The recess has begun, and from past experience I know how quickly it will pass. I continue to commute to London for my other job, regulating barristers, but there is one job I need to complete this summer in relation to Parliamentary business. With an MP, I am setting up a new All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law. I am very concerned about the current state of divorce and financial provision law, which has remained unreformed for more than a generation. The judges have imposed their own interpretation on the statute of 1973 and the law about maintenance is now confused, expensive, unfair and outmoded. Every day one can read newspaper accounts of divorce battles which cost more in legal expenses than the assets at stake; or of women who are seeking millions from their ex-husbands and saying they can live on no less. My fellow founder of the group is interested in child custody law, and what happens when the parent with whom the child resides wishes to move abroad, far from the other parent. When I lecture on these issues I receive an enormous amount of supportive mail from the public. These are topics that governments shy away from because of their moral connotations. Perhaps they are best broached by a cross party group from both Houses.
A few hours of research amongst recent serious works on human-evolution, individual-human-development, and sociology shows quite clearly that we, as the Human Race, are already being “required” by both evolution and human-development needs, to learn and adopt new standards and paradigms for sustain-worthiness and wholesome non-wasteful life-fulfilment.
Among these new ‘big-enablers’, not just for marriage but for all human-relationships, personal-maturation and, if you will, sustainworthy-personal-and-workplace efficiency, must surely be:
1. Friendly Method III Needs, Hows, and Affordable-Costs Win-Win-Win participatorily-cooperative Problem-Solving and Conflict Resolution, (Thomas Gordon);
2. The seven human energies sequential-education model, (David Boadella, Caroline Myss, John Diamond, and Others)
3. The Six combined vertical and lateral thinking modes, (Edward de Bono);
4. An Holistic-living model such as “Holistic Living” by the first president of the British Holistic Medical Association Dr Patrick Pietroni.
———-
Conscious self-control and social-conduct begin with the Root, Baptismal, or Grounding energy centre; and progress both naturally and with civilisational-help as we grow up through childhood to age 21 years.
Each energy-centre needs to be brought under the full control of its unique owner (doubtless directly helped by ‘God’, and indirectly nurtured by Educational or Religious institutions including by one’s Parents).
———-
A propos marriage in this Topic in particular, it resides, and strives, from the Bonding, Relationships, and Heart energy centre, also well known known as the fourth chakra.
Caroline Myss in “Anatomy of the Spirit” points out that one is not ready to marry another person until one has effectively reached a mature and responsible relationship with one’s whole self, namely with the seven dual-energy-centres.
David Boadella in “Lifestreams” points similarly to the somato-psychic dual-polarisation nature of each of the seven energy centres, each needing to be related inwards and as well as outwards, and each needing to be constantly kept balanced between undercharged and overcharged states.
In Christian terms these were originally the innate seven sacramental-energies in every human person relating inwardsly and outwardsly to the External-Sacraments of
1 Baptism
2 Confirmation 3 Communion
4 Bonding essentially including Marriage
5 Confession
6 Ordination
7 Unction.
————————-
Johnson and Johnson in “Joining Together” present a very mature account of, and practical-exercises for developing, all the micro and macro “skills” that are desirable, some absolutely essential, for our many and various inds of relationships in life.
Other key-supportive, but very neglected, or perhaps one should more kindly say ‘as yet undiscovered’ new works of first-hand practical help for individual-human-development, are at hand:
Linda Hartley’s “Wisdom of the Body Moving”;
Mark Whitwell’s “Your Own Yoga” for the not-so-ultra-fit; and
Maya Fiennes “Chakras alancing”;
both on Sky channel 275 “Body In Balance”;
and
Hendricks & Wills “The Centering Book” (obtainable online through Amazon.com books).
============
I believe that every level of every sort of People on Earth should be given free access to the above generic modern advances in knowledge and ‘know-how’, about personal and collective living abilities.
And I believe herein that such key proactivators and authorities as the noble Baroness Deech has begun to ‘stimulate’ should be amongst the first to give themselves ‘study-group’ summer-jobs of becoming familiar with this whole new field, and preparing the wider dissemination of that ‘know-how’ outwards-and-downwards-to-all-levels-of-the-People.
The range of new and invigorating knowledge and ‘know-how’ coming to the responsible reader from these pages will truly provide a safer and securer ‘tide’ of Life than has hitherto been dreamed of.
When looked into afresh, even the ‘ancient’ seven sacraments will show that they hold new-life in them, ready as strongly as ever, just as now are the above core modern and current findings, for the immediate refining and ‘harmonising’ of the individual’s life and for a strongly-sustain-worthy Life together.
I therein would feel most humbly honoured, and I beg leave to commend the above leaders to one and all.
