Don't label me ...

As someone who was brought up as a Catholic, never asked for that, stopped caring about it while still young, yet was kept in it for longer than I wanted, I warmly agree with the message of this campaign.

I'm not sure of the purpose of it.

When I was very young my father used to bring me to football matches. I was never particularly interested and, after some time, I stopped going.

I don't see how bringing a child to church is any different. I don't know of ANYONE who was forced into attending church or observing religious ritual after the age of childhood.

Funny enough, now, many years later, I've actually become quite interested in football, and I'm glad I was taken to all of those matches. No doubt humanists would have berated my father for indoctrinating me to like football.

Growing up is a funny old thing, isn't it?

You seem to have missed the point Bernard (my emphasis added):

"I don't know of ANYONE who was forced into attending church or observing religious ritual after the age of childhood."

Also, I think the "humanists would have berated my father for indoctrinating me to like football." bit is a bit lame.

Peter;

you seem to have missed my point that, during childhood, our parents influence our lives in a multitude of ways, both subtle and not quite so subtle. That's what childhood is about. That's what parenthood is about. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, as the alternative - growing up without influence or instruction - is absurd.

I'm sorry you think my other point is a bit "lame". Perhaps you'd elaborate. The point is that humanists will have to do better than saying that something is wrong because it has been influenced by one's parents.

Perhaps I wouldn't have liked football if I hadn't gone to those matches those years ago. Perhaps I wouldn't have been religious if I hadn't been brought to mass. But this fact alone doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with my liking football, or that it is somehow not now, as an adult, my free and informed choice.

So it seems the humanists, having failed to show that "religion is BAD" are now reduced to showing that it's somehow "not a free choice". not only does this completely avoid the issue of whether it's good or bad, it also avoids the fact that absolutely NOTHING is a totally free, completely uninfluenced, bolt of the blue with no prior instruction, choice. Not my liking football nor my closeness to God.

What a waste of time and energy. Does anyone think for even one moment that the insular, xenophobic, bigotted religious ministers or their equally insular, xenophobic, bitotted parishoners whom they so carefully indoctrinated will pay attention to that and will break with such longstanding tradition? If they did, where would the future parishoners come from. Allow children to think for themselves? Unheard of. What if they came to the wrong conclusions, what then? What kind of society would NI become?

Maybe, alternatively, we should put children in charge! They're obviously fully capable.

William has attention to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which celebrates its 20th anniversary tomorrow. Maybe we should remind ourselves of some key parts.

Article 13 affirms the right of the child to freedom of expression, including freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Article 14 affirms that states must respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. And Article 29 states that the education of the child should be directed to preparation for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes and friendship among all peoples.

It is wrong, therefore, to have a child labelled as ‘Christian’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Protestant’, ‘Catholic’, ‘Humanist’, or whatever. The Evangelical Alliance agrees. “You are not a Christian simply because your parents are. Every child or adult has to make up their own minds about the reality of God", its website says. Indeed. Of course, very religious parents may bring up their children in their own faith. But children are not possessions and, apart from love, surely one of the best gifts a parent can give a child is an open mind.

In any case, a school has a duty to ‘educate’, which means to lead out, to widen a child’s horizons. It has a responsibility to inform the child of all the various major belief systems in the world so that the child is free to make its own choice.

Humanists are not opposed to teaching religion in school, but we think it should be confined to the classroom and be taught comparatively along with Humanist world views. Moral Education should be taught from both religious and secular perspectives.

If we want a better future for all, then we desperately need to integrate children of all classes and creeds in the same working environment. We can best do this in schools that are integrated, comprehensive and secular.

Evangelical humanism, if ever there was a lost cause, this is it.

"It is wrong, therefore, to have a child labelled as ‘Christian’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Protestant’, ‘Catholic’, ‘Humanist’, or whatever"

But children aren't labelled in this way. they are labelled as coming from Christian families. This does not make them Christian, as even the Evangelical Alliance agrees.

"But children are not possessions and, apart from love, surely one of the best gifts a parent can give a child is an open mind."

Indeed. What, exactly, are you suggesting closes this mind? A prayer before meals? A weekly trip to church? If you think these things somehow turn children into unthinking automatons you're not living in the real world.

"a school has a duty to ‘educate’, which means to lead out, to widen a child’s horizons. It has a responsibility to inform the child of all the various major belief systems in the world "

I'm fairly sure it's in the common curriculum that they do. I certainly was, and that was some years ago in a Christian Brothers School. I even went further and devoted some university study to Islam - and Marxism, funny enough.

I'm not sure exactly what in my upbrining is supposed to have closed my mind and made me unable to think? Can you tell me?

"Humanists are not opposed to teaching religion in school, but we think it should be confined to the classroom and be taught comparatively along with Humanist world views"

Like what? What are "humanist world views"? That "there is no God?". If that is as self-evident as is claimed, and if, after all we can't prove a negative, surely there is no need, or possibility, of TEACHING it. Teaching what? That something doesn't exist?

There are plenty of opportunities in schools to teach about the views of people who don't think God exists - marxists, liberals, positivists. There is no need to have a separate "there is no God" class.

"If we want a better future for all, then we desperately need to integrate children of all classes and creeds in the same working environment"?

What? Why? Why does homogeneity mean "a better future for all"?

Wow, the humanists are doing something I agree with. Well done, guys. This message is right on point.

Brian

I'll save my cynicism for later (although Christian Hippy has us off to a good start) and respond to your post #7. It reads rather benignly.

You quote the EA; I suspect that their statement has a touch of theology behind it, but that aside it is highly unlikely that the EA are suggesting Christians present Jesus as an option.

So let's cut to the chase, for although you mention state schools, William quotes you above as saying, "Northern Ireland needs this kind of awareness-raising exercise more than anywhere to counter our extreme levels of religiosity which has been shown to go hand-in-hand with our extreme levels of insularity, xenophobia and bigotry." and that in the context of, "try(ing) to persuade parents to stop attaching religious labels to their children." and in light of that I'm wondering if I have your permission to take my kids to church this Sunday.

brianmcclinton, you are being politically incorrect. You know very well that unless they are started on being trained as children, it will be very hard to recruit tomorrow's suicide bombers. Now you don't honestly believe that certain parts of the world will go along with that do you?

Good work, Brian. It is perfectly clear in Northern Ireland that we talk about "Catholic children" and "Protestant children" - it's virtually ubiquitous. It's nefarious. And it's utterly predictable that the religiots will respond in the way that they have.

When I was in P4, our teacher asked us as a class if we were all Protestants. I stood up and said, "No, Miss, I'm a Presbyterian". My class mates AND my teacher laughed at me, and I felt really embarrassed. Stuff them - I had the last laugh (AND I won the prize for being the fastest kid in Dungannon to list all the books of the bible - 14 seconds).

Now that I have kids of my own, I'm damned sure no-one is going to be putting them in convenient little boxes that correspond to societal bigotry. no-one is going to assume they belong to "the Protestant community", as if there were such a monolithic entity, or even the "Atheist community" - they will make their own minds up in due course, and I'll make sure they have the information to allow them to do that. In Northern Ireland we should have ONE community.

As for Markie's by-now-predictable splurge, converting the bigots is probably impossible, but they're a bad debt anyway - write them off. We can condition the soil and plant the seeds for a more enlightened future after weeds like McIlveen have passed on. The future is ours.

Helio

Your teacher had no business asking anything like that, I'm with you there, but this campaign runs deeper than that, and I guess most people on here realise this.

Helio, consider that the Real IRA and their Protestant counterparts could quote Sarah Palin's recent memorable sentiments; "I'm not retreating, I'm just reloading." Has peace broken out in NI or just a few year's lull for the combatants to catch their breath before they resume their 400 year long tradition? Parents don't want the government telling them whom to teach their children to hate, they feel that is a perogative reserved strictly for themselves.

Peter, yep - the campaign runs deeper, and appropriately so. Many of us (I suspect you included) feel that if something rattles the cage of McIlveen and the Free Presbytalebans, it can't be all bad.

Well Brian, it looks like it's war!

EA are promoting their own campaign:

https://www.eauk.org/articles/christmas-starts-here.cfm

And they're putting the poster up in emmmmm, bus shelters.

And I hadn't been on the EA site in ages, funny you should mention it!



Evangelical Alliance - Giving people a choice this Yuletide.

Bernard:

There you go again. Where on earth do you live? It can't be Northern Ireland, one of the most divided, intolerant societies on the face of the earth. And it has been thus for 400 years! Why? Because we pass our prejudice and bigotry on to succeeding generations, and discourage any critical awareness of their own tradition which would arise if they were not kept apart.

What do we do to our children?

First of all, we segregate them ‘academically’ at the age of 11. Inevitably, this ‘weeding out’ process at such an early age - unique in the civilised world - is predicated less on ability and more on class. Richer kids are set on a privileged path.

Then we segregate children according to religion. 95% of them will attend a school that is either predominantly Protestant or almost exclusively Catholic. This will also effectively separate them in terns of political and cultural allegiance.

Then we have an almost exclusively Christian RE syllabus. Is this widening their horizons, opening their minds to the world's belief systems?

So our children are separated by class, by religion, by politics and by culture. Is it any wonder that we have a divided society?

Hold on a second, Brian, you're changing the debate here.

All of the quotes attributed to you which I have read today relate to religion and the same goes for Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins. See William's comments above and his link to the BBC NI News website, also above.

If this were solely about schools, the curriculum and our education system, we might discover points of agreement, but it isn't, is it? And yes, I know, an element of the advertising campaign relates to 'faith schools', but it's only an aspect, so come on, what do you mean by your quotes, and is William understanding you correctly by writing, "Ireland's humanists have launched an ad campaign to try to persuade parents to stop attaching religious labels to their children."

