大象传媒

The contrast between the US and some other Western nations could once again hardly be greater.

Australias first female prime minster is an atheist, the leader of one of the coalition parties in the UK openly states he has no belief in god and the leader of the opposition there is now an atheist. In the US in the meantime Obama (and Democrats in general) pander to the superstitious crowd. The Secular Coalition for America has identified two dozen non-believers in Congress, but they are scared out of their wits to be outed.

Oh well, the (imo very positive) development that those who run for public office can openly say they are atheists here is bound to spread to the US at some point. The automatic respect for silly religious beliefs and hiding ones lack of them do appear to be on the way out. Happy times.

Killing animals: an ethical question.
Writer advocates the extinction of all carnivorous species! Not sure if he realises that might just include the human race....
His points on suffering in general and in animals and advocating being herbivore fall short in my view. After showing how animals suffer next thing someone will be showing how plants suffer and what would we eat then?? I mean I'm sure you've all heard the asparagus scream when you pop it in boiling water..... :-D

Re NHS clinics and porn.
In this day and age might seem 'right on' and open to accept this and 'what harm can it do?' in the situation that it is presented.
As always there is a bigger picture (not pornographic one!) and to my understanding it is more harming than we perhaps realise. So best not guys - even if it makes more superduperspeedysperm....remember the rabbit (or was it a hare?) and the tortoise... lol :-D

PK (@ 1) -

"Oh well, the (imo very positive) development that those who run for public office can openly say they are atheists here is bound to spread to the US at some point. The automatic respect for silly religious beliefs and hiding ones lack of them do appear to be on the way out. Happy times."

Happy times indeed. Well, let me increase your happiness, Peter, by saying that I broadly agree with what you are saying (although I suspect we have a different take on the application of the adjective 'superstitious').

As a Christian, I would far rather a politician was honest than dissembling. If everyone's outwardly professed belief actually coincided with what they actually believed (manifested through what they did), then we wouldn't be in the situation where there was a danger of committing that dreadful 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, which so exercises the mind of a certain contributor on this blog (who shall remain nameless). I assume that American atheist politicans who are - to use your phrase - "scared out of their wits to be outed", are giving the impression that they believe in God. In other words, they are dissembling. Now just suppose I happened to know one of these politicians, and I knew he was an atheist who was pretending to be a Christian, would I be committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy if I were to suggest that he was not "a true Christian"? Or is it always the case (and has been suggested on the other thread) that you cannot ever say that someone is a counterfeit of what they claim to be, for fear of committing that terrible logical crime?

And, of course, I don't suppose this desire for politicians to be honest could possibly apply to manipulative dictators, especially the one whose name must never be mentioned in a blog, otherwise you get hung, drawn and quartered for offending the sensitive Mr Godwin? But when some poor "heap of unlogic and inconsistency" (to use another one of your memorable phrases) should dare to suggest that such a dictator was not being honest, the poor chap is read the philosophical riot act (the "poor chap", of course, referring to the "heap of unlogic" not the manipulative dictator).

Sometimes I'm not sure which is worse: misapplying logical rules or (as seanthenoisemaker asserts) telling me that logic is subjective (and therefore irrelevant). Sometimes the insanity of the latter is preferable to the deviousness of the former.

Please, please, please, could our politicians come out about their atheism. At least then when they make a complete hash of things, no one can say that it was the fault of Christianity (or this strange thing termed 'religion').

In fact, in a funny kind of way, I rather hope Helio's project of encouraging false Christians to come out about their atheism has some 'success' (if I can use that word). It would certainly be a relief to the rest of us, that's for sure.

Following on from my last post...

I forgot to ask, Peter, what sect of atheism a politician ought to 'come out' about. It seems to me that there are at least two flavours of the 'Great Oblivion' that could be considered:

1. Atheism a la Richard Dawkins (and not forgetting the other three horsemen). Its statement of faith seems to be: "Let's destroy every last vestige of that disease called 'religion'" and "Let's make sure we call all those who do believe in God the most childish names we can dredge up."

2. Atheism a la Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. This is expressed with the following sentiments:

"I don't believe in God personally, but I have great respect for those people who do. Different people have different religious views in this country. The great thing is that, whether we have faith or not, we are by and large very tolerant of people whatever their view." Ed Miliband

"I have enormous respect for people who have religious faith, I'm married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics. However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind." Nick Clegg

Funny how the Christian writer of this post is a member of a party led by a professing atheist. What has come over him, I wonder? But then again perhaps this "heap of unlogic" has the perspicacity to discern that there are indeed different strands of atheism, and the tolerant, respectful agnostic version is not that bad, on the whole. In fact the "heap of unlogic" actually prefers the respectful agnostic to a great many fellow Christians!

Of course, I suppose the cynic might say that the above-mentioned Miliband and Clegg were only mouthing these words of respect, because they were acting as typical politicians. In other words, they're not true atheists. Tut tut! No true Scotsman!! And if they are so honest as to 'out' themselves as atheists, then why not go the whole hog and 'out' themselves as members of the pure sect of Four Horsemanism. (Or perhaps we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt?)

Now I wonder what sect the W&T atheists belong to?