================ (JSDM0137St31July10)
Divorce laws in this country are ancient and full of inequalities. In most cases the man loses his home, his children, everything he has worked for and known. On top of this he is often asked to pay innappropriate sums as maitenance, in some cases meaning he will struggle to financially survive himself.
The Government through other legislation sets amounts that people need to live on, the Courts seem to ignore this in divorce proceedings. Whilst the man may have maintained his wife in a certain lifestyle upto the point of breakup there should be no need for this to continue after they agree to divorce.
I have seen many men lose their home and children only for a few years later to end up with the children but not the house or any maintenance.
I got my daughter back at 14, she ran away numerous times and most times I took her back not knowing at the time the underlying problem which I won`t go into. When she came to live with me obviously my wife took me to Family court, especially as my daughter wasn`t seeing her Mother. The Court have obviously got to uphold Childrens rights so it must, at that age, take account of what the child says. She was allowed to live with me as was her wish but the person in charge of the Court insisted I take her weekly to her Mums. The onus being on me to take her, yet the other way around I had to pick her up. At that time my 14 year old was adamant she did not want to see her Mother at all, so I protested and stated I would NOT make her go. I was thrown out of the Court for my solicitor to talk with me inot agreement with what was being asked. As I had stated in Court and reiterted to my brief, what was I supposed to do if she didn`t want to go toher Mothers, tie her up and take her ? I had to go along and say the right words knowing they would be ignored.
There was no question of maintenance from my ex, nor did I get my home back.
I can understand the system wanting to protect the weak but often things are not as they appear. The man,who can appear hostile, is often the weaker, especially emotionally.
The system has always been biased in favour of females and I believe in modern times this is unfair. We cannot state that we REQUIRE equality of sexes and then bias toward one.
For a seperated parent whose child is taken abroad I have the utmost sympathy, this must be only a small step from the death of a child. As the parents both made a committment to each other and the child I think it unfair if one has to lose that child virtually altogether.
Because of the hurt, anxiety and costs of a marriage break-up I personally think we need to ensure that people understand the committment involved in marriage and the very serious step they are taking in it. The same goes for anyone having a child, perhaps even moreso.
The law is confusing and in a lot of cases creates inequalities. It is bias toward the Mother in the case of custody and visitation rights, it states on one hand a child needs only £x when the state pays but Courts pay that no heed in cases of maintenance. There is no need to make someone pay an exorbitant amount simply because the other person may have slept with them a few years.
They are both in the eyes of the law equal or should be. If they are both in agreement to the divorce, as I believe is the case in most divorces nowadays, then they are both agreeing to annul their contract/commitment to each other. This should be financial as well as emotional as far as the adults are concerned. As far as maintenance goes, there is plenty of existing legislation stating clearly what a child needs financially to survive. This minimum level is all that is required and should be by law.
Talking of jobs I saw this from the beeb that may affect the noble Baroness as I know she does have interns:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10822784
It suggests that companies are breaking the law by having unpaid interns as they should receive minimum wage. Interestly the article goes to state:
“The report also suggests politicians should also consider scrapping unpaid internships at Parliament and in constituency offices.”
So whilst it states companies maybe breaking the law and may have to back date pay upto 6 years they just ADVISE parliament. Is this a case of 2 laws yet again ?
I pay my intern, and I agree that they should be paid and should not simply be the children of friends who are able to work without pay. I found my intern through advertising on the site for them. Of course with the cut in our allowance I may not be able to afford an intern in future. I also agree with your comments about divorce, which are representative of the many letters I have received on the topic, both from men and women.
“divorce battles which cost more in legal expenses than the assets at stake;”
That is their look out.
I recall a case which was noted by the public some years ago where the child was at a blue oat public school in Sussex, and eventually the American parent could not agree with the father in the UK who would so much as collect the child from school at the end of term, so it was generally agreed, in the locality, that
the boy would be allowed to visit the local town, where his MontanaUS mother was staying, in high dudgeon, about the inadequacies of everything British.
Within hours the boy was on his way back to Montana, his mother having wisely hijacked him from the streets of the local town, thereby absolving the school at least of all responsibility for the child, and probably that of the father as well.
There must surely be practical solutions to most cases, which reminds me of Astrology.
Whilst Freud’s body of work is arguably the successor to the ancient skills of Astrology,
the latter to which many people would resort before embarking on living together in conjugal bliss, nobody, but nobody, would think of appointing a psychologist to do the same job BEFORE the event of matrimony today;
after it with sour grapes certainly, but never before.
Why is that?
There is an old saying that you shouldn’t try to Legislate Morality. The theory is that Morality is a Private and individual matter, much like Religion, and should be kept out of Politics lest by its inclusion we begin to become tyrants.
