08 March 2010
The Morality of War
Yes, well, you may or may not know already that I don’t have much time for the word ‘morality’ on account of it being an all-things-to-all-men (and women) concept that is just wheeled out in an attempt to reinforce an argument that lacks any other grounds of persuasion. I’ve even done it myself at times - under pressure! But because of its ubiquity it has become fairly meaningless. There isn’t even enough agreement as to whether it refers to consensual codes of rules or just individual innate gut feelings to make it worthwhile using in debate.
Last night at Secular Hall a member of the audience (in responding to the talk about artificial intelligence [AI]) referenced drone weaponry – unmanned aircraft, tanks, machine gun posts, etc. and asked whether the developers of AI ever concerned themselves with the morality of such applications. I pointed out that there was no step change involved here – these weapons were actually controlled by humans but they were based many miles from the scene – out of harm’s way. But it was just a further development of remote control and remote killing. (I might have added that even when machines have been developed that can be given a mission ‘e.g. capture the Golden Gate Bridge’ and then left to work out how to do it all by themselves it will still only be a further form of remote control, not artificial intelligence, won’t it?)
‘Democratic’ imperial powers like the US, Britain and Israel are developing remotely controlled weaponry so that their governments can engage in wars to expand their spheres of influence without fear that a rising casualty list will pull the rug from under their feet at the next election.
In reality, attempts to do maximum harm to an enemy while minimising one’s own casualties must go back before recorded history even began. At one time, one can guess, early human clans fought each other over bits of turf by engaging in hand-to-hand combat, using fists and clubs, but well within range of opponents equipped with just the same sort of kit. In considering the history of warfare one might perhaps see this as a golden age when men were men, where there was an honesty and authenticity about it – seeing the whites of the other man’s eyes before attempting to knock him senseless. It is an aspect of martial relations, perhaps, that still continues in the boxing ring, governed by Queensbury Rules that ensure no underhand tactics are used.
But this ‘golden age’ must have ended the first time someone threw a rock at the enemy from a higher and possibly hidden vantage point. Or when spears developed for killing animals at a distance were turned to killing opposing tribesmen at a distance.
I very much doubt whether, at the time, victorious tribal elders sat around the campfire after a battle debating whether such tactics were ethical. So while I abhor the further development of weapons that enable powerful and wealthy governments to impose their will on poor and weak nations without any real risk to their own position, I have to say that I think the so-called ‘moral’ questions are irrelevant.
Last night at Secular Hall a member of the audience (in responding to the talk about artificial intelligence [AI]) referenced drone weaponry – unmanned aircraft, tanks, machine gun posts, etc. and asked whether the developers of AI ever concerned themselves with the morality of such applications. I pointed out that there was no step change involved here – these weapons were actually controlled by humans but they were based many miles from the scene – out of harm’s way. But it was just a further development of remote control and remote killing. (I might have added that even when machines have been developed that can be given a mission ‘e.g. capture the Golden Gate Bridge’ and then left to work out how to do it all by themselves it will still only be a further form of remote control, not artificial intelligence, won’t it?)
‘Democratic’ imperial powers like the US, Britain and Israel are developing remotely controlled weaponry so that their governments can engage in wars to expand their spheres of influence without fear that a rising casualty list will pull the rug from under their feet at the next election.
In reality, attempts to do maximum harm to an enemy while minimising one’s own casualties must go back before recorded history even began. At one time, one can guess, early human clans fought each other over bits of turf by engaging in hand-to-hand combat, using fists and clubs, but well within range of opponents equipped with just the same sort of kit. In considering the history of warfare one might perhaps see this as a golden age when men were men, where there was an honesty and authenticity about it – seeing the whites of the other man’s eyes before attempting to knock him senseless. It is an aspect of martial relations, perhaps, that still continues in the boxing ring, governed by Queensbury Rules that ensure no underhand tactics are used.
But this ‘golden age’ must have ended the first time someone threw a rock at the enemy from a higher and possibly hidden vantage point. Or when spears developed for killing animals at a distance were turned to killing opposing tribesmen at a distance.
I very much doubt whether, at the time, victorious tribal elders sat around the campfire after a battle debating whether such tactics were ethical. So while I abhor the further development of weapons that enable powerful and wealthy governments to impose their will on poor and weak nations without any real risk to their own position, I have to say that I think the so-called ‘moral’ questions are irrelevant.
