This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← What's the Place of Faith in Schools?

What's the Place of Faith in Schools? - Comments

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 1 by AtheistEgbert

Teaching children religion is rather like handing out heroin and hypodermic needles for them to shoot up on. Why not lessons in sexism, homophobia, racism and terrorism? How about teaching kids how to burn a witch? Anything goes really, other than what schools are supposedly about, which is learning facts and developing them the tools to survive an insane society filled with idiots, mostly parental idiots.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:02:29 UTC | #921521

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 2 by AtheistEgbert

If you want a laugh, go to 00:53:00 and listen to the Muslim idiot, from the Muslim Council of Britain, attacking Richard Dawkins.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:25:03 UTC | #921535

martinlong1978's Avatar Comment 3 by martinlong1978

"Teaching peace and harmony"... I'm sorry, but teaching that homosexuality is morally wrong, that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt chidren. How is that "peace and harmony"?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:34:22 UTC | #921540

martinlong1978's Avatar Comment 4 by martinlong1978

Why not open our education system to spiritualism, ghost management, astrology, and homoeopathy?

I think that the one life skills I really missed out on from my education is the ability to reliably divine water using a pendulum.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:40:06 UTC | #921547

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 5 by Mark Jones

It's astonishing how widespread is the belief that Richard wants to ban parents teaching their kids how to live. Don't these people ever have the gumption to read what he actually thinks?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:52:13 UTC | #921552

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 6 by Steve Zara

Comment 5 by Mark Jones

It's astonishing how widespread is the belief that Richard wants to ban parents teaching their kids how to live. Don't these people ever have the gumption to read what he actually thinks?

I'm not surprised. When Daniel Dennett said he was in favour of children being taught about all major religions in school, and if that was the case, he would have no problem with faith schools, he was called 'totalitarian'.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:58:38 UTC | #921556

peter mayhew's Avatar Comment 7 by peter mayhew

Richard did a fantastic job, and I must say that, as someone whose children have to suffer a daily dose of Anglican dogma at a state funded school, I am so grateful that he is asked to speak at meetings like these and represent the views that so many of us share. The fact that you get invited means that we're getting somewhere!

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:07:29 UTC | #921560

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 8 by TIKI AL

I wouldn't mind if they taught a few religious basics that could be applied to real life. Like burning a pile of Korans in Afghanistan could produce an adverse effect on "peace and harmony".

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:38:43 UTC | #921568

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 9 by Paula Kirby

Mark Jones: It's astonishing how widespread is the belief that Richard wants to ban parents teaching their kids how to live. Don't these people ever have the gumption to read what he actually thinks?

It doesn't astonish me. There's a reason why the publication of The God Delusion was immediately followed by a spate of books by Christian apologists, arming believers with arguments - albeit mostly spurious ones - against it. They didn't want to take the risk of believers reading it for themselves, so they rushed in to give them their version of what it said. And, unsurprisingly, they all (or at least, all the ones I read, which was several), misrepresented Richard's views. The claim that he was trying to ban religion and make it a criminal offence for parents to teach their children about the parents' religion was made or implied in all of them.

Our old friend Wee Flea was quite explicit in advising his readers not to read The God Delusion:

[From the reading list:] The books below are the books I have interacted with – there is only one book I would regard to be absolutely trustworthy, the Bible! Obviously The God Delusion is the book I am interacting with. If you already have the book then you will know what I am referring to. If you don’t, I cannot honestly recommend that you should get it. It really is as bad as I have tried to demonstrate and I would be reluctant to put any more money into it!”

As I wrote in Fleabytes:

You’ve got to admire the sheer chutzpah of this man. After all, in his introductory letter to the reader, he states his aim as being that the reader “may think and consider these things for yourself”. How on earth the reader is meant to think and consider the strengths and weaknesses of TGD without actually reading it is beyond me – but of course, that isn’t Robertson’s aim at all: rather, his intention has been to enable his readers to denounce TGD using HIS arguments. If they were to actually read TGD for themselves, they’d a) see how distorted his representation of the book had been and b) quite possibly begin to question the very basis of their beliefs. And we wouldn’t want thinking for themselves to go that far, would we?

