Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

Cabaal · 04-09-2013 10:12pm

J C wrote: »

No problem whatsoever. This would be desirable IMO for a full liberal education.

What about Scientology or Mormons?

J C · 04-09-2013 10:15pm

koth wrote: »

To what end? They're not teaching staff.

As do the parents, but that does not give them the right to randomly wander into classes as if they were inspectors from the department of education. They (the parents) can talk to their kids about their lessons and inspect the learning materials if they are concerned. If they are unhappy about it, they can bring it up with the school staff and/or board.

Pastors are representatives of the local church with full power accorded to them in Church governance. As they are the leaders of the local church, that have much more authority than any individual parent.

koth wrote: »

State schools should not have to tailor information to suit a religious group. If one group said it was okay to beat your wife or kill homosexuals, should kids be taught such things in the classroom?

What religion says such outrageous things?
If state schools are irreligious ... don't be surprised if small numbers of children attend these schools.

koth wrote: »

They can go jump as far as I'm concerned. The classroom is no place to imposing a religious dogma. It's a place of learning.

You're quite entitled to your point of view ... and so am I.

koth wrote: »

That makes all the more confusing as to why you oppose secularism.

I support the provision of information on all religions and none ... but I don't support schools that disrespect local church leaders and ban the expression and practice of religion in school. I'm not a 'turkey voting for Christmas'!!!!

J C · 04-09-2013 10:17pm

Cabaal wrote: »

What about Scientology or Mormons?

No problem again ... Christian children will have to live in the world and with people of all beliefs and none.

Delirium · 04-09-2013 10:26pm

J C wrote: »

Pastors are representatives of the local church with full power accorded to them in Church governance. As they are the leaders of the local church, that have much more authority than any individual parent.

I'm afraid with regards to state schools, you're entirely wrong. The government refers to the parents, not their pastor/iman/rabbi, on how best to educate children.

What religion says such outrageous things?
Its fine for state schools to be irreligious ... but don't be surprised if small numbers of children attend these schools.

Some branches of Islam and Christianity, and no doubt other religious groups have the equivalent.

You're quite entitled to your point of view ... and so am I.

You're not actually attempting to defend the indoctrination of children with such a disgusting perspective?

I support the provision of information on all religions and none ... but I don't support schools that disrespect local church leaders and ban the expression and practice of religion in school. I'm not a 'turkey voting for Christmas'!!!!

Again, you're pro-secularism but stating that you're anti-secularism.

Secular schools do not disrespect local church leaders or ban religious expression. I already corrected that misunderstanding once today for you. It would be nice if you could actually criticize things a secular school actually do rather than misrepresent those schools.

Morag · 04-09-2013 10:29pm

J C wrote: »

I support the provision of information on all religions and none ... but I don't support schools that disrespect local church leaders and ban the expression and practice of religion in school. I'm not a 'turkey voting for Christmas'!!!!

That is no different to what most parents want.

I really don't get why you are railing against Secularism as it includes freedom of religion and from religion and respects the human rights of everyone. I think this is ideally what should be the base line for all schools instead of my children being told they are not fully human unless the have a relationship with the christian god.

J C · 04-09-2013 10:39pm

koth wrote: »

I'm afraid with regards to state schools, you're entirely wrong. The government refers to the parents, not their pastor/iman/rabbi, on how best to educate children.

... and if parents delegate their authority to their local church leader then they become key stakeholders in all of this.

koth wrote: »

Some branches of Islam and Christianity, and no doubt other religious groups have the equivalent.

The equivalent of what?

koth wrote: »

You're not actually attempting to defend the indoctrination of children with such a disgusting perspective?

I'm also disgusted that you should suggest that local church leaders should 'go and jump' ... but it was you who said it.

koth wrote: »

Again, you're pro-secularism but stating that you're anti-secularism.

Secularism is one of those 'weasel words' that can mean almost anything ... it can start out meaning respect for people of all religions and none (which I would support) ... and it can end up as some type of anti-theist construct, that deems the religous eduction of children as some form of 'child abuse' (which I would obviously vigorously challenge and deny).

koth wrote: »

Secular schools do not disrespect local church leaders or ban religious expression. I already corrected that misunderstanding once today for you. It would be nice if you could actually criticize things a secular school actually do rather than misrepresent those schools.

