Does anyone else remember when the labour government in 2005 tried to make it illegal to criticise religion? I hope that is never proposed again, what a stupid idea. Especially when anyone can change religion unlike race,gender or sexuality.
Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
Soldato
Well we only have to look at the recent case of the council who were praying before meetings to see the sort of thing she is referring to.
The council is a government organisation, if they want to pray do it at home or in church.
I fail to see how they are being mistreated, if I asked to spend 5mins of a council meeting waving around a plastic light-saber (because I claimed to be a Jedi) I'd expect to get told to do it in my own time.
Please don't say it's a silly example - it's got just as much evidence for it.
Unless it was the Jedi council.
Why yes, because otherwise you may have inferred I was being serious in thinking that you would in some way attempt to excuse the Church for that behaviour as you seem to be doing for lying about the effectiveness of condoms.
And it seems that the smiley just wasn't enough...
It is unfortunate that you have to disagree with the stance that lives are more important than church doctrine.
I believe we may have gone over this in the past. Specifically the church is intolerant towards women and homosexuality. Whilst you may feel that they have very good reasons for being so that does not stop them being intolerant, it just justifies the intolerance.
They can still pray before council meetings there is just no longer a mandated requirement for a prayer before a council meeting. They are still allowed to hold their Christian beliefs they are just no longer allowed to enforce them on others through council proceedings. There is absolutely nothing to stop a councillor having a prayer before they attend a council meeting.
Man of Honour
I don't even mind them doing it before the meeting, just not during.
People are using the word "Apologist" as if it is an insult....it is not. It is, with Christianity a field of Theology whose aim is to present a rational basis for the Faith and defend it against misrepresentation and erroneous positions ascribed to Christianity.
I am not really interested in getting into another pointless debate on just how misinformed about religion people are in general or arguing against points that have been discussed and dismissed ad infinitum...but I would like to make one point other than the one above and that regards Secularism itself.
Secularism is not, as some people both religious and otherwise seem to think, about promoting atheism or agnosticism over religion...it is about neutrality of all philosophical positions.
People seem to think that Secularism somehow defends the rights of atheists or is an extension of atheism, including many militant atheists and that is simply a misrepresentation of what Secularism is actually about.
Secularism is opposed to all forms of discrimination, all forms of privilege and is as opposed to the banning of the Burqa in France as it is to the sitting Bishops in the House of Lords.....
We have a choice to make in how far we wish the state in which we live and work to embrace secularism...I am conflicted on that as I see the point that secularism promotes in that Public decision making should not be influenced by purely religious motivation, and I include Humanism (and Atheism) in that....I also do not want to see the further erosion of the Traditions of this Country which are like it or not based firmly on a Christian History that led us to become this largely free society where we can have this kind of debate in the first place.
For example, we should be free to send our children to Faith Schools as well as free to send our children to Secular Schools....the provision should be about equality, not about one position over the other.
France is a good example when it comes to Faith Schools. France is a secular State, yet it spends significant Tax Euros on Faith Schools...all State Schools are secular in France, yet Independent Faith schools are funded centrally as well through Grants and "écoles sous contrat" to the state education system (in other words the State pays the Teachers)...around 20% of Schools in France are funded in this way and the vast majority of them are Faith Schools (mainly Catholic). The fees for these schools (Catholic ones) are largely symbolic as they are funded directly by the Catholic Church (as in the case with many UK Catholic Schools albeit to a lesser extent) and the State (via the aforementioned contract).
The interesting thing about this is that in recent years the Faith Schools have been outperforming similar State Schools and thus the provision for Faith Schools in France is growing rather than shrinking.
It is also important to the debate to mention that France does not teach Religion in State Schools, (it is not banned, only it takes place as an elective after-school activity and strangely many French State schools have a Chaplain, something you don't see very often in UK schools)... however there is a growing demand that Religious Awareness is taught in State Schools as it is increasingly becoming the position in France that there is a need for development of greater understanding between Frances different religions.
Anyway I shall let you get on with your debate.
I am not really interested in getting into another pointless debate on just how misinformed about religion people are in general or arguing against points that have been discussed and dismissed ad infinitum...but I would like to make one point other than the one above and that regards Secularism itself.
Secularism is not, as some people both religious and otherwise seem to think, about promoting atheism or agnosticism over religion...it is about neutrality of all philosophical positions.
