Anyone who has received their Census form

[HarryBosch]

That's not comparable and you know it.

 

why not?

 

i'm neither a journalist nor a professional footballer?

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

it still doesn't say anything! 2 "should"s and a "have" but no specifics

 

you're happy with it and, therefore, contriving to see whatever it is you want to see and that's your prerogative

 

as for your Daily Mail dig - grow up & stop pigeon holing.

questioning a lazy, left leaning piece of journalism doesn't automatically make someone a reader of lazy, right leaning journalism

Definitely a reading comprehension issue, and a touch of hypocrisy to boot.

 

I never accused you of being "right leaning" (I don't even accept this as a left vs right topic), I suggested it in the form of a question (a sarcastic one at that). Big difference.

 

And you never even addressed why this issue should be considered "leftist"

Edited March 8, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[Ackey]

why not?

 

i'm neither a journalist nor a professional footballer?

Because there's a difference between sticking two past Sheff Wed and putting "governmental religious funding" into google.... or if you can't manage that click the link in the article to the BHA website and read it there, as I did, and the provided you the link.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

it still doesn't say anything! 2 "should"s and a "have" but no specifics

Also.

 

The two 2 "shoulds" in the article refer to state funded faith schools and religious organisations. Are you saying this doesn't happen?

[HarryBosch]

Also.

 

The two 2 "shoulds" in the article refer to state funded faith schools and religious organisations. Are you saying this doesn't happen?

 

i don't know.

 

this is my point. they're not telling us whether it does or doesn't.

 

just insinuating it does.

 

again, you're happy with that. I need a bit more info

[HarryBosch]

Because there's a difference between sticking two past Sheff Wed and putting "governmental religious funding" into google.... or if you can't manage that click the link in the article to the BHA website and read it there, as I did, and the provided you the link.

 

again, it's still very non specific

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

i don't know.

 

this is my point. they're not telling us whether it does or doesn't.

 

just insinuating it does.

 

again, you're happy with that. I need a bit more info

Where've you been all these years? How are you not aware of the recent government fetish for Faith Schools?

[oafc0000]

Where've you been all these years? How are you not aware of the recent government fetish for Faith Schools?

 

and parents demand for them and the fights they have to send their children to them ? Why shouldn't government invest in faith schools if parents want them ?

 

I am all for getting the census right... I think what is lost on both you and Ackey is the potential for it having always been right from the start.

 

I don't really care if the census reported 100% or 1% of people being religious or not. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me a on a daily basis.

 

Whatever positive or negative elements the government do regarding faith and religion means nothing when compared to real matters like the national debt etc.

Edited March 8, 2011 by oafc0000

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

and parents demand for them and the fights they have to send their children to them ? Why shouldn't government invest in faith schools if parents want them ?

You assume parents have the right to expect society fund their child's indoctination. As clear a violation of the separation of church and state that you can have.

 

Taking away the fact that most parents would either be set against the idea of faith schools (if given the choice) or have no meaningful opinion on them, how do you see it as a good thing to mix education and religious indoctrination?

Edited March 8, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[Matt]

i don't know.

 

this is my point. they're not telling us whether it does or doesn't.

 

just insinuating it does.

 

again, you're happy with that. I need a bit more info

I agree. I don't like the Grauniad anyway, bit of a spotty :censored: this Andrew Copson.

[oafc0000]

You assume parents have the right to expect society fund their child's indoctination. As clear a violation of the separation of church and state that you can have.

 

Taking away the fact that most parents would either be set against the idea of faith schools (if given the choice) or have no meaningful opinion on them, how do you see it as a good thing to mix education and religious indoctrination?

 

I think as democracy and a society we have decided to fund the education of children and the majority of people in the UK want religious education as part of that education, given the numbers above.

 

Its called living in a democracy. The majority generally get what they want. I know its tough to take, I don't like all these cuts, but if your party doesn't win then you bend over and take it to be quite frank.

 

If the enough people want government money used to indoctrinate their children then it will happen. The question I ask you is why shouldn't it if the people want it ?

Edited March 8, 2011 by oafc0000

[HarryBosch]

Where've you been all these years? How are you not aware of the recent government fetish for Faith Schools?

 

it doesn't seem to have extended to Oldham

 

St Augustines and Our Ladys for the left footers and Our Ladys is going, isn't it?

 

and there's Crompton House and Bluecoat that are CofE I think

 

out of how many schools in total?

[oafc0000]

it doesn't seem to have extended to Oldham

 

St Augustines and Our Ladys for the left footers and Our Ladys is going, isn't it?

