3201
Marc Draco
Re: Worship in Schools
01/10/2006 16:10:00
Interesting to see who they're quoting!
Also nice to see that, as usual, he's lying! The majority of people in
this country are not Christians; of the white "locals" I suspect the
vast number are secularists or just don't care.
John Germain wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/obh4n <http://tinyurl.com/obh4n>
>
> John Germain
> Jersey
> British Channel Islands
>
>
3202
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Truth in Science: Fossil Hoaxes
01/10/2006 16:56:00
> This is one of a vast compilation of fundie claims/arguments, with
> refutations, which I hadn't come across before. There are over 600 of
> them! Ordered logically, they can be found at
> http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_Creationist_arguments
A very good url. I'm going to link to it from my website when I get
round to updating it.
Incidentally, my book is released from its contractual obligations with
my publisher in July 2009. Although it is close on three years away, I
am planning on updating sections of it and uploading it for free to my
website.
3203
Lenny Flank
Re: Saw our YEC friend...
01/10/2006 17:05:00
>Isabelle waved and yelled out "HELLO!" to him and he
> turned his head away!
>
Well gee, THAT wasn't very Christian of him . . .
I guess he never heard of "turn the other cheek", eh?
(big fat evil grin)
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3204
Mikey Brass
Re: Saw our YEC friend...
01/10/2006 17:30:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
>> Isabelle waved and yelled out "HELLO!" to him and he
>> turned his head away!
>>
>
>
> Well gee, THAT wasn't very Christian of him . . .
I'm planning on being down in the centre over mid-day next weekend; I am
sure he will be delighted to see me standing at the front with my arms
folder and foot tapping;-)
3205
oeditor
Re: Worship in Schools
01/10/2006 17:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Interesting to see who they're quoting!
<snip>
> > http://tinyurl.com/obh4n <http://tinyurl.com/obh4n>
> >
Interesting, isn't it, that they're breaking cover shortly after TIS.
I wonder if there's been a similar long development phase, which we
missed? Coming from them, it would be interesting to see how much
cretinism they sneak in but I see they're demanding a subscription of
£120 (why £2.50 P&p for a web sub?) Just a money making racket, or an
attempt to keep it away from Joe Public?
Brian
3206
Roger Stanyard
Mention in the Observer Newspaper
01/10/2006 17:30:00
We got a mention in the Observer national newspaper today. For
Americans amongst us that a quality broadsheet. Nick Cohen who quotes
us is a high profile journalist.
BTW this is not the national broadsheet that approached me last
Friday. So we may get coverage in two quality newspapers.
Roger
Nick Cohen
Sunday October 1, 2006
The Observer
Not the smallest of the crimes of the Bush administration is to allow
an affectation of cultural superiority to sweep Europe. By now, you
must know the list of our alleged virtues by heart and the odds are
you accept our moral pre-eminence as incontestable.
The Christian right wants an end to abortion, a rolling back of
homosexual rights and the teaching of creationism to gullible
children in state schools. These primitive beliefs put Republicans
outside the bounds of civilised discourse to everyone who matters
except Tony Blair and he'll be gone soon. The rest of us can savour
the antics of Baptist churches and Deep South demagogues as one of
our greatest voyeuristic pleasures - the pornography of the
politically literate. Every time a film crew comes back with footage
of tele-evangelists milking their flocks, the seductive thought that
there is no moral difference between Christian fundamentalism and
Islamism becomes a little more appealing.
To be told that it is easier for creationists to get at children in
Britain than the US is as shockingly incongruous as opening a paper
and reading that more prisoners are executed in Devon than Texas. Yet
British scientists trying to uphold basic intellectual standards are
starting to believe just that.
It isn't that Britain has anything comparable with the US
creationist lobby. The Roman Catholic and Anglican churches accept
evolution, although there are signs from polls that the people likely
to found Muslim schools do not. The organisations that are pushing
biblical literalism in Britain are obscure. I doubt if one person in
1,000 will have heard of Truth in Science, Answers in Genesis, the
Emmanuel Schools Foundation or the Creation Science Movement.
Typical activists describe themselves as 'street proselytisers',
and tour the country giving lectures in nonconformists chapels and
preaching from soap boxes in shopping centres. They look like living
fossils, but researchers for the British Centre for Science Education
show that they can be surprisingly effective.
Truth in Science has established a website and sent information
packs to every school. Its suggested coursework for teachers to base
lessons around is very slick and includes powerpoint presentations,
video clips and arguments questioning that life could have emerged
without a creator. If the group is to be believed, more teachers have
thanked it for their help than phoned to say they had thrown their
packs in the bin.
As in the United States, old-time creationism is dressed up in the
pseudo-scientific garb of intelligent design. Instead of appealing to
the literal truth of Genesis, smart creationists point to the
complexity of molecular structures as evidence that only an
omnipotent creator could have conjured life into being.
Stephen Layfield, head of science at the fundamentalist Emmanuel
College near Middlesbrough, explained that teachers who say
the 'Genesis account may be actually historical and true stand to
meet with a barrage of criticism and scorn'.
Talking about molecular structures or gaps in the fossil record,
however, deflects the derision. More important, it appeals to
teachers who have no religion but suffer from what you could call the
BBC fallacy. 'We teach the theory of evolution,' they say to
themselves, 'so we should balance that by also teaching the theory of
intelligent design.' They don't understand that you can't have
balance between truth and falsehood. Those who claim you can are
putting themselves in the same camp as Holocaust-deniers from the far
right or deniers of the Bosnian concentration camps from the far left
who, when confronted by incontrovertible evidence, always try to
wriggle away by saying :'I'm just trying to put the other point of
view.'
Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association is emphatic that
the infiltration of British schools would be impossible in the United
States. Because we don't separate church and state, he says, we can't
simply say that it is illegal to bring God into the classroom. We
therefore condemn ourselves to fighting endless minor science wars in
the school labs. Last year in the US, by contrast, a federal judge
ruled that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching
intelligent design in high-school biology class was unconstitutional
because it was clearly a religious idea that advances 'a particular
version of Christianity'.
His judgment showed that the great push by American Christians to
challenge Darwin was doomed to fail and most of the other Christian
initiatives look like going the same way. We are well into Bush's
second term, but abortion is still legal and homosexual rights
remain. Europeans enjoy their fantasy of the American dystopia too
much to notice what is in front of their noses.
The Republicans used religious passions to push largely working-
class American Christians to vote for Bush, then gave them next to
nothing when he was in the White House. Perhaps one day their brains,
honed by millions years of evolution, will work out that they have
been taken for fools.
3207
Marc Draco
Re: Saw our YEC friend...
01/10/2006 20:32:00
How about just some rapturous laughter - as if he's some sort of
comedian? That usually gets them down too.
Mikey Brass wrote:
>
> Lenny Flank wrote:
> >> Isabelle waved and yelled out "HELLO!" to him and he
> >> turned his head away!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well gee, THAT wasn't very Christian of him . . .
>
> I'm planning on being down in the centre over mid-day next weekend; I am
> sure he will be delighted to see me standing at the front with my arms
> folder and foot tapping;-)
>
>
3208
John Germain
RE: Saw our YEC friend...
01/10/2006 20:59:00
How about A Rapture?
That'd show the little scroat!
