A (sense of) security

EutychusEutychus Admin
edited March 16 in Purgatory
Several threads and recent events have got me wondering about personal security and our sense of it.

After the terrorist attack here in France a few years ago in which a priest was killed, churches were given security advice by the authorities. In response, one church I know in an obscure location in a relatively small town now locks its doors after starting time and only lets people in thereafter using a video intercom system.

By contrast, until recently our church was on a main thoroughfare in a large city and people could (and did) walk in literally off the street without being immediately visible from the meeting area. Our 'security' response was to appoint a few people in the church to be responsible for low-profile security, which meant keeping an eye on the door area, welcoming any newcomers, de-escalating anything that looked like being disruptive, and calling the police if all other options failed. Most of the congregation were unaware of these people's role.

(Besides, if we'd applied the practice of the other church, nobody would have got in before the doors were locked...).

While I understand the notion of experience bias ('we've always done it this way and nothing's ever happened') I think the 'hard security' approach of the other church is also doomed to failure (it will not stop a determined attacker any better than our approach) and could even be counter-productive in that it contributes to the alienation and depersonalisation that nurtures violent behaviour. I'm not convinced it's a very "Christian" response, either. What kind of message do locked doors send about the Gospel?

Similarly, when I'm in prison in my capacity as chaplain, I usually don't carry a personal alarm. This is largely because I consider that while it could be a life-saver in some occasions, on far more occasions it could actually endanger me more in the long run by triggering an overly-aggressive staff response to a situation that can end better by me de-escalating it (I can think of two instances straight off).

What do others think? Am I naive? Irresponsible? What well-developed forms of security assessment and response might there be other than more hard security? Jane Jacobs' 'eyes on the street' theory (which has also come up in my plodding reading of Two Cheers for Anarchism) might be a place to start; can it be more widely implemented? Why isn't it?
«1

Comments

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I have heard that gated communities tend to be more subject to break-ins, because thieves assume that if you've gone to the trouble of putting up gates then you must have something worth protecting ...
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    I think there is a danger of security backfiring.

    When I was in Cairo a few years ago, there were permanent armed police stationed outside the Anglican/Episcopalian Cathedral.

    It is an open question whether the state is protecting the church from attackers or considers the church a risk.

    Of course one can do it yourself, but then there are risks there to do with perception and internal awareness and fear.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    After the Dunblane incident in 1996 every school in the UK was fitted with security systems so that visitors had to be buzzed in by Reception. Now they also have to sign in and out of a book and wear visitors badges to identify themselves to the staff.

    Before that time the doors of schools were unlocked and visitors could come and go unchecked. Nobody imagined that something like Dunblane could happen. 1 teacher and 16 children were shot dead. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in British history.
  • But does that system mitigate a marginal, albeit severe, risk, at the expense of the human dimension of the community? And how well does it really mitigate the risk?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Rublev wrote: »
    After the Dunblane incident in 1996 every school in the UK was fitted with security systems so that visitors had to be buzzed in by Reception. Now they also have to sign in and out of a book and wear visitors badges to identify themselves to the staff.

    Before that time the doors of schools were unlocked and visitors could come and go unchecked. Nobody imagined that something like Dunblane could happen. 1 teacher and 16 children were shot dead. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in British history.

    Yes. I suppose the question with all these things is about risk, proportionality and cost.

    Also sometimes one has to consider the emotional cost of security.

    I don't think kids are particularly stressed out about security in British schools, but it isn't too hard to imagine how that could happen.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    None of us are safe, but most of us feel safe. IRA bomb scares were common when I lived in London. We carried on our everyday lives and hoped for the best, but some people were hurt or killed when the bombs went off.

    It was and is right to carry on our everyday lives. It is not right to set bombs, or to shoot people.

    I do think that training people in civil defence is worthwhile, encouraging people to be vigilant and to know what to do rather than to panic.
  • One of the French responses to terrorism has been to put patrols of three soldiers on the streets in larger cities and at strategic sites.

    According to someone I know who has been a part of these patrols, the soldiers are not really trained for whatever it is they are supposed to be doing here (e.g. the rules of engagement are very different) and there is little evidence they are effective in preventing terrorism. In one case an attacker briefly gained control of one of the soldiers machine guns.