And what, in your view, are the implications of this campaign for people taking their children to church this Sunday?

Isn't Brian talking about all religious labels being applied to children, and how that applies to the schools system etc? Seems perfectly logical to me, Mr. Morrow. :-)

Forgive me - I believe it's the Christian thing to do - but YAWNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!

If that's the best Humanism can come up with David McIlveen can sleep easy in his bed tonight.

Mr. Wright (I love the new formalities) :-)

At present I have no idea exactly what Brian is talking about, that's why I asked.

What I do know is that William interpreted it as, "Ireland's humanists have launched an ad campaign to try to persuade parents to stop attaching religious labels to their children."

Brian is quoted as saying, "Northern Ireland needs this kind of awareness-raising exercise more than anywhere to counter our extreme levels of religiosity which has been shown to go hand-in-hand with our extreme levels of insularity, xenophobia and bigotry."

The BBC NI News site (linked above) quotes Brian, "Mr McClinton added that the poster provided, "opposition to the near ubiquitous 'Consider Christ' ads that are currently covering most of our Translink buses"."

The same site quotes Ariane Sherine as saying, "One of the issues raised again and again by donors to the campaign was the issue of children having the freedom to grow up and decide for themselves what they believe, and that we should not label children with any ideology," (Presumably any means this ideology https://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism too) In fact that's a good point for debate, 'any ideology', right, how does that work? I mean, I'm quite sure none of us are going to take an ideologically neutral position on the issue of racism.

Now, there's no mention of academic selection or the education system in any of that that I can see, what is mentioned (lots) is religion.

I'd just like to know what the debate actually is, so I've asked.

Without clarity, how can one choose?

Peter:

We are not just talking about parental labelling. Children are labelled by their parents, their peers and by the wider society. Parents will inevitably tend to influence their children towards their values and beliefs to a greater or less extent. There is no way this can be stopped, short of a totalitarian society. But I thank my parents for not imposing any worldview or religion on me. When I was 16, I told them that I was leaving the BB because I didn't believe what it stood for. They did not object. Yet I think I am one of the lucky ones.

The Muslim quoted on some websites in reaction to the billboard said that "we believe every child is born as a Muslim". In other words, he doesn't just mean babies born to Muslim parents; he means every child in the world. So all non-Muslims are therefore apostates. How frightening is that? Of course, in a milder way in NI many Catholics believe that Catholic children are proper Christians, and many Protestants believe that only Protestants are proper Christians. Whose God is Persil-white?

The school's job is in a sense to counteract parental influence by widening the child's horizons. The point is that in NI they largely fail in this regard. Instead they largely reinforce it through selection, segregation and narrow RE teaching, and the churches hide behind 'parental wishes' because it means that the status quo will prevail.

Actually, Dawkins explains this all very well in "The God Delusion". It is nothing to do with forcing parents to bring up their children in a certain way, and everything to do with raising awareness of society's insistence on labelling children as if they were some sort of demographic that the faith-nuts like "Reverend" McIlveen can count on to go over the top in support of their screwed-up agendas. If you think this is not real, you can look at the Holy Cross dispute, where children were APPALLINGLY labelled as "Catholic Children" by all and sundry -these children were abused not only by the baying mob of *Protestant* bigots, but by the media and everyone else who insisted that they were "Catholic Children". They were just children for goodness sake, but people from all sides were scrambling over themselves to put them in boxes for use as pawns.

Parrhasios, this is not the best we can do. It is just one thing we can do. Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists are the fastest-growing demographic in the western world, even within churches, although a lot of those people don't know about it yet. These campaigns are having their effect. We're not out to convert or assimilate - merely educate and inform.

Thanks for your comments Brian

You may be pleased to know that I concur with some of them, but why is it that it's always the religion aspect of this which gets highlighted?

It's good too that you have clarified your thinking in saying, "Parents will inevitably tend to influence their children towards their values and beliefs to a greater or less extent." but I'll also say that sometimes your message comes across as, 'we want to ban religion in society and promote non-religion', or maybe that's just the media spin.

I understand the BB thing, for example, and it may interest you to know that as a teenager I didn't have to go to church, even though mine was a 'Christian' family, on many Sundays I got to stay home because I wanted to, and I didn't have to attend any of the other weekly events either.

I agree less with your view on school, increasingly schools are being asked to step beyond academic/vocational education. You mention 'parental wishes' for example, but parents are given the option of opting their children out of RE; should the school counteract the influence of an atheist parent and insist on attendance at religious assembly? This cuts both ways and it isn't an ideologically neutral point of view. (And I, by the way, am not particularly bothered about teaching Religion in school, it not really a school's job.)

But at least we're all clearer on the intent of the ad, pretty benign after all.

But apart form all that, are there not other more pressing societal problems we, Christian and Atheist or whatever, should all be dealing with? Take schools, don't we need to keep on raising standards in Literacy and Numeracy? Or Family Poverty, can't we pool our resources and tackle that? Or community health, don't we need more resources, and so on and so on?

Surely this sacred/secular divide is bad for us all?

And Helio

Your example of the Holy Cross dispute is a good one, but 'not having an identity' (whatever that identity is based on, culture, tradition, wealth, fashion, music, nationality, economics, intelligence...) isn't actually an option for society. The alternative is respect, and respect means that we ought to be able to disagree and still value one another. Like me, as a (Protestant) child being introduced to dad's Roman Catholic friends, brought to a Convent to be introduced to the Stations of the Cross, and other horizon widening experiences.

My Christianity, my *belief*, my 'lobotomised' faith isn't threatened by any of these things.


If this is all you guys are saying then it's no big deal.

Peter:

It may be no big deal to you but it obviously is for thousands of others here. One of the points of the ad is that we wouldn't normally label children as 'Marxist', or 'Socialist', or 'anarchist', or 'Humanist', but we do tend to label them 'Protestant', 'Catholic', 'Muslim', 'Jewish' etc. Why should the main monotheistic religions be given 'ownership' of children in this way?

We have argued about the causes of division in NI before. I think religion IS a major cause. You, Bernard and Graham think it is more a political division. I think it is a mixture of both. It has endured for 400 years because two groups of people have a different vision of their identity, and that identity is defined in terms of Catholic and Protestant as well as nationalist and unionist. My view is that we need to see beyond Orange and Green, beyond God and Ulster, if we are to have a better future.

We owe it to our children to give them the opportunity to move in this direction. Unfortunately, we are still failing to do this by segregating them and labelling artificially and thus perpetuating the divisions.

Helio's example is a good one. I lived near Holy Cross as a child but it wasn't Holy Cross but St Gabriel's Secondary that stuck in my mind. There were endless fights between 'Catholic' boys from it and 'Protestant' boys from the Model and elsewhere. Why were they fighting? Because their parents and peers daily fed them prejudices against 'the other' side. How sad!

Incidentally, one BB leader lent me a small book (booklet). It was called 'Freedom's Foe: The Vatican', by Adrian Pigott. A sample Question: why has Liverpool the highest crime rate in Britain? Answer: it has the highest percentage of Catholics of any British city. Was this not an attempt to have a label put on me (by myself with his 'help') as a 'Protestant' in opposition to those 'criminal Catholics'?

Children aren't Christian because they are labelled or just because their parents are, they're Christian because they are baptized.

Since you're quoting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, you might have quoted the preamble:

"it [the Convention] places special emphasis on the primary caring and protective responsibility of the family. It also reaffirms the need for legal and other protection of the child before and after birth, the importance of respect for the cultural values of the child's community".

Presumably you accept all this, including the legal ban on abortion?

Sorry Helio - but I think this campaign is just silliness. I think labels reflect identities in society they do not create them. Labelling moreover, at a utilitarian level is inevitable and will last just as long as it serves a purpose. You might as well tell people not to see different skin colours as not to attach names to what they see.

I thought the Atheist Bus campaign was extremely well thought-out (in what I considered a bad, even evil, way) - this campaign lacks, at first sight anyway, the same finesse. The use of a negative command as a primary slogan without obvious intention to invert the message is an original approach. Then the child doesn't suggest the abandonment of communitarian identities - merely requests the right to pigeon-hole itself in its intellectual ghetto of choice. Brave New World, eh?

Parrhasios, lately I've come to enjoy your posts, while respectfully recognising them as largely poppycock, but that last one contains a hint of something I do not find acceptable. Labelling atheists as "evil" is rather bigoted and ignorant, don't you think? I regard the bus campaign, and this campaign, as well thought-out, positive messages to society. Society has let itself sleep walk into the situation you describe; there is no reason why parental adherence to a particular cult, or variety thereof, should force children into that box. Maybe we will not change society's mind, but at least we can try to make some people think - it has already had that effect, so it is already a success. Perhaps it won't make *you* think, but there a whole lotta people who aren't Parrhasios...

McCamley, being baptised (as a baby or at any other time) does not make you a Christian. It is merely an outward symbol; ideally it should be a symbol of a decision YOU have taken yourself. I was not baptised as a baby; I made my own decision to be baptised when I was 11, and I knew exactly what I was doing. But I did not become a Christian at 11; I became a Christian at the tender age of 5, so spent 6 years without being baptised.

Also, respect for the cultural values of a child's community does not extend to respect for the labelling of children, any more than it extends to respect for the official "protection" and "rehabilitation" of clerical paedophiles in Catholicism or forced marriage in some variants of Islam.

Brian - jolly good job, sir! I think the poster is great.

Confession time folks. I guess I was wrong in my last post. This does, on reflection, look like another good bad ad.