People seem to think that Secularism somehow defends the rights of atheists or is an extension of atheism, including many militant atheists and that is simply a misrepresentation of what Secularism is actually about.
Secularism is opposed to all forms of discrimination, all forms of privilege and is as opposed to the banning of the Burqa in France as it is to the sitting Bishops in the House of Lords.....
We have a choice to make in how far we wish the state in which we live and work to embrace secularism...I am conflicted on that as I see the point that secularism promotes in that Public decision making should not be influenced by purely religious motivation, and I include Humanism (and Atheism) in that....I also do not want to see the further erosion of the Traditions of this Country which are like it or not based firmly on a Christian History that led us to become this largely free society where we can have this kind of debate in the first place.
For example, we should be free to send our children to Faith Schools as well as free to send our children to Secular Schools....the provision should be about equality, not about one position over the other.
France is a good example when it comes to Faith Schools. France is a secular State, yet it spends significant Tax Euros on Faith Schools...all State Schools are secular in France, yet Independent Faith schools are funded centrally as well through Grants and "écoles sous contrat" to the state education system (in other words the State pays the Teachers)...around 20% of Schools in France are funded in this way and the vast majority of them are Faith Schools (mainly Catholic). The fees for these schools (Catholic ones) are largely symbolic as they are funded directly by the Catholic Church (as in the case with many UK Catholic Schools albeit to a lesser extent) and the State (via the aforementioned contract).
The interesting thing about this is that in recent years the Faith Schools have been outperforming similar State Schools and thus the provision for Faith Schools in France is growing rather than shrinking.
It is also important to the debate to mention that France does not teach Religion in State Schools, (it is not banned, only it takes place as an elective after-school activity and strangely many French State schools have a Chaplain, something you don't see very often in UK schools)... however there is a growing demand that Religious Awareness is taught in State Schools as it is increasingly becoming the position in France that there is a need for development of greater understanding between Frances different religions.
Anyway I shall let you get on with your debate.
Last edited:
Secularism is about the separation of church and state. As such I think you'll find a lot of secularists, me included, who wish to see the end of faith schools. Schools should be about teaching facts, not indoctrinating. If kids want to believe in God then that is fine as they have a right to religious freedom. Let them come to this decision on their own though.
It depends on what specifically they are being an apologist for.
Agreed.
Agreed, in a sense.
"In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people" - a great bit from the wiki page which is pertinent to this discussion.
Secularism does provide a layer of protection for minority groups - be that religious or otherwise, it's aim is to stop the meddling on the day to day running by any religious organisation against the lives of the citizens.
Actually, it's not that simple - if the Burqa is oppressive in it's nature (against women) then a secular country could rightfully ban it in the name of gender equality.
Is banning female genital mutilation against secularism?, I don't this it is - but then I don't believe parents have any right to brainwash or mutilate the child in question.
That depends on if you think we progressed due to or in spite of religious influence in this nation.
If you could ask anybody who was a homosexual in the last 1000 years & they will say in spite of.
It depends on if you believe parents "own" there children, if you don't then forced indoctrination into any group (strong anti-religious, or catholic) would be undesirable.
Again, it's not that simple.
Read above.
That has more to do with funding, area & socio-economic class of the children in question - it's also worth noting that faith schools have requirements for entry - which involves parental motivation to get them in (this fact alone would be an indicated or a dedicated parent).
Combined with the good reputation they have had/been given (due to the aforementioned differences above), dedicated parents feel a strong motivation to send them to these schools.
It's what we call a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in my field.
I agree, awareness is important & should still be taught as it's important to understand & not irrationally fear various cultures.
Nice to see a different side to the discussion.Anyway I shall let you get on with your debate.
Edit - As a side note, I really don't think that all cultures are equal - some promote suffering on a much larger scale than others, some think it's OK to murder women/children or deny half the population basic rights.
You don't have to sit on the fence & ignore terrible human suffering to be tolerant - tolerance should have limits - murder, slavery, child mutilation, child rape & oppression are a few of the things I will not tolerate in the name of religion, culture or anything (some tend to be cultural, others religious)
Last edited:
Unfortunately for your prejudices the separation of Church and State doesn't necessarily mean the ending of Faith Schools.
The very reason I gave the example of France which you ignored was to illustrate that.
