andymackem wrote:Thanks for that. I'll try to avoid asking questions with literal answers.
OK, sorry, but I don't really know what you want me to say.
andymackem wrote: What practical difference does it make to the education they provide. Last time I checked, an act of worship was required by law in British schools. If your school is majority Sikh (eg the Heathlands School in Hounslow), should that act of worship be Christian?
Given the national curriculum is still binding on any
school in the country, not a lot I suppose. Hmmm. Yeah, I concede that one, so I'll skip the rest about schools.
andymackem wrote:Is the incitement to religious hatred any different, morally, from the incitement to racial hatred laws which already exist? In some communities religion is a more relevant point of identity than race, no?
Well, the definition of what "religious hatred" is under this law is vague; there's a very real risk that valid criticism of religion could be threatened, with serious consequences for freedom of speech. Some people also seem to think that it's a new form of blasphemy law, providing blanket protection for all religions.
andymackem wrote:Controls on genetics, as I understand it, are not entirely confined to religious beliefs. In the case of IVF I'm unconvinced that in the face of global over-population allowing rich people to create their own children is a great idea. While I sympathise with childless couples, surely adoption is a more sensible alternative than creating extra people?
Hmm. Yes. I'll concede that too.
andymackem wrote:As for other genetic issues, I'd refer you to Huxley rather than waffle on indefinitely. Unfettered genetic engineering, especially led by sci-tech corporations, is unlikely to benefit the greater good in the way we might hope. Legislative regulation is the only (rather scant) defence we have against this. In principle, and without any reference to what's 'natural' or who's 'playing God', I'd support this.
Conceded. Bollocks that's my arguments (mostly) down the pan. Nice one!
I'm not sufficiently expert on the details to defend myself from your next devoted defence of the scientific community, but I'll look forward to it anyway
Odd that. I'm not a scientist. The closest I could come is a claim (perhaps) to be a "failed scientist" in that I dropped out of a chemistry degree course before I did my Visual Communications BA (poncy name for graphic design).
I've conceded all the points apart from the "religious hatred" law, so no "devoted defence" this time.