02 March 2010
Casualties of War
While not being a pacifist I generally support anti-war movements and scrutinise very carefully any plans emerging from our government to go to war over this or that issue. I was on the million plus march against the invasion of Iraq - and I think we made our point over the Taliban's accommodation of Al Quaida in Afghanistan some years ago. It's time to withdraw. While dragging Afghan society into the 20th century (sic) might be a laudable objective the fact is that we won't succeed in doing it. The baggage is too great and the very presence of foreign troops is almost the only reason why the Taliban continues to thrive. As in Iran, the domestic struggle for progress is far more likely to succeed than is foreign occupation. The long-planned invasion of Iran will simply make the forces of religious conservatism and intolerance stronger than ever.
But one aspect of the anti-war campaign strikes me as more than a little odd. This is the concentration on the level of British casualties.
Now don't get me wrong. The death of each soldier is a tragedy and, at least from a personal perspective, surviving as a badly disabled and severely disfigured person even worse. The parents and relatives of those killed are deserving of our immense sympathy - as are those of the war victims we cause.
But it has to be said that the lads and lasses who voluntarily join up know full well what they are getting into. It is not a matter of having no other employment choice. How frequently do we hear from grieving parents that their boy died doing what he loved doing? That he always wanted to be a soldier, that he couldn't wait to see 'action'?
In interviews with front line troops it is also common to hear the comment that they can't wait to get into battle, that it is the waiting around that is so boring. Whether they have got the ideas from violent video games, are following a family tradition or acting out a macho youth ideal, it would be patronising to infer that they don't know what they are doing.
Yes, they are sad to lose comrades, but they knew that would be the price, if not their own life then a mate for whom they felt great affection.
A few, I know, have joined up in recent years to give the Islamists a taste of their own medicine. These few feel duty bound to respond to 9/11 and 7/7 in just that way. But it is only a few - and in my view it is also misguided as it merely adds to the rationale used by the Islamists in recruiting new members to counter the 'invasion of Muslim lands by the infidel'.
In terms of campaigning for British withdrawal I appreciate that rising casualties is one of the best grounds on which to convince people that they should vote for a party that holds out the possibility of early withdrawal. But my feeling is that the soldiers on the ground won't actually vote that way at all. War has become their raison d'etre.
But one aspect of the anti-war campaign strikes me as more than a little odd. This is the concentration on the level of British casualties.
Now don't get me wrong. The death of each soldier is a tragedy and, at least from a personal perspective, surviving as a badly disabled and severely disfigured person even worse. The parents and relatives of those killed are deserving of our immense sympathy - as are those of the war victims we cause.
But it has to be said that the lads and lasses who voluntarily join up know full well what they are getting into. It is not a matter of having no other employment choice. How frequently do we hear from grieving parents that their boy died doing what he loved doing? That he always wanted to be a soldier, that he couldn't wait to see 'action'?
In interviews with front line troops it is also common to hear the comment that they can't wait to get into battle, that it is the waiting around that is so boring. Whether they have got the ideas from violent video games, are following a family tradition or acting out a macho youth ideal, it would be patronising to infer that they don't know what they are doing.
Yes, they are sad to lose comrades, but they knew that would be the price, if not their own life then a mate for whom they felt great affection.
A few, I know, have joined up in recent years to give the Islamists a taste of their own medicine. These few feel duty bound to respond to 9/11 and 7/7 in just that way. But it is only a few - and in my view it is also misguided as it merely adds to the rationale used by the Islamists in recruiting new members to counter the 'invasion of Muslim lands by the infidel'.
In terms of campaigning for British withdrawal I appreciate that rising casualties is one of the best grounds on which to convince people that they should vote for a party that holds out the possibility of early withdrawal. But my feeling is that the soldiers on the ground won't actually vote that way at all. War has become their raison d'etre.
Labels: afghanistan, british deaths, soldiers, taliban, war, war casualties, withdrawal
26 February 2010
Assisted Suicide - A Step Forward
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer, has done what he was instructed to do by the House of Lords – he has issued guidance to clarify the circumstances under which the DPP will seek to prosecute anyone who chooses to assist in the suicide of another.