I disagree with this saying, because when you think about it, its absurd. All laws, if you really consider what laws are, are Legislated Morality. Laws exist to promote some behaviours and to suppress others. Laws forbid some things and make others compulsory. Laws exist to safeguard society and the members therein, and establish the set of rules we all live by. In this way, all Laws are derived from Morality.
To avoid a topic because of Moral considerations thus is bizarre. But then, so is most of what we see in our lives. It never ceases to amaze me how our thinking can be so inconsistent and contradictory and we not notice it. We are greeted with Subject X and are told we cannot make Laws regarding it because it is a Moral consideration, and Morality has no place in our Laws, only to be shown Subject Y and be told we MUST Legislate according to Moral principles because it’s the right thing to do.
It makes no sense.
We should Legislate with Morality in mind, we should strive for a safe society that upholds what is Just. In fact, we can’t help but. Morality will be a part of Law because that’s what the Law is by Nature, it is a Community’s Collective Morality codified by its Government.
That said, Britain was once upon a Time Strongly Christian. Constitutionally we’re still a Christian Nation, even though we have been told we have become too Enlightened for Religion and are now a Secular Liberal Democracy, not a Christian Monarchy. One wonders hwy the beliefs of the Secularists aren’t a Religion, but that’s for another Thread. For now, I will say that, I don’t see Religion as Privet, but as simply Philosophy, of which also can’t really be removed from the Government. So I hope my Quotations from Scripture won’t be seen as too off base.
I just think that the Apostle Saint Paul and other Biblical Writers had interesting thoughts, and addressed the Real World, and that despite being Religious Texts would have at least as much to offer as Bertrand Russell or Lord Byron would have.
To that end, I’d like to note that our Laws concerning Divorce came from a different time, when women did not do Professional work very Often, that was for men. Men worked. But Men did not do much in Rearing Children, that was what the Women did. Mens roles as Fathers was more as a chief Authority, otherwise he was passive.
Men also acted as the Bread Winner. They provided for their Families, whilst the women kept the Home.
A woman who was divorced also faced a Social Stigma, and found finding a New Relationship, or even work, difficult if not Impossible given that there was a Shadow over her head. Just why did the Husband Leave her? Often Divorced women faced social problems that complicated there lives, making it all the more difficult.
And as women were expected to care for the Children, the nearly always got Custody. Men could Visit of course but women won Custody of the Children, for they needed it. After all, women raised the Children.
It was in this cultural and social framework that our Divorced Laws saw there Genesis, and in order to both make sure the woman was cared for in a world in which she was ill equipped to face and in which she also faced the additional Challenge of Social rejection, and to help her to rear the Children, our Society, which Values Compassion, established Laws which would make sure her necessities were met. She’d be housed. Her Husband would provide her money so she could care for herself with Dignity. She’d be able to survive. It was expected that the Man would work, and could soon find a new home. The Woman got the Children for it was her place to raise them.
Likewise, the threat of loosing your home and a large chunk of your income was a deterrent to men who may decide to leave there wives for Younger women. Men did not suffer the Social Stigma as strongly as women did, though there was still a Stigma.
It was in this world that our Divorce Laws came about, an they made sense. They protected the woman from being tossed aide and rendered poor and helpless sin an unforgiving world and helped to ensure that she’d be able to provide for her Children while doing her womanly duties. These Laws were thus Fair.
But they are not fair now.
Today, women work, they provide for themselves, having their own Income quiet unrepentant of a mans. Women no longer need a man to care for them. There is also no social Stigma at all towards being Divorced. Its in act common.
Meanwhile, Parenting has not remained the same. Fathers take a far more active role in the care and upbringing of there Children than they were expected to in the past.
Worse, today’s Housing Market, driven by Credit and built on a never ending layer of Financing Laws, and with the Cost of Real estate as it is, finding a new place of residence is hard enough, much less becoming a Home Owner. Today’s Divorced Dad may find himself Homeless rather than finding a quick place to crash till he earns enough for a small house in the Country.
This is not 1890. Nor even 1950, and the world around us has Changed.
Thus, what was Justice in the past has become inequity today, and as much as the Scriptures tell us that we should provide for the Widow and Orphan and to provide for the needy, this also is stated, by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
Observe.
“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should eat.”
Our social Ideal of Compassion and Duty came out of our Christian Past. Even our Modern Multicultural Britain has not erased our Origins as a Compassionate Society, and even the Original Secularists saw the Social good in these teachings. They formed the basis of our while Civilisation. It was form these writers, like Paul, that our ideal of compassion sprang.
It was from then that our Divorce Laws in the time when women need to be protected came about.
But Paul also wrote the above.
The fact is, today it is not compassionate to give the woman the House and a sizable portion of her ex Husbands income. She is capable of caring for herself, and faces none of the social problems women in earlier periods had to endure.
