51. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210172 by hungarianelephant on July 14, 2008 at 3:43 am

1302. Comment #209658 by epeeist on July 13, 2008 at 12:17 am

The trouble then is the "disinterested party" and where they get their funding. Industry might fund it but they aren't disinterested, their approach would be training and not education. And they prefer to poach rather than train if they can.

Much of the recent part of the thread has reminded me of this theme.

There's a category of people in Ireland, mostly academics and journalists, who bemoan that the education system is consciously tailored to the needs of business. What they mean by this is that the government has spent the last 25 years talking to industry, both indigenous and foreign, about exactly what sort of graduates they need. And then it has manipulated the system to produce exactly that sort of graduate.

This is, of course, worship of the market, exploitation of young people and pandering to vested interests of the worst kind.

Or is it?

Consider the alternative. In the mid-1980s, Ireland was a pretty awful place. Not only was it a financial basket case, but it was also losing three quarters of its young population to emigration. That is not a typo. Consider your class at school and imagine (say) 22 out of 30 emigrating. The country relied on food and clothing packages from "wealthy" relatives in England and the US, and on EEC subsidies, as they were then.

The main thing that changed in Ireland, apart from the freeing up of credit, was that it was able to create some sort of local industry by persuading businesses what a great workforce they could have access to. They were also relatively cheap, but this was always less of a factor than you might think: after all, the good people could also have commanded decent salaries abroad. Whatever structural flaws there are in today's Irish economy, it's at least a place where you can expect to make a living when you leave school.

Mary Hanafin, the education minister, was recently vilified for defending the policy of "sucking up to big business". No doubt it would be lovely if we could all potter around Trinity College for a few years discussing the liberal arts, but as Hanafin said, you also have to prepare people for the real world.

I'm unhappy that the curriculum messes about with dead languages and religious cults instead of finding some more time for science, philosophy and critical thinking. But on the whole, the idea of education directed by government, run locally and with policies directing to creating a valuable workforce doesn't seem a bad way to go. Now if we can only get the cannibalistic cross-dressers out of it ...

52. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210164 by hungarianelephant on July 14, 2008 at 3:23 am

The louder he talked of his honour,
The faster we counted our spoons.

53. Pope confirms sexual abuse apology

Comment #210131 by hungarianelephant on July 14, 2008 at 1:27 am

He said he would make similar comments to those during a trip to the United States in April, when he made apology for sexual abuse a major part of his visit.

"It is essential for the Church to reconcile, to prevent, to help and to see guilt in this problem," he said.

"It must be clear ... that being a real priest is incompatible with this (sexual abuse) because priests are in the service of our Lord."

If this is sincere, then it is the best we have heard from the Catholic chuch on the subject, and for that he should be applauded.

What makes it difficult to swallow is the work Ratzinger did when he was still a cardinal in covering the whole thing up. He probably knew more about what was going on that any other individual, but instead of really trying to get to the bottom of it, he spent his time trying to limit the damage to his church. Some acknowledgement of his personal role might be nice.

Either way, the point is that much of the abuse went on because paedophiles joined the priesthood for the opportunities it afforded for trusted access to children. This is not speculation, it is the evidence of abusers, as given to the Ferns enquiry in Co. Wexford. What's actually needed to prevent this is a lack of trust in priests.

That problem is now probably moot in the US and much of Europe. But I fear for children in Brazil, the Philippines and the like. There's little sign that the church has actually learned anything from this, except possibly how to manage its assets to prevent catastrophic lawsuits.

54. Man Sues Church Over 'God Injury'

Comment #210115 by hungarianelephant on July 14, 2008 at 12:59 am

Would it be safe to assume that Mr Lincoln, 57, does not have a retirement fund? I think we should be told.

55. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #208874 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

riemann - He has to fill four columns a week suitable for his readership.

Under this pressure, even Oscar Wilde would have turned out a load of crap once in a while.

56. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #208870 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 10:31 am

alexmzk - Fine by me, as long as you don't use a preposition to end a sentence with.

57. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208849 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 9:53 am

I refuse to talk to this gobshite directly, but ...

Is he really using slavery as an argument for the moral inferiority of the West? That would be the slave trade that the Royal Navy spent 20 years breaking up, right? And that still goes on in Muslim countries? And that treated humans as chattels, just like the Magic Islamic Book decrees for half the population? That slavery?

58. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208841 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 9:44 am

Joe - Actually a better shortcut to use when you're about to post is Alt-F4. It eliminates any mistakes you may have left in your posts.

59. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208838 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 9:43 am

Indeed. Don't tell him about Shift-F3.

Dammit!

60. Weak US dollar hits papal profits

Comment #208832 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 9:39 am

So, dividing those figures (BBC website, as spotted by Sally Luxmoore) by the Catholic populations (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc1.html), donations to the Vatican per Catholic are:

Ireland - $0.53
USA - $0.29
South Korea - $0.25
Germany - $0.15
Italy - $0.15
Spain - $0.07
France - $0.05
Brazil - $0.01

Hmm.

Possible conclusions to be drawn from this:

(1) "Christians are generous" is a load of balls.
(2) Catholics don't like giving money to the Vatican.
(3) Most Catholics don't actually believe a word of it.
(4) Someone is telling a few porkies about the numbers.

Any other hypotheses?

61. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208792 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 8:56 am

Sally - Quite. That occurred to me too.

The council's QC didn't argue lack of bona fide belief. That's understandable as the council didn't raise it beforehand. Maybe they wish they had.

Or maybe she didn't hear the bit about Jesus not distinguishing different types of sin. I mean, obviously gay sex is a worse sin than mere hetero fornication and adultery. Even if Leviticus forgot to mention lesbians.

62. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208763 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 8:16 am

1095. Comment #208743 by tompaine on July 11, 2008 at 7:50 am

No, medicine is about evidence based results.

No, that is a method. It is not the intended result. Dealing with peoples' illnesses is the intended result.

Evidence based results is a method that has worked very well in most cases. No one is suggesting that we dump conventional medicine because of its inability to solve every single problem. (Well, ok, plenty of people suggest that, but not here.) But that is not of itself a reason to rubbish any given alternative therapy just because you don't understand the mechanism, or indeed because nobody understands the mechanism.

Of the 33 new drugs approved by FDA in the last two years, how many have a known mechanism? Does that mean they should not have been approved?

I'd still be interested to hear your proposals for double blind testing chiro.

63. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208713 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 7:08 am

One wonders, of course, why the Christian media would want to trumpet this decision, which makes a Christian look like a bigoted fool (as indeed she is). Perhaps it should tell us something that they don't see it that way.

64. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208690 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 6:41 am

93. Comment #208674 by Peacebeuponme on July 11, 2008 at 6:22 am

All registry offices have to carry our civil partnerships. So, if her career is going to be as a registrar, then homosexual marriages is going to be a necessary part of her job, anywhere. There has ceased to be a market for registrars who do not carry out civil partnerships. This is completely different from an employer making a particular working practice change she didn't agree with.

I'm an accountant. They sometimes bring in new standards that are complictated, or difficult to apply. I can't go to my employer and refuse to apply those legal standards on the basis that they were not in place when I joined.

Peacebeuponme, I don't think I am making my point clearly enough.

I am not saying that she should be entitled to refuse any changes to her working conditions just because she doesn't like them. The point is that, according to thirty seven years of employment law, they have to be implemented by a fair procedure.

If you read the case, you'll see that Islington Council did not cover themselves in glory. They launched into a disciplinary hearing without further discussion, breached confidentiality by discussing her case with gay colleagues and failed to answer her letters. In a saner world, they might have been entitled to simply say to her, "Stop whining, the rest of the world has moved on, and if you don't like it, find another job." Regrettably, we don't live in a saner world. We live in the shadows of HR departments and filing cabinets full of policies that nobody reads. That is the chosen path and I don't see that "religion" is a good reason for making an exception.

Once again, the tribunal did not say that her stance was justified. It did not even hint at it. The case was about the means used to try to get her to fall into line.

I don't see that the accountancy analogy holds. When you start as an accountant, you know that the rules change every year. Your job is to work within the accounting rules as they happen to be at any given time. Whereas the rules about who can be married change on average once every 150 years. I don't think it could reasonably be said that someone in 1992 could be expected to anticipate that they may one day have to marry - shock horror - people of the same gender.

"Ceased to be a market", on the other hand, is absolutely correct. So consider what would happen if, say, you were a vendor of audio cassettes. When your employer goes out of that line of business, and if you refuse to transfer to the CD-R division, he's entitled to get rid of you. But - and this is the key point - he still has to follow a fair procedure to do so.

