No. I think you have taken yourself off on your own little trip down ignorance lane. You need to reset the SatNav in order to find your way back to what I actually said.


Oh yes, now why didn't I think of that!



In one RE class I introduced Year 1 children to Judaism. It was all very informative, interactive and enjoyable. It didn't touch on creation at all. The next morning I heard an argument taking place in the line of my children as they waited to come into class. I brought everybody into class early and asked each protagonist to tell me what the argument was about. Three children were upsetting each other: one said his Dad said everybody came from apes (so easy to explain!), one girl was crying because her Dad said everybody was made by God and a third child, another boy, was arguing that nobody knew where we came from and so why does it matter? I instigated a citizenship moment and put the first lesson on hold until we had discussed the fallout from a lesson that didn't actually mention creation at all but had obviously had an impact and initiated questions at home, as good lessons often do.

So yes, enabling children of primary school age to learn about evolution is a doddle, not only because it is an entirely neutral subject (obviously) but also because structurally it is dead easy to slip yet another scientific subject into an already packed curriculum, one which really doesn't need to be explored until later in a child's education when they have far more imminent basics secured.

You are wrong again. 26 bishops and a rabbi sit in the House of Lords. Then there's the fact that religious groups are always consulted on things like gay marriage, abortion etc. Then there's the education issue we're discussing here. Quite an influence for such a small minority.



Comprehension not your strong point, is it? Secularists are not 'threatened' by religious belief, they merely feel (quite strongly) that the church and the state should be entirely separate. How hard is that to understand?



The paragraph isn't confused, you are. I stated a belief that faith-based education (not selection) doesn't improve academic achievement. The ability to select which pupils attend your school can quite easily have an effect on academic achievement.



No, that 'fact' does not remain. Faith based schools do, in some (many, even) instances achieve better results than non faith based ones. This is not because of the religious flavour of their education, but because they can choose which pupils attend.



My understanding is that academies are allowed far more latitude than other schools - see Mintball's example where a Jewish academy devotes half of its time to religious studies. And, indeed, the example I linked to earlier.



That has been covered by other posters.



But why should it be the case that teachers applying for a job have to have sympathy with a cult based on mumbo jumbo and fairytales? If the church becomes as big a provider as it hopes to, opportunities will become much more limited for those who don't have sympathy with such nonsense.



People shouldn't have to 'opt out'. The state - including its educational institutions - should be entirely separate from any religion.



As I mentioned in another post, a lot of people simply tick 'Christian' because that's what they think they should put.



No, I don't.



Perhaps not in your school, but that is not the case in all schools. The lines are quite deliberately blurred in a lot of cases. Did you bother to read the link I posted earlier? The one written by a head of 'science' at one of the faith academies?



Why should children be any more at risk from learning about Scientology than Christianity? Both are equally ridiculous.



But why should they be taught faith at all? At school the most they should be learning is the cultural and historical backgrounds to a broad range of religions. They shouldn't be being taught anything from the Bible as though it is anything other than a story.



3.6% say they go [iat least[/i once a month. And religious people are not in the majority. Not even close. Only a religious person would suggest such a thing.



I'm not seeking to influence anybody - I seek to remove the influence of religion in matters of the state.



You really don't get it. As has already been made abundantly clear, those who are religious are in the minority and shouldn't be funding faith based schools. The reasons for faith schools' success has already been covered at some length, and it's not their religious education.

I can't be bothered to define the word 'influence'. If you want to continue believing it means the same as 'being present' then so be it! Clearly, on the point about gay marriage, abortion etc, they had a huge amount of influence! Or don't we have civil partnerships and the highest abortion rate in Europe?


So does the fact that I cited actually remain or not?


Tomato, tomayto. To you it's a cult or a fairytale, to a massive number of people worldwide it is a valid belief system. In the education sector, diversity is a key word and schools are big on teaching children to respect people of all beliefs and none. It is impossible to do that without introducing them to that which they are being taught to respect.


You think? You don't know what will happen. You are speaking from fear of the unknown.


