The Hazards of Belief

Hotblack Desiato

oscarBravo wrote: »

A UK court forces a father and his children to go to mass as part of a divorce settlement, even though it wasn't requested by the mother:

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2015/01/18/my-colleague-is-forced-to-go-to-mass-by-the-uk-courts/

This sort of craziness is where power without accountability inevitably leads. It sure isn't justice.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This sort of craziness is where power without accountability inevitably leads. It sure isn't justice.

I can't find any reference to the case... Until I do, I am treating this with a degree of scepticism. It should be noted, I only spent about 30 minutes looking, but I did check all the 'name v name' cases in the Court of Appeal for December. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I would like to read the judgement before believing an unreferenced rant on a blog.

MrP

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

I can't find any reference to the case... Until I do, I am treating this with a degree of scepticism. It should be noted, I only spent about 30 minutes looking, but I did check all the 'name v name' cases in the Court of Appeal for December. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I would like to read the judgement before believing an unreferenced rant on a blog.

MrP

Found the story being reported on Telegraph site also

oscarBravo

Reporting restrictions will make it hard to verify the story, but the Telegraph does claim to have seen the court transcripts.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

[...] hard to verify the story [...]

FWIW, the Telegraph claims that the judgement is restrictive and applies to one day per year (and the judge suggested the mother have the child for christmas, and the father had the child for new year):

Alleged judgement wrote:

If the children are with their father at Christmas he will undertake that they will attend the Christmas mass.

While the original skepticink article was unbounded:

Skepticink wrote:

he Roman Catholic judge introduced the requirement for Steve to attend Roman Catholic mass if Steve has the children when there is a mass, including at Christmas

I'm not saying that the Telegraph's slant is true, or skepticink's isn't, but the two stories are not consistent and -- shock!! -- I'd be surprised if the Telegraph simply invented the text of a court judgement.

robindch

And on the topic of slanted headlines, here's Maria Konnikova of the New Yorker on some interesting research on how headlines can influence the way in which news and opinion pieces are interpreted and recalled:

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/headlines-change-way-think

oscarBravo

Requiring someone to attend a religious service once a year is once a year too often.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Requiring someone to attend a religious service once a year is once a year too often.

I'm not agreeing with it, just suggesting that if the Telegraph's court transcript quote is accurate, then the original article appears to be inaccurate, IMHO, to the point of dishonesty.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Requiring someone to attend a religious service once a year is once a year too often.

Its only on the off-chance that he happens to have the kids on Christmas day, which is probably unlikely anyway as they seem to spend most of the time with the mother. The kids have been "declared" to be RC (presumably either by themselves or by the parents) and I don't think this is a particularly onerous task for Steve.
IMO the statement attributed to Steve by the Guardian is an unfounded and mischievous statement, and shows him up as a twat;

..Because my contact arrangements now give me the children on some weekends, I am concerned that I will now also be required to take them to mass on Sundays when they are with me, even though that is not part of the original order..

RikuoAmero

recedite wrote: »

Its only on the off-chance that he happens to have the kids on Christmas day, which is probably unlikely anyway as they seem to spend most of the time with the mother. The kids have been "declared" to be RC (presumably either by themselves or by the parents) and I don't think this is a particularly onerous task for Steve.
IMO the statement attributed to Steve by the Guardian is an unfounded and mischievous statement, and shows him up as a twat;

If the article is true, then it doesn't matter how onerous or non-onerous a task it is. Steve has declared himself a non-RC, the kids apparently don't want to go, and the mother apparently never asked for or required it. It seems that this is all on the judge, who has unilaterally declared that these children must go to the church he specifies, the religious affiliation of the father or kids be damned. What if the father and/or the kids join a non-RC religion? Will the judge still demand they go to an RC church?