Btw, legally, there is nothing that would now prevent Islington Council from going through a new procedure which would end in her dismissal. The reporting of these cases gives the impression that she's entitled to sit in an office being bigoted for the rest of her days. Other than the fact that councils don't appear able to fire anyone at all, that's not the case.

65. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208682 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 6:27 am

85. Comment #208640 by Ygern on July 11, 2008 at 5:36 am

In essence the court has allowed someone to justify & sanction bigotry, and consequently deny people their rights on the basis of her religion.

How exactly has anyone been denied their rights?

With this precedent there is no sort of hateful abuse of human rights that cannot be 'vindicated' by the claim of religious belief.

If the sort of precedent you mean is a legal precedent, you are well wide of the mark. Firstly, the tribunal's decision is not binding on any other tribunal. Secondly, as far as I can see, no principle of law has been decided. There is zero basis for this case being used as a platform for other religious objectors, let alone "hateful abuse of human rights".

If you mean that it will encourager les autres, then I'd agree that it makes for an unfortunate headline. It's in the nature of litigation that it does that occasionally. Not that these types needed any encouragement - see Bill Donohue on the Goddamned Cracker thread.


86. Comment #208645 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 5:43 am

Suppose a white person had taken on the role of registrar assuming she would only be dealing with white couples, and then a racist law was changed...

I share your reservations, but I'd probably be forced to say that that wouldn't change anything. Bear in mind that the Tribunal has not said that she was completely justified in her stance. The reason she won was that her objections were not dealt with by fair procedures. Racists, misogynists and even Christians are still entitled to fair procedures from their employer.

Personally, I think the tribunals lost the plot a long time ago and place far too much emphasis on "procedure", and not enough on the efficient running of an organisation. But that's not an argument that has carried the day for a very long time.


87. Comment #208650 by decius on July 11, 2008 at 5:52 am

Are you sure about that? If I remember correctly civil partnerships are just an extension of the concept of civil marriage, and nowhere was it explicitly stated that a marriage should be intended as heterosexual.

Yes; the Civil Partnership Act 2004 explicitly distinguishes civil marriage from civil partnership. She started being a registrar in 1992 [edit, not 2002 as originally posted], when only fringe lunatics like Peter Tatchell and myself supported gay marriage.

I believe the changes in the US are mainly based on the argument that it's just the same as civil marriage, but I haven't studied that.

66. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208637 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 5:27 am

81. Comment #208631 by decius on July 11, 2008 at 5:17 am

It seems to me that applying for a job is a voluntary act, no one forced her to choose that career over another. If she can't abide by her working contract, for whatever metaphysical reason, she is in fact in breech of her commitment and she is failing to fulfil a legal obligation.

However, at the time she applied for her job, it didn't involve civil partnerships. They were imposed on her later. People get uppity about having their contracts changed, and it can certainly amount to unfair dismissal. Her objection was for a daft reason, but so are lots of other people's. In fact, I have never yet seen a sensible objection from anyone in one of these cases backed by a union. It doesn't mean they are not entitled to a fair procedure.

Btw, I can see nothing in the judgment which suggests the Council would not have been justified in refusing a job to an applicant who said "I only wanna do the straight ones". The detail is fairly arcane but a lot of it is about the procedures for dealing with her. The outcome makes for an unfortunate headline, but that happens with legal cases.

67. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208629 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 5:16 am

1082. Comment #208619 by tompaine on July 11, 2008 at 4:54 am

Any Chiro claiming to be able to cure anything is not to be trusted. Research has indicated some evidence of pain relief about equivalent to (much cheaper)pain killing drugs. That's pain relief only. Chiros don't go in for double blind tests.

How exactly would you propose to design a double blind test for chiropractic?

Medicine is not just about establishing precise organic causes for precise organic complaints. It is also about helping people feel better. If my back felt better as a result of some sort of placebo effect, so what? Nothing else had worked, chiro did. I don't give a toss about subluxation, neurological anatomy or being touched by the FSM's noodly appendage. I care about my back being in good shape for me to get on with my life.

Now if people are relying on chiro instead of chemo, then they are seriously deluded and the industry that pushed them into that should be dealt with. But that does not seem to me a satisfactory reason to write off the whole discipline if it works for some people.

68. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208622 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 5:04 am

77. Comment #208618 by irate_atheist on July 11, 2008 at 4:53 am

Hmm. I disagree. They are not fit for the job.

How so?

