351. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289763 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 7:21 am

God fearing Atheist says "If you cite God as the reason for your politics you will be laughed at"

Wishful thinking, perhaps. My approach is that I refuse to vote for a politician who thinks that his religious beliefs should be told to all in sundry.

The reason is simple. If he thinks that his religious beliefs are my business, then he thinks that my religious beliefs are his business.

They are not. They are basically private.

I'm glad Obama won but I could not vote for him if I were American.

352. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289757 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 7:10 am

Steve says "That is one reason why I want to promote secularism and not anti-religion. I think it is the only effective way forward."

Agreed. Moreover, the fundies are promoting anti-religion far more effectively that non-believers could ever hope. We can safely leave that side to the nutters if we so wish.

The whole political game I am repeatedly trying to get everyone interested in is basically secularism in politics.

If the fundamentalist nutters want to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, let them. Where it becomes dangerous is when they politicise the issue and it becomes an issue for everyone else.

In fact, I have a slighter broader attitude towards religion. It (religion) is a matter best left in the private domain. Perhaps that reflects me being English rather than American.

In any case, the consequence is that I am not really interested in trying to convert people away from religion.

Mind you, I get loads of pleasure from duffing up cretinists on the Internet. It's a blood sport!

353. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289752 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 6:58 am

And here http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1227459 is a politician (in Canada) advocating execution of gays on religious grounds.

So, er, Bernstein, which side are you on?

354. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289739 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 6:32 am

"I don't exactly see what poinht you are trying to make, but hope you are not suggesting this site's principal aim is to teach biology!"

Nah, I'd never be as cynical as that! Nor has the wicked thought ever entered my tiny little head that its principal aim is to sell books by a biologist.

(Ducks for cover.)

;-)

355. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289734 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 6:27 am

Richard can speak for himself but his criticisms of religion reflect the world we are currently living in. The fundies have developed an organisation and highly effective campaign against science. When he wrote The Selfish Gene, cretinism was basically unknown in Britain.

Cretinism is just about the worst possible advertisement for religion and is guaranteed to turn huge numbers against it. Just as 9/11 was exceedingly damaging towards religion.

Secondly, Richard is not a politician or an expert in politics. I doubt whether he has much to say on either that is any more enlightening that many in this forum can say.

For what it is worth, I suspect that Richard has been much more influential about religion than he thinks. It will take a generation or so for much of it to sink in to the population at large.

The same happened with gay rights, feminism and anti-racism. Basically they have spread because the older population have died off.

I wonder how fat TGD actually affected the outcome of the Nov 4th elections in the USA.

Does anyone have any opinions on that?

356. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289719 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 5:49 am

Berstein - atheism is not single issue politics. It's a battle between, on the one hand, deeply reactionary fundamentalist ignorance and, on the other hand, the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment (which the fundies call the Age of Endarkenment), reason, rationality and liberal democracy.

What on earth do you think the National Secular Society or the British Humanist Association are fighting for? These are both atheistic organisations. Neither are fighting just to promote atheism.

357. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289705 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 5:29 am

Bertsein - so what you are saying is that the matter be reduced to a single issue and de-politicised? That's not how your enemies are playing.

Some of the others have just pointed out (somewhat implictly) the broader battle - between ignorance and the idea of the Age of Enlightenment (which the fundies call the Age of Endarkenment), reason, rationality, education and whatever. Ideas matter in history and they have big political consequences. The fundies know it.

358. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289695 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 5:13 am

Berstein, I think you are way off. people are not going to "convert" from religion to atheism through the political process. Acceptance of religion is dying (except in the USA) because of social and intellectual attitudes - better education, the current Zeitgeist backed by Richard et al, better communications and awareness or whatever. It is not dying because of the atheists' political movement.

Seems to me that the political issues regarding religion are almost entirely centred (yet again) on keeping it out of the political domain. Proposition 8 was about keeping it in the political domain.

Secondly, if you're gonna fight political battles, get everyone you can onside. That's my basic political argument for gay rights.

Let's spell the problem out. The fundies want a theocracy, with them in charge. There is nothing new about this whatsoever - Cromwell got it. The issue is spelled out on Stepehen Green's web, take a look at the Wedge document or Patrick Henry University.

I think everyone in here ought to take a look at precisely what political monstrousities the fundies want and just how they expect to stop them.

They are not a small minority. 25% of the population of the USA are fundies of some sort. Another 25% or so swallow much of the BS. The fundies are basically taking over religion in the UK.

