You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Remind me who appointed you to the role of religious debate policeman?
I've assumed that role due to the lack of any other volunteers 🙂
In reality of course, that's just my moral code.
Be nice, that's all. It's also worth noting that calling someone's religion rubbish might upset them. Upsetting people comes under 'not being nice'.
Well I didn't find any of this very nice, but strangely it doesn't seem to bother you, I suppose because you are 'on their side' in the debate:
being accused of 'ranting militant atheism', being misquoted then told I'm lying, being told that my opinion is 'rubbish', being repeatedly asked the same question over and over again when I've already answered it
In reality of course, that's just my moral code.
Which you seem to think is superior to other people's, even when you don't adhere to it. 😕
darcy do you ever post anything on this forum any more that isn't just criticising what someone else has said (while saying nothing constructive yourself)? Seems to be your main topic of conversation these days.
Deary me grum. If you're going to be like that about it, then I'll leave you alone and not question your motivations at all. Have a nice weekend. Go rot in hell you non- believer! 🙂
..and DD you're still an ignorant **** 😉
Which you seem to think is superior to other people's, even when you don't adhere to it.
By my evaluation I do. I'm not sure you quite understand where I am coming from.
Deary me grum. If you're going to be like that about it, then I'll leave you alone and not question your motivations at all. Have a nice weekend. Go rot in hell you non- believer!
Bit of an over-reaction there. 😉
By my evaluation I do. I'm not sure you quite understand where I am coming from.
The forum has rules, and moderators to uphold them - if you think a specific post has contravened the rules then report it. It's not really up to you to appoint yourself as moral guardian of the forum.
It would appear that we are now agreed that religion IS 'forced down the throats' of some children, in faith schools at least.
I think the limit of any agreement is that it is a parental choice and in my view, parents should have choice in how their children are educated. Some children may come to resent their parents' choices, better that than the state take away the choice.
parents should have choice in how their children are educated.
Interestingly you have the right to have your child go to the nearest faith school of your choice- ie a ctaholic will always get a catholic school etc.
you do not have the right to NOT send your child to a faith school and go to the the nearest non religious school so the non religious end up in fatith schools
Imagine the reaction of christians if we did this to them
Even the non faith ones still have to teach you but it is probbaly more open.
Our RE lessons were 'people believe this'.
Its irrelevant, the fact remains that it is compulsory to teach RE in schools and therefore make religion pervassive. Whether they try to convert you or not depends entirely on the school IME but it does not negate the point about pervassive no matter how many times you do this, it is taugh mandatory in compulsory education - if this is not a good definition of pervassive then pray tell me what is
Couple it with the compulsory act of worship and what would you call it then if not pervassive?
Religion is everywhere in society its why they complain as it slowly gets eroded from everyday life. It is less central than it was but really coimpulsory to deliver it with a daily act of owrship and you still want to argue it is not pervassive by saying how it is delivered. You are missing the point - no dleivery is required for it to not be pervassive.
I'd say this was an over-reaction on the par of being insulted when told you might be going somewhere in which you don't believe after you've died.
You never did explain to me about ulster unionist boys hurling insults at catholics and marchin did not offend you as you disagreed with them
Perhaps you could explain why i should not beoffended by white supremacists either a si reject their doctrine?
Serioulsy please elaborate on your view as I disagree and repeating it is not clarifying anything for me.
Everyone play nice eh
f you think a specific post has contravened the rules then report it. It's not really up to you to appoint yourself as moral guardian of the forum.
No I know, and I've considered reporting some posts. But I chose instead to have the debate, which moderation would not have done.
Our RE lessons were 'people believe this'.
Its irrelevant, teh fact remains that it is compulsory to teach RE in schools and therefore make religion pervassiveAre you asking me to continue this? Happy to do so.
Teaching about something is not the same as forcing to you comply with it.
Religion is a significant factor in our world, whether or not you like that, so ignoring it would not be giving a well rounded education imo. It's a bit like teaching history.
mefty - Member
Some children may come to resent their parents' choices, better that than the state take away the choice.
I disagree.
How about we make all schools secular, teach religion in the comparative way with an equal relevance placed on aethiesm, wicca, pantheism etc and let parents indoctrinate their children at home?
What do you think?
Would you be happy with that?
Right so we agree it is pervassive
Bigotry is everywhere as well but we dont teach that
Liking football is everywhere but we dont study that
Fad diets are everywhere we dont study that
Of course we can and should look at its influence on society etc but that is not the same as studying RE.
How about we make all schools secular, teach religion in the comparative way with an equal relevance placed on aethiesm, wicca, pantheism etc and let parents indoctrinate their children at home?
That's exactly how my school was, and I'd be happy with that. RC schools could exist privately.
Right so we agree it is pervassiveBigotry is everywhere as well but we dont teach that
Liking football is everywhere but we dont study that
Fad diets are everywhere we dont study that
We do study some of those things actually. Bigotry is taught as part of citizenship afaik, football could easily be part of social studies, and diets are covered in PE and whatever Home Economics is called these days.