PS: Mikey, have you a license for that arms folder of yours?
(Pedal-operated Gatling firing silver bullets?)
<Puff the Magic Dragon...>
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc
Draco
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 8:33 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Saw our YEC friend...
How about just some rapturous laughter - as if he's some sort of
comedian? That usually gets them down too.
Mikey Brass wrote:
>
> Lenny Flank wrote:
> >> Isabelle waved and yelled out "HELLO!" to him and he
> >> turned his head away!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well gee, THAT wasn't very Christian of him . . .
>
> I'm planning on being down in the centre over mid-day next weekend; I am
> sure he will be delighted to see me standing at the front with my arms
> folder and foot tapping;-)
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
3209
Michael Roberts
Re: God News! (God? news)
01/10/2006 21:18:00
Please talk some sense.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Draco" <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] God News! (God? news)
> I'll wait to see what Simon has to say.
>
> For myself I'm a vitriolic secularist; so please take into account that
> when I "diss" belief, it's out of a sense of disbelief, lack of
> understanding of the need for it and observation that for the most part,
> it only brings misery and suffering into our lives.
>
> Ghandi and Mother Teresa are worshiped as saints, yet they had hidden
> agendas that makes me wonder if they were really any better than Mo.
>
> Having Aspergers syndrome (not to mention several nasty experiences with
> Evangelical and "normal" Christians too during my teens) I tend to see
> the religious world in black and white terms.
>
> The creationist debacle only serves to throw that hate, and it is hate
> make no mistake, into sharper relief. Frankly, with the exceptions of
> those present here, Christians (like so-called moderate Muslims) are the
> worst offenders and not routing out the problem elements in their midst.
> Christians have let Tony Blair and Dubya run roughshod over our secular
> rights, because it suits your ideals. Course, when they got out of hand,
> it was too late and now we're fighting for the life of proper science
> and governance without intervention from the supernatural.
>
> Look at the Alpha course: all smiles, cheer and aimed at confused young
> folk: but with a frankly political agenda that serves no real purpose
> other than to promote a particular branch of US-originated Christianity.
> Yet question these people at their own game (by challenging Pascal's
> Wager, for instance) and you're "encouraged" to leave. This isn't free
> speech, it's a type of brainwashing previously the preserve of the
> Scientology movement.
>
> Creationism is based on one dumb allegory. Sure. But so are many more in
> the bible - yet the anti-creationist Christians continue to take them on
> face value. For instance, there isn't a scrap of archaeological evidence
> to support, say, Exodus - not one single thing. Yet it's taken as read
> that it's a historical event. One example of many but is it really so
> different to believing/not believing Genesis?
>
> Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> Please realise that many Christians like me object to the pathetic
>> religious
>> comment in many of our papers.
>>
>> I am unaware that the Mail has Christians on their staff as I get fed up
>> with parishioners who give me article s from the Mail on church issues. I
>> usually explain why they are wrong!! The Mail seems to think that the
>> cof E
>> should only have boring services, no hymns after 1800, never discuss any
>> ethical or social issue unless an extreme right wing agenda is
>> followed and
>> so on.
>>
>> I am pleased to say that the Express recently published a vitriolic
>> attack
>> on one of my colleagues Philip Gray who is the Bishop's Chaplain i.e. his
>> aide de camp , chief admin guy etc for an article he wrote in a diocesan
>> newsletter.(details on Blackburn diocese site - also two articles on
>> mine on
>> science)
>>
>> If these daily rags have a Christian agenda, then I think I better
>> become an
>> atheist!!
>>
>> Of course these papers influence people including church members as I
>> know
>> to my cost, but then 20 years ago I was told that I was worse than the
>> Red
>> Dean of Canterbury but not as bad as Bishop David Sheppard, after
>> preaching
>> a sermon during Christian Aid week
>>
>> Simon Barrow might want to comment
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>> -
>>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3210
Michael Roberts
Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
01/10/2006 21:16:00
What an absolute load of crap! Cohen doesn't know what he is talking
about.The Observer is worse than the Mail and THAT is an achievement!
Cynically
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:30 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Mention in the Observer Newspaper
> We got a mention in the Observer national newspaper today. For
> Americans amongst us that a quality broadsheet. Nick Cohen who quotes
> us is a high profile journalist.
>
> BTW this is not the national broadsheet that approached me last
> Friday. So we may get coverage in two quality newspapers.
>
> Roger
>
> Nick Cohen
> Sunday October 1, 2006
> The Observer
>
> Not the smallest of the crimes of the Bush administration is to allow
> an affectation of cultural superiority to sweep Europe. By now, you
> must know the list of our alleged virtues by heart and the odds are
> you accept our moral pre-eminence as incontestable.
> The Christian right wants an end to abortion, a rolling back of
> homosexual rights and the teaching of creationism to gullible
> children in state schools. These primitive beliefs put Republicans
> outside the bounds of civilised discourse to everyone who matters
> except Tony Blair and he'll be gone soon. The rest of us can savour
> the antics of Baptist churches and Deep South demagogues [this betrays an
> absolute ignorance of American fundamentalism. If it is the Deep South
> then what about Ohio and dover PA?] as one of
> our greatest voyeuristic pleasures - the pornography of the
> politically literate. Every time a film crew comes back with footage
> of tele-evangelists milking their flocks, the seductive thought that
> there is no moral difference between Christian fundamentalism and
> Islamism becomes a little more appealing.
> To be told that it is easier for creationists to get at children in
> Britain than the US is as shockingly incongruous as opening a paper
> and reading that more prisoners are executed in Devon than Texas. Yet
> British scientists trying to uphold basic intellectual standards are
> starting to believe just that.
> It isn't that Britain has anything comparable with the US
> creationist lobby. The Roman Catholic and Anglican churches accept
> evolution, although there are signs from polls that the people likely
> to found Muslim schools do not. The organisations that are pushing
> biblical literalism in Britain are obscure. [he fails to grasp that you
> have Anglicans and university professors.]I doubt if one person in
> 1,000 will have heard of Truth in Science, Answers in Genesis, the
> Emmanuel Schools Foundation or the Creation Science Movement.
> Typical activists describe themselves as 'street proselytisers', [do they
> really?]
nd tour the country giving lectures in nonconformists chapels [News to me -
it is usually independent chapels ]
es. They look like living
> fossils, but researchers for the British Centre for Science Education
> show that they can be surprisingly effective.
> Truth in Science has established a website and sent information
> packs to every school. Its suggested coursework for teachers to base
> lessons around is very slick and includes powerpoint presentations,
> video clips and arguments questioning that life could have emerged
> without a creator. If the group is to be believed, more teachers have
> thanked it for their help than phoned to say they had thrown their
> packs in the bin.
> As in the United States, old-time creationism is dressed up in the
> pseudo-scientific garb of intelligent design. [Total misuderstanding of
> TIS.]
iteral truth of Genesis, smart creationists point to the
> complexity of molecular structures as evidence that only an
> omnipotent creator could have conjured life into being.
> Stephen Layfield, head of science at the fundamentalist Emmanuel
> College near Middlesbrough[Geateshead you stoopid southerner!]
the 'Genesis account may be actually historical and true stand to
> meet with a barrage of criticism and scorn'.
