# Religion in primary schools



## ash (Dec 12, 2011)

My 7 year old told me that her teacher asked people in her class to put up their hands if they were Christian and then if they were Muslim. My daughter ( as we are not religious) did not put her hand up. The teacher said oh so you don't believe in anything? She said no I don't. I feel really 

 proud of her but she is now saying she feels like the odd one out. I am not happy with the approach used but not surprised we have had issues like this before. This is a state non (supposedly) religious school. Is this acceptable practice?


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 13, 2011)

good for her !!
and I would question the acceptablity of the teacher's question, especially if there are any evanglising/bullying types about.

I felt that I was in a small minority at primary school  (it was a C of E maintained one) as even at that tender age I was a confirmed atheist. Which was a bit confusing as the one year I got the prize for 'Bible Knowledge' - something to do with being able to quote/argue the point with t'vicar......


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 13, 2011)

I sometimes worry about the lightly christian crap my daughter is taught in school. Then I remember that I went to a very christian school and almost none of my piers  believed a word of it.

It's a good point you bring up though. My daughters school embraces different cultures and religions and studies and celebrates many, but what of the atheist? I guess I will just have to console myself with the face that actual science and logic are taught all year round.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 13, 2011)

That was pretty poor form by the teacher;  you should say something to the teacher if you feel able to (better than going over their head to someone else, it might feel like an overreaction otherwise)  and tell them it made your daughter feel uncomfortable. It's possible they just expressed themselves badly - not a great attribute in a teacher - but it should be raised with them, esp if there have been similar instances before.


----------



## ash (Dec 13, 2011)

Thanks for your posts. One of the issues I have is that science in the form of evolution is not taught.  I have had a meeting with the Religious education co-ordinator to discuss issues and ask how my daughter as the only child in the class who is  not actively religous (and yes there are quite a few evangelists) would  have her belief system acknowledged.   Apparantly evolution is not taught as it is not on the National Curriculum and it is too complicated for primary school kids!!  Atheism/humanism is not mentioned until year 6, but   - quote -  'we do have a very nice aetheist teacher'.
I will talk to the teacher again and probably write to the humanist representative of the local authority SACRE.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 13, 2011)

Are they actually being "taught" religious beliefs, or were they simply asked if they are christian or muslim?  And in what context were they asked?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 13, 2011)

My sister put my nephew in one of them religious schools - apparently better discipline yada yada yada.

It's gone a bit wrong as he's so bored with the religious guff and doesn't believe a word of it and seems to have become quite naughty as some kind of protest.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 13, 2011)

Did you say you'd spoken to the teacher since and did they confirm that that was exactly how it happened? If so, then it does sound like the teacher handled it badly, but having had kids myself I know how 7 year olds can't always be relied on to convey the exact story.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 14, 2011)

If they are not teaching evolution because it is "too difficult", I do hope that they are not covering creationism / intelligent design instead.....

E2A - I think that perhaps you should talk about evolution at home.....just in case.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 14, 2011)

Evolution is in the National Curriculum at secondary level. It's never been taught at primary schools to my knowledge.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 14, 2011)

Religion has a place in education. The subject is called 'History'


----------



## ash (Dec 14, 2011)

No worries evolution is discussed at home she has the fantastic pop up book 'the story of everything' and we have got her Dawkins 'magic of reality' for Xmas. We are doing our best. I think it is ridiculous that evolution is not taught at primary level. Today she said I hate RE it's boring and it's not real anyway. I told her I liked finding out about different  religions she said ' I don't it's boring and pointless'. Never thought I'd say this but I'm tempted to pull her out of RE (if she agrees)?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 14, 2011)

oooh, brainwashing!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 14, 2011)

ash said:


> she is now saying she feels like the odd one out.





ash said:


> I'm tempted to pull her out of RE



That'll really make her feel like everyone else, leaving the classroom and being on her own somewhere.


----------



## ash (Dec 14, 2011)

I'd only suggest it if she agreed and I'd discussed the full implications with her. In any case that was just me letting off a bit if steam. I'm not likely to be taking her out of RE just frustrated at the Nat Curriculum and feeling in a minority in the school. The school is generally very good. I went to a C of E school and the whole school used to attend church services. The difference was that it was the usual Cof E 'religion light' as opposed to my daughters class that are more evangelistically religious (or whatever the equivalent is for muslims. Anyway worst things happen at sea (than in Brixton)!!


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 15, 2011)

I wish that I had been able to escape from RI (religious indoctrination) as I was struggling a bit in a couple of core subjects at times, and the extra 40 mins a week might have helped.......


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 15, 2011)

I wouldn't pull her out of RE; we all had to put up with lessons we didn't really enjoy, it didn't kill us, she'll get over it.

While we may disagree with the basic foundations of religion, it's massively important to have a good knowledge of other people's belief systems, it has started wars and ended wars, it has influenced food, style of clothing and is, whether we like it or not, integrally linked with our culture.  I mean you're celebrating Christmas but I doubt it's because you're thrilled about the birth of the wee baby Jesus. 

The fact you are giving her the alternative (i.e. right lol) perspective at home is the well roundedness she needs (although I agree I find it bizarre it is not taught at primary level, it's not that difficult a concept and can be easily simplified to kiddie level).