People compartmentalise. Religious types do it more than others, but we all do it to a certain extent. She appears to be able to hold a pen, fill in forms, walk people through the ceremonies and file things away later without her chats with the invisible man seeming to bother anyone. I grant you, it doesn't seem a very challenging job, and we should question how it became one which is far better paid than the average worker. But that isn't relevant for now.

The only thing that makes her "not fit" for the job is that she is not prepared to undertake one part of it. That's a question about whether some specific of her religion is incompatible with her job. Or to put it another way, whether it would constitute some justification for discriminating against her. If we start regarding it as an a priori justification, we aren't any better than the bigots.

Incidentally, the headline appears to be Josh's. There's no mention of it in the original report. I wonder sometimes if this is helpful. In a clear-thinking oasis, it would be reasonable to expect people to be able to make up their own minds. But I digress.

I want people to be ashamed to be religious. I want them to feel they are idiots if they believe in this crap.

Not many people want to sign up to be a member of a group of shameful idiots, this may lead to this bullshit dying out sooner rather than later (or never?).

So do I, but I don't think that telling people their beliefs are unimportant is the way to achieve this. Pointing out how preposterous, inconsistent and/or bigoted they are seems a better way. That's partly why I would have liked the Council to challenge her bona fides, rather than just letting it pass.

69. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208614 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 4:39 am

73. Comment #208607 by irate_atheist on July 11, 2008 at 4:28 am

Why should religion not be discriminated against?

Because, in general, it's irrelevant. Just as being black, or female, or gay, or disabled, is irrelevant.

And because, once you allow people to be discriminated against on the ground of their religion, you don't have a justification for preventing discrimination against people on the ground of their non-religion. That would be you. And me.

There are two things we could get upset about here. One is that someone is looking for special protection for believing in a load of shite. The other is the one you and other posters have identified, that she is looking for an excuse not to do her job. The first of these is not a good reason to get upset. The second is potentially a good reason. That's the one the tribunal has to look at.

70. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208606 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 4:25 am

Sally - Onebag has kindly posted the judgment: http://www.christian.org.uk/ladelejudgment.pdf

This has nothing to do with the adoption issue. The govt included a specific requirement that there be no discrimination on potential parents on grounds of sexual orientation. This is an employment case where she is alleging (successfully) detrimental treatment on grounds of her religion. The sexual orientation piece is only relevant insofar as it would constitute a justification for the disciplinary action taken against her.

71. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208598 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 4:13 am

1075. Comment #208581 by Brian English on July 11, 2008 at 3:47 am

But the less extreme claim that when your muscles or vertebrae press upon nerves may have an adverse affect on how the nerves function seems reasonable. The Chiro I visit only states this, he thinks Chiros who talk about 'wellness' and subluxation are cranks.....He says Chiro can be useful for alleviating back pain. Not for curing disease.

As I understand it, "subluxation" is only intended to mean deterioration of your spine when it is misaligned. As any osteo will tell you, this is fact. Where they differ is as to whether chiro can actually sort out the misalignment.

If it means something more than that, then I haven't understood it properly.

I can only speak from personal experience, and say that the treatment from my first chiropractor was terrific. It sorted out problems that had been there for years. He was succeeded by another chiro who was of the "must come once a week whether you need it or not" school. They seem to give the rest a bad name.

The stuff about cancer is based on the theory that pressure on nerves can lead to poor function (true), poor function can lead to poor oxygen distribution (true), that most cancer appears to be associated with trauma (true) and that often trauma involves oxygen deprivation (true). Add up all the "cans" and "mights" and you don't get a whole lot. The reputable chiros will tell you this, even if they emphasise the overall benefits of full function. Anyone telling you that chiro can cure cancer is a crank and not to be trusted.

72. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208585 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 3:55 am

257. Comment #208570 by Peacebeuponme on July 11, 2008 at 3:32 am

Surely its a case of each to their own? It would be rude of a host to force such customs. Or are you saying I should serve a pork roast to a muslim guest?

Well that's an interesting question (possibly one for Debrett's rather than RDF, but never mind).

I think it depends how far you're expected to go. Serving a pork roast to a Muslim guest would clearly be rude, as it would be to someone you knew was vegetarian. But what if they expected you to check all the ingredients of something else to ensure that they had never been in contact with a pig? What if they insisted that you serve them on new plates, with new cutlery.

