'We are at war'

Kevyn Bodman

Melanie; Your columns are wonderfully free of 'unclarity.' I don't think you are right about the 42 days detention. Freedom from detention, the right to appear before a court, the right to a prompt and fair trial, these rights protect me, and you, as well as terrorist suspects. Extending detention without trial is not necessary in the war against those terrorists who threaten us.There are other options. Do not be tempted to give up freedom in an attempt to protect freedom; it doesn't work, and it wouldn't be worth it. Apart from that point of disagreement, thank you for this column and for your consistent efforts in this area.

Chris

We are not "at war," and the fact that he said it demonstrates why no notice should be taken of this latest set of rantings from the "security" loons. If we were going to be at war with anybody, we should start with the nutcases who threaten everything decent about our society with their crazed fantasies.

verity

The destruction of the confidence in our own culture has been steady and deliberate. Black is white. Wrong is right. The law-abiding citizenry has no real rights - i.e., cannot bash an intruder into his home or he'll be arrested for assault; he cannot complain about anything because free speech is a thing of the past and the Thought Police and the Politically Correct Police are ever alert. Objections to the massive invasion by an alien culture are condemned, by ledgerdemain, as "racist". Our national institutions have been subject to Tony Blair's wrecking ball. This is the template for One Worlderism. Blair and his cohorts used islam as a weapon against the British. The first thing he did, on responding to the terrorst outrage on London Transport, was warn the British that such acts are undertaken by "a tiny minority" and warn us not to try to retaliate. Topsy-Turvey rules. If there was some opposing strength, it wouldn't be so bad because one could vote the blighters out. But David Cameron, although not as vicious as Blair and Brown, is a Europhile and a fan of political correctness. The jackboot was on the necks of the British, who allowed Tony Blair to walk all over them and wreck our national institutions unchallenged. There seemed to be no way to stop him. And 10 years of being supine has sapped the will. I don't know what the answer is.

Frank Pulley

You are obviously able to find your way on to this blog and submit comments. Tell me how, with your eyes closed shut and your hands over your eyes, you were able to do it? The chronicle of explosive (literal and metaphorical)events that have occurred over the past couple of decades should indicate to you the fact that we are engaged in a bloody war of attrition with Islamic Jihad. But we mustn't wake you from your cosy world of La La Land and alarm you. Read history and choose sides, sir (or madam). Or perhaps you have already done that ... you Dhimmi!

Frank Pulley

Sorry I addressed that last remark to Chris, not you Verity, as I know you are very wide awake and have been for the past six or seven years since I first encountered your comments on blogs various.

Lisa Yardley

The free world has been under attack ever since the words "Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate," were penned. Thanks to our ancestors there has been a long cessation in hostilities, but with the advent of oil money and a pathetically weak British education system (poor Chris sounds like one of its victims) that teaches surrender at every opportunity, it's back. There is no guarantee we can defeat it and we most certainly won't if we can't even call it what it actually is. All I can see is the rot continuing in a Neville Chamberlain style until the smug and complacent of this little island finally wake up to what they've unleashed. Let's hope it's not too late.

Paul

This report is clearly so timely. It identifies the problems that Melanie has been warning us about for years. However, it is clear that the message is not getting through to the mush-minded invertebrates that run government, the media and the C of E. Also, it is one thing to identify the problem and another to remedy it. The answer lies far deeper that just establishing government committees on security. The whole nation has lost its identity and has no foundation. This country was once great only because of its knowledge and fidelity to the God who created the universe and has revealed himself in the Bible. This is all about ultimate Right and ultimate Truth. Neither of which will be found in hedonism and multiculturalism and this country will only ever be great again if she discovers the Truth.

Mike Homfray

Well, I am very sure that my British identity has nothing to do with your 'brave new world', Melanie A good guide for me: if you believe it, I usually believe the opposite. So, does that make me less sure of my British identity than you? Or do we just have different visions of what that identity is and should be?

George Steiner

Since you can't riot anymore, organize and vote. If you still know how?

Doug

If you're so concerned Melanie why don't you do the decent thing - don some camo gear, get a gun and clear off to Afghanistan? Your industrial production of hot air isn't currently doing anything but exacerbating bad relations with foreign states, so it'd surely be a wise move.

alan stoddart

'A warning that cannot be ignored' The BBC web pages seem to be doing a good job of doing precisely that. They have highlighted a story about a single Dane apologising to Muslims for the Cartoons of Mohammed; they do have a story about how Britain has been turned into a police state due to the government's 'excessive' response to terror attacks. As long as you have the world's most influential broadcaster going into overdrive to smother a story...that we are at war with people in our midst and our very existence as we know it is under threat, you have no hope of winning this argument. An old Arab saying: once the camel's nose is in the tent his body will surely follow.

Verity

I'd like to add to my previous post that this is - I believe - the first time in human history that the fifth column is actually the government.

GNO

What happens when the armed forces of a country (and most of her citizens) are completely at odds with the politicians?
Is an idea of a Coup really that far fetched?

Ernest Cam

"...on blogs various ..." Frank, are you none other than the 'historical' equally curmudgeonly and fictitious DanLiddy?

Austin Barry

Chris, I was at Glasgow Airport when certain, er, "community" medics tried to blow me up as I was on my way to a sojourn in the Highlands. The night before they'd tried to blow up some of our wonderful London slappers. So, please, give us all a break and return to your surfing of deluded conspiracy web-sites or your duties as a member of the Synod.

osama

Interesting clip on MEMRI via 'Harry's Place' regarding Hamas children's TV, not Bluie Peter but can't be long before the BBC syndicate it: Hamas Bunny, Assud, Replaces His "Martyred" Brother Nahoul the Bee and Vows to Liberate Al-Aqsa and "Eat" Jews Following are excerpts from the Hamas TV children's show, "Pioneers of Tomorrow", which aired on Al-Aqsa TV February 2-9, 2008. Nahoul: I can't stand it, Mom, I can't... Mother: What can I do? You've been sick for a whole month. We went to Al-Arish, but we couldn't get you to Egypt to have an operation. [...] Nahoul: All the children of Palestine are dying without treatment. I can't die, I don't want to die... Father... Attempts to perform CPR on Nahoul fail Father: Nahoul! Nahoul! [...] Child host Saraa Barhoum: Dear children, let me welcome on your behalf our new friend, Assud. Allah be praised, our friend Assud has returned safe and sound to his land, to Palestine, after he emigrated to a different Arab country – a country which is not this noble homeland, dear children. [...] Assud: Mom, I want to ask you something. Mother: Go ahead. Assud: Where is Nahoul? I haven't seen him for such a long time. Mother: He went for a walk, and he'll soon be back, Allah willing. Assud: Where did he go? Who goes out at night? Mother: What do you want me to do... He'll be back soon, Allah willing. Assud: Father, where is Nahoul? Father [whispering to the mother]: How long can we keep what happened to Nahoul from him? Father [to Farfour]: You are a believer, and our God... Assud: What happened to Nahoul, father? Father: Allah be praised, you are a believing Muslim, and you know that we place our trust in Allah... Your brother Nahoul got sick... Assud: What hospital is he in, father? Father: He's not in any hospital. He died a martyr's death, Allah have mercy upon him. Assud: No, father! Assud weeps [...] Assud: Just like Nahoul took Farfour's place when he was martyred, I will replace Nahoul, Allah willing. I will bring smiles and joy back to the children of Palestine, and the children of the whole world - the Arab and Islamic world, Allah willing. [...] Assud: I come from the diaspora, carrying the Key of Return. This is the Key of Return. Do you see it? Allah willing, we will use this key to liberate our Al-Aqsa Mosque. Here is a picture of the noble Al-Aqsa Mosque. Here it is, can you see it? Allah willing, we are the soldiers of the Pioneers of Tomorrow. Saraa Barhoum: Yes, Assud, we will continue in the path of Nahoul and Farfour, Allah willing. We will not let them down, Assud. Assud: We are all martyrdom-seekers, are we not, Saraa? Saraa Barhoum: Of course we are. We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland. We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland. Assud: Saraa, I'd like to ask you something. Saraa Barhoum: What is it? Assud: How many soldiers of the Pioneers of Tomorrow are there? Saraa Barhoum: There are many, many soldiers of the Pioneers of Tomorrow. Assud: Allah be praised. Saraa Barhoum: By Allah's grace, they will help us liberate our homeland Palestine. Assud: Saraa, you and I will be the first, right? Saraa Barhoum: Yes, by Allah's grace, Assud. Assud: And will we take Al-Aqsa? Saraa Barhoum: Of course, Assud. We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of those Zionists. [...] Saraa Barhoum [to girl in the audience]: Is there anything you want to share with us? Girl: Arnoub ["Rabbit"]? Saraa Barhoum His name is Assud ["Lion"]. Girl: How come you are called Assud, even though you look like a rabbit? Assud: Because a rabbit is not good. He's a coward. But I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up, Allah willing, right? Saraa Barhoum: Allah willing.

