Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Aruntraveller on December 06, 2015, 10:27:19 AM
-
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report
So what are posters take on this issue.
Is it now time to give up the idea of religious assemblies and move to a more broad based gathering so as to be more inclusive or is it right that we should continue to define our country as "Christian" bearing in mind that Christian can be seen as both religious and cultural.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report
So what are posters take on this issue.
Is it now time to give up the idea of religious assemblies and move to a more broad based gathering so as to be more inclusive or is it right that we should continue to define our country as "Christian" bearing in mind that Christian can be seen as both religious and cultural.
Whilst I think it's way past that time - indeed, so it seems do most of the actual schools given that they either find the most tortured ways of describing what they do in order to give the impression of complying or they just outright don't bother - I was rather disappointed that this was the element the Guardian chose to focus on and make their headline.
The push to limit segregation of school-children is fairly thinly veiled attack on the notion of faith-schools (and, in their justification, also on the economic/class segregation that it supports) seemed to be a far more significant recommendation, along with the comments on the depiction of religion in the media (with an eye on the public service broadcasting remit of the BBC in the upcoming charter renewal and review) and the way religiosity is viewed by the criminal justice system.
O.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report
So what are posters take on this issue.
Is it now time to give up the idea of religious assemblies and move to a more broad based gathering so as to be more inclusive or is it right that we should continue to define our country as "Christian" bearing in mind that Christian can be seen as both religious and cultural.
The former - for many of us Christianity has no place in our lives in terms of being participants, so acts of religious activity (hymns, prayers) should have no place in the school day.
-
More power to the BHA and NSS in their work to remove religious assemblies. The sooner the words 'teaching of religion' is replaced by 'teaching about religions, the better. I listened to some of the Sunday programme today, but then turned off. Progress is so slow!
-
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report
So what are posters take on this issue.
Is it now time to give up the idea of religious assemblies and move to a more broad based gathering so as to be more inclusive or is it right that we should continue to define our country as "Christian" bearing in mind that Christian can be seen as both religious and cultural.
As schools are likely to have many more unbelievers than believers, religious assemblies have had their day and no loss, imo.
-
As schools are likely to have many more unbelievers than believers, religious assemblies have had their day and no loss, imo.
I see the strategy
2006 Dawkins complains and campaigns against children being referred to as Muslim children or Christian children
2014 It's alright now as long as they are all Atheist children.
Vintage humbug and hypocrisy from the Flooster.
-
I have no idea why anyone with a religious belief would want their kids getting the lukewarm, simplistic stuff served up at school assemblies - often by teaching staff who themselves are unbelievers. What's the point?
-
I see the strategy
2006 Dawkins complains and campaigns against children being referred to as Muslim children or Christian children
2014 It's alright now as long as they are all Atheist children.
Vintage humbug and hypocrisy from the Flooster.
No, a statement of the bleeding obvious, I'd have thought. I have no hard statistics to hand - I doubt if youngsters are often polled on such things - but it strikes me as staggeringly unlikely that very many young people (let's say 16 and under) have an active, positive religious affiliation. This applies to those supposedly labelled thus (which of course in reality means "a child of religious parents or even merely of a purely formal, nominal cultural identity only"). There will be some, of course, but very few. Like the majority of the adult population most kids probably never give the matter a first let alone second thought. Since calling them atheists seems to get you worked up (I'm amazed you didn't call them anti-theists), call them apatheists or ignostics if that takes the curse off it for you.
In such a climate, the law about compulsory daily, broadly Christian worship is cleary a busted flush; I suspect that it will go by the wayside sooner rather than later.
-
No, a statement of the bleeding obvious, I'd have thought. I have no hard statistics to hand - I doubt if youngsters are often polled on such things - but it strikes me as staggeringly unlikely that very many young people (let's say 16 and under) have an active, positive religious affiliation. This applies to those supposedly labelled thus (which of course in reality means "a child of religious parents or even merely of a purely formal, nominal cultural identity only"). There will be some, of course, but very few. Like the majority of the adult population most kids probably never give the matter a first let alone second thought. Since calling them atheists seems to get you worked up (I'm amazed you didn't call them anti-theists), call them apatheists or ignostics if that takes the curse off it for you.
In such a climate, the law about compulsory daily, broadly Christian worship is cleary a busted flush; I suspect that it will go by the wayside sooner rather than later.
I don't know whether you read my e mail.
It isn't me who was worked up about giving children religious labels it was Dawkins in the God Delusion.
My money is on you at the time thinking 'oh Richard, you are sooo right'.
But you nor he have any problems in the idea of children being atheist or secular humanists.
That is pure humbuggery on your parts.
-
I don't know whether you read my e mail.
It isn't me who was worked up about giving children religious labels it was Dawkins in the God Delusion.
My money is on you at the time thinking 'oh Richard, you are sooo right'.
