Married With Children

Married With Children (1987-1997) in many ways resembles a similar sitcom framework to All in the Family. The show works very hard to use comedy to expose the shocking reality of poverty and dispel television’s myth of happy families, but in the process it reproduces very normalized scripts of femininity and masculinity. Brunson and Caughie argue that the image of femininity that is depicted by Married With Children represents a male view of women’s experience.  This is likely largely due to the writers of the show recognizing that Married With Children had managed to capture the attention of male television viewers, something that became less and less common as the sitcom evolved. 

This clip sets up the characters as they will remain for the rest of the series. Peggy is a lazy housewife. Al is a hardworking shoe salesman. Bud is the smart one, and Kelly is a tramp.

The show was created as one of the early shows for the emerging FOX network. FOX was invented in an attempt to capture the MTV generation and wasn’t afraid to push, even cross the boundaries of acceptable morality.  FOX was also extremely interested in capturing the demographic of young, black television viewers, and Married With Children was successful in doing this. This is interesting, as Clarence Lusane notes, considering the characters were essentially characterizations of “white trash.” In direct contrast to The Cosby Show, which was the most popular show on television at the time of Married With Children’s inception, which depicted an upper class life, void of any real drama, or problems, Married With Children exposed the harsh realities of poverty and working class life. The bubbly, upward-mobility of the Huxtables is subverted by the dysfunction and self-destruction evident in the Bundy household. In fact, the original title of the show was “Not the Cosbys.” Lusane also suggests that the verbal sparring that is the staple of interaction in Married with Children was modeled after many of the black comedies that executive producer Michael Moye worked on in the 1970s, but that in the culture of television and network hierarchies, it would have been impossible to produce a show featuring black characters with the same class-consciousness that the Bundy family evoked. 

The main character of the show, Al Bundy, is depicted as the hard-working, hard-done-by working class man, and something of an anti-hero. He began working in a shoe store as a part time summer job in high school, but after an injury meant he could no longer play football he became stuck in the shoe-salesman job as his full-time career. Al is frequently nostalgic about his football-glory days, and constantly reflects on how his life might have been different if he had not been “trapped” into marrying Peggy straight out of high school. This is a particularly important articulation of the historical and social context of the 1980s when an economic downturn meant that unskilled labour jobs were at a minimum and the market depended on a workforce that could afford to buy consumer goods, such as the shoes that Al works so hard to sell. 

The interplay between the Bundy family and their next-door neighbour, Marcy and her husband(s) is especially interesting because of the way Marcy is constructed as a feminist. She is portrayed as dominant over her first husband Steve, and her quasi-feminist statements are frequently discounted and undermined by Al and Peggy. Marcy and Steve frequently lord their wealth and job security over the Bundys, and blame the difference between the two families on their  lack of work ethic. However, in later episodes, Marcy re-marries to a younger man, Jefferson, who is content to live off of Marcy’s income. Jefferson and Al become quick friends, and form an all-men’s group called “NOMAAM” (National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Manhood Masterhood) to protest against feminism. Marcy loses what little credibility she had as a feminist, and with it any potential she has to present resistance to normative gender roles.

[1] Brunsdon, Chartlotte and John Caughie, eds. 1997. Feminist Television: A Reader. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.

[2] Lusane, Clarence. 1999. “Assessing the Disconnect between Black & White Television Audiences: The Race, Class and Gender Politics of Married… With Children.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 27(1):12-20.

[3] Lusane, Clarence. 1999. “Assessing the Disconnect between Black & White Television Audiences: The Race, Class and Gender Politics of Married… With Children.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 27(1):12-20.

[4] Lusane, Clarence. 1999. “Assessing the Disconnect between Black & White Television Audiences: The Race, Class and Gender Politics of Married… With Children.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 27(1):12-20.

[5] Lusane, Clarence. 1999. “Assessing the Disconnect between Black & White Television Audiences: The Race, Class and Gender Politics of Married… With Children.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 27(1):12-20.

[6] Lusane, Clarence. 1999. “Assessing the Disconnect between Black & White Television Audiences: The Race, Class and Gender Politics of Married… With Children.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 27(1):12-20.

[7] Lusane, Clarence. 1999. “Assessing the Disconnect between Black & White Television Audiences: The Race, Class and Gender Politics of Married… With Children.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 27(1):12-20.

Perceiving Reality

What is reality?

The best question to start one’s quest for truth.

No one sees reality as it really is because we all see the world through layers of cognitive biases & assumptions. So we see the world as we are, instead of as it is.