You have already said that local religious leader have no place in Secular schools during the school day ... and you have even suggested that they should 'take a running jump'. This doesn't sound like either you ... or secular schools would respect them very much, if at all.

robindch · 04-09-2013 10:41pm

Morag wrote: »

I really don't get why you are railing against Secularism as it includes freedom of religion and from religion and respects the human rights of everyone.

That's because religious people are told that secularism (the freedom to believe what one wants to about deities without state interference) and atheism (the assertion that there is no deity) are the same thing -- and religious people are not taught to question what they're told -- hence the confusion.

J C · 04-09-2013 10:44pm

Morag wrote: »

That is no different to what most parents want.

I really don't get why you are railing against Secularism as it includes freedom of religion and from religion and respects the human rights of everyone. I think this is ideally what should be the base line for all schools instead of my children being told they are not fully human unless the have a relationship with the christian god.

They're not told that in Christian schools ... we're all too Human when we don't have a relationship with God actually ... but, in any event, telling them that they are deluded because they believe in God certainly isn't a viable alternative.
The bottom line here is, if secularists aren't prepared to meet Christians half way (and with full respect) ... then they will need to seriously consider setting up their own schools themselves ... and with the expectation that these schools will be left to them ... with few Christian children attending them.

Delirium · 04-09-2013 10:45pm

J C wrote: »

... and if parents delegate their authority to their local church leader then they become key stakeholders in all of this.

Not in the eyes of the dept. of Education they don't.

The equivalent of what?

Equivalent of religious leaders that promote domestic violence or killing homosexuals.

I'm also disgusted that you should suggest that local church leaders should 'go and jump' ... but it was you who said it.

I absolutely did not. Please do not misrepresent what I have posted. I stated that I would have no tolerance for a religious that promoted domestic violence or homophobia in a classroom. I will put down your error to a misreading of my post rather than something malicious.

Secularism is one of those 'weasel words' that can mean almost anything ... it can start out meaning respect for people of all religions and none (which I would support) ... and end up as some type anti-theist construct that deems the religous eduction of children as some form of 'child abuse' (which I would obviously vigorously challenge and deny).

No, you're still wrong. Secularism is a separation of church and state. That means it can't be either pro or anti-theist, otherwise it isn't secular.

You have already said that local religious leader have no place in Secular schools during the school day ... and you have even suggested that they should 'take a running jump'. This doesn't sound like either you ... or secular schools would respect them very much, if at all.

No. As stated above, you misunderstood/misread my post. I refer you to the clarification above.

J C · 04-09-2013 11:03pm

robindch wrote: »

That's because religious people are told that secularism (the freedom to believe what one wants to about deities without state interference) and atheism (the assertion that there is no deity) are the same thing -- and religious people are not taught to question what they're told -- hence the confusion.

What amazes me is how such liberal-sounding ideals actually end up with the banning of religious expression and practice in school ... and refusing local church leaders access to these schools during school hours.
... and I find your suggestion that religious people are not taught to question what they're told to be both wrong and patronising in the extreme.

J C · 04-09-2013 11:18pm

koth wrote: »

Equivalent of religious leaders that promote domestic violence or killing homosexuals.

There is no Christian leader (or indeed true Christian of any description) that advocates domestic violence or killing Homosexuals ... and your suggestion is totally outrageous.

koth wrote: »

I absolutely did not. Please do not misrepresent what I have posted. I stated that I would have no tolerance for a religious that promoted domestic violence or homophobia in a classroom. I will put down your error to a misreading of my post rather than something malicious.

That's an equally outrageous suggestion ... as domestic violence and homophobia are condemned by the first rule of Christianity to love our fellow Humans as ourselves.

koth wrote: »

No, you're still wrong. Secularism is a separation of church and state. That means it can't be either pro or anti-theist, otherwise it isn't secular.

The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively an anti-christian phrase as the only target for 'separation' ... is Christianity ... and no other faith community.

If secularism was as even-handed as you claim, they would be campaigning for the separation of 'all faiths and none from the state'.
... but I can see that this wouldn't be a good idea, if you were a Secularist and you wanted the state to set up schools for you!!!

robindch · 04-09-2013 11:20pm

J C wrote: »

What amazes me is how such liberal-sounding ideals actually end up with the banning of religious expression and practice in school ... and refusing local church leaders access to these schools during school hours.

Schools, JC, are paid for by everybody for the benefit of everybody.