YA

Here is a plan of actions.. 1) First, to work on problem formulation. That will need a hub of journalists and public figures who are brave, clever and can communicate clearly without verbosity and without double speak. People like Melanie Phillips and Christopher Hitchens. There are much more for sure, who are they? - the guy who writes for leader in Telegraph? Douglas Murray and his Civitas? please suggest. 2) Journalists should run a forum, the goal of which is to find, represent and promote decent politicians. There should be an activity for some time, politicians should publish articles, manifestos, participate in debates. Ideally, this forum should be run on TV. They all should be aware of the ultimate goal which is 3) Organizing political party, how to name it British Civil Party? British People's Party? The whole point of it is, it shouldn't be tied by cliches of "liberalism/conservatism", or "equality/elitism" or "multiculturalism". It should be just a party of normal educated hard working people who value truth, fairness, aware of their roots but not psychotic about it (e.g. tolerant), respect human life and dignity, capable of empathy, have robust sense of duty and discipline, and very important, are willing to do something to protect their way of life..(note I don't mention "democracy", "freedom" and "justice" since in my view these three are subordinates, and take forms defined by civility and culture).. After political party is formed.. it shouldn't degenerate into another LibDems, so journalists should keep it under scrutiny.. If you like the idea, please suggest - a) list of journalists b) list of politicians c) name of the party.

Joseph McNulty

If we are "lucky," there will be another catastrophic terrorist attack; if Bin Laden (probably Zawahiri, the real brains of the outfit) is as smart as I fear, he will forestall any attack, because the "lull" is proving so effective in getting the West to relax and do nothing while immigrant communities and their influence grow and traditional society collapses or is torn down (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the like). If Sanator "Change," I mean Obama, is elected, our sole response will be to hold a summit with the Muslim world, where whispered assurances from the mullahs will be accepted while the West abases itself and reconciles itself to the Islamic bomb. We cannot be "conquered" thamkfully. We are doing such a good job of collapsing ourselves BEFORE we can be conquered. And all the time, congradulating ourselves on our destruction of traditional society. "Traison des clercs," indeed. Our grandchildren will curse us -- in other languages of course. Will it be Arabic or Urdu?

jose

Look i am no leftie by any means of the imagination, however having in mind how rubbish are the intelligence agencies / antiterrorist police,and lack of inmigration control, i find it hard to believe why we dont have terror attacks every week..... as we seem to always be in a State of war...... there is something that doesnt seem right. if we have 150000 radicals in the uk, surely there should have happen more attacks than the current rate, so why there arent?

david skinner

But war has been declared on British society for sometime now. There are those anarchists and marxists who have positions of unelected power in government and who have declared war on the very building block of our society, the family. When and if Islam wants to target us we will, since we no longer have any moral fibre, simply collapse.

Wahida

Melanie, as a British Muslim I strongly believe that Britain does have a strong sense of identity which allows her to welcome people of all different backgrounds and be the beacon of multiculturalism it is today. Also the RUSI report mentions six areas of concerns for the UK,including international terrorism, climate change, and the “simultaneous weakening” of supranational institutions - the UN, EU and NATO - to a re-emerging Russia buoyed by the “ferocity of a new nationalism”.

osama

In Flanders fields the poppies blow..... Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. John McCrae They died so that we might live...in Freedom, in Liberty, in Hope. It is not the reams of paper covered in 'rights' legislation pouring forth across Europe that tell us the value of Democracy but the swathes of white crosses scattered across the Normandy landscape, each one marking a death but also the hopes and dreams of a better future, a future without fear, a future without tyranny, a future that we have seen and grasped and snatched from one brutal regime only for it to be handed freely onto another oppressive and violent tyranny. You do not defend Democracy with the wave of an expensive pen in the flash of a photographer's camera recording your legacy for posterity but with a bayonet with some guts behind it. Has the faith of those who spent their lifeblood defending our values whilst mocked by sneering Liberals finally been broken by weak, irresolute and traitorous politicians. Those same soldiers whose grandsons now die in the dust of Iraq and Afghanistan as the Liberals look on whilst giving succour to the Taliban on our own streets. The prisons and Gulags of Russia, Iran, North Korea and Cuba still echo to the screams and nightmares of political prisoners but the Liberals hear nothing. They ignore the plight of fellow Democrats, Reformists and political Dissidents but spare no effort to free the Islamist Jihadists who stand against everything the Liberals supposedly espouse. Where do you stand?

Patrick Friesen

Britain is not the only nation facing a lack of confidence due to a loss of national identity and weak leadership; we here in America face the same threats. Britain and America used to be freedom's bulwark against tyranny and oppression. Unless we once again embrace the shared cultural values that made us great and distance ourselves from multiculuralism (do islamic governments embrace 'diversity'?), I fear that the nations established by our ancestors, the two greatest nations in history, will cease to exist.

Roy

What's wrong with taking due care even if it looks too excessive? Even if it upsets a few ethicals what harm can it do? Do we not wear a seat belt or a crash helmet if we think it necessary?

ian adie

To clarify thinking in unprecedented situations, new words are required. The words "Peace" and "War" no longer serve. Over many years studying the subtleties of "people"s war" as practiced in China, Indochina etc. I coined the term WARCE. Not s complicated as "asymmetric warfare tous azimuths", but that is it. War BY peace, e.g. with soft and purchasing power while preparing the crash of the millstone on the eggs. This in a new form is what the jihadists, salafists or Islamofascists are waging against those they stigmatise as infidels, or enemies of God. It is high time to get our heads round the concept. Outdated talk of war and peace just confuses the issue.

Tony

Great post. I agree entirely except for the 42 days detention. Let's not sod about, deport them immediately.

field

Chris, Doug and others, however much you may wish not to be at war, the fact is that Al Queda declared war on the USA and its allies in 1998. That declaration has never been rescinded. It is quite correct to say we are at war. Al Queda trained about 10,000 Jihadis to go back to the West and plan/wait to commit acts of destruction. It might not be a war between states but it is a real war. It's a war the West has been winning quite effectively, certainly within its own territory, which is why you can be so blase about it, but if it wasn't for the security services intercepting so many plots (we must have had about 20 cases come to trial in the UK) there would be complete mayhem. It's important to keep a sense of proportion but there is no doubt that PC multiculturalism pulled our defences down and allowed thousands of non-British Jihadis into this country to subvert our constitution.

david skinner

The act that the west no longer believes that man is distinguished from the rest of creation by the fact that he alone inhabits two worlds, one spiritual and one material means that he is blind to the spiritual forces that rule him. Western man fallaciously believes that he can fight Islam with human intelligence and military hardware, when in fact nothing can overcome the spiritual force behind Islam- except one. But western man in his arrogance and self sufficiency refuses to acknowledge the call of any higher authority on his life. The boastful song of Frank Sinatra, “ I did it my way” may well be our epitaph. What we witness today has been rehearsed in history many times but none so more dramatic than when after 700 years or so, after the Israelites had been miraculously rescued from the slavery of Egypt, they allowed themselves to be overwhelmed, first by Assyria and then Babylonia, with a remnant actually returning to the land from where their forefathers had been rescued- back to square one. I believe that Yahweh, the god of Abraham has a plan that it is being worked out, for the whole human race, that includes the alien and our brothers the Muslims who sadly prostrate themselves to a deceiving and destructive spiritual force. We in the west also, without realising it bow the knee to our own false gods: evolutionary humanism; secularism; Marxism and all the other isms. Both religio- ideologies betray a terrible fatalism that Winston Churchill presciently described in 1899: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.…A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities ... but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” But his last sentence also describes precisely why we are where we are today. Christianity is not sheltered in the strong arms of science and Winston singularly failed to understand that Rome, for all its science and technologically, the most advanced civilisation of the world, collapsed from within, from spiritual and moral bankruptcy.

Nick Kaplan

Paul, your analysis was so very right and your conclusion so very very wrong. We are at war with Islamism and as you rightly say part of our unwillingness to confront it lies in multiculturalism, which is ,in essence, a refusal to assert (perhaps even a desire to condemn) the superiority of western values of freedom and prosperity. However the answer does not lie, as you suggest, in revitalising our religion which is the fundamental problem. Instead of fighting against Islamism our problem really is with Islam and religion (read irrationality) in general. Only when we confront belief systems that subjugate the individual to some divine entity for which there is no evidence, can we hope to end the irrationality that drive terrorist desires to blow themselves us for the promise of 72 virgins.

Yokel

GNO said "What happens when the armed forces of a country (and most of her citizens) are completely at odds with the politicians? Is an idea of a Coup really that far fetched?"

That is precisely why our armed forces are overstretched and at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are pinned down there out of the way while the UK government continues with its destructionn of the UK.

alan stoddart

Mel.P's interview in from her last blog with ABC was interesting but what we know already, apologies to Mel but the other interview with Sheikh Michael Mumisa, an Islamic scholar based at Cambridge University was probably more iinfluentuial coming from a Muslim who tells us the effect of Rowan Williams' proposals...there is an audio and a transcript of the interview. It makes for a fascinating appraisal.

