1. Comment #117756 by NAIANF87 on January 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Dawkins is the man, as always.

Other Comments by NAIANF87

2. Comment #117762 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I remember this being advertised, but I was out that evening. Thanks for the heads up.

Other Comments by Matt7895

3. Comment #117766 by maton100 on January 29, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Keep it going, goddamnit!

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #117770 by xdrive on January 29, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Video isn't working for me.

Other Comments by xdrive

5. Comment #117774 by atheist1981 on January 29, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Anyone going to upload to YouTube?

Other Comments by atheist1981

6. Comment #117776 by Lh'owan on January 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Not working for me either... YouTube would be appreciated!

Other Comments by Lh'owan

7. Comment #117777 by Skepsis on January 29, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I might be wrong, but i think this has been on youtube before.

Here is a link for the playlist:
The Big Questions - BBC Live Debate

Other Comments by Skepsis

8. Comment #117778 by Dr Technical on January 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Yep broken download link I am afraid.

Other Comments by Dr Technical

9. Comment #117779 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I might be wrong, but i think this has been on youtube before.
Here is a link for the playlist:

The Big Questions - BBC Live Debate

Nope this is something different, but it still has Dawkins in it so thank you for the link

Other Comments by Matt7895

10. Comment #117780 by Morro on January 29, 2008 at 3:39 pm

MAN! When Dawkins kept asking over and over "what is the penalty for apostasy? What do you teach the children will happen if they leave the Muslim faith?" and the guy repeatedly would NOT answer... wow. I'm ususally not the biggest fan of Dawkins in these sorts of debates because I think his voice and delivery come off a little poorly when he gets riled, but this is one case where he just OWNED. That was just a slaughter.

Other Comments by Morro

11. Comment #117782 by fischercat on January 29, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I love how Richard stuck to the question of apostasy -and finally got the answer he was looking for.

Other Comments by fischercat

12. Comment #117783 by Bill Pugsley on January 29, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Try this:

http://www.teachers.tv/video/24057

And also, did anyone see Bush's national address a day or two ago? I turned on C-Span for 2 minutes, long enough to hear him tell America he wants to pour money into faith based schools to "help children that are in failing public schools". Now far be it for to comment on American policy, but wouldn't it be a better idea to fix the problems in public schools? I mean, that's admitting defeat that their government doesn't care about the school system they are in charge of running. Pass off the problem and a bundle of money to faith based schools.

Other Comments by Bill Pugsley

13. Comment #117793 by ricey on January 29, 2008 at 4:51 pm

For those that don't know, Nicky Campbell is an attention-seeking wanker [sic] who's parents (hopefully) didn't love him. And an arsehole who thinks the camaras are put there specially for him.

He is tiresome, repetative, pretentious and unaware of all of the above - an ideal candidtate for BBC internal promotion (a la Jonathan Woss).

Dawkins should not have appeared with this set of clowns; compered by this "look at me" ringmaster, tosser and self-publicist who thinks he knows but dosn't - Nicky Campbell (pronounced "wanker")

As a reluctant BBC licence payer I demand better - and anything would be better.

Other Comments by ricey

14. Comment #117814 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Ricey: Surely that comment is best suited for the other comment thread for 'The Big Questions'. That was the programme Nicky Campbell was presenting.

I'm about half-way through 'The Big Debate' right now and it is somewhat different. There are some interesting points being made, especially by the Humanist representative who in my view hits the nail directly on the head when it comes to religious education in schools.

Other Comments by Matt7895

15. Comment #117815 by Ian Bamlett on January 29, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Ricey,

What the hell are you talking about? The host was Jonathan Dimbleby.

Me thinks you just made a wanker out of yourself mate.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

16. Comment #117823 by BigChiefRainInFace on January 29, 2008 at 6:23 pm

I thought the host was brilliant. Is it just me or are British hosts vastly superior in professionalism and intellect to their American counterparts?

Notice faith-school supporters were repeatedly backed into a corner where they had to redefine, avoid the question, attempt a diversion and finally throughly murky the waters with wishy-washy pseudo poetic nonsense.

Richard Dawkins' points were clear and rational. The opposition hardly had a point at all. The muslim chap was especially sinister; I could almost feel his anger as he was being exposed as the power-hungry addict to a random brand of insanity that he really is.

Why does the bishop even bother with the faith? He seemed rather useless in the debate as he would hold no particular view at all on any issue, always being careful to leave a way out or a different interpretation should he ever be required to justify his position.