If the religious want to indoctrinate the trusting, innocent children they control with religious stories from the Bronze and Iron Ages, then -- though I detest that they are dishonest enough to do it -- they are free to do so in their own time, at their own expense, and in a place they've paid for.

Out of interest, as you appear to approve of religious men having unhindered access to young children, would you be happy to have your kids (assuming you have kid(s)) indoctrinated with Satanism, just because the nearest school happened to be controlled by Satanists?

Hotblack Desiato · 04-09-2013 11:27pm

J C wrote: »

... so how do we 'protect' Christian children from forced indoctrination by Secular Humanism in Secular Schools?

There is no such thing as 'indoctrination into secular humanism'. That phrase is a contradiction in terms.

You are proposing to replace one form of indoctrination (that is roughly in line with the faith position of 90% of the population) with another form of indoctrination

No. Don't indoctrinate kids at all would be my choice.

There is no ET school near me -

Me neither. It's rather a shame there is so few of them. They have a rather good website though. You should look it up.

so I know nothing about them.

Well your posts are making that increasinly clear, if nothing else.

J C wrote: »

Pastors are representatives of the local church with full power accorded to them in Church governance. As they are the leaders of the local church, that have much more authority than any individual parent.

They have no authority in schools of which they are not patron. Nothing, zip, nada.

What religion says such outrageous things?

Not this again. I tell my five year old daughter that it's rather rude to ask a question, get an answer, ignore it, then ask the same question again.

If state schools are irreligious ... don't be surprised if small numbers of children attend these schools.

There are a small number of ET schools because it's so difficult for parents - cash-poor, time-poor parents, worried about getting a school place for their child at all - to be expected, as we are frequently told here by yourself and others, that we should just just go off and 'suck it up or set up our own schools if we don't like it.' It's a very difficult thing to do and it takes years of sustained effort or even decades.

Not helped at all by the established churches of course - even where they have empty school properties they'd rather let them rot. The Department of Education is usually hostile.

But the ET schools which do exist have strong demand and there is strong demand for many more of these schools.

You're quite entitled to your point of view ... and so am I.

Points of view which are backed up by evidence are so much more worthwhile though.

I support the provision of information on all religions and none ... but I don't support schools that disrespect local church leaders and ban the expression and practice of religion in school. I'm not a 'turkey voting for Christmas'!!!!

You say this but frankly I don't believe you. You do not want the overwhelming Christian dogmatic monoculture in our schools to change. 'Tell the kids about other religions if you must, so long as they know they're wrong', perhaps?

J C · 04-09-2013 11:36pm

robindch wrote: »

Schools, JC, are paid for by everybody for the benefit of everybody.

If the religious want to indoctrinate the trusting, innocent children they control with religious stories from the Bronze and Iron Ages, then -- though I detest that they are dishonest enough to do it -- they are free to do so in their own time, at their own expense, and in a place they've paid for.

Very illuminating on the views of Secularists about their religious neighbours ... that they are indoctrinating 'trusting innocent children they control' (a loaded phrase if ever I heard one) ... that they are stuck in the Bronze Age ... and they are dishonest.
Anyway, if you think that religous people are a load of lying cretins who are mentally abusing 'trusting innocent' children ... then perhaps you should set up your own school for like minded people like yourself ... and leave the education of Christian children to Christians and other Theists.

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, as you appear to approve of religious men having unhindered access to young children,

Another outrageous loaded phrase. I said that religious leaders should have access to schools ... and could I point out that some religious leaders are women ... and these people are already child-protection vetted, just like everybody else who works with minors.

robindch wrote: »

would you be happy to have your kids (assuming you have kid(s)) indoctrinated with Satanism, just because the nearest school happened to be controlled by Satanists?

I wouldn't send my children to such a school ... wherever it was located.
Why did you introduce this point about Satanists?
Are you trying to suggest that another reason to close Christian Schools is to not cause offense to Satanist parents who are sending their children to these schools?
This might explain why there is such an issue over Christian prayers and practice in these schools. I can see why a Satanist might be offended ... but I can't see why a liberal Atheist would be.

robindch · 04-09-2013 11:46pm

J C wrote: »

[...] that they are stuck in the Bronze Age [...]

No, I didn't say that. I did say that the most common religious stories come from the Bronze (~3000BCE - 1000BCE) and Iron Ages (1000BCE - 500CE). Are you saying that they weren't written down during that time?

