London Riots

SciAggie said:
Good point Roger. The presenter I mention made a distinction that the influence of church did not matter as to any religion at all. He was really not speaking about the spiritual aspect so much as the social norms one learns in the institutional setting of the church. For example, the socially accepted norms of dress, behavior, how to interact with adults, etc. Reflecting on my own experiences, I think I did learn a great deal in church as a youth about how to interact with others and what the social norms were. That is totally separate from any value judgement about the spiritual aspect of church that I agree we should avoid in this discussion. In my own community the weekly attendance to church by the public is a low percentage of the overall population, so youth here do miss out on that opportunity for social education not related to religion. Did I make sense?
Click to expand...

Dear Gary

In the UK, the Education Act 1944 required 'a daily collective act of worship' (I think I have the wording right) and at least one lesson per week of a subject variously known as RK (Religious Knowledge), RI (Religious Instruction), Scripture and Divinity.

This did a good deal to inoculate my generation against religion. Morally, I really doubt that I learned anything significant from organized religion. My parents were not habitual churchgoers and I lasted (as far as I recall) two weeks at Sunday School, but as it was over half a century ago I'm not sure if it was one week or two. Even then I perceived it as saccharine drivel, devoid of provable content.

In other words, because we didn't get one particular view of religion, presented by one particular vicar/priest/minister, and reinforced by parents whose views were never contradicted by exposure to any other religion,we learned to make up our own minds, which is why I am actually in favour of an established religion. The Catholic church (though as far as it could be from established) fulfilled a similar function in France.

Morality is where you find it, and indeed, it has to be taught. The trick lies in exposing kids to as wide as possible a variety of passionate believers in particular morality patterns, and also to people who teach them to mistrust all they hear. Teaching them to believe everything they're told by their parents/ teachers/ politicians is a recipe for disaster.The morality of my (Marxist, paternal) great-grandmother and my (Methodist, maternal) grandmother were different.

Many years ago, when I was a teacher, I was assigned to teach 4b (14 year olds, lower ability band) 'citizenship'. I walked in to the first lesson and said "OK. What is citizenship?"

A hand at the back went up. The ones at the back are aways the awkward ones, which is why I encourage their questions. If I can engage them, I can engage anyone. "YOU teach US to be good little citizens."

I shook my head. They were surprised. I said, "No. I teach you to THINK about being good little citizens."

They looked even more surprised. 'Think' was a new word in the roughest school in Bristol in 1975 or so.

A few weeks later, the headmaster sent for me. "Mary Smith in 4b says that you said it wasn't your job to teach them to be good citizens."

After initial confusion, I told him the story as above. He said, "You're wrong. That is your job."

I replied, "No. I'm a teacher, not a Party Commissar. I'm not here to indoctrinate them. If you don't agree, fire me."

He left before I did.

A decade or so later, a young man said to me in the street, "'Ere, it's Mr. 'Icks, innit?"

When we'd established how we knew each other, and that he'd been in that class, he said, "Us thought us didn't learn f*** nothing from that class, but now I know that I learned more from you than from the rest of the f***ing school put together."

While I'm glad I wasn't his English teacher, I've always treasured that as one of the greatest compliments I've ever been paid.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
SciAggie said:
Good point Roger. The presenter I mention made a distinction that the influence of church did not matter as to any religion at all. He was really not speaking about the spiritual aspect so much as the social norms one learns in the institutional setting of the church. For example, the socially accepted norms of dress, behavior, how to interact with adults, etc. Reflecting on my own experiences, I think I did learn a great deal in church as a youth about how to interact with others and what the social norms were. That is totally separate from any value judgement about the spiritual aspect of church that I agree we should avoid in this discussion. In my own community the weekly attendance to church by the public is a low percentage of the overall population, so youth here do miss out on that opportunity for social education not related to religion. Did I make sense?
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense.