While both sides in the debate have criticised the statement it is, in my view, a big step forward toward a law that will legalise assisting in the suicide of a loved one who no longer wishes to live but who is incapable of taking their own life. While not changing the law – it is still illegal to assist – the clarification recognises the change in public mood that makes it unlikely to secure convictions in certain circumstances – and thus a waste of public money to prosecute. It is now only a matter of time before Parliament accepts the inevitable and legislates accordingly, possibly along the lines of the tribunals advocated by Terry Pratchett.
The guidance makes it unlikely that someone will be prosecuted if the following conditions apply:
· They acted wholly out of compassion for the person they assisted
· The deceased had a clear and settled determination to die
In deference to disability campaigning groups the DPP included no reference to non-prosecution based on any physical or mental ailment of the deceased as this may have appeared discriminatory. In reality it will be only severely disabled people who will not be able to take their own lives without assistance but this did not need to be spelled out.
Why should this be an issue on which non-religious people have a special view? Well it isn’t really, the only reason why the non-religious might take a particular interest in it is that the churches have campaigned against any change in the law on the basis of real or imagined religious dogma. This was exemplified in the last ‘First Person’ column of the Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, in the Leicester Mercury, 20th January 2010. Tim Stevens is now the most senior of the Anglican Church’s 26 placemen in the House of Lords so this is the policy of the Church of England.
Refreshingly, the Bishop made no reference to religious dogma but only said that ‘the law must recognise the absolute value of every human life’. Insofar as this phrase restates the underlying secular value adopted for the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’) I can have no quibble with it, but if the Bishop is trying to smuggle in some other notion then I most certainly do.
As noted before on this blog, Christianity, in common with a number of other religions, has not got an unblemished record in respect of the value of individual lives. Indeed, it has only got where it is today by having no regard at all for the lives of those who opposed it, be they ancient British Pagans, South American Aztecs or Muslim infidels in ‘the holy land’. It is not even clear to me that the New Testament, or any other monotheistic holy book (Torah or Koran), makes any unequivocal statement along the lines suggested by the Bishop. If they do I’d like to hear about it as my impression of the two latter examples, especially, is one of legitimising the unremitting taking of the lives of opponents of the religion in question.
Christianity has a history of parasitism on the ideas and practices of others. That’s why we have Christmas at the time of the Pagan festivities for the Winter solstice instead of some time in October when it is estimated Jesus of Nazareth was (possibly) born. It may well be that now the notion of human rights is embedded in modern culture the Christian churches want to claim it as their own. It isn’t.
While both sides in the debate have criticised the statement it is, in my view, a big step forward toward a law that will legalise assisting in the suicide of a loved one who no longer wishes to live but who is incapable of taking their own life. While not changing the law – it is still illegal to assist – the clarification recognises the change in public mood that makes it unlikely to secure convictions in certain circumstances – and thus a waste of public money to prosecute. It is now only a matter of time before Parliament accepts the inevitable and legislates accordingly, possibly along the lines of the tribunals advocated by Terry Pratchett.
The guidance makes it unlikely that someone will be prosecuted if the following conditions apply:
· They acted wholly out of compassion for the person they assisted
· The deceased had a clear and settled determination to die
In deference to disability campaigning groups the DPP included no reference to non-prosecution based on any physical or mental ailment of the deceased as this may have appeared discriminatory. In reality it will be only severely disabled people who will not be able to take their own lives without assistance but this did not need to be spelled out.
Why should this be an issue on which non-religious people have a special view? Well it isn’t really, the only reason why the non-religious might take a particular interest in it is that the churches have campaigned against any change in the law on the basis of real or imagined religious dogma. This was exemplified in the last ‘First Person’ column of the Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, in the Leicester Mercury, 20th January 2010. Tim Stevens is now the most senior of the Anglican Church’s 26 placemen in the House of Lords so this is the policy of the Church of England.
Refreshingly, the Bishop made no reference to religious dogma but only said that ‘the law must recognise the absolute value of every human life’. Insofar as this phrase restates the underlying secular value adopted for the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’) I can have no quibble with it, but if the Bishop is trying to smuggle in some other notion then I most certainly do.
