- This topic has 316 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by nealglover.
-
Religion in schools
-
xiphonFree Member
Don’t worry, Sharia law will soon be the de facto in this country.
nealgloverFree MemberHe’s saying that most secondaries do something that would be classed as a daily act of worship.
Righto. Strange double negative threw me a bit. Couldn’t work out if it was intentional or not.
miketuallyFree MemberI saw that site earlier in another post.
How long happen they been campaigning, and what’s been achieved so far ?
The organisation has been around for a long time, not sure how long that particular campaign’s been going for though.
How long did the campaign for equal marriage take?
miketuallyFree MemberRighto. Strange double negative threw me a bit. Couldn’t work out if it was intentional or not.
He’s spent too long worshiping and not enough in English lessons.
nealgloverFree MemberThe organisation has been around for a long time, not sure how long that particular campaign’s been going for though.
Ok, just trying to judge timescales, and they have been around a while obviously.
How long did the campaign for equal marriage take?
Why ? Is this something I should know ? 😕
miketuallyFree MemberWhy ? Is this something I should know ?
Being gay was illegal until 1967, just ten years before I was born. In 2014, the first same sex marriages took place.
Sometimes, change takes a long time to happen. That’s no reason to not campaign for it.
JunkyardFree MemberStrange double negative threw me a bit
You were expecting iron cast logic from the religious dude then 😉
Britain is the only Western democracy to require worship in non-religious publicly funded schools.
Except not in practice
Despite your caveat the fact is still true so either negate it or accept it..how many pages have you been doing this for now?I will accept some break the law but it does not negate the fact it is required.
miketuallyFree MemberYou were expecting iron cast logic from the religious dude then
I liked the fact that he stated his belief, but then there was no evidence to back it up 🙂
JunkyardFree Memberneal or the canon 😉
No offence neal just a joke I accept you are one of the logic botherers on here.
nealgloverFree MemberSometimes, change takes a long time to happen. That’s no reason to not campaign for it.
You seem to be reading things into my posts that aren’t there.
Where did I say there is no reason to campaign for change ?
NorthwindFull Membermolgrips – Member
Except not in practice. How many schools have been pulled up for not doing it?
So the law is an ass, and the school guidelines are widely ignored- all sounds like good reasons to change things. Rules that nobody listens to are worse than no rules at all.
miketuallyFree MemberWon’t help much if you are in a position to deal with the decision now though, because it’s not going to change soon, if ever.
I think I misunderstood “if you are in a position to deal with the decision now” and read too much into “it’s not going to change soon, if ever”, and thought you were saying there’s no point in campaigning.
nealgloverFree MemberFair enough.
What I meant was, if your kids are at/about to be at school, you have 3 options.
Campaigning won’t change anything fast enough to change your options.
miketuallyFree MemberWorship in schools helps prop up the whole Bishops in the Lords, unelected head of state, established church thing by way of subtle indoctrination leading to ticking the CofE box on the census form and a vague sense of the belief that there’s a heaven and you’ll meet grannie again.
Thankfully, this seems to be changing.
miketuallyFree MemberFair enough.
What I meant was, if your kids are at/about to be at school, you have 3 options.
Campaigning won’t change anything fast enough to change your options.
My two are in Y3 and Y6.
I’m stuck in education for the foreseeable future though so it would/could affect me for longer.
Thankfully, despite being in possession of a rather lovely pipe organ in a grand Victorian wood-paneled hall, complete with stained glass windows, sixth-formers are exempt from enforced worship and we’re a very secular place.
nealgloverFree MemberThe problem with campaigning though, is that any government that needs to make the decision will have one question in their minds.
Which will cost fewer votes, keeping it as it is, or changing it.
I think I know what the answer is.
miketuallyFree MemberI honestly don’t think it’s a vote winner or loser, which is partly why it’ll be hard to get it changed.
The best thing would be a coordinated opt-out campaign.
CougarFull MemberJust to tangent for a second, have we had many vocally Atheist senior politicians?
NorthwindFull Membermiketually – Member
subtle indoctrination leading to ticking the CofE box on the census form
And let’s not forget the leading question, or the followup surveys that showed that 50% of people who identified themselves as christian when asked the census question, about half don’t believe in christ and a little under half don’t believe in god 😉
(it’s not a conspiracy mind; the question’s been kept the same for many censuses, so that it’s useful comparatively. Changing from a leading question to a neutral one would wreck the usability for trends.)
NorthwindFull MemberCougar – Moderator
Just to tangent for a second, have we had many vocally Atheist senior politicians?
Nick Clegg! Alistair Campbell as well, ironically he’s quite good evidence for the existance of satan.
D0NKFull MemberSo you didn’t read any of what came before the bit you quoted then ?
i read it all, your method still involves them sitting through the “god is great” mantra being repeated over and over. I then pointed out the alternative, opting out, is made very unappealing, no doubt intentionally.
CougarFull MemberIn answer to my earlier question, a quick Google revealed this (emphasis mine):
The Test Act 1672 formerly made it illegal for a Roman Catholic to hold high political office in the English Parliament. It has, however, long since been repealed, but that’s not really the end of the story.