Panorama - Scientology

Sweeney got his revenge here. Senior former Scientologists who have left the "racket" confirmed that he was followed by private investigators when he previously investigated the "church" and actor Jason Beghe told of how he gave the organisation in the region of $1 million for courses that would bring him to "Total Freedom".

It is quite a funny story about what Scientologists believe (well, the rich ones!). Apparently Lord Xenu populated Earth, but if it costs $1 million dollars to get this information from the organisation I'll stick to comic books.

Warning: If you have a phobia about being recorded steer clear of this cult's buildings.

LSV,

The first one.

Whilst I respect people who sincerely follow a faith for their sincerity, especially if they can justify their faith in the face of reason, I also think that they've never really put too much thought into it. At the root of all religions are some very silly concepts that are only given acceptablity due to their age and number of followers.

One of the biggest turnoffs people have about any religion is the people who claim to follow that religion.

Like Ghandi said "I like this Christ of yours, but I do not like your Christians"

In addition, that Ayodhya decision has been reached.

In a remarkable show of common sense, the court has decided the two religions have to share the site. Wow.

The Islamic side have said the result is a fair one... and then proceeded to appeal it to the Supreme Court. You can't make it up.

In my opinion the courts should've taken it away from both of them and given it to someone who'd actually make a proper use of it. Perhaps Disney.

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

I agree we shouldn't attach any weight to what Hawking says about God - but was a bit disappointed in the article. I thought it was going to say more from a scientific pov rather than just state the obvious!

Scientology really couldn't have come out of any other era or any other place than 1950's America. It definitely is a pretty creepy cult that's more interested in money making than anything else. The only experience I had of them was as a naive 17yo in LA. We were walking down Hollywood Blvd and saw the shop sign for free personality test- did the test & one and a half hrs later, after having 2 of them set on me, i parted with nearly $100 on books. Felt like I'd been psychologically raped lol

Ryan: maybe you were - and maybe it's not really lol but seriously recognising how harming it really is.....

Why are my comments taking so long to appear ? Why have the moderators got it in for me ? have I said something to upset them ? It really does seem a bit pedantic.

For everyone's infornmation, Michael Behe will be speaking at the Crescent church in Belfast on November the 24th. Should be worth going along to and hopefully, William will be able to have him as a guest on Sunday sequence or, failing that, at least arrange and interview.

For those of you who don't know, Behe is one of the leading lights in the Intelligent Design movement in the US.

This appears to be part of the launch of the Centre for Intelligent Design in Glasgow, a new organisation fronted by Dr.Alaister Noble and Professor Norman Nevin, amongst others.

Hopefully, this post will not take forever and a day to appear.

Eunice- They didn't even have signs outfront saying scientology , or maybe I just didn't know what it meant- was first holiday abroad without the parents and near get sucked into a cult

I find Behe a bit of a contradiction. On one hand he seems to genuinely try to find scientific theories in this intelligent design hypothesis (something he's failed to acheive in 20 years), but on the other hand he seems to want to keep well away from the religous fevour that infects the rest of the disco'tute.

I suspect he still sees himself as a scientist and is distancing himself from the fevour of the fanatics in his workplace, just in case he ever wants to go back to real science.

At least he's got the qualifications to talk about it. I get a little annoyed at people with no educatation or experience who think they're qualified to comment on hard science (Ken Ham for one, Eric Hovind for another).

If I could get there, I'd quite like to listen to Behe, if Will can get him on the radio, that'd be just as good.

LSV, post 3,

"Please, please, please, could our politicians come out about their atheism. At least then when they make a complete hash of things, no one can say that it was the fault of Christianity (or this strange thing termed 'religion')."

Who knows, that might indeed happen. Although the example that springs to my mind first is one that goes in the other direction, i.e. Tony Blair and the war in Iraq, and later learning of his divine chats that partly informed his decision.

Natman,

"On one hand he seems to genuinely try to find scientific theories in this intelligent design hypothesis (something he's failed to acheive in 20 years), but on the other hand he seems to want to keep well away from the religous fevour that infects the rest of the disco'tute."

I don't know about his keeping separate from the religious nutters, but there's much about his method of doing things that is anathema to science. Like not submitting his work to peer review, not reading decades of scientific literature relevant to his subject area, never withdrawing ideas that have been shown wrong and admitting error.

Ref Post 14 and post 18 on Eddie Long thread, and post 16 above- "never withdrawing ideas that have been shown wrong and admitting error."

From an academic who insists in accusing me of being someone else, and has never withdrawn that accusation, that is rich. I hope you have read the court case on the Dead Sea Scrolls above. If I am someone else then I am a duplicate poster. I have broken house rules. I am not. If I am impersonating someone, and that is a serious accusation, I am a fraud. Either way, my integrity is in question, my posts will be ignored and my opinions will not be discussed. Those who know who Check_that_out is will think that I have done something wrong and will take this correspondance very seriously. Peter Klaver, time to stop this nonsense and to practice what you preach.

Check_that_out - welcome to the blog!

I was extremely interested in your exchanges with PeterK where he, perhaps uncharacteristically acting on unscientific intuition, intimates that he believes you are in fact someone else. I understand the distress this must cause you but I would ask you to forgive him - his error is entirely understandable.