    In the meantime the duties are fatiguing the troops (their living conditions, including leave, are frequently harsher than in theatre abroad) for little gain.

    And they don't make me feel safe at all.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Maybe security is a mirage. Maybe our freedom is only ever at the expense of someone else's slavery, our peace at the expense of someone else's war.

    One can put up walls and gates and soldiers and armed police, but at some point you get to the stage when the walls keeping "them" out are keeping "you" in. That the greatest weapon of a terrorist is not the terrible, monstrous act but the fear of the terrible, monstrous act.
  • Indeed. I'm interested in trying to flesh out the theory, and perhaps the theology, of that.

    Two Cheers for Anarchism argues that much of institutional approaches to security are really just a means of social control and imposing power from the top down.

    Are there proven, more effective ways? How might we implement them, individually or collectively?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 16
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Indeed. I'm interested in trying to flesh out the theory, and perhaps the theology, of that.

    Two Cheers for Anarchism argues that much of institutional approaches to security are really just a means of social control and imposing power from the top down.

    Are there proven, more effective ways? How might we implement them, individually or collectively?

    It makes sense to me that one cannot truly be secure if the society and authorities providing and offering security are corrupted.

    For example, if one is a western country getting rich for selling arms to nearby countries then it can't really be a great surprise when there is a consequential crush of refugees. These things breed each other.

    Similarly with climate change, which I think will cause the tensions to rack up even more in the decades to come.

    I'm not sure I even deserve to have a comfortable night's sleep given the misery caused by the normal standard of living expected of a person in my country.

    I don't think there is anything to be done except repentance, collectively and individually.

    Things are coming home to roost and we should be ashamed of our part in creating the environment where these things ferment.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    To follow Christ is to to live with an extra sense of security, if the worst they can do when we are serving, ie sharing God's love with the world, is to torture and kill us, but we are secure in the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    One of the French responses to terrorism has been to put patrols of three soldiers on the streets in larger cities and at strategic sites.

    According to someone I know who has been a part of these patrols, the soldiers are not really trained for whatever it is they are supposed to be doing here (e.g. the rules of engagement are very different) and there is little evidence they are effective in preventing terrorism. In one case an attacker briefly gained control of one of the soldiers machine guns.

    In the meantime the duties are fatiguing the troops (their living conditions, including leave, are frequently harsher than in theatre abroad) for little gain.

    And they don't make me feel safe at all.

    I see those peachfuzzy adolescents with uzis under their arms on subway platforms and the Charles de Gaulle and all I can think of when I see them is "Are you sure you know how to operate that thing?"

    I feel more uneasy about being hit by friendly fire than otherwise if god forbid I were in the middle of such a debacle.

    AFF

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Given that I am in a fairly large country I think the odds of an attack against me is much smaller than getting in an auto crash. But I still drive and think nothing about it
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Given that I am in a fairly large country I think the odds of an attack against me is much smaller than getting in an auto crash. But I still drive and think nothing about it

    Yes, but you have a car full of safety features and you wear a seatbelt.

    We lock our doors when we are in at home (lots of opportunist burglars round here) and we lock the Church doors when everyone is in. The door steward stays on duty in case of late comers. (It’s a rota so not the same person every service.)
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    To follow Christ is to to live with an extra sense of security, if the worst they can do when we are serving, ie sharing God's love with the world, is to torture and kill us, but we are secure in the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God.
    that sentiment may well have carried weight and been effective before the rapid expansion of world-wide communication. However, since it is very obvious that trust in God is ineffective protection and that nowhere is there any strong evidence of eternal life, I think the sentiment is overly naïve.
  • We only lock our front door when going to bed, although anyone can easily break through a ground floor window. We do not lock the church door during services, but preschool that meets there during the week is locked in and one can gain entrance only by intercom. On the other hand we live in a rural area on top of a mountain so most likely not worth the trouble for any outside gunman. We do have local crime of course. I no longer feel as safe in big city shopping malls and such, but then I am really more afraid of mountain lions, and bears if out walking in the woods. I do not take such walks early in the morning or late in the evening. Oh yes, it is also now snake season, and skunk mating season, both to be avoided.
  • There comes a point where you get so obsessed with guarding your life that you forget to live. IMHO security should stop well short of that point.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    To follow Christ is to to live with an extra sense of security, if the worst they can do when we are serving, ie sharing God's love with the world, is to torture and kill us, but we are secure in the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God.
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    that sentiment may well have carried weight and been effective before the rapid expansion of world-wide communication. However, since it is very obvious that trust in God is ineffective protection and that nowhere is there any strong evidence of eternal life, I think the sentiment is overly naïve.