Leslie

Mike Homphrey,you said 'Well, I am very sure that my British identity has nothing to do with your 'brave new world', Melanie A good guide for me: if you believe it, I usually believe the opposite. So, does that make me less sure of my British identity than you? " I think that only shows that your beliefs are possibly not based on anythng rational,Mike.Sounds more like teenage rebellion to me.

alan stoddart

On a different subject but the same really(Left/Liberal hypocrisy and rhetoric) Kosovan independence....which the EU is pressing ahead with...in defiance of UN resolutions...in order to promote democracy...which we have been told for the last 5 years it is not our (or rather Americas) job to carry out. No doubt these Euros think we will have forgotten that such a policy is only thinkable because of American military power and political will (helped by that warmonger Blair) which saved Kosovo...how long before they are making similar noises about Iraq and trying to claim a 'victory' for Democracy and European diplomacy. Where are the Muslim protestors, the Respect Party, the Liberal banner wavers wailing about this illegal action by the European Empire.

david skinner

Dear Nick, for one who values freedom of thought are you prepared to accept the faintest possibility that Paul’s conclusion, that we are not simply lumps of meat or puddles of water but spiritual creatures, may well be true? Or is your claimed freedom of thought limited to what you want to believe? If there is no spiritual authority over and above what we can see and touch why should you assume, with your deterministic thinking, that spiritual values of freedom( forget the prosperity) are better or worse than values espoused by tyranny and slaver? If we are governed simply by our genes and lower natures what right have you to believe in freedom of choice? In my opinion your thinking is in complete accord with that which produced Soviet Russia, China , North Korea and other communist countries. Under these rational, evolutionary humanist political systems, millions bow the knee to material prosperity and, just as you would wish for us in Britain, any idea of absolute morality or truth is expunged from the conscience . No one has been able to give a rational explanation as to why we should respect human free will or consider that one action is morally better than another- no one, but that does not mean that because spiritual values cannot be explained they does not exist. May I also humbly suggest that the evidence for some infinite power and intelligence operating over an above the mere data received by our senses is overwhelming. Even Einstein recognised this. In fact scientists from Newton to present-day nuclear physicists and astronauts have acknowledged an infinite point of integration to which everything else must make its reference. Dear Nick, and this may well sound presumptuous, but may I humbly suggest that the freedom that you talk about is an illusion. You may well think that you are autonomous, that you are your own man. But modern, progressive, tolerant, inclusive , diverse, 21st century consumerists like yourself believe and act the way they do simply because they are driven by an ever more demanding standard of material satisfaction. They are even incapable of articulating what they do believe but instead unthinkingly conform and march in step to whatever is the norm, the consensus of opinion, or as the communists call it, collective thought … yet all the while being deluded into the conceit that they are free……absolutely free. The reality is that we are under bondage to own compulsive natures and the standards around us. Without any fixed point of reference, like a ship without compass or captain, society will drift in a sea of relativity and will change its attitudes and values according to the political climate. The passengers and crew do not mind where the ship is going, just so long as everything is running smoothly and everyone has the feel- good factor. The only moral compass is a constantly changing political correctness- the average consensus at any particular moment. What might be shocking and completely unacceptable behaviour can almost overnight become respectable and what was previously considered to be decent and responsible behaviour can become criminalised. Without any fixed, absolute point of reference, human nature has a way of accommodating and becoming comfortable over a period of time with a state of hell. It can gradually sleep walk into becoming hardened, desensitised to cruelty, barbarism and evil, as happened in Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia and now- even Britain. All the time you believe that Islam is merely a political power and not a very real spiritual force, the enemy is gaining one piece of territory after another. Many Muslims came to Britain, I believe, genuinely searching for something that Islam could not give them - only to find that the answer, Jesus Christ, has been rejected here. By denying them the Truth you too, in maybe a decade or two from now will also be forced, at the point of a gun or sword to bow the knee to Allah.

Karl Kraut

"The report suggests ways of addressing these core issues by taking security out of the arena of party politics. Can this be done? Is there the political will to do it?" Indeed, let's abandon democracy! It's only making us weak.

Nick Kaplan

Dear David. I am afraid you have gravely misunderstood the beliefs of many atheists, and have made many ludicrous assumptions in your argument; let me attempt to set you right. Firstly my suggestion that ‘religion is the problem’ is in no way incompatible with free thought, in fact secularism is far more consistent with free thought than religion. I did not suggest that Paul has no right to hold the views he does, he has every right, he is perfectly entitled to free thought as are you and all others. The extremely probable idea that we are “simply lumps of meat” (although conscious ones, which is an important factor in the morality I, as an atheist am apparently incapable of holding) does not exclude your right to hold the improbable and unsubstantiated reverse of this view (that we have souls). The problem is that religious indoctrination from birth means that your faculty to reason over such issues is lost, like a child raised a communist could not be expected to reason fairly over the benefits of capitalism. Secondly, humanism as a method by which we can develop ethical systems is far superior than your religious assertions over what is either moral or immoral. Surely you must see that my lack of belief in an afterlife means I place a supreme value on the life and liberty (as a result of the autonomy of conscious human beings) of all individuals as this is the only life we get. For an explanation of how free will is fully compatible with determinism (which is quite obviously true whether or not there is a God, simply because every event must have a cause) see David Hume’s ‘an inquiry into human understanding’. Your assertion about Einstein is both irrelevant and mistaken. He did not believe in “some higher intelligence” (by the way where is this supposed overwhelming evidence for this, which you assert but fail to elaborate) as you make out, but was merely explaining, in a slightly misleading way, that there are certain things we cannot understand (for fuller explanation of this see the first Chapter of Dawkins God Delusion, which I can only assume you have not read). Finally I will stress that it is not desire satisfaction that leads to the insanity of fascistic or communist regimes, as the second half of your argument implies (unless you are suggesting that you desire the creation of such a regime here?). This is the usual, and quite childish, retort of the religious to the idea of secular morality. I would suggest that Nazism and Stalinism have far more in common with religious fundamentalism, in their adherence to evidence transcendent dogmas, than does humanism which aims to base its values on reason, but recognises the limits of any human ruling over others, due to our own fallibility and the limits of our rationality (hence my respect for liberty of the individual).

Alcuin

The RUSI report addresses six interlinked risks to Britain and not just the issue of indigenous terrorism. It was conducted by people well qualified to analyse risks and merits serious study. I have some experience in this area - Operational Analysis is a well understood, systematic and thorough process that led to such crucial innovations as the integrated air defence system that won (just) the Battle of Britain.

The six issues are Globalisation, new communication technologies (SatTV and Internet), diminishing resources (food, energy, minerals), climate change, Russia and increasingly dysfunctional international institutions (UN, NATO, EU). Confidence is only one part of the problem - others are poor and timid leadership and declining Defence investment. I suggest that confidence is mainly a problem in the elite chattering classes, and not in the Daily Mail reader, who may have to save us in due course. As those Tories who identified the mess that Old Labour got us into in the 1960s and 1970s were forced to admit: "It's our own bloody fault for letting them do all this".

The report merely recommends that Parliament as a whole should assess these issues and consider remedies on a continuous basis. The mechanisms they suggest are up for discussion, but that we should take these issues more seriously and professionally than at present is surely self-evident.

The facile dismissal of the report by Keith Vaz typified the complacent, facile and instinctive resort to spin that the report itself identified as inadequate.

My own bete noir in this issue is the BBC. While some may say that with the Internet and Satellite TV, the MSM has become less important. That is true and the ability of minorities to ignore the BBC completely while watching Muslim channels in Urdu is a component of our cultural fragmentation. But those of us who would like to stay in the mainstream as our leaders wish, find themselves faced with a virtual monopoly in News and Current Affairs - all of it practising political correctness and moral relativism, i.e. being part of the problem.

If no one in the public eye, with the notable exception of some immigrants (with real experience of full blooded Islam) is prepared to say NO to Sharia Law, and to see that our laws are fully enforced within immigrant communities, then small wonder that they go their own way. This is not rocket science - any parent knows this. The BBC should ditch moral relativism and start being judgemental about some opinions and practices imported from backward rural areas of Pakistan and spiced up with Saudi hate, intolerance and money. More of our leaders (and particularly the Tories) should say that many of these are unacceptable in a civilised society. In particular, someone should say that the very concept of Jihad - Holy War - is an utter disgrace to any culture, regardless of who says it.. There is a very effective weapon against Islam by the way - Satire. Why else would they fear cartoons so?

Re: 42 days As many will be aware the Italians have kept the suspects in the Meredith Kercher case incarcerated without trial for far more tnan 42 days - they just don't call it what we do. Our legal system has far more checks than those of the Roman Law practised in Europe.

Osama (and some others): your posts are almost impenetrable due to their density. This blog accepts HTML tags - why not use them use them?