> Talking about molecular structures or gaps in the fossil record,
> however, deflects the derision. More important, it appeals to
> teachers who have no religion but suffer from what you could call the
> BBC fallacy. 'We teach the theory of evolution,' they say to
> themselves, 'so we should balance that by also teaching the theory of
> intelligent design.' They don't understand that you can't have
> balance between truth and falsehood. Those who claim you can are
> putting themselves in the same camp as Holocaust-deniers from the far
> right or deniers of the Bosnian concentration camps from the far left
> who, when confronted by incontrovertible evidence, always try to
> wriggle away by saying :'I'm just trying to put the other point of
> view.'
> Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association is emphatic that
> the infiltration of British schools would be impossible in the United
> States. Because we don't separate church and state, he says, we can't
> simply say that it is illegal to bring God into the classroom. We
> therefore condemn ourselves to fighting endless minor science wars in
> the school labs. Last year in the US, by contrast, a federal judge
> ruled that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching
> intelligent design in high-school biology class was unconstitutional
> because it was clearly a religious idea that advances 'a particular
> version of Christianity'.
> His judgment showed that the great push by American Christians[ be fair -
> only fundies]
s doomed to fail and most of the other Christian
> initiatives look like going the same way. We are well into Bush's
> second term, but abortion is still legal and homosexual rights
> remain. Europeans enjoy their fantasy of the American dystopia too
> much to notice what is in front of their noses.
> The Republicans used religious passions to push largely working-
> class American Christians to vote for Bush, then gave them next to
> nothing when he was in the White House. Perhaps one day their brains,
> honed by millions years of evolution, will work out that they have
> been taken for fools.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3211
John Germain
Any comments?
01/10/2006 21:40:00
http://www.nagty.ac.uk/about/supporting_the_academy/partners.aspx
D1 has been sponsored by her school to enroll, ergo V. Interested.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
3212
Marc Draco
Re: God News! (God? news)
01/10/2006 22:55:00
Define "sense". I've re-read what I wrote and it makes perfect sense to
me. Which bits didn't you understand?
Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> Please talk some sense.
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Draco" <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
> <midnight.diamond%40ntlworld.com>>
> To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] God News! (God? news)
>
> > I'll wait to see what Simon has to say.
> >
> > For myself I'm a vitriolic secularist; so please take into account that
> > when I "diss" belief, it's out of a sense of disbelief, lack of
> > understanding of the need for it and observation that for the most part,
> > it only brings misery and suffering into our lives.
> >
> > Ghandi and Mother Teresa are worshiped as saints, yet they had hidden
> > agendas that makes me wonder if they were really any better than Mo.
> >
> > Having Aspergers syndrome (not to mention several nasty experiences with
> > Evangelical and "normal" Christians too during my teens) I tend to see
> > the religious world in black and white terms.
> >
> > The creationist debacle only serves to throw that hate, and it is hate
> > make no mistake, into sharper relief. Frankly, with the exceptions of
> > those present here, Christians (like so-called moderate Muslims) are the
> > worst offenders and not routing out the problem elements in their midst.
> > Christians have let Tony Blair and Dubya run roughshod over our secular
> > rights, because it suits your ideals. Course, when they got out of hand,
> > it was too late and now we're fighting for the life of proper science
> > and governance without intervention from the supernatural.
> >
> > Look at the Alpha course: all smiles, cheer and aimed at confused young
> > folk: but with a frankly political agenda that serves no real purpose
> > other than to promote a particular branch of US-originated Christianity.
> > Yet question these people at their own game (by challenging Pascal's
> > Wager, for instance) and you're "encouraged" to leave. This isn't free
> > speech, it's a type of brainwashing previously the preserve of the
> > Scientology movement.
> >
> > Creationism is based on one dumb allegory. Sure. But so are many more in
> > the bible - yet the anti-creationist Christians continue to take them on
> > face value. For instance, there isn't a scrap of archaeological evidence
> > to support, say, Exodus - not one single thing. Yet it's taken as read
> > that it's a historical event. One example of many but is it really so
> > different to believing/not believing Genesis?
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >> Please realise that many Christians like me object to the pathetic
> >> religious
> >> comment in many of our papers.
> >>
> >> I am unaware that the Mail has Christians on their staff as I get
> fed up
> >> with parishioners who give me article s from the Mail on church
> issues. I
> >> usually explain why they are wrong!! The Mail seems to think that the
> >> cof E
> >> should only have boring services, no hymns after 1800, never
> discuss any
> >> ethical or social issue unless an extreme right wing agenda is
> >> followed and
> >> so on.
> >>
> >> I am pleased to say that the Express recently published a vitriolic
> >> attack
> >> on one of my colleagues Philip Gray who is the Bishop's Chaplain
> i.e. his
> >> aide de camp , chief admin guy etc for an article he wrote in a
> diocesan
> >> newsletter.(details on Blackburn diocese site - also two articles on
> >> mine on
> >> science)
> >>
> >> If these daily rags have a Christian agenda, then I think I better
> >> become an
> >> atheist!!
> >>
> >> Of course these papers influence people including church members as I
> >> know
> >> to my cost, but then 20 years ago I was told that I was worse than the
> >> Red
> >> Dean of Canterbury but not as bad as Bishop David Sheppard, after
> >> preaching
> >> a sermon during Christian Aid week
> >>
> >> Simon Barrow might want to comment
> >>
> >> Michael.
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
3213
John Germain
RE: God News! (God? news)
01/10/2006 23:02:00
Whoo! DEBATE on-line NOW!!
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc
Draco
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:56 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] God News! (God? news)
Define "sense". I've re-read what I wrote and it makes perfect sense to
me. Which bits didn't you understand?
Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> Please talk some sense.
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Draco" <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
> <midnight.diamond%40ntlworld.com>>
> To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] God News! (God? news)
>
> > I'll wait to see what Simon has to say.
> >
> > For myself I'm a vitriolic secularist; so please take into account that
> > when I "diss" belief, it's out of a sense of disbelief, lack of
> > understanding of the need for it and observation that for the most part,
> > it only brings misery and suffering into our lives.
> >
> > Ghandi and Mother Teresa are worshiped as saints, yet they had hidden
> > agendas that makes me wonder if they were really any better than Mo.
> >
> > Having Aspergers syndrome (not to mention several nasty experiences with
> > Evangelical and "normal" Christians too during my teens) I tend to see
> > the religious world in black and white terms.
> >
> > The creationist debacle only serves to throw that hate, and it is hate
> > make no mistake, into sharper relief. Frankly, with the exceptions of
> > those present here, Christians (like so-called moderate Muslims) are the
> > worst offenders and not routing out the problem elements in their midst.
> > Christians have let Tony Blair and Dubya run roughshod over our secular
> > rights, because it suits your ideals. Course, when they got out of hand,
> > it was too late and now we're fighting for the life of proper science
> > and governance without intervention from the supernatural.
> >
> > Look at the Alpha course: all smiles, cheer and aimed at confused young
> > folk: but with a frankly political agenda that serves no real purpose
> > other than to promote a particular branch of US-originated Christianity.
> > Yet question these people at their own game (by challenging Pascal's
> > Wager, for instance) and you're "encouraged" to leave. This isn't free
> > speech, it's a type of brainwashing previously the preserve of the
> > Scientology movement.