There is a case for and against separation. It is interesting that the country used as an example in this thread of separation is also the country used as an example of extremist movements. Maybe keeping a link between religious institutions and educational institutions enables greater tolerance and a lower tendency towards extremism?


And a lot of people tick Christian because that is what they consider themselves to be, regardless of whether they go to church on even an irregular basis if at all.


Read up about Scientology and then have a think.


Why not? If the parents are happy for them to be so taught then what is the problem?


And in most non-faith schools that is pretty much what happens, although religious practices are also taught as they are part and parcel of learning about any religion. All religions have their doctrine and their practices.


When did I say religious people were in the majority? I haven't said such a thing. I have spoken about people self-identifying but that does not equate to them being religious. 70% may indeed have some kind of belief in a higher being or a general purpose and, perhaps because they live in this country, they identify that with the Christian God and so self-identify with Christianity. Or they may believe they believe. There will be many versions on the theme.


So you are saying that the religious shouldn't fund their own schools? I thought you were advocating that? Rather than the general taxpayer?

You take a risk, though, in saying the general taxpayer shouldn't fund minorities. After all, pregnant unworking teenagers are in the minority but my taxes help fund their houses and clothes for their children. Young people wanting to obtain a degree are in the minority but my taxes help to fund their courses. And so on and so on.

Each of one those bishops (and the rabbi) gets to vote on any laws that are passing through the House of Lords. That is far more than just 'being present'. They are having a direct influence on laws enacted in our parliament. That we have allowed civil partnerships doesn't mean that the church weren't consulted - in fact, the reason they are 'civil partnerships' and not 'marriages' is probably entirely due to the church's influence. The point is, however, that they shouldn't even be consulted.



No, it does not. Taking part of a quote to try and make yourself look clever achieves the opposite.



No, it's not. There is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of God, and the Bible, even if every word of it was true, is littered with atrocities - most of which were perpetrated or sanctioned by God. For example, the Bible tells us:

[iIf a woman is raped, they must marry their rapist and never be divorced.

It is ok to slaughter all the men and children in a particular town, then rape all the women - as long as God told you to do it.

Offering up your virgin daughters to a mob in order to prevent them engaging in homosexual acts is a righteous thing to do.

Looking over your shoulder after being told not to by God is a crime punishable by death.[/i

Valid beliefs, indeed. And that's just a few off the top of my head.

In any other area, we don't teach anything that isn't backed up by some sort of evidence. Religion should be no different.



As I said, I've no objection to a cultural/historical RE lesson. It's when the whole ethos of a school is build on a specific religion, or when the lines between religion and science are blurred that I have a problem.



No. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has stated that he would like the CoE to become the biggest provider of education in this country and, if the proposed changes are adopted, this could easily become a reality. You'd then have the situation where the majority of schools are church controlled and teachers with the intelligence not to believe in fairy stories would be in quite a difficult position.



I'd love to hear a good case against separation.



And maybe not. I don't know which country you're talking about here, but indoctrinating children in schools is hardly likely to foster tolerance of other religions.



Not many, I'd suggest. There's been an example in this thread, where a poster said they were CofE 'on paper'. This is the prevailing attitude.



I've read up on Scientology, and it's no more dangerous to children than any other cult, including Christianity. This is the problem with the religious: every religion other than theirs is ridiculous. It doesn't occur to them that they might all be.



And who has decided that 'parents' are happy for their child to be taught in this way. I'm not, and I know a lot of other parents who feel similarly. If they are being taught about a variety of religious beliefs later in life when they have the grounding in science to know, for example, that virgins don't really give birth, then fine. But teaching young children about religion - particularly in schools where their own faith is given unequal weight - is indoctrination.



That's in non-faith schools. But if the church becomes the biggest provider, the majority of schools will adopt a different practice.



The actual figure is 50% who identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion. Of this 50%, around 56% don't ever attend church. 3.6% overall say they go at least once a month, but the church's own attendance figures show that this may actually be a lot lower.



Yes, that was a typo. I'm not a fan of any religious indoctrination, and, in an ideal world, there would be no faith schools whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. That's never likely to happen, however, but I do think that there should be no state funding at all for religious education. If they want to indoctrinate - let them pay for it.