It's probably true she isn't being taught very well and she isn't being taught especially objectively, but next year she might get a better teacher, who can make it more exciting.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Dec 20, 2011)

My son is quite similar in his outlook ash, I can't say he has had many problems in the classroom but his scientific arrogance has hindered a couple of friendship. I encourage him to think of the religions as schools of thought. We've talked about why even in the face of evolutionary theory and the complications of religiosity, people Believe, people want to believe and why we ought to respect their right to think what they like and to believe in and value what they like.
Religion is fascinating, it has shaped our world in one way or another. It has influenced art, music, architecture, philosophy,science, literature. Of itself it has some praiseworthy attributes: community, a sense of history and connectedness, personal awareness... I want to teach my kid that stuff, I want him to b aware of that stuff but I don't believe I need to worship to do so.
Anyway. Rather than pulling them out of religious education, I think broadening their understanding of it would benefit them more. She can learn what they say in class and discuss it with you guys, go visit a church and show her how the buildings themselves are symbolic and meaningful. I mean, that's interesting!
Don't pull her out of it, throw her in at the deep end.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Dec 20, 2011)

What's the big issue? She's going to meet religious nutters of all types as she goes through life, so learning a little bit about them won't do her any harm. If the class is of mixed region's then she's probably free from indoctrination. Teach her to laugh at them early.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Dec 20, 2011)

i was the only proper atheist in primary school.   i remeber once  the teacher got me to answer questions the other students put to me.  i don't think i gained all that many converts  but i think it at lewast showed a bit of diversity.  (it didn't bother me to answer questions  although  given i must have only been about 8   my knowledge of  things like abiogenisis were a little limited)


----------



## ash (Dec 21, 2011)

Thanks for the really insightful posts. She has visited churches with us as I love the churches in the city if London and the history/culture associated with them. She has visited a mosque with the school and she really enjoyed that. She was a bit put out that all the children were given crisps and a drink but those that could answer questions about Islam were given another packet of crisp, I liked her indignation (but mum only the children that go to mosque can answer those questions that's not fair). I agree that learning about all cultures and religions is really important and the school enriches her knowledge. We went to Hampton Court the other day and she asked me why the Royal Family have always been white!! I am sure as people have said that we can keep things balanced by our influence at home.


----------



## grit (Dec 22, 2011)

ash said:


> and we have got her Dawkins 'magic of reality' for Xmas.



 he is just as bad as the fundamentalists.


----------



## dessiato (Dec 22, 2011)

grit said:


> Christ, he is just as bad as the fundamentalists.


Who, Dawkins, or Jesus H? I suppose it depends on the inflection really.

Jesus H was a bit of a fundy though


----------



## grit (Dec 22, 2011)

dessiato said:


> Who, Dawkins, or Jesus H? I suppose it depends on the inflection really.



Dawkins, while I share his views, he is certainly not someone I'd use as a role model to educate my (imaginary) children on how to deal with members of a religion


----------



## ash (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't think the book gives guidelines on dealing with people. It does however give an alternative 'reality' to how and why we are here to the bible and creationism.


----------



## ash (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't think the book gives guidelines on dealing with people. It does however give an alternative 'reality' to how and why we are here to the bible and creationism.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 26, 2011)

Maybe they should teach some other fairy tales as fact too.
They should teach all the conflicting religions at once as sacred and unquestionable fact despite less than trace amounts of actual evidence for any.


----------



## Sweetpea (Dec 28, 2011)

ash said:


> My 7 year old told me that her teacher asked people in her class to put up their hands if they were Christian and then if they were Muslim. My daughter ( as we are not religious) did not put her hand up. The teacher said oh so you don't believe in anything? She said no I don't. I feel really
> 
> proud of her but she is now saying she feels like the odd one out. I am not happy with the approach used but not surprised we have had issues like this before. T*his is a state non (supposedly) religious school. Is this acceptable practice?*


Just because it is a state school it doesn't mean that religion isn't taught. Actually you have a better chance of addressing this if you enroll in a non state school. Sorry to use the Daily Mail as a source but it is mandatory for state schools to teach RE  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007570/One-state-schools-flouts-duty-teach-RE.html
I agree with others here that it should not be excluded simply because my daughter had such an excellent teacher and such a positive response to her RE classes; she related to me that it was one of the most interesting periods in the week as it was approached as an opportunity to discuss moral, ethical and philosophical frameworks for living. If it had been anything like the dire crap I was forced to endure and punished for questioning then my current response would be vastly different.


----------



## Sweetpea (Dec 28, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That'll really make her feel like everyone else, leaving the classroom and being on her own somewhere.


But surely the question is why should it be like this as a default? I sat every day, in full view, on my own while every one else filed into assembly.
Just for clarification I was made to sit at a desk that had been moved so that I could be seen as a dissenter, while everyone else walked past me into the morning prayer. This went on for an extended period of time (not just a 'naughty week').
Before anyone gets too frothy over this tbh I don't have too much of a problem with this, for myself, as it certainly 'taught' me who was mistaken.


----------



## zippyRN (Jan 3, 2012)

StoneRoad said:


> good for her !!
> and I would question the acceptablity of the teacher's question, especially if there are any evanglising/bullying types about.
> 
> I felt that I was in a small minority at primary school (it was a C of E maintained one) as even at that tender age I was a confirmed atheist. Which was a bit confusing as the one year I got the prize for 'Bible Knowledge' - something to do with being able to quote/argue the point with t'vicar......



you don't have to believe it to have read it ,  personally i think there's a strong argument that RE teachers should be atheists - you are more likely to get open debate that way than with some all consumed  happy clappy ...

with regard to RE teaching - only a blinkered fool would default to removing their child from RE teaching, obviously  if a none  sponsored school is pushing a particular viewpoint  strongly then there is definite room for reviewing that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 3, 2012)

everyone knows RE is a doss lesson anyway, how many conversions to faith came about from RE lessons? I'd bet something close to sweet fuck all


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 5, 2012)

if you become born again does that automatically get you an A* on the exam?