Given that one of the functions of the Prime Minister is to recommend to the monarch who should hold the offices of Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York, both of which carry with them both primacy within the Church of England and seats in the House of Lords, constitutional convention suggests that the PM should not be perceived as possessing bias against the Established Church (Church of England/Church of Scotland). Every PM has officially owed allegiance to one or other of the established churches – Benjamin Disraeli had to evidence family conversion from Judaism before holding office in the 19th century as far as I can recall.
This is comment rather than a reputable source. Is it true? That to be PM, you have to align yourself with a Church? (Wasn’t John Major Atheist?)
D0NKFull MemberWhat I meant was, if your kids are at/about to be at school, you have 3 options.
hmm maybe I’ve misunderstood your posts but the earlier ones seem to be saying “if you don’t have school age kids why are you getting your knickers in a twist about it?” Now you’re saying “if you do have school age kids its too late to do anything so don’t worry”
Did I read that right?
miketuallyFree MemberIs it true? That to be PM, you have to align yourself with a Church? (Wasn’t John Major Atheist?)
His religion is listed as Anglican on Wikipedia, but I don’t really know that much about him. He certainly wasn’t a “good Christian” while he was aligning himself with Edwina Curry.
I’d not be surprised if there was some ‘rule’ like that. The leader of the party most able to form a government is invited to be Prime Minister by the Queen, who is both head of state and head of the established church. If (by some ‘miracle’) the Lib Dems won the next election, she could refuse to ask atheist Nick Clegg to form a government as it would/could lead to a constitutional crisis.
One of the arguments against making same sex marriage legal was that it would create conflict between church doctrine and national law, so there could be a similar issue. It just shows how ridiculous it is to have an established church.
nealgloverFree Memberhmm maybe I’ve misunderstood your posts
Looks like you have misunderstood yes.
I’ve said neither of the things you mention.
(You could probably twist what I said if you really wanted to and tried hard enough, but either way, that’s not what I said)
Edit- I suppose, if you do have school age kids right now, it’s probably not going to change in time for it to make a difference to them, but I didn’t say that means you shouldn’t “worry” or try to change things still.
It just means that you are protesting to try and change things for future generations, which is fine obviously.
oliverd1981Free Memberwhat I want to know is if religion in schools is worthwhile, how come whenever I go to a wedding, funeral or turn on songs of praise, they never do any of the good hymns from “Songs of Praise” (circa 1986).
I’m fairly against anybody wasting to much time on montheistic RE at secondary level but at primary school, christianity is just a set of half decent parables with all of the “be excellent to one another” good stuff and none of the “except those guys” that religion seems to entail for grown ups.
NorthwindFull Membermiketually – Member
He certainly wasn’t a “good Christian” while he was aligning himself with Edwina Curry.
While it might not be essential to be religious to be a politician, it certainly is a requirement that you be a lying hypocrite.
ernie_lynchFree Memberit certainly is a requirement that you be a lying hypocrite.
Why’s that NW ….. aren’t voters interested in electing a politician if he or she isn’t a lying hypocrite ?
You could be right about the voter appeal of lying hypocrites.
Voters don’t want to hear the truth ….. they want to be seduced !
Look at this guy, being a lying hypocrite never did him any harm.
Three general election wins and a few £millions stashed away in various bank accounts.
D0NKFull Membernealglover – Member
I’ve said neither of the things you mentionjust looked back and no you didn’t say the first thing, pretty sure someone did and I thought it was you but CBA re-reading* the previous 9 pages, so apologies for that. You did say something similar to the second on this page tho. But meh, I think this is dying down now.
*properly this time 😉
nealgloverFree MemberYes I did say something similar to the second one, but without the “so don’t worry about it”
Just that things won’t change fast enough to have a direct effect on your kids if they are already school age now.
But regardless, without the first thing, which I didn’t say, there is no contradiction is there 😉
CougarFull MemberCan I have a mid-season “Previously on…” recap, please? I’ve completely forgotten what Brian was doing in Los Angeles and thought that they’d killed off Jennifer three episodes ago.
franksinatraFull MemberOkay stand down, nothing to see here.
Today was the day of reckoning, the day of the church thing with school.
I skulked along but it was actually really good. Was not really religious at all, no mass, no bowing heads, minister did not even put his costume on. The kids did a play, which was intersected with lots of ‘Christians believe such and such.’ There were not even any prayers. Minister spoke for about 1 minute at the end to say well done and invite people along to the eater service which, weather dependent will be held out on the hill top, he then mentioned that other churches will also welcome people along if they wish (plugging the local competition.)
All much of a moan about nothing, it was done really well.
Now back to your arguing!
grumFree Membernealglover – do you accept the idea that it’s possibly to imply things without directly saying them?
nealgloverFree Membernealglover – do you accept the idea that it’s possibly to imply things without directly saying them?
Of course it is.
Just like its possible to read things that aren’t there because you really want to argue with someone.
In this particular case, what do you think I was implying when I said “go for it” and “I’d be interested to see how it goes” with regard to a campaign against compulsory worship in schools ?
nealgloverFree MemberAll much of a moan about nothing, it was done really well.
Sounds like a good result.
(although STW is disappointed with the lack of “brainwashing” and “indoctrination” obviously.)
😉
The topic ‘Religion in schools’ is closed to new replies.