Gays possible are 10% of the population. You can't afford, politically, not to have them onside. That means backing them and gay rights. It also means, btw, getting mainstream religion onside.

If you want to fight political battles, play hard politics.

359. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289661 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 4:02 am

Bernstein - the reason why the gay arights agenda is being discussed so extensively here is because the forum reflects what is going on the outside world today. Gay rights were a major issue in the Nov 4th elections and a huge amount of effort was made by organised religion to prevent gays having the same rights as everyone else.

There is nothing "biased" about this forum to gays.

I support gay raights because gays are due exactly the same rights as the rest of us. The fundies in particular have, for generations, tried to stop the majority (let alone the minority) having the same rights as themselves - the majority being women, blacks, Catholics, non-believers....

The fundies are deeply politicised and are "off-side" when it comes to a modern liberal democracy.

There are those in this group who think that it is OK if they only back a course of action out of self interest. Me? Yep, there is an element of that. I also find the fundie position on gay rights to be cruel and utterly lacking in compassion and humanity.

If the fundies get away with this, they will treat the rest of us in the same manner. Do a google on "BCSE Revealed" to see the organised pulpit mouthing and screaming by the British cretinists when someone stands up to them.

360. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289644 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 2:44 am

Laurie - likewise the fundies themselves. I've been on the receiving end of the pulpit bullying.

361. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289640 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 2:28 am

Epeeist - 20 million? A lot of the fundies think the genocidal bastard deliberately killed 8 billion in the flood (and, of course, there was nothing at all wrong with him doing so).

Shrommer doesn't seem to grasp that "ideas" matter. They do. That's why so many of the fundies are so scary. They have their own death cult in the form of the End Timers. Their idea is that it is actually important that millions upon million be killed.

The fictional God of the OT that Shrommer "believes" in is an exceedingly nasty piece of work.

362. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #289312 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 1:41 pm

CoraJudd says " Atheist or agnostic thinking is no less a worldview and a comprehensive belief system and worthy of all considerations given to others."

Nah. Most people, whether they be religious or not, don't have "worldviews". Worldviews are basically ideologies. The majority of people have a collection of perspectives drawn form a wide variety of sources.

The term worldview is basically a product of the religious right in the USA. Given that I am neither American or religious, it is vacuous to me.

All atheism is to me is a lack of being convinced by Christianity. I doubt if I believed in it, that my perspectives about the world would change very much.

363. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289306 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Naturlaist1 says "I think we must remember that it is not just the Abrahamic imaginary friends we are discussing but all of the millions of gods there have been in history."

IIRC, in recorded history the number of dieties/gods is far lower than this at about 1,970. Correct me if I am wrong.

364. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289304 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Baron - I'm far from convinced that there is a thing called political science. Politics is simply not a science which uses the scientific method.

I did a lot of post gard work on policy making. One might reasonably expect that in policy making all the relevent information be collected and subject to whatever models were appropriate before coming to a policy. In fact, the whole shooting match of policy making is basically nothing of the sort. It is about muddling through.

It's probably better than it was 20 years ago. Thatcher's policy documents - green and white papers, for example, were often staggeringly thin but I doubt whether the process is much more effective.

365. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289258 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 11:53 am

Baron - so what is a rational political system?

366. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289252 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 11:43 am

Baron - nope but Marxism (whatever variation) has long been claimed to be rational.

367. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #289250 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 11:39 am

Frankus1122 - sounds like she went to the BJU.

[joke]

368. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289246 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 11:17 am

Baron, er, can't agree with you on that at all. Millions have died in the name of "rational" political analysis. See Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, the French Revolution...

Rationality has its severe limits in the humanities. In the real world we still have to rely heavily on the subjective, hunch and intuition because there is no alternative.

Strikes me that what you are talking about is scientism.

369. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #289241 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 11:05 am

LOL!!! Fundies rejecting vaccines against cervical cancer to "protect" their daughters!

Um, everyone knows that female fundies are "an easy lay". Basically they are screamed at for years that even thinking about bonking is a mortal sin. So they all, when the opportunity for the real thing arises, end up taking the view "might as well be hung for a sheep than a lamb".

As witnessed by Sarah Palin's daughter.

370. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289231 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 10:50 am

"A completely rational society would be nice...."

Ugh! Shudder! I can't think of anything so utterly ghastely. It denies all emotion and intuition. Reducing such emotions as love to nothing more than mere reational explanations strikes me as about an ugly approach as one could get.

I'd far, far prefer to live in a society where my emotions and exploration of life run unfettered by absolute rationalism. Eeer, cold, calculating and unimaginative.