Little experiment - suppose I were to say to you DON'T THINK ABOUT RONALD REAGAN AT ANY TIME TODAY...

Helio - I can live with largely poppycock.

I would note, however, at no time did I suggest atheists were "evil" - I remarked that I thought the conception of the bus campaign evil. I think many of the the atheists who supported it merely failed to look carefully at the totality of its message. Remiss they may have been, maybe naive, but not evil.

Hamlet's adage "meet it is I set it down, that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain" is nowhere more true than in the world of advertising. We must scrutinise all advertising with the utmost care.

I read Ariane Sharine's blog (the originator of the campaign) and was horrified by a world view which one can see embodied in that campaign and reinforced in this new one. Let me quote, it's worthy of repetition:

My advice is: don't watch the news. (Don't even read it if you can help it, though I might be alone on this one.) Focus instead on other things: on all the millions of people who are alive and healthy and enjoying their lives, on happiness and truth and kindness and all the concepts which don't make good copy in the slightest. Live in a dreamworld, and pretend it's not happening.

As Theo's brother says in 'Children Of Men', when Theo asks why he doesn't feel depressed about the apocalyptic horror taking place around him: "I just don't think about it."

In the face of human suffering I have not the slightest hesitation in calling such an attitude not just irresponsible but the very essence of what evil means to me - selfishness.

Peter:

Surely even a Christian must be aware of the danger of labelling in a society like Northern Ireland, where there are two dominant tribalisms, and most children grow up to believe they belong to one or the other tribe. Just like the Holy Cross Catholic Girls and the Upper Ardoyne Protestant boys. Just like the St Malachy’s and Model Boys. Just like the UVF or the IRA. Just like the young yobos who attack anybody that is pereceived to be different (Rumanian, Pole etc).

How do we stop this, Peter? Or Bernard? What is your suggestion for a better society, where young people grow up to live in peace, friendship and tolerance?

Surely it is not to separate children into these very tribalisms? That’s the worst thing you can do. And that’s what we do in our great wee country.

The valiant efforts to explain the point of the campaign to the 'labelers' is commendable.

However, as I have repeatedly stated trying to conduct a rational and reasoned debate with a person of faith is an impossibility.

It's like trying to play football against France. You totally dominate them in both defence and attack, only to find that they start playing basketball!

Right Bernard!

Parrhasios, you could be a creationist, the way you take things out of context. That quote from Ariane Sherine was a simple blog post where she is suggesting that people READ the news, instead of WATCHING it and becoming paralysed as a result. Sherine is (if you cared, which you don't seem to - truth being something you would rather sacrifice for rhetorical expediency - is that "the essence of evil"?) not suggesting that we don't care, but that we should not get worn down to the level of hand-wringing. That is a POSITIVE message, and puts us in a postion (I feel) where we can take effective action to help people affected by disasters and the like, rather than whingeing about it. Whingeing is not a virtue, last time I checked.

Attaching that to the bus campaign, and attaching your little attributions of "evil" to it is simple smear, and I would have expected better from you.

Maybe if you're a good boy, Santa will bring you a present :-)

amanofreason, top marks for most topical and relevant post of the thread! :-) Wish we could add quality points to posts!

I hope to give a full reply to some posts later, but in the emantime can we get something straight.

What do we mean by "labelling"?

Brian, you seem to be bringing a lot of other considerations into this, like the politico-religious contrasts resulting from a politically divided society, or the partly-sectarian, partly-political, partly childish rambunctiousness of rivalry between two schools.

If by "labelling" you mean a tool of division, a way of enforcing sepratism between humans of different beliefs, a way of implicitly degrading the "different" then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I even agree that that is bound up with religion in a historically, politically and religiously divided society like this.

But where does the freedom to instruct children come into this? Where does the natural influencing instinct of parenthood come in?

It seems to me that, having failed to show that religion is BAD, the humanist society is now driven to warap the issue in a load of sophistry about "freedom" and "labelling". If we were in the middle ages, and adult humans were literally killed for having a different view, I would agree with you.

Now that people are entirely free to hold whatever view they wish, the only reason for attempting to cloud this issue of influencing children is to surreptitiously play the "religion is bad" card.

There is no such thins a a neutral upbringing. Every child is influenced by their parents views. Some parents are close-minded and blinkered, and sometimes their children grow up the same. Some parents discourage their children doing ANYTHING that they themselves disapprove of - that is true across the board. Some parents even FORCE their children to accept their beliefs, sometimes even violently. That is not a religious question but a qwuestion of parenthood.

There is no way in which children will not be influenced by their parents views - very often influenced to reject them. It is true across the board, and the only reason for singling out religious views is to attempt to discredit religious influence while having nothing to say about any other kind of influence.

If I teach my child that it is wrong to steal, am I indocrinating him? Perhaps I'm labelling him as a believer in "property", and stunting his natural ability to become a marxist?

Or maybe I'm just trying to give him the benefit of my experience. And maybe, even if I teach him not to steal, he'll become a follower of Proudhon anyway! Maybe even if I beat him!

Amaofreason;

Nothing impresses me less than a man who says "Of course, I'll not bother arguing with you, because you don't think rationally anyway".

There's something of the ridiculous there, don't you think? You can't actually demonstrate that someone is irrational, so you just call them irrational, because then you don't have to demonstrate it, is that right?

:)

Anyway, if the arguments raised against my view on this blog are to be used, ANYTHING could be rational anyway. Sure the universe might be irrational... How would we know?

"Surely it is not to separate children into these very tribalisms? That’s the worst thing you can do"

I just don't think schools do that. That people are educated according to their own tradition is entirely reasonable anywhere else in the world. The reason you don't think it is here is because the tribalisms are already there.

Why should education actively change its entire character to bring us all together, when there are far far deeper reasons for us being apart.

Change the causes, Brian, not the symptoms. The simple fact of the matter is that religious education doesn't lead to conflict in any society that isn't already in conflict. In England, catholics can go to catholic schools and protestants can go to protestant schools without anyone batting an eyelid, or suggesting that we must therefore be teaching them to hate each other.

Some things really do influence children to hate other children. But it's certainly not the fine education that they get in almost all schools.

Helio - I think you'll find that baptism and becoming a Christian go hand in hand - a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace. That at least is the traditional Christian view shared by Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans if we're allowed to label people in this way.

I suppose we shouldn't innoculate children against diseases either, just let them be until they're old enough to decide for themselves. Same with going to school, going to bed, eating, wearing clothes, washing.

McCamley, I may be an atheist, but I would find no difficulty whatsoever in finding plenty of Christians who would take major issue with your magical zap view of Christianity, whether it is in the area of communion (and the ludicrous doctrine of transubstantiation) or baptism (with the equally ludicrous notion that the ACT confers anything to the child).

I have worked with families who have been genuinely seriously distressed by the silly notion that because their child died before baptism, they are somehow condemned to limbo or worse. Of course, such lies have now been retracted by the Catholic church - fair play to them for realising after many centuries their crass mistake.

But it is all so unnecessary.

Bernie, you would do well to gen up on the history and thinking behind this anti-labelling campaign - your concerns have been addressed. Parents can and will continue to influence their children, and the rights of families to function as coherent units should be upheld. This is a campaign to make people aware that when they knee-jerk into classifying children by religion, they are making assumptions and stereotypes that they have no right to make.

Brian

You have added 2 post addressed to me and I'm still a little unclear about the intent of this ad, or perhaps I should say the implications of your comments. We need to see beyond Orange and Green, God and Ulster, you say, yes I can agree with that, but Orange and Green and Ulster don't have anything to do with my faith.

Is this simply a matter of the heady mix of NI religion and politics for you; how does the poster apply in England, do you share those motives?

You didn't comment on my thoughts about the parental wishes of an atheist parent with regard to religious worship/education. You didn't comment on the other pressing issues facing our society when I suggested we work together. Isn't community identity fueled by other things like, for example, poverty? Don't people pull together, forge a common identity because it is all they have? You haven't commented on the broader issues of cultural identity or the ideology of Humanism. You didn't comment on my breadth of upbringing, my understanding of your experience of BB, would BB have been different in England? My children are no longer members of any such organisation, that was their choice. One now goes to orchestra instead of the church children's meeting, does this fit your stereotype of an NI Christian parent?

Does my faith still get in the way?

Brian, the issues are broader, much broader than you suggest. Evangelical churches are broader, much broader than you suggest. We're going to have to move beyond these blinkers as well.

You ask how do we stop the problems of tribalism?

Let me take one example. Take Bernard, mccamleyc and myself for example. Two Catholics, one Protestant, presumably with differing political views, perhaps different cultural experiences as well. But we'll stick to religion, and the issue raised on another thread, the Sacraments. As Helio pointed out there, our views differ, mine is Protestant, Mccamley's Roman Catholic, and you know what, I think he's wrong, and here's the thing he thinks I'm wrong. Am I offended? No? Do I plan to sabotage Mass this Sunday? No. Do I plan on publishing pamphlets against Roman Catholicism? No. Will I start a billboard campaign? No. Why not, well, it's called respect. I am not threatened by what he thinks or believes or says, and I'm sure he isn't threatened by my thoughts on the matter. We can debate the bit out, knock ideas back and forth, try to gain an upper hand in an argument, even claim victory and still respect each other.

The happy coexistence of differing cultures, outlooks, faith views, each maintaining their own identity, celebrating their own identity, disagreeing with, and yes even protesting against another's identity is the sign of a mature society. The call for an homogenous, neutral, non-identity of a society is a sign of fear and weakness and I'll go further, it's dangerous, for in attempting to suppress the aspirations and identity of a section or sections of our community we create resentment, bitterness and exclusion.