> >
> > Creationism is based on one dumb allegory. Sure. But so are many more in
> > the bible - yet the anti-creationist Christians continue to take them on
> > face value. For instance, there isn't a scrap of archaeological evidence
> > to support, say, Exodus - not one single thing. Yet it's taken as read
> > that it's a historical event. One example of many but is it really so
> > different to believing/not believing Genesis?
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >> Please realise that many Christians like me object to the pathetic
> >> religious
> >> comment in many of our papers.
> >>
> >> I am unaware that the Mail has Christians on their staff as I get
> fed up
> >> with parishioners who give me article s from the Mail on church
> issues. I
> >> usually explain why they are wrong!! The Mail seems to think that the
> >> cof E
> >> should only have boring services, no hymns after 1800, never
> discuss any
> >> ethical or social issue unless an extreme right wing agenda is
> >> followed and
> >> so on.
> >>
> >> I am pleased to say that the Express recently published a vitriolic
> >> attack
> >> on one of my colleagues Philip Gray who is the Bishop's Chaplain
> i.e. his
> >> aide de camp , chief admin guy etc for an article he wrote in a
> diocesan
> >> newsletter.(details on Blackburn diocese site - also two articles on
> >> mine on
> >> science)
> >>
> >> If these daily rags have a Christian agenda, then I think I better
> >> become an
> >> atheist!!
> >>
> >> Of course these papers influence people including church members as I
> >> know
> >> to my cost, but then 20 years ago I was told that I was worse than the
> >> Red
> >> Dean of Canterbury but not as bad as Bishop David Sheppard, after
> >> preaching
> >> a sermon during Christian Aid week
> >>
> >> Simon Barrow might want to comment
> >>
> >> Michael.
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
3214
Marc Draco
Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
01/10/2006 23:12:00
Cohen seems to be making sense to me. Perhaps the Observer isn't your
cup-a-tea, but that doesn't make it any less interesting to those of us
who follow it. You'll also notice this was posted by the list moderator
- so I would assume he agrees with it; I know do and fully support the
work of Andrew Copson who is also mentioned in this piece.
I have a reason to hate McQuoid, Vardy and Burn to mention three. It
costs me money every week to send my child (and the other two in future)
to a secular secondary away from the lunatic influence of these nutters.
I'm not to everyone's taste any more than say, the learned Richard
Dawkins. However, if we want to contradict an argument, we can usually
find more words than "talk sense" or "what a load of crap". I've
dedicated a website to it and have a fair bit of my book written on the
subject.
My point about Exodus for example, has the backing of archaeological and
historical research. Not an dusty old story book, but properly conducted
research repeated almost as ad-nauseum as the experiments to prove
evolution.
To reiterate, if you think Cohen (in this instance) is talking crap:
define why, where and how. Does Cohen (for instance) campaign against GM
crops like the Mail - even though they haven't the faintest clue what
they're talking about? Does he support Creationism like at least one
Mail writer? Seems not. So which bit is crap?
Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> What an absolute load of crap! Cohen doesn't know what he is talking
> about.The Observer is worse than the Mail and THAT is an achievement!
>
> Cynically
>
3215
Timothy Chase
Re: God News! (God? news)
02/10/2006 01:05:00
> Ghandi and Mother Teresa are worshiped as saints, yet they had hidden
> agendas that makes me wonder if they were really any better than Mo.
As an aside, when I was going to the University of Iowa, I was walking
back to the one-room where Moira and I were living at the time, and I
saw three guys who were black getting ready to beat up this rather
beefy blond guy standing next to his bicycle. I asked what was up,
and they told me that he had said something racist. They weren't any
more specific.
I made some sort of instantaneous calculation - something I didn't
even really put into words at the time, then did my best to put myself
in between. I got hit a few times, knocked over, but I kept getting
back up and resuming my stance. My black leather jacket got a few
rips, but I kept my calm, and continued with my pacifist
"Ghandi"-routine, until finally the guy with the bicycle realised they
were more focused on me than him - and took off. When they turned to
look at him speeding away I took the opportunity to run to a nearby
store and stood in the doorway.
The fellow who seemed to have the most authority held my glance for a
moment, then turned and walked away with his two friends following
behind him.
*
Why did I jump in? Well, it wasn't exactly to protect the blond guy,
although that was part of it. It wasn't to keep the three other guys
out of trouble, either, although that was part of it. But I also
realised that if something serious had happened there, it would have
quite possibly affected a great many other people, and could have
raised racial tensions across the university, possibly affecting
people I knew and cared a great deal about.
I am not exactly sure what to draw from this. I am not exactly sure
why I even brought it up - except for Marc's reference to Ghandi. But
I suppose one lesson one could draw from it is:
"Never do a Ghandi impersonation if you are wearing your favorite
black leather jacket."
Afterall, Ghandi certainly would never have worn such a thing!
3216
oeditor
Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
02/10/2006 01:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> What an absolute load of crap! Cohen doesn't know what he is talking
> about.The Observer is worse than the Mail and THAT is an achievement!
>
Wow! There I was, thinking that the bishop dispenseth watered wine,
much to the Archpoet's disgust. Seems the lad was wrong!
I was about to post compliments to Ekklesia and SJS for doing such a
good job of alerting the press, but it seems you don't approve if the
wrong person picks it up.
So I'll rephrase my praise:
Brillant, Roger. Just what we need!
Brian
3217
John Germain
RE: Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
02/10/2006 01:33:00
Knock it off, the pair of you.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
oeditor
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:21 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> What an absolute load of crap! Cohen doesn't know what he is talking
> about.The Observer is worse than the Mail and THAT is an achievement!
>
Wow! There I was, thinking that the bishop dispenseth watered wine,
much to the Archpoet's disgust. Seems the lad was wrong!
I was about to post compliments to Ekklesia and SJS for doing such a
good job of alerting the press, but it seems you don't approve if the
wrong person picks it up.
So I'll rephrase my praise:
Brillant, Roger. Just what we need!
Brian
Yahoo! Groups Links
3218
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
02/10/2006 07:39:00
There is simply no point in sending out inaccurate reports on creationism as
it only convinces them further and they can soon see the mistakes.
Hence Marc and Dawkins only fuel every kind of nutcase creationism etc.
If that's what you want then don't complain when creationism thrives
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "oeditor" <b-jordan@lineone.net>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:21 AM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>>
>> What an absolute load of crap! Cohen doesn't know what he is talking
>> about.The Observer is worse than the Mail and THAT is an achievement!
>>
> Wow! There I was, thinking that the bishop dispenseth watered wine,
> much to the Archpoet's disgust. Seems the lad was wrong!
> I was about to post compliments to Ekklesia and SJS for doing such a
> good job of alerting the press, but it seems you don't approve if the
> wrong person picks it up.
>
> So I'll rephrase my praise:
> Brillant, Roger. Just what we need!
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3219
Roger Stanyard
Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
02/10/2006 08:34:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> What an absolute load of crap! Cohen doesn't know what he is
talking
> about.The Observer is worse than the Mail and THAT is an
achievement!
>
> Cynically
>
> Michael
There is no doubt that Conhen has not paid attention to detail in his
article. We can correct that with a letter to the Observer. However,
we have got the attention of the national media and also drawn their
attention to TiS.