And of course, the media have also been consistent in misrepresenting Richard, as numerous other recent threads on this site attest. Right from the start, they have portrayed him as being the purveyor of rabid, hate-filled, intolerant views, despite the fact that nothing he has either written or said could possibly be understood in that way by any objective person. I have told the story of my first encounter with TGD several times before, but it still makes me laugh, so I shall tell it again. I was already an atheist, but the topic wasn't a particularly big deal for me at the time. I'd never heard of Richard Dawkins before then, so I had no reason to side either with or against him. In fact, all I knew of him came from the newspaper reviews of this dreadful, aggressive, militant, fundamentalist, strident, shrill, nasty, rude book called The God Delusion. And I decided I should read it, since it was on a subject of mild interest to me and was clearly causing a stir, but I fully expected to dislike it, since I actively dislike rudeness and aggression and deliberate nastiness.

Well, I got about 40% of the way through ... and quite literally went back to one of the original book reviews to make sure I'd bought the right book. Since I'd only found clear, straightforward, calm arguments along with a few smatterings of humour - but no sign of the rampant abuse I'd been led to expect - I quite seriously thought I must have bought a different one by mistake.

Why the repeated, constant, endless misrepresentation of both Richard and his views? I am in no doubt that it is all part of a deliberate attempt to deflect people from actually engaging with his arguments.

The good news is that, despite the best attempts of media and church, the tactics have only been partially successful. More and more people are understanding that religious claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny, and are also coming to share the view that special influence for religion in public life is therefore unjustified. That's happening in the teeth of the most astonishing opposition. But it IS happening.

But of course there will still be many people out there whose only knowledge of either Richard or TGD comes from the media or (to a far smaller extent) the pulpit. Since those sources have consistently painted Richard as a loony extremist, I'm really not at all surprised that so many people still fall for the propaganda.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:42:48 UTC | #921570

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 10 by AtheistEgbert

There is something in politics called identity politics, which has dominated how we think over the last fifty years, but it's the wrong way of understanding politics. Richard persistently tried to make the point that children are not made out of the identity of their parents ideological beliefs, and this is also true of each of us. We're not products of our traditions or our communities, rational opinions spring from our reason, and if we can't support our opinions, then we have no right to hold onto them strongly as part of our identity.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:47:35 UTC | #921571

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 11 by Premiseless

Lmao: "Gaseous invertebrate!"

An excellent debate all round, after the first monotone half was awoken by Richard's clear tones.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:52:19 UTC | #921573

blitz442's Avatar Comment 12 by blitz442

Comment 9 by Paula Kirby

Why the repeated, constant, endless misrepresentation of both Richard and his views? I am in no doubt that it is all part of a deliberate attempt to deflect people from actually engaging with his arguments.

Of course this is the reason. Over at Amazon.com, you can see a negative review of the God Delusion by someone named J.A. Magill. As far as I know, it is still the best-rated negative review, and it reminds me of a mini-flea book. It is superficially reasonable, and if you had never read TGD, you might be tempted to think that this review represents the honest opinion of an intelligent person who had read the book with an open mind.

However, even a passing familiarity with the real contents of TGD shows the review to be a ridiculous hack-job. As many commentators have tried to point out to this guy, he grossly distorts what Richard actually wrote. Either the reviewer has a reading comprehension problem, or he has willfully lied and refuses to admit it. It is par for the course on how detractors attempt to deal with Richard's arguments.

But this is in many ways exactly what happened to Richard after he published his first book. I'm afraid that he is still explaining to people that selfish genes don't automatically equal selfish people.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:08:57 UTC | #921578

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 13 by Premiseless

Comment 12 by blitz442 :

I was disappointed to hear it said humanism was something for inclusion in the upper secondary sector. I would say this is an essential to KS2 primary school ethics and philosophy!