I once had an orthodox Jewish colleague who went as far as having four sets of cookware (meat, milk, Pesach meat, Pesach milk), which he refused to deny were colour-coded. He refused to relax this. I have fond memories of him on one work function trying to attack a baked potato with a plastic fork, since they were the only products guaranteed not to be in contact with pig. We only ever ate together at an orthodox Jewish restaurant or things we'd brought ourselves. It seems to me that if I had invited him to dinner (which I didn't for the above reasons), he would have had only two polite choices: (1) get special dispensation from the Rabbi to eat from unkosher plates, or (2) decline. Even if your beliefs are absolutely sincere, I think there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that they are unreasonable.

Meanwhile I had a Jewish girlfriend whose thing was pepperoni pizza. (Well, that may not have been her thing, but I'm certainly not going to get into that.) Apparently, this was ok as long as we ate it off paper plates. Religion: making stuff up as you go along and pretending God is ok with it.

73. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208579 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 3:42 am

A few thoughts on this.

(1) While I'm sure that no one here thinks this woman's beliefs have any merit whatsoever, it's a dangerous road to go down to suggest that people should not have "religious rights". At the very least, she has the right to believe in whatever stupid nonsense she chooses. In this case it's mainstream nonsense, but that shouldn't distinguish it from minority nonsense.

Part of the problem is in analysing these cases in terms of "rights" in the first place. Someone asserts one right, someone else asserts something contradictory. Then we have a long shouting match, and somehow the Tribunal is supposed to pick its way through the morass.

(2) It's pretty clear from the judgment that in the bizarre world of Islington Council, there is a hierachy of respect for different groups. Rationality seems to come right at the bottom, but that's not important for present purposes. Gay rights trump religious rights here. The council actually admitted that they broke confidentiality law in order to pander to the LGBT Forum; there's no explanation as to exactly why they felt it necessary to discuss employment issues with the LGBT Forum in the first place, but what do you expect from a London council?

You can't do this.

It's easy for us to simplify the issue into "religious bigot refusing to do her job". The reality is a little more complicated than that. Not least, she was a registrar well before civil partnerships were brought in. She wasn't consulted about her changes in conditions - they were simply foisted on her. I am not defending her stance on the alleged ethical issue here, but her reaction was not so different from what you would expect in any other unionised environment where management issued a fiat changing the employment terms.

There's no suggestion here that she could, say, apply for the job of registrar and then refuse to carry out civil partnerships.

(3) For the life of me, I cannot understand the relevance of the Thatcher / Kent evidence. What the hell does it matter what other employers do? Methinks the Tribunal took leave of its senses in allowing this. Different rules seem to apply to employees in public service these days. Public service is now geared to providing a living to the likes of Miss Ladele, rather than, y'know, providing the public with a service.

(4) One of the interesting parts of the case is that the Council did not contest that she held her beliefs in good faith. I can see why - it's difficult to prove what is going on in someone's head. But in retrospect, this might have been a better line of attack. She was happy to register unsanctified relationships, which is surely contrary to the very principle on which she now objects to civil partnerships. As other posters have pointed out, she was also happy to marry divorced people, and presumably people of other religions and of none.

At the very least, this shows that her beliefs were internally inconsistent. That's hardly unique amongst believers, but you could at least use it to suggest to the tribunal that she is choosing from the smorgasbord of religious hooey only those matters which accord with her personal prejudices.

I'd like to see Councils try this line on with future troublemakers.

They won't.

74. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208561 by hungarianelephant on July 11, 2008 at 3:22 am

59. Comment #208504 by irate_atheist on July 11, 2008 at 1:51 am

£31,0000 pa just for marrying people?

What the fuck? Is the whole fucking planet mad?

How the fuck do people this fucking thick get jobs paid as well as that.

I think the answers to your questions are:

(1) Yes, only you forgot the index linked final salary pension guaranteed by the taxpayer, the Travelcard, the bonuses, the flexitime and the 25 days holiday per year.

(2) Islington is.

(3) They work for are employed by the council.

Next questions, please.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207931 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 10:13 am

8843. Comment #207906 by Kardashovel on July 10, 2008 at 9:35 am

The answer must be that these early Christians believed with all of their heart. ANd it wasn't because it was the state religion or because daddy said so. And it wasn't because Jesus promised to kick Cesar's butt. What does that prove? I don't know. To me it demonstrates the unique power of the Christian message among all other religions, monotheistic or otherwise.

Given that I believe in God for other reasons, it gives me strong affection for the Christian message. That's all.

Kardashovel, Fair enough, though I'm not sure about "unique". Buddhism would seem to fit into that mould as well.