But religion is possibly more important since it's a huge factor in why the world is the way it is. A lot like history, and we all agree that should be studied.
That's exactly how my school was, and I'd be happy with that. RC schools could exist privately.
I disagree.
We need to ban religious single faith schools entirely, even if they teach religion in the comparative way.
It really isn't good preparation for adult life and isolates kids from the reality of our society.
The point is that in 2013 it is not forced down our throats.Did you actually read the link you put up? Its dated November 2012. Admittedly not 2013, but come on, is 2 months out of 2000 years really a big deal. Its certainly not 25 years ago, as you claim. I think you may well be misinterpreting the introduction of the guidance in 1994, with the revoking of that guidance in 2012.
Moley: I know you've moved on and are trying to change the subject, but any chance of a response regarding this? I've asked very politely two or three times now, and it would nicely wrap up the "forced down our throats" thread of this topic.
Ok. The article's dated 2012, but that doesn't mean indoctrination was rife until last year. It had fizzled out years ago, starting in the 60s, and by the time I was a kid it was the norm as far as I know. There are lots of articles saying how many schools were already ignoring the collective worship rule.
is 2 months out of 2000 years really a big deal
Even if it were the case, yes 2 months out of 2000 years a big deal(even though it hasn't been that long, maybe you need some religious education?).
It'd be like campaigning for something, then getting it, then being upset because it hadn't happened years ago. We all know the Church has done bad things in the past, and so have lots of non-religious organisations, but we can't change that.
We need to ban religious single faith schools entirely
Unfortunately you can't prohibit people from getting together and teaching their kids whatever they want. You can set a curriculum in state schools, but not beyond that.
If people want to feed their kids their own beliefs, there is nothing we can do about it. Otherwise you're then forcing secular education down people's throats.
We do study some of those things actually
You mean may study as they are not compulsory which is the point here.
Unfortunately you can't prohibit people from getting together and teaching their kids whatever they want.
We can actually but that is another debate, Why not just ban them from teaching it to our kids though ?
Why can they have religious ones and yet we cannot have non religious ones? even there they need to do RE and the act of worship etc so it is not free of RE
Unfortunately you can't prohibit people from getting together and teaching their kids whatever they want. You can set a curriculum in state schools, but not beyond that.If people want to feed their kids their own beliefs, there is nothing we can do about it. Otherwise you're then forcing secular education down people's throats.
Yes we can. 🙂
We should, imo, ban all 'private' education and home schooling.
Compulsory attendance at secular state schools, with one, nationwide curriculum.
Otherwise you're then forcing secular education down people's throats.
See my comment above. 😀
hilarious so doing the opposite forces secular education down folks throats but the current system , compulsory RE, does not force religion down peoples throats
Awesome debating molly
Ok. The article's dated 2012, but that doesn't mean indoctrination was rife until last year. It had fizzled out years ago, starting in the 60s, and by the time I was a kid it was the norm as far as I know.
There was still plenty of indoctrination when I went to a standard 'non-religious' comprehensive secondary school in the 1990s. By your logic I should probably extrapolate that to assume that it happened in every school.
Interestingly you have the right to have your child go to the nearest faith school of your choice- ie a ctaholic will always get a catholic school etc.
you do not have the right to NOT send your child to a faith school and go to the the nearest non religious school so the non religious end up in fatith schools
Imagine the reaction of christians if we did this to them
From the school admissions code;
2.8 With the exception of designated grammar schools, all maintained schools, including faith schools, that have enough places available must offer a place to every child who has applied for one, without condition or the use of any oversubscription criteria.
2.9 Admission authorities must not refuse to admit a child solely because:
a) they have applied later than other applicants;
b) they are not of the faith of the school in the case of a faith school;
c) they followed a different curriculum at their previous school;
d) information has not been received from their previous school; or
e) they have missed entrance tests for selective places.
Faith based oversubscription criteria in schools with a religious character
1.36 As with other maintained schools, these schools are required to offer every child who applies, whether of the faith, another faith or no faith, a place at the school if there are places available. Schools designated by the Secretary of State as having a religious character (commonly known as faith schools) may use faith-based oversubscription criteria and allocate places by reference to faith where the school is oversubscribed.
So which bit of the legislation precludes you from sending your children to a school that is farther away than the nearest faith school? We did exactly what you are saying you can’t do; we had to pass the Catholic school to take my daughter to the secular school a mile farther away.
It had fizzled out years ago, starting in the 60s
For goodness sake moley read your own link: The flipping thing is talking about guidance introduced by Chris Patten in 1994 specifically defining the nature of the act of worship and RE lessons. Thats not exactly fizzling out now is it? Recinded in 2012.
You see this is where the religionists really fall down. You can deny all sorts of things, but if it looks, smells, tastes and acts like a fish then to be honest you are going to struggle to convince people that it isn't one. However, if you've hung your hat firmly on that denial you either have to accept that you're wrong, or continue to insist that its not what it self evidently is, however ridiculous that denial is.