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

Its only on the off-chance that he happens to have the kids on Christmas day, which is probably unlikely anyway as they seem to spend most of the time with the mother. The kids have been "declared" to be RC (presumably either by themselves or by the parents) and I don't think this is a particularly onerous task for Steve.
IMO the statement attributed to Steve by the Guardian is an unfounded and mischievous statement, and shows him up as a twat;

No the judge has shown himself to be a twat.

recedite

RikuoAmero wrote: »

..the religious affiliation of the father or kids be damned...

Religious affiliation of the kids is key here. The whole point of an order like this is to specify what should happen if the interests of the father conflict with the interests of the kids.
The system has been informed that the kids are RC, and seeks to safeguard their right to practice their religion while in the temporary custody of the father.
If the situation was reversed, and the father was a religious fanatic, but the kids spent most of their time being brought up in an atheist environment with the mother, would you be so quick to condemn an order that specified not taking them to mass?
Ideally they would be allowed to decide themselves, but in the nature of parenting, discussion often boils down to whichever parent is present saying "do as you are told".

We don't know what the mother thinks of it, but if she disapproved presumably she could have signed something asking for the condition to be removed. Also he appealed twice, and lost both times.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

Religious affiliation of the kids is key here. The whole point of an order like this is to specify what should happen if the interests of the father conflict with the interests of the kids.
The system has been informed that the kids are RC, and seeks to safeguard their right to practice their religion while in the temporary custody of the father.
If the situation was reversed, and the father was a religious fanatic, but the kids spent most of their time being brought up in an atheist environment with the mother, would you be so quick to condemn an order that specified not taking them to mass?
Ideally they would be allowed to decide themselves, but in the nature of parenting, discussion often boils down to whichever parent is present saying "do as you are told".

We don't know what the mother thinks of it, but if she disapproved presumably she could have signed something asking for the condition to be removed. Also he appealed twice, and lost both times.

So even if we give you that, why should the father have to accompany them into the church? To protect them from the priest perhaps?

recedite

obplayer wrote: »

So even if we give you that, why should the father have to accompany them into the church?

I don't think that is in the actual court order, its just a part of his rant.

RikuoAmero

recedite wrote: »

Religious affiliation of the kids is key here. The whole point of an order like this is to specify what should happen if the interests of the father conflict with the interests of the kids.
The system has been informed that the kids are RC, and seeks to safeguard their right to practice their religion while in the temporary custody of the father.
If the situation was reversed, and the father was a religious fanatic, but the kids spent most of their time being brought up in an atheist environment with the mother, would you be so quick to condemn an order that specified not taking them to mass?
Ideally they would be allowed to decide themselves, but in the nature of parenting, discussion often boils down to whichever parent is present saying "do as you are told".

We don't know what the mother thinks of it, but if she disapproved presumably she could have signed something asking for the condition to be removed. Also he appealed twice, and lost both times.

What the judge should have done (this is of course assuming the article is true) is ask the kids whether they want to go to church, and if so, which denomination.
Forcing them or banning them from church is in my opinion completely outside a judge's authority, since this isn't say an ASBO situation (I could understand banning someone from a church if they've vandalised it or something like that). The judge is acting as an arm of the state and while of course Britain doesn't have separation of church and state codified into law, this is still an agent of the state endorsing one religion above others.

obplayer

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What the judge should have done (this is of course assuming the article is true) is ask the kids whether they want to go to church, and if so, which denomination.
Forcing them or banning them from church is in my opinion completely outside a judge's authority, since this isn't say an ASBO situation (I could understand banning someone from a church if they've vandalised it or something like that). The judge is acting as an arm of the state and while of course Britain doesn't have separation of church and state codified into law, this is still an agent of the state endorsing one religion above others.

Or indeed above no religion. The mother did not ask for this stipulation, the judge should keep his belief in faeries for his non-court life.

recedite

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What the judge should have done (this is of course assuming the article is true) is ask the kids whether they want to go to church, and if so, which denomination.