This was one of the rarer occasions where Richard Dawkins was not alone on the side of rationality in a debate. I found that very refreshing.

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

17. Comment #117829 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 6:31 pm

I agree, - quite well moderated. From what I know (I'm quite an anglophile and "americophile", though more out of interest than identification :) I'd say yes, there's little of that in the US, but sadly, there's as far as I know nothing quite like that in Germany. Some formats are quite well, but there's usually not much discipline among the participants of the discussion, even if and when they're politicians, professors, scholars etc... they will interrupt each other, raise their voices etc.... it's sad.

Other Comments by MPhil

18. Comment #117834 by Foth on January 29, 2008 at 6:59 pm

I liked the Hindu guy

Other Comments by Foth

19. Comment #117837 by cerbera on January 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm

I wished the debate had been longer, as we usually do, I imagine, but RD's contribution was efficient, effective and well-delivered as ever...

Shame they didn't dwell on the apostasy angle a bit more - I would have been interested in the answers given by the Muslim representatives if Richard had been allowed to press them on the differences, if any, between what is taught to children about apostasy in the UK, and in Muslim countries...

Other Comments by cerbera

20. Comment #117839 by Enlightenme.. on January 29, 2008 at 7:05 pm

"Why does the bishop even bother with the faith? He seemed rather useless"

No, I disagree, he was very useful.
In seeming to be so harmless,.. so,. Christian, he allows the general populace to be reassured.
You only started to see his true colours when challenged by the rabbi about the sectarianism this road will lead to now that we can't deny other faiths the same ridiculous entitlements we've allowed the CofE to retain.

I was impressed by the Iranian-born woman, she's got more courage than I could ever have, and called that bloody Mufti on his weasel 'ignorance and prejudice' defence,
And the way he dismissed her was unbelievable - saying she was 'muddling issues' and asking did the father who killed his daughter go to a muslim school?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

21. Comment #117840 by 82abhilash on January 29, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I too liked the Hindu guy. He made a reasonable, sensible point without playing in the faith card.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

22. Comment #117841 by prometheusMed on January 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Watch at about 44 min how Dr. Mukadam almost loses control when a women, who he considers an apostate, openly responds to his criticism. Watch his facial expression and body language. For a moment he begins to twitch. Half a minute later he displays his complete disrepect by talking over the speaker at the podium. This type of attitude is a sad tragedy that is becomming more common today.

Other Comments by prometheusMed

23. Comment #117842 by Enlightenme.. on January 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Oh yes, I forgot..

Sir Richard Dawkins!!
..and well done to Dimbleby for agreeing that it ought to be by now.

Oops..please excuse my use of the ought word ;)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

24. Comment #117849 by MelM on January 29, 2008 at 7:52 pm

News: According to CNN, with 80% of the Florida precincts reporting, Huckabee has only 14%. I'll feel better this evening anyway.

Secularist opportunity
Well, secularists really did have quite a lot of time to speak--I don't believe such views would be represented nearly so well in the U.S. in a similar format.

Christian Nation
I noted the "Christian Nation" ploy being used which is a favorite trick in the U.S. where it's used to equivocate between being demographically Christian and being politically Christian despite the fact that our founders could have easily built (having plenty of examples) some form of theocracy, but clearly did not. The "Christian Nation" propaganda is responsible for House Resolution 888 which we've already seen on this forum.

Indoctrination
Somehow, the religious students didn't believe they were being indoctrinated. I don't believe this for even one second.

Point for Dawkins
Getting the Muslim guy to inform everyone what the penalty for apostasy is in Muslim countries was certainly a score for Dawkins. Hip Hip Hooray!


"Our beliefs." "Our beliefs." "Faith." "Faith." "Faith."..........disgusting!

Other Comments by MelM

25. Comment #117852 by Styrer- on January 29, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Hats off to Jonathan Dimbleby.

In my numerous viewings of him, there is no debate to which he cannot bring the most profound intellectual inquiry, the most probingly incisive questioning and the most expert handling of both guest and audience.

Far better than his bruv, by the way.

Sadly, his abilities stand in stark contrast to the Professor's own rather dubious handling of his own appearance here. Jonathan made more of the points we would have expected Richard to make than the Professor was able to make himself.