J C wrote: »

Anyway, if you think that religous people are a load of lying cretins who are mentally abusing 'trusting innocent' children

Didn't say that either. I said that religious people are lying to kids and that I detest their doing this.

J C wrote: »

[...] and leave the education of Christian children to Christians and other Theists.

As above, if christians want to indoctrinate their kids, then they can do so in their own time, with their own money and in their own place. It's not like they're short of large premises designed for mass indoctrination to start with.

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't send my children to such a school ... wherever it was located.

I'm a bit confused -- above you said that you approve of the religious control of schools. Now you say that you don't.

Which is it?

J C · 05-09-2013 12:03am

robindch wrote: »

No, I didn't say that. I did say that the most common religious stories come from the Bronze (~3000BCE - 1000BCE) and Iron Ages (1000BCE - 500CE). Are you saying that they weren't written down during that time?

Your use of the phrase 'bronze and iron age' was clearly a 'put down' ... the Christian New Testament was written long after the so-called Bronze Age ... and the Old Testament was written by the same people who built the Pyramids in Egypt and at the same time as other monliths were erected around the World, that modern engineers wouldn't even be able to emulate.

robindch wrote: »

Didn't say that either. I said that religious people are lying to kids and that I detest their doing this.

... so you think that erroneously accusing Christians of lying to children is somewhat less offensive than just accusing them of lying???

robindch wrote: »

As above, if christians want to indoctrinate their kids, then they can do so in their own time, with their own money and in their own place.
It's not like they're short of large premises designed for mass indoctrination to start with.I'm a bit confused --

I see ... Christians can educate their children for an hour on a Sunday ... and you guys will undo everthing they are taught for the rest of the week in school ... funded by the (largely Christian) taxpayer.
You must think that we all came down in the last shower!!!

robindch wrote: »

above you said that you approve of the religious control of schools.
Now you say that you don't.

Which is it?

... can I point out that Satanists are, by their own definition anti-christ, ... so why do you think any Christian could countence sending their children to any schools they control?

Morag · 05-09-2013 12:45am

J C wrote: »

They're not told that in Christian schools

They were.

J C wrote: »

but, in any event, telling them that they are deluded because they believe in God certainly isn't a viable alternative.

I don't agree whit that and I don't know anyone who thinks we should have a secular society and secular schools thinks that either.

I really am baffled by the idea you seem to have that secularist are for out lawing personal religious beliefs or for belittling them.

J C wrote: »

The bottom line here is, if secularists aren't prepared to meet Christians half way (and with full respect) ... then they will need to seriously consider setting up their own schools themselves ... and with the expectation that these schools will be left to them ... with few Christian children attending them.

Educate Together schools are based in the way that most secularist agree with, the mandated time for Religious eduction teaches about all world religions and atheism equally. They are be biggest growing type of school in the country for the last decade and are a model which works.

Religious instruction for children can be done in the same building after school hours or in their own religious community.

expectationlost · 05-09-2013 12:49am

TD ask Min for Ed how are catchment areas are determined http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/01/17/00119.asp

Catchment boundaries have their origins in the establishment of free post-primary education in the late 1960s and were determined following consultation with local educational interests. For planning purposes the country was divided into geographic districts each with several primary schools feeding into a post-primary centre with one or more post-primary schools. The intention was and continues to be that these defined districts facilitate the orderly planning of school provision and accommodation needs.

local educational interests, churches perhaps

so where are the maps? or feeder lists

Sofiztikated · 05-09-2013 12:54am

J C wrote: »

Your use of the phrase 'bronze and iron age' was clearly a 'put down' ... the Christian New Testament was written long after the so-called Bronze Age ... and the Old Testament was written by the same people who built the Pyramids in Egypt and at the same time as other monliths were erected around the World, that modern engineers wouldn't even be able to emulate.

... so you think that erroneously accusing Christians of lying to children is somewhat less offensive than just accusing them of lying???

I see ... Christians can educate their children for an hour on a Sunday ... and you guys will undo everthing they are taught for the rest of the week in school ... funded by the (largely Christian) taxpayer.
You must think that we all came down in the last shower!!!

... can I point out that Satanists are, by their own definition anti-christ, ... so why do you think any Christian could countence sending their children to any schools they control?