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

Everyone in my secondary in certain sets had to do GCSE RE. I narrowly missed an A*. Why are people on this site so opposed to religion? I'm undecided between creationism and theistic evolution but am definitely Christian,


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> Everyone in my secondary in certain sets had to do GCSE RE. I narrowly missed an A*. Why are people on this site so opposed to religion? I'm undecided between creationism and theistic evolution but am definitely Christian,


Which is nice for _you._


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> Which is nice for _you._



Whats your point? Too many people think religion should be kept personal/secret and the public sphere left secular. Unfortunately secularism is a whole way of life with its own assumptions and presuppositions too, so if you (for example) leave God out of school while teaching materialistic evolution, handing out condoms and saying "it's O.K. to be gay" you are being even more biased than a Christian school is.


----------



## ash (Jan 6, 2012)

Touché!!


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> everyone knows RE is a doss lesson anyway, how many conversions to faith came about from RE lessons? I'd bet something close to sweet fuck all



I never saw the purpose of them to be that at all, I don't think most RE teachers see them that way either.  In fact I've never heard that suggestion mooted in my life.  I find it bizarre especially considering most RE courses will cover many faiths in brief.

My RE lessons never came at it from that angle, we looked at different faiths, different belief systems, the similarities of differing religions. We looked at some of the major philosophical concepts e.g what is evil and then applied it to religion i.e if God is all good how can there be a Hell which then went back to the philosophical concepts.  We looked at euthanasia, rape, abortion and other major ethical debates and again applied major religions and secular debates.

I evidently had some sort of crazy ass teaching though, as we were never encouraged to have any sort of particular faith, just to learn, understand and question.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> Whats your point? Too many people think religion should be kept personal/secret and the public sphere left secular. *Unfortunately secularism is a whole way of life with its own assumptions and presuppositions too,* so if you (for example) leave God out of school while teaching materialistic evolution, *handing out condoms and saying "it's O.K. to be gay" *you are being even more biased than a Christian school is.


TBF it is a bit late in the UK right now and all I can really say at this point is LOL


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> Whats your point? Too many people think religion should be kept personal/secret and the public sphere left secular. Unfortunately secularism is a whole way of life with its own assumptions and presuppositions too, so if you (for example) leave God out of school while teaching materialistic evolution, handing out condoms and saying "it's O.K. to be gay" you are being even more biased than a Christian school is.



Why, is being gay not okay?


----------



## toggle (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> Whats your point? Too many people think religion should be kept personal/secret and the public sphere left secular. Unfortunately secularism is a whole way of life with its own assumptions and presuppositions too, so if you (for example) leave God out of school while teaching materialistic evolution, handing out condoms and saying "it's O.K. to be gay" you are being even more biased than a Christian school is.



i seem to remember being told in my RE lessons that it was ok to be gay.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> TBF it is a bit late in the UK right now and all I can really say at this point is LOL



It is never too late to go back to being religious, in the early and mid Georgian times Brits were known for their vulgarity and decadence, there was brutal repression in the shape of the bloody code (death penalty for 7 year old boys who stole more than one goat among dozens of other offences), BUT there was a religious revival which helped to bring us back to decency and the justice system back to a semblance of justice.

I'm not saying that condoms are given out to encourage pupils to be gay, it was an unfortunate juxtaposition. I was saying they are both part of the secularist agenda in schools, non judgmental sex ed while a Christian, Muslim or Jewish approach would be to say that heterosexuality is the norm and abstinence is expected till marriage, and not give out things like condoms and explicit advice leaflets.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> It is never too late to go back to being religious, in the early and mid Georgian times Brits were known for their vulgarity and decadence, there was brutal repression in the shape of the bloody code (death penalty for 7 year old boys who stole more than one goat among dozens of other offences), BUT there was a religious revival which helped to bring us back to decency and the justice system back to a semblance of justice.
> 
> I'm not saying that condoms are given out to encourage pupils to be gay, it was an unfortunate juxtaposition. I was saying they are both part of the secularist agenda in schools, non judgmental sex ed while a Christian, Muslim or Jewish approach would be to say that heterosexuality is the norm and abstinence is expected till marriage, and not give out things like condoms and explicit advice leaflets.


You are right, it is never too late to say ROTFL


----------



## toggle (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> It is never too late to go back to being religious, in the early and mid Georgian times Brits were known for their vulgarity and decadence, there was brutal repression in the shape of the bloody code (death penalty for 7 year old boys who stole more than one goat among dozens of other offences), BUT there was a religious revival which helped to bring us back to decency and the justice system back to a semblance of justice.
> 
> I'm not saying that condoms are given out to encourage pupils to be gay, it was an unfortunate juxtaposition. I was saying they are both part of the secularist agenda in schools, non judgmental sex ed while a Christian, Muslim or Jewish approach would be to say that heterosexuality is the norm and abstinence is expected till marriage, and not give out things like condoms and explicit advice leaflets.