What, for example, of the influx of others to Ireland this last number of years? Do we make space for them to celebrate their identity, for them to remind their children of their cultural, national or religious heritage? Do we affirm their identities in our schools, have, for example, celebrations of different cultures in our schools, or must others negate who they are, must those children fear saying, I am of East European origin, or Asian, my background is Muslim, or Hindu, do we allow them to follow the traditions of their culture according to dress code, or holidays? Wasn't it City Church who opened their doors to fleeing Romanians? There churches in my town who have opened their doors to people of other cultures, for sports, for a place to meet, for a place to socialise, no strings attached.

Goodness, there's room in my narrow-minded, lobotomized, make believe world of Ulster Protestant Christianity, is there room is yours?

What is your view on this if 'no labels' is to be the new ideology?

I'm for the celebration of national, cultural and religious identity. I'm for the 'beating of drums', the 'playing of flutes', for singing and dancing in many languages, for the sharing of food from all cultures and so on, even when the culture is not my own and even if I disagree; but these Atheist ads are against identity, aren't they?

Breaking News

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece

I think the relevant quote is....

"It is quite funny because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children."

or perhaps...

"How do you put laughter in a quote? I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian."

It is wrong, therefore, to have a child labelled as ‘Christian’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Protestant’, ‘Catholic’, ‘Humanist’, or whatever.

Indeed Brian, you probably would be labeled a Humanist, Atheist, or Agnostic. Really, I think in Norn Iron it's impossible not to have some sort of label. If it wasn't religion then it would be race. If it wasn't race then it would be physical characteristiacs i.e. shorty, lanky, fatso, etc. That's just a fact of life and again it boils down to human nature (a product of evolution).

Helio - # 34

Associating me with the tag creationist is a simple smear, but, since I am not a humanist and have the option of considering total depravity the base-line human condition, I don't particularly expect anything very much from anybody.

I must say you are uncharacteristically generous in your interpretation of the words of your Atheist confrere - I do not agree at all with your reading. While the initial context of the quotation was the added impact of an audio-visual layer on the horrors of the news, Ariane is clear as to her position: she adds "don't even read it" to her advice not to watch the news. You are keen on the old evidence based approach - so substantiate from the text please your assertion "Sherine is ... not suggesting that we don't care, but that we should not get worn down to the level of hand-wringing". I'm not a literary critic but that's not what I make of "Live in a dreamworld, and pretend it's not happening". The instruction to live in a self-indulgent dream world was, not coincidently, part of what I understood to be the subtext of the bus campaign.

That brings me to the subtext of this campaign and it's on a continuum with its predecessor. It's much more subtle this time but I would read these advertisements as saying on one level 'reject community, embrace individualism'; even the (again cool) reference to Obama's campaign has been modified from the communal "Yes WE can" to the personal "Yes YOU can".

I do not for one moment believe that advertising is casual or careless - words, images, and patterns are used with extreme deliberation to precise effect. The wording on these posters is slightly puzzling, the phrasing odd when you look closely at it. The choices made will not have been done without reason and I suspect any closer scrutiny people are able to give it will be well repaid - I certainly intend to consider it further when time permits.

Peter:
Have just returned from the pub and read your (gleeful? - I can never tell when you are sneering or just being ‘playful’) posting. It seems to me that the boot is on the other foot. The children’s father has actually made the billboard’s point by claiming that the BHA chose ‘children that are Christian’ - He is labelling his own children with his religion long before they can possibly be in a position to choose it for themselves.

Bernard:
You ask for a definition of labelling. A label when attached to a person or group is usually a substitute for thought and understanding (sticking a belief label on a young child such as the girl in the billboard is a moral crime). It is often an indication of prejudice - a negative attitude - towards the person or group.
Thus if I try to recall the stereotypes and attributes assigned to the label ‘Catholic’ in my ‘Protestant environment as a kid, they included:

“Catholics breed like rabbits”
‘Catholics are dirty”
‘Catholics all secretly support the IRA”
“Catholics are conspiring to achieve a united Ireland”
“Catholics are idolators and worship Mary”
“Catholics believe the Pope is infallible”
“Catholics commit more crimes than Protestants because the priest forgives them”
“Catholics ignore the Bible and make their Christianity up for themselves
“Catholics put the church in the place of Christ”
“Catholics follow a totalitarian religion”
‘Catholics follow a religion based on fear”
“Catholics follow ‘the thick darkness of Romanism”.
“Catholics follow a religion which is the enemy of freedom”

For many young Protestants in my era the ‘label ‘Catholic’ immediately conjured up some of these alleged characteristics.

You say that there are far far deeper reasons for our division than the schools. What are they, exactly?

Let's be clear: schools do not create the divisions; overall, though, they have sustained them instead of challenging them. That is where education has lamentably failed in this society. Caitriona Ruane is essentially correct in trying to bring children together, but she is faced with an implacable, narrow-minded and stubborn Protestantism (there’s labelling for you, though I am not describing ALL Protestants) which has about as much vision for the future as a blind bat on a dark night (with apologies to Roy Cropper).

Parrhasios, I think you are misrepresenting Ariane Sherine. Anyone can go and read the blog post for themselves. But guess what? Ariane Sherine does not define anyone's beliefs. She's entitled to her opinion, and if I or anyone else disagrees with her, so what? The purpose of my "creationist" jibe was to indicate that that is how you are thinking - hindbrain quote-mining without rational analysis.

Brian, re the "Christian children" thing, I completely agree - it reinforces the point, and shows why this ad campaign is having a great effect.

Peter, if it's called "respect", I presume you are also opposed to those ridiculous bus ads hawking the Alpha Course? Or are you only suggesting that it is *humanists* who should show respect to primitive but oh-so-sincerely-held superstitions? How is it "respect" to suggest that certain issues should not be raised, or that debate should be repressed?

Sauce for goose & gander, dude!

Forgive my late entry into the discussion - had problems proving my identity to the BBC!

As I understand it, under European Law parents have the right to bring up their children according to their beliefs and convictions. There will, of course, come a time when children decide whether or not to embrace these as their own, but to leave them confused about their identity as regards the tradition into which they were born seems to me to be a thoroughly bad idea.

(BTW, this particular aspect of EU law should guarantee that the Christian view of origins, according to the Bible, ought to be respected and not ridiculed to children, when it reflects the convictions of the child's parents. Don't you agree?)

Brian;

"Bernard:
You ask for a definition of labelling. A label when attached to a person or group is usually a substitute for thought and understanding"

So if Icall you a humanist, tha's a substitute for thought and understanding? I'm really not sure I get you here.


"It is often an indication of prejudice - a negative attitude - towards the person or group."

How?

There are often negative attitudes towards people or groups anway. How they choose to label themselves is irrelevant.

I mean, are you arguing that attaching any "label" to anything (by which, your posts indicate, you merely mean "calling something by some name") is always bad?

There is both bad labelling and good labelling. If I am labelled as a catholic, thereis nothing wrong with that. I am. If I am labelled "dirty" there is something wrong with that. It's insulting.

You're really not making your poit here, Brian. You attach the "catholic" to a number of insults, as if the "catholic" bit is as bad as the insulting bits.

What a lot of nonsense.

Your argument seems to be "people are often called nasty names, so we shouldn't call them ANYTHING".

Honestly Brian, will you try and explain that to me again. Iknow that's not what you think you mean, but that's the only sense I can get from your post.

First you say all labelling is wrong - but the only proof you can offer is to attach a load of insults to the label "catholic". But, by your view that labelling is always wrong, the "catholic" bit is somehow as bad as the insulting bits! I don't get it.

I mean, are you saying that, if someone believes that "all catholics are dirty", the only solution is to stop calling them catholics? Why not stop calling them dirty?

No doubt if your erstwhile fellow pupils hadn't known the word "catholicism" (and I'm sure they knew little else), they would have found some other label to atach to the "dirty" bit. As the sacramental catholicism kids the people they were talking about obviously had nothing to do with their hatred.

Bernard:

"So if I call you a humanist, tha's a substitute for thought and understanding? I'm really not sure I get you here".

Yes, it probably is. I don't go around calling myself a Humanist and my views on a number of things differ from many other so-called Humanists. So, no, I don't like the label and probably prefer freethinker because it designates less (though some people think it relates to free sex!).

Would you not rather be labelled a 'Christian' than a 'Catholic'? Don't you think that the latter label is indicative of division, that it is apt to be 'misunderstood' (esp in NI). Even 'Christian' is problematic. On this blog, there are those who insist that a Christian must believe in the existence of a god; many Christians think that 'Christian' is an ethical label first and foremost and don't subscribe to the myth of God incarnate.
Would it not be better if we communicated by expressing our ideas on things and forgetting about labels?

Clearly, our conceptions of what a label means are often not the same. We do too much labelling as adults (the media are perhaps the worst culprits because they want to simplify everything), so it is even worse when we label a child who probably hasn't even expressed an opinion on the topic. I would never dream of labelling a child a 'Humanist' child. So I do think it is wrong for parents to label their children in this way.

On EU law about parental rights (PHilip), many of us are indeed obsessed with rights when it affects
us, but talk about responsibilities when others try to assert their rights. The parent may have a legal right to bring up their children in the way they want, but I think they have a moral responsibility to widen the child's horizons and make them aware of other alternatives besides their own. If they don't do this, then they are infringing other UN regulations about the rights of the child and are actually guilty of indoctrination. There is no other word for it.

Religion is a belief. Religion is a belief. Religion is belief. How often must this be said? Like any belief, it should be subject to scrutiny and criticism. We do not label a child a 'Marxist' child, so why on earth should we label a child a 'Protestant' child or a 'Catholic' child? It's disgraceful.