A good place to start being more circumspect about our beliefs is to question how we make our beliefs in the first place.

I always advise people now not to believe everything they think or feel. And to question the reasons for those beliefs.

Most of us, as humans, base our beliefs on emotion driven thinking. Rather than on strong evidence & objectivity.

As a result human beings are extremely gullible to unjustified beliefs.

Psychologists can tell you that most people make their beliefs first then look for evidence to confirm those beliefs. This leaves us vulnerable to subconscious cognitive biases like confirmation bias or observer bias.

As humans we can be very irrational about our beliefs and hold onto them despite disconfirming evidence to the contrary.

I strongly recommend studying how we, as human beings, actually form our belief systems.

Accepting that there is an actual reality out there is the first premise.

Then realising & understanding the limitations of our perception of reality is the next step.

Understanding how our minds perceive reality starts us on our journey into discovering what reality is & how to avoid the mistake of believing everything we think & feel is a true reflection of actual reality.

I believe that the best way to perceive reality is with a combination of:

1. Personal experience
2. Rational thought & reasoning
3. Empirical evidence.

The more of these three methods we use to understand reality, the more reliable our perception of it.

Our perception of reality is quite subjective.

It’s scary when one realises how unreliable our understanding of the natural world really is.

But rather, question everything!

You can have different emotions about knowledge. Certain information can make us feel happy or sad. But the information or knowledge exists independent of our feelings about it. The information actually doesn’t care what emotion it evokes. It just exists.

It’s a well studied & understood psychological phenomenon common to all humanity & used by most religions & even some businesses.

When looking at the evidence for cognitive biases, assumptions, phobias & prejudices being used as evidence for truth it’s frightening.

After 30 years of following my faith tradition & truly putting it to the test on many occasions I ‘knew’ I knew God was more real to me than life itself.

I had so many experiences which ‘proved’ to me of it’s veracity.

I too put my absolute trust in ‘spiritual knowledge’.

Till I realised I had been grossly in error. I came to realise the power of the mind in tricking us into believing in fallacy, as if it were reality.

Our minds are amazingly powerful & incredibly malleable which makes us vulnerable to severe errors in judgement.

As humans we are all susceptible to incredulity & even serious gullibility.

The more we understand the workings of the mind, the more we understand ourselves.

I recommend a wonderful book called ‘The Believing Brain’ by Michael Shermer, which looks at the evidence for how our minds work & how human beliefs are formed.

There really is no such thing as ‘spiritual knowledge’. It’s just explained very simply by how our minds work.

All beliefs are either justified by evidence or unjustified.

Declaring belief or faith in something is honest.

Hoping for something is honest.

Expressing a feeling about something is being open, and human, and authentic.

No-one can be absolutely certain of anything because none of us experiences reality in every possible way imaginable. As all of us merely perceives some aspects of reality, so none of us can know absolutely!

We can assess reality and judge the certainty based on levels of probability. So we assign degrees of certainty over information based on our assessment using the three methods I mentioned above:

1.Personal experiences,
2.Reasoning/rational thinking, and
3.Scientific evidence & observation.

Our assessment of the level of certainty is dependent on how much information we have about a subject, our preconceived ideas, and on automatic subconscious assumptions, biases, phobias and prejudices. These are often inculcated into our minds by the culture in which we grew up and live.

But asserting to have certain ‘knowledge’, when it is merely faith, hope and belief is, I believe, a form of self-delusion and shows a lack of thorough care in defining that level of certainty.

It is, of course, a common finding amongst all people and religions of the world and in every human being to some degree.

All of us, as humans, dislike uncertainty. Our subconscious minds abhor insecurity.

So, even if we are not certain, our subconscious minds will persuade us that we are certain after all.

A very useful way to avoid becoming trapped by unscrupulous people or organisations is to question even our own thoughts and emotions, instead of interpreting warm peaceful feelings as confirmations of the Spirit.

Being honest to oneself is the first step to having integrity and being authentic.

That is my goal.

Though I realize that our perception of reality is imperfect, I don’t hold to the concept of universal relativity.

There are many things in the natural world which the scientific method has discovered are universal certainties. Just like with mathematics and certain sections of science like physics & chemistry which are absolutes.

But I think it is seriously misleading for anyone to consider ‘spiritual knowledge’ in the same way.

One is justified by empirical evidence, the other by feelings.

Most religions use similar strategies to convince their adherents that they can rely on their feelings as confirmation of truth, & that feelings about God & their particular faith are somehow uniquely more reliable then any other emotions they may experience.