    It is not naive, it is a statement of faith.
    It is not a sentiment, it is a statement of faith.

    Whereas, your response? It adds nothing of worth to the conversation - zero. All you've done is come in sea-gulling, once again, to remind us that you have no confidence in anything beyond the physical. We know, already! Are you wanting to discuss anything? Anything?
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    There comes a point where you get so obsessed with guarding your life that you forget to live. IMHO security should stop well short of that point.

    Absolutely. This may seem remote from the topic, but my youngest child has quite a number of food allergies. When he was about three, our immunologist mentioned that his egg allergy, in particular, was severe enough that we should consider carrying an epi-pen about with us. We did that, for about a year, but eventually opted to stop, because the whole business was rendering (me, in particular), terrified/obsessed. You worry if you go down to the shops and forget the epi-pen, though you never had one before. You take it out with you, when you go to the beach for a picnic, and worry that it's being exposed to higher than recommended temperatures. Thereafter, you worry that it might not work effectively, when needed. You worry that it might not work, anyway. You worry that anyone else you leave your child with, won't know how to operate it. It was making me insane, and when it went out of date, we threw it away and didn't get another. We simply taught him not to eat anything unfamiliar without checking with us first, and sent him off to birthday parties and celebratory functions with a bag of his own junk-food and lollies. There is some risk - but - there's always some risk.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    anoesis wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    To follow Christ is to to live with an extra sense of security, if the worst they can do when we are serving, ie sharing God's love with the world, is to torture and kill us, but we are secure in the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God.
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    that sentiment may well have carried weight and been effective before the rapid expansion of world-wide communication. However, since it is very obvious that trust in God is ineffective protection and that nowhere is there any strong evidence of eternal life, I think the sentiment is overly naïve.

    It is not naive, it is a statement of faith.
    It is not a sentiment, it is a statement of faith.

    Whereas, your response? It adds nothing of worth to the conversation - zero. All you've done is come in sea-gulling, once again, to remind us that you have no confidence in anything beyond the physical. We know, already! Are you wanting to discuss anything? Anything?

    Not to mention the fact that she completely missed Raptor Eye's point about the security of being assured of eternal life in Christ, not security in this life.

    I only realized how safe living in the US made me feel until after 9/11 took that sense of safety away. The precautions taken at places like Dodger Stadium and LAX may make me safer, but they also remind me those places are potential targets for terrorists.

    My personal safety on a day-to-day basis I don't worry about much. I take the precautions most women take without giving them a lot of thought.* I was once punched in the back of the head by a drunk woman right out front of my church job on my lunch hour, which was scary at the time. But other than giving sketchy-looking people a wider berth, there's really nothing I can do to prevent such a weird, random thing, so I don't worry about it.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited March 17
    Anoesis
    I am sorry you read my post in the way you did. I can assure you it was written without any thought of confrontation or aggression. I hoped, by ending with ‘I think’, that this would be clear.
    Bearing in mind the horror of the NZ massacre, I personally find it puzzling that views are expressed which, yes, are statements of faith, but could seem to be somewhat simplistic. I am, as always, interested in how and why people feel such a security, as expressed by Raptor Eye, and hope that I may be able to add more.

    By the way, I quite understand that Raptor Eye was not talking about this life.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    Missed something: I see Raptor Eye was talking of security in Christ, and meant in this life. How does that actually work?
  • Like this.

    (This is a long way from the line of thinking I was pursuing in the OP, but never mind).
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    I see those peachfuzzy adolescents with uzis under their arms on subway platforms and the Charles de Gaulle and all I can think of when I see them is "Are you sure you know how to operate that thing?"

    I'm not arguing one way or the other, for armed soldiery guarding public spaces, but you know, you do reach a point in your life where both your GP and your MP* are younger than you, your dentist has a definite whiff of the teenager about him, and your lawyer hardly seems to be out of a training bra. And astonishingly, they all seem to know what they're doing.