We need to ban religious single faith schools entirely, even if they teach religion in the comparative way.
It really isn't good preparation for adult life and isolates kids from the reality of our society.
Not in my experience.
As I said earlier, I went to a Catholic School (primary and secondary) and they gave me a perfectly good education.
I studied Theology there with no bias to Catholicism, and was taught about many different Faiths and also Atheism.
I turned out alright and was capable of making my own decision not to follow Religion at all.
I still respect people who choose to though.
The flipping thing is talking about guidance introduced by Chris Patten in 1994 specifically defining the nature of the act of worship and RE lessons.
Er yes, but my point is that it was not widely followed, despite the guidance.
You see this is where the religionists really fall down. You can deny all sorts of things, but if it looks, smells, tastes and acts like a fish then to be honest you are going to struggle to convince people that it isn't one.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but don't think for a minute that I'm religious. I'm an atheist.
Not in my experience.
As I said earlier, I went to a Catholic School (primary and secondary) and they gave me a perfectly good education.I studied Theology there with no bias to Catholicism, and was taught about many different Faiths and also Atheism.
I turned out alright and was capable of making my own decision not to follow Religion at all.
I still respect people who choose to though.
Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?
So, on the one hand you've got the likes of Woppit really laying into people without any provocation, going on and on about how feelbleminded people are whom he doens't know
Show me.
grum - MemberI'm no fan of Woppit's anti-religious fundamentalism either BTW, and I've called him out on it before.
"Called me out", eh? Wow. Sounds like you were banging the keys really hard...
Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but don't think for a minute that I'm religious
Dviersionary tactic yet again? But just to clear that up I didn't say you were, I called you a religionist, i.e. one who is in this context defending the position of religion.
I called you a religionist, i.e. one who is in this context defending the position of religion.
I'm not, really. Originally I was arguing against people being horrible to each other, then I was disagreeing with the assertion about religion being imposed upon us. They're just single issues.
I've agreed with many of the posts that disagree with the church itself.
So. No show, eh? Problem?
Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?
As I said above "in my experience" going to a Catholic Schools didn't cause me any issues at all.
Throughout my Secondary education I was a non Catholic (who was brought up Catholic) attending a Catholic School, being taught by Nuns and being taught a variety of subjects including Theology, and learning about many different religions and also Atheism.
I think it prepared me perfectly well to live in a Multicultural Society.
Maybe it's the Atheists who seem to have trouble even being civil to anyone who has Faith that aren't all that well prepared to live in a Multicultural Society ??
Interesting positions moley. I've just scanned back through the thread and actually can't find anyone being nasty to each other particularly, and especially not by STW standards, In fact quite the reverse, there are several posts saying how well mannered the thread has been.
Regarding religion being shoved down peoples throats, frankly I think it is pretty indisputable, mostly, but definately not solely due to the link you yourself posted.
So really it does come across that you are having a lovely troll, which is fine by me, but it is the sort of thing that does get people being nasty to each other, so is best avoided IMHO if that really is how you feel.
Other than woppit, obviously, who now appears to be using constructed / theoretical arguments ('if somebody said that to me I would...') in order to shoehorn in his usual brand of 'robust debate'.
So. No show, eh? Problem?
Yes. I can't be bothered. Everyone on this thread can remember apart from you it seems, so it'll take me a fair bit of effort without much benefit.
Interesting positions moley. I've just scanned back through the thread and actually can't find anyone being nasty to each other
This thread wasn't as bad as some of the earlier ones*, but my point still stands. Don't be nasty. If you aren't, then great, I'm not talking to you.
* perhaps I'm getting my point across.
Regarding religion being shoved down peoples throats, frankly I think it is pretty indisputable
13 pages of people disputing it suggests that it IS disputable.
As I said above "in my experience" going to a Catholic Schools didn't cause me any issues at all.Throughout my Secondary education I was a non Catholic (who was brought up Catholic) attending a Catholic School, being taught by Nuns and being taught a variety of subjects including Theology, and learning about many different religions and also Atheism.
I think it prepared me perfectly well to live in a Multicultural Society.
Yes I understand that.
What about the question that I asked?
Maybe it's the Atheists who seem to have trouble even being civil to anyone who has Faith that aren't all that well prepared to live in a Multicultural Society ??
How do you reach that conclusion?
It's a good point though.
One that will need addressing if atheists are in the majority and those of faith become a persecuted minority.
Still doesn't answer the question, btw 🙂
perhaps I'm getting my point across
Well lets hope
13 pages of people disputing it suggests that it IS disputable.
As I said before not really bothered about people being nasty, but rational would be nice. Still applies
I dunno that I'm being irrational. Seems fine to me.
There have been many nasty threads on here in the past, all I'm saying is don't be nasty.
I didn't just wade in and accuse you all personally of being the nasty ones. It just came up when talking about respecting beliefs and the definition of what that actually means.
I've called Molly out lots of times, even arranged to meet him off forum for a dust-up which started when I insulted his passat, but I've never seen him be nasty, despite often being provoked. 🙂
I've met Molly.
He's a lovely, happy little sausage in real life. 🙂
One of nature's gentlemen.
Amazing how much trouble he can cause with a keyboard though, isn't it? 😀
So which bit of the legislation precludes you from sending your children to a school that is farther away than the nearest faith school?
Sorry i was wrong until recently , due to cuts, those who attended the nearest faith school recieved free travel those who went to the nearest non religious school did not recieve free travel. It has changed as most councils have cut the funding. I can find nothing on what happens if all the schools are oversubscribed and you have fiath or not [ a quick google] Sorry I was incorect.
these schools are required to offer every child who applies, whether of the faith, another faith or no faith, a place at the school if there are places available. Schools designated by the Secretary of State as having a religious character (commonly known as faith schools) may use faith-based oversubscription criteria and allocate places by reference to faith where the school is oversubscribed.
I think we can all agree faith schools select on faith hence why parents pretend to have faith.
Maybe it's the Atheists who seem to have trouble even being civil to anyone who has Faith that aren't all that well prepared to live in a Multicultural Society ??
I fail to recall aethists being taken to court for discriminating against gay people in their business or arguing for special rights to discriminate re marriage etc. I am sure there are problems due to the fundamental disagreements but it cuts both ways.
Not in my experience.As I said earlier, I went to a Catholic School (primary and secondary) and they gave me a perfectly good education.....
I still respect people who choose to though
See they did harm you 😉
Darcy and Rusty - I love you too 🙂
JY I didn't know faith schools were obliged to accept non-believers if they have spaces.
Just for clarity my plea for rationality was in relation to the disputable bit not the nice bit. I really hope that didn't come across as being nasty, as it really wasn't.
molgrips - MemberSo. No show, eh? Problem?
Yes. I can't be bothered. Everyone on this thread can remember apart from you it seems, so it'll take me a fair bit of effort without much benefit.
Trans: Either "I'm suffering from false memory syndrome and the illusion that I've discussed this with everyone on this thread."
Or: "I lied and I'm a bit of a disgrace." 
Yes but I would be very surprised jf any have more than 10% tbh. I would also imagine they use other selection criteria that amazingly also results ina hug % of their faith being chosen. Not adig that is a human nature thing not just a religious thing
Also met molly ans rusty at the same time and scared molly with my driving i did know the road like the back of my hand but he did not know this. Ad I was giving a him a lift home I think he forgave me.
Not met DD i never get to hang with the beautiful cool people 😥
Yes I understand that.
What about the question that I asked?
This one .....
Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?
I don't really know why you asked me that question to be honest.
I made no general claims relating to what you are asking that I'm aware of, I just gave an example based on my own personal experience of attending a Catholic School.
So I replied to your question using examples of my personal experience.
If that's not good enough for you, then I'm not sure what you require.
Yes but I would be very surprised jf any have more than 10% tbh. I would also imagine they use other selection criteria that amazingly also results ina hug % of their faith being chosen. Not adig that is a human nature thing not just a religious thing
I am aware of a good number of Catholic institutions across the UK hovering around the 50% Catholic mark in terms of student body. Importantly, this is not seen as a bad thing, but a good... and NOT because it is seen as an opportunity to indoctrinate non-Catholics, but because it is the desire of these places to offer the a safe, caring environment in which to learn to the whole community.
N.B. This is an attempt to argue in favour of faith-based institutions; only to underline the fact that there is some real attempt at service going on.
Just for clarity my plea for rationality was in relation to the disputable bit not the nice bit. I really hope that didn't come across as being nasty, as it really wasn't.
Yeah, otherwise I'll send the nasty police round...
Junkyard did scare me a bit with the driving... I just needed a little faith.
There should be a religion thread ride. Starting at a church somewhere, finishing at the Church Inn.
I fail to recall aethists being taken to court for discriminating against gay people in their business or arguing for special rights to discriminate re marriage etc. I am sure there are problems due to the fundamental disagreements but it cuts both ways.
I agree.
However, using select examples to say that Faith schools turn out people who are not well adjusted to live in a multicultural society
is no more valid than saying non faith school turn out rapists.
I could find an example of both I'm sure.
But it would ultimately prove nothing
There should be a religion thread ride. Starting at a church somewhere, finishing at the Church Inn.
Can I lead it?
Now that the thread has gone through (the predicted) cycle and everyone is back to being nice and cuddly, can I suggest that someone saves the posts, so that we can just cut and paste on Sunday? That way, the aggro in the middle can be avoided but the "debate" will still have happened. 😉
The quoting of the Catechisms did make me think though. I am not a RC and have only read as part of comparative theology. But (correct me if I am mis-representing catholicism here), it seems to have at its core four sections - the three theological virtues ie Faith, Hope and Charity (IMO the interesting bits) - and the sacrements (where I tend to turn off).
