“Freedom granted to cultured people leads to great things”.

What nonsense.

Are you suggesting that freedom is to be reserved for cultured people? Your example of the USA would explain the great things that were achieved through slavery. But wait a minute….was that freedom? Of course, I forgot: African-Americans were not cultured and therefore were not entitled to freedom.

Mr Wormwood, I am not impressed.

I decide for myself, guided by the principles of common decency that I hold. Responsibility for the consequences of what may follow an action is one of these principles, and so an editor who proudly proclaims that he publishes “a journal without responsibility” is not one that I would trust with such decisions.

Still less would I defend his presumed right to say whatever he likes, irrespective of consequences. He is a “self appointed busy body” much more than an a democratically elected government.

All your comments on this post merely convince me that you are as dogmatic in your opinions as any church.

Science and knowledge of every kind advance because someone has a doubt or a theory and wants or tries to solve the former or prove the latter.

You would be first to admit that science has not yet solved all mysteries of nature or knows everything but yet continues to search without giving up hope.

It has taken many centuries to arrive at its present state. Has science managed to solve the mystery of life itself or has it managed to reproduce it? Does science have all the answers to the mystery of the universe?

Religion follows the same pattern. Over the centuries, religion and faith have sought to understand better even higher and deeper mysteries. Like science, theology continues to search and has not yet reached a dead end.

I believe strongly in religion but do not claim to know it all. Even at my age I am still on a course of exploration and have not yet solved my doubts. It has taken not only my lifetime but thousands of years for our knowledge of faith to reach its present state.

People are free to continue their journey of faith or to ring the bell, stop the bus and get off. But the bus will go on.

This comparison is defective, I know, for the bus will eventually reach its destination and stop. The bus of faith does not have a final stop in this world. Like Pilate, we ask the question, “What is truth?” and like him we do not wait to hear the answer.

I do not know how anyone could “avoid the sort of place” where a Muslim terrorist actually “harms” anyone in the vicinity by blowing himself/herself up, or by emptying the magazine of a Kalashnikov rifle indiscrmiinately because he has been taught by Imams that it is his duty to “go for the neck” of unbelievers.

Table manners etc are an irrelevance.
.

People with a strong faith do not just follow blindly. At least, I don’t. I read and study but eventually I have to rely on experts in the subject.

I don’t know much about medicine, for instance. So when I don’t feel well I have to see a doctor. That means I have to have faith in what he tells me to do or take.

Even if I board a bus, I don’t go to the driver and ask to see his licence or whether he knows the route or is drunk. He is the expert.

[Daphne – Well, I’m afraid these are fallacious comparisons. Medicine and buses are both the products of science and so you are dealing with hard facts that have been scientifically tested. Religion is not a product of science and there are no hard facts for testing. So religious experts can only ever deal in faith-based opinion based on an examination of texts & c and never in facts. The emphasis is always on belief/faith and never on knowing.]

That is so even in unimportant matters I am guided by those who are the experts.

So what is so wrong to trust those who have made religion their specialized subject? I have faith in them and trust that they may add to my knowledge of my faith.

I have always learned that rules are.not made to annoy people but to make life easier and safer for those people. That’s why there is the road code, speed limits, drive on the left, etc.

[Daphne – Here’s the rub. Close consultation with religious experts does not make people religious. They consult those experts because they are religious in the first place. I find conversations with religious experts of whatever faith fascinating – but that’s because I love to find out about these things, and not because I am ‘searching’. I am not dissing religion here; I am trying to explain that lots of people are perfectly comfortable without it while still being interested in it as a subject of human endeavour.]

The church does not rule about sex before marriage or abortion or adultery or things like that just to vex people. Sex before marriage and free love create their own problems. Think of the consequences to innocent children when a marriage breaks down. Can a woman or man feel happy to know that her/his partner is sleeping around indiscriminately?

[Daphne – People don’t need to belong to a religion to know that cheating on your spouse is wrong or that marital breakdown causes harm (though sometimes, failure to separate causes more harm). These things had to be taught in the context of religion when people had no other way of understanding them. Some of them (adultery, for instance) were also the subject of state law. But we could discuss this endlessly and to no avail. My point has been, all along, that those who can understand wrong and right only in the context of religion and/or state law have a problem – and society has a problem with them.]

At the moment spring hunting is a hot topic. Why spring not autumn? Because spring is the time the birds return to their natural habitat and we want to protect those still unlaid eggs. Humans don’t lay eggs but we think nothing is wrong with destroying so many unborn children with abortion.

[Daphne – A fallacious argument: humans are not under threat of extinction and do not require conservation efforts. A ban is being sought on spring hunting not to ‘protect unlaid eggs’ for its own sake (the sanctity of life argument) but to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of birds to reproduce strongly. This is not about sentiment but about hard pragmatism.]

I am not a theologian and I don’t set myself up to judge those who decide to ignore these rules. For myself, and after considering the implications, I voluntarily choose to submit myself to the rules and have faith in those who teach me those rules.

