Six of the best

Does punishment ever work? Does it teach someone a lesson, does it make them behave better, or does it just breed rage and resentment and a sense of unfairness and victimisation?

I suppose in some cases punishment does prompt someone to reconsider their actions and change their behaviour, but in many other cases it must be counter-productive, aggravating a situation rather than improving it.

When I think of the various punishments I've had imposed on me, none of them had the desired effect.

At prep school, I was twice given six of the best for forgetting the dates of English kings and queens. But I still forgot them, simply because they didn't seem important.

At my boarding school I was given extra homework after skipping an obligatory religious service. It didn't make me any keener on religion. I just felt increasingly resentful at the compulsion.

At a bookshop I worked for, I was dragged through a disciplinary hearing for being an hour late to work for no good reason. It was pointless as I was usually punctual and that one slip-up was totally untypical.

I was once fined a hefty sum for speeding in a 30 mph zone. It didn't stop me speeding, as I simply drive at a speed I think suitable for the road and traffic conditions.

If someone has done something offensive, surely the best response is to encourage them to behave more sensibly, not to impose some arbitrary, unrelated punishment.

A lot of punishments are obviously futile. Like fines imposed on prostitutes, who then turn a few extra tricks to pay the fine. Or fines given to shoplifters who're forced to steal things they can't afford, and will probably carry on doing so.

A society based on punishment isn't a happy one.

Beyond belief

I knew religious belief was common in the States, but I didn't realise it was so rife that atheists are routinely discrim-inated against. So much so that a lot of atheists don't even dare to reveal their non-belief and are forced to stay in the closet.

Atheists are often shunned by their parents and relatives, or showered with abuse, or ostracised by schoolmates. As they are only two per cent of US adults, the other 98 per cent know they can get away with such victimisation.

Now a lot of organisations are springing up to defend atheists and their right to opt out of religion. There's even a TV channel, Atheist TV. They encourage people to "come out" and say what they really think, so others can see just how many atheists there really are.

Religious belief is common in Northern Ireland too, but those who don't believe aren't continually persecuted and hounded and expected to share the same beliefs. In the 14 years I've lived in Northern Ireland, I can't recall a single person objecting to my atheism or expecting me to fall in with the majority.

Of course it might be they just assume I'm a believer; it simply never occurs to them that I'm not, as I never enlighten them. Unlike church-going folk, there's no visible sign of my non-belief, no atheist trappings or rituals.

So why isn't it the same in the States? Why can't they just live and let live? Why this frenzy to wipe out the non-believers, all two per cent of them? Why do they feel so threatened by difference?

As I've said before, I see religion as something private and personal, a sort of self-help programme people use to improve their lives. It has nothing to do with other people unless they freely show an interest in it.

Why is it such a sin to opt out of something?

Having a laugh

They say laughter is the best medicine. But is it really healthy to laugh at anything at all, even if it's at the expense of other people? Even if it's making fun of people's weaknesses or disabilities?

There's a big clash of opinion here. Some say it really doesn't matter what you laugh at, and people who say they're offended and hurt are just over-reacting. They just have inflated egos. What about those gay and disabled comedians who send themselves up all the time? There's a funny side to everything, no matter how serious.

Others say no no, humour has its limits. Of course we all enjoy a good laugh, but jokes that are cruel, jokes that merely mock someone's shortcomings or differences, aren't funny and often just add to ongoing victimisation. Laughing at such jokes simply shows we're stupid and heartless.

I tend to agree with the second view. Laugh by all means, but pick your targets with care and don't get your amusement by ridiculing the less fortunate or less privileged.

I have to admit that in private I've been known to crack some very dubious jokes - racist, sexist, disablist, you name it. Let's face it, some of them are wickedly funny. But I know very well how dodgy they are and I would never repeat them in public. I have gay and black and disabled friends and I'm well aware of how hurt they can be by crass, unthinking so-called jokes by those who have no idea of the problems and discrimination they have to cope with day in and day out.

Accusing people who're not amused by your jokes of "not having a sense of humour" or "taking themselves too seriously" is unacceptable. Why should people be compelled to find something funny? Why should they be forced to laugh at themselves if they aren't comfortable about it? People are entitled to their personal dignity.

After all, there are plenty of jokes that are funny without having to ridicule others. So why resort to ridicule at all? Why is a snide, unkind joke more gratifying than a harmless one? What is the twisted part of us that enjoys it? Why do we have such a powerful urge to stick the knife in?