Political Correctness... Too far, or absolutely correct?


Got soaked heading into the office today, a female colleague of mine suggested I go down to the mens changing rooms and use the hair dryers provided.
Mens changing room had no such thing, imagine the s**t storm it would cause if the men of the office had access to something that the women didn’t


Exact same thing happened to me too - and I’m bald.


See Richard Dawkins


He’s dead.


Would you believe it?


Are you thinking of Stephen Hawkins?


Without knowing the full context it’s impossible to know. But if the promotion was to a managerial position then it is probably one of the most important questions they could ask.

The answer might not definitively decide the outcome, but they need to know if someone is prepared to manage or not.


In secondary schools my understanding is that it is thought more in the round, then just a focus on Catholicism.

But just on a quick defense of Catholic education, and this is only one side of it (and I am not always on that side), but without the Catholic Church there wouldn’t have been the access to education there was in the past. They provided buildings and labour at low cost for decades.

Also, there is a benifit to society to Catholicism being taught. By and large, the values in Catholicism mirror those that make society function best. Yes, I know we can all list a load of shite that doesn’t benifit anyone, but in the round the idea of sharing, caring, looking after the weak etc. are the things that make societies work. And yes, I know they didn’t always live up to those values, but a lot did.

I have seen societies where religion isn’t so prominent, Czech Rep (officially the most atheist country in the world) and to a lesser extent China, and in my view they both suffer because of the lack of it. Czech especially is a basket case societally, huge marriage breakdown stats and massively anti immigrant (even though they dont actually have any).

Sure it might be an unintended consequence of the Catholic Church, but a lot of it was benificial.


Maybe so, but they are still not allowed to ask it…


There’s also a huge amount of negatives associated with the Catholic church having such a prominent role in education particularly around the limitations attached to woman and the LGBT community which are only really beginning to be unwound in some context in the last few decades. There is probably a balance in between but personally I don’t think we need to have the the church to teach us values and morals. Those morals can easily be twisted and shaped into whatever view people can have and the modern world is a far cry from biblical times which in reality is what the church is based on.

For the record I have no issue with anyone wanting to live their own lives according to any religion but I don’t think it should have any special status in society where it can dominate agendas nationally


I am not sure, but I suspect they can. Possibly not a blanket question about the general opinion on Trade Unions, but possibly in relation to specific things. Taking an extreme example, if they were appointing someone to a position where the main role was to negotiate with Unions on something, I would think they have a right to ask where the person stands on that.


But the bit I highlighted above is sort of unknown, maybe we do need the church to give society a set of rules. I am sure those in the church would argue that is not what they are there for, but the reality is that all societies have evolved religions that are generally similar and the theory is that the purpose is to ensure a code that helps that community survive.

I know it shouldn’t be needed, but in my experience the people who argue that it isn’t needed are relatively intelligent, educated, well adjusted people - but maybe fail to realise that a large proportion of society isn’t, so they need some external force to direct them.


No because there is no such person, at least not in the famous sense! I know Stephen Hawking is dead. I thought Richard Dawkins was too. It seems that he isn’t!!


While that may be true I would like to concentrate on why these people are not well-adjusted and intelligent before resorting to a religion as a form of social control.


There’s nothing special in those values you mention. They are central to the human condition and found everywhere and certainly predate Christianity.

I think your post is more about social control than values and it’s obvious religion being effectively the state carried out that task in the past and in some places currently.

The point id make is that laws based upon reason do a far better job.


When they are seen to be fair and are enforced with appropriate penalties.


I generally have an assumption that they would have done their homework and know where the interviewee stood in relation to Unions.


And @dubinhell who is making the same point basically.

Absolutely it’s social control, but is that such a bad thing? Yes, the basic tenets of the main religions existed probably before the religions themselves, but only very loosely and the world was a much crazier place. I suspect that organised religion played a strong role in, well, organizing things.

Laws should be able to take the place of religous doctrine, but would they be as effective? I don’t strictly agree though that the human condition is programmed to live in a way that is benifical for all society. There are enough examples of people who choose not to do that to go towards disproving that. I think the majority of people will, but the minority would be too sizable.

Probably as societies move towards a greater level of civilization the need for religion to play a part in the control of society will lessen. But I think it played a strong role in signposting the way.

Religion has done a lot of harm, or to be more precise, people have, in the name of religion. But even with all of that, in an overall context it has probably shaped the world for the better.


It is in Africa when 10’s of millions of people have AIDs and the CC preaches against contraception.

I agree here, it was the first attempt to explain many things. Astronomy, biology, physics, ethics etc. It’s just it has been proved wholly incorrect.


I have to secretly laugh at all the people on here who diss religion at every turn.

They’re going straight to hell.