Dean Wright

May I offer some unseasonal thoughts to fellow patriots as devil's advocate? This archbishop; what's he doing? Answer: his job for the British state. This state is an entity with a life of its own and it's been buggering people about for centuries but the home population has not felt it. Think Ireland, think Highland clearances and for God's sake be honest. Now they've decided big business needs mass immigration and the alternative is too much to contemplate - actually saying we are a defined people so let's keep it that way, against the tide, by an act of will. Read Bat Yeor for an interesting theory on what they are up to strategically via the EU too. Note also Millipede's recent speech about EU/Magreb relations. That said, I don't like my country being manipulated out of existence and I know which side I'm on.

david skinner

Dear Nick my assumptions might appear to be ludicrous but whether something might appear to be ludicrous or enlightened, balmy or progressive is irrelevant to the question as to whether they are true or false. The bold claim that secularism is more consistent with free thought than Christianity can hardly be backed up by the Soviet or Chinese experiment ; or were these not truly secular societies? You do at least credit me with being correct in one thing and that was that my assumption that you (mistakenly ) believe yourself to be simply a lump of meat, an intelligent machine that has no more significance than a fly. The dishonesty of atheism is that it does in fact put man on a pedestal of his own making, he becomes a God, an evolved “being than which nothing greater can be conceived“; and yet when he wants to do something shabby he pleads that, being a mere lump of meat, no moral behaviour should be expected of him. Both Bertrand Russell and Huxley admitted that not being answerable to any higher authority allowed them to exploit others. Humanism is indeed a self serving religion of autonomy, isolation and ultimately total alienation. Paul you have never met me, you know nothing about me, so how do you know that I was indoctrinated from birth with “religion”? Yes, I know I am a bear with a little brain, I freely admit that; but to claim that being a Christian means a loss of reason, I fear demonstrates a loss of reason itself. What do you make of the list of Christian theologians, philosophers, scientists, composers, artists, writers explorers, social reformers, military leaders, industrialists and statesmen who helped to raise western Europe out of barbarism and ignorance and who would endorse the words of Goethe who said “ The human mind , no matter how far it may advance in every other department, will never transcend the height and moral culture of Christianity as it shines and glows in the gospels? It was through Australia’s greatest living nuclear physicist, Leslie Kemeny, a Christian, that I was lead to Jesus Christ. As for humanism being a method by which we can develop ethical systems far superior to that of the Christian is a bold claim indeed. One only has to look at the state of a nihilistic generation of teenagers who, being adrift without any moral compass, are murdering each other and the general public with impunity, to see the fruits of this superior ethical system that has been peddled by a labour government for the last ten years. Dear Paul it is precisely those who believe in a resurrection and the saving grace of God through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ who are prepared to put their beliefs to the test, roll up their sleeves and plunge into the hot spots of life; Christianity is not a faith for escapist. I doubt whether Hume, Dawkins, Russell ever really staked their lives on their beliefs, apart from when they wake up on the other side of death and discover that maybe they had made the wrong gamble. Paul there really is a war on and the loss of your short existence here in this life can in no way compare with the loss of your eternal life. I sincerely pray that you read Anthony Flew’s book, There is a God:

YA

Nick Kaplan, I support everything you say but why not to leave theory to Dawkins. Poster David's uninformedness is also too specific problem to be addressed here in so many details.

Alcuin - six challenges you listed were designed ad hoc. I don't know who payed for this report, but to include Russia and forget China, - it looks very inconsistent.

"Globalisation", "new communication technologies" and crisis of UN, NATO, EU are essentially the same stuff.
"Climate change" and "Russia" are just laughable.

So what is left in solid residual, - "diminishing resources" and (widely understood) "Globalisation".
Britain should defend national interests by operating in these new conditions against Russia, - here is the conclusion from this report. Note I am not pro-Putin or pro-Russian, at all.

I would mention several specific challenges, namely

1) Poor quality of population, as a result of both religious and Lefti indoctrination (see above, Archbishop of Canterbury)

2) Crisis of the ruling elite

3) Arms proliferation (there are actually 2 problems here - small arms and strategic)

4) Oil

5) movement of population and immigration control

To start working on all this, government would need to make many tough steps all perpendicular to the habits of current establishment and in most cases incompatible with egalitarian and other PC dogmas. In comparison with these measures, 42 days detention is just nothing.

Henry Kaye

There have been many interesting postings here and in other places, mostly in support of the views expressed in the RUSI report. How wonderful it would be if our government (or the Opposition) would enter into an meaningful debate on the issues. Far more likely is what we're hearing now - stony silence. It has been very clear for a very long time now that our political leaders have their own agenda and have no interest whatsoever in the sentiments of those who voted them into power. I can see no solution other than a coup by the military and I an able to keep going by the thought that PERHAPS this is being planned as I write!

Consul-At-Arms

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/02/re-we-are-at-war.html

david skinner

Every time I pass the Houses of Parliament and see Oliver Cromwell’s statue, I wonder how long it will be before the present government decides to pull it down. Perhaps even as I speak there is committee planning this. In The Times Online, October 18th 2007 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2681695.ece General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said that Christian leaders and chaplains in the Army needed to equip soldiers for the spiritual issues at stake. “In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal,” he said. We are indeed in a war, but the enemy is not flesh and blood. The enemy has many names but Deception, Denial, Distraction and Destruction are just a few of them His prophet is Darwin and his evangelists are Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens ( Christopher).

david Skinner

One of the chief weapons of evolutionary humanism is to deconstruct the language so that words no longer have their original meaning- indeed mean the opposite of what they originally intended. “Tolerant” no longer means working within permitted limits but the demolition of all barriers. The other strategy is to try to put the listener at a disadvantage by “creatively” reordering the syntax and grammar in such a way that the listener automatically thinks that it is their lack of intelligence that stops them from understanding what is being said. This assumption on the part of the speaker is a supreme arrogance demonstrated by both Katherine Jefferts Schori and Rowan Williams .

phil

David and Nick your debate appears to be the beginning of Armageddon -beautifully written by both of you but I think if each of you were to cosider*Iwill treat others as I would wish to be treated by them *-we would not need to go down the road of whose religious beliefs(or none) were correct -That is how we got into this mess in the first place .The only time we will find out if there is a higher being is when we are dead ,so I for one will try to behave as my conscience guides me ,a conscience that has been enhanced by a caring family and wonderful friends .You both appear to want a decent world so why not try my method,my best regards to you both

Ann

David, you need to read Nick's wonderful exegesis a little more carefully. First, China and the USSR and the Third Reich were NOT 'secular' societies, because all of them were based on mystical ideologies (a mystical Medieval Teutonic paradise, racial purity, social engineering not based on any scientific principles, etc). Second, just because some society may be secular, for the sake of argument, its murderous behaviour does not stem from its secular nature (unless you can prove otherwise, and I am not holding my breath). To deduce, from the fact that some Xs are murderous, the conclusion that all Xs are (and must be) murderous, is very poor logic. I see that the fool John Humphrys is shouting once again that the West is not in danger of being taken over by militant Islam. It is this blinkered stupidity that got us into this mess in the first place. Human nature has not changed since the 1930s, that much is clear: bury your head in the sand, pretend that nothing bad can happen, assume that your enemies - who are declaring their intentions quite openly - are only joking ... how can anyone post such nonsense and expect to be taken seriously 60 years after WW2?

alan stoddart

That damn neocon, God fearing US President.... We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end as well as a beginning--signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago. The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge--and more. Oh, that was JFK 1961 Don't ride the back of a tiger only to end up inside.

Nick Kaplan

David; The appearance of a proposition is of course logically distinct from its objective truth, however a proposition that appears ludicrous is likely to do so for a reason (e.g. that it has no evidence and so in all likelihood is untrue and is certainly unsubstantiated). You seem to keep stressing the idea that Stalinism was somehow an ideology that arose from atheism; this is quite clearly a nonsensical straw-man which you try to accredit to atheists, but as I have explained, is far more consistent with the monolithic dogmas of religion. Then you go on to quote St. Anselm, dear oh dear, we do have a problem if this is taken to be a good theological argument. But I suppose this should not surprise me, given the distinct lack of any such good theological argument, resorting to quoting an 11th century theologian is almost reasonable. Regarding the issue of religious indoctrination, does it not strike you as a little bit odd that religious people share an equal conviction in the existence of a multiplicity of differing (yet exclusive) deities, whereby the only common factor in the vast majority of cases is that the deity believed in happens to be the same one as their ancestors believed? Surely you must think the only reason people have come to believe a different objective truth to you (i.e. the divinity of Christ) is because they have been indoctrinated into believing in a false prophet? Surely you must also realise that the majority of people (all from other faiths) believe the same about you. Then you assert that atheists somehow believe “no moral behaviour” is required of them, suggesting some anachronistic dogma (much like the rest of what you believe) you have somehow come to believe through no process of reasoning at all. One issue you raise in this regard is however a fair and troubling comment, which is the decline of moral standards in society, leading to teenagers murdering each other on the streets. However, whilst they are responsible for some major failures (and the sooner they lose office the better) I think it unfair to blame the secularism of this Labour government on such a decline. The problem really results from a decline in good parenting and discipline, which can occur perfectly easily without resorting to religion. In response to the point you make, let me first say that a vague correlation between the decline of religion and the decline in moral standards need not show a causal relation. However I would agree this is possible, given the fact that it is much easier to assert the need for morality, in reference to eternal damnation for those who are immoral. I would however add that this is not intellectually honest, and it seems somewhat immoral in itself to scare people into morality with such threats. In addition, the idea that Christianity or religion in general is somehow the shinning beacon of moral practice is highly questionable; need I remind you of the burning of heretics, the crusade, the inquisitions and many other murderous campaigns that have occurred throughout history in the name of God. Still today much bigotry and immorality results from persisting religious “moral” dogmas, such as the contempt many show for homosexuals, all of which can be resolved by superior humanism based on reasoning and the equal moral worth of all. After all, the absolute moral compass to which to refer, (the Bible) contains some of the least poetic and most abhorrent language of any of the books you might happen to assume is the word of a man in the sky. The Bible supports (and even gives advice) regarding the keeping of slaves, the selling of daughters, the stoning of heretics and petty criminals... why are these things in this book, if it is meant to be some absolute moral standard laid forward by some omniscient power? Why did Jesus smite the fig tree? Are you suggesting that we have strayed from the path of God by freeing the slaves or allowing shops to remain open on Sundays, or do you simply pick and choose the parts that you, personally, approve of before attempting to impose those specific parts on everyone else? If the former is the case, we have little to talk about. If the latter is the case, you have proved with beautiful adequacy that human reasoning is more than sufficient to determine that slavery, for example, is not a good thing, whatever your little book would have us believe. However, I must thank you for validating my initial argument. You assert “Christianity is not a faith for escapist. I doubt whether Hume, Dawkins, Russell ever really staked their lives on their belief.” Of course they did not, they are not, as I have said, irrational fools willing to subjugate themselves to some higher power. The fact that you see it as a problem that someone would not stake their lives on a belief is precisely what I meant when I said religion is the problem we need to confront. It is this very same thought process that is used to justify the principle of Jihad and suicide bombings throughout the world. However, in the spirit (no pun intended) of open mindedness, I would ask if you could divulge the so called ‘overwhelming evidence’ of infinite power and intelligence, you claim to have (private?) access to. Or is this claim just spurious guff, as with the rest of the half baked ideas you have put forward?