But let me get this clear. Our 'deep, deep' divisions are damn all to do with religio-political cleavages, prejudice, stereotyping, attribution. What on earth is it all about, Bernard?

Brian Helio

First re the 'Christian children' in the poster, what, you didn't find it even a little funny, it is just a tad humourous is it not? That's the reason I posted it, it was funny. However seeing as you raise it, how do you know the guy's children haven't chosen? I'm sure they make all sorts of choices everyday. What would be an appropriate age? You're sounding awfully like those evangelicals who speak of and 'age of understanding, or responsibility'. Odd that.

But, to more substantial matters. Brian, you ignored my more lengthy post relating to identity, at least Helio referred to it, but I fear he misunderstood. He seems to think I was referring to the opposition of ads when I mentioned respect, read it again Helio, I mentioned, quite clearly, the issues of Mass/Communion and went on to speak of multicultural groups and making them welcome without negating their identity. Maybe you're referring to the bit where I said I wouldn't have a billboard campaign and so on? But that was in the context of debate and what I meant was that I wouldn't be going out of my way to oppose him. The issue here is identity. Does the ad suggest we shouldn't associate children with an identity? Is identity valid or not, if it is, for whom, and what kinds of identity are approved of? And I mentioned *having* a debate, Helio, not suppressing it. Honestly, at this rate I'm with Parrhasios' understanding of the Sherine blog entry! I didn't say you shouldn't have an ad, have all the ads you want, but please do try and engage with the debate when it arises; I'm debating the message and the idea that it's not clear.

With that in mind then you may wish to have a gander at and comment on the following:

https://www.camp-quest.org.uk/

https://www.camp-quest.org.uk/about/history/

Any thoughts, Brian, Helio?

I really like the "Parenting Beyond Belief" book available in their store. The blurb is just fine and dandy.

Ought we to have a campaign against this sort of thing?

Oh and the "Invisible Unicorns Challenge" at camp quest, now that really must be in line for an international prize for the most non-influencial, non-belief sticking, free, open and 'we're not against religion' activity anywhere in the world. I just love it.

Now, can we actually have a debate instead of using words like, 'Creationist' (which is a label), 'primitive' (which is a label) 'gleeful', 'sneering' and 'playful', (all labels too)?

I'll take it, Brian, from post #50, that this is not about 'labels' generally, but about religion or belief?

Well, at least we're a little clearer now.

But does that mean that the use of the soft coloured, reduced opacity word 'Humanist' in the background of the ad means that Humanism is a *belief* too?

Peter:

Obviously I am referring to beliefs. I don't mean labelling somebody a mechanic who is... a mechanic. Humanism is a set of beliefs, yes.

As to the guy's children, the little girl is a bit young-looking to make an informed choice, so sticking any label on her beliefs, in so far as she has any thought out views, is surely premature. At that age, I certainly didn't know much about the big, wide world. I certainly hadn't formulated my atheism. That came much later in my mid-teens.

Beliefs are always tricky. And too many assumptions about what people think are made from the labels often attached to to them. I am not really concerned about your individual interpretation of Christianity which I am sure is more subtle than the average Prod. But that of course is my point. The label makes assumptions that may be belied by the reality. If you are more inclusive and tolerant than the average Freepre or even the average Pre, well, bully for you. But even I would not blame you for our Troubles.

Getting our children away from facile labelling is definitely part of the process of moving to a better society.
(the growth of faith in England and Wales helps to make the billboard relevant to those areas as well)

But I do wish Bernard and you would stop rabbiting on about your individual tastes in Christianity and address the wider question I have asked: what are the deep causes of our division as a society in NI?

I omitted 'schools' after 'faith' second last para brackets in post 53.

Brian

At least we're getting *some* clarity here; but this is not just about faith schools (actually I might pretty much agree there), it's not just about how any of us label others, it is also, and quite significantly, about how parents raise their children; so maybe we should do as Parrhasios suggests and give the ad and it's subtleties "closer scrutiny".

Humanism is a *belief*, you say (don't you find *belief* objectionable, Helio?), but isn't the ad a promotion of (at least part of) the humanist *belief* system? Isn't Camp Quest, you didn't mention that, a promotion of the Humanist *belief* system, to children? Actually it is, it says so on it's website, "The camp's programmes and activities introduce campers to the history and ideas of freethought." it is "specifically for irreligious children...", isn't that a label? Are those children old enough to choose to be irreligious? What is the learning environment of Camp Quest? What is being nurtured if not at least partly a *belief*?

Isn't the ad guilty of doing precisely what it argues against? Isn't it saying, 'what we need to raise are irreligious, non-faith, freethinking, and therefore humanist children?' Isn't that the education of children in a *belief* system?

Isn't the book I mentioned raising children in a *belief* system, isn't that labeling a child?

Any chance of adding the CofE website to the 'Grow Up' ad, in the name of choice?

It sounds to me that the ad wants our children to grow up to be 'freethinkers', people suspicious of 'faith'; isn't that why it is encouraging parents to let children choose for themselves in an environment devoid of faith terms. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I might use a biblical term, it is raising up a child in the way he/she should go. I suggest the ad is promoting what it opposes, it is labeling children as 'freethinkers', it is promoting a *belief* system.

Regarding the age of children, at what age do you think a child is able to choose, you know, choose to choose? And doesn't the supposed inability of a younger(?) child to choose, mean that they must be, guided, educated, and doesn't that mean that someone must make a decision about what is best for that child? Who should that be, who is going to decide what is best? That's what the ad is doing, educating, guiding, promoting a *belief* system. That's what Camp Quest is doing.

And I did address the wider question you asked about the deep causes of our division as a society in NI, I did that way back in post 41 (and I did it quite extensively) but isn't the mantra of many atheists that faith shouldn't be respected?

That suspiciously like, 'love the believer, hate the belief'.

Now if we can't respect others, if we can't take time to communicate each of our *beliefs* to one another, how are we ever going to solve our problems? You see, you say you are not concerned about my individual interpretation of Christianity, or Bernard's, but how do we ever understand one another if we do not listen, if we are not concerned about one another. This is part of my answer.

I'm for listening, respecting, agreeing and disagreeing rather than the negation of identity.

Peter:

You are doing the very thing that you want Humanists, atheists etc to refrain from doing, i.e. assume that we all think the same way, whether 'Christian', 'Humanist', or whatever. I hold no brief for Camp Quest. I would like to think that they do not label children; if they do, then I don't agree with them. Okay?

I think amanofreason got it largely correct in post 33. Nevertheless, some of us, Sisyphus-like, keep rolling that stone up the hill. Post 41 was mostly about you. But we'd had this semi-discussion before. I ask you what the Ulster divide is about and you tell me how open and inclusive YOU are.

Bernard and Peter:

A couple of straight questions. Do you believe that children should not be brainwashed? And how do we avoid it in NI?

Brian

Sorry you're so rattled.


Yes, Brain, I'm suggesting that each of us influence others, this ad pretends that there is such a thing as a value neutral society, there isn't. Some Humanists just don't like the way Christians influence others - that's what this is really about, isn't it? I'm not against influence, and neither are you, that is the point.

I see you are distancing yourself from Camp Quest, well, the British Humanist Association aren't. (but I can understand that in light of the ad it must be a touch embarrassing)

This is as straight forward as it gets.

The British Humanist Association are promoting Camp Quest on their website (alongside this new ad, the same one the Humanist Association of NI are promoting), the link is on the 'Meet Up' tab, and they, along with The Richard Dawkins Foundation, are named as 'Organisation Supporters' on the Camp Quest web site.

On the BHA site it says, "We believe that the positive influence of Camp Quest UK will help to develop children into happy, healthy and respectful adults."

The BHA also promotes a list of 'Best Books for Young Skeptics', (Is 'Skeptics' a label?) one of them is 'What About Gods?'

The blurb on the back of this book says, "Mythical characters, that's what gods are. They're not real. People make them up. You can make them up by thinking. Think about it - this book can help you."

Brian, why don't they let the children grow up and choose for themselves instead of trying to label or influence them?

You say my post #41 was about me, yes, you asked me, you asked "What is your suggestion for a better society, where young people grow up to live in peace, friendship and tolerance?" Why wouldn't my answer be about me and my thinking? I spoke of celebration many communities, what's wrong with that? Is it that it fails to fit the stereotype of 'faith'? What's the problem, I want to celebrate diversity. And the argument is being dismissed because the person making the argument is emmmm... what? in favour of the argument? Giving examples of the argument in action?

But I suppose you are right, I suppose amanofreason is right, "a rational and reasoned debate with a person of faith is an impossibility.", children are being "brainwashed". Is Helio right too, have I had a lobotomy, am I "primitive".

You're calling people names now, Brian, really, I'd prefer if you didn't label me.

Brian

My final four lines were much too barbed and personal, apologies, I went too far.

You say that the BHA also promotes a list of 'Best Books for Young Skeptics', one of which is 'What About Gods?'

Peter, I am certainly not denying people's right to try to persuade young people. Don't be ridiculous. The point is that they need to be familiar with as many points of view as possible in order to make up their own mind. They can't do it in a vacuum with no points of view presented to them. If Camp Quest sticks labels on the kids, then that's bad, but if it helps them in their 'quest' for truth by explaining the secular view (which, let's be frank, doesn't get much airing anywhere else and not in many schools, let alone homes), then that's good.

Do you think that it is okay for parents to label their children with a belief system at a very young age?
And what are the causes of our divided society? Has facile labelling nothing to do with it? Arguably, in fact, considered objectively, our entire quarrel in NI is over facile labels of religion and nationality we attach to the 'other tribe'. Strip them away and the quarrel is over nothing much. But of course the majority do not look at it objectively.