Methinks letters to the editor of the Observer a must this week. If
we don't do it, you may well find letters from Truth in Science and
its supporters in there, unchallenged, next weekend.
Incidentally, The Observer was not one of the newspapers I wrote to
last week.
Roger
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
> To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:30 PM
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Mention in the Observer Newspaper
>
>
> > We got a mention in the Observer national newspaper today. For
> > Americans amongst us that a quality broadsheet. Nick Cohen who
quotes
> > us is a high profile journalist.
> >
> > BTW this is not the national broadsheet that approached me last
> > Friday. So we may get coverage in two quality newspapers.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > Nick Cohen
> > Sunday October 1, 2006
> > The Observer
> >
> > Not the smallest of the crimes of the Bush administration is to
allow
> > an affectation of cultural superiority to sweep Europe. By now,
you
> > must know the list of our alleged virtues by heart and the odds
are
> > you accept our moral pre-eminence as incontestable.
> > The Christian right wants an end to abortion, a rolling back of
> > homosexual rights and the teaching of creationism to gullible
> > children in state schools. These primitive beliefs put Republicans
> > outside the bounds of civilised discourse to everyone who matters
> > except Tony Blair and he'll be gone soon. The rest of us can
savour
> > the antics of Baptist churches and Deep South demagogues [this
betrays an
> > absolute ignorance of American fundamentalism. If it is the Deep
South
> > then what about Ohio and dover PA?] as one of
> > our greatest voyeuristic pleasures - the pornography of the
> > politically literate. Every time a film crew comes back with
footage
> > of tele-evangelists milking their flocks, the seductive thought
that
> > there is no moral difference between Christian fundamentalism and
> > Islamism becomes a little more appealing.
> > To be told that it is easier for creationists to get at children
in
> > Britain than the US is as shockingly incongruous as opening a
paper
> > and reading that more prisoners are executed in Devon than Texas.
Yet
> > British scientists trying to uphold basic intellectual standards
are
> > starting to believe just that.
> > It isn't that Britain has anything comparable with the US
> > creationist lobby. The Roman Catholic and Anglican churches accept
> > evolution, although there are signs from polls that the people
likely
> > to found Muslim schools do not. The organisations that are pushing
> > biblical literalism in Britain are obscure. [he fails to grasp
that you
> > have Anglicans and university professors.]I doubt if one person in
> > 1,000 will have heard of Truth in Science, Answers in Genesis, the
> > Emmanuel Schools Foundation or the Creation Science Movement.
> > Typical activists describe themselves as 'street proselytisers',
[do they
> > really?]
> nd tour the country giving lectures in nonconformists chapels [News
to me -
> it is usually independent chapels ]
> es. They look like living
> > fossils, but researchers for the British Centre for Science
Education
> > show that they can be surprisingly effective.
> > Truth in Science has established a website and sent information
> > packs to every school. Its suggested coursework for teachers to
base
> > lessons around is very slick and includes powerpoint
presentations,
> > video clips and arguments questioning that life could have emerged
> > without a creator. If the group is to be believed, more teachers
have
> > thanked it for their help than phoned to say they had thrown their
> > packs in the bin.
> > As in the United States, old-time creationism is dressed up in
the
> > pseudo-scientific garb of intelligent design. [Total
misuderstanding of
> > TIS.]
> iteral truth of Genesis, smart creationists point to the
> > complexity of molecular structures as evidence that only an
> > omnipotent creator could have conjured life into being.
> > Stephen Layfield, head of science at the fundamentalist Emmanuel
> > College near Middlesbrough[Geateshead you stoopid southerner!]
> the 'Genesis account may be actually historical and true stand to
> > meet with a barrage of criticism and scorn'.
> > Talking about molecular structures or gaps in the fossil record,
> > however, deflects the derision. More important, it appeals to
> > teachers who have no religion but suffer from what you could call
the
> > BBC fallacy. 'We teach the theory of evolution,' they say to
> > themselves, 'so we should balance that by also teaching the
theory of
> > intelligent design.' They don't understand that you can't have
> > balance between truth and falsehood. Those who claim you can are
> > putting themselves in the same camp as Holocaust-deniers from the
far
> > right or deniers of the Bosnian concentration camps from the far
left
> > who, when confronted by incontrovertible evidence, always try to
> > wriggle away by saying :'I'm just trying to put the other point of
> > view.'
> > Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association is emphatic
that
> > the infiltration of British schools would be impossible in the
United
> > States. Because we don't separate church and state, he says, we
can't
> > simply say that it is illegal to bring God into the classroom. We
> > therefore condemn ourselves to fighting endless minor science
wars in
> > the school labs. Last year in the US, by contrast, a federal judge
> > ruled that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching
> > intelligent design in high-school biology class was
unconstitutional
> > because it was clearly a religious idea that advances 'a
particular
> > version of Christianity'.
> > His judgment showed that the great push by American Christians[
be fair -
> > only fundies]
> s doomed to fail and most of the other Christian
> > initiatives look like going the same way. We are well into Bush's
> > second term, but abortion is still legal and homosexual rights
> > remain. Europeans enjoy their fantasy of the American dystopia too
> > much to notice what is in front of their noses.
> > The Republicans used religious passions to push largely working-
> > class American Christians to vote for Bush, then gave them next to
> > nothing when he was in the White House. Perhaps one day their
brains,
> > honed by millions years of evolution, will work out that they have
> > been taken for fools.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
3220
JAF
Re: Re: Request for Help
02/10/2006 08:44:00
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:21:59 -0000, you wrote:
>> I have e-mailed XXXX XXXXX MP forXXXXXXXX
Did my post about emailing my MP (Eliot Morley) come through?
I haven't seen any sign of it yet.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
3221
Roger Stanyard
Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
02/10/2006 08:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> There is simply no point in sending out inaccurate reports on
creationism as
> it only convinces them further and they can soon see the mistakes.
> Hence Marc and Dawkins only fuel every kind of nutcase creationism
etc.
> If that's what you want then don't complain when creationism thrives
>
> Michael
There is indeed, a problem with Nick Cohen's article in the Observer.
There are some inaccuracies in it.
The question is what can we do about it.
Cohen obviously drew down his info from our web site. He did not
contact me and I did not write to his newspaper last week.
The prupose of the web site is to serve the likes of Cohen; in that
we had a success.
However, we have no control over how people use the information.
Unless anyone has any alternative ideas, all we can do in this case
is write to the Observer.
Any volunteers?
A second point is that, yet again, we are at each others throats over
religion and atheism. Instead of moving forward from what we dis last
week, and learning from our mistakes as well, we have found the
Observer report to be an excuse to argue.
It's bloody dangerous, pals. It's ludicrious to fall out over what
Nick Cohen said in a national newspaper. If we fall out over that
there is no hope whatsover.
Let me remind everyone, ths group is not a talking shop about
religion. We are moving from rpeparing out grounds to actually doing
something real about stopping the speard of creationism in schools.
The problem we all face now is to get ourselves properly organised,
not to bicker about religion and atheism.
At the moment we have no charter, no proper structure, we are
floundering on doing something about moving from Yahoo and getting
our won domain name. We have made no progress on a logo.