So there is an argument repeated here that the Catholic Church and others force feed us (or at least the Establishment does.) So a quick look at the Catechims and Q9 (pretty much the start of the Catechisms)
"Faith is a supernatural [b]gift[/b] of God."
So I turn to Monsignor Gilbey, the late Cambridge Univ RC Chaplain (want to avoid the "stupid" issue here) for an explanation of what this means (source "[i]We believe."[/i])
"The very nature of a gift involves the free act of will; and so it is with Faith: it needs to be freely offered by Almighty God. [b]Certainly it needs to be freely accepted by the individual. It cannot be forced[/b].....Since Faith is a gift from Almighty God, [b]it is within our power to accept or to refuse it[/b]." (pp26-27)
Now, the opening gambit in what RCs are supposed to believe seems a very long way from force feeding/thrusting down anyone's throat? (excuse the analogy here) So aren't the, "you are lying/no I am not" arguments merely an example that individuals sometimes interpret and act in ways that they shouldn't? Some may try to ram theology down the impressionable's throats, others dont (my sons tell me that their theology teachers resolutely refuse to do this) - so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system. Just a thought?
I don't really know why you asked me that question to be honest.I made no general claims relating to what you are asking that I'm aware of, I just gave an example based on my own personal experience of attending a Catholic School.
So I replied to your question using examples of my personal experience.
If that's not good enough for you, then I'm not sure what you require.
Well, you responded to my suggestion by saying that you saw no problem with single faith schools.
I asked a follow up question, in order to continue an interesting area of debate.
I was genuinely interested in your opinion, as your experience with faith schools differs somewhat to mine.
If you don't want to answer, that's fine. 🙂
Anyone else have a view?
Trans: Either "I'm suffering from false memory syndrome and the illusion that I've discussed this with everyone on this thread."Or: "I lied and I'm a bit of a disgrace."
There is a third option. 😀
- so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system. Just a thought?
As always, as with every 'belief system'.
You could say the same about communism, anarchism capitalism etc.
Problem is, if the belief system itself is incompatable with the current fundamntal state and behaviour of humanity at the time, and fails to take it's failings into account, it's doomed to fail.
And people get hurt along the way.
Well, you responded to my suggestion by saying that you saw no problem with single faith schools.
I asked a follow up question, in order to continue an interesting area of debate.
I didn't actually say I saw "no problem with single faith Schools"..
you said (about single faith schools ...
It really isn't good preparation for adult life and isolates kids from the reality of our society.
and I replied.....
Not in my experience.....
and then gave a couple of examples, from my own experience, as to why I felt you were being far to general in your criticism.
I did not make any general claims, and spoke only from personal experience.
I was genuinely interested in your opinion, as your experience with faith schools differs somewhat to mine.
which was exactly why I commented
If you don't want to answer, that's fine.
I think I did answer, as best as I can, from Personal Experience
Neal, that's fine.
Thnaks for answering.
Have you considered a career in politics, btw? 🙂
I didn't actually say I saw "no problem with single faith Schools"..
No, you didn't.
I inferred that from your response. Apologies.
I'll ask the question again if anyone wants to express an opinion:
Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?
Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?
Not followed the whole thread, so excuse me if I misunderstand the context of your question.
I don't really believe many schools include the word "single" when describing themselves. Faith- yes. But not "single faith".
It might seem like I'm knit picking, but it is important to the reasoning of my answer.
Where I grew up, there wasn't a massive choice of different "faith" schools, so people of different faiths sent their kids to the faith school, as their choice ahead of the secular option. Without making presumptions on their reasoning, they chose "faith" ahead of "non faith" even though it wasn't the faith they followed.
So, although nominally it was a faith school for a "single faith", the reality was that it was far more multi-cultural than the secular option.
so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system.
An excellent post a few cuts above most, what with its citations and expert references. And your conclusion posed as a question is clearly a truism. The very nature of the biblical texts make them wide open to interpretation, which is why people interpret it so differently and manage to use bits of it to justify all sorts.
Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?
I'd say theoretically yes. If they teach comparitive religion properly then fine.
However, I might guess that RC schools are less likely to contain a representative sample of the ethnic groups making up the UK, but the same could be said of rural schools. And I can testify that rural monocultural schools do not prepare you well for a multicultural society. The first Indian chap I ever met (in college, age 17) was called Veejay, I thought he was giving his initials, VJ, and that they stood for something else. Despite being well read and having had a good open midned upbringing it was a bit of a shock actually to meet a brown face for the first time, and I felt a bit awkward for a while desperately trying not to say anything out of order.
Been a lot since i last looked in. Have we agreed that there there is no force feeding?
Has anyone given an example of an individual telling them they are immoral and condemned to hell?
Has, was it grum? Answered my question ( again) yet?
Ah no, it was berm bandit
so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system. Just a thought
That's pretty much the standard religious get out of jail free card used to explain the obvious fact that what they preach/believe/profit from is clearly nonsense. Try it again from the perspective that the big cheese is all knowing all seeing and infallible. Right about there, as his/her creations, the fact we are fallible clearly either knocks the big cheeses infallibility into a cocked hat, or turns him/her into something akin to a puller offerer of wings.