Richard's continuous utterance of a very good point (religious labelling of children is child abuse) came across as an idee fixe, when there were bigger fish to fry at the time. Richard let that bastard Bishop of Bath and Wells off with nary a nay-say. Richard's 'sit back and wait' policy gave no assistance whatsoever to a nearly-convinced Sheerman. His attention to that poor child of religious conversion to Islam was diverted, immediately and incomprehensibly, away from her own person to that dreadful Mukadam, in order that a repeated question about apostasy be answered. Well done, sir, for finally getting the answer - but did its answering serve you well here? No.

That the Professor did not from the outset state the inherent problem of faith got him off to a bad start.

In this one, he never recovered. Poor show.

But there's always the next time. The Professor is, after all, the best I can cling to.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

26. Comment #117860 by MelM on January 29, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Does this appearance by Dawkins mean that he's achieved the status of being the "go-to" guy when the UK media needs a representative of the secular point of view?

The woman from Iran deserves a lot of credit--a lot of credit.

Other Comments by MelM

27. Comment #117869 by shaxanth27 on January 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Richard's continuous utterance of a very good point (religious labelling of children is child abuse) came across as an idee fixe, when there were bigger fish to fry at the time

I thought the professor was right to keep on the point with the way it was being swept off as somehow being just another thought to barely give any time to. How is the religious labeling of children (and the government taking a complicit role in it) not central to faith-based schools? They're not talking faith-based universities here.

Other Comments by shaxanth27

28. Comment #117870 by Cartomancer on January 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Ugh! Nobody seems to have made the crucial point about the whole gay rights / women's rights / abortion issue.

The religious apologists seem quite content with their position: "well we teach our faith's views on gay rights / abortion / the treatment of women, and we also teach the views of all the other faiths on the same matter. Then we have a big debate and the children can decide for themselves which view they subscribe to". I shall assume, charitably, that this statement implicitly includes teaching about rational, secular, scientific, non-religious views (though in reality I have severe doubts about that). Given this, what is so wrong with letting the children have their debate and decided for themselves what to believe?

It's precisely the same as Professor Dawkins's argument as to why creationism should not be taught in school science classes. Creationism is not a valid part of science. Likewise, religious dogma is not a valid part of moral and ethical inquiry. What this approach is actually doing is setting up irrational, superstitious and unevidenced religious views as both valid standpoints to take and equally worthy of consideration alongside proper, secular, discussions of morality. This is bound to skew the subsequent "debate", and is of a particularly sinister character given a) the sensitivity of the issues involved, b) the fact that, implicitly, a faith school will be promoting one of the invalid viewpoints as its preferred communal viewpoint, and c) the rational debating skills of most children are not especially sophisticated. To the last objection it might be put that school is precisely about developing sophisticated debating skills, which is true, but it is still grossly unfair to sharpen these developing skills on the important issues they are to be used to fathom. Surely they should be let loose to make up their own minds once they have learned how to look at the evidence properly, rather than confused by muddying up the issue while their analytic toolkit is still incomplete, and bits of half-remembered poor argument can make a huge impact?

What does this look like in practice? Well, let's take gay rights, an issue close to my heart, and see how this method would teach it. A class of impressionable sixteen year olds in a Catholic school is told

"Right then, well, Catholics beleive that homosexual acts are sinful, objectively disordered and against nature. Some think they might be punished by eternal torment, others are more moderate and just think they should be avoided for the common good. Other Christian sects are broadly similar, though with a few liberal ones seeing no problems in it at all. Muslims all believe it is grossly sinful and punishable by death. Jews think it is an abomination. Eastern religions are divided, with as many tolerant of it as there are which shun it. Oh, and modern secular humanism says it's fine, natural, normal and nothing to worry about.

Right children, those are the positions you could take, which one appeals to you? Bear in mind that if you don't like a religion's stance then you have to go some way to abandoning that religion (and of course you have all been told that you are catholics in a catholic school, so implicitly you really are supposed to pick that one)."

What message is this sending out to people? Nothing less than the message that there are valid arguments for considering homosexuality wrong, that homophobic attitudes are perfectly justified by religious faith, that choosing to be a homophobic bigot is OK, and even implicitly supported by an institution of which you are, even though you have not chosen it, a part. It is nothing less than the state-sanctioned promulgation of homophobic attitudes.