I was disappointed to hear about the financial markets likely imposing theistic tolerance more on the world stage making it more necessary for secular investors to bow to religious markets ( we support your belief and values) in future decades.

I was disappointed to realise we need more RDs and aren't sure where they are coming from.

I was happy to hear some of the panel articulately supportive of a secular humanist future in the education of all children.

I was worried about the seeming smoke screen of "Good RE." minus how this is delivered. I know belief is easily reduced into an us versus them mindset - so analysis of belief is something I would consider an essential platform. The what each believe and why and due what evidence - including of course atheism. However I suspect few will attempt this spreadsheet version of comparative ethics and faith reduction. Thus, which children see the light of reason as applying to belief as it does to the material world is less certain. Often it can be delivered much like these debates - with much skullduggery ( B o Oxford saying poetry is evidence for myth etc.) being thrown in to confuse certain part deluded minds.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:29:12 UTC | #921581

digofthedump's Avatar Comment 14 by digofthedump

Professor Richard Dawkins [author of The God Delusion], responding, said education about religion has value, but no child should ever be labelled by the faith of her parents.

Yet RD himself is happy to call himself a 'Cultural Anglican'. If a convinced atheist can be labelled with a religion representative of his background then why not label children for similar reasons. I for one never think that the term 'Christian child' or 'Muslim child' means anything other than 'a child from a Christian or Muslim community background. Are not children entitled to a community or cultural identity like Richard?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:04:16 UTC | #921592

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Comment 15 by kungfuhobbit

bits I found particularly interesting

1.06:10

1.10:20, 1.20:00, 1.21:50 - This is interesting, elaborated more than I have seen before. Though I have a strong niggle. I dislike the sentiment from the questioner and also Dawkins' answer. Dawkins would have done better to agree with promotion of certain values but also provide a child with some reason why those values are thought to be good ones -and crucially the importance that they can change their mind if a sufficient counterargument is presented at some point in the future.

Generally though, reading one newspaper is a bad idea. It shouldnt be applauded. Its usually just self-censorship and reinforcement.

To quote Russell: A good way of ridding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to become aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country in France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution.

1.35:00

1.43:20 - the question of what is good evidence. Shame Pritchard's comment couldnt get more time to be elaborated on and responded to.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:09:41 UTC | #921595

Daisy Skipper's Avatar Comment 16 by Daisy Skipper

Comment 15 by kungfuhobbit

Shame Pritchard's comment couldnt get more time to be elaborated on and responded to.

That final statement proves why there should be no religious influence in schools at all.

Evidence comes from lovers, poets, blah blah blah. What an ignorant statement. People like that have no place in education.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:18:41 UTC | #921598

SuedeStonn's Avatar Comment 17 by SuedeStonn

emphasized textRD scored more points with his shot at the end, basically saying that labeling children (or anyone really) as a muslim, christian, whathaveyou needs to be called to the mat. This really needs to stop.

The parent that brought up the point of being able to bring up their children as they will seems to have totally missed the point: if you introduce children to a religion they will grow up thinking it is true and correct, no matter how absurd it is. She doesn't understand that you can teach anything, especially morals, without throwing religion into it, and letting ones children grow into a religion on their own.

This whole idea of having/needing RE is ridiculous, should someone wish RE they can go to the local church and study to their hearts content. Forcing this on the gov't is both economically ruinous and secularly dangerous. The more a gov't advocates a religion, any and/or all religions, the more it permits it to gain dominance despite its unrealistic teachings/views/history.