I agree with that, or preferably getting a social worker to ask them while in a relaxed neutral environment.
It would be also be interesting to know whether they attend a RC school and if the parents used baptismal certs to get them in (those private schools are often the most sought after in England) If they attended a CoE or a borough council school there would be less reason for the system to recognise the kids as practicing Roman Catholics, even if the mother said they were nominally.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

I agree with that, or preferably getting a social worker to ask them while in a relaxed neutral environment.
It would be also be interesting to know whether they attend a RC school and if the parents used baptismal certs to get them in (those private schools are often the most sought after in England) If they attended a CoE or a borough council school there would be less reason for the system to recognise the kids as practicing Roman Catholics, even if the mother said they were nominally.

You are missing the point wonderfully. Given that neither parent brought religion into this and that there seems to be no question of the children becoming wards of the state, why should religion enter the discussion at all? In any way? Why not leave it to the parents instead of the judge enforcing his personal beliefs which are completely unrelated to the case?

recedite

obplayer wrote: »

..Given that neither parent brought religion into this..

I wasn't at the hearings during the custody battle, so I don't know whether that is true or not.
The father states that the mother did not request the specific condition that the kids be brought to mass on Christmas day if staying over with him at that time.
Not the same thing as "neither parent brought religion into it" at all.
The Judge might have asked her "what do they usually do religion wise" or some such generalised question.
Or maybe not. Maybe the Judge is also a twat, and the mother too. There is insufficient information given, and it is a bit one sided.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

I wasn't at the hearings during the custody battle, so I don't know whether that is true or not.
The father states that the mother did not request the specific condition that the kids be brought to mass on Christmas day if staying over with him at that time.
Not the same thing as "neither parent brought religion into it" at all.
The Judge might have asked her "what do they usually do religion wise" or some such generalised question.
Or maybe not. Maybe the Judge is also a twat, and the mother too. There is insufficient information given, and it is a bit one sided.

The Telegraph states that it has seen court transcripts. While I have many reservations about some of the Telegraph's social views I find it difficult to believe they would lie about that or not mention that the transcripts refute the father's statements. You appear to have found another hole to dig yourself into.

recedite

Doesn't seem like a hole from where I am :pac:
Am I incorrect in this observation...

recedite wrote: »

The father states that the mother did not request the specific condition that the kids be brought to mass on Christmas day if staying over with him at that time.
Not the same thing as "neither parent brought religion into it" at all.

Or did you just jump to conclusions?
Is it likely that everything in a court order is only there because it was specifically requested by one or other of the parties? What about compromise?

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

Doesn't seem like a hole from where I am :pac:
Am I incorrect in this observation...

Or did you just jump to conclusions?
Is it likely that everything in a court order is only there because it was specifically requested by one or other of the parties? What about compromise?

Compromise between the parents? If they wanted a compromise over religion they would have asked. What compromise was necessary? between a judge's personal beliefs and...... what? Why did the judge have to impose his personal beliefs on religion on a case where no on had brought up religion? To be blunt, what are you talking about?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

The Telegraph states that it has seen court transcripts. While I have many reservations about some of the Telegraph's social views I find it difficult to believe they would lie about that or not mention that the transcripts refute the father's statements. You appear to have found another hole to dig yourself into.

Mmm... their quote from Steve is "This aspect of the contact order was not requested by the other side in the case." That's a different thing from "neither parent brought religion into this"; the mother could have easily told the court that the children were being brought up in the Roman Catholic faith.
Not mentioning it doesn't mean the Telegraph is lying, nor would it being in the transcript refute Steves statement.

They've also been a bit tricksy in phrasing their article. Whilst they say:
"The man, who can only be identified as “Steve” because of reporting restrictions on the case, faces possible contempt of court and a jail sentence if he fails to go to church when he has custody of the children."
their account of the transcript they saw is:
“If the children are with their father at Christmas he will undertake that they will attend the Christmas mass.”
So the transcript as presented doesn't actually require Steve to attend Mass, only to ensure the children do. It might be assumed that he must remain with them whilst they are in his custody, but that hasn't been specified in the transcripts quoted by the Telegraph.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Compromise between the parents? If they wanted a compromise over religion they would have asked.