Of course, if what's important about Christianity is the "message", then the originator of the message is not important. Instead we have something like a working model for looking at politics and morality. That seems to me a project of some merit. But how do you propose (politically) to detach that from the people who insist that there is no other way than that of Jesus?

Concerning the lions, we know a lot of what went on in the Games because it's well documented. If Christians were ever thrown to the lions for sport, then the historians didn't think to mention it. If it was routine, this would be a very surprising omission. The whole thing is just a presumption (your words) - adding the persecution to the lions and coming up with A Suffusion Of Yellow. The idea probably came from the Daniel story. I couldn't say definitively that it didn't happen, just that the evidence is that it is unlikely.

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207904 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 9:26 am

8840. Comment #207901 by decius on July 10, 2008 at 9:20 am

Then, if I may publicly commend my namesake myself - emperor Decius- launched a full scale persecution, for he predicted that christianity would have precipitated civilisation into chaos and barbarism.

In which he was, arguably, correct. Unless you want to go with the Gibbon theory that it was all about obsession with sex.

Speaking of gibbons, the fundies on the other thread seem to have gone quiet.

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207894 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 9:07 am

8825. Comment #207870 by Kardashovel on July 10, 2008 at 8:34 am

In any case, it is worth noting that Constantine chose the path of least resistance, and in spite of crucifixions, immolations, and lion feedings, Christianity spread through peaceful fellowship and the charismatic message that Jesus brought to the world. He showed the way, and as usual, we mortals lost the trail while bickering over who gets to wear the pointy hat.

Suppose we go along with this. How is this different to an argument about the "purest" form of Marxism? How does the effectiveness of the spread of Christianity tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its content?

Btw, the lion feedings are a myth. There's not a shred of evidence that they ever happened.

78. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207866 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 8:31 am

900. Comment #207850 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

Maybe Allah is just a retarded infant who got to monkey around in a tiny portion of this vastness.

That would explain why he spends so much time playing with food. "I am great" written in tomatoes, pictures of his mum in a grilled cheese sandwich ... these seem to be his most impressive tricks these days.

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207859 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 8:25 am

8818. Comment #207837 by Kardashovel on July 10, 2008 at 8:02 am

And the Jews, like many others, thought that their Messiah would be a fierce liberator and a strong conservative leader.

It's interesting that, on the contrary, Jesus was extremely progressive. And while he did show his anger at the tables of the money changers in the Temple, he was remarkably restrained in the face of persecution and torturous public execution.

I'm going to assume that you've watched the Life of Brian... great movie. Suppose that Jesus' crucifixion, like Brian's, was exploited by men like Reg... do you suppose that the followers would risk death and persecution at the hands of their countrymen and the Romans, to follow Reg's teachings? The Life of Brian ended amusingly, with a flippant musical ditty. But what would have happened next had they continued the script? The formation of the world's most popular religion?

I think you're asking the wrong question.

If you take the Jesus story at face value, then what you have is a charismatic leader who offered a completely different philosophy, and method of resistance to Rome, from that which was prevalent at the time. When military resistance is so obviously useless, isn't it worth trying something else?

Gandhi found the same popularity nineteen centuries later when he engaged on a remarkably similar project.

It shouldn't be assumed that Reg would have continued to lead the movement after Brian's death. The enthusiasts with the gourd and the shoe might be more likely candidates. And Christianity's eventual move to dominance was born out of Constantine's desperate attempts to keep the Empire together. Then, as now, it was primarily a political project.

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207816 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 7:39 am

If he existed, Jesus was a short, ugly guy.

[EDIT - and lest I be rightly castigated for failing to provide a reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus

Wikipedia. What would we do without it?]

81. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207771 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 7:02 am

Alright, hands up everyone who's wearing cowboy boots.

Personally, I'm wearing a rather attractive pair of pink high heels. It would be appreciated if you didn't mention this to my wife.

82. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207766 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 6:58 am

842. Comment #207755 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 6:46 am

No, I didn't. Wooter is also a Muslim, apparently.

Is he? I know he was defending all that Yahya nonsense, but I didn't think he'd moved from his previous statements of Christianity.

It would make sense, though. When I say "sense", you understand of course that this is a relative term.

83. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207751 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 6:43 am

832. Comment #207744 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 6:36 am

You think Christian Creationists are bad, but at least they can write coherent sentences and present some kind of arguments,--even wrong ones,--instead of pounding away on the keyboard in caps and drown you with quotes from their stupid "holy" books. But these Muslim creationists are something else.

