I don't know whether it's the more "devout", Him, or just a certain type of devout people.

I think that, post 9/11, it became clearer that the religious mainstream had pretty much faded away (certainly in terms of Christian attendance etc in the UK. Perhaps a vacuum in that part of religious life in the country has then allowed the more extremist or fundamentalist types to move into that space and effectively become much more mainstream? Perhaps it was also partly a defensive reaction to the extremism highlighted by 9/11, and the widespread response to that?

I'd also throw into the mix that perhaps there's also an element of the general state of affairs in the world/country leaving people feeling that things are so bad they need an alternative – and this is perhaps particularly true when, for a long time, we have little in the way of a serious mainstream political alternative.

It's an analysis I've heard of what happened in Middle Eastern countries after the death of Nasser seemed to herald an end to any meaningful, secular opposition to Western-style capitalist exploitation and power. It helped to boost an extremist form of Islam that was or became bound up with nationalism.

I wonder if there's an element of that going on here, because although the mainstream has declined, more fundamentalist groups and churches are growing.

I think that the Vatican certainly saw the gap – perhaps in terms of suiting its hierarchy as to wanting to take the church back to more 'traditionalist' attitudes. You see this in a number of things, but it includes the reintroduction of some older liturgy by the current pope.

The Anglican church is in a different situation, with opposites almost pulling apart the Anglican communion.

But perhaps there's also an element of prudery in the general population that gives the religious an easier time of it. Just look at this. But even non-religious people have difficulty with the issue – and indeed, often come down on similar lines as the religious, for a whole range of reasons, including an absolute terror of the idea of child sexuality (and there's a religious undercurrent, in seeing sexuality as something only for adults that remains essentially a bit naughty). So the religious get to have an easy run at things like this.

Yet we know that poor sex education – including abstinence-only sex education – produce poor results. There are reasons that the Netherlands has lower rates of teenage pregnancy and single parenthood than anywhere else in western Europe (and the US). It has very good sex education – and also a lower age of consent.

But religion is also about control. And I do wonder how many of the politicians of the last 20 years, who have sucked up to religion, actually share those beliefs or just mouth the correct platitudes.

Actually, I wonder how many people do that in general – calling for the plebs to be more religious in order to be better behaved (obviously not them, because they don't need religion to be good – see Dally and Titan)?

Well, anyway – just a few thoughts.

I don't know whether it's the more "devout", Him, or just a certain type of devout people.

I think that, post 9/11, it became clearer that the religious mainstream had pretty much faded away (certainly in terms of Christian attendance etc in the UK. Perhaps a vacuum in that part of religious life in the country has then allowed the more extremist or fundamentalist types to move into that space and effectively become much more mainstream? Perhaps it was also partly a defensive reaction to the extremism highlighted by 9/11, and the widespread response to that?

I'd also throw into the mix that perhaps there's also an element of the general state of affairs in the world/country leaving people feeling that things are so bad they need an alternative – and this is perhaps particularly true when, for a long time, we have little in the way of a serious mainstream political alternative.

It's an analysis I've heard of what happened in Middle Eastern countries after the death of Nasser seemed to herald an end to any meaningful, secular opposition to Western-style capitalist exploitation and power. It helped to boost an extremist form of Islam that was or became bound up with nationalism.

I wonder if there's an element of that going on here, because although the mainstream has declined, more fundamentalist groups and churches are growing.

I think that the Vatican certainly saw the gap – perhaps in terms of suiting its hierarchy as to wanting to take the church back to more 'traditionalist' attitudes. You see this in a number of things, but it includes the reintroduction of some older liturgy by the current pope.

The Anglican church is in a different situation, with opposites almost pulling apart the Anglican communion.

But perhaps there's also an element of prudery in the general population that gives the religious an easier time of it. Just look at this. But even non-religious people have difficulty with the issue – and indeed, often come down on similar lines as the religious, for a whole range of reasons, including an absolute terror of the idea of child sexuality (and there's a religious undercurrent, in seeing sexuality as something only for adults that remains essentially a bit naughty). So the religious get to have an easy run at things like this.

Yet we know that poor sex education – including abstinence-only sex education – produce poor results. There are reasons that the Netherlands has lower rates of teenage pregnancy and single parenthood than anywhere else in western Europe (and the US). It has very good sex education – and also a lower age of consent.

But religion is also about control. And I do wonder how many of the politicians of the last 20 years, who have sucked up to religion, actually share those beliefs or just mouth the correct platitudes.

Actually, I wonder how many people do that in general – calling for the plebs to be more religious in order to be better behaved (obviously not them, because they don't need religion to be good – see Dally and Titan)?

Well, anyway – just a few thoughts.