    *And in my case, my PM, as well!
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Anoesis
    I am sorry you read my post in the way you did. I can assure you it was written without any thought of confrontation or aggression. I hoped, by ending with ‘I think’, that this would be clear.
    Bearing in mind the horror of the NZ massacre, I personally find it puzzling that views are expressed which, yes, are statements of faith, but could seem to be somewhat simplistic. I am, as always, interested in how and why people feel such a security, as expressed by Raptor Eye, and hope that I may be able to add more.

    By the way, I quite understand that Raptor Eye was not talking about this life.

    Look, I accept that my reply was somewhat confrontational, and possibly I should just let Raptor Eye speak for him/herself, but I'd refer you to his/her original post on this thread, which you have not taken issue with, I can only assume because it makes no reference at all to formal issues of faith. But it could also be read as 'somewhat simplistic'. Personally I think it's the 'excellent commonsense' kind of simplistic, and that it's appropriate to read the second post in light of the first.

    But what actually irritated me, about your post, had nothing to do with my being a citizen of a country that's coming to terms, right now, with the fact that our sense of security looks to have been a mirage. Instead, it was the implied undertone that while personal faith may have done very well for past societies and primitive people (poor things), as humanity comes to be more advanced, such detritus will inevitably be swept away. Not only is it kind of sneery, there just isn't very much evidence for the proposition, so far.

    From an individual who doesn't have a personal faith, but would nonetheless not describe herself as an atheist.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    After the Dunblane incident in 1996 every school in the UK was fitted with security systems so that visitors had to be buzzed in by Reception. Now they also have to sign in and out of a book and wear visitors badges to identify themselves to the staff.

    Before that time the doors of schools were unlocked and visitors could come and go unchecked. Nobody imagined that something like Dunblane could happen. 1 teacher and 16 children were shot dead. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in British history.

    I'm not sure this is right. I think signing visitors in and out may date to that time, but the locking of all external doors is much more recent - within the last 3 years in my current school and maybe 10 years ago in the larger, mainland school where I previously taught. I certainly remember "lockdown" incidents when I was at school in the late 90s after a man was seen on site with a knife but there was no way with the technology of the time that one could have secured all the doors and kept the school functioning. It's only since the widespread low cost availability of timed and carded locks that such an idea has even been feasible. We demanded security doors after a parent got into school and assaulted one of the classroom assistants, but the new head has had them disabled.
  • We demanded security doors after a parent got into school and assaulted one of the classroom assistants, but the new head has had them disabled.

    Ah! And what was the thinking on your part - and the head's part?
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I've read in some news articles that 95% of Dutch cyclists refuse to wear helmets. I like that. It's not the cyclists who should protect themselves. It's the roads that should be safe.
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    You are neither naive nor irresponsible. I work with young people who are at risk of or have been excluded from school which is usually some form of violent behaviour. I have worked with young men who have beaten 3 or more young men or even police and some who think having a knife on them is OK.
    What I can discern from the way they see me is that I am not part of the "sytem" (school, justice, statutory provisions of all sorts etc) that they are constrained by and are not perceived as a threat.

    Locking church doors...no, not unless there is a pressing need to do it, which reminds me, I`m the dooman on welcome today :wink:
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    We demanded security doors after a parent got into school and assaulted one of the classroom assistants, but the new head has had them disabled.

    Ah! And what was the thinking on your part - and the head's part?

    On our part it was that angry and irate parents shouldn't be able to just march into school and harass or assault members of staff or (potentially) students. Stopping them at reception and forcing them to make appointments to see staff reduces the risk of escalation to violence and ensures staff can have a witness present for any conversation, as some parents have a habit of going back and picking apart what was said afterwards. As for our new headie: no-one knows, as he didn't bother telling us.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    anoesis wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Anoesis
    I am sorry you read my post in the way you did. I can assure you it was written without any thought of confrontation or aggression. I hoped, by ending with ‘I think’, that this would be clear.
    Bearing in mind the horror of the NZ massacre, I personally find it puzzling that views are expressed which, yes, are statements of faith, but could seem to be somewhat simplistic. I am, as always, interested in how and why people feel such a security, as expressed by Raptor Eye, and hope that I may be able to add more.

    By the way, I quite understand that Raptor Eye was not talking about this life.

