The future is a bright?

[j4]

This has just irritated me mightily.


After the first paragraph, I was already gritting my teeth. The first flakes of enamel started fluttering down like dental dandruff onto my keyboard as I reached the third or fourth. By the time I got to "Children are too young to know their religious opinions" (ascribing a religion to a child is "child abuse", whereas writing them off as too immature to have an opinion is somehow not?) I was gnawing the table-edge and muttering "sorrel, sorrel" under my breath.

Despite the damage to my dental regions, I did manage to read as far as the point where Dawkins kindly decides to inform the "gay" community what connotations "gay", "homosexual", and "queer" have. No, I'm not about to be drawn into the deadly dance of self-identification; my objection is nothing to do with obsessive people-pigeonholing, much less poof-specific pedantry. (After all, I suppose it is understandable that he has failed to notice the Queer Rights movement, and thus still regards "queer" as unquestionably an "insult".) But to blithely limit the meaning of one set of words (and, like it or not, identities) while claiming to liberate his own smug subculture from the tyranny of being called a spade... well, I wonder what the current meaning of "double standards" is in Dawkins' ideolect?

Perhaps he is right, and "I am a bright" really does sound "too unfamiliar to be arrogant". Perhaps it really is "puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising", and will revolutionise the world with its daring and memetic (natch) approach to (a lack of) religion. Fortunately, his real message comes out wholly untainted (and unredeemed) by his religious bias, with the resounding familiarity of the shit hitting the bowl: "I am a self-satisfied waste of the planet's vital resources".

Comments

[j4.livejournal.com]

and furthermore:

Ideally (in my view) children wouldn't be "brainwashed", but how do you define or enforce that? Where does it stop? It's clearly completely impractical, even if society as a whole wanted to. OTOH, teaching in schools _should_ be religion neutral.

And what do you mean by "religion neutral"? Do you mean that teachers should not be allowed to mention their own religion? Should not be allowed to mention any religion? (Does "any religion" include atheism for the purposes of this argument?) Or if one religion is mentioned, do all others also have to be mentioned in the same breath? Think how impractical trying to implement (never mind trying to enforce) any of these options would be.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Er, no. There shouldn't be any school-organised religious worship, given the impossibility of catering to everyone's beliefs. People should be taught *about* religion (and the alternatives), rather than to be religious.

[j4.livejournal.com]

I agree that school is not the place for organised worship.

(You said "teaching in schools should be religion neutral", so, er, I thought you meant teaching rather than worship.)

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Well, I did mean teaching. My RE lessons up until the age of 11 or so were essentially treating the Bible as a history textbook, so "lessons" certainly can be entirely biased (I'm not sure if that would happen now, though).

But I'd view an organised act of worship led by teachers as a (subtle) form of teaching, too.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Shame that schools are required (http://www.humanism.org.uk/educationresources/forteachers/collectiveworship.shtml) to organise worship (and nominally non-religious schools must organise worship a majority of which has a 'broadly Christian' character).

[ex-monkeyhan688.livejournal.com]

Yeah. And on this thread, I think it would be really dangerous to have some kind of religious version of Clause 28, where teachers aren't allowed to "promote" any kind of religion.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Well, the whole idea that people were "promoting" homosexuality was ridiculous anyway. As far as I can see, the problem with Clause 28 were the negative vibes it caused by singling out homosexuality, and that it created a risk of people going over the top in trying to comply.

I think this is really a question of professional ethics, rather than anything else. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that you're a Christian, but trying to suggest to pupils that they should go to church is completely unacceptable (except possibly if it was in response to a request for advice about Christianity or something). Same as for a teacher with political views - discussing them is fine, persuading pupils to join their party isn't. And obviously you have to have some regard for the age/maturity of the people you're dealing with.

[ex-monkeyhan688.livejournal.com]

Well, the whole idea that people were "promoting" homosexuality was ridiculous anyway.

That's what I was trying to say; that having a law against "promoting" something may well result in people being afraid to even mention it. And a lot of teachers did go over the top, as you put it, to the extent of ignoring homophobic bullying, etc. I'm afraid that a similar law against "promoting" religion in schools would indirectly result in racist bullying.

I think this is really a question of professional ethics, rather than anything else.

I think you're absolutely right.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Yes, we all know that, and I suspect most of the people who are bothering to read this agree that it's a bad idea & should be abolished, etc. etc.

Can we move on to something more interesting now, please?

[ex-monkeyhan688.livejournal.com]

Yes, we all know that, and I suspect most of the people who are bothering to read this agree that it's a bad idea & should be abolished, etc. etc.

Can we move on to something more interesting now, please?

Are you talking to me? - I'm sorry I joined in stating the obvious. But I was trying to stay away from the subtle and satirical because it didn't fit in with the general tone of earnestness, and I just really didn't feel like making jokes and having them heavily and slowly misinterpreted.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Are you talking to me?

No, I was talking to addedentry, who Should Know Better. I mean, not that you shouldn't know better, more that you already do know better, so I didn't need to talk to you. Except in a Venusian sense of conversation-as-bonding rather than conversation-as-transmission of-road-names. ... Hi!

I just really didn't feel like making jokes and having them heavily and slowly misinterpreted.

I know the feeling. As the nun said to the Nazi. Ho ho! Only kidding. Mary, Mary (virgin, mother, CRONE, WHORE), quite contrary (because that's the only way to FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY), how does your sorrel grow? Not to say, of course, that women should be gardening instead of FIGHTING and DRINKING.

Talking of w(h)i(t)ch... I'll never drink again.

[ex-monkeyhan688.livejournal.com]

a Venusian sense of conversation-as-bonding rather than conversation-as-transmission of-road-names.

Phatic communion, tap it with a spoon-y-un. Sharing of experience through lower-class song.
Chastity as moon-y-un, ymdidanwreic's a boon-y-un, how to make it right when it FEELS ALL WRONG.

[ex-monkeyhan688.livejournal.com]

By which, of course, I meant:

"I don't recall reading that people on Venus talk differently; in point of fact, I was not aware that people on Venus talk at all, or indeed that there were people on Venus to do the aforementioned speaking. Correct me if I am in error, however.
I believe you are correct about the fact that I don't need to know better, but you are actually illustrating your own tautology by saying that that's because I already know better. Surely the very fact that I do know better is evidence of the fact that I need to know better? Often we already have the things we need, you see. To give an example of the above theory - I need air, and get to breathe it every day."

[j4.livejournal.com]

TOO REAL! I preferred the version with the spoon in it.

[ex-monkeyhan688.livejournal.com]

As the bishop said to the flesh-as-cutlery supplier. I'm afraid I was very, very drunk.

He knows it teases

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Forgive me; not being in Cambridge, I haven't had a Great God Debate for a couple of years, so I didn't know what counted as a Frequently Debunked Position, a Flammable Straw Man or a Fucking Obvious Fact.

Anyway, I'm backing down because J-P is cleverer than me.