We have no formal arrangements for who does what in the group, we
have nobody recruiting new members (sorely needed), we have no
concept of a board or committee or president/chairman.
We don't even have an agreement whether we run on a regional basis.
These are far higher priorities that bickering about religion and
atheism.
Roger
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "oeditor" <b-jordan@...>
> To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:21 AM
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
>
>
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> > <michael.andrea.r@> wrote:
> >>
> >> What an absolute load of crap! Cohen doesn't know what he is
talking
> >> about.The Observer is worse than the Mail and THAT is an
achievement!
> >>
> > Wow! There I was, thinking that the bishop dispenseth watered
wine,
> > much to the Archpoet's disgust. Seems the lad was wrong!
> > I was about to post compliments to Ekklesia and SJS for doing
such a
> > good job of alerting the press, but it seems you don't approve if
the
> > wrong person picks it up.
> >
> > So I'll rephrase my praise:
> > Brillant, Roger. Just what we need!
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
3222
Roger Stanyard
Re: Request for Help
02/10/2006 08:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:21:59 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >> I have e-mailed XXXX XXXXX MP forXXXXXXXX
>
> Did my post about emailing my MP (Eliot Morley) come through?
> I haven't seen any sign of it yet.
> --
> JAF
> anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
JAF - It came through as message 3164 at 4.20 pm Friday.
I would like to post your email to Morely and his reply on our web
site. Do I have your permission to do so?
Roger
>
3223
Roger Stanyard
Reminder to Everybody in this Group
02/10/2006 09:02:00
Ladies and Gentleman,
We are a single issue organisation to fight creationism. Anyone on our
side, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Taoist, Jew, Muslim,
Buddhist, Scottish Nationalist, Marxist, socialist, liberal,
conservatist, Sinn Feiner or whatever is an ally.
Please keep religion and atheism out of discussions or we will pull
ourselves apart.
This is a group that attracts, without exception, people of strong,
individualistic, robust and varied personal opinions. Let's direct that
against fundies who don't have that strength.
I am not in the business of letting us fail over our strengths.
Roger
3224
kilessgmailcom
Re: Reminder to Everybody in this Group
02/10/2006 10:24:00
Thank you for the reminder - my humble request is in regards to the
posts entitled 'Mention in the Observer Newspaper'.
I noted the annotations to the article, some seemed to be explicit
rebuttals and others didn't (eg. 'stoopid Southerner'). I was
wondering if there were four or five key points that the group would
like highlighted in a letter?
That way when I / we contact 'The Observer', one can write a
response to Nick Cohen's article that is not a 'form letter'. It
therefore could contain a level of one's own personal indignation or
dismay without being passed off as 'spam', which is what I suspect
can happen if too many similar letters go in.
It would possibly also improve the likelyhood of a letter being
printed?
My start would be:
- the ignorance of US fundamentalism, as more aptly portrayed in the
documentary by Dr Richard Dawkins 'The Root of All Evil?',
- the failure to note the pressure from fringe Christian groups and
those in tertiary institutions,
- the platforms for speaking available in the growing number of
independent churches that welcome their support,
- "old-time creationism is dressed up in the pseudo-scientific garb
of intelligent design" which is then called 'Total misuderstanding
of TIS' - what would be a snappier way to put it? Is there a good
sharp rebuttal we could put here in no more than two lines? We are
talking being printed as a letter to the editor.
Could we get this done within the next twelve hours?
K.
3225
Mikey Brass
[Fwd: Your e mail to David Howarth MP]
02/10/2006 10:50:00
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Your e mail to David Howarth MP
From: "David Howarth MP" <howarth.casework@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, October 2, 2006 10:32
To: michael.brass@uclmail.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Brass
On behalf of David Howarth MP thank you for your e mail about the
teaching of science. I will draw it to David's attention the next time he
is in the office.
Yours sincerely
Joye Rosenstiel
Case Worker to David Howarth MP
3226
Roger Stanyard
Re: Reminder to Everybody in this Group
02/10/2006 10:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "kilessgmailcom" <kiless@...>
wrote:
>
> Thank you for the reminder - my humble request is in regards to the
> posts entitled 'Mention in the Observer Newspaper'.
>
> I noted the annotations to the article, some seemed to be explicit
> rebuttals and others didn't (eg. 'stoopid Southerner'). I was
> wondering if there were four or five key points that the group
would
> like highlighted in a letter?
>
> That way when I / we contact 'The Observer', one can write a
> response to Nick Cohen's article that is not a 'form letter'. It
> therefore could contain a level of one's own personal indignation
or
> dismay without being passed off as 'spam', which is what I suspect
> can happen if too many similar letters go in.
>
> It would possibly also improve the likelyhood of a letter being
> printed?
>
> My start would be:
> - the ignorance of US fundamentalism, as more aptly portrayed in
the
> documentary by Dr Richard Dawkins 'The Root of All Evil?',
> - the failure to note the pressure from fringe Christian groups and
> those in tertiary institutions,
> - the platforms for speaking available in the growing number of
> independent churches that welcome their support,
> - "old-time creationism is dressed up in the pseudo-scientific garb
> of intelligent design" which is then called 'Total misuderstanding
> of TIS' - what would be a snappier way to put it? Is there a good
> sharp rebuttal we could put here in no more than two lines? We are
> talking being printed as a letter to the editor.
>
> Could we get this done within the next twelve hours?
>
> K.
I am a little confused to what you are saying; bearing that in mind,
my response is as follows:
1. I think BCSE needs its own very short letter to the Observer
pointig out a couple of errors and basically identifying ourselfs to
the public.
2. However, it seems to me that it is a very good idea indeed if
individuals within the group write to the Observer and that BCSE
gives all the help it can in drafting, checking, coordinating and so
on. That's what we did with the MPs letters.
3. I'm happy with putting together something within the next 12 hours
but the only thing I would point out is that we do have a little
time on our hands. The Observer is a weekly, not a daily newspaper.
If we email it today, there basically won't be anyone there.
4. I'll look at the Cohen article in depth late this afternoon and
come up with a list of the key points. I can't do it now because I am
at work.
Roger
3227
Marc Draco
Re: [Fwd: Your e mail to David Howarth MP]
02/10/2006 11:04:00
Mike, what was the meat of your letter? It hasn't got here yet. My MP is
a bit of a tosser but I think he might be feeling the squeeze himself
now so it never hurts to push it again.
Mikey Brass wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Your e mail to David Howarth MP
> From: "David Howarth MP" <howarth.casework@ntlworld.com
> <howarth.casework%40ntlworld.com>>
> Date: Mon, October 2, 2006 10:32
> To: michael.brass@uclmail.net <michael.brass%40uclmail.net>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Mr Brass
>
> On behalf of David Howarth MP thank you for your e mail about the
> teaching of science. I will draw it to David's attention the next time he
> is in the office.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Joye Rosenstiel
> Case Worker to David Howarth MP
>
>
3228
Mikey Brass
Re: [Fwd: Your e mail to David Howarth MP]
02/10/2006 11:32:00
On Mon, October 2, 2006 11:04, Marc Draco said:
> Mike, what was the meat of your letter?
I modified Roger's draft letter slightly and added in a mention of the YEC
preacher about town.
I have replied to his assistant's notification, pointing to the Observer
piece. Regardless of what list members think of the content, some
publicity is better than none. Politicians pay more attention to matters
raised in newspapers, imo.