Correct.
But you nor he have any problems in the idea of children being atheist or secular humanists.
Why does he say the exact opposite of this, then?
That is pure humbuggery on your parts.
It's a sign that you either haven't read or read but have forgotten anything he has ever said, and are reduced to misrepresenting him by making stuff up as you go along.
-
I see the strategy
2006 Dawkins complains and campaigns against children being referred to as Muslim children or Christian children
2014 It's alright now as long as they are all Atheist children.
Vintage humbug and hypocrisy from the Flooster.
Don't be silly! :o
-
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report
So what are posters take on this issue.
Is it now time to give up the idea of religious assemblies and move to a more broad based gathering so as to be more inclusive or is it right that we should continue to define our country as "Christian" bearing in mind that Christian can be seen as both religious and cultural.
Perhaps Parliament will now take note of what many people, Christian and non-Christians alike, have been saying for donkeys' years. Ironically, having worked in secondary schools for a lot of my working life, I don't recall when I last attended a religious assembly - in fact I don't recall ever attending an exclusively Christian one. Primary schools are a bit different because the majority are small enough to have a hall large enough to take the whole school at once.
-
Dear Trent,
http://www.corab.org.uk/background-information
Background Information
Purpose
1. The Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life has been convened by the Woolf Institute, Cambridge, to:
A.consider the place and role of religion and belief in contemporary Britain, and the significance of emerging trends and identities
B.examine how ideas of Britishness and national identity may be inclusive of a range of religions and beliefs, and may in turn influence people's self-understanding
C.explore how shared understandings of the common good may contribute to greater levels of mutual trust and collective action, and to a more harmonious society
D.make recommendations for public life and policy.
Ideas of Britishness, national identity.
The Queen, a very British idea, is the National Anthem still sung at school assemblies, somebody save our gracious queen, no I much prefer God, as Billy Connolly tells us, God is the very man for the job.
Fish and chips, harmless but very British.
Ideas of Britishness, national identity, what are they?
Gonnagle.
-
More power to the BHA and NSS in their work to remove religious assemblies. The sooner the words 'teaching of religion' is replaced by 'teaching about religions, the better. I listened to some of the Sunday programme today, but then turned off. Progress is so slow!
Susan, the two organisations you mention came to the party many years after the majority of the public on this issue.
Regarding the comment "The sooner the words 'teaching of religion' is replaced by 'teaching about religions', I doubt whether an RE syllabus has existed that included the former for 40 or 50 years.
-
I have no idea why anyone with a religious belief would want their kids getting the lukewarm, simplistic stuff served up at school assemblies - often by teaching staff who themselves are unbelievers. What's the point?
Having attended school assemblies for many years, Rhi, I'm not sure that any religious parent would worry - after all, most of the time they're not even lukewarm or simplistic. They usually include almost nothing religious.
-
Dear Trent,
Funny, ( well I find it funny ) The Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life are funded by The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
(JRCT) is a Quaker trust which seeks to transform the world by supporting people who address the root causes of conflict and injustice. This support is provided, primarily, through funding applied for by applicants.
JRCT trustees are Quakers, and decision-making and practice are based on Quaker values. Trust meetings are based on Quaker business method. Each Trust meeting starts and ends with a period of silent worship. We don’t vote – we try to listen to each other and to God, so that we are guided to the right decision.
Gonnagle.
-
No, a statement of the bleeding obvious, I'd have thought. I have no hard statistics to hand - I doubt if youngsters are often polled on such things - but it strikes me as staggeringly unlikely that very many young people (let's say 16 and under) have an active, positive religious affiliation. This applies to those supposedly labelled thus (which of course in reality means "a child of religious parents or even merely of a purely formal, nominal cultural identity only"). There will be some, of course, but very few. Like the majority of the adult population most kids probably never give the matter a first let alone second thought. Since calling them atheists seems to get you worked up (I'm amazed you didn't call them anti-theists), call them apatheists or ignostics if that takes the curse off it for you.
In such a climate, the law about compulsory daily, broadly Christian worship is cleary a busted flush; I suspect that it will go by the wayside sooner rather than later.
Ignoring your abusive attitude,, which is your personality I suppose; even you admityou have no evidence: a fault you and your ilk are constantly accusing religionists of. As to daily worship, you have even less knowledge of what goes on in schools than you have about, say, rugby league!
-
Ignoring your abusive attitude,, which is your personality I suppose; even you admityou have no evidence: a fault you and your ilk are constantly accusing religionists of. As to daily worship, you have even less knowledge of what goes on in schools than you have about, say, rugby league!
Considerably more, as I know school-age youngsters but zero rugby players.
-
Having attended school assemblies for many years, Rhi, I'm not sure that any religious parent would worry - after all, most of the time they're not even lukewarm or simplistic. They usually include almost nothing religious.
Might as well do away with them then, wouldn't you say?