As noted before on this blog, Christianity, in common with a number of other religions, has not got an unblemished record in respect of the value of individual lives. Indeed, it has only got where it is today by having no regard at all for the lives of those who opposed it, be they ancient British Pagans, South American Aztecs or Muslim infidels in ‘the holy land’. It is not even clear to me that the New Testament, or any other monotheistic holy book (Torah or Koran), makes any unequivocal statement along the lines suggested by the Bishop. If they do I’d like to hear about it as my impression of the two latter examples, especially, is one of legitimising the unremitting taking of the lives of opponents of the religion in question.
Christianity has a history of parasitism on the ideas and practices of others. That’s why we have Christmas at the time of the Pagan festivities for the Winter solstice instead of some time in October when it is estimated Jesus of Nazareth was (possibly) born. It may well be that now the notion of human rights is embedded in modern culture the Christian churches want to claim it as their own. It isn’t.
24 February 2010
Saying Sorry
The current vogue for apologies for historic ‘wrongs’ is carried another step forward today with the Prime Minister’s apology for the policy of former governments and local authorities, right up to the 1960s, to ship certain babies and children off to Australia. Hitherto I had believed they had committed some sin like allowing themselves to be born out of wedlock or being so careless as to be orphaned, but ‘Bill’, interviewed on Today this morning, seemed to be saying they were just picked randomly. This can’t be so, can it? Someone would have said something, wouldn’t they?
Anyway, many of the thousands of kids transported in this way ended up as farm labourers in the Auzzie outback or, even worse, suffering the tender care of religious institutions like the Christian Brothers. Christianity, as we all know, is founded on the principle of an all encompassing love, on compassion and care, on forgiveness of those who trespass against you and of turning the other cheek when struck. Oh, were it so. Apart from the ludicrous mumbo-jumbo of the theology (the Trinity, the Creation, miracles, the Olympian gymnastic symbolism of this or that act by the founder, etc. [ref. Life of Brian]) we have the stark truth that throughout its history it has failed to deliver what it says on the tin. The betrayal of the gullible by the hypocrisy of the clergy continues right up to the present day as we see from the worldwide examples of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and by British Army chaplains getting the chaps together for a prayer before they go off to kill people. But that is not my main concern today. It is apologies.
I’m sure much has been written already on the idea that governments, or nations, should apologise to the victims of earlier regime’s offences – for slavery, for the treatment of POWs, for genocides (real, alleged and denied), etc. I can see that it would be some sort of comfort to the victims, and often their descendants, that a historic ‘wrong’ had been recognised by the descendants of the perpetrators. It would be amusing, wouldn’t it, for the average Brit to hear Sarkozy apologising for the Norman invasion, and especially to hear Berlusconi apologising for the Roma invasion, sorry, I meant Roman. An apology might also represent an admission of guilt and, therefore, the basis for a compo lawsuit. There could be money for us in this, so don’t knock it too quickly!
But doesn’t it require a perverse idea of the concept of apologising for the descendant of a victim to demand an apology from the descendant of a perpetrator? This is the stuff of blood feuds in some remote island rather than of modern rationality, isn’t it? Even the Irish, that most grudge-bearing of nations, have come to realise that it’s just plain silly to carry on revenge-killing the other lot when you know full well that they are just going to come back and revenge-kill some of your lot.
Yes, there have been terrible injustices committed by this or that nation (or its leaders) against others. Yes, the perpetrators have often gained economically as a result and their descendants may still enjoy the inherited benefits of coming out on top, but this just points to the need to adopt policies in the present day that will work, in time, to ameliorate or reverse the consequences of the historic offences. Doesn’t it?
So when is an apology appropriate? We all know the answer – it is when YOU have wronged someone else, or harmed them in some way, and they have suffered as a result. If you knock a pint out of some bloke’s hand in the pub it is not only right that you apologise, it also makes good sense.(!) You have caused him a loss directly and it would be right for you to buy him a replacement pint. If an incompetent or negligent surgeon cuts your wrong leg off then you would expect an apology from him and compensation for your loss from the surgeon (or his employer or insurer). On the macro level one might also expect an apology from Tony Blair to the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed as a result of his and Bush’s crusade against their leader. It is current. It makes sense. But when it is generations later, by people completely disconnected from the events, then it makes no sense.
In relation to the deportation of kids to Australia the chief executive of Barnardo’s childrens homes has taken just this line. He says it’s his job to try to do whatever he can to make amends for Barnardo’s past bit-part in the tragedy. I think he’s right. And so it seems do the media, for they could have headlined his position as ‘Barnardo’s boss refuses to say sorry’ but instead they have put him up in a favourable light as compared to the – today he’s a wimp not a bully – Gordon Brown.