What a burden to place on the shoulders of a confused gay sixteen year old! All his heterosexual counterparts won't have this problem. Nobody is saying to them "well, a load of people on this planet, and we technically count you among their number, think that your natural biological urges are wrong and abhorrent, and those people are deserving of respect for this". Even if nobody tells the boy outright that what he feels is wrong, the mere suggestion that it might be, and the assertion that the issue is still up for debate, will do tremendous damage to his confidence. Subtle suggestions and unseen biases are powerful, very powerful - unspoken claims of parity really are taken very seriously by children of all ages. This happened to me when I was this age, and I didn't even go to a faith school - I shudder to think what that kind of implicit labelling must do to exacerbate the problem.

What he really needs at this vulnerable stage in his life is reassurance that what he feels is normal and perfectly fine. Yes, he can engage in the study of comparative religion and learn that there are noisome, bigoted people out there who think differently to the way he does, but he must do so from a position of confidence in himself just as his peers do. Making this sort of debate over what is actually a rather minor point in the history of ideas into the cornerstone of modern ethical teaching runs entirely counter to the secular, liberal, inclusive values of British society. It is actively harmful and destroys the confidence of affected minority groups. It is standing up for the right of minority groups (e.g. catholics and muslims) to make the minorities within them (e.g. homosexuals and women) feel oppressed, worthless and discriminated against. It is state-sanctioned psychological torture in the truest sense.

So HOW DARE these people stand up and say that their faith school ethics lessons are fair, balanced and helpful. They are an utter disgrace to the educational profession and those who teach in this way should feel utterly ashamed. What we need is a standardised, compulsory modern ethics curriculum that focuses on tolerance, fairness, inclusivity and building up the confidence of vulnerable people in our society - a curriculum that admits not one whiff of religious input and is entirely secular in character. This curriculum should be taught in all schools, irrespective of location, constituency or funding staus. Faith schools should be banned utterly.

Schools are vital to the propagation of communal values in modern society, especially given the corrective they provide to indoctrination at home. There really is no more important issue to our society than this.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

29. Comment #117871 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Cartomancer,

I don't suppose you are saying that a priori, there can never be even somewhat considerable arguments against homosexuality or abortion?

Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with either abortion(before there's a developed neuronal system) or homosexuality... nor with atheism... but I don't exclude the possibility that there may be valid arguments against those positions which I myself take.

Still, I have never heard any conclusive arguments against equal rights and treatment of homosexuals or against legal abortion (with the qualification pointed out above)... and I do agree with your other points, especially about the religious pressure exerted on these children.

Other Comments by MPhil

30. Comment #117872 by Styrer- on January 29, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Ugh! Nobody seems to have made the crucial point about the whole gay rights / women's rights / abortion issue.

The religious apologists seem quite content with their position: "well we teach our faith's views on gay rights / abortion / the treatment of women, and we also teach the views of all the other faiths on the same matter. Then we have a big debate and the children can decide for themselves which view they subscribe to". I shall assume, charitably, that this statement implicitly includes teaching about rational, secular, scientific, non-religious views (though in reality I have severe doubts about that). Given this, what is so wrong with letting the children have their debate and decided for themselves what to believe?

It's precisely the same as Professor Dawkins's argument as to why creationism should not be taught in school science classes. Creationism is not a valid part of science. Likewise, religious dogma is not a valid part of moral and ethical inquiry. What this approach is actually doing is setting up irrational, superstitious and unevidenced religious views as both valid standpoints to take and equally worthy of consideration alongside proper, secular, discussions of morality. This is bound to skew the subsequent "debate", and is of a particularly sinister character given a) the sensitivity of the issues involved, b) the fact that, implicitly, a faith school will be promoting one of the invalid viewpoints as its preferred communal viewpoint, and c) the rational debating skills of most children are not especially sophisticated. To the last objection it might be put that school is precisely about developing sophisticated debating skills, which is true, but it is still grossly unfair to sharpen these developing skills on the important issues they are to be used to fathom. Surely they should be let loose to make up their own minds once they have learned how to look at the evidence properly, rather than confused by muddying up the issue while their analytic toolkit is still incomplete, and bits of half-remembered poor argument can make a huge impact?

What does this look like in practice? Well, let's take gay rights, an issue close to my heart, and see how this method would teach it. A class of impressionable sixteen year olds in a Catholic school is told

"Right then, well, Catholics beleive that homosexual acts are sinful, objectively disordered and against nature. Some think they might be punished by eternal torment, others are more moderate and just think they should be avoided for the common good. Other Christian sects are broadly similar, though with a few liberal ones seeing no problems in it at all. Muslims all believe it is grossly sinful and punishable by death. Jews think it is an abomination. Eastern religions are divided, with as many tolerant of it as there are which shun it. Oh, and modern secular humanism says it's fine, natural, normal and nothing to worry about.