there may have been a religious revival in the middle classes and the joys of victorian repression of female sexuality, but i would seriously suggest you examine that period in more detail if you actually believe there was a more general improvement in morality over that period. victorian morality, certainly where the masses and men were concerned is for the most part a convenient myth. the only person's morality that was of concern to the victorians was the daughter/potential wife of the middle/upper classes.

it does interest me how many poeple choose to be ignorant about this, i know the idea of a time in the past where people were more moral and fitted a standard can be very attractive to some, but the information is all out there for anyone who cares to look. what is of concern is that the poeple who promote this myth are often not all that different to the victorians in that it is female sexuality that is particularly offensive to them and therefore in need of control.

and while i'm here, i would suggest you examine some of the records of the 'molly house'. it may give you an insight into victorian hypocracy.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

I've examined the Victorian period quite a bit. There were serious improvements in quite a few areas... Voting reform allowing the less privileged to take part in the democratic process for the first time, philanthropy and a genuine sense of a moral duty to help the poor among the elite, suspicion of drunkenness and public lewdness, respectful sexual boundaries,  less stigma for drug users (laudanum over the counter, cocaine in wine approved by the Pope) ,the beginnings of the idea of people having rights being take seriously- less belief in the absolute power of monarchs, nobility, factory-owners and parents over subjects, peasants, workers and children. 

The other big period of moral growth was the interwar years up to the late 1950s, as Western society cast off the vestiges of prejudice against Jews and blacks, and grew to fully accommodate the working woman which started as a necessity when so many men were off fighting, the first time they went back to domesticity once their menfolk returned but after 1945 that wasn't on. Although the destructive bigoted views became far less prevalent the backbone of Christian morality and sentiment remained. Since then there has been a precipitous decline. Legal abortion, no expectation to wait for stable relationship to have sex, pornography everywhere, the loss of good manners for many people and a general irresponsible attitude to life made possible by the selective overindulgence of the welfare state. Academia has a lot to answer for to- if I want to understand human nature I will read Shakespeare or LaRochefoucauld, not some evolutionary cultural-relativist anthropologist with a wad of raw data susceptible to the grossest misapplication.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> I've examined the Victorian period quite a bit. There were serious improvements in quite a few areas... Voting reform allowing the less privileged to take part in the democratic process for the first time, philanthropy and a genuine sense of a moral duty to help the poor among the elite, suspicion of drunkenness and public lewdness, respectful sexual boundaries, less stigma for drug users (laudanum over the counter, cocaine in wine approved by the Pope) ,the beginnings of the idea of people having rights being take seriously- less belief in the absolute power of monarchs, nobility, factory-owners and parents over subjects, peasants, workers and children.
> 
> The other big period of moral growth was the interwar years up to the late 1950s, as Western society cast off the vestiges of prejudice against Jews and blacks, and grew to fully accommodate the working woman which started as a necessity when so many men were off fighting, the first time they went back to domesticity once their menfolk returned but after 1945 that wasn't on. Although the destructive bigoted views became far less prevalent the backbone of Christian morality and sentiment remained. Since then there has been a *precipitous decline. Legal abortion, no expectation to wait for stable relationship to have sex,* pornography everywhere, the *loss of good manners* for many people and a general irresponsible attitude to life made possible by the selective overindulgence of the welfare state. Academia has a lot to answer for to- if I want to understand human nature I will read Shakespeare or LaRochefoucauld, not some evolutionary cultural-relativist anthropologist with a wad of raw data susceptible to the grossest misapplication.


Ta for the sermon.
By the way, this is the education and employment forum. I notice you are new, you might be better off posting this in the theory, philosophy and history forum.


----------



## toggle (Jan 6, 2012)

omfg, where do i start on this.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> Ta for the sermon.
> By the way, this is the education and employment forum. I notice you are new, you might be better off posting this in the theory, philosophy and history forum.



We are talking about schools originally and RE so I naturally brought up religious issues from there.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 6, 2012)

Christians are always very keen to brainwash primary school children. If religious indoctrination is left too late then it is much less effective. If at all.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> We are talking about schools originally and RE so I naturally brought up religious issues from there.


And you have been mentioning schools where?

Sorry, I am a bit hard of hearing so don't always hear messages from the high pulpit


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

toggle said:


> omfg, where do i start on this.



Molly houses were in operation from about 1690 to the end of the Georgian period, but most popular in the early and mid 1700s, so not Victorian. I have seen some rather explicit photographs and drawings from the Victorian period and I am well aware it is viewed as a golden age by sadomasochists, but a small subset of the population privately exploring unorthodox sexual practices is not the same as having loose standards and multiple sex partners/cohabitation/ divorce as the norm.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Christians are always very keen to brainwash primary school children. If religious indoctrination is left too late then it is much less effective. If at all.


Actually, I think that is a bit harsh.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 6, 2012)

toggle said:


> omfg, where do i start on this.



I'm thinking it's almost pointless.  I don't expect we'll get any proper sense out of them.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> Molly houses were in operation from about 1690 to the end of the Georgian period, but most popular in the early and mid 1700s, so not Victorian. *I have seen some rather explicit photographs and drawings from the Victorian period* and I am well aware it is viewed as a golden age by sadomasochists, but a small subset of the population privately exploring unorthodox sexual practices is not the same as having loose standards and multiple sex partners/cohabitation/ divorce as the norm.