[edit:]
Answered my question ( again) yet?
See you're not over the OCQR yet. In answer, No but Moley did inadvertantly come up with a link that pretty much defintively proved the point.
How do you KNOW that religion is Clearly Nonsense?
See you're not over the OCQR yet. In answer, No but Moley did inadvertantly come up with a link that pretty much defintively proved the point.
Ot really OCQR just a little quirk where in a discussion, i expect one of the discussant to answer a direct question. Not so much to ask is it?
Cant see how moley could prove the point when the qustion was about Who said it to you. there is no point to be proved, just an individual to be identified.
[slight derail]
Vickypea, what Orthodox jurisdiction are you? Greek, Russian, Antiochene, or something else?
[/slight derail]
Not sure I have said anything that says i have a massive problem with CM doing this and I am not sure he has actually targetted me that much or unfairly. I just find it stramge [ and very easy] to pick holes in other arguments when saying nothing yourself - used to do it in debates at uni but we all know there are more questions than answers. I
I do find this a rather strnge observation in the cntext of this discussion. We have not been so much picking holes in arguments as exploring peoples experiences 'of religion being forced down throats'. As such my beliefs are not really relevant. Imahevnot avoided any questions, as some others seem to be doing andi will happily answer any questions which people feel like asking. i've 'said nothing myself' in this discussion, only because no one has asked me anything.
I haven't time to read and digest this entire thread and all the bickering within, but to be honest and frank..
my take on it is that unless you're into one of the Shamanic religions or Rastafarianism or something, a religious leader banging on about what they know of god and higher meaning is like a primary school kid lecturing on quantum physics..
[i]Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?[/i]
rs,
coming back to your question again,
[i]Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum[/i]
IMO, is a very difficult assumption to make, the reason being the element of choice involved.
Ignoring the issue of faith completely for a minute:
once you have an element of choice in selecting which path to take, but with a "default" option applied to those who don't make a choice, then the group of people that do make a positive choice one way or another will obviously contain more of the one's who are more interested/concerned about the options and outcomes. This creates a form of "self-selection" of people that are "more interested". And in an otherwise perfectly equal educational situation, I'd expect those that are "more interested" to have that as a slight advantage. Now say that reflects in results, then the reputation of the "chosen institution" grows, the incentive to chose it for the next intake increases, and it becomes a little like a "self-fulfilling prophecy" 😉
In other words, you can't assume a perfect level playing field when people can chose to opt out of the default pathway.
SaxonRider- I was confirmed in the Greek Orthodox Church but for the last 7 years, I've been going to an Orthodox Church that does all services in English and is attended by a mixture of nationalities: Brits, Greeks, Palestinians, Russians, Romanians, Cypriots, Ethiopians, Lebanese, and others.
[s]one of the Shamanic religions or Rastafarianism or something[/s] whatever the superstition, a religious leader banging on about what they know of god and higher meaning is like a primary school kid lecturing on [s]quantum physics[/s] Maurice the Magic Penguin who lives in the moon..
oooh, Woppit.. I love it when you get all masterful you saucy saucy minx.. 😆
I think the point I was trying to make is that these fellas aren't even remotely aware of even a fraction of their own existence, let alone anything more ethereal..
and NOT because it is seen as an opportunity to indoctrinate non-Catholics, but because it is the desire of these places to offer the a safe, caring environment in which to learn to the whole community.
Can you post up what they describe as the school ethos or mission statement - I think it will mention religion. I think the staff role profile swill ask the teachers to support the schools faith/religious ethos*. If that is all they cared about they could do it without any religious element to the school. It is not really credible to claim that a religious organisation does not want to create members of that faith - be it via education here or aid abroad- if they did just fund a non religious organisation to do this.
They identifiy the particular faith they belong to in the name of the eschool IME - i cannot actually believe folk are claiming a jewish school , a muslim school or a Catholic school is anything other than a school for that faith and a vehicle for that religion. Incredolous smiley
I do find this a rather strange observation in the cntext of this discussion. We have not been so much picking holes in arguments as exploring peoples experiences 'of religion being forced down throats'. As such my beliefs are not really relevant.
Careful now you nearly gave an opinion there.
I never said the phrase forced down thoroats but it is far easier to atatck that the original poiint that religion is pervassive hence why you have clung to it whilst claiming neutrality ion all this
* http://www.tes.co.uk/job/director-of-learning-support-117082/
Be committed to supporting the Catholic ethos of the school
Notice it comes as the first thing they look for in a teacher before teaching ability - what you claim is frankly not true and I doubt even a school would try and claim this.
yunki - Member
oooh, Woppit.. I love it when you get all masterful you saucy saucy minx..
Obey, slave...
I never said the phrase forced down thoroats but it is far easier to atatck that the original poiint that religion is pervassive hence why you have clung to it whilst claiming neutrality ion all this
No, but someone did and that was what i wanted resolved. It appers to have been.
