Attend Islam class or be branded racist
Discussion
Corpulent Tosser said:
My take on this thread was that the main issue was our children's education.
Exactly, and thats why my children don't go to a "multicultural school", they just to "a school", where English is the first language and religion is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to study.einsign said:
Exactly, and thats why my children don't go to a "multicultural school", they just to "a school", where English is the first language and religion is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to study.
Oh no-bottom of the pile will be Citizenship. So much so that the last letter often changes.standards said:
einsign said:
Exactly, and thats why my children don't go to a "multicultural school", they just to "a school", where English is the first language and religion is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to study.
Oh no-bottom of the pile will be Citizenship. So much so that the last letter often changes.
standards said:
I think children should be taught about religion/s and given the skills to critically evaluate those competing claims.
I disagree, I dont see the need. The critical thinking processes children need to develop should be being demonstrated by the adults for the benefit of the children, not mixed in with fairy dust claptrap.
standards said:
If they reject them all then they've thought it through for themselves then fine. If find a faith then fine.
Oh well done you. Instead of nipping this idiocy in the bud youre fine to have it perpertrated in the interests of fairness to religion.Never mind that it corrupts those innocents who wernt well reasoned enough to be able to discriminate between fact and fiction, they get lumbered with My friend God.
standards said:
You seem to be saying that if they take the latter view they're misguided, wrong because they don't agree with your view.
As per the other poster, why is their viewpoint any more valid than mine?standards said:
You paint an almost cartoon villain view of religion.
Is that a surreptitious reference to being simple minded again? standards said:
The Santa Claus analogy doesn't fit. At all. People in later life sometimes start developing a religious faith; no one starts believing in Santa Claus later in life.
Yeah rather than believe in an entirely benevolent character they migrate on to the invisible sky buddy and all its associated baggage. Result.
standards said:
Street thing doesn't apply-I'm C of E.
If as you state it doesnt apply, youre free to test the street theory of mine anytime. Let me know how it pans out.standards said:
This post started with a hamfisted attempt by a school to teach youngsters about a faith/culture.
I see education as preparation for life. Faiths are part of life, like it or not.
Faiths are only a part of life because believers dont want to face up to the fact that their life is of a finite biological duration, it cant alter the truth of the matter which is that religion is no more than a fanciful delusion to cope with that.I see education as preparation for life. Faiths are part of life, like it or not.
You wouldnt teach your kids that 2+2 =5 so why teach them something similarly false?
standards said:
I'm quite happy for someone to live without a faith, delighted if they have one. You seem to be saying if they have a personal faith or tell someone else about it they are mad.
Not mad just delusional, an entirely different thing.standards said:
And yes I am quite clear about the harm that people have perpetrated in the name of religion. It is a powerful and ambivalent thing. Youngsters need to know about that. It'll need to be in their heads for them to reject or accept it.
Id agree somewhat, but only in the sense that they need to know it exists and outline the basics, theres no need to go into the various beliefs of each religion which is the larger part of what I disagree with.Edited by standards on Tuesday 26th November 16:58
Faiths are only a part of life because believers dont want to face up to the fact that their life is of a finite biological duration, it cant alter the truth of the matter which is that religion is no more than a fanciful delusion to cope with that.
You wouldnt teach your kids that 2+2 =5 so why teach them something similarly false?
This is the nub of my disagreement with this view of yours.
Life might well be of finite biological duration. I believe (and I might be wrong) there is something else beyond. You disagree. You can't know that there isn't anything more, I can't know there is.
It is possible you're wrong-can you admit that?
You wouldnt teach your kids that 2+2 =5 so why teach them something similarly false?
This is the nub of my disagreement with this view of yours.
Life might well be of finite biological duration. I believe (and I might be wrong) there is something else beyond. You disagree. You can't know that there isn't anything more, I can't know there is.
It is possible you're wrong-can you admit that?
4v6 said:
standards said:
standards said:
If they reject them all then they've thought it through for themselves then fine. If find a faith then fine.
Oh well done you. Instead of nipping this idiocy in the bud youre fine to have it perpertrated in the interests of fairness to religion.Never mind that it corrupts those innocents who wernt well reasoned enough to be able to discriminate between fact and fiction, they get lumbered with My friend God.
