Originally Posted by Norvik_1602:
“A few observations.
I guess you're probably older than me. I'd like to think I still am a "young" person !
I don't think any of the good moral character traits you describe, eg. self-examination, (something the "it" creature could do with months of), are necessarily religiously derived.
Quite to the contrary in fact. I was raised as a child, as a Roman Catholic, but more for social reasons than anything else.
I remember in my French language classes reading how a lot of French people described themselves as "Roman Catholic : non-practising" and thinking "Why don't I have that option in Southern Ireland ?"
I could now probably be best described as a "militant atheist", a big fan of Richard Dawkins etc. My morals are not religiously based but based on thought, reason, humanity, the collective historical struggle to make our world a fairer, more just (in all senses) and kinder world.
I consider things like the British civil service code - honest, non-party political, promotion by merit, selection by open examination etc - to be the real moral pillars.
Most of what we consider to be basic fundamental human rights & democratic rights & judicial principles have been achieved in the last 100 to 150 years, by generations of statesmen who valued reason above religious dogma.
For example, voting in parliamentary elections has only been in secret since the Secret Ballot Act of 1872.
The world's religions are silent on these issues and have always backed the (dictatorial) status quo to the detriment of the great mass of humanity.
There's a big problem with ascribing membership of any denomination / section of the C of E etc based on how Chanelle dressed or undressed, or how often she said f*ck, or her lack or otherwise of "inhibitions", (read: sexual hang-ups) with Ziggy.
It's that these things are only "immoral" if one believes them to be so. You might say, for example, that Chanelle was not a moral girl should she have exposed her nipples.
But, if Chanelle wasn't bothered, rightly thinking there's nothing immoral with the human body, any part of it, even on TV, then you can't say she's not a good, say, C of E girl because in her mind she is ! I didn't mind the f*cks uttered by Chanelle one little bit.
It was nearly always said comically, and again not against Chanelle's own moral code, the only one that matters in determining her "morality".
Chanelle was never vulgar in her use of the f-word but she did apologise to the "it" creature for calling her a "scruffy little slut", because she felt that she had descended to the "it" creature's level.
My own guess as to how she was raised, ie her official denomination growing up, is she might be RC as the name Hayes can sometimes indicate Irish ancestry, although that doesn't guarantee a RC denomination. A post a while ago referred to people meeting her parents in "church", not "chapel" so this might suggest high/broad C of E or RC, probably not non-conformist.”
There are some interesting observations in what you say Norvic.
I was trying not to be hooked on the idea that all morals must come from one, or any religion which is why I used the words
'religious and moral values'. It does of course become over complex to make such a distinction in every other sentence.
I was brought up within what was described as 'high church' Cof E - high to the point of being mistaken for RC. However moving within the UK I've encountered many Cof E variants, various strands of the C of Scot and numerous non-comformist believers. I 've also had need of familiarity with numerous non mainstrem 'sects' and some non - christian based faiths. I think perhaps my age is only relevent in allowing that range of experiences.
There are of course some 'religious'
(rel.. in broadest terms) beliefs that hold heavilly on one or two quite rigid tennets that virtually absolve (or deny) the believer personal choice/decisions. Those are clearly not applicable here. As I said, several non-comformist beliefs tend to be quite rigid in relation to some conduct, modesty, sexual propriety,drinking for example and seemed unlikely to apply. However, I was not seeking to ascribe
membership of any church to Chanelle or to judge her - only to try to identify a source consistent with her apparent moral base/behaviour. I was aware of the remark about her parents at church as distinct from chapel, citidal, terms often used loosely.
I will resist entering into discussion about your apparent assumption that relogously based morals are not based on thought, reason, humanity etc. I can't accept things such as the Civil Service Code as equating to a religion or basis of morality for life, or a moral code itself. There are dozens of such codes for doctors, military, police, etc. All drawn up to regulate an organisation/ profession and those who work within it - the fact of regard for the client/user of the service is incidental to directing the objective of the organisation - not the morality of employees in their personal lives. To try to suggest such codes determine morality in any way is to confuse 'God and Mamon' using biblical terms.
I was in no way being critical of Chanelle's behavior but considering it relative to the broad beliefs/expectations of various
'religions / sects'. The results, conflicting and inconclusive. However she evidently recognises consistent boundaries to an extent unusual to 19yo in my experience. I reiterate my belief that the moral basis on which she appears to live has in my opinion been a considered decision - not simply a matter of drift and personal convenience. That is very mature - and remember in BBH she was often said to be immature.