Give me the irrational fun of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy any day to some dreary book on the mathematics of 2LOT.

371. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289227 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 10:39 am

I suspect that one of the big reasons why America remains religious is because so many Americans believe that it is top dog in the world as a result of being favoured by God over other nations.

A lot of Americans really do think they are more moral than the rest of the world because they have been ordained by God to lead it.

It's exactly the same bogus thinking (and arrogance) that the British believed in the 19th century when we were top dogs. Read the words of Jerusalem to get the point.

372. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289172 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 9:18 am

Radesq - I suspect that coming out as an atheist is a big problem in the USA. Not so sure, though, about it in the UK. It's never been a problem for me not accepting religion. Then again, outside of Northern Ireland, the British are pretty private about their religious views and, in any case, only about 12% of the population practice religion. Indeed, effectively, belief in religion is collapsing. It's now mostly the old, I guess, who are religious.

373. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289160 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 9:09 am

Sorry Baron.

Roger

374. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289155 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 9:05 am

Hellene - Yes, the compassion thing is central to it all. It's significance seems to me to be grossly under-estimated.

PS, can't say that I am compassionate towards fundies - they are bloody jerks and habitual liars.

375. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289148 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 8:58 am

Brian Scarpia; From memory of the membership of the British Centre for Science Education, which is predominantly atheistic, only two people to my knowledge are gay. It's not statistically significant.

It seems to me that whether the atheist community is, percentage wise, more gay than the population at large, is a red herring. Even if it is not, I can't see why it would be that important.

Perhaps someone might be able to help me on this but I don't know what percentage of the population is considered to be gay. I have in my mind that it is about 2% (1 in 50). Am I roughly right on this?

BTW, I never believed that it is 10% as someone in this forum stated over the last day or so.

376. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289128 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 8:28 am

One of the things that has deeply confused me over the last couple of years about this forum is precisely what the objectives of the particpants are. Roughly speaking it comes over as an intellectual battle between religion and rationality.

What disturbs me, though, is the lack of any coherent political objectives.

My own battle is not with religion; in the broadest sense it is with religious extremism and specifically with creationism.

In either case I take it as a political, not an intellectual battle (yep, it has intellectual under-pinnings, I admit).

Seems to me that my battle is actually to keep fundamentalism out of the political sphere. In that sense, my under-pinnings are that everyone should have equal rights to puruse whatever religious opinions they feel comfortable with.

Fundies don't like that at all.

Their objective is essentially a theocratic state (with them in charge).

It seems to me that the whole issue of equal rights for all is exactly the same battle that anti-racists, the feminist movement and the gay rights movement have in common with my position on fundamentalism.

They are natural allies because we all want the same thing. A few words might differ here and there in the detail but, so what?

The big problem I have, though, is that a lot of mainstream religious types also have the same political position. As I defend the right of everyone to hold whatever religious position they feel comfortable with, as long as it does not affect anyone else's rights, they too are on side.

If a war is to be undertaken against the fundies (read cretinists as well), then I want to see everyone possible on side.

Some will find this intellectually impossible to handle. Well, my reply is, if you are fighting a war, that's not only a recipe for defeat, it is intellectual masturbation. The issue is about right and wrong in the political arena.

It's a bit like organising a strike for higher pay. At the end of the day, whether you win or not depends on how many you have on your side of the picket line, not what their intellectual position is. If you only have people who, say, are Marxists, on your side, then you'll fail.

377. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289021 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 4:36 am

Shrommer claims "How did Jesus physically rise from the dead?

Well, it's not the kind of thing that I've done myself to write a manual about it, and Jesus didn't leave us any step-by-step instructions or historical records either.

The body is something we inhabit, so if the spirit leaves the body, I guess it goes back in the same way it left, only in reverse.

How does a glove "come back to life" after the hand has left it? A hand goes back in."

Eyes Roll. Read a biology text book.

378. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289015 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 4:19 am

Shrommer, you are being facetious "Goldy, you are correct that none of the eyewitnesses of Christ's ministry and resurrection are alive today."

379. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289013 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 4:13 am

Shrommer claims "You don't have to believe the Bible is true to see that a lot of people who call themselves Christians are not following the Biblical model for the Church. When they make it into a manmade political institution, they are not following the words of Jesus that they say they believe in."

Oh, I see. A lot of Christians are, in fact, not Christians, notably "Catholiks".

So precisely why do you think you are any better than anyone else in deciding who is a proper Chriatian and who is not?