Enjoy your jollies (I know you are only researching so that you _know the evil_)


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> I'm not saying that condoms are given out to encourage pupils to be gay, it was an unfortunate juxtaposition. I was saying they are both part of the secularist agenda in schools, non judgmental sex ed while a Christian, Muslim or Jewish approach would be to say that heterosexuality is the norm and abstinence is expected till marriage, and not give out things like condoms and explicit advice leaflets.



Do you really think kids are going to stop shaging cos the RE teacher says so?


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> And you have been mentioning schools where?
> I said schools were now teaching secular moral views to pupils, saying gay is OK and offering condoms and graphic advice leaflets (not to mention super-discreet referrals to what was once known as the Special Clinic and "pastoral support officers" you can whisper intimate sexual details to without them breathing a word to your parents.)
> 
> From there it got into a religion/ethics discussion
> Sorry, I am a bit hard of hearing so don't always hear messages from the high pulpit


----------



## toggle (Jan 6, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I'm thinking it's almost pointless. I don't expect we'll get any proper sense out of them.



they do have an ability to be astoundingly selective in their usage of history.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> _saying gay is OK and offering condoms and graphic advice leaflets (not to mention super-discreet referrals to what was once known as the Special Clinic and "pastoral support officers" you can whisper intimate sexual details to without them breathing a word to your parents.)_


I apologise. May I also refer you to my earlier post, the one that said ROTLF


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 6, 2012)

Teaching children to 'wait' to have sex i.e. abstinence is really effective. It's why Texas has the third highest rate of teen pregnancy in the US.



I'll stick to handing out free condoms myself.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

.
Hmm, weird edit & posting experience. These new boards move in mysterious ways.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

I once went to a youth club at 15 and got told off because I berated a health outreach worker for doling out the Durex. I said something like "what do you think you're doing promoting fornication?"
In school, we had a pastoral care manager, who pupils with relationship difficulties could speak to: She actually believed in God and even went to church herself, but she was expected to toe the non-judgmental line in school with it being a non-faith community comprehensive. She kept all the details of their experimentations a secret! I challenged her as well, only to be told "I'm a mature sensitive person and I have to let them confide in me."


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> I once went to a youth club at 15 and got told off because I berated a health outreach worker for doling out the Durex. I said something like "what do you think you're doing promoting fornication?"
> In school, we had a pastoral care manager, who pupils with relationship difficulties could speak to: She actually believed in God and even went to church herself, but she was expected to toe the non-judgmental line in school with it being a non-faith community comprehensive. She kept all the details of their experimentations a secret! I challenged her as well, only to be told "I'm a mature sensitive person and I have to let them confide in me."


Look, I'm going to try and be reasonable here but WTF are you blithering on about and why can't you stop yapping about sex. Piss off to knobbing and sobbing if that's your bag.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 6, 2012)

You sound like a right laugh at parties.

Thankfully I've met many religious people who aren't as bigoted, unreasonable and awful are you are coming across.

I am so glad my views of religion and religious people have been largely untainted by people like you, I get the distinct impression it is thanks to morons like you people are so against religion.

Urgh.


----------



## toggle (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> I once went to a youth club at 15 and got told off because I berated a health outreach worker for doling out the Durex. I said something like "what do you think you're doing promoting fornication?"
> In school, we had a pastoral care manager, who pupils with relationship difficulties could speak to: She actually believed in God and even went to church herself, but she was expected to toe the non-judgmental line in school with it being a non-faith community comprehensive. She kept all the details of their experimentations a secret! I challenged her as well, only to be told "I'm a mature sensitive person and I have to let them confide in me."



I would suspect you would much prefer that they have no one to confide in and no one to get advice from. because doing so helps protect them from any of the more damaging consequences of experimentation.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> You sound like a right laugh at parties.
> 
> Thankfully I've met many religious people who aren't as bigoted, unreasonable and awful are you are coming across.
> 
> ...



Toggle- I get the idea of the harm reduction/safeguarding view of youth sexuality, I do. I just think that waiting till marriage is a far better option. It's safer for 13-16 year olds to completely avoid premarital sex or multiple partners than it is to use condoms and tell someone all your business in school. Virgins don't get STDs or pregnant. 

It just seemed creepy as well that young people just starting their sexual lives were telling all to this very experienced (around 50 year old) "lead professional" - don't know why they have such fancy titles- only for her to keep it a secret. Should they not be seeing their mum/dad, older sibling or at least a doctor or nurse if they want a private chat about such intimate matters? Since when were school staff supposed to do this? She was a "child protecting officer" as well, so she basically interfered in every type of personal family issue. Schools should be there to educate, not to replace parents and medical professionals...

PN-How am I bigoted and awful? For being against the sexual revolution? I am not a fundamentalist. I don't oppose masturbation, moderate alcohol consumption, associating with people of other faiths or most forms of sex in non porn TV/films (though I am anti-porn.) Any serious fundamentalist would call me too liberal, some would even say that the very fact I watch TV, attend a church that baptises babies or drink caffeine beverages shows I am not as righteous as I should be. There is a world of difference between a moderate Christian who opposes the 1960/70s social changes based on Bible and church tradition and a bigoted extremist.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 6, 2012)

Because the fact of the matter is kids do have sex. Teaching abstinence does not work, kids will still go out and have sex and I would far rather they were having sex well educated, well aware of the risks and well aware of how to prevent STI's and pregnancy. And if they want to, who the fuck are you to tell them their actions are wrong? If that's your life choice then good for you, it isn't for most young people. Personal choice and mutual respect is the most important thing we can teach; that means if somebody wants to wait then that's cool, but equally if somebody doesn't want to wait then that's cool too. No judging should go on, no 'one is better than the other'.