I hope you believe in coincidence because you will find what I am about to tell you scarcely credible!

Something I have been working on for some time gives me access to a little piece of software which analyses speech patterns in a number of very interesting ways. Having too little to do last evening I uploaded a number of OT's posts together with a similar number of yours (I excluded the first couple as they seemed inexplicably uncharacteristic) and ran them through an analysis.

I must be honest and say that this is not the precise purpose for which I normally use the software so I do urge caution in assessing the outcome but you will not believe the results! They showed, on average, a greater than 90% confidence level that all the posts had a common author.

I am sure you will understand how, in the light of such similarity, maybe unconsciously registered by Peter, his error arose.

Parrahasios thank you for your welcome to the blog. At least I am glad that you didn't use the proverb, 'great minds think alike, fools seldom differ'.
However, using a bit of textural criticism myself, I detect some issues with your work. Assuming of course you did any work. Did you use control texts to eliminate common matches i.e. phrases in common usage or common jargon used by groups? Is your sample large enough? Why did you exclude the first couple of posts, I take it that you are not a climate change scientist? Perhaps someone working in a university may have access to Pl@giarism, developed by the University of Maastricht. If so try it.
I am really not OT, and those who insist that I am will do well to accept that. Internet bullying is not very nice for the person on the receiving end of it.
As for Mr Klaver I have already forgiven him, and his friend. The Lord鈥檚 Prayer reminds us to 'forgive us our trespasses as we have [already] forgiven those who trespass against us. We cannot ask God for forgiveness if we are unwilling to forgive others. Perhaps William, a moderator, or other bloggers, can help to put a stop to these defamatory assertions.

CTO - as a new poster you are probably unaware of my total unconcern for the illusion some call truth. I do not care in the slightest whether you and OT are one and the same poster or not. I merely found it interesting to examine some posts in the light of Peter and Brian's claims to see what evidence a close scrutiny would throw up.

No one accused you of being a replicant, the program I ran is not designed to detect plagiarism or duplication, it goes rather deeper into the structure of the language used. What it showed was simply that there was a statistically significant chance (not conclusive evidence) that all the posts I examined had a common author. I found it mildly interesting that the most obvious markers had the the lowest likelihood of single authorship and the least obvious the highest. Naturally that marked difference is merely simple co-incidence!

I excluded your earliest posts because there is a huge difference in what we might call the competence of the composition between your earliest and your later efforts. You informed us that it took you time to familiarise yourself with the intricacies of blog-posting so, of-course, my only reason for excluding those early, and markedly different, posts was your own admission of variation due to what we might call induction period expression.

20 Parrhasios Interesting comments and as I post more frequently perhaps you can let me know if I am maintaining a similarity of expression with OT, or if we may be diverging. Perhaps I have a twin I don't know about? I know you haven't accused me of replication but others have, and if you are genuine I'm sure you understand that your comments are feeding the pack. By the way, what does OT stand for? Is it Orthodox Tradition. If so why has he or she been silent. Perhaps the OT poster can help me out and dispell the myth.

So did anyone see/hear the comments by Andrew Marr on bloggers?? Twas along the lines of many just being angry ranters. He also described them as 'socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people'.

Some comments I have read since said he was talking about the blog holder not the blog commentators! Now William I know we haven't met but any pics I've seen you don't look seedy, pimpled, bald or with a cauliflower nose nor do you come across as socially inadequate/very angry but the opposite of those!! I have no idea of your marital status although being N.Irish I prob assumed you were. So if he's talking about blog holders then he's inaccurate regarding this blog holder!

Now if he's talking about blog commentators that's a different story! ALthough I am quite new to the whole blogging world - and the above childish insults aside - the anonymity of the blogosphere does seem to give people licence to vent their spleens perhaps more than they would in face to face discussion. Thing is people's anger - is their anger. And there are consequences for it and for spreading it around whether it is on a blog or in person. It is a toxic, poisonous emotion that is very harming - I notice the Dala Lamai recently said something very similar on facebook. (and BTW don't go telling me about Jesus getting angry to justify anger please - it is still toxic!)

So what do you William and fellow bloggers feel about this (not anger I hope!! haha) does he have a point, is he right?? or barking up the wrong blog?? :-)

Eunice - if I said that journalists were alcohol abusers with no dress sense, sad embittered outsiders condemned to foul perpetually the nest they themselves inhabit, bridesmaids destined never to be brides knowing only feigned intimacy and relationships devoid of trust, the carrion-eaters of humanity living half-included in a world they simultaneously envy and despise, necessary but unregarded parasites on the body politic, husks whose smug exteriors hide vacuity if delusional, self-loathing if self-aware - if I said this, would you consider it a gross and unhelpful generalisation from someone who should know better?

As for anger, well, it's just another normal human emotion and, as you now know, I'm a big fan of letting it all hang out!