-
Considerably more, as I know school-age youngsters but zero rugby players.
So, you know youngsters? So what? I didn't ask you about that. I was referring to school assemblies. Do read more carefully, old chap! :)
-
So, you know youngsters? So what? I didn't ask you about that. I was referring to school assemblies. Do read more carefully, old chap! :)
So I'm rather more likely to know, on that basis, what the average assembly is like in schools today than my nearest half prop forward slingback or whatever they call themselves.
-
So I'm rather more likely to know, on that basis, what the average assembly is like in schools today than my nearest half prop forward slingback or whatever they call themselves.
Doesn't follow at all. I can just see you discussing school assemblies with the local kids! :D :D What a pathetic attempt at argument! :D :D
-
I don't. I can ask a couple of young folk of my acquaintance, however.
-
I don't. I can ask a couple of young folk of my acquaintance, however.
Keep trying! It gets more pathetic! ;D ;D
-
Might as well do away with them then, wouldn't you say?
Wouldn't worry me if they were done away with, but I wonder whether there are more important obsolete laws that Parliament ought to be considering doing away with?
-
Wouldn't worry me if they were done away with, but I wonder whether there are more important obsolete laws that Parliament ought to be considering doing away with?
Probably some, but what's the betting that every single last one of them would be deemed 'more important' by you than this one? ;)
-
Probably some, but what's the betting that every single last one of them would be deemed 'more important' by you than this one? ;)
I doubt it, Shakes. Apparently there are several hundred obsolete laws still on the British law books. Here are but a few!! http://dailym.ai/1XTydfR
Someone suggested that it would take at least a whole year of Parliamentary time to remove them from the slate!! The reason they aren't removed is because they have been ignored for so long. Perhaps you can tell us when a school/headteacher/local authority was last penalised for failing to provide such an assembly.
I'd certainly agree that any attempts to reassert the importance of such assemblies should be strongly opposed.
-
Dear Shaker,
I don't. I can ask a couple of young folk of my acquaintance, however.
Not a bad idea, did anyone do that.
the Teacher asks, do you want to hear a story about Jesus.
Or what, ask the pupil.
Maths replies the teacher.
Tell me about this interesting character called Jesus, replies the pupil.
Asking the kids could be an education in itself.
Gonnagle.
-
Wouldn't worry me if they were done away with, but I wonder whether there are more important obsolete laws that Parliament ought to be considering doing away with?
Religious assemblies serve to exclude and divide children off from each other according to belief or lack of it. Leaving aside how unfair that is on the children as individuals, flagging up difference on religious grounds is a bloody stupid thing to do in today's world, wouldn't you say?
-
I see the strategy
2006 Dawkins complains and campaigns against children being referred to as Muslim children or Christian children
2014 It's alright now as long as they are all Atheist children.
Vintage humbug and hypocrisy from the Flooster.
It really shouldn't come as a surprise that you fail to differentiate between education and indoctrination.
Forcing children to either partake of a particular religion's forms or to self-ostracise is indoctrination. Having educational establishments run a particular religion's rituals takes children who are impressionable and abuses the position of authority to inculcate in those children the idea that one particular faith group is 'right'.
To educate all children about a range of religious beliefs so that when they are of sufficient age and maturity they can make their own decision is what education is supposed to be about.
That does not intrinsically lead to atheism, and it's not teaching that atheism is THE way - it might well result in more atheists.
Equally, it doesn't define children as atheist children, it defines them as children: people who are still gathering the information they need to become who they are going to become.
Of course, if you want to rail against equal treatment and the denying of the place of privelege for Anglicanism you go ahead.
O.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Religious assemblies serve to exclude and divide children off from each other according to belief or lack of it. Leaving aside how unfair that is on the children as individuals, flagging up difference on religious grounds is a bloody stupid thing to do in today's world, wouldn't you say?
Oh I would!! much better to flag up what we have in common.
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm
Reciprocity, now that is a word worthy of Shaker, it has its good side and bad side, and I think worth exploring.
In place of the current legal requirement, the report urges the government to issue new guidelines that would build on “current best practice for inclusive assemblies and times for reflection that draw upon a range of sources, that are appropriate for pupils and staff of all religions and beliefs, and that will contribute to their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development”.
Although I did read on the Humanist web site that the Golden rule pre dates religion, how does that work, we are religious animals, how can something pre date what we actually are.
The Golden Rule is built on religious thinking.
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Albert Einstein, embracing and expanding on the Golden Rule.
Gonnagle.
-
Reciprocity, now that is a word worthy of Shaker, it has its good side and bad side, and I think worth exploring.
Although I did read on the Humanist web site that the Golden rule pre dates religion, how does that work, we are religious animals, how can something pre date what we actually are.
Religion requires language - faith is 'there's something out there', religion is 'we have codified the official judgment of what is out there'. Reciprocity doesn't require language, it's individual. We aren't religious by nature, we have a tendency towards faith, which leads towards religion.