Right children, those are the positions you could take, which one appeals to you? Bear in mind that if you don't like a religion's stance then you have to go some way to abandoning that religion (and of course you have all been told that you are catholics in a catholic school, so implicitly you really are supposed to pick that one)."

What message is this sending out to people? Nothing less than the message that there are valid arguments for considering homosexuality wrong, that homophobic attitudes are perfectly justified by religious faith, that choosing to be a homophobic bigot is OK, and even implicitly supported by an institution of which you are, even though you have not chosen it, a part. It is nothing less than the state-sanctioned promulgation of homophobic attitudes.

What a burden to place on the shoulders of a confused gay sixteen year old! All his heterosexual counterparts won't have this problem. Nobody is saying to them "well, a load of people on this planet, and we technically count you among their number, think that your natural biological urges are wrong and abhorrent, and those people are deserving of respect for this". Even if nobody tells the boy outright that what he feels is wrong, the mere suggestion that it might be, and the assertion that the issue is still up for debate, will do tremendous damage to his confidence. Subtle suggestions and unseen biases are powerful, very powerful - unspoken claims of parity really are taken very seriously by children of all ages. This happened to me when I was this age, and I didn't even go to a faith school - I shudder to think what that kind of implicit labelling must do to exacerbate the problem.

What he really needs at this vulnerable stage in his life is reassurance that what he feels is normal and perfectly fine. Yes, he can engage in the study of comparative religion and learn that there are noisome, bigoted people out there who think differently to the way he does, but he must do so from a position of confidence in himself just as his peers do. Making this sort of debate over what is actually a rather minor point in the history of ideas into the cornerstone of modern ethical teaching runs entirely counter to the secular, liberal, inclusive values of British society. It is actively harmful and destroys the confidence of affected minority groups. It is standing up for the right of minority groups (e.g. catholics and muslims) to make the minorities within them (e.g. homosexuals and women) feel oppressed, worthless and discriminated against. It is state-sanctioned psychological torture in the truest sense.

So HOW DARE these people stand up and say that their faith school ethics lessons are fair, balanced and helpful. They are an utter disgrace to the educational profession and those who teach in this way should feel utterly ashamed. What we need is a standardised, compulsory modern ethics curriculum that focusses on tolerance, fairness, inclusiveness and building up the confidence of vulnerable people in our society - a curriculum that admits not one whiff of religious input and is entirely secular in character. This curriculum should be taught in all schools, irrespective of location, constituency or funding staus. Faith schools should be banned utterly.

Schools are vital to the propagation of communal values in modern society, especially given the corrective they provide to indoctrination at home. There really is no more important issue to our society than this.

Daunting.

Concision, sir. Please.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

31. Comment #117875 by Cartomancer on January 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm

MPhil -

Well of course I don't, a priori, exclude the possibility that objections might occur in the future. If they do occur then we will have to rethink our opinions and policies. The point is that they have not occured yet, and until they do we must tailor our political policies to the state of our current knowledge. I myself would have thought this is such an obvious point that it can go unsaid, but there you go...

Styrer -

I have read and noted your preference for conciseness. I do wonder quite how repeating my entire post achieves this end in your own case, but that thought need not detain me further. I am sorry that my preference for thoroughness, my desire to illustrate my somewhat abstract point with concrete examples and my tendency toward high-blown rhetoric are not to your tastes. De gustibus non disputandum est I suppose...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

32. Comment #117876 by ScareCrow on January 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Dawkins should have mentioned the fact that you rarely see a Socialist school, a capitalist school or the like, so why segregate children into faith schools. I think that is a powerfull argument.

Other Comments by ScareCrow

33. Comment #117877 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Nah, didn't think you would hold that there couldn't be arguments against positions you yourself hold.... your tract at times just read like it. Not explicitly, but one might get the impression. Just wanted to have that clarified.

No hard feelings I hope.
Cheers!

Other Comments by MPhil

34. Comment #117881 by Styrer- on January 29, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Styrer -

I have read and noted your preference for conciseness. I do wonder quite how repeating my entire post achieves this end in your own case, but that thought need not detain me further. I am sorry that my preference for thoroughness, my desire to illustrate my somewhat abstract point with concrete examples and my tendency toward high-blown rhetoric are not to your tastes. De gustibus non disputandum est I suppose...

