Question: Is abuse and torture from exorcisms on the rise in the U.K.?

[Autumnlicious]

You're full of shit.

Britain was built by a rather homogenous group with occasional migrations inward (Romans, Normans et al). Also, it has oscillated between Catholic and Protestant dominance, with purges like that of Bloody Mary's reign, leaving an increasingly limited set of beliefs, peoples and cultures.

Historically, Britain has been as far from multiculturalism as Germany has been "unified" pre-Bismark. It was that way up until the end of imperialism, and probably is still around in some forms.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Well to go off subject here the term "multiculturalism" has many connotations when it comes to how people behave or think they ought to deal with the subject. Sadly most all of these interpretations reflect a serious lack of reasoning ability.

1) The pendulum. Historically speaking this usually starts out with some idea that there ought to be cultural hegemony, or on similar lines of intolerance, perhaps it's ok to be different so long as there's a hierarchy that shows where each culture sits in relation to other culture in terms of superiority. Then people finally get it. Maybe (I'm being sarcastic here) these other cultures and peoples do have value, and perhaps this value is equal to (and perhaps on some points better than) my own. Other things kick in and then comes the drive to enforce this idea. This often drives the pendulum in the opposite direction where people are so fearful of offending that they don't criticize the bad parts of a culture, or they just don't want to deal with the mess of having to deal with it. But lets deal with the mess of having to deal with it for a moment. If both extremes of the pendulum are eliminated, then the pendulum would sit in the middle. We know the rules that govern behavior at either extreme but what rules govern behavior at the center? I say, how about reason?

For example: There is a point at which my rights infringe upon the rights of other people. Where is that line? Obviously in the case of exorcisms it's at the already established definitions of child abuse. Use the laws that are already on the books. It does not matter why you hit the child (unless it's an accident) if you hit a child it's abuse. It does not matter why you swung the child around by the arm causing his shoulder to dislocate, if you did this it's child abuse. Now there is room for reason here. If you swung the child around by his arm to save him from an oncoming car then the act is justified. Any damage caused by the swing would be far less than damage from a collision. But the lines are clear and science can clearly compare the possible damages.

Now you could argue that, in the perspective of the parents, a demon is just as serious or life threatening as an oncoming car. All a court of law needs to say is that cars, and the damage they can cause to a child, exist, and are a proven thing. The demon spirit isn't. Case closed.

How about the case (this really happened) where parents didn't take their son to the Emergency Room for (what was later determined as a) an appendix that was about to burst because they believed that prayer was the only way that the appendix should be healed? The stupid argument was that the parents somehow owned the child (like the kid was their property) and had some sort of odd interpretation of property rights over him. BTW people like this are the same people who say that a woman does not have any property rights over her fetus. This can be a jumbled mess until you get some sort of handle on what should determine who is allowed to have rights to a decision. In the case of the child (who was 17 at the time and therefore a minor) he should have the choice of whether he lives or dies and on what terms this happens (something that applies to younger children as well). In the case of the fetus science has stepped in to help determine whether that fetus is conscious or not. There are other things that can determine this as well but science, not religion or unverifiable spiritual beliefs like that of ensoulment, is the method you use to measure things. Now you could also say well, what about the parents? What if one of them had a hot appendix and chose to pray instead of go to the E.R.? Well, ask who is determining what for whom and their in lies your answer.

My point in all this is that reason based on objective scientific means can help people determine what is right and wrong in the middle part of the two extremes. Not too many people like this because it requires that people think hard and weigh all the evidence. Often this needs to be done on a case by case basis (so it's hard thinking that must be done frequently). Extremes are for people who don't like to think. BTW Sorry if my examples were demeaning in that they were overly simplified. I have learned that if I don't overly simplify things when it comes to talking about this sort of morality I piss people off so much that they yell at me. If I over simplify things they understand what I mean and don't go off half cocked. So If you are feeling demeaned or talked down to, understand I am not writing in this way for you. You already can understand complicated things. I'm writing for people who have difficulty with this.

On another note, if I were to put this post on my FB page I'd get a wrath of shit from people on both extremes. I'm curious what will happen after I post here. Should I prepare for the onslaught?

[Welsh cake]

So you don't see how you're being a racist fuck?

Name a specific ethnicity or ethnic background or race that I've once been racist to.

Oh wait, I've haven't been, so you fucking can't can you? Idiot.

Britain was built on multiculturalism and don't you forget it.

Do you fucking read anything? The government THEMSELVES are asserting multiculturalism has failed owing to an apparent lack of unity, community, and the rise of Islamist extremism on our shores.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

For fuck's sake man, the problem is more severe than that, most people I talk to in England and Scotland hate being called "British".

Not that a Welshman would know anything about it, what with Wales being just shy of 99% white.

I submit to you your own first response:

So you don't see how you're being a racist fuck?

[Cyberman]

most people I talk to in England and Scotland hate being called "British".

Me for one; English born and bred. It may be irrational of me, but I feel my hackles rise every time I encounter someone referring to "the British" or simply "Brits".

(Why do I get the feeling I've just let myself in for a rash of rising hackles..?)

[Autumnlicious]

^ You Brit ^

[frankiej]

I don't mind being called British. I hate it when people call me English...

[Cyberman]

^ You Brit ^

Ah - my prophetic powers have not left me.

[/smug_mode]

[Autumnlicious]

You're welcome, old man.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Um, dumb question here. In the article that Welsh Cake provided it said " under the "doctrine of state multiculturalism", different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives." then it said ""We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."
Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds "the key to achieving true cohesion" by allowing people to say "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner... too", he said."

I'm coming in late on the game here and I don't know the history of this. Did (or does) the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" (what ever that is) mean that people were/are allowed to follow their own law? And what does it mean (specifically, in the case of the article) to "provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong" ?

I'm not trying to be nosy. I actually am interested in the way other modern countries do things. In many ways the Brits (sorry I just couldn't resist) are ahead of the U.S. in development. You are going through things that we will go through sometime in the future. It's interesting to not only see the things we will have to deal with soon with but also to see how other countries have or are handling it, (then learn from your mistakes and go off and (in a lovely creative fashion of course) do some of our own mistakes).

Have a happy 4th of......I mean happy day you got rid of the Americans and the Americans got rid of you! Hee, hee.

[Welsh cake]

@Ziploc Surprise, regrettably it boils down to the issue of immigration over integration, if the newcomers who arrive here feel like they don't belong to this society, they'll withdraw into themselves and possibly go criminal, its only natural. Its rather sad. The government don't seem to be doing enough to tackle this emerging problem. The recent riots on London not too long ago are but a taste of things to come if we cannot form a proper sense of "unification".

In many ways the Brits (sorry I just couldn't resist) are ahead of the U.S. in development. You are going through things that we will go through sometime in the future.

America is a country of extremes, but at least the USA is a proper secular nation regardless of the religious fucks running around.

I envy you. ^^