This complete & absolute trust in spiritual knowledge as being supreme is what scares me now about religion.

For it is this absolute knowledge in what God wants them to do which leads some to give up their lives in suicide bombings.

On the other hand there are many wonderful people in the world who are constantly striving to find answers through scientific enquiry. A good scientist is never satisfied that they have all the answers. They humbly try to disprove their research to increase the degree of certainty.

I have since come to realise that what I considered knowledge was merely belief and faith. Fervent and sincere as it was at the time. I thought I knew. I fervently & sincerely believed I possessed unassailable and certain knowledge.

I was, in effect, lying to myself. It was merely belief, hope and faith.

Always question your cognitive assumptions.

Humans are naturally gullible. Just look at the billions of other religious adherents around the world. I admit I was one of them.

We all like a good story! Especially if it makes us feel good.

“Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth.
Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.
A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.
Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.
Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief.
The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing;
For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.
Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands.
But those who fear not doubt, and know its use; are founded on rock.
They shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure.
Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:
It is to the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.”

Life has more meaning as an Atheist

As a devoutly religious person finding increased meaning in life as an atheist was not something I could have even imagined, nor anticipated. Or for that matter desired by me at the time either.

It did come as a massive surprise that once my religious faith was gone my new perspective gave me a tremendous sense of connection with humanity like I’d never experienced as a Muslim. I felt more compassion, and more empathy with people than I’d ever experienced before in my life. And I thought I was a compassionate man before. I personally stopped judging others & became more accepting of everyone as individuals, and again I had not thought of myself as judgemental in the slightest before.

Being an agnostic atheist, secular humanist & scientific naturalist, and striving to become an actualist, has transformed the way I perceive the world, life & everyone in it in ways I could never have believed had I not experienced it myself.

I have more optimism for humanity, more joy in my relationships, and I feel a greater sense of urgency to live my life to the full.

This life has gained added value. It seems to mean more to me. Everything seems to mean more without the superimposition of a belief in life after death.

Since realising there probably is no personal God I feel that my life actually has more intrinsic meaning.

I surprisingly feel more excitement for life. More awe & wonder at the beauty of the universe. My curiosity about the laws of the Cosmos have intensified beyond belief.

And I cherish this ‘one life’ that I know I have more than ever before.

The potential for each human life feels more special.

I am truly shocked by these changes in feeling, but realise that some things which I had attributed to coming from God are actually intrinsic in my humanity and arise from my evolution.

I have always liked Stephen Covey’s moto of, “Live, Love, Learn & Leave a Legacy”, and it now seems more meaningful in my life than when I felt my ‘purpose of life’ was imposed on me by a Divine Creator.

Please, don’t feel that my personal experience of the way my life view has evolved is in anyway a criticism of your personal life view. It’s just my observations of what it has been like for me to transition from being a stalwart faith believer to becoming a secular humanist.

Having spoken to many others who are ex-Muslim, and in fact formerly religious people from many other faith traditions, I find I am not unique in this experience.

Having said all that, I now feel that religious belief in an afterlife can be detrimental to the human condition and to the progress of humanity as a whole.

I guess for many people this one life does not have the opportunities we have. Or the relative ease and peace of living in a modern industrialised country. Our life experience is vastly different from many who are born into poverty, or born into a criminal lifestyle.

We all have a life based on chance, choice & consequence. Often not as a result of our choices, but for most it’s other people’s choices which affect us, even our parents.

I just don’t accept there is any compelling evidence for there being any other existence for us besides this one. It may not be fair, or just. It just is.

As a secular humanist I believe very strongly it is our duty to help improve the lives of every single human being on this planet. To do our best to enhance the human condition so that everyone has the optimum conditions to thrive as a person. So everyone gets to choose their own life experience with the best opportunities for developing their talents and skills.

I think it is beholden on us to work towards this goal.

Belief in an afterlife is at best a distraction, at worst an excuse to squander it on preparing for a fantasy which might never happen.

So much time, thought, effort & money is spent on preparing for something which is just based on a hope.

I have no concern about receiving eternal blessings from a God, or avoiding his eternal punishments either. I think that if there is a God he would prefer we concentrate on this one life we’re living right now and on improving the life experience of all the inhabitants of this planet.

Any time we focus on an afterlife at the expense of this one we’re living right now we’re reducing our effectiveness in mortality.

Any belief system which idolises the afterlife is distorting our priorities. Some people would rather they or their loved ones died rather than change their beliefs. It is sickly tragic when religious beliefs are held in higher esteem than human life, but it happens far too often. It happens in many religions.