Whether they wanted to compromise or not, if the Judge was made aware that they were being raised as Roman Catholics (and in fairness, he may not have been, since we haven't seen the full transcripts) then he was obliged to see that their upbringing wasn't being compromised whilst in the fathers custody.

obplayer wrote: »

What compromise was necessary? between a judge's personal beliefs and...... what? Why did the judge have to impose his personal beliefs on religion on a case where no on had brought up religion? To be blunt, what are you talking about?

You're jumping to the conclusions that no one brought up religion, and that the Judge was compromising between his personal beliefs and something, and that the Judge was imposing his personal beliefs. Whilst the style of reporting may have (deliberately) led you to jump to those conclusions, no evidence has been presented to support them.

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Requiring someone to attend a religious service once a year is once a year too often.

Again, though the Telegraph quote (if accurate) contradicts the Scepticink claim about this. The guy doesn't have to attend mass; he has to arrange for the kids to attend mass.

Peregrinus

marienbad wrote: »

No the judge has shown himself to be a twat.

It’s tempting to conclude this and it may be true but, actually, we don’t know it to be true. Neither the Scepticink blog post nor the Telegraph article make any attempt at all to set out the judge’s reasons for making this order, or the appeal court’s reasons for upholding it. It’s fairly obvious that the source for both the Scepticink and Telegraph pieces is the father, and accepting uncritically a partial (in both senses) account of a messy family breakdown from one party only is, um, unsceptical. I can’t avoid the feeling that There’s Something We’re Not Being Told Here.

If there’s a takeaway lesson from this, it’s one that was suggested to me a few years ago by a friend who is a family law practitioner; however bad the relationship between you and your ex, any terms of separation/divorce that you can hammer out between yourselves with or without the benefit of mediators, lawyers and so forth are going to suit you better that what a judge will impose after hearing a couple of hours of mutual slagging off. In particular when it comes to orders regarding custody, upbringing, etc of dependent children, the law doesn’t require the judge to work out what the parents would have agreed if one or both of them could have been persuaded to remove their head from their arse; his job is to do whatever is in the best interests of the children concerned. We can deduce that this judge thought that it was in the best interests of the children that they should go to mass at Christmas. We have no idea why he thought this because (wearing my sceptical hat) it does not serve the husband’s purpose to tell us. It seems that the appeal courts, who did have the benefit of hearing the judge’s reasoning, could not be persuaded that he was wrong. I find that surprising, to be honest, but I’m not about to denounce anybody as a twat without hearing a fuller account of the facts, and the perspective of other interested parties, like the spouse and the kids. If I did, it would be me that was the twat.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s tempting to conclude this and it may be true but, actually, we don’t know it to be true. Neither the Scepticink blog post nor the Telegraph article make any attempt at all to set out the judge’s reasons for making this order, or the appeal court’s reasons for upholding it. It’s fairly obvious that the source for both the Scepticink and Telegraph pieces is the father, and accepting uncritically a partial (in both senses) account of a messy family breakdown from one party only is, um, unsceptical. I can’t avoid the feeling that There’s Something We’re Not Being Told Here.

If there’s a takeaway lesson from this, it’s one that was suggested to me a few years ago by a friend who is a family law practitioner; however bad the relationship between you and your ex, any terms of separation/divorce that you can hammer out between yourselves with or without the benefit of mediators, lawyers and so forth are going to suit you better that what a judge will impose after hearing a couple of hours of mutual slagging off. In particular when it comes to orders regarding custody, upbringing, etc of dependent children, the law doesn’t require the judge to work out what the parents would have agreed if one or both of them could have been persuaded to remove their head from their arse; his job is to do whatever is in the best interests of the children concerned. We can deduce that this judge thought that it was in the best interests of the children that they should go to mass at Christmas. We have no idea why he thought this because (wearing my sceptical hat) it does not serve the husband’s purpose to tell us. It seems that the appeal courts, who did have the benefit of hearing the judge’s reasoning, could not be persuaded that he was wrong. I find that surprising, to be honest, but I’m not about to denounce anybody as a twat without hearing a fuller account of the facts, and the perspective of other interested parties, like the spouse and the kids. If I did, it would be me that was the twat.