And we need these professionals in school. Kids need to know that there is somewhere they can go, where they can ask questions without fear of judgement. Parents usually only ever act out of love for their child, but sometimes, especially during adolescence, that causes a lot of friction and these kids feel judged and like their view doesn't count. Also some kids sadly don't have a stable parent to talk to. A GP also makes young people feel uncomfortable and sometimes they don't make the association; they aren't sick why would they want to go there to ask whether it's going to hurt when they lose their virginity, or that they fel bad because their friends have all had sex but they haven't done it yet.

Perhaps we should get rid of Chidline, because these kids should just go straight to the police and get over any lack of self confidence or fear they might be experiencing. For fuck's sake how out of touch can somebody be.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 6, 2012)

Also, you've still not really explained the gay comment - are you saying we shouldn't be teaching kids about homosexuality or something?  Or did that pseudo-homophobic comment just happen to slip in there. Oops.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

I know lots of kids have sex, so I'm not in favour of abstinence ONLY ed but ABC model is the way forward. This says that the best option is purity till marriage, both physically and spiritually. Then being faithful, and finally condoms (not stuff like the Pill alone because they DO NOT offer you any safeguarding whatsoever from STDs) I would certainly like them to be safe from infection and pregnancy- not least as many will kill their foetuses- but telling them that purity has no moral advantages will not work for that.

As for the confidential support people in school-
Why do independent schools not offer this sort of service if it's such a good thing? I was privately educated for a time. There were no pastoral care officers, learning mentors, support workers etc. you got an education and in most cases a good social experience (due to a wider catchment area than a state school and discipline keeping the place almost entirely without bullying and the like.)
If you went to THEIR deputy head and started trying to tell them in extenso what you are thinking of doing to your girlfriend that night and how you'll probably feel afterwards, they would have 1) quickly said they didn't want to know and 2) probably quoted Scripture with respect to purity before marriage. You may have also got in trouble for inappropriate language depending on how respectably you phrased your expressions of adolescent lustfulness.

And no, I don't believe in cutting off Childline, in fact I was profoundly concerned when the night service almost had to close due to lack of funding. Straight to police? No, if abuse or neglect then report to whoever you can feel comfortable with. It would be difficult enough telling anyone without going straight to law enforcement...


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> Which is nice for _you._





purenarcotic said:


> Because the fact of the matter is kids do have sex. Teaching abstinence does not work, kids will still go out and have sex and I would far rather they were having sex well educated, well aware of the risks and well aware of how to prevent STI's and pregnancy. And if they want to, who the fuck are you to tell them their actions are wrong?* If that's your life choice then good for you*, it isn't for most young people. Personal choice and mutual respect is the most important thing we can teach; that means if somebody wants to wait then that's cool, but equally if somebody doesn't want to wait then that's cool too. No judging should go on, no 'one is better than the other'.
> 
> And we need these professionals in school. Kids need to know that there is somewhere they can go, where they can ask questions without fear of judgement. Parents usually only ever act out of love for their child, but sometimes, especially during adolescence, that causes a lot of friction and these kids feel judged and like their view doesn't count. Also some kids sadly don't have a stable parent to talk to. A GP also makes young people feel uncomfortable and sometimes they don't make the association; they aren't sick why would they want to go there to ask whether it's going to hurt when they lose their virginity, or that they fel bad because their friends have all had sex but they haven't done it yet.
> 
> Perhaps we should get rid of Chidline, because these kids should just go straight to the police and get over any lack of self confidence or fear they might be experiencing. For fuck's sake how out of touch can somebody be.


Whether you say it long or short the beat goes on.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Also, you've still not really explained the gay comment - are you saying we shouldn't be teaching kids about homosexuality or something? Or did that pseudo-homophobic comment just happen to slip in there. Oops.



We should teach that the ideal family is a mother and father, two same-sex parents can sometimes look after a child well but it is far preferable to have the natural set-up.
And that ex-gays are real and you are not trapped in homosexuality if you would prefer to change to heterosexuality. For their safety, we should also be open about the vast increase in disease risk that accompanies homosexual sex acts and the surrounding lifestyle.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2012)

this cunts near the sell by date


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 6, 2012)

I think it was the Jesuits who claimed that if they educated young children* - as in under sevens - then they* would be with the faith for life........

and by the way, I agree with DC and stated opinion of the poster immediately above ! Physeptomaton should go away..and grow up...I could give a very long list of all the death and destruction that can be laid at the door of religion (and not just xtianity).


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

I admit there has been evil done in the name of Christian faith but that does not negate the truth of that faith! Lots of good has been done in the name of Islam but it doesn't make Islam true. As for growing up, it is selfish hedonists who laugh at the reality of God who need to grow up. Theists in my experience, especially Christians, are more mature and responsible than nontheists.


----------



## ash (Jan 6, 2012)

Yep something smells a bit off to me. Maybe she's on the turn!!



DotCommunist said:


> this cunts near the sell by date


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 6, 2012)

how about the spanish inquistion? or boko haram? sunni vs shite? rangers vs celtic? forced conversions and arranged marriages......

I grew up, and no longer listen to an invisble magic friend.....overheard in a city centre coffee shop.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 6, 2012)

oh, and as an atheist I consider myself a positive contributer to society and I have a perfectly clean record - I have never even had a parking/speeding ticket in my life....nor have I ever felt the need to steal nor to be actually violent.....

unlike various priests/monks/inmans etc that have been in the news.....