The Golden Rule is built on religious thinking.
I'd love to think so, but I rather think that religion needs to accommodate the Golden Rule: we all have a sense of 'fair', religion needs to deal with that. Of course, we also have a sense of 'in-group' and 'out-group', which religion can also harness.
O.
-
Religious assemblies serve to exclude and divide children off from each other according to belief or lack of it. Leaving aside how unfair that is on the children as individuals, flagging up difference on religious grounds is a bloody stupid thing to do in today's world, wouldn't you say?
I can understand what you're saying, but
1) how many religious assemblies actually occur outside of school that are already faith schools? I'd even ask how many religious assemblies occur in faith schools?
2) don't religious assemblies (if 'religious' is used in the broadest sense) actually serve to teach all children about belief systems other than their own?
-
I can understand what you're saying, but
1) how many religious assemblies actually occur outside of school that are already faith schools? I'd even ask how many religious assemblies occur in faith schools?
2) don't religious assemblies (if 'religious' is used in the broadest sense) actually serve to teach all children about belief systems other than their own?
Do you really not know what the law stipulates on this?
-
Of course, if you want to rail against equal treatment and the denying of the place of privelege for Anglicanism you go ahead.
O, may I just remind you that a 'broadly Christian act of worship' isn't necessarily Anglican; it can be Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. In fact, of the people who have led 'religious' assemblies that I have experienced, many have been anything but Anglican. I've attended Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, even the odd Pagan assembly, as well as Christian outside of Anglicanism.
-
Do you really not know what the law stipulates on this?
Have you not been paying attention to the posts on the thread, Shakes? As I pointed out before, in 25 years of teaching in secondary schools in the UK, the vast majority - possibly 85% have been non-religious in nature and of the remaining 15%, perhaps 8% have been remotely Christian in nature. As I also pointed out, the law is generally observed in the breach, as are many of the hundreds of other obsolete laws that remain on the statute book but are rarely or never applied.
-
We aren't religious by nature, we have a tendency towards faith, ...
Linguistically, O, the latter phrase contradicts the former.
Of course, we also have a sense of 'in-group' and 'out-group', which religion can also harness.
Ironically enough, of all the world's philosophies, including atheism, there is only one that is truly all-embracing - Christianity!! It is the only one that is 'for all humanity'
-
Interesting report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/the-reporters-35005026
I can see where it is coming from.
Some of the reasons deep down for the formation of extremists seems to be their feelings of non inclusion.
How do you feel about the report?
Could it be to open up the H of L to other faiths be a positive step?
To represent the faith of those in this country along the line of number of adherents ?
Or is that a can of worms and we are better of with the c of e that at least traditionally connected to government?
Would scrapping the religious aspect of the H of L make our disconnection with those of faith even greater and maybe even influence the extremist aspect into becoming worse than ever?
🌹
-
This is a snippet about it
Entitled "Living with Difference", the report has been released by the Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life, set up by the Woolf Institute, an academic institute in Cambridge that specialises in interfaith relations.
It calls for politicians to overhaul UK public policy on religion and belief, to take account of the increasing impact of religion around the world and the more diverse nature of society in Britain, which is also less religious in many ways.
Its aim is to suggest practical ways for government and citizens to respond to social change in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to ensure a shared understanding of the fundamental values underlying public life that guarantee religious freedom while protecting the liberties and values of non-believers.
Its recommendations include:
Opening up representation in the House of Lords to other faiths
Creating a grassroots "Magna Carta" style statement of values for public life, rather than a government-led approach to defining "British values"
Refocusing anti-terror legislation to promote rather than limit freedom of speech and expression
The commission was chaired by the cross-bencher Baroness Butler-Sloss, and has taken two years to prepare its report. Twenty religious and academic thinkers from every major religious tradition, as well as the British Humanist Association, received more than 200 submissions of evidence.
Baroness Butler-Sloss says that the recommendations amount to a "new settlement for religion and belief in the UK" and are aimed at providing space and a role in society for all citizens, "regardless of their beliefs or absence of them".
Even the BHA got involved in this one.
-
I'd say the last thing we need is more religious 'leaders' shoehorned into our political governance process simply by dint of them being religious 'leaders' unless we also open up to the House of Lords to the no less qualified 'leaders' of, say, the butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers. Much better to get rid of anachronisms like the House of Lords in favour of arrangements which are, for want of a better term, democratic.
People should of course be free to carry on being members of religious organisations, and religious organisations should also be free to seek positions in political governance arrangements via the electoral process, but the rest of us should be equally free to reject a religious manifesto on the same basis that we can reject the manifestos of any other group seeking political support: at the ballot-box.
-
1) how many religious assemblies actually occur outside of school that are already faith schools? I'd even ask how many religious assemblies occur in faith schools?