I'm not saying that the taxpyer 'shouldn't fund minorities'. What I'm saying is that the taxpayer shouldn't be funding educational establishments that promote a minority view. It's really quite simple.

You should have explained that to Tony Blair. The cross-faith committee that he set up to discuss greater involvement in society (particularly in terms of service provision) of religious groups, and which was chaired by Fiona Mactaggart, was presumably discussing contingency plans in the event of invasion by UFO.

And obviously he and Dubya didn't pray when they were meetings about going to war.

Then we could mention the fragrant Ruth Kelly whose personal religious beliefs never, ever got in the way of what she'd been elected to do.

We could cite the reports of doctors and even pharmacists refusing certain treatments and medication on the basis of their personal faith – but these are obviously fantasies.

And this is without mentioning the House of Lords and the continued presence of religious leaders in there, for no reason other than their being religious leaders.

We could mention such things as the Emmanuel Schools, owned by Sir Peter Vardy, where they have been accused of teaching creationism in biology lessons. But you've already shown that you refuse to acknowledge such things, simply metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing with your mantra of what the curriculum states, which has never been in dispute.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/nov/27/controversiesinscience.religionTeachers plan to use creationist materials[/url, including a head of chemistry – who presumably was only intending to use the materials in the non-science lessons he taught. [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schoolsMore[/url.



I suggest that you either do some research to find out what secularism actually means – or stop being downright disingenuous.



This has been explained. Quite clearly.



I don't – and have not said it was.



Bleedin' hell. Go back and read what I wrote – not what you want to think I wrote. You will see that I in no way suggested that evangelism was new. What I did was to describe – very briefly – the rising influence of US-style evangelism in the UK since the 1950s.

Did you really not manage to understand that? Did you really not understand that that is not the same as suggesting that evangelism per se is something new?



Actually, taking things at face value, since Paul told the early Christians to go out and spread the word, evangelism has been around for a very great deal lot longer than since "the [iBible[/i had been translated into English". If it hadn't been for evangelism in the first place there'd have been no Christian church at all. So your own understanding of history – after telling me to read some – is really rather poor.



Being a teacher, one might expect that you'd at least be able to read and understand simple arguments, You obviously can't, as indicated above and by other posters elsewhere.

Or maybe you need to express yourself more clearly. Another worrying trait in an educator.


A lovely story, but entirely irrelevant. Evolution isn't 'another subject' and neither is there a requirement to jam in another large chunk of material into the allegedly crammed Science curriculum. We'll agree to disagree about the latter point BTW as I doubt that your definition of a crammed curriculum and mine coincide to any appreciable degree.

Evolution is a an entirely neutral subject. The fact that a small minority of people may not have a neutral reaction to it is no basis for policy making.

I'm sure that teaching young, impressionable children that, by incantation of a few spells, their 'priests' can literally turn bread and wine into the actual flesh and the actual blood of a man who was executed thousands of years ago; and that once they are old enough to deserve it, they too can literally get to eat the body of and drink the blood of their saviour, every day if they like but compulsorily once a week, can only make them rounded citizens. It is not nutty at all, because it is a central tenet of "faith". Thus demonstrationg that the bigger the lie, the more will believe it.

Considering that you think that a lottery is discriminatory, I hope that you don't teach English or anything that involves logic.

Oh, hang on, you have a faith, right?
Forget the logic bit, you wouldn't understand.

Which, of course, raises the question of why faith itself seems to be considered so highly in our society.

Particularly when you consider how selective that faith usually is.

"The Bible is the word of God and God is infallible."

[i"So you believe there are circumstances when genocide is acceptable, or that a rape victim should have to marry her attacker?"[/i

"Well, no, it shouldn't be interpreted [iliterally[/i - it's merely a [imessage[/i."

[i"Ok, leaving aside the question of quite what message your infallible God was trying to convey in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 (for example), you don't believe that Jesus was born to a virgin mother? Or that he performed miracles?"[/i

"Well, of course we believe [ithat[/i."