Anyway, many of the thousands of kids transported in this way ended up as farm labourers in the Auzzie outback or, even worse, suffering the tender care of religious institutions like the Christian Brothers. Christianity, as we all know, is founded on the principle of an all encompassing love, on compassion and care, on forgiveness of those who trespass against you and of turning the other cheek when struck. Oh, were it so. Apart from the ludicrous mumbo-jumbo of the theology (the Trinity, the Creation, miracles, the Olympian gymnastic symbolism of this or that act by the founder, etc. [ref. Life of Brian]) we have the stark truth that throughout its history it has failed to deliver what it says on the tin. The betrayal of the gullible by the hypocrisy of the clergy continues right up to the present day as we see from the worldwide examples of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and by British Army chaplains getting the chaps together for a prayer before they go off to kill people. But that is not my main concern today. It is apologies.
I’m sure much has been written already on the idea that governments, or nations, should apologise to the victims of earlier regime’s offences – for slavery, for the treatment of POWs, for genocides (real, alleged and denied), etc. I can see that it would be some sort of comfort to the victims, and often their descendants, that a historic ‘wrong’ had been recognised by the descendants of the perpetrators. It would be amusing, wouldn’t it, for the average Brit to hear Sarkozy apologising for the Norman invasion, and especially to hear Berlusconi apologising for the Roma invasion, sorry, I meant Roman. An apology might also represent an admission of guilt and, therefore, the basis for a compo lawsuit. There could be money for us in this, so don’t knock it too quickly!
But doesn’t it require a perverse idea of the concept of apologising for the descendant of a victim to demand an apology from the descendant of a perpetrator? This is the stuff of blood feuds in some remote island rather than of modern rationality, isn’t it? Even the Irish, that most grudge-bearing of nations, have come to realise that it’s just plain silly to carry on revenge-killing the other lot when you know full well that they are just going to come back and revenge-kill some of your lot.
Yes, there have been terrible injustices committed by this or that nation (or its leaders) against others. Yes, the perpetrators have often gained economically as a result and their descendants may still enjoy the inherited benefits of coming out on top, but this just points to the need to adopt policies in the present day that will work, in time, to ameliorate or reverse the consequences of the historic offences. Doesn’t it?
So when is an apology appropriate? We all know the answer – it is when YOU have wronged someone else, or harmed them in some way, and they have suffered as a result. If you knock a pint out of some bloke’s hand in the pub it is not only right that you apologise, it also makes good sense.(!) You have caused him a loss directly and it would be right for you to buy him a replacement pint. If an incompetent or negligent surgeon cuts your wrong leg off then you would expect an apology from him and compensation for your loss from the surgeon (or his employer or insurer). On the macro level one might also expect an apology from Tony Blair to the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed as a result of his and Bush’s crusade against their leader. It is current. It makes sense. But when it is generations later, by people completely disconnected from the events, then it makes no sense.
In relation to the deportation of kids to Australia the chief executive of Barnardo’s childrens homes has taken just this line. He says it’s his job to try to do whatever he can to make amends for Barnardo’s past bit-part in the tragedy. I think he’s right. And so it seems do the media, for they could have headlined his position as ‘Barnardo’s boss refuses to say sorry’ but instead they have put him up in a favourable light as compared to the – today he’s a wimp not a bully – Gordon Brown.
Homeopathy: Should efficacy be a separate question?
Taking part in the 10:23 "Homeopathy: There's nothing in it" campaign on 30th January was an interesting experience. The publicity stunt certainly generated debate and several people I've talked to since had no idea that homeopathy was not a herbal remedy. If the event did nothing more than inform people of that, then it was useful - and I am sure many homeopaths would applaud the spreading of accurate information. After all, they wouldn't want their customers to be misled, would they?
However, the vast majority of homeopathy supporters seem happy for these "medicines" to be marketed because, they say, they can work, even if only as a placebo, and they do no direct harm. Homeopathy used by practitioners who believe they are able to treat serious psychological/behavioural problems that require professional intervention or those who think they can prevent or treat malaria, AIDS or other deadly diseases are often overlooked by these proponents - "That's not MY homeopathy!" they cry.