 

and there's Crompton House and Bluecoat that are CofE I think

 

out of how many schools in total?

 

There will no doubt be other schools of other faiths as well.

[Matt]

You assume parents have the right to expect society fund their child's indoctination. As clear a violation of the separation of church and state that you can have.

 

Taking away the fact that most parents would either be set against the idea of faith schools (if given the choice) or have no meaningful opinion on them, how do you see it as a good thing to mix education and religious indoctrination?

My kids are Catholic, more to ensure that they go to one of the better school systems in the area. I don't want them to go to those horrible community schools that I went to. If I could afford a better option for them, I'd pay it. As it is, I can't so they're going Catholic - and it's a small price to pay, given that they love God's creatures now as Children, and as adults they will be able to formulate their own view on Religion. And I mean, given that I'm a raging Skeptic and Atheist, between me, Carl Sagan, and James Randi - I've got all bases covered.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Do you have reading trouble Harry? Or are you unquestionably converted to your Dail Mail inspired "leftist" bashing? And why do you find an issue like this to be leftist? What has socialism got to do with it? This is more to do with secularism and social liberalism.

 

It says:

 

 

 

There is also a link in in the Guardian article with further information

 

...to assist the determined reader on their wild goose chase.

 

Listen: you've already trespassed into the realm of bull:censored: by railing against something that to you clearly believe does not exist. Ain't that a bit strange? It's like having a beef with fairies or the Higgs boson.

 

My view is quite simple, but then I always find the simpler you keep it, the easier it is to find a solid position. God undeniably exists in a variety of literary and artistic constructs. That's all you need to worry about on that score. I'm sure there's a moment of magic in the minds of believers that attributes divinity to those texts and pictures. That's okay by me, and it should be plenty enough for everyone else too. You're not playing, and that's fine by me too, as long as you don't fuss the people who do see the magic.

 

My understanding is that the census dataset is just one of many taken into account in policy making. Not worth getting excited about really. The census is not known as a great agent of change, theologically or otherwise.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I think as democracy and a society we have decided to fund the education of children and the majority of people in the UK want religious education as part of that education, given the numbers above.

There's a difference between religious education and religious indoctrination or segregation.

 

Its called living in a democracy. The majority generally get what they want. I know its tough to take, I don't like all these cuts, but if your party doesn't win then you bend over and take it to be quite frank.

Except both the main parties have fetishes for faith schools.

 

If the enough people want government money used to indoctrinate their children then it will happen.

Not how a democracy works. Not every policy decision should be up to popular vote. We vote for politicions to make these decisions based on sound reasoning. Unfortunately they fail to do so in this case.

 

The question I ask you is why shouldn't it if the people want it ?

Because they are children. They are no more Christians or Muslims than a member of the postal worker's union. Schools are there to educate, not to indoctrinate. If you want to indoctrinate your children do it on your own time or in Sunday School. Don't expect tax payers to foot the bill.

 

And to top it all off, it is extemely devisive. Whole generations of kids being brought up in their exclusive clubs. And need I remind you of the many behind the scenes documentaries covering what Muslim Schools are teaching their kids?

[Ackey]

My view is quite simple, but then I always find the simpler you keep it, the easier it is to find a solid position. God undeniably exists in a variety of literary and artistic constructs. That's all you need to worry about on that score. I'm sure there's a moment of magic in the minds of believers that attributes divinity to those texts and pictures. That's okay by me, and it should be plenty enough for everyone else too. You're not playing, and that's fine by me too, as long as you don't fuss the people who do see the magic.

Oh I hate this. Atheism as a non-belief still belongs in the debate and is just as valid as any "magic" belief system.

 

Just because you know how he cut the girl in half doesn't mean you're not allowed to talk to the people who think he did it for real. In fact you should try to educate those people in why they're wrong and show them that through reason and understanding we can enhance our lives. If after you've shown them the trick they still want to believe their magic trick is real then fair enough.

 

But the idea that those who are skeptical of things should sit by idly as people are mislead through deceptive means is horse :censored:.

 

Additionally any society (world wide) which is as divided by the idea that he cut the girl in half with a saw whilst others think he did it with a knife is one which needs more than ever for those who believe in reason to stand up for that reason and show that evidence can be used to provide the answer, not faith in the immeasurable or faith in ancient texts.

 

The difference between this and religion (a difference Zero's claimed didn't exist early in the thread) is that if you don't believe in reason and science, if you believe in magic, you're entitled to it. We don't think you're wrong and will rot in hell we just think you're wrong.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

Listen: you've already trespassed into the realm of bull:censored: by railing against something that to you clearly believe does not exist. Ain't that a bit strange? It's like having a beef with fairies or the Higgs boson.

