09-11-2011, 07:51 PM
I held back on this discussion, just to see what others might say. I don't have any special insight, just a lot of prejudices of my own.
I believe religious organisations are responsible for a vast number of unspeakable horrors, either through commission or omission, but I believe there are also individuals who do good things for other people which they attribute to their religious beliefs. I suspect that many of these champions of fairness and justice might have been moved to perform good acts without being influenced by religions. I think that many of these individuals are probably too modest to accept that they, not their churches, are what has made a difference, but proving such a theory is probably not possible.
Were the decision mine, I would not ban religion. What people feel enriches their lives spiritually should be a private affair and not subject to interference by the state. However I would, given a choice, ensure religion had no part to play in the affairs of the nation. I happen to believe that a secular state is the fairest way to ensure that the largest number of religious freedoms are maintained. I shall be marching in London next Saturday with others who believe that the secular voice should be heard above the mostly empty clanging of competing religions. Sadly, despite some progress in some areas of British society and culture, religious belief still has far too much influence on the lives of those who have no wish to be subjected to various faith agenda.
Britain is the only country in Western Europe in which children are required by law to be subjected to a daily act of worship in schools. This is supposed to be "mainly of a Christian character". Religious education is a legally required subject of study, but unlike other subjects in the National Curriculum the content of the RE curriculum is decided locally by Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education which are generally composed of vested interests. A large and increasing proportion of schools (even state schools) are managed, at least in part, by the churches. This includes the hiring and firing of teaching staff. In the past this has meant Church of England and Roman Catholic schools with a few Jewish ones thrown in. Now any group can seek permission to open a so-called "Free School", the first of which have started trading this month. Free schools are excused from abiding by the National Curriculum and many people fear that some of these institutions may give more time to belief than, for example, to science. I don't see how that is fair to a nation of children that are being subjected outside school to the often irrational convictions of families, cultures and religions. Education should reach into and seek to inform all realms of experience producing children who have lively, enquiring minds and who can engage in rational arguments. The purpose of education should never have been simply to produce the next generation of automata. Education should be a buffer and a counter-balance to irrational belief and fear. Too often it has simply reinforced them.
Our upper chamber of Parliament has places reserved for the bishops, the so-called Lords Spiritual. Following strong lobbying by the churches these places will not disappear altogether even when or if the House of Lords (or whatever it turns into) becomes an "all-elected" chamber.
In the early twentieth century, Pope Pious managed to come to an arrangement with Mussolini, which having gone unchecked has resulted in the Roman Catholic church setting up its headquarters as a state. In this capacity the Catholic church has interfered in the work of committees in the United Nations setting back the causes of fairness and human rights for decades. We have too many examples of how RC "law" has undermined justice and caused untold misery and suffering. I've referred many times to my upbringing as a Mormon. Thankfully, their numbers are too small in this country for me ever to have been required to produce a "temple recommend" at a job interview. That is not the case elsewhere in the world.
I reject the right of any religious faction to wield the kind of influence that all these groups are currently exploiting and seeking to establish further in Europe. An outright ban is too simplistic and could never be made to work. I would like to think that education has a key role to play in helping people make fair and rational decisions based on evidence-based phenomena. I think we have an uphill task. There is a lot of money and power at stake. The foot soldiers of God's armies are often the ones who never see the fruits of their labours. But that's okay when you can have a harp, a cloud, a harem of virgins, or the promise of coming back as something more fortunate after death.
I believe religious organisations are responsible for a vast number of unspeakable horrors, either through commission or omission, but I believe there are also individuals who do good things for other people which they attribute to their religious beliefs. I suspect that many of these champions of fairness and justice might have been moved to perform good acts without being influenced by religions. I think that many of these individuals are probably too modest to accept that they, not their churches, are what has made a difference, but proving such a theory is probably not possible.
Were the decision mine, I would not ban religion. What people feel enriches their lives spiritually should be a private affair and not subject to interference by the state. However I would, given a choice, ensure religion had no part to play in the affairs of the nation. I happen to believe that a secular state is the fairest way to ensure that the largest number of religious freedoms are maintained. I shall be marching in London next Saturday with others who believe that the secular voice should be heard above the mostly empty clanging of competing religions. Sadly, despite some progress in some areas of British society and culture, religious belief still has far too much influence on the lives of those who have no wish to be subjected to various faith agenda.
Britain is the only country in Western Europe in which children are required by law to be subjected to a daily act of worship in schools. This is supposed to be "mainly of a Christian character". Religious education is a legally required subject of study, but unlike other subjects in the National Curriculum the content of the RE curriculum is decided locally by Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education which are generally composed of vested interests. A large and increasing proportion of schools (even state schools) are managed, at least in part, by the churches. This includes the hiring and firing of teaching staff. In the past this has meant Church of England and Roman Catholic schools with a few Jewish ones thrown in. Now any group can seek permission to open a so-called "Free School", the first of which have started trading this month. Free schools are excused from abiding by the National Curriculum and many people fear that some of these institutions may give more time to belief than, for example, to science. I don't see how that is fair to a nation of children that are being subjected outside school to the often irrational convictions of families, cultures and religions. Education should reach into and seek to inform all realms of experience producing children who have lively, enquiring minds and who can engage in rational arguments. The purpose of education should never have been simply to produce the next generation of automata. Education should be a buffer and a counter-balance to irrational belief and fear. Too often it has simply reinforced them.
Our upper chamber of Parliament has places reserved for the bishops, the so-called Lords Spiritual. Following strong lobbying by the churches these places will not disappear altogether even when or if the House of Lords (or whatever it turns into) becomes an "all-elected" chamber.
In the early twentieth century, Pope Pious managed to come to an arrangement with Mussolini, which having gone unchecked has resulted in the Roman Catholic church setting up its headquarters as a state. In this capacity the Catholic church has interfered in the work of committees in the United Nations setting back the causes of fairness and human rights for decades. We have too many examples of how RC "law" has undermined justice and caused untold misery and suffering. I've referred many times to my upbringing as a Mormon. Thankfully, their numbers are too small in this country for me ever to have been required to produce a "temple recommend" at a job interview. That is not the case elsewhere in the world.
I reject the right of any religious faction to wield the kind of influence that all these groups are currently exploiting and seeking to establish further in Europe. An outright ban is too simplistic and could never be made to work. I would like to think that education has a key role to play in helping people make fair and rational decisions based on evidence-based phenomena. I think we have an uphill task. There is a lot of money and power at stake. The foot soldiers of God's armies are often the ones who never see the fruits of their labours. But that's okay when you can have a harp, a cloud, a harem of virgins, or the promise of coming back as something more fortunate after death.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
mile:
In terms of the advertisements, my actual thoughts were more in line with the organization having an educational website on the subject... and that our individual goals should also be to educate when placed in an appropriate situation (like East did). But in the classroom? No. This has no place there. Religion & government should be two separate things. How sad it is that they are often not.