It is interesting that these homeopathy supporters often change their stance when they are asked a simple question:
"Would you support a company marketing something as "Aspirin Tablets" which contained, statistically, zero aspirin, even though these tablets would also work as a placebo and, as sugar pills, would do no more direct harm than the homeopathic remedies you support?"
Of course, they recognise that this would be a scam and that any company marketing such a tablet would probably be investigated by a variety of official organisations bent on putting an end to the deception. Certainly, I suspect there would be an outcry if such a product were being sold by leading pharmacies or being prescribed on the NHS.
30C homeopathic pillules can be marketed legally as, for example, "30C Belladonna", when an entire 84 pillule container is unlikely to contain a single molecule of that ingredient. This gives it a legitimacy beyond anything that its promotion by high street stores can do.
There are those who point out that the labels on homeopathic remedies do not claim they contain any "active ingredients". Indeed, the actual ingredients may just be stated as being "sucrose and lactose". However, the label as a whole could still be misleading since a "Belladonna" pillule may contain no more belladonna than one from the container labelled "Arnica" - so why label them as one or the other?
For those who had a chuckle at our "overdose" and recognised the paradox - that taking more of the pills we were, in homeopathic terms, reducing our intake, please be reassured.... most of us swilled the sweeties....er....sorry... medicines down with copious amounts of water (or "homeopathic vodka" as someone joked). In this way, according to homeopathic "theory", it would seem we were increasing the potency to balance the "overdose" out.... of course, we didn't shake it first to "potentize" it... that must be where we went wrong!
Personally, I am glad I consider "similars", "infinitesimals", the "memory of water" and claims that these can have any affect on my health as completely ridiculous. If I didn't think it were nonsense, I might be very reluctant to drink any water at all considering it might "remember" all the bladders and sewerage systems it has been through!
Labels: 10:23, homeopathy, pseudo-science
23 February 2010
Sex Education and Religion
Today's headlines focus on the matter noted in yesterday's post - that the government has watered down its own bill on future personal sex and relationship education by caving in to pressure from the religious schools lobby. The bill does advance the cause of good sex and relationship education by establishing for the first time certain requirements on all state schools to address issues of sex and relationships. However, the requirement to give sex education in a way that encourages the acceptance of sexual diversity and with information about abortion and contraception has now been qualified by an amendment that allows religious (faith) schools to teach such matters in accordance with their own religious ethos.
A discussion between John Humphries and Ed Balls, Schools Secretary, on his amendment this morning brought out the problems. For example, a Catholic school (which already separates out and identifies its pupils as different from others, as believers in the 'one true faith') will be able to say that homosexuality exists but that it is considered a sin for which offenders will go to Hell; that abortion is available but that any girl who has one will be committing a sin and will go to Hell; that contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies (ref. previous point!) but that anyone that uses a condom will be committing a sin and will ...
Where does such an approach leave the teenager seeking an understanding of how best to conduct their sexual lives? When the sermon in school assembly tells the student that sex is bad and the sex education curriculum is pictured by teachers as an externally imposed requirement that they don't agree with? Confused, that's where.
The furore exposes, once again, that the whole attempt to revive religion through massive public funding of religious schooling is fraught with dysfunctionality and conflicts. Creationism v. evolution; diversity v. homophobia; sex education v. backstreet abortions; birth control v. overpopulation; healthy sexual activity v. guilt; STIs v. condoms; scientific method v. mythology; etc., etc.
Religious schools should not be funded from the public purse. Let the religious pay from their own pockets to indoctrinate their children in all the nonsense in which they specialise. Better still, make it a legal obligation that all children must attend open community schools that concentrate on education, not indoctrination.
A discussion between John Humphries and Ed Balls, Schools Secretary, on his amendment this morning brought out the problems. For example, a Catholic school (which already separates out and identifies its pupils as different from others, as believers in the 'one true faith') will be able to say that homosexuality exists but that it is considered a sin for which offenders will go to Hell; that abortion is available but that any girl who has one will be committing a sin and will go to Hell; that contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies (ref. previous point!) but that anyone that uses a condom will be committing a sin and will ...
Where does such an approach leave the teenager seeking an understanding of how best to conduct their sexual lives? When the sermon in school assembly tells the student that sex is bad and the sex education curriculum is pictured by teachers as an externally imposed requirement that they don't agree with? Confused, that's where.