21 & 20 Parrhasios
Sorry I forgot to make the point that it was my first blog that caused the problem. Obviously others have better software than you do. Perhaps they can give you a copy for review. Of course it may just be that it was the content of my first blog that caused so much concern. I had the audacity to say that a high priest of humanism might be a hypocrite;in the same way as we now see that Eddie Long appears to be a hypocrite. In one case, a certain Peter Thatchel criticises the Pope over the child abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, whilst in 1997 avocating that child adult sex is positive and sex with children can be something beautiful for his friends i.e. sex between adults and children, as young as 9-13 yrs. The sexualisation of children is still at the top of Peter Thatchel's agenda. (Cf recent NSPCC survey with Bristol University stated that of a survey of 1352 girls 1 in 6 girls from 13-17 had been pressureised into having sex and 1 in 16 said they had been raped.) Eddie Long critizes gays whilst allegaly engaging in the same behaviour he is so against. It is remarkable that these two gentlemen are so similar, one is viciously attacked, and if the rumours are true he deserves it, whilst the other is robustly defended, by some people on this blog, and then I am also accused of replication. Now why do you think they would do that?

Check_that_out,

The sexualisation of children is still at the top of Peter Thatchel's agenda

You really need to prove that assertion or retract it.

Parrhasios: I don't know enough journalists and the odd one that I do would not fit that description! SO yes I could say it was a gross generalisation - so now you are going to say the same re Andrew Marr's statement. That he has made a generalisation and should know better!

Although you then go on to say you like to let your anger out - which sort of affirms what he was saying!!! ;-) haha (not the bit about being single, pimpled, seedy, cauliflower nose etc of course!)

Post 25 Dave in brief, Peter Thatchell's views are contoversal. You only need to review his past publications to understand that. Reading Lisa Severine Nolland's blog on Anglian Mainstream 'How well do you know Peter Thatchell' will provide some food for thought. However my problem with Peter Thatchell is that he has stated his mind very clearly on the issue in his 1997 letter to the Guardian. The 1997 letter was disgraceful. I hope you have read it. Did you agree with him?
Following up as his 1997 article he has consistently called for the lowering of the age of consent, being in the news as recently as Sept 2010 in a radio 4 programme. I did not personally hear the discussion but there is a transcript on the Christian Institute鈥檚 web site. E.g. there we find that he was told by a researcher into sexual abuse in Edinburgh that other children and young people are responsible for about a quarter to a third of incidents of sexual abuse鈥�.. No surprise there. This type information is regularly conveyed at any child protection seminar.
Although he may now present his argument at times in terms of not wishing to decriminalizing children, his position is still clear 鈥� all children have a right to have sex 鈥� straight and gay - as long as it is not in an abusive but consensual situation. The issue I raise is just what the lowering of the age of consent will signal to abusers young and old, who prey on the immaturity of children.
If you think that I am wrong to express the view that he is sexualising children through his campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered, why not read the respected American Big Think blog鈥� #13 let kids have sex dangerous ideas鈥�, which includes extensive input from Tatchell along with a verdict, a rejection of this dangerous idea.
Note also the link to the New Zealand survey which found that 70% of girls under 16 who had sex wished they hadn鈥檛 done so.
Why is this issue important? Because anything that Peter Thatchell campaigns on with the government, he usually gets. Time to stop this nonsense in its tracks.

Check_that_out

Why point me to various christian blogs which report on what PT has written when the actual words are available on his website, they are in English and I do not need an interpreter particularly an interpreter with an axe to grind.

You say "still" and then race back to 1997 which was the original scribble.

"American Big Think blog鈥� #13 let kids have sex dangerous ideas", simply rehashes those ideas and includes Tatchels view that the age of consent should be reduced to 14 (in line with many countries in Europe). What it misses is that Tatchel has said that under 16 there should be a restriction that the partners should be no more than a year apart to protect against older people preying on them. The big blog rejects the idea, but so what - they are entitled to there view as is PT they are not right just because they agree with you.

Whether I agree with him (or not) is irrelevant, but age of consent, criminalisation, education is a valid debate to have and his position on it is not that controversial given that many countries have lower ages of consent and his proposal would still not be as liberal as say, the Vatican's age of consent.

You may not agree with him, but try and stick to a proper argument, moralising and needless demonising of people will achieve nothing.

"Time to stop this nonsense in its tracks."
Nothing should be beyond rational debate, closing down debate in such a way is dangerous and undemocratic. Just because you believe something, does not make it right or that everyone else should fall in line.

As I said to OT, I will not give my opinion on whether I agree with PT or not to people incapable of rational debate. If you can debate rationally and without being judgemental (which by your accusations I doubt) then I would enter into a debate.

I think if PT took you to a libel court you would have great difficulty proving that

The sexualisation of children is still at the top of Peter Thatchel's agenda

In fact I think you would have trouble proving that it was ever TOP of his agenda given the sheer bulk of discrimination and human rights work he has undertaken.

You are simply playing the man not the ball, as sign that you cannot offer a rational debate.

Parrhasios post 32. I don't agree- I think you find happy, trendy, well adjusted people and their opposite in all walks of life. I dont think any profession has a particular monopoly. Could it be that Andrew Marr was projecting parts of himself he'd like to disown

I must also disagree with Marr's remarks. I'm not young, don't have a basement, and no longer have a mother.