So precisely which of the 2,000 or so non-Protestant denomiations/sects or the 29,000 Protestant denominations/sects are proper Christianity? Which one are you a member of?

380. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289009 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 3:53 am

Shrommer, thanks for the "profound" banality - "The wheat and the weeds grow next to each other, Jesus said."

Here's one back: "Blessed are the cheesemakers (or any other producer of dairy products)."

381. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289008 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 3:44 am

Shrommer says "There may be believers in Christ in any and every political party and religion, working in all sorts of different jobs and for all different kinds of employers, with all different favorite foods and sports teams, with different views on ethics and morality, ... but no one earthly political party or religion (no one institution) can lay claim to all true Christians or to have for its members only true Christians."

So what? The vast majority of the world's religions have nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

Thanks for the banality.

382. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #289005 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 3:37 am

Shrommer says "Jesus participated in the political system by paying taxes."

You have a very strange idea of "participation" in the political system. The place was an occupied country run by a dictatorship. The locals, except the coopted elites, were excluded completly from the political system.

Precisely where and when in the Bible does it say that Jesus paid taxes? How much? Where? When? IIRC, he preached against having wealth and money. He was far from being a money grubbng Word Faith evengelical pastor coining in millions.

Or was he another Kent Hovind?

383. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #288990 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 2:45 am

Ascaphus says "I suggest that the problem is really much more general. We are inclined to dislike 'others', and this poses a problem in our huge mixed populations. Some people are able, or willing, to recognize and tame this impulse in themselves, others either are unwilling or are goaded through the influence of religion or other cultural structures which thrive on exaggerating the differences."

In the case of Proposition 8, methinks you are way off.

This whole fundie/religious homophobia thing is just a latter day form of racism. The fundies lost the racism battle in the 1960s and homophobia has replaced it - just substitute gay fr black and the language is the same.

Moreover, the whole shooting match, as with racism, is highlyu politicised.

It's about a minority - white, not well educated, hetrosexual religious males against the freedoms of the majority - women, blacks, gays, the well educated....The bigots cannot cope with the idea that everyone should have the same freedoms.

Freedom threatens their religious position. It's Plato's old conundrum written in a slightly different way - does morality in religion come from society or is it external and ordained and determined by religious texts.

They cannot cope with the former. Yet it is blatently obvious that the former is where morality comes from.

384. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288988 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 2:12 am

The creationists caught lying again ""Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been holders of the world view of atheism.[139][140""

So why has the DI (and all the other cretinist organisations) been telling, under oath in courts of law, that creation science/ID has nothing to do with religion and can be justified by science alone?

No siree Bob, ID has nothing to do with religion.

To my knowledge, the cretinists have presented this poosition in at least eight legal cases before the courts (and lost every one of them).

As I say, fundies lie - out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly. It is the only way that they can sustain their position.

One of these days I'll come across a cretinist who understands the ninth commandment. I've been waiting a long time.

385. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288987 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 1:51 am

Aquilicane says "As I pointed out in my post, I think if you give people something to imagine, rather than leave it up to their imagination to decide, you will have far greater success."

So just precisely how does one get this message across because, in this cae, the religites have effectively censored it.

They want the alternative to their viewpoint banned because they think it offensive.

This is not a matter of "public debate" in a free society about religion. It's a case of the religites trying to close down the debate.

It stinks. As I say, I think our attitude here should be one of tough shit to them. Their game is pulpit bullying.

386. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288892 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Shaunfletcher says "If the company acted immorally or illegally then that would be a different matter (and if they breached contract presumably they face a penalty for that).. but I dont require others (people or businesses) to be strong in the face of intimidation, where the act they actually perform under that intimidation is not in itself harmful."

Well, that's your interpretation of what happened. Sounds to me more like a billboard company that has no balls or integrity that walked away when a bunch of powerless nobodies said boo to it. It simply failed to back its customer. My interpretation is that it is run by a bunch of self-serving cowards.

387. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #288889 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Jabber - all I can say is that the soup kitchen in Bristol is run by the stupid and arrogant.

By all accounts it is no different from the one in my town. No humanity, no compassion, no idea how the real world works. They think they are doing favours to "sinners" who should know better.

388. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288888 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 4:15 pm

DP claims "Freedom of speech does not apply in business. If you walk into your job and say you hate jews and muslims, then you boss has every right to fire you even though you are using your freedom of speech."

Brilliant DP. So, er, the company you work for has the right to sack you or anyone else because of which political party they/you vote for or support?

389. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288886 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Brilliant DP - Right and wrong in the USA is decided by how much monery one has and not personal integrity. Strikes me that this billboard company was in breach of contract in removing the ad. Stinks, doesn't it?

Are you saying that The God Delusion should not be sold in the USA because it offends people and is therefore not good for business? Yes or no?

390. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288885 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm

"I think this comment is an insight to the counter-productive nature of FFRF's approach. Church going families, FFRF's target audience here, have been further alienated by FFRF. IMHO FFRF needs a smarter campaign manager."

Tough fucking shit that the religious and their children are offended by the inocuous. That's their problem and nobody elses.

What are you suggesting - that the non-believers should be even more accomodating?

391. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288769 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 11:40 am

Aquilacane says "Imagining no religion congers up a very scary and bad world for many who read it."

Tough shit to them. So does religious fundamentalism conjour up a very nasty and bad world for many. Indeed, to many mainstream or otherwise religious people, fundamentalism is blasphemy and/or heresy and damned dangerous.

If the fundies want to get politicised, they should expect copious and vigorous criticism of all that they stand for. Instead, all too often, they just resort to bile and the insidious martyrdom complex about how persecuted and hard done to they are.

392. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #288751 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 11:03 am

I must admit I am disgusted with the behaviour of the religious people that forced the removal of the billboard. Nevertheless, they are their own worst enemy.

I've taken the position that in a liberal democracy it is everyone's basic human right to believe, practice and pursue whatever religious opinions they feel comfortable with. It seems that even this basic right is being denied by whoever objected to this billboard.

Good grief, this billboard is about as mild as could be in expressing someone's opinions on religion.

Odd, isn't it, that one's religious opinions in the USA are everyone's else's business but in Europe most people don't give a stuff about them. No wonder the Zeitgeist is changing.

393. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #288744 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 10:50 am

Steve, I'm due at the Dublin meet in July but if there is anything going on in London beforehand, I'll turn up at that as well.

394. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #288730 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 10:25 am

Steve, I just checked out your reference re Orion. During the 1980s I got to know quite a few people who had worked on project Daedalus (basically, it appears, an updated Orion). One of the key brains behind that was Alan Bond who, last tme I checked, was one of the few engineers left working in Britain who were still involved in spaceflight. I guess, though, he must now be close to or past retirement. From the 1980s he was working on SSTO.

395. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #288727 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 10:14 am

Alas Steve, the British Space Society died a death after Margaret Thatcher pulled the plug on plans for the UK to get involved in the International Space Station and manned spaceflight (Hermes).

I did get to talk though with some very interesting people at the time including NASA astronauts and Roy Gibson, former director general of the European Space Agency.

396. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #288722 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 10:04 am

Steve, up to a point. Maybe we do have the engineering technology but I suspect that we are lightyears off having the medical knowledge to allow people to survive for years in a zero gravity and enclosed space and provide healthy food and sustinance. Moreover, the issue also needs to address the deep physcological problems involved.

It's years, IIRC, since the Russians stopped their research on the midical issues involved in prolongued periods of space flight.

I was involved in the 1980s with the British Space Society on such matters and felt at the time that the whole issue of prolonged manned space flight was so problematical that even a manned mission to Mars was pie in the sky, so to speak.

Indeed I was far from convinced of the value of either the Space Shuttle or the International Space Station and nothing in the last 20 years has changed my mind, not even Hubble.

397. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288718 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 9:52 am

Jan Chan And precisely what schemes and plans have you, er, implemented. Where can we read about them in the national press or in Hansard? What, er, resources have you got and how have you deployed?

What are your objectives, what is your strategy and what tactics are you deploying?

How do these differ from and are better than others we are using?

There are many in here who would be delighted to know of your successes in this matter.

Please do enlighten us.

398. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288693 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 7:33 am

JanChan = our very own Adrian Mole, aged 18 3/4.

Now all we need to know is whether or not he is at Neasden University.

399. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288581 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 3:24 am

JanChan claims people are stupid "Now for anyone stupid enough to not know where kangaroos are found, they only live in Australia."

Um, Kangaroos live outside of Australia. Try Papua New Guinea for starters.

400. The battle rages on in Texas

Comment #287983 by Roger Stanyard on November 21, 2008 at 4:37 am

"I went to a British public school - obviously I can't see anything wrong with a bloke dressed in female undergarments placing his penis into a vehicle."

True. Baxter Basics "the Tory MP who loves to dump his load" was doing it in the early 1990s according to that highly reputable organ, Viz.