3229
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Reminder to Everybody in this Group
02/10/2006 11:34:00
As a former journo (and letter's editor) I can tell you a couple of things.
Typed, paper letters generally get more attention: they take more time
to produce but are easy to read so people take more notice than an email
on screen. This may change in time.
Cohen was working to a word count. He had to get a number of points
across in a short space to get people thinking. There simply isn't the
space (even in a quality daily) to fully discuss the issues we face. One
has to remember that we're at the sharp, bleeding tip of the sword.
Cohen's piece was more general. ANY publicity that raises the issue
(even if it misses a few points) is better than none at at. No one can
breath in a vacuum.
What would be better, perhaps, in addition to a letter, is an article of
some substance offered for free publication. We'd need to offer a
synopsis first, of course.
Dawkins in "Root of All Evil" is dead right of course. I'm a little
surprised that he hasn't become a target of islamothugs frankly.
Some people want us to be good because some dude [called: insert your
prophet here] (whom might never have existed) is reported to have said a
bunch of things.... etc. You know the drill. It's quick to stop
throwing the baby out with the bathwater by distilling the message into
a short, simple answer. One of Christianity's famous messages (in a
nutshell) is simply "It's good to be good and bad to be bad." But there
were others before and since who have allegedly said the same things.
Civilisation for the most part is founded one this one simple black and
white rule.
This is why so many people still record themselves as being Christian
(or CofE) in census data. It's not really human nature to be this way:
many of us would slide in some other direction (a lot already do).
Altruism is supposed to be Christian (other faiths lay claim to it too)
yet in fact, it's an evolutionary advantage for -some- of us to be
naturally altruistic.
Ironically, this is precisely the fear (of people being bad) that that
creationists and others like Burn play on. They say that their ideas
promote the simple message (which they do) but add in a wholly
supernatural mix which many don't want or need. They are basically
operating out of another human instinct: survival. They will survive
better by getting that message across: even if they're not aware of it,
that's what drives these people. They want to lead the pack: and adding
a knowledge or connection with the supernatural gives them the extra
edge. There are other psychological advantages to prostylising too, but
they are not relevant here.
All they are really doing is feathering their own nests. The true
altruists go out and give their lives to help others for no reason other
than it's the right thing to do.
We tell our children right from wrong from a very early age. We drum it
in to them that being good has rewards and being naughty has penalties.
We're telling them that it's good to be good and bad to be bad.
Religious families use the threats of hell (and the reward of heaven).
Non-religious ones like mine use other, rather more direct, means. Good
behavior has rewards, bad has consequences - like removal of privileges.
Oddly enough, when the religious threats fail, as they so often do, we
have to resort to secular means like locking people up.
My 9 year old is already aware of what she wants to believe in (or not).
She's well aware of good and evil; and she feels uncomfortable being
forced to worship some faceless entity that she (of her own choice) does
not consider real.
She knows right from wrong and at the end of the day, that's what it
really boils down to.
kilessgmailcom wrote:
>
> Thank you for the reminder - my humble request is in regards to the
> posts entitled 'Mention in the Observer Newspaper'.
>
> I noted the annotations to the article, some seemed to be explicit
> rebuttals and others didn't (eg. 'stoopid Southerner'). I was
> wondering if there were four or five key points that the group would
> like highlighted in a letter?
>
> That way when I / we contact 'The Observer', one can write a
> response to Nick Cohen's article that is not a 'form letter'. It
> therefore could contain a level of one's own personal indignation or
> dismay without being passed off as 'spam', which is what I suspect
> can happen if too many similar letters go in.
>
> It would possibly also improve the likelyhood of a letter being
> printed?
>
> My start would be:
> - the ignorance of US fundamentalism, as more aptly portrayed in the
> documentary by Dr Richard Dawkins 'The Root of All Evil?',
> - the failure to note the pressure from fringe Christian groups and
> those in tertiary institutions,
> - the platforms for speaking available in the growing number of
> independent churches that welcome their support,
> - "old-time creationism is dressed up in the pseudo-scientific garb
> of intelligent design" which is then called 'Total misuderstanding
> of TIS' - what would be a snappier way to put it? Is there a good
> sharp rebuttal we could put here in no more than two lines? We are
> talking being printed as a letter to the editor.
>
> Could we get this done within the next twelve hours?
>
> K.
>
>
3230
Roger Stanyard
New Member, Dr Paul Millington
02/10/2006 18:52:00
Dr Paul Millington from Reading has just joined the group. Paul has
been active on SJS and is a staunch anti-creationist.
Reading (pronounced Redding for Americans) is becoming a bit of a hot
centre for anti-creationism. IIRC we have at lest three members in
Reading and one member who is ex-Reading University.
Welcome Paul.
Roger
3231
Drew Smith
RE: New Member, Dr Paul Millington
02/10/2006 19:16:00
Roger: Reading (pronounced Redding for Americans)
Drew: Don't worry, Roger. Reading, as a place name, is almost always
pronounced that way in the United States, too. We have several states with
towns named that.
3232
Marc Draco
Re: New Member, Dr Paul Millington
02/10/2006 19:27:00
Welcome Doctor.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Dr Paul Millington from Reading has just joined the group. Paul has
> been active on SJS and is a staunch anti-creationist.
>
> Reading (pronounced Redding for Americans) is becoming a bit of a hot
> centre for anti-creationism. IIRC we have at lest three members in
> Reading and one member who is ex-Reading University.
>
> Welcome Paul.
>
> Roger
>
3233
Roger Stanyard
Getting Ourselves Organised
02/10/2006 20:34:00
Membership of the group now stands at 65. This is up from 45 when I
took over about three months ago. The net increase of 20 hides the
fact that we lost aboout six members during the period. So, on other
words, we have added about 26 names.
I looking to see if anyone would like to head up the position
covering membership for the group.
Initially I see this as a simple exercise - get as many members as
we can - through letting other groups know of our existance,
approaching individuals to join us and whatever tricks of the trade
that are available to us.
It should be difficult but I think it is a must to build up our
membership.
Any volunteers for this important role?
Roger
3234
ukantic
Re: Reminder to Everybody in this Group
02/10/2006 21:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
>
> 4. I'll look at the Cohen article in depth late this afternoon and
> come up with a list of the key points. I can't do it now because I am
> at work.
>
> Roger
>
I personally wouldn't bother as I am perfectly happy with the article.
Okay, it's a little confused in places & slated towards an atheistic
perspective (which I am entirely in agreement with) but it has
produced some much needed publicity for this group & again turned the
spotlight on the fundamentalists in the UK. Furthermore, it has also
brought the true nature of TIS to the attention of the many school
staff that will have read the article or discussed it with colleagues.
Write to the observer by all means if you want to back the article up
with a bit more free publicity, but leave the criticising to the fundies.
There is only so much time; score a point & move on.
Alan.
3235
JAF
Re: Getting Ourselves Organised
02/10/2006 21:53:00
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:34:07 -0000, you wrote:
>
>Any volunteers for this important role?
One way is to add the url of the web site to a sig - as below.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/
3236
George Jelliss
Leicester meeting
02/10/2006 23:52:00
Just thought I'd put in a plug for the talk next Sunday 8th October at
Secular Hall in Leicester, when Percy Cohen, formerly of the Natural
History Museum, will ask "Have the Creationists Got It Right?".