I'm writing while listening... and RD just put out something I try to put out often but religous people rarely pick up: don't thank God, thank people. Refering to Daniel Dennett's recovery, he put forth that he wanted to thank, not God, but the nurses who tended to his needs, his surgeons who healed him, the man who invented the MRI that could see what was wrong with him... thank people, who were intelligent enough to create what we need, and not those who put two hands together and pray for a miracle where we all know nothing will happen. And this is very important, to get people away from the idea that God is some sort of cure-all, when we all need to realize that miracles don't happen, man makes things happen. And these 'miracles' aren't gifts from God, but gifts from men, women, children, who are educated, who have learned the sciences, and put them to the benefit of mankind. (It hasn't always been to the benefit, i.e. atomic and nuclear bombs, but we learned from it... not everything that can be made should be made. :P )

This clown to the left of RD makes me sick, talking about evidence. Based on what he said anything is evidence. ANYTHING. Thanks to church boy, here, evidence can now be deuces wild. Evidence is anything, anything goes... all I have to say is good luck with that. You've just given license to combat rational with the irrational, logic with whim (or whimsey, whichever is closer). This is exactly what I DON'T want in a school, what we don't want children to learn, to be taught that science doesn't know everything but religion does and all you have to do is say that anything goes and that's the way it is.

RE, my ass... just one more way to spread religion and ruin the intellect.

non est deus

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:20:28 UTC | #921599

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 18 by Zeuglodon

Comment 11 by Premiseless

An excellent debate all round, after the first monotone half was awoken by Richard's clear tones.

I feel guilty; I found most of it so mind-numbingly dull that I just skipped to RD's segment and the questions. None of the other speakers were as engaging or as lucid as he was. I don't know how people can drag something out so long and think it worth the time consumption.

Comment 2 by AtheistEgbert

If you want a laugh, go to 00:53:00 and listen to the Muslim idiot, from the Muslim Council of Britain, attacking Richard Dawkins.

I didn't find it funny. I found it depressing. It was supposed to be a question segment, and he took two minutes before the moderator told him to get to his point, and then he rambled on some more. The rest of the people asked were no better. Why don't they just go straight to questions?

Comment 9 by Paula Kirby

And of course, the media have also been consistent in misrepresenting Richard, as numerous other recent threads on this site attest. Right from the start, they have portrayed him as being the purveyor of rabid, hate-filled, intolerant views... I'd never heard of Richard Dawkins before then, so I had no reason to side either with or against him. In fact, all I knew of him came from the newspaper reviews of this dreadful, aggressive, militant, fundamentalist, strident, shrill, nasty, rude book called The God Delusion... Well, I got about 40% of the way through ... and quite literally went back to one of the original book reviews to make sure I'd bought the right book.

I actually came at it from the other direction - I was already familiar with Richard's written work, and I found it hard to believe the media had got his representation right based on stuff like TSG and TGSOE. So I was fascinated with the furor around TGD, since I come from a family that isn't religious at all. All the same, I felt so self-conscious about it that I couldn't even bring myself to buy a copy, and even borrowing one from the library made me feel like a subversive. Even when I'd read it, I was looking anxiously for some key rebuttal that would knock it down because I was worried I was missing some key argument, and I was worried about the stuff I'd read about atheist discrimination. But the more rebuttals I looked at, the less impressed I was with them. I went from being an implicit atheist to being an explicit one, and now an anti-religionist too.

Why the repeated, constant, endless misrepresentation of both Richard and his views? I am in no doubt that it is all part of a deliberate attempt to deflect people from actually engaging with his arguments.

One of the shocking things I discovered when I joined a debating society for the first time was that, right from the start, we were expected to focus on winning the current argument by any means necessary, not on exploring it or in trying to produce a workable answer to a question. This adversarial system seems to come from the mistaken view that to "beat" an opponent is to win the argument. Needless to say, I quit pretty quickly after that.

The good news is that, despite the best attempts of media and church, the tactics have only been partially successful... That's happening in the teeth of the most astonishing opposition. But it IS happening.

