Pages


Friday 15 October 2010

Christopher Hitchens To Debate Tony Blair On Faith


Author/Journalist and self styled anti-theist Christopher Hitchens is due to debate former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on the subject of faith on Nov 26th in Toronto. The debate will center around the statement:
“Be it resolved, religion is a force of good for the world.”
The debate will be open to the public and be streamed online.

Tony Blair has been a controversial figure during his time in politics, with criticism mainly focused on his decision to move forward with the invasion of Iraq, a decision which Christopher Hitchens fully supports. However, since leaving number 10 downing street behind, Tony Blair has embarked on a new career, chairing and establishing The Tony Blair Faith Foundation. It is Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism, and subsequent campaigning of Religious Ideology in many parts of the world which signal a conflict of interest between the two men.


Christopher Hitchens is a long and established critic of Faith/Religion, penning the best selling book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". The decision by Hitchens, often referred to as "Hitch" to debate the ideas outlined in his book publicly with prominent religious voices, has earned him great acclaim, and a reputation for his straight talking, no punches pulled style of rhetoric.


Christopher Hitchens has made headlines recently for other reasons, due to his diagnosis of esophageal cancer. The news came when he became ill during the promotion of his memoirs, Hitch-22. This has lead to questions regarding whether Christipher Hitchens may change his stance on God, in light of this recent news, and succumb to a "Deathbed Conversion".

Details of this debate can be found at www.munkdebates.com where it will be streamed live. What are your views on the careers of both these well established public speakers? What, if any impact did faith have in the decisions made by Tony Blair whilst in government? Do you think religious faith is a force for good in the world? Please use the comments section below to have your say.

Sunday 10 October 2010

Government Will Not Oppose Extremist Views In UK Classrooms


According to the National Secular Society, there will be no new legislation prohibiting the teaching of extremist religious views in the Government's new free schools and academies. This information came via Lord Hill of Oareford, Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Schools in a letter to the National Secular Society.

The information came in response to a request from The NSS to outline what steps would be taken to prevent the teaching of extreme Religious "values" and ideologies in the new free schools model of education.

It appeared Lord Hill dodged answering the question with any sort of conviction or acknowledgement of the dangers of radical religious teaching to children, appealing to the religious masses with this response:
“On the issue of proselytising, which you also raise, we do not think it appropriate to legislate in this area. Parents will choose a school based on its ethos. That ethos may be Christian, Muslim or Jewish or it may have no faith ethos at all. Parents should be free to choose schools on the basis of their ethos. I would like to believe that parents consider these issues carefully and send their children to a school fully aware of its faith or other ethos.”


This is the typical response given my members of parliament when such questions are posed. The serious underlined issues are ignored, with attention switched to that of parental rights, and not those of the children.

President of The National Secular Society responded with:
“We are alarmed at the prospect of extremist religious groups taking control of these schools and using them to brainwash children. What is to stop a Muslim group taking over a school and turning it into a madrassa at public expense, if that is what it is claimed the parents want? What is to stop a Scientology front group taking over a school and then introducing its teachings with taxpayers’ money? The fact that some parents want to indoctrinate their children in a particular religion does not mean that they should be able to access public money to do so.”


Does the issue of parental rights to indoctrinate a child in a faith of their choosing outweigh the secularist view of what could be deemed child abuse?

An in depth look at the rise and impact of faith schools was outlined in the Richard Dawkins fronted documentary, Faith School Menace? Click here to watch online for free.

What are your views on faith schools? A parental right, or children's rights disregarded? What are the dangers of teaching outdated beliefs about the cosmos, life on earth and morality, whilst denying modern established and observed facts? Can a child really be of a religious persuasion, without indoctrination? It can be argued a child does not have the sufficient equipment necessary to make decisions about questions of this scale. Is forcing these views on an impressionable, mentally vulnerable generation a devious and unethical way of preserving bronze aged beliefs? Please use the comments section to have your say.

Thursday 7 October 2010

Vote To Ban Advertising For "Psychics" In Russia


On Tuesday, the Russian government approved a vote to ban so called Psychics and Faith-healers from advertising their extraordinary services, reported here. This vote was passed on the grounds that these practices cause "moral and physical harm to the people and economic harm to the country". This ban was also extended to the realm of Faith Healing. In Russia the amount of "Faith Healers" significantly out-numbers qualified medical doctor's. There is a staggering 800,000 faith healers willing to offer their services (including the curing of AIDS and Cancer), with only 620,000 medical doctors.

See Psychic - Skepdic
See Faith Healing - Skepdic

Russia has a long history of prevalent psychic talk shows and game shows, with some even running for government.
Great Britain is no stranger to the popularity of the celebrity Psychic. Notably, Derek Acorah of Most Haunted fame. Derek, a self proclaimed medium surveys a number of "haunted" locations, using his uncanny ability to become physically possessed by the the dis-embodied spirits of the dead individuals doing the haunting. This so-called ability to suspend the laws of nature and become possessed by a dead person has courted controversy. Derek once channeled the spirit of "Kreed Kafer", unaware the name fed to him at a so-called haunted location, was in fact an anagram of "Derek Faker". Unaware of this amusing, but sharp skeptical trap, Derek continued to present himself as possessed by this non (non) entity.
The issue of Psychics, Mediums and Faith Healers raise significant moral questions. Where do you fall on this argument? Please take time to vote on the right of this page, and use the comments to have your say. Do you believe in Psychics? Have you yourself had a positive psychic experience? What are the ethical implications of influencing people's decisions based on psychic reading? Is it morally acceptable to claim to be communicating with dead relatives? Join the discussion.