By keeping in tact the nature of our Divorce Laws, we work an injustice upon the men, robbing them of their dignity and stealing form them there ability to café fort themselves. We deny them there right to be Fathers by allowing them to help raise there Children. We runt hem financially and leave them to wonder the Streets.
Is this Justice?
Proverbs 11:1 says the following, A False balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight. I personally think a False Balance has been set up here myself, and think we need reform of our Laws, to secure Justice for those who, like Carl, have to face severe Problems after a Divorce that basically penalises him for being a Man.
Thus I commend you on this issue, My lady, and certainly hope you can manage to bring this to the floor of those in power who can assist in overturning this travesty.
men, like Carl, should not have to endure what they do based upon laws which now are Draconian and no loner serve there original intent.
In that regard I thus ask only that you continue. I can offer little better than ideas past then, and I’m not sure you’d want the ideas of a Psychology student, but still, this and Moral Support.
And see, we do end were we begin, on Morality.
Zarove writes about Law as affected by Biblical texts. I wonder whether he she has considered the Laws of Thermodynamics for example?! Or Newton’s Laws of gravity?
Where would morals be then?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
Gareth Howell, I wonder why people can quite people like Bertrand Russel or Richard Dawkins, and get respect, and I can’t quote a Biblical text even when explaining the reasoning behind it and get the same. Dawkksn isn’t even an expert on society or law, yet his comments are heeded, whilst Pauls views aren’t.
bare in mind this trend toward Secularism is based mainly in deception, that Religion is something that shoudl be kjept in the homes and Churhces, while the logical and rational beleifs of such men as aboce guide us. The truth is, there beliefs are also Religion, and religion is nothing but our attempt to understand our existence. Why should we discount Wisdom form one source and Favour it form another? Especially when the Wisdom of Russel and Dawkisn hasn’t even proven helpful to themselves? Both where married and divorced several times, for instance, and yet we should trust them on how to build a valuable relationship. Russel was cruel to his own Children, and Dawkins seems to have alienated enough friends. Paul meanwhile had none of these problems. But his text is religious so not really wise. And I’m a fool for thinking anythign can be drawn from the texts thats helpful to our modern world.
but lets be realistic rather than buy into that shall we? Even if God doesn’t exist Paul didn’t just make up all the things he said all on his own, He based them on earlier teachings, and on personal observation. Many times when Paul was confronted with a problem in one of the Churches he wrote to, he had to find a practical solution, so at least on this level we should accept Paul as knowing what he’s on about as his advice worked.
I just find the routine “Liberal Secular Democracy’ Rhetoric boring and itself very limiting, as it refuses to look at anything past its own assumptions or to even question those assumptions.
I find WIsdom in Buddhist Literature, but doubnt it’d be as rehjected here, and in the Koran, and in the Bible, so why not use it all? Why limit ourselves to failed “ENlgihtenment” thinkign that simly never worke din the 200 years sicn its been proposed?
Stop The Fight !
Break !
Conflict-Resolution, please :
1. Be willing to fix the problem
2. Say what the problem is for you
3. Listen to what the problem is for them
4. Attack the problem. not the person
(win-win-win conflict-resolution continued)
5. Look for answers so every-one gets what they need (including those outside of the meeting who will be affected by your resolution).
Fouls:
Name-calling
Put-downs
Sneering – Blaming
Threats – hitting
Bringing up the past
Making excuses
Not listening
Getting even.
from “Every-One Can Win” by Cornelius & Faire of the Australian International Conflict-Resolution Network.
——————-
In Step 4 above for instance:
the factorama, formal-argumentation, life-experience, professional-experience, and moral-reasoning, put forward by each participant in turn;
“Attack the problem not the person”;
and in so doing be clear how those communicational-disciplines are defined.
e.g. Moral-reasoning is such as is required in facing the “Runaway Express Train” scenario from Monash University’s Philosophy course:
“You are about to cross a lone railway line out in the countryside when your radio gives a newsflash that a run-away express-train is headed that way where just a mile or so further along there are two long narrow tunnels, in the middle of the left-hand one of which the world’s only expert-engineer is deeply at work on a unique maintenance problem, whilst in the middle of the other tunnel is a group of five children playing. A manual points lever for switching the train from one tunnel to the other is right there in front of you, actually labelled “Left” in which the radio had said the engineer is at work and “Right” in which the children are playing.
You are quite alone, no telephone, no way of contacing anybody nor of getting to the tunnels nor of boarding the train to apply its brakes. Only the points lever stares you in the face so to speak.
What would you do ?
Morally speaking, what should you do ?
==================
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
(jsdm1715F06Aug10).
I was unaware that there was a fight. I merely explained my point. As with our Divorce Laws, I think our Culture needs to re-evaluate its presumptions on what defines a Religion, and how adequate our “Liberal Secular Democracy” really is.