Whoa, whoa whoa, what?

Morag · 05-09-2013 12:54am

J C wrote: »

If secularism was as even-handed as you claim, they would be campaigning for the separation of 'all faiths and none from the state'.

That is what it is about.

J C wrote: »

I see ... Christians can educate their children for an hour on a Sunday

Surely I should not have to explain to you have living a christian life is more then 1 hour a week?

No christian parents would be modeling christian behavior every day to their children and so would extended family member and community.

The same way muslim, jewish, hindu, budhist and pagan parents teach and model to their children.

J C wrote: »

... and you guys will undo everthing they are taught for the rest of the week in school ... funded by the (largely Christian) taxpayer.

Do you really think that being told in school that there some people are christian, some people are muslim ect will undo the huge influence of parents, family and community has on children?

Were you not taught that faith is passed from parent to child and is sustained by the family and sustains the family?

J C wrote: »

You must think that we all came down in the last shower!!!

Why should parent's who have children who are not christian but whom must attend a christian school have to spend so much time undoing and unpicking the indoctrination of our children?

J C wrote: »

... can I point out that Satanists are, by their own definition anti-christ, ... so why do you think any Christian could countence sending their children to any schools they control?

That depends on the type of satanists which you are referring those who venerate lucifer or those who are atheistic.

Corkfeen · 05-09-2013 1:00am

I know JC says that he understands that one can support secularism and be religious but he really doesn't seem to understand. A secular education system is not for the purpose of indoctrinating or for removing one's religious belief. However a Catholic Primary school does indoctrinate students, this is not the duty of the state.

Spend as much time as you want indoctrinating outside of the classroom. There's still plenty of hours left in the week and no effort will be made to reverse your work.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Whoa, whoa whoa, what?

He's somewhat correct on that front, I'd suspect much of the methodologies for crafting are lost at this point in time. It could be replicated but somewhat artificially. For example, they only recently discovered how to concoct the extremely long lasting mortar which the Romans used for their structures.

Geuze · 05-09-2013 1:13am

I am not particularly religious.

I am not a teacher.

However, I had to meet and talk to several groups of secondary school students.

VEC students (mixed)
"convent" school

I could straight away feel the apathy from the VEC kids, whereas the "convent" students were (mostly) full of energy and questions and curiousity.

What a contrast.

If State-run secondary education was popular and preferred, there would be waiting lists for VEC schools. There isn't.

Even though parents may not go to mass, and may not support the Catholic church too much, they are sensible enough to put practicality ahead of principles.

I would need to be convinced to send my children to a State-run school.

VECs do not fill me with confidence.

In the UK, some people move house to be closer to Church-run schools.

Many people seem to want the churches to pull back, and instead the State to run schools, but they already do - VEC schools.

So if as a parent you don't want to use a Church-run school, you already have a choice.

OK, for primary education, there aren't really any State-run schools.

Would parents want VEC primary schools??

Indoctrination!!!!!!

My parents went to primary in the 50s and secondary in the 60s.

They are as questioning and critical as anybody else.

They have faith - but not a naive, unquestioning faith.

They speak Irish and Latin, recite poetry, and my 70-year-old mother is faster at arithmetic than a modern uni student.

If that's the result of a church-run education, I'll take it over an unknown State-run education

05-09-2013 1:30am

Geuze wrote: »

What a contrast.

I'm not surprised at the contrast. I am surprised that anyone would see that as having any connection to religion or atheism, especially when you consider that there is almost certainly no difference in the percentage of "VEC" and "convent" students that are Catholic.

Hotblack Desiato · 05-09-2013 2:27am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not surprised at the contrast. I am surprised that anyone would see that as having any connection to religion or atheism, especially when you consider that there is almost certainly no difference in the percentage of "VEC" and "convent" students that are Catholic.

Admission policies, and good old-fashioned snobbery, play a huge part in this and it becomes a vicious cycle. All the brighter students (And teachers) end up in the 'better' school, and that school is better because all the brighter students and motivated teachers go there...

Oh yeah, I nearly overlooked the little dig at mixed schools there Geuze, what is wrong with mixed schools? or why mention that at all?

Delirium · 05-09-2013 8:25am

J C wrote: »

There is no Christian leader (or indeed true Christian of any description) that advocates domestic violence or killing Homosexuals ... and your suggestion is totally outrageous.