All fundamental rights and freedoms are restricted by the rights and freedoms of others not to suffer “harm” or “offence”. That is why there are obvious restrictions to the freedom of the press and expressing opinions imposed by state laws against publishing child pornography, inciting to hatred, libellous statements etc.

If one does not agree with you, then one is an idiot, badly educated, does not think for himself, is bigoted, and so on. There is more than a hint of a superiority complex.

[Daphne – Not really, no. I am more than happy to adjust my perspective based on a fresh appraisal of facts or new information, because my views are not an entrenched part of my identity and sense of self as they are with certain individuals. But I have very, very little patience with those who can’t or won’t do the same because it blocks discussion. I am not unusual in this. The difference is that while others think ‘this woman/man is impossibe/an idiot/irrational’, but smile and say ‘We’ll agree to disagree’, I have a tendency to reveal what I’m thinking. Not always, though – at times I can be pretty inscrutable.]

I agree with many of the views you express on many subjects but when it comes to religion you are as fixed in your views as anybody with strong religious feelings.

[Daphne – Well, obviously, because my views are based on fact and not faith and facts are quantifiable and measurable. This means that my views will change only if the facts change or I acquire more information, or if I have a sudden conversion to faithful devotion, which is most unlikely to happen at this late stage. I am quite happy to let others believe and worship in peace, though – that’s the difference. I’m certainly not one of those people forever badgering believers about why they have faith, or challenging their faith. I am having this discussion only because those involved want to have it. In a social context, I don’t consider religion to be a suitable topic for conversation.]

I disagree with your views about religion and will oppose them vigorously without resorting to mockery or offensive language. But I will always respect your right to express them. Who was it who said “I disagree totally with every single thing you have said but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

[Daphne – Voltaire’s biographer, Beatrice Hall, in her book ‘The Friends of Voltaire’, published in 1906.]

I was brought up in a deeply Catholic and religious family. That did not stop me from making my own decisions.

There were occasions when I doubted and criticised certain decisions and church leaders. In most cases, further reflection and research proved that I and not the church had been wrong.

There are many examples of people brought up in godless and absolutely irreligious families and environments who following their own research and studies voluntarily chose to join the Catholic or some other church.

[Daphne – When people brought up in ‘godless’ and ‘absolutely irreligious’ families make a point of hunting down a religion to join, Tom, it is as much a form of rebellion as when people brought up in hyper-religious families go out of their way to declare themselves atheist and bang on about it all the time to the point of boring others. People brought up in an environment that is relaxed about these matters don’t feel the need to be either religious or atheist. Both are extremes and extremes are always problematic, if not for the self than for those around them.]

A church is not defined by the actions of any of its individuals, from the Pope to the humblest member. As in every human society there have been in the church rotten members who did wrong not because they were following church rules but because they were rotten individuals.

History speaks of even Popes who led scandalous and rotten lives. We do not judge the church by the actions of such men, just as we do not claim that today’s Catholic Church is HOLY because the last few popes have been holy men. The Church is Holy because as a church it is holy. It is holy IN SPITE OF its rotten individuals including Popes, bishops and priests.

History also shows that many social services, like education., care of the old, the sick, widows and orphans originated in the church. But is seems that many prefer to look only at the black spots in church history.

In an earlier remark you said that it is the law not religion that keeps people from committing murder. But there were periods in secular history where the state law not only accepted killing one’s enemies but encouraged it.

[Daphne – So did the Catholic Church. It promoted the murder of its enemies and those who questioned its authority or broke its spurious laws. This is not an ‘attack’ on the Catholic Church as I have no interest in that. It is merely a statement of historical fact.]

It also inflicted capital punishment. Thou shalt not kill came long before any state law and has remained unchanged for thousands of years though some individuals choose to ignore it.

[Daphne – ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is neither a Christian nor a Roman Catholic edict. It is from Judaism, one of the 10 commandments of Moses, and it is common to all three religions of the book.]

That is why it is wrong to qualify a criminal by an adjective, be it Maltese, English, black. white, socialist, nationalist,etc. A criminal is a criminal no matter to which group he belongs.

Are you implying that people with deep religious feelings and beliefs are badly educated?

Surely, your education has shown you that many great men in every sphere of life had this deep and strong religious belief. Additionally, they also had, as their religion taught them, a great respect for others of different beliefs.

[Daphne – No, I did not say that religious people are badly educated, but something else entirely: that in Malta people are trained from early childhood not to question dogma. This literally ‘shapes’ the mind permanently, with the result that even intelligent people in adulthood are unable to process information properly and rationally, and are prone to logic-defying reasoning. They can be as educated as you please, but they still have trouble assessing information and being rational in discourse and logical in arguments. The reason is that they have been trained over a lifetime to accept the irrational and never to question it.]

I have personal experience of this. During a football match somebody kept fouling me. At some moment I lost my temper and told him to stop playing “like an Irish cow”. He happened to be Irish and I ended up with a black eye in addition to my bruised shins.