I don't have a basement and I am only socially inadequate after I have had a skinfull.

Ryan: agree with your last sentence. A number of articles I read commented that he was just doing what he was accusing the angry bloggers of doing. Sure he's projecting - always easy to point and blame outside than look inside at one's own mess. :-) That said, it is possible to observe dispassionately whether bloggers are angry or not without projecting. Resorting to insults though doesn't usually reflect dispassionate wisdom.

Eunice and Ryan - Agreed. I think the use of the term basement was something of a classical Freudian slip. How many British homes even have a basement or indeed, as I would prefer, a cellar?

CTO & Dave - I have just visted Peter Tatchell's own website for the first time and I am sorry to say that, reading the Age of Consent section, I was absolutely horrified and profoundly disturbed.

I do not think the precise charge of hypocrisy is justified if, by hypocisy, we mean doing something you know to be wrong or proclaim to be wrong. The Pope is a hypocrite, Tatchell is not.

Tatchell nonetheless advances (undoubtedly, when one considers his career, out of compassion) a rights-based approach to the framing of consent legislation which is clearly at the expense of protection.

A caring society will seek to protect any child who desires sexual congress with an adult from the effects of whatever traumas are distorting his or her sexual development; it should seek to address the issues, not facilitate behaviours which, given rein, will lead to a lifetime of emotional dysfunction.

The tenor of the anecdotal accounts, to an unbiased observer, promotes a position of tolerance way beyond that for which Tatchell formally argues - this is at least disingenuous and, I do not hesitate to say, disgraceful. There is much on this section of the website which is grossly irresponsible and, to me, hugely repugnant.

Eunice - btw - as I said before, anger is a perfectly natural and acceptable emotion: sometimes it is the most appropriate response to a situation, often it is the most authentic. There is no true communication when one only knows what a person thinks, not what they feel - I thought you would realise that. Understanding and acceptance of the anger of another is part of the growth process of any individual and every relationship.

Anger is, however, dangerous when it is concealed, bottled-up, allowed to fester. If the blogosphere allows the angry to vent their emotions freely then it is a most worthwhile public service for that alone.

Parrhasios,

I think in any debate of this nature there will be extremes and there will be things which some espouse which others find repugnant. That is the nature of such debates.

My point is that there are valid concerns in the UK around these areas and that in order to ensure we are serving young people in the best way possible it is vital that we have the debate. Having the debate means listening to views we may not agree with and arguing against the ideas not trying to discredit the person delivering the views or trying to demonise them.

CTO (and OT before him/her) have repeatedly played the man not the ball by attempting to paint PT as a pervert or paedophile in order to discredit his argument, that is disingenuous. They quote biased sources from the media who do the same in order to support their own argument.

This is why I refrain form throwing my own personal views into the ring, I have no problem robustly discussing ideas but to be honest I have enough demonising by the likes of CTO and OT to be going on with.

PT has as much right, by dint of many years fighting for peoples rights, to be involved in the discussion as CTO and OT. By contrast CTO and OT have no right to simply try and shut down the debate. They do not hold the monopoly on truth or justice.

PT stood up for a preachers right to stand in a street and berate gay people, I wonder if CTO and OT understand and respect peoples right to their opinion and to express it as he does.

Parrhasios, you went and read the source, you expressed an opinion on the ideas and concepts contained and refrained from spurious personal attacks, that is the way to have a debate and in reality that is what PT is asking for and just like any positioning I am sure he knows that whatever the outcome it will be a compromise.

Parrhasios: of course it is important to feel what one is feeling and not to bury/repress/suppress/deny it. The body will reveal it if we do! I am all for feeling as you know! That does not equate to spreading it over others, however - even though I appreciate that is our human experience.

However, it is possible to feel anger, acknowledge why it is there, recognise that it is a reaction to something/someone and that it has come from within us and not from them and is usually related to a deeper hurt within oneself. Anger is a protection, a hardening, and underneath it there is usually someone who has been hurt - so we harden and react to not feel the underlying hurt and sadness that most carry.

The more we deal with our anger and the underlying issues within ourselves then the less reactive we become - and its not that we bury anger or repress it, it just doesn't arise as it did before! We become more centred and less reactive as our understanding of self and others changes. We take things less personally - so that includes a mature understanding of why another is angry and tend not to respond in like manner. When the true harm of anger is felt in the body - one realises that whilst it is part of our human experience it is not our true nature and it is very toxic to the human body.

Venting ones emotions on the blog is not a public service but disservice. It is the same as urinating in a swimming pool - all of the pool gets contaminated by the urine, all of the blog, even the cosmos gets contaminated by our anger! When the harm of emotions is realised and the energetic nature of all things - it becomes a matter of personal responsiblity and integrity to deal with one's emotional issues such that we are not harming ourselves or others; not urinating in our own pools or even drinking water! :-)

I read the Tatchell website- age of consent. Isn't everything he advocates more of a common sense approach. The same common sense approach some other European countries have including the Vatican?
The Vatican has the same consent laws as Italy

"The age of consent in Italy is 14 years, with a close-in-age exception that allows those aged 13 to engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 3 years older. The age of consent rises to 16 if one of the participants has some kind of influence on the other (e.g. teacher, tutor, adoptive parent)".