The fact that people are ignoring the law doesn't mean that the law isn't still there, and that the implications of that law aren't still bad.
2) don't religious assemblies (if 'religious' is used in the broadest sense) actually serve to teach all children about belief systems other than their own?
Only if they're non-Christian to start with. It doesn't teach them about 'other' religions - arguably it doesn't teach at all - it mandates that they take part in an act of Christian worship. It normalises Christian practice, which automatically alienates all other practices.
O.
-
O, may I just remind you that a 'broadly Christian act of worship' isn't necessarily Anglican; it can be Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. In fact, of the people who have led 'religious' assemblies that I have experienced, many have been anything but Anglican. I've attended Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, even the odd Pagan assembly, as well as Christian outside of Anglicanism.
There are a number of Christian faiths, and any of them would be applicable I agree, I'm presuming Anglicanism because it's the most widespread, but that is presumption on my part.
I think it's good that other faiths have been offered the opportunity to come and show what they do, but that's outside of the expectations of this law, which explicitly mandates regular Christian activity.
O.
-
Ironically enough, of all the world's philosophies, including atheism, there is only one that is truly all-embracing - Christianity!! It is the only one that is 'for all humanity'
No it isn't.
It isn't 'for' me for a start, and I don't wish to be considered as being by default 'embraced' by one brand of ancient middle-eastern religious superstition: you may, if you wish, but if so please don't assume it applies to everyone.
-
Linguistically, O, the latter phrase contradicts the former.
Ironically enough, of all the world's philosophies, including atheism, there is only one that is truly all-embracing - Christianity!! It is the only one that is 'for all humanity'
How is something like, for example, atheism not all-embracing? All that it takes to be an atheist is not to be convinced by claims about gods.
Replace atheism with the name of any religion and the point still applies. Everybody could be a Buddhist if they wanted to be.
As for Christianity being 'all-embracing,' isn't this the religion whose central figure said that there's no other way to God but through him? You must have a different definition of 'all embracing' to me.
-
Dear Forum,
For your edification, Jeremy Vine, Radio 2, 12.00 hrs, will be discussing school assembly's.
Gonnagle.
-
Do hope you will give us a run-down - I'm listening to Radio - 4.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report
So what are posters take on this issue.
Is it now time to give up the idea of religious assemblies and move to a more broad based gathering so as to be more inclusive or is it right that we should continue to define our country as "Christian" bearing in mind that Christian can be seen as both religious and cultural.
School assemblies are not religious or cultural, there were jokes about "Heart warming piano solos" and "Spot the singer" even when I was in school. Their main value was to delay the start of the daily torture for twenty or minutes whilst a man among boys told us that owing to the state of the pitches there would be no outdoor sport again today.
Anne Butler Sloss takes school assemblies far more seriously than do those who have to attend the same, but then she is getting paid to write the report.
-
Dear Susan,
Do hope you will give us a run-down - I'm listening to Radio - 4.
A few atheists telling us that religion has no place in schools, one chap telling us that the country is going down the drain.
Another guy saying that the Queen is not doing her job, defender of the faith.
The expert ( so called expert ) was telling us that the country has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, more non believers, on the subject of Christianity, different kinds of Churches springing up.
One mum telling us that her son would rather remember his grandad than God.
Which gives me an idea, instead of Christian assembly, we could have worship granda day, I know of one Mod on here who would love that, bring your granny and granda day.
Gonnagle.
-
Thank you, Gonnagle.
-
Gonzo was being sarcastic.
-
Where's Gonzo's reprimand for #49, Bashers?
-
Where's Gonzo's reprimand for #49, Bashers?
Gonners is a nice guy: enough said!
-
Gonners is a nice guy: enough said!
Hypocrisy confirmed then - as though it needed to be.
-
Hypocrisy confirmed then - as though it needed to be.
We all are sometimes; and in this case I freely admit it. You should try it sometime: it might salve your conscience a little!
-
50% non religious......we must do what they say because they think they are in a majority............Do the math.
-
I'd say the last thing we need is more religious 'leaders' shoehorned into our political governance process simply by dint of them being religious 'leaders' unless we also open up to the House of Lords to the no less qualified 'leaders' of, say, the butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers. Much better to get rid of anachronisms like the House of Lords in favour of arrangements which are, for want of a better term, democratic.
People should of course be free to carry on being members of religious organisations, and religious organisations should also be free to seek positions in political governance arrangements via the electoral process, but the rest of us should be equally free to reject a religious manifesto on the same basis that we can reject the manifestos of any other group seeking political support: at the ballot-box.
Perhaps if there was more distinction between Philosophical materialists and self seeking social darwinistic nasty acquisitive materialists i'd be happy to let upright PMers represent my interests in parliament.....................But there ain't.