That's an equally outrageous suggestion ... as domestic violence and homophobia are condemned by the first rule of Christianity to love our fellow Humans as ourselves.

If only that were true. There is a Christian pastor in America called Fred Phelps, who is the leader of the Westboro Baptist church. It is a Christian church that preaches a message based entirely on hate.

You have suggested a scenario where if Phelps lived in Ireland, he would be allowed unfettered access to his local school. In addition, he would have the ability to censor any material he deemed contrary to his religious beliefs.

Personally I think that all religious leaders should be treated as any other potential guest speaker in the classroom. They should not be treated as a de facto member of the teaching staff.

Btw your suggestion also removes any protection Christians would have in a secular class. As robin pointed out, satanists would be able to preach to Christian children and even bar any part of the lesson plan concerning Christianity and the bible.

Secularism wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively an anti-christian phrase as the only target for 'separation' ... is Christianity ... and no other faith community.

Nonsense, Islam, Judaism, Buddism and every other (non) religious group are also separated from the state.

If secularism was as even-handed as you claim, they would be campaigning for the separation of 'all faiths and none from the state'.
... but I can see that this wouldn't be a good idea, if you were a Secularist and you wanted the state to set up schools for you!!!

That's exactly what I've been saying all this time!

Cabaal · 05-09-2013 8:35am

Corkfeen wrote: »

He's somewhat correct on that front, I'd suspect much of the methodologies for crafting are lost at this point in time. It could be replicated but somewhat artificially. For example, they only recently discovered how to concoct the extremely long lasting mortar which the Romans used for their structures.

Funny thing is all these creations...pyramids etc, had nothing to do with the christian faith.

Old 7 wounders being:

Great Pyramid of Giza
Hanging Gardens of Babylon
Statue of Zeus at Olympia
Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
Colossus of Rhodes
Lighthouse of Alexandria

If we look at other cool stuff, stonehenge, newgrange, crazy big heads on easter island, anything done in South America etc, they are nothing to do with the Christian faith. So unsure why J C is even trying to bring ANY of these structures into this discussion.

If you look at the area's where Christianity flourished they were backwards in comparison or Christianity only came to the area after these massive structures were built...at which time in alot of cases the old knowledge was lost because of them or destroyed by them.

Christianity isn't exactly progressive when you look at its history

Corkfeen · 05-09-2013 9:23am

Cabaal wrote: »

Funny thing is all these creations...pyramids etc, had nothing to do with the christian faith.

Old 7 wounders being:

Great Pyramid of Giza
Hanging Gardens of Babylon
Statue of Zeus at Olympia
Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
Colossus of Rhodes
Lighthouse of Alexandria

If we look at other cool stuff, stonehenge, newgrange, crazy big heads on easter island, anything done in South America etc, they are nothing to do with the Christian faith. So unsure why J C is even trying to bring ANY of these structures into this discussion.

If you look at the area's where Christianity flourished they were backwards in comparison or Christianity only came to the area after these massive structures were built...at which time in alot of cases the old knowledge was lost because of them or destroyed by them.

Christianity isn't exactly progressive when you look at its history

I'm somewhat perplexed alright but that happens when I read most of her posts.

kylith · 05-09-2013 11:11am

J C wrote: »

... what is the problem with the expression of religion in school and attending religious events anyway?
I have known Christians in my time who would never set foot in the church of a different denomination ... and they were rightly called bigoted and sectarian for making a point of not doing so.
... so why shouldn't the same descriptor be applied to people who won't allow their children attend religious services ... or even be in the same room when children of a different faith are praying or practicing their faith?
If Secularists want to set up special schools then so be it ... but they shouldn't claim that while banning religious expression from these schools that they are somehow inclusive or indeed liberal and pluralist.

So, if the only school that in your area was Hindu you would have no problem with your children attending classes in which they were taught that Hindu deities such as Vishnu and Ganesh were the only true gods, that the Christian god was a myth, and that they must worship the Hindu pantheon to achieve a higher level of being on their next reincarnation?

Sarky · 05-09-2013 3:20pm

Bloody hell, I preferred him when he was just being completely clueless and dishonest about biology.

J C · 05-09-2013 10:56pm

Sarky wrote: »

Bloody hell, I preferred him when he was just being completely clueless and dishonest about biology.

Be careful what you wish for!!!:D:)

Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

Comments