Surely, you must have qualms over a child being called a 'Protestant' child or a 'Catholic' child. And if you don't, what do these labels actually mean? How does one recognise the difference?

Peter Morrow's post number 42 is too funny.

Now really guys, I cant take this at all seriously, it seems like a yah boo sucks reaction to "religious" use of bible texts on buses.

It sort of smacks of how a slow-cook totalitarian coup might begin to prise common people away from "the opiate of he masses".

I mean, really, you seriously think it is unethical and/or immoral for peoples all over the world to pass on their religious, cultural beliefs and traditions to their children?

It sort of seems like a distant cousin of the idea that the state should take all children into its control in order to raise them without the contamination of their parents.

I seem to remember Helio saying that when his children ask him if they believe in God, Helio's response was "Well, some people do".

Now Helio you have every right to raise your children as you see fit, but it just seems like a preposterous bare-faced blag to launch a national advertising campaign to suggest that this right should be withdrawn from anyone who might think of sharing their faith with their children.

Because of course, teaching your children that they have no religion is essentially not much different to teaching them that they are athiestic humanists, oh gosh.

I can just imagine the organisers having their get together after national press interviews, closing the doors behind them and all bursting out laughing because they were taken semi-seriously!

;-)

PS My parents did not pass my faith onto me and I believe that unless my children must indeed choose their own path. But please, Its just such a laugh to hear athiests organise nationally to try and start a guilt campaign on believers for sharing their faith within their families.....too funny.

FYI Dawkins is an integral part of this campaign.....

But I just had my eyes opened a little this weekend about the supposed "secular" nature of modern science he preaches about so much.

Apparently much of the science in Russia rejected the Enlightenment idea that worldviews had to choose either science or religion.

Instead Russian science has often assumed that God was at the centre of science....so I'm reading anyway.

so when Dawkins talks about science, I presume he is speaking only about modern western science.

Becuase it seems that he is starkly at odds with anything from the scientific revolution and before - and the history of eastern/russian science too....?

...apparently, the Russian view bore many similarities with those of Maxwell Clerk.

https://www.adherents.com/people/pm/James_Clerk_Maxwell.html


But apprently most of Clerk's work and therefore his worldview which easily combined his physics and faith have apprently been censored from modern science;-

https://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html

Its all new to me but it is very interesting...

Intergral Reason: Science and Religion in Russian Culture

by Vladimir Katasonov


After decades of oppression and obscurity, the dialogue between science and religion is alive and well in Russia, drawing on deep historical roots that have given the dialogue a unique national character.


In Russian culture, the great theme of "Science and Religion" has been played in a different key from that sounded in the West. There has been, on the Russian side, far less conflict between the two "magesteria" (always excepting, of course, the 70 years of state atheism under the Soviet regime). The antagonism that has marked, and often marred, the Western science-religion dialogue was never a part of the foundations of Russian thought, due to several unique factors in the nation’s religious and intellectual development....



https://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=178

OT:

"It sort of seems like a distant cousin of the idea that the state should take all children into its control in order to raise them without the contamination of their parents". That's really silly. No one is suggesting that parents be denied the right to bring up their children or that the state should dictate what is told to them. Why do you have to 'contaminate' a perfectly reasonable suggestion with a poisonous slant on it?

All the billboard is doing is asking parents to be aware that children are not their possessions, that they have rights too, and that parents have a duty to help their child along the path to being an autonomous adult.
Similarly, as far as schools are concerned, they have a responsibility to 'educate' the child about all the various belief systems and world views, not just the one they were 'born into'.

The real totalitarianism in many societies lies with the people who hide behind ideas like 'the rights of the parents' in order to brainwash children into their own particular take on the world.

You say: "I mean, really, you seriously think it is unethical and/or immoral for peoples all over the world to pass on their religious, cultural beliefs and traditions to their children?" So it is okay to pass on sacrifice? Cannibalism? Witchcraft? Female genital mutilation? Fixed marriages? Natural remedies? No blood transfusions? Death to all infidels? Mass suicide pacts including the children? Child sex cults?
The Manson family? The Aum Cult? The Restoration of the 10 Commandments? The Order of the Solar Temple, which has made infant sacrifices?

Brian

You said;-

"All the billboard is doing is asking parents to be aware that children are not their possessions, that they have rights too, and that parents have a duty to help their child along the path to being an autonomous adult."

* Brian - custom and practise not to mention the law already show that this is reality across the UK and the west in general. Really what your campaign aims to do is make the children of religious parents more susceptible to conversion to atheism at the earliest opporuntity.

(BTW, you are aware of course that humanism was created by Christians and was originally a faith endeavour?)


"Similarly, as far as schools are concerned, they have a responsibility to 'educate' the child about all the various belief systems and world views, not just the one they were 'born into'."

* Really Brian? Is this a statutory fact or an aspiration of secular humanists? It sounds more like social engineering than education to me.


BTW Brian, what did you actually teach your own children about God as they grew up and what belief do they hold now?

I unashamedly read my kids the bible stories ( in fact they beg me for them every night and go mad if I refuse) and read them as fact. I also encourage them to explore and enjoy the entertainment culture of their peers, while teaching them to reflect on the values therein against the plumbline of scipture.

In other words, is this true? Is this harmful? Is this selfish?

Over to you Brian - what did you teach yours?

Peter/Bernard:

I hope that we don't let OT sidetrack us.

1. What are the deep roots of our divide?
2. Are you happy with children being called 'Catholic' or 'Protestant'?
3. What do these labels mean?
4. Are the differences important?

If I may answer your questions too Brian

1) You hate the idea of people believing in God while I think it is crucial

2) Labels dont matter to me at all. But is important that my children have a clear opportunity to understand the best truth I can offer them as to why they are here and their place and purpose in the world.

3) These labels are extra-biblical social constructions which harm more than help.

4) Not anywhere near as important as the overall spirit of truth and love of the NT.

Brian

Thanks for your reply, this is a bit long, but I feel the need to explain as fully as I can.

(I've also just noticed post #67 but I hope this goes some way to answering it)

The bit in all of this which leaves me uncertain/concerned is the implied meaning of the ad (all ads have them), and the only way I have of understanding that is in the wider context of the secular/faith debate which can become quite intense at times.

Of course, there are things said on both 'sides' which are partisan but there has also been a tendency to portray 'faith' as a kind of instability, a refusal to respect 'faith'.

I think too of the messages in both of the ads, the bus one and now this new one, and I think of the sound-bites, the individual parts which make up the whole and which can be 'shuffled' in the mind.

"Probably no God", "Stop Worrying", "Grow Up", "Choose for myself". These are rather potent, they are of the kind which stick in the mind, they seem almost hypnotic, clicking into place again and again like the reels of a fruit machine and they apply to people of all ages. And won't children read them? Of course this means that it's good advertising, and, if anything, the kind of advertising which becomes more potent with time. Indeed, intentional or not, they have 'book-ended' the year. There's a 'first and last' quality to them.

There is more that could be said about the layout, presentation and colour scheme, but in this context I'm suggesting that there is more to the message than facile labels of religion. That it's about more than Northern Ireland's troubles.

What I hear is more subtle than that. I hear (at least) 'Grow up, there's probably no God.' I hear, 'Grow up, you don't need to worry about faith.' I hear, 'Grown up, faith is childish.' I hear, 'Grow up, Grow up, leave faith behind.'

In this context then, a message, a philosophy, a belief, a value system (Might I say 'label', the label 'freethinker') is being promoted in the ad. This is subtle, yes, but potent, and I do think it reasonable to suggest that a 'label' is being promoted by this "Don't label me" ad. This is main point I have been trying to make.

If this were just about you, me or others carelessly firing labels around, creating negative stereotypes then that's a fair point, but I've also attempted to suggest that 'labels' or identity, as I have called it, is a much much more complex problem than a simple labelling. Identity, culture, diversity and tradition are good influences as well as bad, and I've tried to suggest that too. And how does one separate belief from culture? Even when people of whatever culture reject the existence of their god (whoever he or she might be) those cultural stories or myths still function as a kind of glue, an identity for that community. The Church of Jesus Christ Atheist is a case in point. And of course the list you gave to OT is pretty awful, I don't agree with any of those things, but isn't it fair to say that some wish to add to that list even a very benign form of Christianity which happens to say that Jesus really was divine and that he is still alive, and make that idea as immoral as any you listed.

Yes, I do have qualms about bland or negative labelling of anyone 'Protestant' or 'Catholic' or whatever, but I'm still not convinced that this is the sole premise of the advertisement; I think the issue and intent runs deeper. And can I say this, in all of my life in the broad evangelical church world, I have never heard any parent label their children 'Christian' or 'Protestant', if anything the opposite is true, there is a working assumption that all people, children included, must choose to become 'Christians', and are not Christians until they do choose, because the 'exercise of faith' is an individual act, and of course, not all do.

One more thing (sorry it's a 'me' story). I'm just in from church, I arrived home just as Spiderman finished, and I know this because my kids, when asked, chose to stay home with their mum to watch it. Faith isn't all 'brainwashing' or any of the other things it has been accused of, but unfortunately it is still my view that the more potent message of the ad portrays all faith as bad.

Brian

A more direct attempt at the questions you ask.