The furore exposes, once again, that the whole attempt to revive religion through massive public funding of religious schooling is fraught with dysfunctionality and conflicts. Creationism v. evolution; diversity v. homophobia; sex education v. backstreet abortions; birth control v. overpopulation; healthy sexual activity v. guilt; STIs v. condoms; scientific method v. mythology; etc., etc.
Religious schools should not be funded from the public purse. Let the religious pay from their own pockets to indoctrinate their children in all the nonsense in which they specialise. Better still, make it a legal obligation that all children must attend open community schools that concentrate on education, not indoctrination.
Labels: abortion, faith schools, homophobia, relationships education, sex education
22 February 2010
An orgasm a day
Last night’s talk at Secular Hall was an unusual one – all about sexual pleasure. Well, not exactly, but about how one city’s health authority, Sheffield’s, pioneered work on promoting health education about the benefits of sexual pleasure for young people, amongst all the other dire warnings about the dangers of sex.
Steve Slack talked about the pamphlet that led to a furore last summer (I must have been out of the country), with headlines in the papers like ‘an orgasm a day on the NHS’, or similar.
He was right about one thing, that outside of explicitly pornographic material very few people are comfortable talking about sexual pleasure – despite it being the main reason most of us take part in sex and without which one has to wonder whether there would be a human race at all.
Even in the world of humour, where comedians make frequent references to issues around sex, to much laughter, the humour always seems to rely on either straightforward smut or daring allusions to what we all know goes on in the bedroom, or back of a car, or public toilets.
It is perfectly understandable why secularists are more open to this kind of discussion than other folk for it is our bête noir, religion, and the conservation of ancient ideas and values that it always carries, that creates many of the problems around free and open debate about sex. And not just debate around sex but also the practice of sex and the celebration of sexual pleasure. Religions like Catholicism and Islam, in particular, have a very great deal to answer for in their never-ending efforts to suppress the free expression of sexuality. This suppression of natural human instincts, with strict rules about who can do what to whom, and how, backed by the threat of eternal punishment for breaking them, leads to the sickening, and widespread, hypocrisy of ‘celibate’ Catholic priests engaging in the sexual abuse of young children and the legitimation of paeodophilia offered by the 55-year-old prophet Mohammed’s marriage, and sexual relations, with the 9-year-old girl, Ayesha, who became his second wife. In a number of Muslim countries it is still considered normal for old men to marry children in just the same way, while religious strictures on sex only being permissible within marriage is circumvented by men (only) being allowed to have several wives and the practice of 24-hour ‘marriages’ to allow prostitution to flourish.
The guilt experienced by many people brought up in strictly religious families with their enjoyment of sex is a staple of both comedy and tragedy on the stage. The cult classic film ‘The Wicker Man’ exemplifies this as well as any doctoral thesis, with a Scottish Presbyterian policeman going to a remote Scottish island to investigate the ‘disappearance’ of a child. Soon after his arrival he discovers that the islanders are devotees of the ancient Pagan affirmation of the joy of sex and its fundamental role (for them) in promoting the well-being of their community. Too late he discovers that he has been lured to the island to form the centrepiece of a sacrificial rite intended to restore fertility to the island’s crops.
One aspect of the debate missing from the talk was the question of promiscuity. Sex education, its opponents assert, promotes promiscuity and should therefore be limited or conducted under religious control – this is a concession the religious schools lobby has just won from the government in an amendment to the legislation on personal health education going through Parliament at the moment. Steve Slack, said he was unsure what the word ‘promiscuity’ meant. In fact there is a perfectly adequate definition in any dictionary, along the lines of ‘having frequent and diverse sexual relationships, especially transient ones’. For many people, and not just those of religious persuasions, such behaviour does raise questions. I leave out here all mention of ‘morality’ as this is one of the most overworked and abused words in the language, especially by the religious. So what issues might atheists have with promiscuity? We tend to look at consequences of behaviour before passing judgement and while promiscuity may deliver on the important health benefits of regular orgasms it also tends to create problems that cause a lot of harm in its wake. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, the devaluation of intimate human relationships, the sexual objectification of others, and, not least, the trail of broken hearts, must all be brought into the equation. While sex education may attempt to deal with some of them its attempts are not universally successful, especially on the ‘soft’ side of human emotions and when dealing with young people whose behaviour is more often driven by riotous hormones, or social pressure, than coolly rational thought.