I can't defend religion, except to say that people have a hard time not being religious. Witness the almost laughable totalitarianism of high-profile atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens (brilliantly skewered on South Park), the sacred awe that many invest in "the market", the ritualized devotion to video games and other "amusements".

I recognize the travesties that organized religion has perpetrated, but I think the road to hell is opened wide when you make money your god. Money was always a corrupting influence, but there was always a counterbalance provided by religion and civic morality. That has largely been erased. Didn't Reagan announce back in 1981 that "Greed is good"? It's been downhill since then. (You Brits had Thatcher on your side of the ocean - I hope that's worked out well for you.)

When I was a kid the FCC required that TV stations provide public service announcements. News shows were required to provide an opportunity for public comment and response. Back then there was no question that a kid had a ride to school - there were bemused articles in the news about some kid in a remote area being escorted to school on horseback each day. (Now the Philadelphia schools are threatening to eliminate bus service completely.) People didn't ridicule the postal service, it was a sacred PUBLIC institution that everyone could rely on. I can still remember the very different FEELING society had because of individual influences like that.

I do remember the small-mindedness of people in my youth, the casual bigotry. We pretend that at least THAT has been eliminated - until "those people" start to riot.

Randy
 
Oh: and on the subject of dress, we had school uniforms. There are strong arguments on both sides, but on balance I think they're probably a good idea, not least because they provide a substantially harmless field in which to explore how far you can go in defying authority. Same goes for length of hair.

Cheers,

R.
 
@Roger. I think (?) maybe we are in agreement? It is apparent that church was influential on you as a youth - I was making no arguement whether that influence was positive or negative - just that it was influential. As far as that goes, I really don't have a dog in this fight, as they say. The point the presenter I listened to was making was that young people today are less influenced by home, church, and school than we were (we being the old coots). He claimed media in a variety of forms had replaced those earlier influences in importance. I thought it was interesting just as a way of viewing the riots from an new perspective. As I pointed out earlier, I have not read the study myself, but I have contacted the presenter for more information. I will post that information if I recieve it before this discussion fades away.
 
SciAggie said:
Good point Roger. The presenter I mention made a distinction that the influence of church did not matter as to any religion at all. He was really not speaking about the spiritual aspect so much as the social norms one learns in the institutional setting of the church. For example, the socially accepted norms of dress, behavior, how to interact with adults, etc. Reflecting on my own experiences, I think I did learn a great deal in church as a youth about how to interact with others and what the social norms were. That is totally separate from any value judgement about the spiritual aspect of church that I agree we should avoid in this discussion. In my own community the weekly attendance to church by the public is a low percentage of the overall population, so youth here do miss out on that opportunity for social education not related to religion. Did I make sense?
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me. The problem these days is the bigotry that seems to side with whatever religion that is up for discussion these days.

Teaching morals is a good thing. But it can all be summed up in the oft-quoted Golden Rule. How hard is that anyway?:angel:
 
Michael Markey said:
I know of what I speak having attended an all boys Catholic school, all be it one run by lay people.
Punishments were severe and involved regular beatings whether or not any transgression had occurred.
That was to teach you that life wasn`t fair.
Click to expand...

Nice, that sounds very helpful of the "Catholic lay people". We should be grateful to the rioters as well, they're clearly teaching many, many people that Life Isn't Fair. A valuable lesson, I'm sure we all agree. Perhaps Cameron could arrange a monetary reward for their efforts? Tuition, so to speak?
 
Last edited:
I'm not basing this on statistics or any mathematical certainty , it's just a general observation.

The world has something in the vicinity of 7 billion people struggling to survive, but technology has advanced efficiency to the point that it only takes perhaps 1 billion people to maintain all the necessary requirements to support the worlds modern economic system.

Unfortunately, the system doesn't support the remaining 6 billion people in return.

We reside in an environment where the thought of starvation, or the inability to find paying work, exists right alongside conspicuous consumption.

Something has to give. Will it be people accommodating an ineffective system, or will it be a correction of a system to accommodate its people.