I hope it keeps happening. So long as we keep at it, we should be able to change things gradually, like we've done over the last decade.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:27:36 UTC | #921600

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Comment 19 by kungfuhobbit

          Comment 16 by Daisy Skipper

That final statement is proves why there should be no religious influence in schools at all. Evidence comes from lovers, poets, blah blah blah. What an ignorant statement. People like that have no place in education.

that might be so... as I say, I wish Rev Pritchard had had the time to elaborate on this at length and with greater precision...then let Richard demolish it.

perhaps fudging the word 'evidence' with 'wisdom' alot, but...

Many agree with the sentiment of the reverend's statements - there is a jarring against what they believe - what they believe to be a good source of wisdom, which we dismiss. when we dismiss it in one line as 'ignorance', this contradiction with what they hold to be true, they see it as the reduction ad absurdum in our atheist argument...

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:36:48 UTC | #921604

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 20 by Zeuglodon

Comment 14 by digofthedump

Professor Richard Dawkins [author of The God Delusion], responding, said education about religion has value, but no child should ever be labelled by the faith of her parents.

Yet RD himself is happy to call himself a 'Cultural Anglican'.

RD is an adult. He's old enough to decide for himself. In fact, he'd been raised an Anglican, but started questioning his faith when he encountered other religious views and realized they couldn't all be true.

Comment 15 by kungfuhobbit

If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution.

The usual rebuttal to that is: what if one side really is right and the other is just wrong, no matter how accommodating you try to be? I'd like to know what you do then, kungfuhobbit.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:40:54 UTC | #921606

brown dwarf's Avatar Comment 21 by brown dwarf

Very much enjoyed this debate. The fact that a lot of christians do not actually read the bible but call themselves christians thinking that the bible is full of good moral teachings is what happened to me.

I was very suprised when i saw the excellent documentary 'The root of all evil' which quoted passages from the bible of god telling you to kill your brother, sister, son, daughter, wife and best friend. (deuteronomy 13 verse 7 - 12)

I grew up as a roman catholic and had no idea that these passages existed. I dug my old bible out and started reading from the beginning. By the time i had got to leviticus and deuteronomy with all the illogical stories, mass murder, rape, and genocide i had become an atheist.

The point i am trying to make is that the 2011 census and the mori poll shows that a lot of people out there are just like i was, so when we say you cannot get your moral guidence from the bible we need to quote the actuall passages to them, and tell them the chapter and verses if they dont believe you. Then when they look it up they will see it for themselves.

How can you get moral guidance from an ancient book that tells you to kill you family, murder everyone in a city, rape your enemies daughters, keep slaves and beat them, etc, etc.

How can a school that teaches that belief in the christian god and jesus is the only way to heaven and everlasting life and that all other beliefs lead to gods torture chamber called hell be a good thing to teach children? Likewise, if a child is born into the muslim faith and decides to leave it when he is older he is called an apostate and is faced with death in many countries according to islamic law.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:50:40 UTC | #921610

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Comment 22 by kungfuhobbit

           Comment 20 by Zeuglodon

what if one side really is right and the other is just wrong, no matter how accommodating you try to be?I'd like to know what you do then, kungfuhobbit.

my point wasnt about being accomodating to irrationality...and it wasnt to say that you cant put your flag down in one camp or another...

it's about a caution towards certainty without scrutinising the merit of other arguments.

few would agree that any one paper can straightforwardly claim monopoly over rational argument.

To be fair and proper to the lady and to Professor Dawkins, while they mentioned reading the Guardian, they didnt say they did this at the exclusion of other papers :)

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:02:53 UTC | #921614

Spawny Rosary's Avatar Comment 23 by Spawny Rosary

Very good introduction of RD by Charles Clarke, and decent of him to discredit the smear tactics of certain other bodies. Courtesously responded by RD. Perhaps this is not as important as the content of the debate, but it is hugely refreshing and hopefully a sign of things to come. One might hope that political parties will sit up and take note of the Ipsos MORI poll results and pay due deference to public desires.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:26:51 UTC | #921621

Richie P's Avatar Comment 24 by Richie P

Brillant performance from Richard in this debate!

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:43:34 UTC | #921623

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 25 by ukvillafan

          [Comment 14](/videos/645080-what-s-the-place-of-faith-in-schools/comments?page=1#comment_921592) by  [digofthedump](/profiles/162048)          :


                 > Professor Richard Dawkins [author of The God Delusion], responding, said education about religion has value, but no child should ever be labelled by the faith of her parents.> Yet RD himself is happy to call himself a 'Cultural Anglican'.  If a convinced atheist can be labelled with a religion representative of his background then why not label children for similar reasons.  I for one never think that the term 'Christian child' or 'Muslim child' means anything other than 'a child from a Christian or Muslim community background.  Are not children entitled to a community or cultural identity like Richard?

No - because that's not how it is meant, not how it's interpreted and not true.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:05:49 UTC | #921642

Quine's Avatar Comment 26 by Quine

Excellent presentation by Richard. When asked about religion in schools, I also support teaching what religion is and how the religions of the world developed and differ from each other. I also want people to understand that because religious teachings contradict each other among faiths (and often also within) they can't be all true, even if there is some truth in there, somewhere. Given the minority status of any religion in the world population, it means that most people must be wrong about religion, and so most students in religious schools must be learning things that can't possibly be true.

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:24:25 UTC | #921648

DeejayJones's Avatar Comment 27 by DeejayJones

I live in Australia where there are two different types of schooling. We have public education, which is effectively run by the State Government, and we have private education, which is usually religious based, such as “Saint Mary Star of the Sea”, etc.

My personal belief, is that in these private schools, who’s basis is in religion, should be allowed to teach religion, as the parents are always aware of this fundamentality. To even apply for the schools, you need your pastor, or other spiritual leader, to sign for your morality.

I do believe however, that religion should not be taught in public schools. Australia has, for a long time, tried to emphasise how much of a multicultural, understanding country it is, yet actually forces students to sit in through a period (between 30 and 75 minutes) or two, a fortnight, of Christian, religious teachings. At least twice a semester we have a workshop, or speech around spirituality. I’ll take a closer look at my school, a public one. In my year alone, we have Muslims, Christians, Jews, Seven Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, Catholics, Baha’is, Atheists, Pagans, Wiccans, and even Satanists. This religion class is mandatory. And 100% Christian. We have so far, been taught that all other religions, including other denominations of Christianity, such as Catholicism, Lutheran and Jehovah’s Witness, is wrong and will lead us to hell. We have been taught that homosexuality and alternative lifestyles are condemned by “god”, and, in the place of homosexuality, is CURABLE. But don’t worry, because God loves everyone, right?

I do believe teaching what religion is about. Like, the history about it, and how it was formed. Basic principles and fundamental beliefs and how the rest of society interacts with these.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:29:44 UTC | #921651

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 28 by Mark Jones

Comment 9 by Paula Kirby

Thanks Paula.

I suppose I'm not surprised about the general public. I have to fight constantly against the perception my friends have garnered from the media, so I understand that. What astonishes me is that an obviously educated person stands up in such a public forum and states things with such misplaced confidence. I would try to make sure I wasn't talking nonsense before my voice was recorded for posterity! The person asking the question of Richard didn't have the first understanding of his position; a simple Google could have prevented them from appearing a complete fool. That would motivate me to do the research.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:54:39 UTC | #921663

Nairb's Avatar Comment 29 by Nairb

Teaching has limited time and limited funds.

Having a single subject called religous education seems way over thr top to me. Also what constitutes a religion!? Spending a very short time on explaining religion in the teaching of european history for the period of the first century and 7th century may be useful.

Teaching ethics and philosophy would be afar better choice

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:25:35 UTC | #921669

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 30 by rod-the-farmer

Too bad the one audience member who claimed religion is growing wasn't challenged to compare that to the Ipsos/MORI data.

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:49:36 UTC | #921679