-
I'd say the last thing we need is more religious 'leaders' shoehorned into our political governance process simply by dint of them being religious 'leaders' unless we also open up to the House of Lords to the no less qualified 'leaders' of, say, the butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers. Much better to get rid of anachronisms like the House of Lords in favour of arrangements which are, for want of a better term, democratic.
People should of course be free to carry on being members of religious organisations, and religious organisations should also be free to seek positions in political governance arrangements via the electoral process, but the rest of us should be equally free to reject a religious manifesto on the same basis that we can reject the manifestos of any other group seeking political s...
There are 26 Bishops in the Lords; and of the other 800 plus, how much do we know of their beliefs? There may be any number of weird beliefs being represented in our Second Chamber. But that doesn't matter, eh; as long as they're not Christian; and even that can't be established.
-
There are 26 Bishops in the Lords; and of the other 800 plus, how much do we know of their beliefs?
We know of the beliefs or lack of belief of some, but as this is the UK and not the USA nobody really cares and it's not an issue.
-
We know of the beliefs or lack of belief of some, but as this is the UK and not the USA nobody really cares and it's not an issue.
So why make a fuss about a 26 bishops, who have no power to influence anything; but are useful as intelligent men who can contribute to debates purposefully?
-
So why make a fuss about a 26 bishops, who have no power to influence anything; but are useful as intelligent men who can contribute to debates purposefully?
Erm, don't influence anything? You are joking, right?
-
Erm, don't influence anything? You are joking, right?
Correct. If you can name some way in which they influence anyone or anything in the Lords, do tell. I'm open sitting here agog - they can't touch you for it! :)
-
So why make a fuss about a 26 bishops, who have no power to influence anything; but are useful as intelligent men who can contribute to debates purposefully?
Shaker is clearly an intelligent person: as you are too - so how come neither of you two have a default seat in the H of L?
-
Could it be to open up the H of L to other faiths be a positive step?
There are already people of all sorts of faiths in the HoL.
What you (and the report) seem to be talking about is giving representatives of various organised religions 'official' places in the HoLs. Given that the proportion of people in the UK who have a meaningful active involvement in any organised religion is small (perhaps at best 15%) and declining year on year, why would this be a positive step. To my view it would be a regressive and backward looking step and would, yet again give the impression that we all are (or should be) represented by one of the organised religions. The vast majority aren't and their voice is just as important as the 15% who are involved in an organised religion and might reasonably suggest that a leader from that religion in some manner 'represents them'.
Trying to seem fair by bending over backwards to accommodate perhaps 1-2% who are Jewish or Buddhist etc while ignoring the 85% who chose not to be involved in organised religion is non-sense.
-
Shaker is clearly an intelligent person: as you are too - so how come neither of you two have a default seat in the H of L?
They must have been following this forum, and don't want to mix with the likes of us!! Anyway, Shaky would be too much of a risk, with his language and all, bearing in mind the live coverage! :D
-
Linguistically, O, the latter phrase contradicts the former.
Only if you fail to differentiate between faith - the belief in a deity - and religion - the formalised rituals and practices surrounding a common belief in a deity.
Ironically enough, of all the world's philosophies, including atheism, there is only one that is truly all-embracing - Christianity!! It is the only one that is 'for all humanity'
I'm sure that all the gays, women and black people that historically were, and in some cases are, persecuted and disenfranchised because of Christianity might take issue with that. You might think Christianity is for everyone, I'd suggest that Humanism is for everyone - if everyone agreed with either of those statements this board wouldn't be here.
O.
-
50% non religious......we must do what they say because they think they are in a majority............Do the math.
I think they're reacting to the trend, not the moment in time - like they were planning for a probable future, or something, rather than desperately trying to cling to practices that weren't relevant to the modern world.
O.
-
Perhaps if there was more distinction between Philosophical materialists and self seeking social darwinistic nasty acquisitive materialists i'd be happy to let upright PMers represent my interests in parliament.....................But there ain't.
Perhaps if there were a clearer philosophical difference between 'moderate' and 'extremist' believers, we'd have a little less trepidation about people who bleat on about gods... but there ain't...
O.
-
Interesting report.
Very.
I can see where it is coming from.
In places, yes.
Some of the reasons deep down for the formation of extremists seems to be their feelings of non inclusion.
Which is why religion is such a worry. Excluded gay people created the gay-pride movement with carnivals and parades. Excluded atheists wrote books, and became so militant they talked to people really quite politely, on the whole.
Excluded religious people blow themselves up, taking innocents with them.
Could it be to open up the H of L to other faiths be a positive step?
The House of Lords is already open to people of all faiths. What we don't need is religious groups being priveleged by having designated seats for them - if the house were representative, it would be an accurate reflection of the faiths of the nation - religion isn't any more special in that regard (arguably considerably less) than gender, sexuality, disability/ability...
Or is that a can of worms and we are better of with the c of e that at least traditionally connected to government?