How can you educate to be well reasoned enough without considering what they might need to reject?
standards said:
Faiths are only a part of life because believers dont want to face up to the fact that their life is of a finite biological duration, it cant alter the truth of the matter which is that religion is no more than a fanciful delusion to cope with that.
You wouldnt teach your kids that 2+2 =5 so why teach them something similarly false?
This is the nub of my disagreement with this view of yours.
Life might well be of finite biological duration. I believe (and I might be wrong) there is something else beyond. You disagree. You can't know that there isn't anything more, I can't know there is.
It is possible you're wrong-can you admit that?
Since I've actually enjoyed our tussle on this well natured thread I'll expand a little as to why I cant admit that I'm wrong.You wouldnt teach your kids that 2+2 =5 so why teach them something similarly false?
This is the nub of my disagreement with this view of yours.
Life might well be of finite biological duration. I believe (and I might be wrong) there is something else beyond. You disagree. You can't know that there isn't anything more, I can't know there is.
It is possible you're wrong-can you admit that?
In order to satisfy your claim you should at the minimum provide testable evidence to support it, youre the one after all who is claiming belief in an afterlife/ god whatever.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs and no believer has ever produced a grain of it.
I have other personal issues with god/s that interfere irredeemably with a belief in such an entity, based mostly on some glaringly obvious inconsistencies in the various gods' character makeups.
For the moment lets say a god does exist.
God we are told is all perfect, powerful all seeing and knowing and loves us his children, yet he allows millions of us to die, looking on impassively as we're murdered, mutilated and harmed in various ingenious ways that he alone is responsible for engineering, apparently in some kind of queer twighlight zone experiment to test us, the basic idea being that if we pass the obstacles he places in our path and still big him up we can go join him in his pad, forever.
How f*cking boring.
Faced with an entity that takes obvious pleasure in inflicting carnage on his charges, I have to ask, how is such an entity worthy of any praise?
God is clearly a deranged psychopath, jealous of other gods, merciless towards those who refuse his insistence of constant attention, (youll go to hell unless you believe in me... blah blah) and a myriad of other rather nasty habits gods tend to exhibit.
If god was a man he'd be on death row and rightly so, I cant see why such an unworthy creature should be believed in let alone given worship and praise.
God is as far away from the perfect being as its possible to be, contrary to what religions tell us he is.
Utilising my reason and judgment, it points to gods and afterlives as being impossible at best, for the reasons given above, no god is worthy of any human praise because quite frankly we're better than any god could ever be, they simply dont live up to the hype.
einsign said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
My take on this thread was that the main issue was our children's education.
Exactly, and thats why my children don't go to a "multicultural school", they just to "a school", where English is the first language and religion is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to study.What about British culture, should that be included in the curriculum ?
History ? Should that be included ?
I ask as both require some knowledge of religion.
New POD said:
My son had a 3 day trip to a buddist monestry. We still laugh about the 3 days of peace we had whilst he was away.
For the purpose of clarity (not pedantry) I would like to point out that buddhism is not a religion and is not 'closed' - i.e. welcomes interface with non-believers.Corpulent Tosser said:
But it is in the pile, yes ?
What about British culture, should that be included in the curriculum ?
History ? Should that be included ?
I ask as both require some knowledge of religion.
It is in the pile with many historical subjects where it belongs. Not as a subject on its own, or we might as well have specific lessons about witchcraft or vampires, there is no difference.What about British culture, should that be included in the curriculum ?
History ? Should that be included ?
I ask as both require some knowledge of religion.
Yes British Culture should be taught but we probably have differences of opinion about how it should be taught, and the subject matter.
I don't like religion.
But I do believe people should be free to make their own mind up about things, this should extend to children and I think it is healthy that as part of their education they are taught about different religions and that they are able to see how people who follow these religions do so and how their lives are different/similar because of it.
The trouble is that a lot of kids have very ignorant people as parents who see anything different as bad, and while I don't support labelling kids who don't take part if I was a head teacher organising something to do with religions I'd urge parents to let their kids take part as the more they know about the world the better rounded they will be even if they just like positive one thing from Islam, one from Judaism and one from Christianity and think well I'm just going to be the person I want to be and adopt my own values.