david skinner

Dear Ann, You account for the Third Reich by referring to a quasi religious belief. How do you account for Russia, China, Cambodia and North Korea. Were they also based on a “mystical Medieval and Teutonic paradise? Nick that was quite an impassioned barrage and if you will allow me to pick myself up from the floor may I answer just a few of your objections? But before I do that, so that we remain on Melanie’s theme, may I point you to Bill Muehlenberg’s site , down under, where this very same issue is being discussed, at this very moment? http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/02/15/a-review-of-the-gods-of-war-by-meic-pearse/ Nick I lay before you basic propositions to the Christian faith, evidence for which is, well, simply evident and which to the sincere seeker is substantiated. I am not interested in winning arguments. I am hopeless at debates anyway and can never follow what is being said. May I assure that I am not the enemy. He is behind you. The propositions: 1. God created us in his image in that I have his moral character .The evidence for this found in our conscience. 2,God created biological and conscious life from nothing , including the uniformity underlying the universe. The evidence for this is that no one has been able to give any alternative explanation as to why or how anything should exist. 3. I am not the person I was intended to be. The evidence for this is that I find within me the overpowering desire to do evil. 4. If there does exist a source of all goodness, love, beauty and truth in the universe, it may well be the very thing I need but is also the thing I must fear the most, for it must hate everything I think, say and do. 5. There is a perfect justice in this universe. There are two deaths- one in this life and another which is the punishment for rebelling against my creator; the second is literally infinitely worse than the first. The evidence for this is found in the words of the most perfect human being who has ever lived- Jesus Christ. 6. The Creator of us, all not wanting that any should perish sent his only son Jesus Christ to die in our place so that we might have our personal relationship and status restored and thus live with him in a new earth and new heaven, still being prepared. The evidence for this is found again in the words of Jesus Christ. 7. Salvation from death, the power of sin and the accuser are free gifts but have to be freely received. We do not have to accept this but someone still has to pay the punishment for the sin in our lives. Either Christ pays or we attempt to pay a price that is acceptable to a holy and just God..

YA

1) Separate church and state. Officially bury multiculturalism. Introduce legislation against dangerous inhumane religious practices. Ban indoctrination of children. Close hate temples. Ban hate literature. Ban hate preachers
2) Control borders and immigration. Introduce points system and language test for all immigrants. Deport foreign criminals and terror suspects
3) Reform education system. Adjust curriculum. Keep main focus on science and technology. Introduce competition between different practical pedagogical systems.
4) Introduce mandatory 1.5 year National Service for young people of both sexes. Full citizenship should be granted only to those who served. Introduce Oath of Citizenship
5) Invest massively in R&D for finding a substitute for oil. Coordinate it with US and EU. Even if the scale of it will be 100 Manhattan projects, so be it
6) Maintain self sufficient economics - constantly assess dangerous dependencies, make reserves, adjust and subsidize strategic industries
7) Increase size but more importantly technical capability of professional armed forces
8) In foreign politics - forge and participate in global anti-terror cooperation. Offer international help only to the trusted parties and in return to the access to resources (yes, neo-colonialism)
All this is to be coordinated as a package. Depending on global circumstances, situation might be rectified in 5 to 10 years. After 25-30 years, if other countries follow, the word "Islam" will sound like "Zoroastrism". OK that would be too good; like "Christianity".

field

Skinner - If you're right, then a couple of billion Hindus and Buddhists are completely wrong. How sad for them - and how convenient for you.

Ulla Goodall

May I say thank you to Paul and David Skinner for their contributions:- the British people will not go back to their God who made them a great nation - that is the sad reality. That is why violence, adultery, lack of respect etc. is probably going to get worse, not better. The same complaints were heard in Israel in the time before their deportation to Asyria and Babylon. The question is - how will God deal with us in our rebellion? Ulla

Superted

Dear David: Let me open this response by denying the Holy Spirit, such that you don't have to worry about saving me.

The Teutonic paradise was one example of a dogmatic ideology underlying the 'secular' societies you're so keen on pursuing. Would you be happier if someone provided you with a list of the various ideologies underlying the systems of government in Russia, China, Cambodia, and North Korea? Go read about Juche, come back, and I'll give you another one. I promise you that nobody has ever gotten anywhere with the Hitler/Stalin/atheism argument, and I very much doubt that you will.

Instead, I would like to briefly respond to the numbered points you raised.

1. God created us in his image in that I have his moral character .The evidence for this found in our conscience.

That we have a conscience or moral character in no way implies the existence of a God. Rather, the existence of morality in humans could have its roots in evolutionary biology or social development, or simply be a testament to our sentient intelligence. Alternatively, our conscience could have been implanted into our otherwise amoral heads by sophisticated aliens from the future. The fact that we have a conscience supports this latter position just as much as it supports you position: i.e. not really.

2,God created biological and conscious life from nothing , including the uniformity underlying the universe. The evidence for this is that no one has been able to give any alternative explanation as to why or how anything should exist.

I struggle to find the appropriate words to explain why this is not the case. There are a great many unexplained phenomena in the universe. The inability of anyone to offer a satisfactory explanation does not imply that this explanation is not forthcoming, nor does it imply that some far-flung alternatively automatically becomes true. For many years, scientists did understand the mechanism of epileptic seizures. This did not lend any credibility to the more popular stance that these were cases of possession by the devil.

More importantly, perhaps, what is this obsession with meaning and reason? I can offer you the following explanation of the universe: it tends towards entropy (chaos, disorder). As a part of this, complex systems arise, simply because they are more effective at creating entropy than would occur in their absence. We are one such complex system, alongside hurricanes and trees.

3. I am not the person I was intended to be. The evidence for this is that I find within me the overpowering desire to do evil.

I can't find a shred of argumentative force behind this statement, so I'm left standing and confused. Why should your desire to do evil have anything to do with the existence of God? Why should you be 'intended' to be anything in particular? And why is God unable to simply make you the way he 'intends' in the first place?

4. If there does exist a source of all goodness, love, beauty and truth in the universe, it may well be the very thing I need but is also the thing I must fear the most, for it must hate everything I think, say and do.

I don't know where you're going with this. However, I would disagree - why would a 'source of all goodness, love, beauty, and truth' hate you? Surely this is contradictory. Moreover, why do you 'need' this thing? Since you haven't included a 'the evidence for this...', allow me to fill this space instead with a few questions that spring to mind. Presumably, since the qualities you mention exist in some measure here, on earth, yet originate from this 'source', does this 'source' continually emanate these qualities? Does this make God exothermic?

5. There is a perfect justice in this universe. There are two deaths- one in this life and another which is the punishment for rebelling against my creator; the second is literally infinitely worse than the first. The evidence for this is found in the words of the most perfect human being who has ever lived- Jesus Christ.

Jesus had the power to heal the sick (lepers, the blind, what-have-you). Why did he choose to only exercise this power on an extremely limited scale, instead of, for example, healing all lepers? Why didn't he pull enough fish and bread from his magic hat to feed all people? Why did he waste his time with relatively pointless miracles, like walking on water? To me, these don't sound like the actions of the most perfect human being who ever lived. Like Nick, I would in this light very much enjoy an explanation of the fig tree incident. While you're at it, tell me why Jesus told his followers that he would return within their lifetime - why would the most perfect human being lie to his devoted followers?