Or is it time to separate the idea of religion from that of government entirely, and disconnect religion from politics. Free it from the constraints and give it over entirely the people that want it.
Would scrapping the religious aspect of the H of L make our disconnection with those of faith even greater and maybe even influence the extremist aspect into becoming worse than ever?
I think, when the report talks of a disconnect between extremists and society, the possibility of Hassim bin Suicide-Vest being motivated by a lack of any apparent representative in the House of Lords is fairly low on the list. It's more immediate social inclusion that's the issue, the media, perhaps the commons.
O.
-
Very.
In places, yes.
Which is why religion is such a worry. Excluded gay people created the gay-pride movement with carnivals and parades. Excluded atheists wrote books, and became so militant they talked to people really quite politely, on the whole.
Excluded religious people blow themselves up, taking innocents with them.
The House of Lords is already open to people of all faiths. What we don't need is religious groups being priveleged by having designated seats for them - if the house were representative, it would be an accurate reflection of the faiths of the nation - religion isn't any more special in that regard (arguably considerably less) than gender, sexuality, disability/ability...
Or is it time to separate the idea of religion from that of government entirely, and disconnect religion from politics. Free it from the constraints and give it over entirely the people that want it.
I think, when the report talks of a disconnect between extremists and society, the possibility of Hassim bin Suicide-Vest being motivated by a lack of any apparent representative in the House of Lords is fairly low on the list. It's more immediate social inclusion that's the issue, the media, perhaps the commons.
O.
Being a well heeled middle class antitheist you will of course be oblivious to a well of homophobia which still exists in the secular masses.
Atheists are not excluded in this society but want exactly that, the exclusion of religious people......
-
Being a well heeled middle class antitheist you will of course be oblivious to a well of homophobia which still exists in the secular masses.
Atheists are not excluded in this society but want exactly that, the exclusion of religious people......
Do you not mean, "a middle-class, anti-theist, heel"? ;)
-
Being a well heeled middle class antitheist
What on earth is it with you and this bizarre form of class warfare - atheists are represented in all societal groups. Indeed I always thought it was the actively religious that survey suggest are more likely to be in the ABC1 middle and upper class elite.
you will of course be oblivious to a well of homophobia which still exists in the secular masses.
Atheists are not excluded in this society but want exactly that, the exclusion of religious people......
But unlike quite a number of religious organisations secular society is trying to eradicate discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality. Rather a contrast with religious organisations who campaign in favour of discrimination (e.g. over gay marriage and adoption) and demand opt outs to allow them to continue to discriminate (e.g. Church of England, RCC etc etc), whose practice in refusing to allow gay people into many roles would land them in court if they were a secular organisation.
So, no, I won't take any lectures from religious apologists on equality issues. Sort your own house out then perhaps your views might have some degree of credibility - currently they don't.
-
Being a well heeled middle class antitheist you will of course be oblivious to a well of homophobia which still exists in the secular masses.
I wish I were as well-heeled as you appear to think I am, and we'll disregard your continued (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the difference bewteen atheism and anti-theism. I'm well aware of the thread of homophobia that exists through society, I'm exposed to it unfortunately regularly.
Atheists are not excluded in this society but want exactly that, the exclusion of religious people......
You're confusing ridding establishment of religious privelege for ridding establishment of religious people. Reserved seats for Bishops in the House of Lords, for instance, is religious privilege. Removing them is not 'excluding religious people', that would be banning Christians from the House of Lords.
O.
-
Dear Mods,
My fault, my derail, I plead Extenuating circumstances ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
I think I'll opt out of posting to you for now, since your lapse into the use of expletives is distasteful to me - and of course, denotes your own desperation!
Anything so that you can run away!
Like you have run away from the question about open mindedness.
-
Anything so that you can run away!
Like you have run away from the question about open mindedness.
... and the fact that he yet again exhibited arrant hypocrisy in failing to pick up Gonnagle yesterday over his use of so-called "bad language."
-
Anything so that you can run away!
Like you have run away from the question about open mindedness.
Be a good man, and put your templates away, and find something useful to do.
-
Be a good man, and put your templates away, and find something useful to do.
You are the one running scared.
You dare not answer.
You have been found out.
You are closed minded.
-
Be a good man, and put your templates away, and find something useful to do.
Somebody who has posted the same comment essentially word for word six times in 23 days accusing somebody else of having templates ... there's no measurement for that degree of hypocrisy. I propose we start one, using accepted scientific prefixes. I put it that that one was a gigaBash.
-
You are the one running scared.
You dare not answer.
You have been found out.
You are closed
You could start spotting new bus shelters, for example. Or maybe organise a visit to the Dust Museum: I bet you'd like that! ;D
-
You are the one running scared.
You dare not answer.
You have been found out.