Naturally I hope this is not his conclusion! I don't know if we will
attract any creationists to be in the audience.
3237
Roger Stanyard
New Member Yvonne Strong
03/10/2006 08:56:00
Membership of the group continues to grow. Our latest new member is
Yvonne who you may know as Albion from the SJS web site.
Welcome to the group Yvonne.
Roger
3238
JAF
May be of interest.
03/10/2006 09:54:00
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1885772,00.html
There's a mention of Vardy. Not much information, but may be of some use.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/
3239
oeditor
New TIS press reports
03/10/2006 10:26:00
Reports on Truth In Science via Google Alerts
Nothing remarkable, but for the record:
1)Creationists On The March - Into Schools
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6998
2)Maintain a scientific perspective
thegoodnews website http://tinyurl.com/e648f
3)'Design' attack on school science
BBC news site http://tinyurl.com/hrg4f
Brian
3240
Roger Stanyard
Re: May be of interest.
03/10/2006 11:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1885772,00.html
>
> There's a mention of Vardy. Not much information, but may be of
some use.
> --
> JAF
> anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
> Helping to Keep Science Scientific
> BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/
>
This is very good background material. It shows how the smoke and
mirrors approach has been used; seems to me that this is exactly the
same problem as finding out who the trustees of the Vardy schools
are. Some game, same methodology.
3241
jbs13uk
Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 11:54:00
Here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2385220.html
"State of science in our schools
Sir, The British Centre for Science Education is deeply concerned
about the teaching of pseudoscience in place of science in schools in
the UK.
We are a new pressure group that aims to keep science and only science
in the science classrooms of the UK. In particular, we are alarmed at
the launch of a creationist religious group called Truth in Science
(report, Sept 29). It is aiming to get creationism taught in science
lessons in schools.
Truth in Science recently sent free materials to every school in the
UK. We urge teachers to treat this material with extreme caution. It
is full of scientific errors and misrepresentations and fails to tell
the recipients about the group's creationist beliefs and objectives.
Attempts to deliver this material in a science classroom may confuse
children, and could well place their future academic success at risk.
Truth in Science is pushing supernaturalism as a viable alternative to
the accepted science regarding the origins and development of life on
this planet and established geological knowledge that the Earth is
very old.
This is at its heart a theological debate fit for a religious
education class, but not a science class.
ROGER STANYARD
Spokesman,
British Centre for Science Education"
3242
roythearle
Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
03/10/2006 11:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> There is indeed, a problem with Nick Cohen's article in the Observer.
> There are some inaccuracies in it.
>
> The question is what can we do about it.
Step one would be to say what they are...
Roy
3243
Marc Draco
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 14:05:00
Yo Roger! Pithy and accurate. Now wait for the return fire!
jbs13uk wrote:
>
> Here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2385220.html
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2385220.html>
>
> "State of science in our schools
> Sir, The British Centre for Science Education is deeply concerned
> about the teaching of pseudoscience in place of science in schools in
> the UK.
>
> We are a new pressure group that aims to keep science and only science
> in the science classrooms of the UK. In particular, we are alarmed at
> the launch of a creationist religious group called Truth in Science
> (report, Sept 29). It is aiming to get creationism taught in science
> lessons in schools.
>
> Truth in Science recently sent free materials to every school in the
> UK. We urge teachers to treat this material with extreme caution. It
> is full of scientific errors and misrepresentations and fails to tell
> the recipients about the group's creationist beliefs and objectives.
> Attempts to deliver this material in a science classroom may confuse
> children, and could well place their future academic success at risk.
>
> Truth in Science is pushing supernaturalism as a viable alternative to
> the accepted science regarding the origins and development of life on
> this planet and established geological knowledge that the Earth is
> very old.
>
> This is at its heart a theological debate fit for a religious
> education class, but not a science class.
>
> ROGER STANYARD
> Spokesman,
> British Centre for Science Education"
>
>
3244
Marc Draco
Re: Leicester meeting
03/10/2006 14:04:00
George, you're obviously pretty active in Leicster (personally and as a
group). I'm trying to get something going up here. Can you help?
George Jelliss wrote:
>
> Just thought I'd put in a plug for the talk next Sunday 8th October at
> Secular Hall in Leicester, when Percy Cohen, formerly of the Natural
> History Museum, will ask "Have the Creationists Got It Right?".
> Naturally I hope this is not his conclusion! I don't know if we will
> attract any creationists to be in the audience.
>
>
3245
Marc Draco
Re: May be of interest.
03/10/2006 14:03:00
The interesting bit about Vardy (which I have copied to NTA) is the
detail of how he siphoned his money back to his own people.
I wonder if Edminton is going to do the same?
JAF wrote:
>
>
>
> http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1885772,00.html
> <http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1885772,00.html>
>
> There's a mention of Vardy. Not much information, but may be of some use.
> --
> JAF
> anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
> Helping to Keep Science Scientific
> BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/ <http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/>
>
>
3246
Roger Stanyard
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 14:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Yo Roger! Pithy and accurate. Now wait for the return fire!
>
I am far more worried that Michael Roberts has just walked out of this
forum because of what he sees as the bigotry in it.
Roger
3247
Roger Stanyard
Re: Mention in the Observer Newspaper
03/10/2006 14:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "roythearle" <rthearle@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
>
> > There is indeed, a problem with Nick Cohen's article in the
Observer.
> > There are some inaccuracies in it.
> >
> > The question is what can we do about it.
>
> Step one would be to say what they are...
>
> Roy
>
I think it is best to let the issue woth the Observer drop. We gout
our plug there and it is time to move onto other issues.
The biggest issue we have right now is the fact that Michael Roberts
has just walked out of the group because of its perceived bigotry.
Roger
3248
oeditor
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 14:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I am far more worried that Michael Roberts has just walked out of this
> forum because of what he sees as the bigotry in it.
>
Well, he and Ian Lowe can't both be right, so we must have achieved
*some* sort of balance! Who and what are supposed to have upset him?
Hasn't he the courage to tell us himself? How are we supposed to
improve if we don't know which sensitive areas of skin to avoid
pricking? Couldn't he turn the other cheek, for that matter?
Brian
3249
oeditor
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 14:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I am far more worried that Michael Roberts has just walked out of this
> forum because of what he sees as the bigotry in it.
>
Perhaps he's just a lot more comfortable with his religious Ekklesia
mates. Or maybe hanging out with a bunch of dissenters is bad for his
image.
Brian
3250
oeditor
Re: Rogers BCSE letter, todays Times
03/10/2006 15:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yo Roger! Pithy and accurate. Now wait for the return fire!
> >
Yes, well done, Roger - it's excellent. It's a pity they didn't print
the url though - we're hard to find on Google unless you put the whole
lot in quotemarks. I have some old software which I used to promote
clients' web sites to the search engines. It'll be a bit out of date,
but should still hit the main ones. Would you like me to dig it out an
have a go, or has someone got a more modern one?
OTOH the wiki pages haven't any metatags, which would help us up the
rankings. Does anyone know whether the wiki will let us put some in
the page source code (and let them stay there)?
Brian