Why Faith?

There are many motivations for believing in something that our senses can't quite reach. One is just that, the idea that there is something more to this life than just life itself. Specifically, because we have a consciousness. I will save the idea of consciousness for another post. But with our conciousness comes an understanding of the world from a different point of view, namely, it allows us to ask the question: why are we here? While I can't know for sure, I don't see any reason to believe that there is such an answer. Why do we need a purpose? Is the life of a monkey any different whether it lives it in the presence or absence of a cosmological purpose? Is ours? Is our humanly purpose any more than to live a successful life, reproduce, give our offspring the opportunity to have a successful life, and aid in the survival of our species? What more purpose does anyone really need?

Of course, all this bears in mind the fact that most people on this planet have a "faith" in something divine, or at least outside of the physical realm in some fashion. So it seems that this is some trait that is inherent to who we are as humans, at least to some degree. But why is the case? Faith could be selected for in evolution, or it could be a by-product of another trait that was selected for, and our innate faith was linked to that trait through similar genetic combinations. As Dawkins puts in the The God Delusion, faith in a parental sense would be a desirable trait. If the parents of a child tell it two things, don't go to the river because of crocodiles and to dance in a circle to bring rain, a child will not be able to tell the difference between what is faith for good reason, and faith for the sake of faith. Evolution would select for children who trusted everything their parents told them, which would make them dance in a circle but would also keep them away from being eaten. Or it could be a side effect of something else.

But in modern times, with our current understanding of the universe and planet far exceeding what people knew even one hundred years ago, why do we still believe in something like a god? Indeed, an ever increasing percentage of Europeans are atheist, but in America and Islamic ruled countries, religion is as strong as ever. But why does anyone actually believe it? It's been almost 300 years since the advent of the scientific method being employed to discover things about our existence. We have discovered that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, the universe is 14 billion years old, our solar system formed from earlier stars that died, and humanity has evolved along with all other life from a singular instance. We know about the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and mathematics that explain nearly all events we witness in the cosmos and everything we experience on this planet. We as humans rely on evidence to live life. Some of it is obvious to daily life, such as why we don't knowingly walk in front of a moving car (taking inertia, momentum, force, pain, injury, and death into account), to the not obvious, such as our understanding of electricity and magnetism. Before the advent of modern science, our evidence was based on experience. Now, there are many things we have come to accept through science that we cannot see or fathom, such as stars, galaxies, black holes, atoms, electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc... But just because we can't see them doesn't make them any more relevant and important to our lives. As Horton the elephant would say, "A person's a person, no matter how small." And we experience their effects, which give rise to our own existence. So given all this evidence, what we see, what we do not see, what we experience directly, and what we experience indirectly, why does anyone believe in a god or have faith in something that cannot be seen, detected, or tested?

What reason do we have for believing in a god or gods? If all we have is text written by humans purporting to have divine origins, and a mass of people that believe it, why is anyone convinced? This question goes beyond asking for proof of God, but in the complete absence of proof of any sort, why is there faith in such a thing? Realistically, it probably traces to a time where people didn't know the answers that we know now, and so in order to explain these things they made up stories. These stories told a point. The story of Adam and Eve explains why bad things are in the world and what we must do to be good. The story of creation explains the perceived order in the world and the "purpose" of humans. But one must realize they are just stories, ones that were conceived four thousand years ago or more initially. To lose perspective of this is to lose both the meaning of the story and the answers that we know have in our possession. If someone was born today, with no influence from their parents or peers, they would probably come to learn the leading scientific theories of today explain most of the aspects to our life, and would probably find very little use for existing mainstream religions. However, there are many distractions to lead people to question the valid scientific theories in favor of something that is completely and utterly unsupported. I truly pity people who are so blinded by religion to not be able to appreciate the advances and knowledge we have acquired through science. Then there are those who believe God lies in areas which we can't explain, again relegating him to the gaps. But I think the first question I ask myself now, devoid of religious belief, is why I ever believed it in the first place.

Question of the Day: If God is truly beyond comprehension, what exactly can you have faith in?

In the Name of Freedom

"100,000+ civilian deaths so that democracy should be brought to the Middle East".

Grounds provided to Parliament for invasion: false and proven incorrect The UN process to clarify that falsehood: rejected, against the will of the international community Bush regime ideology: shock and awe in line with the 'Program for a New American Century'

Yet democracy (the later justification for war) was ignored. Democracy is still compromised by this demonstrated military culture that resists transparency. Democracy needs press freedom, judicial fairness and accountability, and transparency.