I have indeed been told by people involved in marital breakups that the worst thing they ever did was involve the legal profession. Also you have provided a wonderful summing up of the situation. All I will add is that from what I can see, my firm opinion is that the judge is most certainly a twat.:)

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

All I will add is that from what I can see, my firm opinion is that the judge is most certainly a twat.:)

I think you would be wise to qualify that with an explicit acknowledgement that there's a great deal going on that you can't see, and an awareness that the fact that you're not seeing it is almost certainly an attempt to manipulate your opinion. Scepticism, remember!

Hotblack Desiato

Whether at the instigation of the other parent, or not, why on earth would a court get involved in the micro-management of kids' activities to that extent? Custody surely means the ability to make decisions as a parent in the best interests of the kids while they are in your care. Where two parents differ over religion they should both accept that the kids may or may not attend services when in the custody of the other parent, whether they agree with that or not, and just suck it up. The judge is a twat for touching that issue with a bargepole. There is no court on earth which can objectively say that attending (or not attending) a particular religious service is in the best interests of anyone.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whether at the instigation of the other parent, or not, why on earth would a court get involved in the micro-management of kids' activities to that extent? Custody surely means the ability to make decisions as a parent in the best interests of the kids while they are in your care . . .

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Remember, the reason this matter comes before a judge at all is because the parents can't agree on what is in the best interests of the children. And the idea that the ideas of the parent who the kids happen to be with at the moment should "trump" the ideas of the other parent makes no sense at all; it throws kids into a disorienting, destabilising yo-yo of changing rules, practices and expectations which, the child psychologists credibly assure us, is very much not in their interests. It may be unsatisfactory that courts have to, as you rightly put it, "micro-manage kids activities", but all too often they do have to. I'm sorry to say that micro-management of kids activities is meat and drink to the family courts.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no court on earth which can objectively say that attending (or not attending) a particular religious service is in the best interests of anyone.

There are lots of aspects of life where no court on earth can objectively say that doing X or the opposite is in the best interests of anyone, but in family law and child protection practice courts have to make these decisions as best they can all the time.

It seems to me that you could make the argument that religion should be somehow off-limits to a family court and the judge should not be allowed to make best-interests decisions for children on matters involving religion. But that's certainly not the law at present, and such an argument would offer no basis for criticising the judge as a "twat".

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be unsatisfactory that courts have to, as you rightly put it, "micro-manage kids activities", but all too often they do have to. I'm sorry to say that micro-management of kids activities is meat and drink to the family courts.

Yes. We've no idea how much of a dictatorial twat both or one of these parents is being towards the other. That the fella's appeal wasn't upheld and he's been whinging in the papers is a bit of an indication though.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no court on earth which can objectively say that attending (or not attending) a particular religious service is in the best interests of anyone.

But it doesn't have to say it objectively, in fact it would kind of be wrong of it to even try. The courts, in general, try to stay away from the whole area of whether a religion is right it wrong. They will uphold a person's right to believe in something, and to a lessor extent, that person's right to manifest that belief, but they will not, generally, enter any judgement on the rightness or wrongness of it.

So I would suggest that in this particular case, knowing as little as we do, that the judge did not make a objective decision that attending a RCC service, because as you rightly point out, no one can. He will have, or should have, made a subjective decision based on the evidence he had before him, evidence we are not privy to, as to what he believed was in the best interest of those particular children in front of him, at that particular time and based on the particular of that case.

