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?