    Look, I accept that my reply was somewhat confrontational, and possibly I should just let Raptor Eye speak for him/herself, but I'd refer you to his/her original post on this thread, which you have not taken issue with, I can only assume because it makes no reference at all to formal issues of faith.
    Thank you for saying, and, no, there was no particular reason for not going into detail on Raptor Eye's post, my response was in what I hoped were more general terms.
    But it could also be read as 'somewhat simplistic'. Personally I think it's the 'excellent commonsense' kind of simplistic, and that it's appropriate to read the second post in light of the first.
    I will go back and do that.
    But what actually irritated me, about your post, had nothing to do with my being a citizen of a country that's coming to terms, right now, with the fact that our sense of security looks to have been a mirage. Instead, it was the implied undertone that while personal faith may have done very well for past societies and primitive people (poor things), as humanity comes to be more advanced, such detritus will inevitably be swept away.
    Please be assured that such implications were entirely absent from my thinking
    Not only is it kind of sneery,
    Sneering is never, never implied. The worst years of my life were spent being sneered at and demeaned. I will not do that to anyone.
    there just isn't very much evidence for the proposition, so far.
    From an individual who doesn't have a personal faith, but would nonetheless not describe herself as an atheist.
    While thinking about what to write here, I have also been thinking about personal security. My horizons are very limited nowadays and although I am going to London for the day on 1st May, it will be in a hotel and taxi from and back to station and I'll be with one of the twelve or so old friends we're meeting. My house is clearly visible to neighbours and I am, therefore, able to feel as safe as anyone could be, I think.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 17
    I have to confess I do have a problem with RE's position - torture and death is exactly the sort of thing that I'd like to feel safe from. It seems a pretty bad "the worst they can do". What then does God actually give us security against?
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited March 17
    The idea is that God's enduring love, and the believer's enjoyment of it, is better than "the worst they can do".

    And thanks @DonLogan2, I see we have similar experiences.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I disagree with Raptor Eye also. It's pie in the sky bullshit.
  • I think there are two different things being discussed here.

    A sense of theological security as put forward in passages like Romans 8, quoted above, and a much more operational, of-this-world approach to security, which is what I was originally wanting to consider.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 17
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I think there are two different things being discussed here.

    A sense of theological security as put forward in passages like Romans 8, quoted above, and a much more operational, of-this-world approach to security, which is what I was originally wanting to consider.

    Yes - that sense of ‘ultimate security’ in God is something I find present even in the darkest times. It’s what causes me to hold on to my thin thread of faith.

    But it doesn’t stop me locking my doors - that’s just common sense when you’ve had opportunist burglars sneak in and out while you were in another room.

  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    While being secure in the faith and trust I have in the love of God, which means that I am not afraid to go out in the dangerous world and to share God's love with all ready to receive it, I do not think that I will be shielded from danger by God, far from it. Jesus wasn't, nor will I be.

    Therefore I lock my doors, to deter thieves. A neighbour used to say that to pray for a 'hedge of protection' was enough to keep thieves at arm's length, anything less being lack of faith. I disagree, and think he was mixing faith up with superstition.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    To follow Christ is to to live with an extra sense of security, if the worst they can do when we are serving, ie sharing God's love with the world, is to torture and kill us, but we are secure in the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God.
    Coming back, as mentioned somewhere above, to this post of yours, I would like to ask whether you acknowledge to yourself that your belief in the security of the 'promise of eternal life' might be an illusion. No need to respond if you would rather not.

  • I would like to suggest @Raptor Eye responds only if you are first willing to say whether you acknowledge to yourself that your belief in the non-existence of God might be a delusion. No need to respond if you would rather not.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    As I understand it, a sense that everything is alright is psychologically important to childhood development and adult mental health.
    Empirically speaking, everything is not alright. We are all doomed. (Statistically speaking, the statement that every human being has died meets the 5% significance rule, but that's statistics for you.)
    Therefore, the sense that everything is alright has to be a sense that everything is alright in some non-empirical fashion. That there is an afterlife or that the things that aren't alright aren't meaningful for our well-being or some such essentially spiritual conception.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I would like to suggest @Raptor Eye responds only if you are first willing to say whether you acknowledge to yourself that your belief in the non-existence of God might be a delusion. No need to respond if you would rather not.
    Not precisely! And I don't think I accept that I have a non-belief in the existence of God. Hmmm.
    My lack of belief in any god (anything coming under the heading of supernatural) would cease immediately an objective fact turned up.

    Actually, I'm not quite sure how a lack of belief could be a delusion, or an illusion either. I'll have to have a think about that and would certainly be most interested in others' views.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited March 17
    In other words, you are sure your starting assumptions are right, and these include the assumption that any different starting assumptions about the (non) existence of God are mistaken.
  • I don't think belief without actions is worth much. Per James 2:14 ff

    From my volunteer work right now within the community (non-church), regarding equity, safety of movement and presence, community connections, I've learned the concepts of "active safety" (prevention of incidents) and "passive safety" (softening the impact of incidents as they occur). It's repackaging of long time knowledge.

    Not singling out any specific event, but there's almost no way that someone can contemplate doing something violent or engaging in behaviour which puts themself or others at risk, without someone knowing about it. The thing is then to have understanding of what to do when risks are detected. Heavy armoured and weaponed law enforcement which responds is at the level of tertiary response (3rd level). We have primary response which is educate and socialize people before they're at risk, and secondary response which is to help those who are showing signs of risk and need.

    It's not new. Back when I worked in the public sector health /mental health and social policy some decades ago (before the massive cutbacks and closures of integrated community services, creation of local health authorities mess about 1990), we had "high risk, high need" committees which received info from justice (courts, lawyers), social services, mental health, public health, schools. Then interventions plans were made to mitigate potential harms. We knew how to do this 30 years ago: to detect people at risk and do primary prevention. Sure these problems today are different in focus, but I doubt that human nature has changed.

    So if you want security, guarding buildings and people with private security contractors is closing barn doors after the livestock has all left.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited March 17
    We knew how to do this 30 years ago: to detect people at risk and do primary prevention. Sure these problems today are different in focus, but I doubt that human nature has changed.

    This scratches somewhat where I'm itching. I think there has been a change (at least round here) in favour of implementing 'hard' security (and security hardware) rather than 'soft' security that draws on human interaction.

    I'm wondering why this is.

    Two Cheers for Anarchism seems to think it's an outworking of oppressive social control. I think it could also be because hard security is quantifiable in a way soft, human-factor security isn't (or as the same book puts it, technocrats have trouble counting Gross Human Product). This bothers me.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I have to confess I do have a problem with RE's position - torture and death is exactly the sort of thing that I'd like to feel safe from. It seems a pretty bad "the worst they can do". What then does God actually give us security against?

    God gives us security against spiritual death, not physical death: a la risen Christ.

    Nothing can separate us from the love of God.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I would like to suggest @Raptor Eye responds only if you are first willing to say whether you acknowledge to yourself that your belief in the non-existence of God might be a delusion. No need to respond if you would rather not.

    Thank you Eutychus. I would not have responded, regardless. I have made every effort to engage with this poster in the past, but it usually ends up derailing the thread. I will butt out of here now, in case any further contribution does the same.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    LeRoc wrote: »
    I've read in some news articles that 95% of Dutch cyclists refuse to wear helmets. I like that. It's not the cyclists who should protect themselves. It's the roads that should be safe.
    That's not going to protect anyone from the laws of physics. Accidents happen, and bicyclists are singularly unprotected.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    In other words, you are sure your starting assumptions are right, and these include the assumption that any different starting assumptions about the (non) existence of God are mistaken.
    Thank you, Eutychus.

  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    raptor Eye

    I will try and remember not to respond with any kind of challenge to your posts in future - which will be a pity, because, as our views are quite opposite, and as I always find your posts interesting, it would be interesting to see if there is much if any common ground.
    What say you?
  • What I say is that it has emerged here that you feel entitled to ask everybody else to question their assumptions, but won't admit to making any yourself.

    For my part I also say that if provoked, I'll pursue this tangent further on the "can't drink not coffee" thread, or alternatively in Hell.

    Now maybe we can get back to discussing a sense of security here?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Cyclists in the Netherlands are protected by a well designed infrastructure and presumed liability. Accidents don't just happen; they are caused and the Dutch are very good at removing the causes. Dutch cyclists' eschewing of helmets us borne out in their very low cyclist head injury statistics.

    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-and-dutch-cyclist.html?m=1

    Cyclists in the UK and US do not wear helmets because cycling is inherently hazardous. They wear them because the environment is.
Sign In or Register to comment.