On balance, then, my conclusion is that sex education must deal with all aspects of sexual activity and that the consequences of promiscuity need to be discussed thoroughly, perhaps getting young people to reflect for themselves on the potentially negative consequences of unrestricted sexual activity, as well as on the positive benefits of regular orgasms.
Steve Slack talked about the pamphlet that led to a furore last summer (I must have been out of the country), with headlines in the papers like ‘an orgasm a day on the NHS’, or similar.
He was right about one thing, that outside of explicitly pornographic material very few people are comfortable talking about sexual pleasure – despite it being the main reason most of us take part in sex and without which one has to wonder whether there would be a human race at all.
Even in the world of humour, where comedians make frequent references to issues around sex, to much laughter, the humour always seems to rely on either straightforward smut or daring allusions to what we all know goes on in the bedroom, or back of a car, or public toilets.
It is perfectly understandable why secularists are more open to this kind of discussion than other folk for it is our bête noir, religion, and the conservation of ancient ideas and values that it always carries, that creates many of the problems around free and open debate about sex. And not just debate around sex but also the practice of sex and the celebration of sexual pleasure. Religions like Catholicism and Islam, in particular, have a very great deal to answer for in their never-ending efforts to suppress the free expression of sexuality. This suppression of natural human instincts, with strict rules about who can do what to whom, and how, backed by the threat of eternal punishment for breaking them, leads to the sickening, and widespread, hypocrisy of ‘celibate’ Catholic priests engaging in the sexual abuse of young children and the legitimation of paeodophilia offered by the 55-year-old prophet Mohammed’s marriage, and sexual relations, with the 9-year-old girl, Ayesha, who became his second wife. In a number of Muslim countries it is still considered normal for old men to marry children in just the same way, while religious strictures on sex only being permissible within marriage is circumvented by men (only) being allowed to have several wives and the practice of 24-hour ‘marriages’ to allow prostitution to flourish.
The guilt experienced by many people brought up in strictly religious families with their enjoyment of sex is a staple of both comedy and tragedy on the stage. The cult classic film ‘The Wicker Man’ exemplifies this as well as any doctoral thesis, with a Scottish Presbyterian policeman going to a remote Scottish island to investigate the ‘disappearance’ of a child. Soon after his arrival he discovers that the islanders are devotees of the ancient Pagan affirmation of the joy of sex and its fundamental role (for them) in promoting the well-being of their community. Too late he discovers that he has been lured to the island to form the centrepiece of a sacrificial rite intended to restore fertility to the island’s crops.
One aspect of the debate missing from the talk was the question of promiscuity. Sex education, its opponents assert, promotes promiscuity and should therefore be limited or conducted under religious control – this is a concession the religious schools lobby has just won from the government in an amendment to the legislation on personal health education going through Parliament at the moment. Steve Slack, said he was unsure what the word ‘promiscuity’ meant. In fact there is a perfectly adequate definition in any dictionary, along the lines of ‘having frequent and diverse sexual relationships, especially transient ones’. For many people, and not just those of religious persuasions, such behaviour does raise questions. I leave out here all mention of ‘morality’ as this is one of the most overworked and abused words in the language, especially by the religious. So what issues might atheists have with promiscuity? We tend to look at consequences of behaviour before passing judgement and while promiscuity may deliver on the important health benefits of regular orgasms it also tends to create problems that cause a lot of harm in its wake. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, the devaluation of intimate human relationships, the sexual objectification of others, and, not least, the trail of broken hearts, must all be brought into the equation. While sex education may attempt to deal with some of them its attempts are not universally successful, especially on the ‘soft’ side of human emotions and when dealing with young people whose behaviour is more often driven by riotous hormones, or social pressure, than coolly rational thought.
On balance, then, my conclusion is that sex education must deal with all aspects of sexual activity and that the consequences of promiscuity need to be discussed thoroughly, perhaps getting young people to reflect for themselves on the potentially negative consequences of unrestricted sexual activity, as well as on the positive benefits of regular orgasms.
Labels: atheists and sex, orgasm on NHS, orgasms, religion and sex, sex education, sexual pleasure, steve slack