I have never claimed to be neutral in all this. Even less so a neutral ion, is that possible? I merely stated that no one had asked me anything about my position.
I wasn't avoinding the issue of pervasiveness, you will see that i got involved in that debate. This was slightly different from the 'throats' debate so both continued for a while. My early point in the pervasiveness argument, which still stands, is in reponse to the main thrust of that argument which is that it is a compulsory provision in state schools. The reponse was that whilst delivery is compulsory, receipt is not. It can hardly be pervasive if you canwalk away from it.
Its irrelevant, the fact remains that it is compulsory to teach RE in schools and therefore make religion pervassive. Whether they try to convert you or not depends entirely on the school IME but it does not negate the point about pervassive no matter how many times you do this, it is taugh mandatory in compulsory education - if this is not a good definition of pervassive then pray tell me what is
Couple it with the compulsory act of worship and what would you call it then if not pervassive?
I've just read back through the last four pages or so, and I can't be arsed to do loads of c'n'p, so the above will have to do.
From my own experience, going through the standard UK education system, which is nominally CofE, yes of course we had RE, but as a kid, just like other subjects, it was something you sat through, tried to look as though you were paying enough attention to not get picked to answer any questions, before going onto the next class. I have little or no memory of anything taught, it was just a class you sat through. There were plenty of my contemporaries who were obliged by their families to attend Sunday School; those poor buggers you [i]really[/i] felt sorry for, but I don't recall any of my friends actually suffering any emotional harm, it was something most tolerated for the sake of an easy life.
I and two of my mates went out with three girls from the Catholic school in Bath, and only one of those three has maintained any regular contact with the church; Jo, my then g/f certainly hasn't, and she was a a very naughty girl back then, too... 😯
To recap, I really do not have any clear recollection of there being any forcing of religion down our throats as kids back in the sixties, other than the God slot on the Beeb on Sunday nights, with Songs Of Praise, and even that was ignored by reading a book.
Oddly enough, my mum always liked SoP, despite being completely non-religious, she just liked the songs.
Hilarious typo gag CM did you notice your own spelling in the bit I quoted?. Well state education is free to all children but you can opt out of it. The NHS is everywhere but you can opt out of it. You seem to think compulsory and pervasive mean the same thing. When only maths English and re are compulsory to deliver , a daily act of worship is mandatory to deliver. Out of interest what more would you require for it to be classed as pervasive? IMHO it is impossible to grow up withou exposure to religion and the state education system and law is but one part of that.
No, but someone did and that was what i wanted resolved. It appers to have been.
How has it been resolved? I and some others stated our opinion (based on our experience), you and some others stated a different opinion. The fact that you think that means the argument has been resolved in your favour is telling.
And perhaps you should look up the definition of the word pervasive.
I thought it was resolved because some folks talked about being told they were condemned to hell, but were unable to identify the individuals who ahad actually directly done that. Either they identified with a grup which they thought had been condemned or there was a general description of being condemned, which looked like more of a statement of 'fact' rather than a condemnation as such. The Lumen wotsit had a bit about if you are ot with us, then you are knacked, but it was also, later on and unquoted, pretty vague and inclusive about who is 'with us'.
Intersted that you it was 'telling' what did it tell you? Because i have had complaints that i've been 'telling' nothing about myself.
I have a pretty good understanding of the word 'pervasive'. Let me try, in general it means that it is spread widely, nowif that is all you mean and that it is not a problem, in the way that oxygen or eduaction are pervasive, then ok, I'd be happy to agree with you, it would be a lot easier! However, i guess you are probably tied to the common understanding that it is widespread and 'unwelcome'. Am i right? Now i think if it is unwelcome but you can chose not to be avail yourself of it, then it cannot really be pervasive. It is widespread but optional, so not pervasive.
The NHS is everywhere but you can opt out of it
This might serve to clarify then. Do you think the NHS is pervasive?
I must say, I have gone almost every day of my life unaffected by religion, since leaving primary school (where we did do hymns and the Lord's Prayer) in 1986. It is never raised in conversation with any of my friends or colleages, it's not on tv at any point other than Songs of Praise and do they still do a Sunday morning slot? Unless it's a historical programme. It's not in the papers or in the news unless it's a significant newsworthy item (and I'd argue that big religious issues are made newsworthy simply because it's an issue that affects a large number of people). It's not mentioned on any other TV or radio programme.
I would not call that pervasive. Strictly Come Dancing gets way more coverage.
. It is never raised in conversation with any of my friends or colleages, it's not on tv at any point other than Songs of Praise and do they still do a Sunday morning slot? Unless it's a historical programme. It's not in the papers or in the news unless it's a significant newsworthy item (and I'd argue that big religious issues are made newsworthy simply because it's an issue that affects a large number of people). It's not mentioned on any other TV or radio programme.
What about all the times it's mentioned on STW ?