Fairness demands we take into account all that everyone believes, not elevating one belief system above others, yet Modern Secularism elevates the Humanist principles above all else, and demands we comply.
Fair words butter no parsnips.
None of the principal education-subjects start from a reliable base of individual-and-collective Needs, Hows, and Affordable-Costs.
Neither Government, Law, Politics, Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology nor Religion attenpts to make an orderly prioritised encyclopaedic list of our individual and collective human Needs.
Nor does Ecology make such a basic encyclopaedic List and Plan for all of our environmental Lifesupports.
They all set out to “study” the subject rather than to “do-the-work”.
Even Biology tries to take the same “spectator” position; but at least GCSE Biology makes th very clear statement “you need a balanced diet to make sure that everything keeps working as it’s supposed to” (page 26 in CGP Comlete Revision and Practices).
GH and Zarove have a loggerhead over which mind-faculty should rule the roost during Legislation-Drafting and subsequent Scrutinising and Decision-making, the one indicating need for consideration of scientifically-proven and demonstrable factual-matters such as the Laws of Thermodynamics, whilst the other would have dogma-habituated and un-demonstrable imagination-matters such as the Wisdoms of the Bible.
That is why repeated “slippery-slopes” keep arising between our thinking-together and our action-together; and we have left it too late to resot to friendly early-stage participatorily-cooperative problem-solving, and are sliding into stand-off conflict, but Conflict can still bve win-win-win resolved despite its vanished friendliness-factor.
Each “Method III” should be in the Preparatory stage of each of the major subjects above:
First and foremost as Resort # 1, be both willing and able to participatorily-cooperate in Friendly Method III Needs, Hows, and Affordable-Costs Recognition and Delinieation and Win-Win-Win Problem-Solving therein; and
Secondly and equally importantly as Resort # 2, be willing and able to join in doing a Win-Win-Win Conflict-Resolution meeting.
Without those two participatorily-cooperative abilities every one of those Major-Subjects – Government, Law, Politics, Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, Religion, Ecology, Biology, and others such as Business, Human Fitness, Geography, Drama, Public-Relations, Hospitality, Family-Budgeting) – will continue one-eyed and warmongeringly-wasteful not only of human-lives but of all of Earth’s lifesupports “collaterally”.
To establish as first-resort problem-solving the Win-Win-Win Method III would be our Mission,
should we choose to accept it;
but if we don’t accept Method III it tends to self-destruct, and in its place comes the litigational slippery-slope with all its wastage of human, lifesupportive, and fiscal energies; and I for one do not regard that as being a “good fight” nor even as “fighting fair”.
============
Thus my meaning should be clear here: Method III Win-Win-Win is not just a pre-essential, from Governance right down to Family-Budgeting, it is THE pre-essential.
Thereby we shall be assured of truly sustainworthy Jobs not only for the Summer, but for all forthcoming Autumns, Winters and Springs as well.
================
I beg to let my case rest, for the current while.
—————
(JSDM0757M09Aug2010).
JSDM, You completely misunderstand the topic if you think I want Imagination and undemonstrateable claims of Wisdom form the Bible rather than Science. I know that in our day Religion and Science are seen at odds with each other, but the Truth is, they aren’t. We just have this daft notion that Religion is this wholly separate thing, that some people don’t have, and others do, that’s based on “Faith” which we define as belief without Evidence. Somehow I as a Religious person don’t believe in Science, and want Dogma, which is also seen as bad and authoritarian.
The Truth is, though, that I’d want Science involved too. I do not think Truth contradicts Truth, and have no actual issue with introduction of Science into any discussion. In fact, Science often backs the claims of the Bible, especially in Psychology. I should know, I am pursuing my doctorate in Psychology and my specialty is using peoples Religious beliefs to help them overcome mental distresses, as new studies show that these beliefs and practices help the patient in categorising and prioritising, as well as conceptualising the problems and solutions in life.
When I mention the Bible, and the Wisdom in it, I don’t think of it as unproven and unproveable at all, and find it offensive that its reduce to pure Imagination and “Dogma”.
Even if God doesn’t exist, the people who wrote the Bible over several Centuries weren’t just making this stuff up as they went along, nor were they just out to dominate others by setting arbitrary Rules. Rather, they were observing the real world and interpreting it, and a good deal of what they wrote would reflect the Human Condition and Human Nature, and with Centuries of observation, it can’t all be totally wrong can it?
In the case of Paul he had to deal with very real problems in the Churches he wrote to in his Epistles, had his advise been a total failure at resolving the conflicts that he faced, then its doubtful he would have won any respect within the early Christian Community and his writings would not have been incorporated into the Scriptures. Its fairly obvious that his advice resonated with the people whom he wrote to and they found it reasonable and plausible. They weren’t all wild eyed Religious people who couldn’t think for themselves and who just blindly followed Paul like a Modern Day Cult leader, and we should try to understand these matters as more than the reduced version we see them as.