MrP

Peregrinus

Shrap wrote: »

Yes. We've no idea how much of a dictatorial twat both or one of these parents is being towards the other. That the fella's appeal wasn't upheld and he's been whinging in the papers is a bit of an indication though.

Well, possibly. Or it could be the party of the second part who's an absolute psycho, but because of contempt laws the Telegraph (and possibly even Scepticink) can't give details, becuause it would identify the couple or the kids. Or there could be two psychoes in this marriage - it's not unheard of. And the judge could be a twat as well.

The point is, we're not being told anything like enough to even hazard a guess. We're being told enough to try and make us come to conclusions that somebody wants us to come to.

robindch

A new documentary is coming out shortly about the Scientologists. Who are not pleased.

http://www.newser.com/story/201380/scientologists-angry-about-unflattering-documentary.html

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you would be wise to qualify that with an explicit acknowledgement that there's a great deal going on that you can't see, and an awareness that the fact that you're not seeing it is almost certainly an attempt to manipulate your opinion. Scepticism, remember!

No, the fact that he bothers to bring up his religion at all is quite enough for me.

To put it another way, if the judge had informed everyone that he was an Arsenal supporter and ruled that the father would have to take the children to one Arsenal game a year how would you react?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

No, the fact that he bothers to bring up his religion at all is quite enough for me.

Interesting that they chose not to quote that part of the transcript though... leaving it open for people to jump to conclusions about what he might have said and how he might have said it.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Interesting that they chose not to quote that part of the transcript though... leaving it open for people to jump to conclusions about what he might have said and how he might have said it.

Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I love an excuse to get all righteously indignant, particularly when religion is involved, but something stinks in this story.

MrP

robindch

Study Finds that Over 80 percent of Americans Support “Mandatory Labels on Foods Containing DNA”

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

Study Finds that Over 80 percent of Americans Support “Mandatory Labels on Foods Containing DNA”

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

"Americans are really REALLY worried about anything suggested to them that they should worry about shocker"


(Except the sugar in soda)

RikuoAmero

robindch wrote: »

Study Finds that Over 80 percent of Americans Support “Mandatory Labels on Foods Containing DNA”

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

Not surprised. I remember a few years back watching a clip of Penn and Teller getting students to sign their names in protest against dihydrogen monoxide. For those who don't get it, it's

H2O, a.k.a. water

.

Hotblack Desiato

Rikuo, that is just lies!!! DHMO is a CHEMICAL and chemicals are BAD. Don't believe what they are telling you! It's a well known fact that a lot of industrial processes produce large volumes of waste DHMO, this stuff is just pumped into the environment without a care, and we end up drinking it! Even aircraft are pumping the stuff into the upper atmosphere, you can see the trails, this toxin 'rains' down on us causing untold misery! The CIA use it as a torture method!! Many people have been murdered with it, many thousands accidentally killed every year. This stuff is really dangerous.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

No, the fact that he bothers to bring up his religion at all is quite enough for me.

To put it another way, if the judge had informed everyone that he was an Arsenal supporter and ruled that the father would have to take the children to one Arsenal game a year how would you react?

Again, obplayer, you need to sharpen your sceptical instincts. Neither the Telegraph nor the Scepticink piece say that the judge ordered them to attend mass because he was a Catholic. The don't say in what context the judge's reference to his own religion was made, and they don't say what reason he gave for making his order. But the two facts are put in apposition because somebody wants you to think that he made his order becasue he was a Catholic. And you give the impression of being very keen to oblige that person by drawing the conclusion he wants.

marienbad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, obplayer, you need to sharpen your sceptical instincts. Neither the Telegraph nor the Scepticink piece say that the judge ordered them to attend mass because he was a Catholic. The don't say in what context the judge's reference to his own religion was made, and they don't say what reason he gave for making his order. But the two facts are put in apposition because somebody wants you to think that he made his order becasue he was a Catholic. And you give the impression of being very keen to oblige that person by drawing the conclusion he wants.