You are closed
You could start spotting new bus shelters, for example. Or maybe organise a visit to the Dust Museum: I bet you'd like that! ;D
You could be less of a coward, but I doubt that.
-
I wish I were as well-heeled as you appear to think I am, and we'll disregard your continued (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the difference bewteen atheism and anti-theism. I'm well aware of the thread of homophobia that exists through society, I'm exposed to it unfortunately regularly.
You're confusing ridding establishment of religious privelege for ridding establishment of religious people. Reserved seats for Bishops in the House of Lords, for instance, is religious privilege. Removing them is not 'excluding religious people', that would be banning Christians from the House of Lords.
O.
Impressions are funny things, I had you down as someone extremely knowledgeable probably a scientist or engineer of some sort, but who was also a biker.
;D
-
Could it be to open up the H of L to other faiths be a positive step?
Not sure that this report should do that; common sense ought to.
Or is that a can of worms and we are better of with the c of e that at least traditionally connected to government?
Why should one branch of a given belief system have more influence in the Houses of Parliament than other branches of that, or any other belief system?
Would scrapping the religious aspect of the H of L make our disconnection with those of faith even greater and maybe even influence the extremist aspect into becoming worse than ever?
I think that removing/banning official representation of any belief-system within our governance would make the disconnect and hence extremism - of whatever form - worse.
-
Which is why religion is such a worry. Excluded gay people created the gay-pride movement with carnivals and parades. Excluded atheists wrote books, and became so militant they talked to people really quite politely, on the whole.
Some excluded poor people in S. America created terrorist groups and blew people up.
Excluded religious people blow themselves up, taking innocents with them.
Excluded poor Christians in S. America came up with Liberation Theology and debated it with the world.
-
Somebody who has posted the same comment essentially word for word six times in 23 days accusing somebody else of having templates ... there's no measurement for that degree of hypocrisy. I propose we start one, using accepted scientific prefixes. I put it that that one was a gigaBash.
But the fact that your posts follow a very similar pattern to each other, Shakes, gives people the notion that you have some sort of train of mind that won't allow you to escape from that pattern. Rather than explaining why you believe that an argument is wrong or fallacious or erroneous, using your own words, you tend to come in with short-cut language which is often wrong, in the given context anyway.
-
But the fact that your posts follow a very similar pattern to each other, Shakes, gives people the notion that you have some sort of train of mind that won't allow you to escape from that pattern. Rather than explaining why you believe that an argument is wrong or fallacious or erroneous, using your own words, you tend to come in with short-cut language which is often wrong, in the given context anyway.
It very briefy occurred to me to ask where any point I've made is wrong or fallacious or erroneous, but then I remembered that I've asked that of you many, many times before and have always been met with either evasion or silence.
-
Impressions are funny things, I had you down as someone extremely knowledgeable probably a scientist or engineer of some sort, but who was also a biker.
I am a scientist and engineer by training, and I work around the fringes of a scientific establishment currently.
The only thing that's stopped me being a biker is fear: I'm not afraid of riding, I'm afraid of what Mrs O. would do if I got a bike...
O.
-
Some excluded poor people in S. America created terrorist groups and blew people up.
Excluded poor religious people, or excluded poor atheists?
Excluded poor Christians in S. America came up with Liberation Theology and debated it with the world.
Right. I didn't suggest all of them blew themselves up. Of course, if they weren't buying into the idea of religion, they wouldn't have needed a new theology to justify overthrowing the old one that was keeping them suppressed.
O.
-
I am a scientist and engineer by training, and I work around the fringes of a scientific establishment currently.
The only thing that's stopped me being a biker is fear: I'm not afraid of riding, I'm afraid of what Mrs O. would do if I got a bike...
O.
Hmm! Perhaps I ought to take some lessons from Mrs O ;)
My hubby has two, would have been three if I hadn't put my foot down :o
:)
-
But the fact that your posts follow a very similar pattern to each other, Shakes, gives people the notion that you have some sort of train of mind that won't allow you to escape from that pattern.
I'm not entirely sure that isn't the case for anyone looking at a philosophical grounding they don't intrinsically accept - any argument that resorts to 'but God wants...' looks to me like a 'pattern', but that makes sense: each of us works from the presumptions and notions that we accept. If there were no pattern to someone's arguments you'd wonder where they were coming from.
O.
-
Hmm! Perhaps I ought to take some lessons from Mrs O ;)
My hubby has two, would have been three if I hadn't put my foot down :o
:)
Well, I don't want to mischaracterise her as some sort of fearsome demon-queen - she'd be worried and upset knowing I was out there on it, and I'm not prepared to do that to her.
O.
-
Moderator:
Temporarily locked while posts about SPOTY are split off and move to the SPOTY thread.
O.K that has been done. There is another thread on this same report 'We should do God, says report into religion in public life' - this will now be merged into this thread, since this one was started earlier.
All done, so will unlock now.