We should also dump the whole “One prefers Science and the other Religion” nonsense.
I am a Rationalist, much like Baroness Murphey claims to be. I simply am not an Atheist or Agnostic. The Original Rationalists were always Christian except a handful of Jews. I follow a very old form of Christianity, which allows for Wisdom to come from other sources.
I simply don’t want this source, or any reference to God at all, excised from these discussions to match some idiot notion of Secular Democracy, which I don’t believe serve the interests of a Free Society. If we are all forced into Secularism, and as Secularism has become a Synonym for Humanism, then we aren’t really Free if we are all forced to agree with its tenets.
That said, we are discussing Divorce Laws, so the Laws of Thermodynamics make no sense to reference. They don’t really relate to the topic. Meanwhile, my specific Biblical Citations did. That was the point in using them.
If we were discussing Divorce and I referenced something from Paul that dealt in the Divinity of Christ, it would be just as useless to this topic because it would have no direct relationship to Britain’s Divorce Laws. Much of the bile would be utterly useless in discussing Divorce Laws and a Fair Society in this topic, which is not to say the Bible itself is Useless in those parts, but in this Topic. Much like a Cookbooks sections on Cakes is useless when your trying to make a Casserole. The Cake section is useful, but for making Cakes, not Casserole, the Casserole Section is needed for Casserole.
it should also be noted that I didn’t think of myself at a loggerhead with Gareth, I simply continued a thought on why I used what I used. I did not think of his post as particularly threatening to mine, I simply carried on with the point I had made about the effectiveness. The comments were also fresh off someone else advocating we close Faith Schools and claiming they damaged Social cohesions. We all knew the real reason was so student’s would only learn the “Proper” way to think, that is, the Secular Humanist way.
I simply want to be what I am and believe as I do, and have a the only Boundaries rational and reasonably demonstratively use and validity of such. I also don’t want rational and reasonable defined as “That which agrees with the atheistic stance of a Humanist and Materialist’ as those are undemonstratable beliefs too.
The BBC ‘Brains Trust’ thinkers and experts were often stopped dead in their tracks by Dr Joad whose key advice was “It all depends what you mean by … (‘secularism’, ‘dogma’, ‘free’).
So often in these blogs we find ourselves entangled between a jumbled-up-bunch of different mind-function and verbal jigsaw-puzzles, each with many pieces missing
in the first place.
Without initial agreement on the composition of The Topic, the terms therein, and in general which Map in the Atlas, or psalm in the Old Testament, we are reading-off, and without agreed guidelines, dictionaries, definitions, and a key-bibliography, we remain like the blind-men gathered around an elephant without having been told even that it is an elephant, or if it is a grey or a white one, in the first place.
We each use standard reference books, no doubt; and for this topic I turn first to Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy” where he distinguishes between Science as demonstrable fact, Dogma as non-demonstrable belief, and between those two extremes. philosophy as an essential thinking-skills discipline and historical-record.
I then turn to Brenda Wilson’s “Education & Belief” (1987) for a really thoroughgoing ‘map’ and work-out on Education, Religious Education, and what best helps children in the Classroom.
There are\many other sources, and we need to be clear about them at every outset; for instance when Karl Marx is quoted as saying “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” I quickly point out that’s putting the ‘cart-before-the-horse’, because before a man can walk to his appointed workplace and do a day’s productive work, he needs a good breakfast in his stomach, clothing on his back, and a sound pair of shoes on his feet.
So regardless of which great-person originated the idea, the necessary sequence or prioritisation has to be “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability”.
——–
One of my “intuitions” is that neither Science, Religion nor Philosophy is tackling the many entangled impossibly confused starting-places for the matters of governance and positive-citizenship that concern us through sites such as this Lords of the Blog.
For instance, calling participatorily-cooperative problem-solving in the first place “win-win-win” was itself an oxymoronicly “competitive” spanner-in-the-works; just as are “ethnic cleansing”, “friendly-fire”, and “have to let you go” when the real-events are respectively “ethnic persecution”, “accidental own-troops fire”, and “sacking you”.
These may seem to be ‘trivia’, but when they are gathered together into a serious document they become not just ‘offensive’ but downright clear-thinking-inhibitive and peace-destructive.
===========
(Enough, for one night.
JSDM0321F13Aug10).
Bertrand Russell is one of those figures I always wonder at, due to the fact that he was not a very good thinker, except in Mathematics, and yet his Social and Moral Views are quoted often and with Authority, even though he lived by them himself and his own life was an emotional and moral Disaster, with Broken Relationships and endless depression, fear of madness, and a cold, stark take in life that lent to an incredible arrogance. Bare in mind what I said above abo8t his multiple marriages and poor relationship with his Children, and consider that he may not be the best guide to life.