Democracy is not just a one-off vote. It is a culture, an accountability, an openness, a protection of the innocent. It is the freedom of the press to uncover hidden injustices. It should also be legality.

Was this war legal?

Were the actions without a 2nd UN mandate legal?

Was Abu Ghraib legal? Would we ever have been told about it, if it hadn't come to light? Or the rape and murder at Haditha?

Was the aerial bombing from great height a disproportionate action endangering the Iraqi civilian population? Would we ever have countenanced it against our own UK or US civilian populations?

Was the suppression of information like this legal?

Was the UK or US government aware of some of this information, and if it suppressed it, and acquiesced in its implications and violations, was it acting illegally its roles and responsibilities as an occupying force with responsibilities towards the civilian population?

Who killed the innocent civilian Baha Mousa? Which UK soldier did that? Why wasn't he prosecuted? Why did colleagues collude in a cover up?

Is the Ministry of Defense properly accountable or does it collude with the hiding of relevant information that should be part of accountability in a democracy? Why was it alright for the Ministry of Defense/British Aerospace to be engaged in weapons deals with Saudi princes, which involved illegal bribes, when the Saudi regime is non-democratic and has a bad human rights record?

What I'm really saying is: first Tony Blair said imminent attack from weapons of mass destruction was the reason for ignoring the UN processes already in place. Then, when this claim was shown to be doctored and false, the argument shifted to 'bringing democracy to Iraq' (as if Saudi Arabia and countless other trading partners couldn't be invaded on that pretext as well).

But, the democratic majority of the UK ad USA opposed the invasion without the legality of a 2nd UN mandate. Democracy also involves, legality, openness, transparency, accountability.

Countless known crimes in this terrible history of events have gone unaddressed and uncared for. People's intimate family lives have been shattered.

Perhaps the greatest crime that has gone unaddressed was the decision - against international opinion and against our own nation's democratic opinion - to invade Iraq and unleash chaos.

The Iraq War was a disaster and it did nothing for the "war on terror", motivating new martyrs, and totally losing the battle for "hearts and minds".

So I am wholly under-impressed by people who try to portray journalistic truths being brought to light as if *they* are the ones in the wrong.

Our culture is way too militaristic. Our soldiers - like *all* soldiers of courage, including Iraqi soldiers - deserve recognition for individual courage in an invidious situation. But was it worth the 100,000 dead mothers, children, sisters, grandparents, innocent people? Was it worth our own dead soldiers?

And how many more British and American soldiers will die in Afghanistan before we pull out, which the politicians know we must, yet they fear the losing face, and so other soldiers will die needlessly I fear. Indeed it's a weekly death count. As is the continuing civilian death toll there, when innocent people get strafed at weddings, or just wiped out by drones, and so the killing (and on the evidence of the past) the cover up goes on.

If we devoted a fraction of the money we spend on militarism to education, health, and help for those in need, of any faith or creed perhaps we might start winning hearts, and demonstrating democracy. Perhaps we'd stop the hypocrisy of invading countries in the name of democracy while remaining trading partners and colluders in regimes that are non-democratic and oppressive.

If Wikileaks contributes in some way to greater accountability in the future, then maybe politicians will take the responsibilities of war and its (in this case unplanned) aftermath more seriously.

But surely, we live in a democracy because we vote once every 4 years? If the people we vote for then go against the clear democratic will, and worse still, if they should ever break international law in going to war then what exactly are we exporting (apart from more arms) to the countries we claim to democratize?

Catholic Church Goes Cool

I'm an atheist (well Wittgenstenian agnostic would be more accurate, but that's more a philosophical than a practical scepticism - I believe in evolution because I read it in a book, in a culture that takes certain books as being good sources of knowledge, I assume without proof that the table doesn't disappear when I look away from it, I don't need personal proof or comprehension of how carbon-dating works for my belief in it to be rational, until I acknowledge, philosophically at least, that I've got plenty of views that rest on grounds that are at least as shaky as religion). But I do lecture in philosophy of religion, so I have some insight as one who has dealt a lot with catholicism, but isn't part of it (and thankfully didn't have the kind of upbrining that would leave me emotionally traumatised by it).

Wee need to realise that the Catholicism isn't a monolithic entity, but a collection of quite diverse subcultures and belief systems. It's easy to miss that point because of the organisation's insane political-party like insistence on presenting an 'absolute front' to the world, hiding the debate that goes on behind the scenes.