Your enemy is not me, Cartomancer. It is verbosity.

I have read many of your posts and found some of them enlightening.

Your latter post lets down both message and language equally.

Sort out your meaning to word ratio and you may enlighten more.

Hope you do - you seem to have something worth my time.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

35. Comment #117887 by Cartomancer on January 29, 2008 at 11:13 pm

I find the style rather well suited to the message myself, but your point has been taken and noted. I have never been conceited enough to think that my appreciation of literary style is universally shared - certainly not to the extent I can go around ignoring other people's preferences on the matter...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

36. Comment #117888 by nogodsever on January 29, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Funny how you can pick out the religious folks in this video. How? They are wearing costumes. With the exception of the rabbi and the obese catholic woman, the rest were wearing costumes. How fucking ridiculous. How can a muslim woman wearing a sheet wrapped around her, in the 21st Century, look at herself in the mirror?

Other Comments by nogodsever

37. Comment #117890 by nogodsever on January 29, 2008 at 11:29 pm

And I agree that long posts usually get ignored in these types of forums. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it happens.

Other Comments by nogodsever

38. Comment #117893 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 29, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Gaah! Sometimes I get a headache from hearing these rediculous arguments. They generaly run along the lines of;
"We believe this is wrong and that this is right."
"But why do you believe that?"
"Because it is what we believe."
"But why?"
"Because it is what we believe."
"But why?"
"How dare you question what I believe!"

My mum doesn't like debating with me anymore for exactly this reason. She sits there on her high horse declaring that we must agree to disagree, and then gets upset when I disagree with that.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

39. Comment #117896 by Cartomancer on January 29, 2008 at 11:49 pm

I generally ignore the short ones myself, but then again I always was an obtuse sort...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

40. Comment #117905 by Styrer- on January 30, 2008 at 12:27 am

I find the style rather well suited to the message myself, but your point has been taken and noted. I have never been conceited enough to think that my appreciation of literary style is universally shared - certainly not to the extent I can go around ignoring other people's preferences on the matter...

Oh, tush and fie, Cartomancer.

If you can't see a compliment in a criticism, what the hell use is your language anyway?

I think you're interesting; you often take too long to say it; say it succinctly; my interest continues...

Got it, ace?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

41. Comment #117911 by scottbly on January 30, 2008 at 12:59 am

Finally us American's aren't the ones being attacked for our idiocy! Of course we've had our fair share the past 7 years; or unfair share. I get the warm fuzzies when I think about our wall between church and state, even if it is constantly being assaulted. Most people around here think it is quite silly to have the government sponsor a religious school.

Other Comments by scottbly

42. Comment #117913 by asman on January 30, 2008 at 1:24 am

Dear Dawkins

You could never win this battle through debate with those brain dead believer. There are thousands and millions of religeous seminaries
particulerly in muslim countries to teach destructive lessons received from sky daddy. And
it's growing in alarming pace.

Why you are incapable of initiating schools based
on humanism, rationalism and atheism? Did you ever thought about it? Listen, we need our schools, temples, prayers and everything else. We need to redefine god and religeon not merely opposing them.
Think about it.

Other Comments by asman

43. Comment #117916 by Zakie Chan on January 30, 2008 at 1:27 am

My favorite part of this was the girl at 34:00 (Kate Christopher). She is cute lol!

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

44. Comment #117925 by Big City on January 30, 2008 at 1:55 am

On what the Bishop said at the very beginning:
"The Church of England has a rich history in that it essentially initiated organized religion."(paraphrased)
1)What does this have to do with modern schools? That argument implies America should still have slavery.
2)How does this apply to other faith schools? Should there only be Anglican religious schools?

On what the Catholic teacher, Louistas Nyuyse, said about school prayer:
"It helps other kids learn about Catholics and the Catholic kids grow in their faith."(paraphrased, again)
How is this not biased?

Also, I've never seen a Muslim defend Islam and not seem like a fanatic.

Other Comments by Big City

45. Comment #117940 by Paul42 on January 30, 2008 at 3:18 am

Hi everybody! (In a Doctor Nick stylee)

It seems to me that the justification from all the different faith school representatives present was the same. That it's ok for them to label the children and segregate them because religion is taught as a broad subject... They all went to great lengths to emphasise that their own religion was not taught exclusively.