Russell’s saying was of course like those other Axioms, a phrase that’s repeated often enough o be seen as True, and accepted as unquestionable, even self evident Truth without anyone really taking the time to think about it, much less properly Challenge it.
Russell was wrong on both what Science is, and what Dogma is. Science is actually a method of Inquiry used to help us to systematically explore our world. It is not an end unto itself and not a repository for assured, absolute knowledge. Nor are the Theories we create with it actually Science themselves. If this were so, then nothing we teach as Science would ever be proven wrong. Once upon a time Science knew that all things must be Transmitted by a Medium, such as Air. Sound, and the energy behind a wave, all travelled via an obvious Physical Media. Light, being a Particle, had to also Traverse from the Sun to the Earth via some Medium. Thus, the ether was postulated. Science taught the existence of the Ether as an absolute, even unquestioned Fact for a very long time until in the late 19th Century people trying to find it discovered that it didn’t exist.
Speaking of light, Prior to Relativity and the Mass Energy Equation by Einstein we knew, as a Demonstratable Fact, that all things move at a constant rate in Time. This was a Demonstratable Fact, unquestioned by the vast Majority, and to question it was simply wrongheaded and foolish. Time, we all knew, was fixed in its course and fixed in its speed. All things in the Universe aged at the same Rate.
This was wrong too.
So was the idea that Light moved at different rates of speed. The prevailing assumption had been that Light would move faster if on a cart moving toward you than from a man standing with a lantern stationary. But Light Speed is constant, and what Changes is Time.
So, were those former beliefs Science? Or Dogma? If you had lived prior to Einstein, the idea that Light changes speed along with the Carrier, and that Time moved at a fixed rate for all would certainly be in your textbooks as a Proven, Demonstrable Fact. it’s the Proven, Demonstrable Fact that T.H. Huxley Learned. In fact, it’s the Proven, Demonstrable Fact Bertrand Russell himself lily learned as a boy in school. But, it was wrong.
What if things we know, things we see as Demonstratable Fact, are in fact not True at all? Take Evolutionary Theory, and Creationism. Creationism was just as Recently called Idiocy on these Blogs, but what if Creationism is True? What if our assumptions about Evolution were actually a Misunderstanding of the Data? What if Evolution really doesn’t occur? Or, what if Rael is right and Aliens really Bioengineered us? Would Evolution then be Science, or Dogma? We have no evidence that its wrong just yet, and it is currently believed by the Majority of Biologists. (Not all, but the Majority.) It is Taught in our Science Classes as irrefutable, Irrevocable Fact. It is unquestioned. People build their entire lives around it as an idea, and understand the world Via it as a Lense. But what if its wrong? Is it then Dogma?
Incidentally Dogma is not Non-Demonstratable belief, Russell was simply exposing once again his own Anti-Religious biases, and as the word Dogma is tied to the word Religion in his mind, He had to provide it with his definition to make it look weaker.
According to the American an Heritage Dictionary online, Dogma is defined as follows.
NOUN:
pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t) KEY
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).
Nothing in any of the Three Above Definitions support what Russell said about Dogma being undemonstratable belief. Russell, rather, knew that it was a Corpus of Doctrines held by a Church and wants his reader to share his Bias that nothing a Church teaches is Demonstratable, it must believed without evidence.
But this isn’t True Either.
The problem with Russel is the Problem with the whole modern Debate. Religion is so narrowly defined that its basically a Synonym for Theism. Atheists aren’t Religious because they do not believe in God and its absurd to claim they are Religious. Meanwhile, they clam that no one has ever killed in the name of Atheism, and exclue people killign in the name of Communism because to them its nit “Pure Atheism”, which is a Lack of belief in a god. Yet has anyone ever killed over Oure Theism? Not really. It doesn’t make sense ot say Wars have been fought and people killed over Religion if you limit Religion to mere belief in God. The Crusades were Fought to keep Europe a Christian Stronghold and precent the Muslims from conquering it, and to defendPilgrims to the Holy Land, not because the Crusaders believed in God and that Alone. The Inquisition was held mainly to root out Heresy not to root ot Atheism. In neither case often used is Theism directly involved.
At leats no more complicity than Atheism to Communism, after all, Marxist style Communism is Inherantly rooted in Humanist Philosophy and Dialetic Materialsim, and is Inherantky Atheistic. To b a Marxist is to be an Atheist. it’s the basic assumption at the core of Communism. Why then is Atheism so lilly white? Why does it deny the Bloodstains commited in its Cause?