I never claimed to have a beef with your god. I don't believe he exists so how could I have done? That makes no sense as you have just clearly pointed out. So to what are you referring to? What have I said that is equivocal to "having a beef with fairies"?

 

My view is quite simple, but then I always find the simpler you keep it, the easier it is to find a solid position. God undeniably exists in a variety of literary and artistic constructs. That's all you need to worry about on that score. I'm sure there's a moment of magic in the minds of believers that attributes divinity to those texts and pictures. That's okay by me, and it should be plenty enough for everyone else too. You're not playing, and that's fine by me too, as long as you don't fuss the people who do see the magic.

Anyone have a translation?

 

My understanding is that the census dataset is just one of many taken into account in policy making. Not worth getting excited about really. The census is not known as a great agent of change, theologically or otherwise.

The fact that it is taken into account at all is enough to make it worth while raising awareness of this issue and the rather badly phrased question to which it refers.

Edited March 8, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[HarryBosch]

i'm not religious but I'd like a Christian element to my childrens education

 

there's a fairytale element to it, some great stories.

i feel a need to hang on to every shred of tradition certain people are constantly trying to wrest away from us.

I don't see what harm teaching kids to love thy neighbour, pray for nice things to happen, believe dead loved ones have gone to heaven & think of us all as "gods children" and "gods creatures" etc could possibly do.

there's no downside in my eyes.

 

when they reach a certain age they'll make their own minds up like I did

 

i'd like them to learn as much as possible about other religions too

 

as I said, I'm not religious but I feel it is massively important both historically and socially - and becoming more so

[oafc0000]

There's a difference between religious education and religious indoctrination or segregation.

 

 

Except both the main parties have fetishes for faith schools.

 

 

Not how a democracy works. Not every policy decision should be up to popular vote. We vote for politicions to make these decisions based on sound reasoning. Unfortunately they fail to do so in this case.

 

 

Because they are children. They are no more Christians or Muslims than a member of the postal worker's union. Schools are there to educate, not to indoctrinate. If you want to indoctrinate your children do it on your own time or in Sunday School. Don't expect tax payers to foot the bill.

 

And to top it all off, it is extemely devisive. Whole generations of kids being brought up in their exclusive clubs. And need I remind you of the many behind the scenes documentaries covering what Muslim Schools are teaching their kids?

 

You clearly don't get how democracy's function...

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

i'm not religious but I'd like a Christian element to my childrens education

 

there's a fairytale element to it, some great stories.

i feel a need to hang on to every shred of tradition certain people are constantly trying to wrest away from us.

Tradition for traditions sake? Hate this argument.

 

I don't see what harm teaching kids to love thy neighbour, pray for nice things to happen, believe dead loved ones have gone to heaven & think of us all as "gods children" and "gods creatures" etc could possibly do.

Teaching kids to be nice to one another is not exclusive to religions, and it would be offensive to suggest otherwise. As far as the rest of it, i'm not in favour of teaching kids unsubstantiated wishful thinking as part of an educational foundation.

 

i'd like them to learn as much as possible about other religions too

 

as I said, I'm not religious but I feel it is massively important both historically and socially - and becoming more so

You don't need faith schools to teach the historical and social significance of religion

[Ackey]

i'm not religious but I'd like a Christian element to my childrens education

 

there's a fairytale element to it, some great stories.

i feel a need to hang on to every shred of tradition certain people are constantly trying to wrest away from us.

I don't see what harm teaching kids to love thy neighbour, pray for nice things to happen, believe dead loved ones have gone to heaven & think of us all as "gods children" and "gods creatures" etc could possibly do.

there's no downside in my eyes.

 

when they reach a certain age they'll make their own minds up like I did

 

i'd like them to learn as much as possible about other religions too

 

as I said, I'm not religious but I feel it is massively important both historically and socially - and becoming more so

I'd agree entirely with the educating kids on religion so that they can make their own decisions, much as Rummy - a close friend - is doing with his little ones. And they're coming on just fine for it.

 

There is however a difference between what, I and seemingly you would do to raise our children and those who indoctrinate their children and forcibly teach them that the Bible/Koran/Other is the literal or metophorical word of an omnipotent being and that without devotion to that being you will never enter Heaven and join your ever-living loved ones.

 

I also wouldn't teach my children that we live forever in Heaven. It's easy to say and no doubt one day will prove hard to do but I think that's a line I personally wouldn't cross. I can see why people would and I wouldn't blame them for even a second.