Personally , I think those under age of 16 (14-16) should have the protective clause that if they should consent, it should be with those only less than 3 yrs older.

Even now, no-one can argue Tatchell is advocating any laws more relaxed than the Vatican. Aren't Tatchell's proposals stricter?, with a consent of 14 and no close-in-age exception of 13?

Post 36 Dave
PT has called for the lowering of the age of consent in at least 1996, 2008, and now in 2010 and you ask why do I think it is on the top of his agenda? Considering the backlash he has received to this proposal from unbiased (non-Christian) groups such as the Rape Crises Centre, why does he continue to press for a change in law? What is the issue at stake?

The Rape Crises Centre in their online guidance advises us that abuse may start before the child has any understanding about the meaning of the sexual act, and what the normal boundaries are in relation to it. In addition Children have sexual feelings which they should be allowed to develop at puberty. Abusers manipulate the child鈥檚 sexuality, awakening feelings in a child which they are too young to understand. As someone who was abused I know all too well how true that is.

Mandy Smithy the former child lover (sex at 14) of Bill Wyman wants the age of consent to be raised to 18. She considers that her childhood had been stolen. In a recent article she discussed the difference between physical and emotional maturity, especially the sexualised culture and its expectations that young people grow up in today. Mandy is one such victim that the Rape Crises Centre and I seeks to protect.

The RCC also mention that child sexual abuse is much more common than the public would imagine. They give American statistics that say that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 10 boys may experience sexual abuse before they reach adulthood. Reducing the age of consent removes protection for children as it introduces a defence that the abuser may have believed the person was over the age of consent. Anyone who can nowadays tell the difference between a 12 year old and a 14 year old is a liar. We also forget that when considering the age of consent (the word 鈥榗onsent鈥� of course is a misnomer as someone can be prosecuted even with consent present and be guilty of an offense) the Acts also cover offences committed over-seas. Is this a reason why some would want the age reduce? It will also be interesting for you to review the ages of those who have been rescued from child trafficking and prostitution in NI.

Just in case you think I am a bad Christian homophobic and this is the reason why PT is not on my Christmas card list, the RCC say that Gay men are no more likely to sexually assault an adult or child than the average heterosexual man is. Many child abusers are not particular about the sex of their victim and cannot be classified either as Straight or Gay, they are, quite simply ABUSERS and that is the defining factor of their sexuality. I agree.

The RCC guidence gos on to state that most survivors of childhood sexual abuse have experienced involuntary physical arousal, (this does not mean that they enjoyed being abused or wanted it to happen, even if the abuser manipulated the young person into being the instigator on occasions. Why am I concerned? Because I was a victim of abuse and it never leaves me. If I can save one person from what I went through, the guilt and the shame avoiding my abuser two or three times a month in the street, it will be worthwhile. Someone once said, 鈥楩or evil to prevail good men need do nothing鈥�.

If I am critical and call PT a hypocrite it is because after years of debate on this topic he stills runs with this demand and overlooks or neglects the harm that will be done to children and young people, and then he adds his weight to critizise the Pope. The age of consent reduction is an abusers charter. It is no use saying that other countries have a lower age of consent than we do. Other countries have capital punishment, so why not us?

PT鈥檚 view is more dangerous than others because, as I have said on the earlier post, the Government usually end up giving him what he asks for regardless of public opinion in NI. The UK Government, of whatever political shade, has consistently shown no regard for public opinion in NI on sexual matters. That's why we need to keep this debate to the fore.
Children are that important, and people, with good intentions will end up supporting something which will not have the consequences they expect.

Why are Tatchells views dangerous and the passages in the Bible that refer to marriage at the age of 13 not dangerous. Have you decided that , within the context of modern society, this particular part of the Bible should be ignored? Why do the religious bible quoters only use the Bible as a weapon to underline their mindset, yet conveniently disregard huge bits of it when they please.
To an outsider, Tatchell's consent views are more conservative than both the Bible and the Vatican and many mainstream countries, but don't let that get in the way of you slapping him down Check that out.

The only way is to have a mature approach to sexuality and not have the many social problems like under age pregnancy and unsafe practices in an age group that needs protected .
Look to countries that have a proven track record of minimising these problems to such an extent they are rare. Have you looked at any statistics regarding the Netherlands for expample ? @ Chect_that_out.

You can't hide away from the problem. It has to be confronted and younger people need armed with confidence and knowledge when it comes to puperty

Check_that_out,

So PT has called for a debate on lowering the age of consent 3 times in 14 years, hardly top of his agenda.

CTO you keep going on about lowering the age of consent and abusers, who are these abusers? How will PT's proposal decriminalise abuse of under 16s ?.

The call for the lowering of the age of consent includes protection - a caveat that there should be no more than a 1 year age difference between the couple. This is specifically designed to decriminalise 14 and 15 year olds, who are having sex anyway, while leaving sex between them and people of 16 and 17 years old and older respectively as a criminal offence as it is today. The concerns of the Rape Crisis Centre are negated by the close age caveat as their concerns were about 16 year olds being preyed on by people in their 20,s 30's etc.