Then again, if Atheism is really just a Lack of belief in a god, why do they claim Ateists are Rationalists who want only to have evidence for all they believe? Lackign belief in God doesn’t automatically make one Rational does it? Does a Lack of belief in God make you love Science? Does a lack o belief in God make you logical? I should thin a Lack of belief would simply mean you do not beelive X exists, not that you love Y and Z, or use them.
The reality is that most of Modern Dialouge is built from Rhetoric. What we call Atheism today is not a Lack of belief in a god, it is a complexe Philosophical view on the world that has a clear and obvious Evolutionary path all on its own, that Started in the Enlightenment. It is a set of Philosophical beliefs about the Nature, Cause, and Origin of our Universe, and our own existence, and the Meaning of Life. It is a Framework used to understand the world around us, and to interpret the Data that comes to us.
In this way, one can say that it is a Mental Model or basic programming that enables us to think about our world and understand it. It also acts as the basis of our Moral and Ethical Decisions.
It is not limited to merely addressing Theism but to explaining our world and offering us a mean of Understanding it and ourselves and our Relationship to outer world and others.
In that way, it fulfils the same Role as other intellectual Models, such as Christianity or Hinduism. The fact that some are called “Religion” while this Framework is instead insisted upon as being Neutral and Freethought is simply Rhetoric. It is a Religion, and one that is particularly spiteful as it doesn’t allow Dissent form it, and intolerant in hwio it demands we follow it exclusively whilst mocking others.
But it isn’t Politically Correct to Challenge it or the assumptions it demands we debate on.
It is from this Framework our Present society operates. Thus, those who adhere to it get to set the parameters for any discussion or debate. Religion is something other than their own beleifs. Faith is belief without evidence and thus Irrational. They therefore get to Demand we comply.
And lets not forget how Favourably we react to certain worlds, trained as we are like Pavlov’s Dogs.
Democracy.
Freedom.
Equality.
Tolerance.
Diversity.
Fairness.
Those words are used often and unlike Religion are given a positive connotation so we react Favourably to them. Bu then they become meaningless because they are applied to whatever we want done.
In the Kenya Thread I told that I didn’t think very Highly of this Democracy. It is a Democracy that was basically Bought and paid for by the United States. The Conclusion was arranged ahead of time by forces outside of Kenya to push through someone else’s Agenda. The Global Community supported the Change in law to back its own prejudices and biases which are in turn never really examined. Yet, the Vote made it a Democratic Practice.
Just use the magic word and all becomes well.
Just as Faith Schools somehow Damage Social Cohesion so have to be closed and shouldn’t be tolerated. They Indoctrinate Children there you see. They exist to Proselytise. Those are big scary words so we use them to describe what we want shut down.
In this Thread we’re on abut Divorce. I have already noted that the original Divorce Laws wee rooted in Compassion, and now no longer serve than end due o a change in Circumstances.
No one oppose reform to the Divorce Law it seems, at least not here, but what if some Feminist decided to? They’d simply should “Sexism” or some such, and demand “Equality”, which will really mean she wants to pitch a fit and get her way, and yet wants to sound more reasonable than she really is.
Its an old gimmick in Advertising too. You take a word, give it negative connotations, then apply it to what you want people to avoid. Then you take another word, and give it a positive connotation, and apply it to what you want people to embrace.
We have given religion a Negative Connotation, and given Science a positive one. No one asks what these words really mean.
We also live in a world of unquestioned assumptions. Everyone knows such and such is True yet no one checks to see if what they know is true, and reply on Catch Phrases and conventional wisdom to see hem through. This is why you think Religion is just Dogma and Imagination based, undemonstratable Claims. Or why you think of Faith as belief without Evidence. Or why you think men like Bertrand Russell Knew what they were on about. Or why Americans just take for Granted that whatever Thomas Jefferson said was True.
But I think that, along with the Divorce Laws, and I did not mean to take this thread over for this Soapbox, with Apologies, we need to have a nice long look at a lot of the assumptions we as a culture have come to believe unquestioningly. Then True Compassion can be restored, at least till next time it becomes formalised into Rhetoric again.
All that said, and to get back to Divorce, it is interesting to note how we as a Species tend to fall into habits. This is good as traditions define us as a People and give us the ability to build a Culture around expected Norms but has a bad side in that we sometimes unthinkingly adhere to the Rules we set without examining Changing Circumstances or the original intention of the rules int he First Place.
Some want rid of Tradition but will in the end just set up new Traditions they wont let anyone change. Others will cling to Tradition beyond Reason. I think we Should Cling to Tradition, unless we have a reason to change it. But I also think that we can cling best to Tradition only when we cling to the Values and Ideals they are built on, not the Outward form, and to keep those outer forms of ceremony, but not necessarily all Laws binding on us. We must be flexable.