 

Religion is important socially and historically and what people like me feel is that is what it should be - it should become more so over time. We're evolving. There seems to be a sense here (and these things are so much more difficult here on a board than if we were all sat around a table in a pub) that this is a stop-start policy being adopted by me and other secularists.

 

It's clearly not, we're not suggesting that religion be criminalised just that over time we should continue to highlight it's weakness and embrace it's advantages in a secular way. Zero's talks of charitable work and so on. Noble and comendable but I'd like to see those things done in a community format away from the religious connections. This will not happen quickly, but over time as more people are educated about the weaknesses in the ideal of omnipotent beings it will start to and has started to happen.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

You clearly don't get how democracy's function...

Right back at ya oafc0000

 

I suppose if 55% of the population thought we should make cigarettes illegal then we should, right?

 

Or should we trust our elected politicians to stick up for the rights of the remaining 45%, and make a more reasoned decision than merely appealing to popularity?

Edited March 8, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Oh I hate this. Atheism as a non-belief still belongs in the debate and is just as valid as any "magic" belief system.

 

No it's not. It's less valid. You can be ambivalent all you like (I think it's called agnostic) but if you haven't got anything to say, don't say anything.

 

But the idea that those who are skeptical of things should sit by idly as people are mislead through deceptive means is horse :censored:.

 

Misled. Perhaps they don't think they're being deceived. Or perhaps "deception" to you is something more profound and important to them, such as "mystery" or "humility".

 

Additionally any society (world wide) which is as divided by the idea that he cut the girl in half with a saw whilst others think he did it with a knife is one which needs more than ever for those who believe in reason to stand up for that reason and show that evidence can be used to provide the answer, not faith in the immeasurable or faith in ancient texts.

 

You don't use a slide rule to calculate the glory of God. There is no evidence. God is not a scientific entity.

 

The difference between this and religion (a difference Zero's claimed didn't exist early in the thread) is that if you don't believe in reason and science, if you believe in magic, you're entitled to it. We don't think you're wrong and will rot in hell we just think you're wrong.

 

I hear the devil personally pokes you in the arse with a trident too just as the flames get to your bollocks.

 

I never claimed to have a beef with your god. I don't believe He exists so how could I have done? That makes no sense as you have just clearly pointed out. So to what are you referring to? What have I said that is equivocal to "having a beef with fairies"?

 

Just as well. If nothing else, when you say, "I'm not a believer, but I have plenty of opinions about the insidiousness of religion," it's like saying, "I don't watch and I've washed my hands of the club (to use a scriptural metaphor) but I still reckon we should play Taylor up front with M'voto." Who cares if you don't believe? Who cares if you have a problem with people who do? Who cares?

 

Anyone have a translation?

 

Like I said, just because you don't get it don't mean it's wrong.

 

The fact that it is taken into account at all is enough to make it worth while raising awareness of this issue and the rather badly phrased question to which it refers.

 

It's just that people do like to say they're Christian or Muslim or Jewish or what not. That's obviously a fact - of the last census at any rate. They obviously say something different to the social attitudes survey, but so what?

 

Your spotty man from the BHA is just a goon - a false prophet and a charlatan.

[HarryBosch]

I'd agree entirely with the educating kids on religion so that they can make their own decisions, much as Rummy - a close friend - is doing with his little ones. And they're coming on just fine for it.

 

There is however a difference between what, I and seemingly you would do to raise our children and those who indoctrinate their children and forcibly teach them that the Bible/Koran/Other is the literal or metophorical word of an omnipotent being and that without devotion to that being you will never enter Heaven and join your ever-living loved ones.

 

I also wouldn't teach my children that we live forever in Heaven. It's easy to say and no doubt one day will prove hard to do but I think that's a line I personally wouldn't cross. I can see why people would and I wouldn't blame them for even a second.

 

Religion is important socially and historically and what people like me feel is that is what it should be - it should become more so over time. We're evolving. There seems to be a sense here (and these things are so much more difficult here on a board than if we were all sat around a table in a pub) that this is a stop-start policy being adopted by me and other secularists.

 

It's clearly not, we're not suggesting that religion be criminalised just that over time we should continue to highlight it's weakness and embrace it's advantages in a secular way. Zero's talks of charitable work and so on. Noble and comendable but I'd like to see those things done in a community format away from the religious connections. This will not happen quickly, but over time as more people are educated about the weaknesses in the ideal of omnipotent beings it will start to and has started to happen.

 

agree with most of that

 

the bit in bold isn't what they're getting at school though, is it?

 

they get more of a relgion-"lite", which is pitched perfectly for me