Generally yes, but you forgot wooter aka clearmind.

Or perhaps you were just trying to ignore him, as most of us are doing.

84. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207730 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 6:18 am

fides - Bryson's book is excellent. I'd definitely recommend it. The likes of our Dr Zara are not going to learn much from it, but it's a thoroughly engaging ramble through a host of different aspects of science. And it's understandable even if you have no science background.

Plus, there's not a single instance of a block sliding down a ramp.

85. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207686 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 5:37 am

816. Comment #207675 by Cartomancer on July 10, 2008 at 5:25 am

Y'know, the idea that babies are all born as muslims makes a lot of sense. It'd certainly explain why all they do is shout loudly at the tops of their voices demanding food and shelter from others, don't contribute anything useful to society, make a mess of their surroundings, can't engage in intelligent debate and crap themselves and start crying whenever something they don't understand comes along..

True. But yer average baby comes equipped with a shedload of curiosity. Yer average Muslim has the curiosity of a daffodil.

Remind us again how many books have ever been translated into Arabic?

86. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207626 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 4:08 am

In other news:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-fear-altar-wine-may-put-them-over-limit-1209613.html

You don't need to read it. The URL tells you everything you need to know.

87. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207624 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2008 at 4:06 am

197. Comment #207599 by irate_atheist on July 10, 2008 at 3:38 am

At the other end of the scale, my father-in-law once turned up at a small church to give communion but realised he'd forgotten the (non-alcoholic) communion wine. His simple solution was to send a little old lady down to the local shop to buy a bottle of Ribena.

Pah. I've seen the vicar respond to a small supply of wine and an unusually large attendance at communion - I think it made double figures that day - by adulterating it with Benylin. Said Benylin was kept in the vestry for choirboys with a cough.

No jokes about choirboys, thank you.

88. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207197 by hungarianelephant on July 9, 2008 at 9:59 am

628. Comment #207164 by Bonzai on July 9, 2008 at 9:02 am

According to the Chinese creation myth, the God Pengu bursted out from a cosmic egg in a huge explosion, stretched out the heavens and then died of exhaustion. So, in one fell swoop it anticipated the big bang, quantum fluctuations of the vacuum and the second law of thermodynamics,--God died of an overdose of entropy, having created cosmic order out of chaos.

I can't believe I have got through my life so far without encountering this gem. How marvellous. That's made my day. Thanks, Bonzai.

Although I do for some reason have this strange image of a gibbering penguin.

[EDIT - And as soon as I finish typing the words "gibbering penguin" ... wooter appears.]

89. Degrees of religion

Comment #206413 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 10:55 am

54. Comment #206297 by ridelo on July 8, 2008 at 8:32 am

And the curious thing is that catholic priests were the experts of these jokes.
Wonder if in Islam they have a similar subculture going. Would be very liberating.

Let's see now.

"There is no humour in Islam." - Ayatollah Khomeni

Hmm. Nope. Maybe in another 700 years.

90. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206390 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 10:28 am

mordacious1 - Fixed now, not that it provided any arguments better than the new Wooterbot for Islam 2.0.

91. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206383 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 10:23 am

That's supposed to say "The Qu'ran is bollocks from beginning to end". Damn the style sheet.

I can't even edit it now. There's a moral in there somewhere.

[EDIT - fixed with the dreaded IE. Oh well.]

92. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206379 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 10:20 am

THE QU'RAN IS BOLLOCKS FROM BEGINNING TO END.

There, I have the most shouty font, so I win the argument. Right?

93. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206370 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 10:10 am

Er ... winged horses?

94. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206267 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 7:59 am

This is probably a minor point, but does anyone know what "matrialism" is? I'd be sorry to learn that Harun Yahoo has debunked it before I'd even heard of it.

95. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206069 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 4:28 am

Tyler - Absolutely true.

One of my favourite snippets of history is that Charles II tried to ban coffee houses. People were getting together for civilised discussions, and the caffeine was nourishing their brains. This was, of course, extremely dangerous because it led to the development of ideas likely to upset an already precarious order. They were also centres of gossip about the king's legendary inability to control his libido.

England's first coffee house was the Queen's Lane Coffee House in Oxford. It's still there today. Even the most paranoid monarch wasn't going to annoy the university which melted its plate to support him.

Now, what were we talking about? Eels? Never mind. Carry on.

96. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205964 by hungarianelephant on July 8, 2008 at 1:37 am

88. Comment #205679 by mrjonno on July 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I've come to the sad conclusion its irrelevant if global warming from humans is happening or not.

If its a choice between a new plasma tv and million drowned africans despite the fact that no one would ever admit it most people will go for the tv. Human beings simply are not 'designed' to be able to care about their species, no animal is.

Sadly I'm inclined to agree.

However, that itself may point the direction. As phil rimmer said in an earlier post, much of what we do is simply wasteful. Discussions of "emissions" are far detached from most people and hence Someone Else's Problem. The way they become My Problem is if the consequences are placed in front of me.

What if houses had to be advertised with an estimated "cost of ownership" over 30 years, which took into account the estimated cost of lighting and heating the place? Even relatively small differences multiply over that period into substantial numbers. It would be in the interest of builders of new houses to build them more efficiently, because of the reduction in the ownership price over time.

Why stop at houses? Get rid of the energy ratings on electrical appliances, which are of only doubtful meaning, and specify a cost of ownership. Better still, if the manufacturer won't provide a sensible guarantee, assume that it will break at the end of the guarantee and build that into the effective price.

Incorporate recycling charges into products at the time of purchase, not when you try to dispose of them.

Teach people how not to drive like wankers. Fuel efficiency is much more dependent on how you drive than on what you drive.

And if you're going to have "green taxes", have meaningful ones with the proceeds earmarked for environmental projects. Messing around with road tax is an obvious ruse to extract revenue and damages the credibility of all the other taxes. Governments hate earmarking because they think of it as a slippery slope, but it's essential to distinguish externality charges from tax and spend policies.

These are just a few specifics. It makes obvious sense to reduce dependency on oil, even if you somehow believe that AGW is a load of hooey. I don't see why these discussions shouldn't dominate the debate, rather than arguments about hockey stick curves that have taken over this thread in the same way.

97. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205499 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 11:27 am

phil - Good post; unfortunately I'll have to plead no. 10 for now.

98. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205483 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 11:03 am

41. Comment #205459 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:53 am

I think it works the other way around. If the warming is partly due to natural phenomena (which looks like it isn't the case), then the vast amounts of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere have barely started to work, and we are in even more serious trouble.

Suppose you have to devote all available resources to either (a) combating emissions, or (b) trying to deal with the consequences of global warming.

	Combat Emissions	Deal With Consequences
Warming is Entirely Man-made	Maximal impact	Consequences dealt with (though probably with other damage)
Warming is Partly Man-made	Mitigates the worst of the consequences	Consequences dealt with (")
Warming is Entirely Natural	No effect	Consequences dealt with (")

Unless we can be certain that we are well up towards "entirely man-made" - and we aren't - then dealing with the consequences is the least risky option. In addition to that, we have to factor in the efficacy of each strategy in the best case scenario. For example, Kyoto is a nonsense because even the best case scenario achieves very little.

This is highly simplistic of course. Optimal strategy is likely to involve a multi-pronged approach, not least because over the long term the consequences keep stacking up.

Just as an additional note, drastically reducing emissions is not necessarily a less risky option, because it effectively means that billions of people will starve. Except to the extent that we can do it by a switch to alternative energy.

Btw, surprised to hear that it looks like natural phenomena aren't in play. Do you have any recommended reading on that?

99. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205444 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 9:21 am

38. Comment #205431 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:09 am

There is also a danger that if people believe we can fix things at some point in the future by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, they will not bother to do anything.

Agreed. I'd bet that many of the general public deniers are counting on precisely this happening. And that there will be an immortality pill by the time they are 55.

100. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205441 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 9:19 am

37. Comment #205428 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2008 at 9:06 am

Quite frankly I think the money would be better spent planning for the future.

Say that quietly, or you might be branded a denier.

This makes even more sense when you factor in the notion that climate change may be partly attributable to natural phenomena. If a major part of the problem is natural, then attempting to deal with the man-made aspects is likely not productive. When you direct action to the consequences of global warming rather than the alleged cause (poor choice of words, perhaps), then the whole issue of relative contribution simply disappears.

This still doesn't mean that it's a clever idea to burn all the black stuff as quickly as we can find it, of course. But it might be better to deal with that issue on its own terms. I appreciate that some people would like as many sticks as they can with which to beat the oil lobby, but since that political strategy hasn't worked too well, maybe it's time for something different.