As has been pointed out these are more stringent rules than other parts of Europe and seem sensible to me in an environment where the average age a person loses their virginity is 16 and 50% have lost it by 15.

Mandy Smithy is welcome to her opinion and it will be listened to just like PT's it is part of the debate and people will judge how it falls based on the totality of the evidence not just one sides.

You also call him a hypocrite for protesting at the Pope but the age of consent in the popes own state is less strict than what PT is calling for so how can he be hypocritical. If you really believe PT is wrong, then you should be in the Vatican calling for them to raise their age of consent.

I didn't think, or I hope infer, that I thought you were being homophobic.

Just a personal anecdote on age of consent. When I was growing up there was no age of consent, it was illegal for me ever to have sex ever. When I was 20 it finally became legal, but the age of consent was set at 21. The fact that what I did was illegal really didn't play a part in my decisions and so I was quite prepared to take the risk and carry out criminal activity for 5 years and I have no regrets. Is it really the purpose of government to criminalise the sexual decisions I make and the consents that I give when it is between me and another person ?

PT sees everything in terms of rights and he also holds certain views on the ability of 14 year olds to make decisions about their sexual behaviour (in fact they already are he just wants a way to decriminalise it). There is nothing inherently wrong with him having those opinions but we as a society need to have the debate about decriminalisation, age of consent and education in a much less moralistic and much more rational way.

Can I take an opportunity to say that Scientology is as inauthentic as it gets
If any mythology is false it is Scientology.It is a shameful, shocking, and repugnant use of mythology.
It shows no more imagination than a tweenage science fiction film.... It has no depth and no history.

It is the opposite of tradition and myth. It is worse than secularism. It is worse than Dawkins, and Dennett (but not Hitchens).

It is worse than Harry Potter. Only Hollywood could see the need for a new mythology and come up with this.

Eunice - I hope I die angry. I hope I never stop caring enough occasionally to combust. I hope there never comes a time when nothing I encounter has the capacity any longer to ignite within me a seething fury. I want always to rage at injustice. I want to burn to the very end of life with indignation at every expression I come accross of that horror which I know is just as likely to be native to the human heart as love.

Nothing I have read recently has made me much more angry than one of the articles on the blog we have been discussing: I'm 14, I'm gay & I want a boyfriend. The article is a synopsis of an interview between Peter Tatchell and a fourteen year old boy (Lee) whose sexual experience began at eight and who, at the time of the interview, in the context of a perceived emotional relationship, engaged in 'consensual' sex with men in their twenties and thirties.

I think I understand where Peter is coming from in the interview. I think he may see some almost absolute validity in a person's own perception and evaluation of his or her life experience. I suspect this conviction has shaped much of his campaigning and underpinned the great goods he has achieved in the development and maturation of our society.

In this case, however, of a child, the traumatic nature of whose development screams from the page, such an approach is as pernicious as it is absurd. It is not patronising, it is not repressed to say that Lee is a child massively in need of skilled professional help. Peter's approach in the article is gravely wrong: it is, in its own way, every bit as regretable and culpable as most of the Biblical pronouncements on homosexuality.

I do not essentially disagree with Peter's actual and argued suggestions for reform of the consent laws but I recoil with horror from the attitude to Lee's plight embodied in the article. Children are not, whatever they may think, adults. A society which accepts uncritically Lee's understanding of his history, his life, his self would be a society which fails Lee.

Dave, the danger is that people like you, who support PT鈥檚 other human rights campaigning work, might get into a group think (Janis) situation. If we ignore warning voices from those working in the child protection sector we can unfortunately find ourselves in a position where we filter out vital voices that we need to hear.

PT puts a case, but it is only part of a much bigger case. This is a door that if opened, will be to the detriment of children. It is not about de-criminalising children. It鈥檚 not about what other people do. It is about what we want to do in respect of our children. Is PT鈥檚 approach risk free? PT鈥檚 1997 comments unfortunately colour everything he says. If he had denied the holocaust, would anyone take him seriously today? The 1997 letter to the Guardian was so bad, I doubt we should we trust his judgement on any children鈥檚 issue.

As an example of where the proposal removes protection what about the following? As far as the existing laws are concerned, we have a public interest clause where flexibility exists in cases where it is clear that prosecutions should not be brought. However if we reduce the age of consent a 鈥楶enumbra effect' comes into play, in cases involving children of younger age, say 15 or 16, (assuming consent age is 17 in NI) who have sex with an older person. In such cases the Crown Prosecution Service may be reluctant to bring a prosecution. Lowering the age to 14 will mean that 12 to 13 year olds will then be similarly affected. Do you think that is that a good idea?

Callum Webster, from the Christian Institute, reckons (04-02-2010) stated that even reducing the age of consent by 1 year, from 17 to 16, will remove 26,000 youngsters from protection in NI. And PT wants to lower it to 14? How many then could be affected?

As you think about the lowering of the age of consent, try reading the Waterhouse Tribunal Report (Feb 2000) and bring a sick bag with you. Also read the Ryan report if you haven鈥檛 done so already. It is also worth realising that child protection agencies tell us that convictions are easier to obtain in age of consent offences than other sexual offences. Remember, we are talking about abusers who are skilled in their trade. Grooming can also take place for abuse that will take place later when the child is older. We all hope that he law will be enforced where appropriate, but very often it is not.