People who are profiting from this existing system are loathe to change anything, and the people being crushed by it are growing in numbers and stakes.
 
Jack Conrad said:
People who are profiting from this existing system are loathe to change anything, and the people being crushed by it are growing in numbers and stakes.
Click to expand...


And this is the situation that will probably bring humanity to it's knees ... not some nuclear winter that many have predicted.

The haves verses the have nots is the fight that is currently stewing on this planet and it could potentially totally alter society as we know it.

Hang on to your M9s and Noctiluxes ... you may need them to beat away the angry hoards when they finally get sick of their Voigtlanders. :angel:
 
Ranchu said:
Nice, that sounds very helpful of the "Catholic lay people". We should be grateful to the rioters as well, they're clearly teaching many, many people that Life Isn't Fair. A valuable lesson, I'm sure we all agree. Perhaps Cameron could arrange a monetary reward for their efforts? Tuition, so to speak?
Click to expand...

Reread Michael's post Ranchu. You've quoted him selectively and taken exactly the opposite point of the one he made.
 
lynnb said:
I don't think it's safe to generalise that most of the (mainly youthful) participants in this criminal carnage are out to get even with society for wrongs, whether real or imagined. Certainly I think that's a factor with some, possibly the instigators. But this article mentions another factor: the fun factor.

Breaking all the rules and running around smashing windows, burning and looting, avoiding the police, to a teenager is like a video game become real - a massive adrenaline rush, a heady mix of freedom and power. It just takes one individual or group to lead the way, and all those kids on the street looking for more excitement than they've ever experienced in life before will take advantage of that opportunity. The opportunistic fun factor would help to explain the surprisingly wide demographic of those arrested so far.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Reminds me of the universal glee of the onlookers in Capa's photograph in Chartres of the arrest of a collaborator, glee evident in a number of the 1944 photos of public parading of collaborators. Anger, disgust and, after reflection, pity might be the expected response of their younger selves, for anyone in that photo looking at it years later. Maybe those are the emotions they thought they had, but the photo indicates otherwise. A mob is a mob.
 
From variety of `news` sources , more on the scourge of youth. Bet there is not the same media hysteria over this lot.

PS. I`m 50.

A millionaire's daughter, a charity worker and a journalism student are among those charged with rioting in Britain as police flood streets to deter a weekend repeat.

Those pictures included a 46-year-old man sentenced to four months in prison for assaulting a police office

A 47 year old organic chef and a 42 year old steward
 
Richard G said:
Reread Michael's post Ranchu. You've quoted him selectively and taken exactly the opposite point of the one he made.
Click to expand...


Michael Markey said:
The talk this morning has inevitably turned to the causes and there is a surprising degree of agreement.
High on the list are the pernicious liberal policies of the last few years which made it difficult for parents to discipline children without fear that the children would report them to the authorities.
The health and safety culture which failed to take account of young boys needs in particular.
The emphasis on consumer culture (yes this on a camera forum :) ) at the expense of what I`m going to term the spiritual.
Click to expand...

I don't think I did, Richard...
 
Last edited:
So from what I read in our news here the UK government are considering changes to social media, potential loss of state housing to those involved and possible removal of their benefits. While no doubt many of the participants deserve to be punished in some way the risk of potential colateral damage to possibly innocent individuals is very real.

The authorities need to see this is for what it is and take heed ... they will not be able to beat this disenchanted group into submission with threats of this type. It will make them angrier IMO.
 
Tough love for the poor! I'm not surprised

Tough love for the poor! I'm not surprised

Kicking people out of their council houses or similar populous move(s) won't do any good in the long run.

If the government tries to control social media sites then it's another thing that people generally wouldn't expect in normal situation. Sounds exactly like 'The Shock Doctrine' (N. Klein). Labour was bad, but lib-cons are worse. If the next govt is worse than the current one i don't be surprised. There seems to be a convergence of politics in UK and USA - especially in terms of economics policy towards the economically/financially poor people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom