"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I'd guess that the problem is that some people
develop their own ideas and 'project' them on to a chosen 'religion'. In
effect they hijack 'God' to bolster their own ideas. This isn't a failure
of the 'mainstream' beliefs under such names. More a problem of some
indivuals and sects passing off their own ideas using them as a 'brand
name' to try and ensure they can demand they are right and no-one can dare
challenge them because they would be challenging 'God'.

I'm sure that's true, but they usually have some quote or other from their
"Holy Book" to back them up. In the case of Muslim objection to music I
first heard about this from a radio programme a few weeks ago and was so
intrigued that I spent a while trawling the internet for more background.
There was plenty of it, and some trenchant views on both sides of the
argument. I gather there is a line from the Koran which can be read as
condemning the playing of musical instruments, if you want to read it that
way.

Instead they *exploit* 'music' in various
forms with the aim of inducing states of 'consciousness' sic that cause
people to have 'revelations', etc. i.e the approach of shamans
voodoo-doctors down the centuries.

Which reflects some of the arguments made by the "anti-music" Muslims.
Clearly music *can* be used in ways which many religious people would regard
as "dangerous". But to condemn all music because of that seems to me to be a
considerable over reaction. But that does seem to be the Islamic way, if in
doubt forbid it rather than trust the followers to negotiate their way
through the benefits and dangers, a way that Islam shares with Puritan
Christianity. My problem with that attitude is that it infantilises people.

Moving more OT: Did any others seen last week's program by Dawkins on
'Faith Schools' in the UK.

I missed it, but have just found it on 4oD.

I found that weird as well. Not because of what
he said. But the comments by some of those in 'education'. Again it did
give me the impression that 'education' was being used as a brand name or
cover story to deflect any criticism of what they actually were doing.

The science teacher in the Islamic school who taught evolution, but then
said none of here pupils believed it, was somewhat worrying. But the most
interesting bit of that programme, IMO, was at the end, where children were
being asked which explanation for natural phenomena they preferred. It
reminded me of a recent conversation I had with my daughter (who is no more
a "believer" than I am) about what a cat's tail is for. I kept trying to say
that it didn't have to be "for" anything, it just happens to be there. It
seems humans always want to find a purpose in nature which simply isn't
there.

With apologies for the OT post :-)

David.