6. The Creator of us, all not wanting that any should perish sent his only son Jesus Christ to die in our place so that we might have our personal relationship and status restored and thus live with him in a new earth and new heaven, still being prepared. The evidence for this is found again in the words of Jesus Christ.

Right. Except that Jesus and God are kinda the same person/thing/multinational corporation, aren't they? What you mean to say is that Jesus died, to placate himself. All this for original sin, something which God must surely have seen coming, what with his omniscience? Why did he wait the roughly 4,000 years between Adam and Eve and Jesus to offer redemption to mankind?

And lets not forget about the Jews. Why did God/Jesus choose a method of redemption that would brand the Jews as Christ-killers and contribute heavily to their ceaseless persecution across the millennia? Did he change his mind about the whole 'chosen people' thing?

7. Salvation from death, the power of sin and the accuser are free gifts but have to be freely received. We do not have to accept this but someone still has to pay the punishment for the sin in our lives. Either Christ pays or we attempt to pay a price that is acceptable to a holy and just God..

I might have mentioned something a bit ago, but you've strayed quite far from your attempt to offer reasonable evidence. Indeed, if you'll permit me to summarize from your points above, your 'overwhelming' evidence consists of our conscience, the lack of an explanation for the existence of things in the universe, your personal penchant for evil, and the testimony of one man. I suppose it’s a good thing that you’re not ‘interested in winning arguments’.

david skinner

Dear Field, Why should the loss of billions of the earth’s inhabitants be convenient for me or any other Christian ? What have I to gain from this. As for my being right, I am merely saying what Jesus Christ said which was that no one comes to the Father except through Him. As far as God is concerned the whole human race is under condemnation. It is only grace that allows for the fact that there is a way out of experiencing eternal destruction- a grace that none of us deserve- but he offers it all the same since he does not want any to be lost. What motivates Christian missionary work and evangelism is precisely the need to warn others of the spiritual danger they are in and to tell them of the love that God has for each and every one of us. My earlier point was that science and technology are no defence against very real spiritual forces- especially if an unhealthy fascination with death and suicide, as opposed to life, are central to a particular religion like Islam. Although Christianity is not sheltered in the strong arms of science as Winston Churchill mistakenly claimed, the Christian is not asked to withdraw from the world but to engage with it, fighting not just tyranny but poverty, disease and all the other manifestations of evil - after all, this is what Jesus Christ does. His first stage was take upon himself physically the punishment due to us and at the same time feel the full force of his father’s displeasure as we heaped on Him our own filth. The second stage will be for him to return, not as a vulnerable baby but as a military warrior, when some, including Mohammed will kneel out of joy, love and adoration or out of rage and fear. Now this might sound like pie in sky and I don’t want to play the numbers game but Christians who make up ( nominally at least) the largest human grouping on the earth, 32% believe what I have just said. Maybe not in little Britain but globally they do. Atheists, I believe make up 4% of the earth’s population. But as I have said I am not interested in the numbers game. Ulla bless you too.

Superted

That makes 68% non-Christian. You nimwit.

Nightshade

The question of whether God exists or not is the least of our worries at the moment. Our enemies laugh as they divide and increasingly start to rule. As the West tears itself to pieces on debates such as this a vacuum is being created. As Western religions (rightly or wrongly) crumble a religion that reinforces its strength over all obstacles - be they atheism or other religions - by treating apostasy with death can slowly manouvre into place until the time is ripe for its endgame.

YA

Topic was "We Are At War". But Darwkins interferes everywhere. It is understandable, - in the end, who needs all these terrorists, modern Nazis, savages, nihilists, all that garbage? They are doomed anyway. Darwkins, he is forever.

david skinner

Wow, Superted, so many questions. It is 20 past midnight and Melanie’s forum is not the place to answer them; plus ( and this is not in any way meant to be patronising) not having your grasp of technicalities and as argument (as you so rightly observe) is not my strength, thank God (otherwise we would be here all night) I must decline your challenge. However, it is only to the good that the ontological, moral and epistemological questions that you ask are being raised.They are serious questions that deserve an answer. Before turning in, however, I would like to respond to your first question about conscience. If evolution were responsible for our conscience then surely the human race should be becoming more mature and enlightened. Whereas the last two hundred years has seen a level of destruction carried out by secularist and atheist on a scale never before experienced, starting with the horrors of the French Revolution - a most secular of regimes. Statistics obtained by the Evening Standard recently revealed that on average five children are being injured in gun and knife attacks in London every day. The figures, obtained under Freedom of Information rules, reveal a frightening snapshot of teenage crime in an eight-month period last year. From 1 April to 30 November, a total of 1,273 victims under the age of 20 suffered injuries in gun and knife attacks. Many were victims of gang violence. The figures came amid mounting concern over the number of teenagers murdered in London. Several have died this year already while 27 were killed last year, the highest total ever. Perhaps evolution works backwards with us returning to a primitive state?

field

Skinner - It's convenient for you because it means you don't have to reflect on your arrogance. You can just consign the 900 billion souls to hell or limbo or wherever it is you're going to consign them to. Personally I feel many Hindu and Buddhist writers have composed far more profound reflections on life, death, consciousness and the mystery of existence than you or your co-religionists are capable of. Sounds to me like your religion is the equivalent of playing with toy soldiers and making up stories as you go along. Ulla is completely deluded if she thinks your warblings would be the basis for a revival of the UK. She is also completely wrong to suggest that violence, adultery and disrespect were unknown during Britain's apogee in the world. Read Disraeli's Sybil for a start. Or read up on Rabbie Burns's shenanigans. I in any case wish to see no return to Britain's vile imperialism. Why on earth would anyone want to go round the globe bossing other people, stealing their land or enslaving them. None of those is a very Christian thing to do. Anyway, let's hope the Chinese forgive us. God help us if they decide to exact their revenge on the Europeans for the Opium Wars, the forced treaties and the various humiliations.

field

Skinner - If your analysis was correct then there should be far less gun and knife crime in the USA, where religious belief is so much more prevalent and strong than in the UK. But...well, do I really need to waste time going to get the figures to prove to you that the correlation is the other way? The fact is thousands of people die in the USA every year from guns. It's a quite appalling slaughter. It's bad in the UK, but nowhere as bad as in the USA with its greater intensity of religious belief. So - where does that leave your absurd theorising? If we want to tackle knife and gun crime we can. But it won't be with a Bible in our hands that we make progress. We need to apply reason. At the moment there is every emotional and financial incentive for youngsters in inner urban areas and on our God awful estates to get involved in this sort of crime and hardly any real disincentives.

phil

David -you are obviously very committed to your religious beliefs ,so I have read all the complicated arguments you have espoused.Nevertheless i must ask you to explain why the earlier generations thought the earth was flat and the Torquemada was right?etc etc .It surely does not mean that as we cannot understand things ,a higher being must exist -where did he go when we eventually did understand ?My purpose here and earlier in this debate is not to deny your god ,but to say somehow we have been given a conscience and a brain and therefore I believe it is our duty to use them to seek out good from bad and that does not mean that one,s religion,whatever that might be ,or lack of it proves any religion has it over another .If you are right it seems that an awful lot of decent people will be going to hell.My reasoning mind cannot find a conclusion ,although I strive each day to be a good person (and that has to my judgement I know )so I hope I am not going to hell if I get it wrong . In conclusion try explaining how so many people ,many of them wonderful beings,died in the various holocausts,can you truly believe that it was god,s will ?

phil

Mike Homfrey ,to use the oft used phrase-but I would defend your right to say it-Actually I really would but I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM -you have a loud and clear platform which seems to denigrate Melanie -Mad Mel Phillips as you refer to her on your web site ,so I hope you will not mind me showing others where you are at by giving them your web site addresshttp://merseymike.blogspot.com/ they can then get a balanced view from what each of you have to say -YOU SEEM TO ME A CARING PERSON AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT -BUT FORGIVE ME MIKE I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU .YOUR QUOTE *Melanie A good guide for me: if you believe it, I usually believe the opposite* does not do justice to your undoubted intellect ,and I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered

Ann

Skinner - yes, the USSR was based on an irrational belief system, namely that human nature can be engineered through economic means alone, completely ignoring all emotional factors, which is ignorant nonsense, and that the result would be an improvement in said human nature, which is even more ignorant nonsense. --- Furthermore, you are still not listening: the fact that some murderers are atheists does not constitute evidence that they are murderers BECAUSE they are atheists, or that ALL murderers are atheists, or that ALL atheists are murderers. These are basic tests in logic. Try drawing a Venn diagram.