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

StoneRoad, not all atheists harm other human beings, many find reasons not to. BUT none of them worship God who created them and none have a transcendent moral code completely above those written by mere fallen men. Sure you can contribute to society and have no criminal record without faith in a deity. It doesn't make you a good person in the final analysis though, because complete goodness includes giving God the respect He deserves.
Forced conversion, arranged marriage, sectarianism (Catholic-Protestant) and inquisitions are not called for in Scripture. They are the result of human sin, sometimes with good motives but a lack of moral understanding, sometimes a lack of self-control and sometimes pure evil and malice. But Christians at least try to serve and obey God and honour His Son who died for our sins, even if they are imperfect. Atheists don't even try and reject God out of hand.
Other religions, particularly Islam= are false religion so no point using them as ammunition against a Christian.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 6, 2012)

oh go awaay,
religion is the opium of the people - and I'm not an opium eater!


----------



## magneze (Jan 6, 2012)

Why "particularly Islam"? What is so false about it compared to Christianity or any other religion?


----------



## ash (Jan 6, 2012)

Get the fuck off my thread. Start your own for all your mumbo jumbo crap or maybe just get a life?


----------



## ash (Jan 6, 2012)

Sorry that was aimed at Psychophantom and by the way I don't reject God as I can't reject something that doesn't exist. Shame the same cant be said bout you !!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> I admit there has been evil done in the name of Christian faith but that does not negate the truth of that faith! Lots of good has been done in the name of Islam but it doesn't make Islam true. As for growing up, it is selfish hedonists who laugh at the reality of God who need to grow up. Theists in my experience, especially Christians, are more mature and responsible than nontheists.


GGMP. Did you not read some of the threads first before posting? You are fast making yourself very unpopular, even amongst the church-goers on these boards. Move away from the keyboard and have some time for quiet reflection.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 6, 2012)

Ash and everybody, I think psych = troll so I'll go back to the topic of this thread......

Whilst having knowledge of religions is useful, in that it allows one to decide whether or not to believe, or have faith, or whatever, it should not be taught in schools as if it is something factual, like maths or science.
A teacher should not ask "do you believe in god?" in such a way as to make either believers or non-believers feel 'different' and the education system should make proper arrangements. The first thing that should go the journey is a daily act of christian worship.......


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> blahblah


...and stop reporting posts because someone has sworn


----------



## ash (Jan 6, 2012)

StoneRoad said:


> Ash and everybody, I think psych = troll so I'll go back to the topic of this thread......
> 
> 
> Whilst having knowledge of religions is useful, in that it allows one to decide whether or not to believe, or have faith, or whatever, it should not be taught in schools as if it is something factual, like maths or science.
> A teacher should not ask "do you believe in god?" in such a way as to make either believers or non-believers feel 'different' and the education system should make proper arrangements. The first thing that should go the journey is a daily act of christian worship.......



Thanks Stoneroad
I totally agree. Without any prompting (or over hearing) my daughter has started saying she wants me to ask the teacher to let read a book during RE as its boring and not real. I tell her that learning about what people believe is important as lots of people in this world do (even if the majority in England don't). I suppose it is likely to get worse with Opus Dei .
What pisses me off is that looking at secondary school options out of the 8 closest only 5 are non-religious but I expect still have the 'act of daily worship'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2012)

a daily act of worship is irrelevant. It makes very little impact. As someone raised in the faith both home and school who rejected it aged 12 having been raised in faith since i was able to talk I can tell you it will take or it won't. Some people are suited to holding a faith, some not. Some may hold a faith then reject it. Some may be late converts in life.

RE in schools isn't a big issue as to the true dedication to faith. Really it is about as relevant as Gove and his foreward in the good book.


----------



## ash (Jan 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> a daily act of worship is irrelevant. It makes very little impact. As someone raised in the faith both home and school who rejected it aged 12 having been raised in faith since i was able to talk I can tell you it will take or it won't. Some people are suited to holding a faith, some not. Some may hold a faith then reject it. Some may be late converts in life.
> 
> RE in schools isn't a big issue as to the true dedication to faith. Really it is about as relevant as Gove and his foreward in the good book.[/quote
> 
> ...


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and stop reporting posts because someone has sworn


I haven't reported any posts just for swearing, I think I reported 2 due to their extreme derogatory attitude to my faith- if extreme comments against people's race, nationality, disabilities etc. are quite rightly not allowed then why should religion-bashing? I have used swearing in a couple of my own posts so I would be a hypocrite


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

magneze said:


> Why "particularly Islam"? What is so false about it compared to Christianity or any other religion?



It contains the worst evil- a middle-aged man marrying a 9 year old, constant murder, armed robbery, slavery and bloodshed and is totally inconsistent because of a surah saying that the greatest deceiver is Allah- so if Allah wrote Koran we don't know what parts of the wearisome contradictory jumble (words of a man more intelligent than me) are true and which are his Taqqiya lies to catch out the kuffar.


----------



## magneze (Jan 6, 2012)

Sounds like many other religious texts to me tbh. Strange to pick out Islam.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 6, 2012)

the babble bible permits slavery, advocates human sacrifice and is more than slightly contradictory. The four gospels in the new testamentscan't even agree on the parables that jc preached.....