But I do believe people should be free to make their own mind up about things, this should extend to children and I think it is healthy that as part of their education they are taught about different religions and that they are able to see how people who follow these religions do so and how their lives are different/similar because of it.
The trouble is that a lot of kids have very ignorant people as parents who see anything different as bad, and while I don't support labelling kids who don't take part if I was a head teacher organising something to do with religions I'd urge parents to let their kids take part as the more they know about the world the better rounded they will be even if they just like positive one thing from Islam, one from Judaism and one from Christianity and think well I'm just going to be the person I want to be and adopt my own values.
einsign said:
It is in the pile with many historical subjects where it belongs. Not as a subject on its own, or we might as well have specific lessons about witchcraft or vampires, there is no difference.
Yes British Culture should be taught but we probably have differences of opinion about how it should be taught, and the subject matter.
Yes we may have a difference of opinion on how British culture is taught, I prefer facts to be given and then perhaps a discussion on how certain things happened, religion plays a rather large part on our history and culture, it would be rather foolish to ignore that.Yes British Culture should be taught but we probably have differences of opinion about how it should be taught, and the subject matter.
Corpulent Tosser said:
Yes we may have a difference of opinion on how British culture is taught, I prefer facts to be given and then perhaps a discussion on how certain things happened, religion plays a rather large part on our history and culture, it would be rather foolish to ignore that.
I agree, and never said we should ignore it, the same as we shouldn't ignore historical figures of royalty chopping peoples heads off, it has an element of natural human curiosity due to the barbaric nature of things that might have been the norm at the time. Religion does not warrant being a subject on its own. It should be taught in history only, it has no place in the future.
einsign said:
Religion does not warrant being a subject on its own. It should be taught in history only, it has no place in the future.
I agree that religion shouldn't be a subject in its own right - but I don't think confining it to History lessons is entirely appropriate either.Religion still plays a very big role in todays society - and as such, could also come under the remit of other subjects like geography, sociology, psychology and art.
When it comes to the dogmatic preaching's of religion - this should be kept strictly out of school......that is after all why churches/mosques etc exist.
Corpulent Tosser said:
einsign said:
It is in the pile with many historical subjects where it belongs. Not as a subject on its own, or we might as well have specific lessons about witchcraft or vampires, there is no difference.
Yes British Culture should be taught but we probably have differences of opinion about how it should be taught, and the subject matter.
Yes we may have a difference of opinion on how British culture is taught, I prefer facts to be given and then perhaps a discussion on how certain things happened, religion plays a rather large part on our history and culture, it would be rather foolish to ignore that.Yes British Culture should be taught but we probably have differences of opinion about how it should be taught, and the subject matter.
To be fair Paganism is touched on in RE in many secondary schools (only the most full cream church schools assume any faith). On the other hand HM is Supreme Governor of the Established Church and wherever religion is covered more attention is going to be paid to how that came about rather than why some overweight people take their clothes off and dance round a fire, sorry that's disrespectful-are pagans.
I know many don't do that. Do they?
4v6 said:
standards said:
Faiths are only a part of life because believers dont want to face up to the fact that their life is of a finite biological duration, it cant alter the truth of the matter which is that religion is no more than a fanciful delusion to cope with that.
You wouldnt teach your kids that 2+2 =5 so why teach them something similarly false?
This is the nub of my disagreement with this view of yours.
Life might well be of finite biological duration. I believe (and I might be wrong) there is something else beyond. You disagree. You can't know that there isn't anything more, I can't know there is.
It is possible you're wrong-can you admit that?
Since I've actually enjoyed our tussle on this well natured thread I'll expand a little as to why I cant admit that I'm wrong.You wouldnt teach your kids that 2+2 =5 so why teach them something similarly false?
This is the nub of my disagreement with this view of yours.
Life might well be of finite biological duration. I believe (and I might be wrong) there is something else beyond. You disagree. You can't know that there isn't anything more, I can't know there is.
It is possible you're wrong-can you admit that?
In order to satisfy your claim you should at the minimum provide testable evidence to support it, youre the one after all who is claiming belief in an afterlife/ god whatever.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs and no believer has ever produced a grain of it.
I have other personal issues with god/s that interfere irredeemably with a belief in such an entity, based mostly on some glaringly obvious inconsistencies in the various gods' character makeups.