Aw come on Peregrinus , no matter what the right and rights of it the Judge was wrong to bring his own faith into in and at length as far as I can see.

Peregrinus

marienbad wrote: »

Aw come on Peregrinus , no matter what the right and rights of it the Judge was wrong to bring his own faith into in and at length as far as I can see.

My point is that "as far as you can see" is not very far at all. We have two reports about this, both of which seem to originate from the same not impartial source - the father. One of them give no context at all for the judge's reference to his Catholicism; the other quotes the father as saying that he "mentioned his own Catholicism in an irrelevant anecdote". Maybe he was wrong to mention his Catholicism, maybe he wasn't - I don't know, because for whatever reason I don't think I'm being told enought to make that judgment. And I respectfully suggest that you haven't been told enough either.

And, just to nitpick, there's nothing in either the Telegraph report or the Scepticink piece to suggest that the brought his Catholicism up "at length". Scepticink brings it up repeatedly, but that's not the same thing.

You may think I'm banging on about this but, really, I think people who profess to promote scepticism should be a bit sceptical in the face of a transparent attempt to manipulate their opinions by appealing to their preconceptions. We're told that this case has been twice to the appeal court, where the judge's stated reasons for the order he made will have been scrutinised, and in neither case has the order been overturned. And we're conspicuously not told what reasons the judge gave for his order, or what the appeal court said about those reasons. Those are extraordinary ommissions in a piece inviting us to take a negative view of the judge's order. Do those omissions not raise your sceptical hackles just a tiny little bit?

Brian Shanahan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Rikuo, that is just lies!!! DHMO is a CHEMICAL and chemicals are BAD. Don't believe what they are telling you! It's a well known fact that a lot of industrial processes produce large volumes of waste DHMO, this stuff is just pumped into the environment without a care, and we end up drinking it! Even aircraft are pumping the stuff into the upper atmosphere, you can see the trails, this toxin 'rains' down on us causing untold misery! The CIA use it as a torture method!! Many people have been murdered with it, many thousands accidentally killed every year. This stuff is really dangerous.

Sure, any group calling themselves the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division can't be lying to us. They're scientists for Thor's sake!

RikuoAmero

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Sure, any group calling themselves the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division can't be lying to us. They're scientists for Thor's sake!

Wrong thread dude. This is Hazards of Belief, you should have posted that in the Funny thread.

Brian Shanahan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Wrong thread dude. This is Hazards of Belief, you should have posted that in the Funny thread.

But Dihydrogen Monoxide is a hazard!

Well at least the fact that people, even today, are still gullible enough to fall for the hoax. Shows you just how easy religion spreads.

RikuoAmero

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But Dihydrogen Monoxide is a hazard!

Well at least the fact that people, even today, are still gullible enough to fall for the hoax. Shows you just how easy religion spreads.

Whoops. Turns out I was the one mistaken. I read your comment and I got things mixed up in my head. I thought that I had originally posted that bit about Dihydrogen Monoxide in the funny thread.
Sorry!

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, obplayer, you need to sharpen your sceptical instincts. Neither the Telegraph nor the Scepticink piece say that the judge ordered them to attend mass because he was a Catholic. The don't say in what context the judge's reference to his own religion was made, and they don't say what reason he gave for making his order. But the two facts are put in apposition because somebody wants you to think that he made his order becasue he was a Catholic. And you give the impression of being very keen to oblige that person by drawing the conclusion he wants.

We shall have to agree to differ on this. I believe the information we have is sufficient to make a judgement, if I turn out to be wrong then I shall of course admit my error. (Bet I'm not wrong though!)

Hotblack Desiato

The fact that the complainant is even aware of the religion of the judge is a cause for concern in itself, how would they be unless he himself announced it? and if he announces his religion in open court, especially in a case involving children being obliged to attend services of that religion, it is a significant cause of concern. This judge should have excused himself from this case if he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing it.