(1) The deep roots of our divide are many and various. They are historical, religious (of course, it would be stupid to argue for no religious element), cultural (a broader term than religion), social (including poverty, lack of worth or identity or opportunity), a failure to respect, a failure to engage with the 'other', fear, there might even be a class element (but it isn't as marked as say England, and aren't there deep divides in England which have nothing to do with religion?), political, governmental, a quest for power and control (to be 'top dog'), national (in terms of allegiance), selfishness, pride, an unwillingness to forgive, a 'moral' (not necessarily religious) superiority, and I'm sure if I thought about it there would be others.

(2) I have answered that, but if I might elaborate I don't think it necessarily wrong. Should we go on to say that national identities are wrong, or, in our schools, should we celebrate diversity and respect dress codes and so on, and how do we do that if not by recognising an identity? It's not just Protestant and Catholic. And is it really the case that all who identify as Protestant or Catholic are religious?

(3) Meaning, flip! I guess that for a start they might be substituted by any or all of the things I mentioned in answer 1. Protestant might mean, loyalty to 'Queen and Country' to some. It might mean Church of Ireland to others, I mean where do we go with this? And how do we better understand identity if we negate identity? And some people desperately need and identity or belonging, whatever that is.

(4) Differences might be important, the answer to that sort of depends on 1, 2 and 3. If, for example, 'Catholic' children have less opportunity to education than 'Protestant' children then yes, it probably is in that it helps identify who is in need and how assistance can be targeted. If Romanian children are being discriminated against then yes, differences are important, for we must learn more about them, teach our children about another culture so that they can help, care, respect others.

This is a huge social issue, and identities are not going to go away. (and nor should they)

Peter:

Thanks for your considered replies. I do believe that the divide in NI is largely phoney. It is based on misconceptions facilitated by simplistic labels which have no real meaning or sense.

I shall briefly tell you why. I was brought up in the ‘loyalist’ Shankill Road as a ‘Prod’. Both of these labels - loyalist and Prod - I largely accepted as a kid, though I hadn’t a notion what they really meant. When I became an adult, I discovered that they didn’t actually mean anything sensible coherent or relevant at all.

When I was growing up, I had absolutely no Catholic friends. Everything that I thought I knew about Catholics was filtered through the prism of ‘loyalist’ ‘Protestantism’, including all that ‘Freedom’s Foe - the Vatican’ poison. I only made friends with Catholics when I went to university in Dublin (a few Catholic defied McQuaid's ban). They challenged my ‘tradition’ and helped me to look at it critically. Of course, that doesn’t imply that I have converted to Catholicism (sorry, Bernard) and I will still be highly critical of papal policies etc. But it does mean that I can now see beyond the labels of ‘loyalist’ and ‘Prod’.

These are not identities that I want to have anything to do with, Peter. They do not represent for me progressive, tolerant and inclusive values. Instead, they are a dead end bunch of negative prejudices.

In order to see this, I had to ‘get out of’ my own background, to see up close and personal an alternative view, a view which showed me that Catholics didn’t all breed like rabbits (actually the evidence there was across the street where a Prod woman had 10 children but I didn’t consider it at the time), didn’t ignore the Bible, weren’t idolators etc etc (it’s all a matter of interprtetation), weren’t all militant republicans etc.

That’s what particularly worries me about parents bringing up children as ‘religious’ in NI. They will tend to bring them up with their prejudices, which are fatal for mutual understanding. I accept that not all religious people will be so narrow and that you don’t have to be particulaly religious either to instil bigotry. But I would object to a child being labelled unionist just as much as I would object to one being labelled ‘Presbyterian’.

Wouldn’t it be so much better if our children were brought up to love one another, working together in the same environment, and seeing beyond Catholic and Protestant to a better identity? In short, that they could ‘remember their common humanity, and forget the rest?

Brian

I'm glad we're understanding one another a little better.

Here are some more thoughts.

The main thrust of you last comments seem to be that you "discovered that they (the labels) didn't actually mean anything sensible coherent or relevant at all." and have come to prefer the description, might I say label(?), common humanity.

Now, I'm not quite sure how to understand that. Does this mean that a common humanity takes no account of other traditions and cultures. What does common humanity look like? What song does it sing, what dance does it dance, what food does it eat, what dress does it wear, what stories does it tell, what ideas does it promote? Does 'common humanity' have an identity or a variety of identities, ought it to be encouraged, does it make room for 'faith' in the story and experience of human kind even if it rejects faith itself?

I can understand that our children need breadth, I need breadth. I can understand that you have rejected 'Protestantism', in embracing what I would call a broader Christianity I have left much of it's baggage behind too. The church I was happiest in, quite some years ago now, was a wonderful mix of people from 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' backgrounds.

We probably don't actually disagree all that much in terms of the celebration of cultural diversity. I suspect you have no problem with children being nurtured with the food, social and cultural customs of their parents, but it seems we do disagree when that nurturing includes 'faith'.

A nurturing in 'faith' need not mean a nurturing in prejudice.

This is the bit I'm still not clear about regarding the advertisement, it's main target seems to be 'faith in God' (whoever that God may happen to be).

I am not a Jew, I am not a Muslim (I'll stop there or it'll be a long list!) but I defend the right of a Jewish or Muslim father or mother to say thank you for food around the dinner table and that in the expectation that the prayer will be heard, and having done that I would hope and encourage their children to join with mine kicking football, playing the PS3, or whatever, in celebration of their common humanity.

I think we can all do that without the need to 'forget the rest'.

And if the the Jews are right, if Yeshua is not the son of YHWH, or if you are right and there is no God at all, why should that come between us?

Brian - you've simply changed your prism but kept your prejudicial attitude - only now all religions instead of just Catholics

Peter:

I don't think the ad is directed specifically at 'faith'. It's about attitudes and values in general, whether religious or political.

As far as the NI divide is concerned, my view is that the major participants in our quarrel are fighting shadows, not real enemies. And these shadows are formed by the facile labels that they attach to one another. We are, as Brian Friel put it, "a retarded people divided by similarities".

McCamcleyc:

You are half-right. A plague on both your houses. Let's seek a Humanist way beyond Orange and Green, beyond God and Ulster. For they are shallow, empty, divisive concepts that should be consigned to the dustbin of history and thought.

Loyalist humanist, or republican humanist?

Don't throw the Baby Jesus out with the bathwater...

>8-D

Let me say one more thing. I have found it curious that some Christians on this blog object to an ad pleading for an end to incessant labelling of children. If any place is drowning in a sea of labels, it is here. Take religioius afilliation. Look at the last census. There is an almost endless list of religious labels that people attach to themselves. Why? I am tempted to say: God only knows.

As for politics, there’s Unionist, Nationalist, Loyalist, Republican, Prod, Taig, UVF, UDA, Provisional IRA, Real IRA, Continuity IRA, TUV, DUP, PUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein, Alliance, Green Party, Social Environmental Alliance, Conservative Party, Labour Party (?), etc, etc.

It’s all a bit overwhelimng for an adult living in a region of 1.7 million people, let alone a child!

Brian, leaving aside the religious and political for the moment, it's just what humans do. It's how we respond to the world - we sort and categorise and name. There's only something wrong with that when we treat people badly in a prejudicial way.

The proble with removing labels is you tend to impose something else instead which in this case is a secular anti-religious outlook. We don't want to label them boys or girls for feminist reasons, but they are.

McCamleyc:

It doesn't advance any argument about the particular divide here to hold up your hand and say: "it's what all humans do". No, it's not; some humans are more prone to labelling than others. And Northern Ireland is one of the worst places for doing it. Bigotry, racism, homophobia are rampant here. They are not everywhere.

Brian

I'm going to try a do a bit of summarising.

If what is meant by labelling is the perpetual negative and stereotypical labelling of people (young or old) then, I'm with you. We are all more than a facile label. If this is the purpose of the poster then I have no objection. However I have suggested that there is another aspect to this advertisement and have tried to explain why I think that.

It is difficult to avoid the language used in promoting and commenting on the ad on the BHA website.

A few examples are these, "Time to stop the "good" of religion and mind-control...", "Please target faith schools", "Let's get religion away from kids". The website describes the ad as "The Atheist Billboard campaign" and, in the 'What do you hope to achieve' section, it is the word 'religion' which appears time and time again.

On the basis of this it is hard not to conclude that 'religion/belief/faith' is the main target.

Then there is this comment on the 'News, November 20' section of the BHA website, " "It doesn't matter whether the children are the children of Christians, Hindus or humanists - that's precisely one of the points of our campaign," said Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs."

Now, those are words I can agree with if what they mean is that everyone should be treated with respect and equality, and that people of all faiths and those of none are affirmed, I've made a lot of comments to this effect; but those words might also mean, there probably is no god so it doesn't matter who you are, grow up, put faith aside.

And I'm still not clear which the message is, or if it is both.

Does this ad allow for both the very worthy message, 'don't negatively stereotype', and/or the message (the Lady of the Green Kirtle speaks) "There is no land called Narnia...it is all a dream...there never was such a world...your sun is a dream... you have seen lamps, and so you imagined a bigger and better lamp and called it the sun... you've seen cats, and now you want a bigger and better cat, and it's to be called a lion... well, 'tis pretty make believe but even you children are too old for such a play... there is no Narnia, no Overland, no sky, no sun, no Aslan... and now, to bed all. And let us live a wiser life tomorrow."

from

The Silver Chair

Hypnotic, isn't it, like the clicking reels of a fruit machine.

Mr Klaver - Helio

Any thoughts on;-

posts 62-64

OT

Helio - # 46

I reject your assertion that my quotation from the musings of Ariane Sharine appeared without rational analysis. I have read extensively in Ms Sharine's writings and do not think my selection in any way misrepresented her.

I have formed a distinct and quite coherent opinion about many aspects of the personality of the originator of the campaign and have concluded that that opinion is relevant to an understanding of important elements in the advertisements. Please present the evidence which led you to inform me that this response is a felt emotional one rather than the result of an intellectual examination of the data before me.