I have not addressed the medical evidence on the physical effect of sex with adults and children or an older person. That information may be too graphic for the house rules, but you should acquaint yourself with the details. I feel that you and also those who see nothing wrong in these proposals should really put your-self in the place of an abuser and think about the opportunities that proposals such as the lowering of the age of consent will afford. We can all spin our arguments, but child protection is too serious an issue to play with semantics.

Parrhasios,

I would be in agreement with you about Lee. I think PT sometimes pushes rights where there is not the capacity to exercise them and understand the consequences. There is some amelioration in the blog where he actually states that he wants to couple the age of consent lowering with education which is aimed at persuading kids to put off having sex until they are older.

I don't share PT's views on a number of things, not just this, but the point I was trying to make is that the age of consent is not a barrier to kids engaging in sex, they will go ahead anyway so there needs to be a discussion of how best to serve them which would include trying to get them to put off having sex till later, at least 16. But it has to be done in a way which speaks to them and not rules from god or the government.

I wouldn't be in favour of lowering the age of consent from 16 but I would want to find a way to decriminalise the close age relationships below that age and instead putting them in some form of targeted education. I know kids of 13, 14, 15 and it scares me to the core to think that they would even be considering it, but if they did I wouldn't want a criminal charge to even be an option it is not appropriate to what is going on.

I still say PT is entitled to his views and he has the right to express them as part of the debate, my problem earlier was the playing the man not the ball. You are right however in pointing out there is a difference between what PT's formal position on AOC and some of his background anecdotes.

Parrhasios, I also agree. I hadn't read Lee's account and it's pretty saddening. To be sexualised at a prepubescent age indicates child abuse. However, this is a situation many have found themselves in, with abuse from adults including by religious institutions. I think, although the account is insensitively put, Lee's story demonstrates the after-effects/result of this abuse-and the question is, should someone who finds himself in the situation Lee has been in,be criminalised for it as well? My opinions are - he personally shouldn't be criminalised, but the adults should. Adults who abuse children should always be criminalised.

CTO,

You are still playing the man, not the ball.


Please read what is written,

1) No one here has suggested, nor has PT, lowering the age of consent in a way which would in any way legalise any kind of sexual activity between adults and children under 16. So there is NO increased risk of the abuse you are indicating. Your ideas of what his agenda might be, or whatever thin end you think he is attempting is simply your speculation which serves your agenda of discrediting him, it is not his formal input to the debate.

2) The caveat taking close age relationships only (for 14/15 year olds) out of the criminal system negates the figure you quote from christian institute (its actually a rape crisis centre figure which is disingenuously used from a non caveated reduction of AOC in NI from 17 to 16, I think this has happened and the AOC is now universal at 16 across the UK)

3) No one has said they have a dreamy following of everything PT stands for. The assumption that I am in some way in thrall to PT because of his work in other areas is a tad insulting (to be honest I do not agree with some of his stuff in other areas too, for example I was very against how wide he spread his net in the original Outrage outing campaign).

The problem as I see it is that in rubbishing him instead of the specific ideas of his you have a problem actually is the opposite of the trap you highlight. You highlight a problem of blindly accepting everything he says and in your zealousness to stop that you lose anything of value he has to say by discrediting him instead of the ideas you dislike. Worse you attempt to close down the debate completely.

If you want to discuss this issue then discuss it, put up your pros and cons, PT and others will do the same same and hopefully a new way can be found which both protects where necessary, educates where necessary and addresses some of the real problems of teenage pregnancy and raised STI rates and give young people the confidence to say no to sex when it is not appropriate for them.

Your obsession with PT and his influence is damaging your input to the debate unless your only agenda is to try and stop debate occuring, which if it is you are failing at.

Consider this, you seem to want to protect me from PT's ideas and a thrall I might be in to him. Do me the courtesy of assuming I can critically assess the nuances of the argument and other peoples submissions for myself without you trying to remove complete parts of the debate. You activity is simply overprotection at best or an attempt to skew the debate at worst.

I am not an under 16 you need to protect from this debate, I am big and ugly enough to have the debate on its merits and remove the personalities from it.

47 Dave
Thank you for your point of view and the comments you have made. Please remember that when you state that you are 'big and ulgy enough' that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

I actually agree with D-A-A-R in that Scientology is at its core pretty ridiculous. The fabricated mythology is about as believeable as many other historical myths and fables - held as truth by Christians, Muslims Hindus etc. How D-A-A-R sees Scientology is not too far removed from how many of us see the worlds other 'great' religions; baseless, fear-mongering nonsensical and increasingly irrelevant.

E-Volve

Thankyou --------But read the epics that, generally, Hindus take to be fictions----------- Then compare and contrast!

D-A-A-R, you answer in a way almost befitting a politician, by not actually saying anything at all. For those of us who try to apply reason and logic, all the religions are much the same. Religion leads people away from the light, so to speak, and is a problem maker, not solver. That is why the world could only benefit from a great awakening.