The Root of All Evil - Channel 4 last night

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by flowers, Jan 17, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Morning!! (not sure if this should be in here or in the Film/lit forum - feel free to move it if needed ;-))

    Anyway - did anyone else catch the programme that was on last night on Channel 4 call the Root of All Evil?
    The programme (and this thread) was not aimed at starting a mass arguement over who's God is better than who, or if any one religion is right etc. But it looked at the effect of religion as a whole, regardless of the particular faith, on how it effects us as a community.

    The website hosted for this programme on Channel 4 is here one of the interesting parts of this site is the bit covered under the debate and controversies section looking at conflict here

    So did anyone else catch it? And do you think the programme made a fair point?
  2. Dawkins is right.
    All those religious types came across as total freaks.
  3. In a perfect world, all religion would be banned. As stated on the C4 programme, the Holy Land of all places is the least enlightened place on the planet. Says something, doesn't it..............
  4. If you banned all religions you would end up with people taking a religous zeal in enforcing said ban. I personally believe that there are many Fundamentalist Atheiests out there biding their time...

    In short it would solve nothing, its human nature for there to exist complete morons that will disagree with everyone else no mater how stupid they look/ are acting.

    Take the Nazi's for example their cause was political not religous yet they followed their cause with the same zeal as the current buch of loons in the middle east.

    Anyway the Soviets tried to ban religion didn't really work out for them.
  5. I disagree. In a perfect world all religion would have died out by itself through being redundant.
  6. Dawkins is very clever but he allways makes me want to run up shout "oi what star sign are you " and then runaway before he starts his rant :) that probably my childislh side coming out .He managed to find some scary freaks .
  7. I would equate religion to being a football fan. They both endow a sense of collective identity and community. They have their own songs and their own places of worship.Each group/religion/team's supporters have a mistrust of others with differing beliefs and opinions. They all think that theirs is the true faith and everyone else is wrong, either mistaken or a heretic. It is not just religion that affects us a community; we are both united and divided by race, colour andculture and even what footall team we support. Look at the north/south divide. Northerners hate Southerners and everyone hates Yorkshiremen.
  8. Thought at times Dawkins concentrated too much on easy point scoring although the religious types are easy targets for this type of thing, also he seems to paint a scientific world as some type of Utopia. He is a clever bloke though but does what all scientists do - ignore human nature - and as Pike said humans want to be part of a group. If a large proportion of the world want to be in some kind of religious grouping then so what?
  9. Tw@t :evil: :wink:
  10. The priests they Stood on Both sides
    The priest they Stood behind
    Another fight in Jesus`s name
    The Blind against the Blind

    Harvey Andrews - The Soldier

    So it has always been - and probably will be
  11. Pike I like you idea of equating it to being a Football fan, and I agree that if religion was banned then either it would be enforced with such zeal that sub groups would probably spring up in the underground such a Believers and Non-Believers.

    But it did make me question some of the followers of faiths, I mean how can you say you're a Christian yet not believe in the immaculate conception or that homosexuality is willing to be overlooked even though the Bible, which is their holy book, states it is unacceptable. Imagine some old lady turning up to church on Sunday to be greeted by 'Julian - the gay vicar' and to be told that maybe the immaculate conception didn't happen, therefore questioning the whole rite of the Son of God, but that it was wholly possible that the chap did awaken from the dead and walk on water etc etc. Would faith followers readily accept this as the 'new gospel' or would they question such a thing? What should you/I/they believe?

    As only the other day was there the article claiming that Muslims had be duped by a misinterpretation, and that it wasn't 72 virgins but 72 raisins!! 8O I mean if that is the case, how disappointed must you be if you'd just sacrificed yourself to be handed a handful of sun-ripened (probably California as well) raisins.....
    I think the point I am inarticulately trying to make is that how much can you trust someone in a position of such dedicated trust as that? Or is it completely down to the individual, at being selectively 'faithed-up'?
  12. Dawkins struck me as being as dogmatic as all the freaks Channel 4 had found for him to talk to. The religious types were so extreme that you could easily make a programme saying science was the root of all evil by using Doctor Mengler and UNA bomber as examples. Channel 4 wouldn't let this programme be anything other than one sided. It does seem that every religious type shown on TV is negative.
  13. You also have problems as to what is a religion. Take the Church of Scientology , the dianetics movement set up by sci-fi writer L.Ron Hubbard. In Spam land and Oz they are legally recognised as a religion and are free to take advantage of tax relief etc, ut hankfully ere they aren't legally recognised- except as the bunch of rainwashed freakos they are. The same goes for the Moonies and Hare Krishna- are these truly religions and how do we truly define a religion. I think a religion/philosophy/belief only ecomes dangerous to society when it follows a political agenda or becomes influenced by the doctrines of extremists. Most religions, the so-called real religions have survived 1000's of years but have been diluted and reinterpreted by countless generations and translations. However, people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, even little green men from Mars so long as it isn't harmful to the rest of society as a whole.
  14. I feel weird even typing this, because it's against the grain of all my rational sense. But I actually know a handful of people that are active in Scientology. One is a whole family of Scientologists, a regular nuclear one (mom, dad, two young adults) which is unusual by itself in my town.

    Anyway, I know about the lawsuits and the weirdness and suspicion attached to Scientology, and I'm as skeptical as the rest. But these people? I have to say: they're really happy. They don't really discuss it. I don't know how much it costs them. But they're calm and successful and productive in their respective industries...they're great to be around, take all the jokes with equanimity, and whatever secret rituals they're performing at the L. Ron Hubbard Center really, really seem to help them. I know it sounds batsh!t-crazy, and I'm not about to go hang out with John Travolta, but whatever they're doing is working for them.

    Which would be the point, right? Their way isn't my way isn't your way, but they're happy so I try to reserve judgment. Now if some powerful zealot decided that the aliens really ARE coming, and that all who would not bow to Hubbard will die, that's when it becomes a problem for me. (See Cruise, Tom and freak, fcuking). I think Harper Lee wrote that a Bible in the hand of some men is as dangerous as liquor in another, and that clearly applies to any "sacred" text in the hand of a fanatic.
  15. Interesting.

    There is no problem with religion. The problem is with the people. With or without religion, people would find the most imaginative ways to be cnuting tw@ts.