Nick Kaplan

David, Ann is right to point out that your skills in logic are very deficient. Not only did you fail to notice the difference between some atheists being murders and all atheists being murders, and vice versa, but your casual, deductive reasoning is also very poor. You argue that your conscience somehow proves the existence of God in the following format; “ God created us in his image in that I have his moral character .The evidence for this found in our conscience”- this is a highly circular ‘proof’ of God’s existence in which, as a premise you have taken that God exists to prove that he does. In simple terms what you have said boils down to: “If there were a God then I would have a conscience, I have a Conscience, therefore there is a God.” – This again is poor reasoning; of course one can conclude from this that if God existed I would have a conscience, but not the other way round. For example, to say; “ If I go to London by train, then I will arrive in London” does not imply that “If I arrive in London, I will have gone there by train.” This is because there are multiple ways in which I could arrive in London. Likewise there are multiple reasons why I may have a conscience. Your argument would only be valid had it been the case that “If and only if there is a God then I would have a conscience”. However as Superted has pointed out there are many ways in which a conscience may have come about, a product of evolution, social development or our intelligence.

ex-democrat

I am appalled at the number of (evidently well-educated) commenters here whose response to this post about our desperate need to stop fiddling while Rome burns is to indulge themselves in expending massive amounts of energy on doing exactly that. all of you need to get a grip. now.

field

Ex-democrat... At least you give your game away with the your name...

Superted

Few quick points David:

"If evolution were responsible for our conscience then surely the human race should be becoming more mature and enlightened."

This is not necessarily the case at all, unless you could show:

1. That being mature and enlightened favors reproduction over time

2. Both maturity and enlightenment are inheritable characteristics

If we assume that you are defining maturity as unhealthy aversion to sex or unwillingness to engage in promising medical research that might extend and better our lives drastically, then I would cautiously suggest that evolution doesn't favor Christian morality in the long term. (This is simplistic speculation on my part though.)

That thought aside, I disagree completely with sentiment - I believe humanity has come a long way from living in caves, to farming and settlement, through the ages to writing and all manner of curious undertakings. We've built boats and planes and travelled into space, and perhaps most importantly, we've made a half-decent start at understanding the universe around us and our place in it.

Make no mistake - humans have done unspeakable things to each other and our environment. But I'll stand firm by the reasoned position that the number of people who have suffered at the hands of zealotry vastly outnumbers those who have done so at the hands of atheist persecution. The number of people who have felt artificial comfort from the propagation of dangerous and intellectually dishonest beliefs pales in comparison to the sheer scale of human misery caused by ridiculous beliefs in the superiority and exclusivity of a given deity. Even if you disregard history, take a look at the priests in Africa who tell women that using condoms will increase the risk of HIV infections, or the sharia courts in the Middle East who stone women for being seen with a man other than their husband.

I wish I could somehow make you understand that the suicide bomber is even more convinced that he is right than you are, probably for very similar 'reasons'. Can you conceive that you might have believed in Mohammed with as much conviction as you currently do Jesus, if only you'd been born in a slightly different place? Or are you perhaps convinced that by lucky chance and sheer convenience, you were 'chosen' to be in the 'right' religion, out of the literally thousands that abound?

Finally: you worried earlier about bowing to Allah. It might interest you to know that what Muslims call Allah is the very same personage you call God, the same Abrahamic tradition. Sure, you disagree on the divinity of Jesus and the sanity of Mohammed, but have you ever wondered what Arabic Christians call God?

david skinner

Dear Superted, We are at war and always be until Jesus Christ comes again. I respect the questions you raise; some have answers and can be answered within seconds whilst others may take hours, days or months….; there are other questions, however, for which no one this side of death has an answer. Having said that, we live in the real world and if one is in the situation of being on a sinking ship and you need to know how to save yourself, your will not be concerning yourself too much with the long answers or with questions about which no one has an answer. Once you get to the safety of dry land you will have time to go into those more complex questions and once you die you will have all eternity to spend on the imponderable ones. For the moment you just need to know how to get off this sinking ship. But it all depends on how desperate you are; if you really are hungry, thirsty for righteousness, authenticity, identity, a hope that never can fade or decay and above all a personal relationship with the One who can only satisfy our deepest needs then He is not far from each one us, for “In him we live and move and have our being.” It is He who is always searching for us and not the other way around. When I became a Christian at the age of twenty five, 12000 miles from home, I was not particularly searching for God and was taken by surprise when I discovered I, too, had turned into one of those freaky and quaint Christians. But nothing felt more natural; it was as though I had really come home. Tsunami, catastrophic climatic change, being overtaken by Islam or nuclear devastation pale into insignificance compared with the return of Jesus Christ.

Superted

We can only have a discussion if you actually respond to the points I have raised, in much the same way as I have tried to respond to your points. This is what's know as reasoned debate.

Simply put, if you raise an argument in favour of God and someone offers a reasonable refutation, continuing to stand by your original argument is not the way to go. Rather, it quite effectively disproves your claim that being Christian doesn't involve a loss of reason.

Masses of marvelous irony abound in your rantings, but allow me to pick one, single point. You quoted Churchill on Islam, more specifically, "there is this fearful fatalistic apathy".

While this view might characterize Muslims, I believe it characterizes your views even better: you refuse to answer even minor counterpoints because you believe yourself to be standing on a 'sinking ship'. You refuse to donate even a few minutes of your time to critically examining your faith, because, after all, Jesus is coming soon!?

What if people worried less about the improbable 'dry land' on the other side, and worried a bit more about making this life on earth a bit better? This is a simple question, and I'm sure you can come up with some kind of answer. Go on... I'm sure He's not coming back today.

Ann

Not sure he can, Superted ;-)

david.skinner

Dear Crew, Ann, Superted and anyone else who is still slumped over the infernal machine. Life is short and I have probably spent too much time already on this thread. You are absolutely right: you are so far up the evolutionary tree, I really don’t know why you bother with such a spotted specimen of stagnant pond life as myself. Judging from your general tone I am not filled with lot of confidence that anything - I or any other Christian might say, at the moment, would make the slightest difference. Even if I had all the time in the world (which I don’t) to debate and even convincingly win the argument, I have a strong suspicion that I would not win your hearts. And though, Superted, you might scoff, you never know how long you might have left in this life - years, months? It could even be only a matter of five minutes. All of your questions would then be answered; but if that were the case, it would be too late for you to choose which side of the war you were on, and anyway, as Ex - democrat has said, all this is fiddling whilst Rome burns. There really is a war on

Nick Kaplan

Life may be short but for someone who believes we have an eternal afterlife I see no reason why this should make any difference to the longevity of our debate, or is this a subtle way to accept defeat? Again the inconsistency is no surprise!!

Superted

If there was a convincing argument, we'd all be convinced - I would believe in your God or any other if there was reasonable cause for doing so.

The problem is that wild assertions aren't convincing, and your own conviction in them doesn't make them so.

david skinner

Okay, Nick, Superted and Ann, Forget me, your descriptions of me are by far too generous, for I am the amongst the worst of sinners. But listen to another wretch, a prisoner on the Island of St Helena when perhaps after he had had time to reflect on things he said this: “Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. . . . I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man; none else is like Him: Jesus Christ was more than a man. . . . I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me . . . but to do this is was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lightened up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. . . . Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ. You are right God’s love for us is totally irrational; it defies an explanation. Why on earth - or anywhere for that matter - would anyone continue to love those with a love that knows no limits, after they had so abused him on the cross. Napoleon knew all about war, but he came to understand that there was a spiritual war that defies space and time and for which material arms are defenceless.

phil

David my questions to you were pretty simple but so far you choose not to answer them -I wish I had your faith but sadly my reasoning overtakes me .There seems so much badwill in this world and 2000 years have past with no sign of a return,if you include orthodox jewish faith many more thousands of years more have gone .I feel its time to take our own responsibility to make things better rather than wait for something we certainly dont know is coming.Your debates with superted and nick are fescinating but as they say in Spain *que pasa*

Gaelan

Multiculturalism hasn't hurt America, even when at war. We spoke English all through the Revolution. :) Indeed, much of our military history consists of operations where our forces aid one faction in rebelling against or suppressing the rebellion of another faction in their own country. We could not have helped South Vietnam against North Vietnam, South Korea against North Korea, nor any of the several factions in Latin America and the Middle East if we were simultaneously rejecting their respective cultures. Special Forces try to blend into local culture, and the military always needs interpreters.

Stan Coveney

Kevyn Bodman says “Freedom from detention, the right to appear before a court, the right to a prompt and fair trial, these rights protect me.” Exactly so. However, look at history and in particular WW2 when Britain faced internal threats from an active Fifth Column and an active IRA bombing campaign. At that time habeus corpus was suspended for such activities. However that suspension did not cover actual crime (theft, murder etc) because the peacetime rules of justice continued unaffected. Right now Britain faces an internal and an external threat from an active Fifth Column and an active campaign of terror. So long as Parliament legislates and the Executive (PM etc) does not dictate I for one will support suspension of habeus corpus for an extended period.

Nick Kaplan

Dear David, Your ‘argument’ here seems to consist of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and chanting “I love Jesus, I love Jesus, I love Jesus, I love Jesus, therefore he’s divine, and therefore God exists.” Does this imply that divinity is quantifiable in terms of the amount of love that is felt for something, such that the more someone is loved the more divine they become? Or is there simply some threshold level of love above which one can be defined as divine? In which case may we define Princess Diana as a divine entity, or does she not quite meet your requirements?

