even the great (lol) peter tatchell said so:
http://www.petertatchell.net/section%2028/hype.htm

i agree with what An Abolished Man said.

it makes you wonder why stonewall, outrage, etc. didnt seek to clarify what section 28 was about????

i think everyone has to agree that its a good thing that it is no more. the confusion and posturing it caused was pointless.

Section 28 was justified self defense against politically correct social engineering.

but yeah, like i said, first impressions. ill maybe have another go..

It’s probably a bad idea to base your assesment of Nietzsche on A-Level textbooks. From what I remember the A-Level sylabus completely misrepresented Nietzsche at a pretty fundamental level.

Grace,

A very good friend of mine is an evangelical Christian like you. I love him to bits, but I honestly think his faith fucks him up a bit. I went to religious schools from 4-16, i’ve been to anglican service, Catholic mass and even (by accident) a couple of evangelical services. I’ve known a lot of Christians over the years, and I’ve read a lot of books about faith (and I’m thinking here about novels especially, and the messages Christian writers knowingly or unknowingly propogate).

In sum: I’ve thought a lot about this. And to answer Peter too, this is not a case of just reading Nietzsche and knowing no Christians. It’s a case of reading Nietzsche and thinking “hmm, he’s describing the world I’ve seen pretty damn well, actually”.

Peter,

You would say that though, being a Christian. Your world-view in that respect is predicated on you holding values like piety, humility, deference and submission to be good. If you come at it from another angle, asking whether these values may in fact be arbitrary and of dubious benefit – with the benefit of not having a heavy emotional investment in such values – it can look rather different.

Bear in mind, of course, that I leave more room for manoeuvre here than Nietzsche does. I think a moderate Anglican is going to be less fucked up by the self-effacing, emasculating and individually minimising Christian value system than than (sorry Grace) the nutty, nutty evangelical madness of making everything about Jesus and loving (him for his meekness) coupled with being utterly, utterly obsessed with sin (thus importing all the harmful repressions, disgusts and self-loathing that an unhealthy pre-occupation with sin brings).

However, it’s quite hard for me to express these thoughts clearly, especially to those unversed in Nietzsche (and with a vested interest in not wanting to consider that he may be right). I’d recommend either the Genealogy of Morals, or (because it’s very easy to read but not to understand), the Guardian’s 8-part “How to Believe” series on the Genealogy, which is an excellent introduction, written by a man of faith who disagress with Nietzsche but at least understands him very well.

Ste,

I’m glad to hear that you “respect faith as something I have never had, know nothing about, and so cant really poke fun at”. On the question of whether young people are religious or not – I’ve met a fair few young Christians. Christianity is pretty common at Oxford (though definitely a minority)

it’s clear to me – from the experiences of all the Christians I know as well as my own experience – that it’s completely wrong that Christianity is “bad for you”. A few examples:

close family friend, billy mccurrie, became a christian while serving a life sentence in the Maze prison. Christ changed him from a hate-filled terrorist into a completely different person (now he’s a Baptist pastor, wife and 5 children, very loving+kind person)

not so dramatic, but since I became a Christian, and my life changed, I’ve been so much more secure/happy. i’d never ever go back to how I was before I became a Christian. All Christians would say that.

another friend: was on the verge of being expelled from school for persistent trouble-making when she became a Christian, now she’s been completely transformed, at college

another says she’s sure she would have committed suicide had she not become a Christian. Christianity didn’t fill her with self-hatred. instead it released her from it. because Christians believe that whatever they do wrong, whatever other people think of them, however much they fail God still loves them. he loved us so much that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us”. there are so many bible passages that tell of god’s amazing love for us – eg song of solomon – we never need to doubt how valuable we are in God’s sight. moreover, it’s certainly our experience that it’s when we start to drift from God, eg because we haven’t been reading our bible regularly, that self-hatred starts to creep in.

“they accept their low, pathetic lot”

in what sense do you mean “accept”? yes, Christians aren’t the most revolutionary sort, and should be uncomplaining. but that doesn’t mean they don’t try – there’s a lot in the bible criticising laziness, eg proverbs 10:5. the christians i know are generally hard-working, try to better themselves

I do accept that if you try to be “religious”, and you try to get to heaven by obeying the 10 commandments etc, this may warp you (since it’s an impossible task). but true Christianity – God’s message of grace – that we don’t need to do anything to be saved except trust in what Jesus has done for us – is liberating. this verse from a wesley hymn really rings true: “long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound in sin and nature’s night, thine eye diffused a quickening ray, i rose, the dungeon flamed with light, my chains fell of, my heart was free, i rose, went forth and followed thee.”

when reading Nietzsche I always had this nagging feeling that he was just this guy who was a freak and a weirdo with no friends who couldnt get a bird, and had somehow got people deeply WRONG in his analysis. He was a bizarre character trying to judge and offer profound insight into what human life is like. From where I stand it just looks distorted and alien

thats how I remember lots of it anyway, thought I liked some bits. Ill give Genealogy of Morals a proper go and see what i think.

It’s probably best not to go for the teenage-Dawkins-esque line.

One reason for this is because Nietzsche has an entirely better line on these things: it simply doesn’t matter whether Christianity has access to any metaphysical truths, because it’s bad for people.

In sum: Nietzsche doesn’t care whether there really is a heaven, a loving father, a son who walked on water and rose from the dead and all the rest. He thinks this stuff is metaphysical mumbojumo (and even more so with, e.g. the Christian conception of free will), but ultimately Nietzsche thinks Christianity is undesirable *even if the metaphysics happen to be true*.

Explaining why is a little tricky, but in condensed form it goes like this: whislt Christianity may give comfort to some people, it’s greatest tendency is to inculcate into people an ethic of meekness; of self-hatred; of repression, self-loathing and emasculation. Thus Christians are taught to be pious, humble, and *slave-like*: they accept their low, pathetic lot because they are told that this life is a vale of tears and they will get their reward in the next (hence why rich men can’t get into heaven but camels fit through eyes of needles, why the meek inherit the earth, etc).

The result is that human beings become repressed, self-loathing bitter little creatures resentful of each other and those who do better than themselves, and this makes them fundamentally *sick* (Nietzsche, given his own life experience, was obsessed with sickness, which he thought a very bad thing).

Although Nietzsche takes it all a little too far, IMO, I think he’s basically right: Christianity is bad for people, it makes them sick. I don’t care about the silly metaphysics – i care about what it does to people.

i found your post interesting for a few reasons;

first; iv read several of your posts on this blog over the months, which are all serious engagements with serious issues, without you ever having mentioned religion, god etc. normally when you come across someone who holds religious faith it becomes apparent quite quickly (in my experience)

second; it has been rare in my experience (and dont take this the wrong way) to find young people who are genuinely faithful. I know plenty of people who are “Catholic” or “Jewish” but all this refers to is their repsective family backgrounds usually. I dont know how rare genuine religious faith is amongst young people today, but I virtually never come across it.

finally; the post was interesting because on the off-chance that you weren’t religious, then a view like “sex before marraige is wrong” would be bizarre indeed; and i would have been intrigued to know what your argument for this view would have been, since your arguments are normally good ones.

anyway, while still an atheist, in recent months I suppose Iv dropped the juvenile Dawkins-esque “religion is STOOPID maaan” crap. I mean, I accept there are fundamental spriritual/existential questions that science is incapable of answering. I dont see that as reason to believe any of the teachings/stories told by any religion. My attitude I suppose is “so what if those questions don’t have an answer, we just made them up because we are scared of being insignificant, our lives having no grand and important meaning etc.”. However, I respect faith as something I have never had, know nothing about, and so cant really poke fun at.