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 6, 2012)

And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father. [Genesis 19:31-36]


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 6, 2012)

Cracking morality I always thought. Hell I was raised a catholic.


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

StoneRoad said:


> the babble bible permits slavery, advocates human sacrifice and is more than slightly contradictory. The four new testaments can't even agree on the parables that jc preached.....



Human sacrifice was a one-off thing in the OT, otherwise is strictly condemned- God said of those throwing babies into the fire to worship Moloch "such a thought never even entered My heart." And Jesus was God Incarnate as well as human, this is a hypostatic union. On this Epiphany day people who appreciate His sacrifice, like me, are genuinely concerned for the souls of people who find it to be wrong that He died for us. Sacrifice was the only way to save mankind within God's nature and _potentia Dei ordinata_

"four new testaments"  that provided me with a little comic delight,
And they are there to show different sides of Christ but form a coherent whole. Is that so difficult for supposedly enlightened 21stC God-deniers to grasp?


----------



## physeptomaton (Jan 6, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father. [Genesis 19:31-36]



They could use that as the basis for an elders of zion-style conspiracy to promote incest. 
Protocols of the elders of Ammon and Moab: Dialogues in H M P Wakefield, B wing, between the Swindon beast and the Sheffield "gaffer". 

Seriously, _is this ever said to be morally good_? The Bible talks about murder, slavery, incest, rape etc but doesn't promote them...


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> They could use that as the basis for an elders of zion-style conspiracy to promote incest.
> Protocols of the elders of Ammon and Moab: Dialogues in H M P Wakefield, B wing, between the Swindon beast and the Sheffield "gaffer".
> 
> Seriously, _is this ever said to be morally good_? The Bible talks about murder, slavery, incest, rape etc but doesn't promote them...



Why do you think this versus was included?

How can you condem Islam by the same logic?


----------



## Shifter (Jan 6, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> Why do you think this versus was included?
> 
> How can you condem Islam by the same logic?



Sadly, faith does not require logic... or we wouldn't be having this gods bedamned conversation.


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Jan 6, 2012)

61 messages in 2 days? How much attention does one troll need?


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Jan 6, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> Toggle- I get the idea of the harm reduction/safeguarding view of youth sexuality, I do. I just think that waiting till marriage is a far better option. It's safer for 13-16 year olds to completely avoid premarital sex or multiple partners than it is to use condoms and tell someone all your business in school. Virgins don't get STDs or pregnant. <snip>



Teenagers with bodies run awash with hormones, not wanting to have sex with each other? Of course it's safe not to have premarital sex. But Its going to happen. It's safer if they do, to use a condom. But the price of condoms as a commercial product is a hell of a lot when you are on pocket money. You don't want to go to the doctors, because they need to tell your parents (you are under the age of legal responsibility). What do you do, order a bulk package from your local HGL centre (even if the council still do it?) - and then your mum wonders what was in that big package? "Tell me, Kieron, what did you order off the internet? Was it drugs?".

Of course, you could just fuck behind bus shelters and in the local park. Or with older men you meet of the internet, who you have told you are over 16, who only find out when they get visited by the police.

Thats my point, really. If you believe in God, I'd advise you to brush on the concept of original sin, and free will. Without freewill, we are not morally culpable. Thus, we HAVE freewill. And that includes freedom to make the wrong choice, and learn from that - or burn eternally. Thus, having freewill means the capacity to do what you are not told. And people will exercise free will, and do every day.

And freewill includes the option of doing stupid shit, because you are not mature enough to know better. Of course, if you don't make mistakes, you don't learn. You don't evolve. Be pure. Be Vigilant. Behave.

I'm not advocating mindless rebellion, but people are going to do what they want to. Ain't freewill a bitch?



physeptomaton said:


> Any serious fundamentalist would call me too liberal, some would even say that the very fact I watch TV, attend a church that baptises babies or drink caffeine beverages shows I am not as righteous as I should be. There is a world of difference between a moderate Christian who opposes the 1960/70s social changes based on Bible and church tradition and a bigoted extremist.



Are you digging on the mormons again? Them with their crazy anti-stimulants no caffeine trip? Or are you invoking the Amish because of the anti-tech stance? Just because someone out there is more extreme / more repressive than you, does not automatically make it alright. By that logic, I could say "Yeah, that Peter sutcliffe was bad, but Dennis Nielsen would call him a underachiever!"

Simply put, freewill to do what you want in your own life does not extend to telling other people what they cannot do in theirs. They have freewill also, and that includes freewill to find god, repent and enter the elect, or freewill not to do so.

For some reason I'm reminded of the old missionaries in South America: Turn up at a village, bark in a language they don't understand telling them to convert to catholicism or they will be damned, and five minutes later, burn the village to ground and enslave the godless heathens. because god knows best. And certainly not the East India Trading Company.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 7, 2012)

physeptomaton said:


> We should teach that the ideal family is a mother and father, two same-sex parents can sometimes look after a child well but it is far preferable to have the natural set-up.
> And that ex-gays are real and you are not trapped in homosexuality if you would prefer to change to heterosexuality. For their safety, we should also be open about the vast increase in disease risk that accompanies homosexual sex acts and the surrounding lifestyle.



You're just a cunt really, aren't you.  A homophobic cunt who gives a bad name to those of faith because you hide behind it and don't have the balls to at least admit you are a homophobe.


----------



## kittyP (Jan 8, 2012)

I am glad I skipped to the end before posting in regards to the OP


----------