For the moment lets say a god does exist.
God we are told is all perfect, powerful all seeing and knowing and loves us his children, yet he allows millions of us to die, looking on impassively as we're murdered, mutilated and harmed in various ingenious ways that he alone is responsible for engineering, apparently in some kind of queer twighlight zone experiment to test us, the basic idea being that if we pass the obstacles he places in our path and still big him up we can go join him in his pad, forever.
How f*cking boring.
Faced with an entity that takes obvious pleasure in inflicting carnage on his charges, I have to ask, how is such an entity worthy of any praise?
God is clearly a deranged psychopath, jealous of other gods, merciless towards those who refuse his insistence of constant attention, (youll go to hell unless you believe in me... blah blah) and a myriad of other rather nasty habits gods tend to exhibit.
If god was a man he'd be on death row and rightly so, I cant see why such an unworthy creature should be believed in let alone given worship and praise.
God is as far away from the perfect being as its possible to be, contrary to what religions tell us he is.
Utilising my reason and judgment, it points to gods and afterlives as being impossible at best, for the reasons given above, no god is worthy of any human praise because quite frankly we're better than any god could ever be, they simply dont live up to the hype.
Obviously you're not going to get scientific evidence for God. We don't get scientific evidence for everything we believe in-people still support Millwall FC. And before you say they haven't wreaked the level of havoc 'religion' has I spent the 1980s policing our capital and might challenge that!
Some philosophers demanded either scientific or mathematical proof for any claim. There aren't too many around now as what's the scientific/mathematical proof for science/maths being the only reliable way to prove anything? I believe the term is self-referentially incoherent. I spent a day at a University Philosophy department last month and their term was honestly held belief. I know that covers a lot of ground. Like Millwall fans.
There is no answer at all, certainly outside faith commitment (and pretty difficult inside) to the massive problem of suffering. I could say Free Will and some have argued even if there is a God who gave us Free Will, there is so much suffering resulting from that we'd be better off without it.
One thing that is important in this connexion however is to avoid viewing God as some superhuman entity. As one philosopher of religion put it-if we knew how many items there were right now in the universe 'n', what Christianity is NOT saying is oh add one God: n+1. God is beyond space, time etc in their faith position. Or as an ex-con mate of mine now training for the vicar factory puts it-"It's His train set." Which as I point out to him is quite close to an Islamic position and of course viewing God as a He. But then he's an Arsenal fan.
Could teachers time would be better spent on things other than 'islam workshops'?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997
fblm said:
Could teachers time would be better spent on things other than 'islam workshops'?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997
To teach it, first you must understand it yourself.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997
Not read the whole thread to be fair but things have not changed that much. When I was at school we were told we had to go to Church for Founders day so off I went. IO was then told if I refused to neal I would get a detention and as one of the very few non-Christain kids I had a huge issue with that. I walked out of the Church, was threatened with suspension and required to explain to the head why I thought I should not have to show respect. My arhgument was that I will respect any religion but I will not get on my knees for anyone at all and especially not in a public place or a house of religion of any type so I sat quietly at the side of the Church hall.
Ended up with the headmaster apologising to me and rightly so.
It is not unfair to expect me to have learnt about the various faiths in the UK but to expect me to partake in a Christian service and pray on my knees was deeply offensive and I may have only been a kid, but no one has the right to expect me to participate. My fatehr offered to take the school to court at whihc point, they backed down and the headmaster was forced to make a public apology to me.
There is nothing wrong with including the various faiths practised in the world as part of ones education, in fact it is to be encouraged I think but to force people to partake, or call them racist if they choose not to, is moronic, counter-productive and will only lead to less rather than more understanding and openess.
Ended up with the headmaster apologising to me and rightly so.
It is not unfair to expect me to have learnt about the various faiths in the UK but to expect me to partake in a Christian service and pray on my knees was deeply offensive and I may have only been a kid, but no one has the right to expect me to participate. My fatehr offered to take the school to court at whihc point, they backed down and the headmaster was forced to make a public apology to me.
There is nothing wrong with including the various faiths practised in the world as part of ones education, in fact it is to be encouraged I think but to force people to partake, or call them racist if they choose not to, is moronic, counter-productive and will only lead to less rather than more understanding and openess.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff