

I would go a step further and say that it should have no more political influence than other leisure and recreation clubs such as the National Mahjong League or the East London Swinger's Club for Standard Poodle Enthusiasts.

Other Comments by sabre_truth

9. Comment #68063 by Dunc-uk on September 6, 2007 at 12:58 am

From Wikipedia:

In 2004 Toynbee was awarded the 'Most Islamophobic Media Personality' title in the Annual Islamophobia Awards. [7]

She is also critical of Christianity and Judaism. She wrote:

"The pens sharpen – Islamophobia! No such thing. Primitive Middle Eastern religions (and most others) are much the same – Islam, Christianity and Judaism all define themselves through disgust for women's bodies"

Of course, the group issuing such an accolade are a somewhat more dubious bunch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_Islamophobia_Awards">

Other Comments by Dunc-uk

10. Comment #68070 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 2:25 am

Go, Polly. She's very articulate. Nice interview.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

11. Comment #68095 by Flagellant on September 6, 2007 at 5:46 am

This is Polly Toynbee's sentence that follows the bit that Dunc-uk (10) quotes:

There are ritual baths, churching, shaving heads, denying abortion and contraception, arranged marriage, purdah, barring unclean women access to the altar, let alone the priesthood, letting men divorce but not women - all this perverted abhorrence of half the human race lies at the maggotty heart of religion, the defining creed in all the holy of holies.

The whole (2001) piece – Behind the Burka – is worth reading, too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,559536,00.html

"Maggotty heart of religion," eh? Can you imagine RD writing that? It looks as though Polly will be a welcome and outspoken voice of reason. She's often on the TV, radio, and in print. Whatever she's on about, she comes across very well.



Veritably, God is grott, merdeiful.

Other Comments by Flagellant

12. Comment #68107 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 6:29 am

From the BMA's website:

'About the BHA

Our Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.

Our Mission
The British Humanist Association exists to promote Humanism and support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.'


From the documents of the Second Vatican Council;

' 2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.'

It seems that there is nothing in the BHA's vision that is at conflict with established Catholic teaching. Maybe this is how they also claim that there are 17 million humanists in Britain, (a statistic not supported by the last census) they're just borrowing a few Christians, as well as quotes, for their numbers.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

13. Comment #68122 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 7:45 am

Fides
I love the bit in that Vatican Council quote where it refers to women....hang on, doesn't it say "all men"?
Is it me or is that sentence biassed towards the rights of men?

"No one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs"

Call me picky but doesn't that basically say that nobody can boss a Catholic man around if it conflicts with his beliefs?

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

14. Comment #68125 by heathen2 on September 6, 2007 at 7:56 am

Regarding Comment #68107 by fides_et_ratio, please look at the history of the lack of tolerance by the catholic church and you will see a big difference. How absurd to compare humanist principles with religious ones.

I think the last three words from the Vatican council quote you provided says it all: "within due limits". In practice, these negate the tolerance of the words that preceed ("that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others").

Other Comments by heathen2

15. Comment #68127 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2007 at 7:57 am

I'm sure that we're all grateful for the teachings of Catholicism. Religious freedom, nobody to be forced to do something they don't believe in, immune from coercion on the behalf of any human power.....

Oh, wait.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

16. Comment #68128 by hungarianelephant on September 6, 2007 at 8:06 am

Philip – It also talks about "any human power". As I understand Catholic doctrine, the Church's power is divine, not human. Which makes it a little like the IRA argument: "The IRA is the legitimate government in Ireland. Therefore any acts done by it are legal. So murder, kidnapping, intimidation and robbery by IRA members following orders were not crimes."

Oh, and it doesn't say anything about the absence of religious privilege or discrimination. It only prescribed freedom of conscience "within due limits". Whatever that means.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

17. Comment #68132 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 8:12 am

hungarianelephant

Scary isnt it! Justify anything cos its not in your hands and this is what God wants! I have a strong dislike of the Roman Catholic Church, I disagree with a lot of what it says, though I did like some of the safer car driving suggestions it put forward a few months ago!

Other Comments by Philip1978

18. Comment #68135 by hungarianelephant on September 6, 2007 at 8:23 am

Philip - Indeed. We had a parish flyer around the same time, suggesting that drivers let people out of side roads, don't jump lights etc. And, it continued, "why not use the extra second to say a prayer for road safety?"

Funny thing, though. The worst driven cars so often seem to be the ones with religious bumper stickers. I guess they know that God will protect them. I used to live near an evangelical church, where one of the worthies had a sticker simply saying JESUS. He apparently got the idea from what people frequently shouted at him when he cut out of a side road in front of them.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

19. Comment #68164 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 9:21 am

14. Comment #68122 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 7:45 am

Come now Philip, you and I both know that you're much more intelligent than that. The use of man and men to mean humanity was commonplace in the sixties. In fact the Vatican showed its progressive approach to human rights in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which you appear to have selectively ignored. It refers to the gender neutral term of the human person.

As for the other posts, I merely pointed out that the entirety of the BHA's vision as stated on its website is contained in Catholic teaching. I wonder what part of that statement is untrue.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

20. Comment #68168 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2007 at 9:23 am

Perhaps the "world without religious PRIVILEGE" bit.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

21. Comment #68188 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 10:12 am

Debatable, the offer, promise or existence of privilege for belief would seem to be some sort of coercion that the Vatican explicitly speaks against.

'immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,'

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

22. Comment #68203 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 10:42 am

Sorry Fides, I was being rather unfairly sarcastic in my tone towards you when I meant it to be directed at the Vatican and I apologise for that. Its not you I have the beef with, I simply have a massive dislike of the Vatican and I shouldn't take it out on you.

I think I will explain myself better in my opinions of the Catholic church.


At the time I wanted to point out the Vatican's bias towards men, even during these modern times the Vatican has gone out of its way to make it a men only club, women not allowed. See around 2002 when it made it very clear women were not allowed to be ordained. The Vatican said it

"constitutes the simulation of a sacrament and is thus invalid and null, as well as constituting a grave offense to the divine institution of the Church"


These women were forced to repent or be excommunicated! Why? Here is where my second argument came into play and also what the Mighty Quetz added, the right to religious privilege. As long as it can be made up by the Vatican because of the dogmatic view that the Pope is the spokesman for God himself, so what he sayeth on earth is exactly what God is thinking. That really annoys me intensely and that is why I got in a huff about what you wrote.

I understand that was not your intention, you have pointed out that it does look similar to the BHAs mission statement. I personally dont think it was the intention of the BHA to do that. I definitely think the Vatican did mean what it said when it was using the Male gender in its statement, they have been using it a long time before the 60s and they are still using it now which I disagree with wholeheartedly.

Hope that explains things a little better,

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

23. Comment #68241 by pewkatchoo on September 6, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Sorry folks, I know that I am going to get some more flack here, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea of Polly Toynbee as an important light in the atheistic world. I find the vast majority of her writings to be badly thought through and, in many cases, simply a bit of left-wing ranting. At the same time the interview was OK, but she said nothing that any one of us on here could have said.

I also read the link that Flagellant supplied. Her approach is rather careless and she makes some statements that are patently ridiculous, for example:
Given the Northern Alliance's past, we should draw up a human rights contract now and make Alliance leaders sign the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, binding them personally against atrocities before fighting begins.

Yep Polly, that will work. Mr Eugenides has some fairly astute things to say about miss Toynbee http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2006/11/polly-am-i-bovvered.html and, having read quite a few of her articles, I am inclined to agree with his summation. Only once in a while does she produce something worthwhile, the rest of the time...

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

24. Comment #68248 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Pewkatchoo
I actually have to agree with you and Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson, wrote that she, "incarnates all the nannying, high-taxing, high-spending schoolmarminess of Blair's Britain. Polly is the high priestess of our paranoid, mollycoddled, risk-averse, airbagged, booster-seated culture of political correctness and 'elf 'n' safety fascism"

I respect that she got an award for being a pain in the arse towards Islam and wow, what a voice on the rights of women and their role in religion, if my posts on this site have said nothing else, I totally agree with her views on how religion is nothing but despicable to women. But she gave loads of support for Tony bLiar beforehand and although she has criticised him I am wary of her opinions now, ok she may have rescinded it a bit but there is this part of her I do not agree with and that is sometimes I think she may have gone over the top somewhat. I disagree with Boris on his views sometimes but I think he is right in this cause, I am open to advice as how to like this woman a bit more!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

25. Comment #68277 by heathen2 on September 6, 2007 at 3:34 pm

This is off the topic of Polly, but since fides brought up catholic stuff, I was wondering if anyone could verify something I have heard. Is it true that the priestly orders are funded by the catholic church, but that the nun orders have to finance their own operations (such as schools, charities and the like)?

I just noticed that while I was attending a boarding school run by nuns that they were always strapped for money. That never made sense to me, especially given the wealth of the church.

Other Comments by heathen2

26. Comment #68289 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 4:06 pm

The Vatican statement is a joke, just like the wonderfully liberal constitution of the USSR, which was full of protections for individual rights, etc.

To take just one example, many people believe that abortion is morally acceptable. One would assume, then, that the Vatican would be opposed to any coercion to prevent them acting on that belief. However, it's not so. The Vatican routinely supports the use of coercion, in the form of criminal laws backed by police and prisons, etc., to try to stop people acting on that belief.

There are many other practices that lots of us consider morally acceptable, or even desirable, but which are not considered so by the Vatican. In many of those cases, the Vatican actively campaigns for the use of coercive power to prevent people from acting on their beliefs.

It's well known that the Vatican, these days, pays lip service to notions of separation of church and state, etc. It's also well known that it actively campaigns for the coercive power of the state to be used to suppress activities of which it disapproves.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

27. Comment #68346 by crabsallover on September 7, 2007 at 12:04 am

13. Comment #68107 by fides_et_ratio said
Maybe this is how BHA (British Humanist Association) also claim that there are 17 million humanists in Britain, (a statistic not supported by the last census) they're just borrowing a few Christians, as well as quotes, for their numbers.

I've discussed the "17M Humanists in UK" claim by BHA over at Dorset Humanists blog:

In December 2006 BHA organised a MORI poll. This showed that 17M (36%) of UK adult population agreed to ALL THREE statements below. BHA said that those people who agreed with ALL three statements where humanists in their outlook:-

1) 62% feel that scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe (rather than feeling that religious beliefs are needed for a complete understanding of the universe)
2) 62% feel that 'right and wrong' can be explained by human nature alone, and does not require religious teachings, and
3) 65% base their judgments of right and wrong on 'the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world' (rather than basing judgments of right and wrong on personal preferences OR rather than thinking that right and wrong judgments are unchanging and should never be challenged)

http://dorset-humanists.blogspot.com/2007/06/17-million-humanists-in-britain-36-of_30.html
BHA source: http://www.humanism.org.uk/uploadedFiles/cms/store//Demo_BHA//ATTACHMENTS/Humanist_w43_2006x.pdf

Other Comments by crabsallover