I thought it was resolved because some folks talked about being told they were condemned to hell, but were unable to identify the individuals who ahad actually directly done that.
we must read different threads then as i gave one as did others[Grum and rusty iirc].
I dont think there is any actual dount about what the abrhamic religions say about what happens to sinners so I am not sure what you would expect them to say - no its not important what you do god loves so do as you please and we all go to heaven is not their core message. Anyone who does not follow the rules is going to hell is their view. iirc its is why they try and save us.
I have a pretty good understanding of the word 'pervasive'. Let me try, in general it means that it is spread widely,
Agreed. Clearly I think it is unwelcome as well but that is realy just saying whteher you like or dislike religion or tolerate if you prefer - I tolerate it in the sense i would not ban them from believing in something with no evidence and wont kill them for disagreeing with me or engaie in a holy war to spread my message]. What i would say it I dont think they should have the right to deliver it in schools, ask teachers to support the religious ethos or deliver an act of worship - that goes beyond exposure and is in to the lands of imposition.
A fairer system or compromise would probably involve schools opting out so that non religious children can attend a school that meets with their beliefs rather than just the religious having this right currently and imposing it legally [ with an opt out] Do you think the religious would like compulsory aetheism classes with an opt out and even religious schools having to deliver it? Whether the opt out is enough to consider it nor pervassive is an interesting debate and for the reasons mentioned above I think it is not. It is worth noting that education is only one area where the religious get their voice and as molly notes there are other avenues as pervassive and just as dangerous FFS my kids dance to gangham style and like One Direction- equally pervassive and lacking in judgement IMHO. Could god save them from this ? 😉
This might serve to clarify then. Do you think the NHS is pervasive?
Yes. I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise tbh nor can i see why they would think this with religion. Your view seems to be it is but you can opt out so it is not. I disagree that the opt out impacts on pervassive as opting out of the NHS makes that no less pervassive. It may well reduce [ one would assume it must] its influence on me but i am still going to see adverts on tv, ambulances, perhaps know about stopping smoking or eating 5 a day and know what the NHS is and what it does. Religion is no different I will still know about it because it pervassive.
In reality [IME]the opt is not easy to do tbh as what do you do re christmas? I celebrate but not for a religious reason. There are still some cultiural aspects of religion even aethists do [ another argument for pervassive perhaps?]
FWIW, considerable doubt remains within the Catholic Church and between it and Protestants and other religions with respect to what happens to sinners. It is not as clear cut as you suggest JY. The RC make the distinction between original and actual sin and,within actual sin, between mortal and venial sin. Given the root of the word venial (the Latin for pardon) some argue that venial sins do not result in hell etc.. But the catechisms Q110 to 127 still leave a lot that is unclear eg what exactly constitutes mortal sin, are mortal and venial sinners treated in the same way (interesting that there are two answers to that question) etc.
I often wonder if the opposition to faith schools stems less from the fact that they are faith schools and more to the fact that places in them tend to be heavily oversubscribed. One result is all kind of odd practices from parents in an effort to secure places. One has to wonder why this scramble exists for establishments that are (by all accounts) determined to harm ones children. I would have thought that these evil (sic) establishments would struggle to fill places. And yet......
I dont know thier inner machinations on exactly what happens to sinners but my simplified message is broadly accurate of their position if not exactly how Rowan Williams would articulate it.
I often wonder if the opposition to faith schools stems less from the fact that they are faith schools and more to the fact that places in them tend to be heavily oversubscribed.
So 14 pages into this debate with folks stating their views and you still wonder what the real reason is - one that no one has said so far. Its an excellent faith based judgment made despite the evidence
One result is all kind of odd practices from parents in an effort to secure places. One has to wonder why this scramble exists for establishments that are (by all accounts) determined to harm ones children. I would have thought that these evil (sic) establishments would struggle to fill places. And yet......
I would imagine it is to do with league tables* and the alternative choices...not sure why it is beyond anyone to work this out. Even i would send my kids to a good [ academic results] religious school rather than a failing non religious school which would still deliver religion anyway.
If you give them a good non faith choice school they dont do this.
* whilst the evidence is mixed it would appaer they over achieve as they are over subscribed so they can select so they select the [generally] more able as well as those of their faith. Its not religion or the ethos that makes them better.
Perhaps the predominantly white middle class parents want to send their kids to a school where most others are white and middle class too?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/01/faith-schools-admissions-unfair
One has to wonder why this scramble exists for establishments that are (by all accounts) determined to harm ones children. I would have thought that these evil (sic) establishments would struggle to fill places. And yet......
Pretty poor straw man argument there. Where has anyone said religious schools are 'evil' and 'determined to harm children'? People have merely stated their opposition to them.
It is however interesting to think how any other organisation that had systematically covered up child abuse over decades would be treated if they said they wanted to run schools.
Where has anyone said religious schools are 'evil' and 'determined to harm children'? People have merely stated their opposition to them.
So some people are opposed to religious schools even though they don't think they harm children ? 😀