Last edited:
I think that State schools should take a leaf out of the Faith school book when it comes to discipline as I would imagine that would be the key factor in them getting better results (complete guess really), but I'm certainly against children being told that there defiinitely is a God who will definitely punish them when they die if they don't do as they're told.
And while I think Dawkin's could be a little more diplomatic, I do think he has a point. If you're not following the scriptures as they're written but are choosing to follow your own moral code, are you really a Christian? If I said I was a golfer and started kicking a ball around a field, would I really be a golfer?
If you're not actually going to follow the tenets of the religion, why bother saying that you belong to that religion? Fear of being condemned to hell if you don't?
And while I think Dawkin's could be a little more diplomatic, I do think he has a point. If you're not following the scriptures as they're written but are choosing to follow your own moral code, are you really a Christian? If I said I was a golfer and started kicking a ball around a field, would I really be a golfer?
If you're not actually going to follow the tenets of the religion, why bother saying that you belong to that religion? Fear of being condemned to hell if you don't?
From all our understanding of human behaviour positive reinforcement works better.
The problem is these children become unruly at home - if teachers could hit pupils expect allot more teachers being hit back/children bringing in weapons.
We don't want to start the school arms-race like you have in America.
Lack of a stable home family unit, without a positive role models, intellectual stimulus & positive reinforcement for good behaviour is pretty much the cause of most of our society's problems.
Indeed, there is a difference between doing what's right & doing what you are told.
I think he mostly try's to highlight how much religions change to suit the climate of the time - by what source we are referencing to decide what parts of the bible we like & which we don't (Leviticus springs to mind).
A good question.If you're not actually going to follow the tenets of the religion, why bother saying that you belong to that religion? Fear of being condemned to hell if you don't?
Just out of interest, why is it, do you think, that faith schools are supposedly outperforming secular schools?
Thr burqa is not oppressive in itself....if the woman has mad a conscious choice to wear it then it would be oppressive to stop her....so the emphasis should be on the choice of the individual, the illegality should be placed on the enforcement on wearing it, not the choice of wearing it.
Why only female gential mutilation?....why not circumcision? Not that I agree with either, and nor do I think banning a piece of clothing is comparable to physical mutilation.
That is a largely different debate, and one that would need to address a wide range of examples...one being the motivation of the individual, while it is true that some people will do charitible or endeavour to force change regardless of their beliefs, there are a significant number who would not if not for the requirements inherent in their beliefs.
My son attends a Catholic School....I'm not Catholic, my son doesn't believe in God, indoctrination in School is vastly over-rated. If it wasn't then we would all still be pious and religious. There is a lot of misconception of what modern faith schools actually teach.
in France, due to the symbolic fees and the way in which they are funded anyone has access to a Faith School, not only those in a specific socio-economic group.
On a slightly different topic, I think Selective Schools (as in grammar schools) are a good idea. It is simply the responsibilty of the State to provide equal provision to all.
If the funding followed the Child rather than the School, Parents would have better choice and Schools would be forced to compete and improve or close.
France has a view of secularism which is different to mine. If we are to allow total religious freedom, then allowing children to be forced to go to a faith school by their parents undermines this. I value the personal religious freedom of the child more highly than the freedom of the parent to send them to a faith school.
Just out of interest, why is it, do you think, that faith schools are supposedly outperforming secular schools?
Largely the extra funded they recieve from the Church. The School my Son goes to recieves an extra 10% on top of the State Funding....this is significant.
That's a fair cop, but I'm sure I have read (several times) that, generally, the faith schools achieving higher academic standards are those that have their own admissions policies, and don't offer equality of access. That plus the automatic segregation that is part of, by definition, attending a 'faith school' makes me question claims that they are superior centres of education.
So would you remove a child from a religious family because they teach their child that religion?
How far does the freedom of a child from indoctrination of all kinds go.......like I said there is a misconception about what faith schools (in the main) actually teach.
The local catholic school teaches a wide range of philosophical and religious positions in RE, he certainly isn't indoctrinated in any meaningful way. He spend vastly more time and effort learning Math, Science, English, Languages, and just about everything else....the religious part of the curriculum is just a tiny part...he has more PE lessons than RE ones.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
I admire you Castiel, but you do have a habit of getting drawn in to these things.