I would contend that it is you who have failed to apply the same rigour to the product of those with whom you would agree that you apply to the output of those with whom you disagree. I would contend these advertisements have greater significance than immediately meets the eye and that context is important in arriving at an understanding of their intent and message. I would further contend that bias is unscientific.

(For the record, if there were a thread on it, I would not hesitate to describe the Alpha Course as manipulative and dangerous, possibly even sinister).

I don't agree at all with the premise that it is wrong to label children - indeed it may in many cases be of benefit to them for us to do so.

It is quite wrong, dangerous, and damaging to think of children as little adults with the abilities and discernment which come with age and experience. It is foolish to grant them inappropriate rights which may actually harm their development. The security of belonging is more important in childhood development than independence. It is better to have a grounding against which one can in due course rebel than to drift rootlessly in a freedom given before one is ready to cope with it.

My own childhood experience was the diametric opposite of Brian's and demonstrates that division is not definition dependent: I grew up in the country where we were the only Protestant family; until I was five the only children with whom I regularly played I now know to have been Catholics. I never heard them labelled as such but I was certainly taught that they were different. Mother would often say that Colum or Eddie were, as she put it, "not like us" and we did not do, or more often say, x, y or z. This only made me wish that "we" were more like Colum and Eddie.

It is not labels which are important it's attitude. Labels at one level are no more than names, sometimes they are undesirable but they don't form attitudes. Of all the barriers we need to break down that of labels is certainly one of the easiest.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Parrhasios:

Totally wrong. Children are not little adults. But clearly it is all the more essential to ensure that their heads are not filled with adult prejudice, bigotry and intolerance.

And why brainwash them with fantastical nonsense about floods and original sins, heavens and hells, slaughters and sacrifices, virgin births and immaculate conceptions, resurrections, deaths and apocalypses?

By Jabbers, it is a miracle that most of them grow up to be reasonably sane adults given the garbage we pump into their minds.

Labels help to create attitudes. It was the labels attached to Catholics by my environment that created my bigoted attitude to them.

"...why brainwash them with fantastical nonsense about floods and original sins, heavens and hells, slaughters and sacrifices, virgin births..."

I think you shoot yourself in the foot with this sort of nonsense Brian.
The ad is very cheerful and appealing. Coming from an Independent tradition, I have sympathy with the sentiment. My children are not baptised. They'll only be baptised on their own request, if I'm sure that they understand what it means. I was raised never to ask for a profession of faith from my children.
But people have the right to be parents. And when you see red like this I worry that what the ad really means is that "all religious upbringings are child abuse."

GV

Graham, you worry unnecessarily, and your specific criticism has been dealt with previously, including, it has to be said, by Dawkins in TGD. Nobody is saying that parents should be prevented from bringing up their children as they see fit (within the bounds of the law and common decency of course).

Parrhasios, you are simply attempting to criticise the campaign by association with criticism of Ariane Sherine. She is indeed entitled to her opinions. Some of them I share, some of them I don't. She's a journalist; of course she'll try to be a bit controversial. But please don't label me or other people who a/ don't believe in gods, and b/ think that children should be spared the sort of sectarian infighting that so characterises religion. They should be spared the fiction that "people of faith" have a moral upsy over the rest of us godless heathens.

But in the marketplace of ideas, you really know you've hit the bottom when a very simple and positive message like that of the posters is perceived by religiots as a threat.

But then it is a threat. Freethought has always been viewed as a threat by those who think religious power should be a weapon of societal control.

For crying out loud, have the mods taken against you Helio?

Something is amiss

Yeah, something screwy here!

YOO_HOO!MODERATOR!
WAKE UP!

Dont worry, he's awake!!!

Never mind summer camp activity, Hunt the Jolly Pink Unicorn, I'm having as much difficulty spotting the point of this ad.

Here's a bit of what we've had so far.

Brain isn't against "people's right to try to persuade young people." #60

Helio says, "Nobody is saying that parents should be prevented from bringing up their children as they see fit" and, it seems, emphasising it's straightforwardness, "you really know you've hit the bottom when a very simple and positive message like that of the posters is perceived by religiots as a threat."

(loved that 'religiot' reference H, rather decent of you old chap, if not entirely positive!) :-)

Which is all fine and dandy except that a few other words (negative labels) have been used too, and the issue of whether or not the ad contains a subtext has been, sorry, completely ignored. As have the repeated (and repeated some more) comments that equality, respect, diversity, identity and so on should be celebrated. How we get from that affirmation to religiot perceptions is beyond me.

So, let's try to ignore the religiot/brainwash rhetoric and ask the simple question.

Is there a subtext to this ad or not? (personally I think the whole thing bleeds subtext, but there you are)

When we get an answer to that, we'll go from there.

Yes, there is a subtext. That subtext is: stop putting people in boxes. It has NOTHING to do with what we teach children, OTHER THAN... to stop putting people in boxes.

Oooooh - how radical! How undermining of the hard-won rights of the "faithful"! Imagine what would happen if we started treating people as *human beings* rather that categories! Imagine if we stopped talking about the "two communities" as if they were discrete entities! Imagine if we started respecting PEOPLE, rather than their silly superstitions.

Good grief, chappies - all this peace and love too much for you or something??

Helio

"stop putting people in boxes"

Sorry, but that's not the/a subtext, rather those five words are synonymous with the twelve words on the poster.

You're also going to have to point out for me where I said we shouldn't respect people. How many times do I have to say 'celebrate diversity' or words to that effect?

As for "silly superstitions", well, like I said in #55, that's suspiciously like, 'love the believer, hate the belief'.

Come to think of it 'silly superstitions' is remarkably like a subtext, but maybe I'm wrong.

I've also been trying to point out that there are more than two communities living here now and that identity and culture are broad and complex issues and we need understanding, and celebration, and respect, and conversation, and communication, you know, all those things which make us *human beings*.

I'll put this another way, for the sake of clarity.

You said, "It has NOTHING to do with what we teach children, OTHER THAN... to stop putting people in boxes."

I'm saying that the underlying, implicit, subtle connotation, is 'It has NOTHING to do with what we teach children, OTHER THAN primitive but oh-so-sincerely-held silly superstitions...'

And honestly I really do think I've given ample explanation about the complexity of identity, respect for human beings, the problems of negative stereotyping and commentary on the ad to make my case.

Something else which may help clarity.

In #82 Parrhasios said, "(For the record, if there were a thread on it, I would not hesitate to describe the Alpha Course as manipulative and dangerous, possibly even sinister)."

While I may not go just as far with my use of language I'm more than happy to accept that there is the danger of manipulation with such a course, the "day/weekend away" element of Alpha being of most concern to me.

People can have an identity imposed on them or presumed about them and there is a danger that they will, as a result, act upon that imposition or presumption and that to their detriment.

I do not deny that people can misuse 'faith', I never have; my simple point is that there is more to this ad than meets the eye, and if that is true it is as disquieting as that which it thinks should be condemned.

Peter, and that would be... what, precisely? Or are you imagining demons? Why do you assume humanists have a hidden agenda? I'm speaking personally here, and I don't really mind if Diarrhasios tries to uber-analyse it, but I don't have a problem with people being religious, or even bringing up their kids that way. But while I am not evangelical about atheism, I *am* evangelical about critical thinking and the fundamental equality of all people. I am evangelical about science, I am evangelical about freedom of speech and freedom of thought. I get annoyed if people make assumptions about me, or try to put me in a neat wee box. I'm not so daft as to think I defy classification, I alone, but when you box, you create a simplistic heuristic. You lead yourself into the realm of nonsense.

Think outside the box.

Indeed, Helio. But Peter doesn't see the point in encouraging freedom of thought. He doesn't see the point of appealing not to put young people in boxes in a society which is forever pigeon-holing them.

The religious in their delusion think they have all the good ideas, so they are keen to see nasty hidden agendas in anything that secularists try to do. Inevitably, the personal attacks will develop - on Ariane Sherine, Dawkins, Humanists, atheists in general. It's all really quite pathetic.

Helio

"Peter, and that would be... what, precisely?"

I didn't write the ad, all I can do is tell you how I'm reading it. "What, precisely?" Is what I've spent my time on this thread asking those who have promoted the message.

"Why do you assume humanists have a hidden agenda?" I didn't say I assumed a hidden message/agenda, I said I read an implied message/agenda in the ad and that in the context of the wider bus campaign and all that, and that's possible without uber-analysis; a wee bit of critical thinking will get you there!

The rest I pretty much agree with, 'neat wee boxes' an' all; how many times do I have to say it?

Are you telling me there's no implicit message, no suggestion?

Helio - I agree substantially with Peter and hope to respond in more detail this evening but just a thought in the meantime...

religiot? Diarrhasios? You surely wouldn't be appealing to the hindbrain there?

Sauce for the goose, dude.

Parrhasios, I like sauce, and I like spice. I also don't mind debate. I don't mind people using crude ad hominems as a clumsy device to smear what is a very positive and useful (and successful) campaign.

The events at the lights switch-on the other day serve to emphasise the point that labelling is something we need to become more conscious of, and perhaps be a bit embarrassed about when we do it.

You're trying to close the stable door after the goose has bolted. There will be more.

It's hardly a hidden agenda - they want religion out of schools, they want parents to stop raising their children according to their religious beliefs, they want no child to be baptized. In short they want all children to be brought up as good little secular atheists. And the world will be a better place. Like it was in Albania, or the Soviet Union, or China. Perhaps after we get rid of the labels we could get them all to dress alike too - little green army fatigues might work.