But this is an organisation that on one hand condemned 'revolutionary socialism', while on the other hand was the main instigator and supporter of revolutionary socialism in numerous pockets of South America. It's the organisation that took an appeasement stance towards fascism (I won't enter the debate on how Pope Pius should be judged - yes he did do a deal where he gave political support to Mussolini in return for the Vatican City, and yes he did arrange the smuggling of thousands of Jews out of the country - whether one justifies the other is going to be a long debated question), and it's also the organisation that had thousands of priests and bishops end up in concentration camps for deying Hitler even though their leader remained silent.

It's the organisation that gave - at best, and contrary to its far more liberal position on science pre-20th century (Galileo was largely a political dispute, with the most powerful layman in the catholic church getting shafted after a change in pope) - a very cold shoulder to Darwin's discoveries, while one of it's most famous offshoots, the Jesuits, celebrated the discovery of natural selection as providing a crucial discovery for how humanity arose (and one, which in their view, was better in keeping with their ideology of humanity as essentially an intelligent/privileged animal instead of a 'God' in itself).

It's the church that issues horrific 'official statements' about homosexuality (less offensive under the current pope, admittedly), but has inner city churches in most western cities that are proudly gay-friendly regardless of what 'Rome' might think. It's the organisation that works hand in hand with some of the most oppressive regimes, while also sheltering freedom fighters of all creeds, with many priests in East Timor and South America being tortured and killed because they wouldn't give up their beneficiaries' hiding place.

Like any large organisation, the Catholic church is heavily factional, with economic 'left and right' and social 'conservative and progressive' factions. This last came into public view at the Vatican II conference, initiated by the South American revolutionary socialist wing of the church, who wanted the church to move beyond poverty relief to tackling the causes of poverty, including corrupt governments and capitalist systems. The progressive tide reached a fairly impressive height but was then utterly crushed by the conservative factions who united with the sole purpose of opposing the movement, until the only outcome of Vatican II was minor decentralisation and that the mass is now read in english instead of latin, with the original ideological underpinnings having disappeared entirely.

Following that, the conservative factions united to try and ensure that the 'threat' that initiated Vatican II never gained political power again - they were fine with them being tortured and killed while fighting for justice in far-away lands, but taking it to the church's seat of power had been a step too far. As bishop positions became vacant, traditionally progressive seats were systematically replaced with conservatives, resulting in the anti-modern quagmire that is the 'official' Catholic ideology today.

But the church is still factional, and any analysis must begin from that. There are pro-gay factions, pro-Marxist factions, factions who want the nuns to run things (given that they've got the better track record so far), factions defined by Kantian ideology (bizarrely condemned by the previous pope - you'd think being the church of Immanuel Kant would be something you'd sell yourself on) and of course the conservative factions that dominate the official policy. A monolithic view is never a sufficient one when it comes to Catholicism.

Whore of Babylon.

"Niqab's predate Islam and stretch back to Babylon where they were worn by Arab women of ruling class as a symbol of wealth to rub it in the noses of poor Arab women".

Western culture involves a degree of openness and honesty, and it is generally considered unacceptable to mask your face whilst interacting with another person 'face to face'. The clue is in the name. By showing your face you display to another person that you can be trusted you show willingness to be recognised such that if you ever did them wrong, they could identify you in the future. A smile on a friendly face by a stranger makes people feel happy. If we cannot see the faces of others in public then it is a cause for concern.

Religion equals ignorance and oppression and is never benign. The evidence for that is

easily seen in the infighting around Western women who may want a spot on an executive committee in that brand. Ultimately the women who wear such items of clothing are doing so to proclaim to the rest of society that they have absolutely no desire to integrate or take advantage of the freedoms that women have in western society (in comparison to say Saudi Arabia). Either that, or they are being forced to wear the Burka because their husband doesn't want them to integrate or take part in wider society. Which ever way, I find the whole matter pretty disrespectful and quite sad really.

Most of us if honest will admit that in the very recent past our ancestors were poor, illiterate and unsophisticated. They existed in theocratic tyrannies and were bullied by vile control freaks. That is hopefully a thing of the past. Our decent cultures have bent over backwards, regressing us in order to not cause those coming from the developing world insult.

When you ask what values are being protected? Can I submit that our culture and society holds dear that facial expressions and facial contact between humans is one of the key components of human interaction. We also believe that men are capable of looking at women's faces without turning into lustful rapists, equally women can reveal their own faces to men who are not their husbands without automatically becoming the "whore of Babylon".