Um...

If all faith schools are teaching about all religions equally and if the children really are free to question and even opt out completely...

Then exactly why are they segregated?
What is the point of a "Catholic" school if their lessons on religion are ostensibly the same as all the rest?

By the way, for the record, I was educated in a Catholic school in Scotland. Where the level of religious bigotry is on a par with Northern Ireland... Where being in the wrong area can have life threatening consequences. We were never taught anything other than Catholicism...

Segregated schools = segregated society. Period.

Religious leaders only support them because without them they are OUT OF BUSINESS in two or three generations.

Love.

Other Comments by Paul42

46. Comment #117941 by pyota on January 30, 2008 at 3:19 am

a very interesting debate. richard dawkins made a great point about apostasy in islam (the important thing is that the answer had to come from the imam).

i went to catholic school starting in my teenage years (but i am from a secular family). fortunately having escaped childhood brainwashing, their propaganda had no effect on me except to strengthen my resolve to not be a christian!

besides faith schools, home schooling is also a problem: keeping children in isolation in order to shield them from dangerous ideas and perpetuate a distorted worldview. this is key to how faith replicates.

Other Comments by pyota

47. Comment #117943 by AfraidToDie on January 30, 2008 at 3:21 am

36. Comment #117888 by nogodsever
Funny how you can pick out the religious folks in this video. How? They are wearing costumes…. How fucking ridiculous. How can a muslim woman wearing a sheet wrapped around her, in the 21st Century, look at herself in the mirror?

This simple and overlooked observation just started my morning with a great laugh. But how true!! I find it particularly sad when all that garb might possibly be hiding potential beauty. It really isn't much different than what a nun wears, is it? All very ridiculous. Maybe RD should wear a suit with equations and astronomy symbols?

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

48. Comment #117952 by UncleJJ on January 30, 2008 at 3:59 am

This debate was so much better than the other one with Nicky Cambell in the chair. Many people made meaningful contributions and included Barry Sheerman (whom I have great respect for after this performance), the rabbi, the hindu and sihk gentlemen and the two RE teachers seated at the backrow. The ex-muslim lady was especially impressive.

RD was his inimitable self and made several powerful points, the abuse of children by labelling them with their parent's religion and the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death (eventually after a determined pursuit). Also religous principles and scripture are not a good basis for morals. Jonathan Dimbleby was a superb chairman, lightyears ahead of Nicky Cambell in the other "debate".

Other Comments by UncleJJ

49. Comment #117955 by Philip1978 on January 30, 2008 at 4:05 am

AfraidToDie

Lab coat would suffice surely! :)

What is so telling in this debate is that there are always going to be people like those school kids brought in to say "But I am not suffering" and all the people representing the faiths failing miserably to squirm out of the problems set against them. All of them were bending over backwards to show their religion isn't the oppressive and highly ridiculous farce that they actually are forcing upon kids in schools.

Kids are being brought up in a religion which they have no say in, its a fact and its highly wrong. I completely agree with Paul42's and Pyota's posts in particular, though all have been excellent, about the segregation of faith schools. I too don't see the point if they are all supposedly claiming they are going to teach everything anyway, why have the bias towards one faith? No, if religions are to survive they must hijack the kids lest they end up on the myth and legend list with the plethora of all the other religions humankind has discarded.

I too had most disagreement with the Muslim Dr who Professor Dawkins challenged very well indeed. (Though the Catholic lady and the Anglican chap were not far behind!) I thought his arguments about there being a difference between Islamic law in an Islamic ruled country and this one were exceedingly poor. I don't actually remember it being allowed for Islamic Law to be changed when it comes to reading the Qu'ran or the Hadiths, they have to be read in their absolute literal sense. Apostasy IS a crime for which is punishable by death under Islamic Law which would be taught at an Islamic school.

So, again, my thanks to Professor Dawkins and all the others who are campaigning against this sort of thing, its encouraging that your voices are being heard.

Time for Pink Floyd I feel:

HEY, TEACHER, LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

50. Comment #117961 by bujin on January 30, 2008 at 4:34 am

I've only just started watching this video, so won't join in any discussions of it yet.

One thing that I can't get out of my head is the "Bishop of Bath and Wells".

I cannot help myself from thinking of the "Baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells" from Blackadder II!

Other Comments by bujin