[i"So, although the Bible is the word of God - who is in fallible - you only believe the parts of it that you have decided are word believing? You know better than your infallible God?"[/i

"Er..."

Just out of interest, how is it decided which faiths can run a school?
For example, I seem to remember that Scientology (another word for science fiction) was designated as a cult rather than a recognised religion ... I think that was for some charity status application but could be mis-remembering.
Who decides? ... and how?

Indeed. But setting aside that, why is faith itself held in such esteem or with such respect?

Serious question, BTW – to which I do not personally know the answer, even having had faith myself for much of my life.

I literally cannot think of a single good answer to that question. It's seen as a virtue, but it's totally unfathomable as to why. It's not only that there's an absence of evidence for God's existence, but that all available evidence points towards his non-existence. And yet belief that he does exist - totally ignoring the evidence - is somehow seen as a good thing. It's like a celebration of ignorance on a massive scale.

I assume it must be some government department, but what criteria they use is anyone's guess.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13266290A bit of info[/url

I thought we already had the definitive answer to that one as presented in that bible of catholicism, "Angela's Ashes" - the bit where the kid goes for his first communion, goes home and then throws up in the yard sending his granny ballistic as he's just puked up the body and the blood of christ.

She send him back to the priest to ask if its ok to swill the body and the blood of christ down the drain and he says that yes, its ok to do that - so there you are, the priest magically turns bread and wine into body and blood but as soon as you've swallowed it it magically becomes just bread and wine again.

Its quite simple when you work it through really.

PS - I still get upset when I listen to Puff the Magic Dragon, maybe we should concentrate on that poor soul instead, as far as I know he's still agoraphobic and in his cave.

Aye, but he is immortal, so he's got time to get over it.

I reckon the fundamental reason has always been the same. Humans are so egotistical, that they cannot conceive that when they die, that's it, what they experience as their 'self' ceases to be.

People are also so sentimental they simply do not want to believe that if their loved ones die, they cease to exist.

Add to that the obvious physical manifestation that here is the body of (say) what was your mother, but now it does not function, it is easy to see how an attractive explanation for that, which allows for your mother still to be "there", and "watching over you", would be that her "soul" is what's "left her body", and that's why she doesn't work any more, but in "spirit" she's just as much there as ever she was. It would be nice if that were true, and if you have what is to you a respected and all-knowing holy man that tells you yes it IS true. there is the key to religion. These people are the path to letting you speak to dead people, and arranging for you to be re-united.

[url=http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/11292/debt_charity_that_prays_with_clients_gets_licence_to_expandBack to the spurious claim that the influence of religion is not growing in the UK.[/url

Then add to that the gene that has stood mankind in such good stead over the years, the gene that alerts him to everything, leading him to believe that everything has a reason.
So when he smells a lion, he knows to avoid that bit of the jungle.
Or, further North, when the sun becomes reluctant to shine for much of the day, he lights a fire to encourage it to come back ... it worked for him last year, can't see why it won't work this year ...

Then put him in a circumstance where the reason for something isn't apparent ... and he'll still come up with something.

Then start asking him awkward questions about his reasoning ... and the fairy tale becomes more and more elaborate ... ending up with God moving in mysterious ways and we shouldn't question it.

A slightly flippant point (flippant - me ?) but we have a paradox situation on TV where religious worship programmes are permitted on a sunday (are the BBC still obligated to provide one ?) during which I'm sure that some mention is made to everlasting souls and other such balderdash, and yet when Colin Fry or John Edwards try and present a programme on The Living Channel where they claim to speak to dead people the TV company are obligated to prefix the show with a warning that basically says that these people are charlatans and its only to be taken with a pinch of salt for amusement purposes.

Now either you can speak to dead people or you can't, there is either life after death or there isn't, surely this isn't some form of double standard from the broadcasting commissioners ?

So that little lad who used to knock about with Bruce Willis couldn't really see dead people?

It's a dream shattering factory this forum.

i don't know how to put his, but - Bruce Willis doesn't actually exist

What about poor Jackie Paper, will nobody think of the children?