Nick Kaplan

Stan, your analogy between the situation in WW2 and the threat we currently face is unfair as there are several major differences. This war, unlike WW2 is one for which there is no foreseeable end; there is little we can do about such a pervasive threat that is motivated by something so very irrational. Thus a temporary suspension of habeas corpus is unlikely to be particularly temporary, this suspension could exist indefinitely. What’s more, in WW2 there was a clearly identifiable enemy, in the current situation we face both a foreign and domestic threat, there is no knowing who is dangerous and who is not without the aid of an evidence based trial. This fact would make the suspension of habeas corpus particularly dangerous, given that it could result in the detention of any number of innocents. What’s more one of the fundamental aims of our enemy is to undermine the very values that we stand for, this is not a territorial conflict as was the case for WW2 (or like the aims of the IRA) instead the conflict is ideological, and by ending the right of habeas corpus we would be handing a partial victory to our enemy on a silver platter.

david skinner

Nick , Ex-democrat was right ; we need to get a grip, or, as an Italian audience cries, when it has had enough, ”Basta!” “Basta!” God loves you and sent his son to die for you. If you were able to love God as a result of understanding just what he has done for you no one would accuse you of trying to work yourself into a frenzy of devotion just to prove His existence. Dare I say it? This is a ludicrous suggestion. Do you seriously believe that every Sunday General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff advises his Christian soldiers to work themselves into a coma of oozy woozy love in order to affirm their belief? But allow John the Apostle to have the last word, and I mean the last world. In 1 John 4 he says: “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Superted

I'm sorry, I can't do this with a straight face.

Where on earth did you get that quote? Where is it from? The only citation I can find is from an obscure collection of lectures by John Bampton, recorded by Henry Parry Liddon. I've tracked down a copy of the book and intend to check it out tomorrow, but until then I'm fairly doubtful of the provenance. The quote, as you give it, appears some 5 times on the entirety of the internet.

What we're fairly sure he did say, is that “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.”

I did enjoy the delightful portrait you painted of an aging, philosophical Napoleon, "perhaps after he had had time to reflect on things". Funnily enough, he also wrote the following, two years into his stay on St Helena, less four years prior to his death:

"I prefer the religion of Mahomet — it is less ridiculous than ours."

Not to mention his opinion of Muslims: "Muhammad was a great man, fearless soldier; with a handful of men he triumphed at the battle of Badr, great captain, eloquent, a great man of state, it regenerated his homeland, and created in the middle of the deserts of Arabia a new people and a new power."

Or his eloquent explanation that "Morality has nothing to do with such a man as I am." I doubt the two of you would find much to agree on.

YA

ex-democrat - I am writing just to you since others are engaged in theological debate - what practical steps might be done at the lowest level now? Before interesting times come too close and we all rush to buy baseball bats, golf sticks and large kitchen knives. Ochlocracy and disorder can't last long, it will be replaced by some type of order. The best way to turn country back to sanity is to promote meritocracy. Power should be granted to the consortium of large national and international corporations; that is to be mediated by strong technocratic elite. Elements of socialism, which are so disproportinate now, should perform auxuliary, subservant role. There is danger to install some kind of oligarchic rule. True meritocracy is still very hard to achieve, but it is an ideal. These idiots in USA can't choose between Barbie dolls like Obama and Clinton, while the best president for USA is certainly Craig Venter, even half-time. Not sure about Dawkins for the UK, he seems a bit hysterical. In Germany however, we already have a Bundeskanzlerin who is physicist by training. The rule of reason is the only way out. Not "democracy" and not demon-cracy, that's for sure.

david skinner

Dear Nick, Superted, Ann and Phil, we have shared evidence, different perspectives and touched on many issues. For my part this has not been boring, even though much of the time it has been like playing a furious game of table tennis. I am not sure how much listening has been done on either side but thank you for the many, many objections which you have raised and which I hope to honestly consider. However, may I deliver one last serve across the net? Ghandi said, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ." This is an undeniable truth, but the same can be said for those who follow different masters like Ghandi, E.P.Thompson, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Russell etc; but just one of the many differences between them and Jesus Christ is that He was the Way, the Truth, the Life and the Resurrection. The others, apart from all being dead were detached to a greater or lesser degree from what they taught. In most cases their lives were completely inconsistent with what they espoused. I would endorse what John, H. Kerr said: “ No one has come near to Jesus Christ with respect to His influence on so many aspects of our world and society. Most schools of higher learning in the English speaking world and many in the non-English speaking world exist because of Christ. Women and children throughout this world, with the exception of a few countries have a much better way of life because of what Christ taught and people accepted. The peace, good will and renewal that result each year from the celebration of His birth is astounding. Many of the internalional charities that exist today are Christian based. The Christian work ethic has spurred inventions of all sorts that have benefited mankind enormously. Just think of the influence Christians have had down through the centuries, every bit of their influence is either directly or indirectly associated with the influence Christ had on them. Sorry, may I leave you with one more serve and ask you to read especially the statement at the end, made by Bertrand Russell‘s daughter? http://www.newstatesman.com/200010090052

Nick Kaplan

Dear YA; Whilst I do not share the common belief that democracy is a euphemism for good governance, your argument sounds much like one put forward by Plato; that we should be ruled by “philosopher kings.” I find it hard to believe that the last 2700 (Plato was writing in 300 BC) years of human endeavour have failed to provide us with a better insight into good government. The problem with your suggestion is, as Lord Acton once claimed “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” an unaccountable oligopoly would have the strong potential to turn corrupt and thus would fail to take into account the interests of the people. Allowing a small cabal to take power with no process of removal is the surest way to tyranny. Democracy is not great; it leads to incompetent, populist governments (e.g. the last 10 years) however, I think we should remember here the words of Churchill “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Stan Coveney

Nick, with respect you are wrong. The facts and circumstances are essentially the same. Violent fascists chauvinists and racists wanted us to bend to their will and because we did not they threatened us and caused actual harm. Their objectives were political. The Islamic terrorists among us who threaten and want to harm you and me are little different to those 2oth century fascists. Their objectives are political and they will carry out any act and commit any crime to achieve those objectives. As in WW2 I doubt that Parliament in 2008 would suspend due process indefinitely for such activities. I would expect that there would periodic reviews as would be right and proper. Such an action would send a clear unambiguous message that our parliamentary representatives will use the rule of law to take reasonable measured and appropriate steps to protect the people whose interests they serve.

Superted

Stan, grouping Nazis and Islamists together as 'Violent fascists chauvinists and racists' is a surprisingly glib treatment of the subject, and ignores the very real points that Nick raised:

1. WW2 was a geopolitical conflict with a foreseeable end - i.e. the defeat of one of the military forces involved.

2. It was a conventional war between states.

3. The vast majority of combatants were uniformed and readily identifiable.

4. The Nazis did not rely heavily on terrorism, favoring conventional warfare.

How can you possibly reconcile these differences to suggest that the two situations could be handled in the same manner?

YA

Nick: to a degree, we are ruled by "kings of reason". You have mentioned Plato not Gordon Brown, right?
On democracy - there is well known "iron rule of oligarchy" stating that democracies are essentially unstable and in the end transformed into oligarchies of this or that kind. Elements of democracy might be useful at any level, but only limited and where it suites (not in the infantry regiment, anyway).
Next thing - except for Truth and Reason, we are also ruled by Beauty. Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Keira Nightley and Eva Green are among my rulers. And girls will name James McAvoy, Daniel Craig, Viggo Mortensen and so on. There is no place for democracy here, as well. They all are sweet tyrants.
Last thought - in order to promote new social order, one needs to foresee how the stuff will resist. To know this, one needs to be aware of its composition. I personally don't have a clue about it. Does somebody know where one could find info on social structure of the society? How many people are in industry, science/high tech, education, services, banking, law-making, welfare getters and so on?

phil

David I must commend you on your last post ,you will have realised I dont agree with your conclusions but I do admire your faith and obvious compassion,I think you are a person who Ghandi would have admired too.For me piety in itself proves nothing ,it is the everyday kindness and charity espoused by christian /judeo culture that is the most important heritage that we have been left with .The fact that we have all discussed this subjectfor so long at least proves that we all care and that will suffice for me -My best wishes to you Phil PS couldnt find russels daughter with the info you left -I did try

david skinner

Phil, I am glad you are still there. I would not describe myself as a compassionate or caring person, only under construction maybe! Although, the whole thing is worth reading, allow me to paste the last paragraph from: http://www.newstatesman.com/200010090052. “There is an emblematic contrast between the tragedy of Russell's private life and the buoyant optimism of his public pronouncements. The greater his domestic misery, the more heartily he ground away at his old enlightenment barrel organ. The Conquest of Happiness - "arguably the most superficial and dishonest book he ever wrote" - was brought out as his marriage to Dora disintegrated. One person to be frustrated by the shallowness of Russell's ethical writings was his daughter Kate: "They all offered the same solutions: reason, progress, unselfishness, a wide historical perspective, expansiveness, generosity, enlightened self-interest. I had heard it all my life, and it filled me with despair." Kate eventually found an answer in Christianity: "The doctrine of original sin gave to me, when I finally understood it, the same sense of intoxicating liberation my father had received from sexual emancipation. It was normal for me to be bad, and I need not feel ashamed." She came to understand what Russell never could: it is only by acknowledging our sins that we can hope to gain freedom from them.”