 sj |
||
|
||
Religious Correctness gone mad?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Tweed Date: 27 Jul 06 - 09:16 AM Imagine brings the hair up on me everytime I hear it, but probably true they shouldn't use it in a church school if they want to keep promoting their message. This one brings the hair up too. Reverend Overstreet clip/I'm Working on a Building Reverend Louis Overstreet goes way beyond Cowboy Junkies' version somewhat,at least it does for me. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 27 Jul 06 - 08:29 AM John O'L, look at a dollar bill. Isn't God there represented as a beaming triangle with an eye? |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Slag Date: 26 Jul 06 - 05:32 PM No. Lennon is INTOLERANT of religion. He sees the idea of an afterlife as destabilizing a potential utopia in THIS life. His final solution is to get rid of religion and such nasty scary ideas as Heaven and Hell (and patriotism "...it bannishes fear with the speed of a flame..."). The ideas he presented in his song stand in opposition and competition to those of any and all relgions. I would like to say that his vision of peace is about as appealing as being a stock of broccoli but even plants in their own way compete for resources and reproductive rights. Life is what it is. We all strive to better our condition in some way but Utopians as well as some religious zealots who think the abolition of all other points of view is the way to ultimate peace only bring about the kind of peace you find in a graveyard. Whatever you are willing to die for demonstrates the highest esteem (see above). The American State religion (if you will) says that this is freedom and democracy. Many hundreds of thousands of the best and brightest of America have agreed and paid the ultimate sacrifice for those ideals. In so doing we have secured, imperfect as it may be, a degree of liberty for our citizens and many others around the world. Those ideals have roots in the Judeo-Christian religions as well as in the Hellenic philosophical and political heritage. Your freedom to agree with John Lennon was bought and paid for in blood. Had it not been, such a discussion as this would not even be taking place, let alone it's being in German. I'd be shot and you'd watched VERY closely for daring to have thoughts you believed to be your own! |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Jul 06 - 05:05 PM Is this why we no longer sing the third verse of the (English) National Anthem? Just as a reminder for those who forget.. "Lord grant that Marshall Wade May by thy mighty aid Victory bring May He sedition hush And like a torrent rush Rebellious Scots to crush God Save the King. " CHEERS Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Greg B Date: 26 Jul 06 - 02:30 PM A critical point that hasn't been made here is that these were primary students. They may not be entirely equipped to rationalize the meaning of Lennon's poetry, which is really after all about tolerance and peace but on the surface seems to be about eliminating property and institutions (rather than changing the way we behave around same). A silly choice of performance pieces; even sillier was that they didn't figure it out before it had been rehearsed. The banning of it only calls attention to it, and since it was end-of-term it will probably go without proper discussion in the classroom setting. I think I would have referred them to the Taize ecumenical community songs for something more appropriate. Which would, in the process, show off the youngsters' abilities in Latin. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: John O'L Date: 26 Jul 06 - 09:38 AM Snaffy are you saying that the Holy Trinity was thought up by a triangle? |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Snuffy Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:42 AM "If triangles made a god, they would give him three sides." - Montesquieu |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Fibula Mattock Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:19 AM it's a dreary tune too ;) |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 26 Jul 06 - 02:35 AM "Imagine there's no country It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, too Imagine all the people Living life in peace" should prompt you to think about the role of religions in warfare now and then. When singing "Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort und steur des Papsts und Tuerken Mord" (Keep us, o Lord, with thine word and stop the Pope's and Turk's murder) I still hear the pikes of Schmalkalden marching to battle for our faith ... all wrong, since love is the message. When young I'm sure I'd have liked the song - so optimistic and utopic, and so simple in its words. Now since I'm older and know a lot more about literature and cultural history I'm inclined to join my dear friend Fibula Mattock in her assessment of this song. So let the kids sing it if they like it - sometimes I still remember how it was being young. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Slag Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:20 PM I would not forbid anyone his or her religious beliefs; the limit being the use of force or coercion to spread said belief. I've made a study of most of the great religions of the world and not a few minor ones and while I may not agree with them their adherents have every bit as much right to their beliefs as I have to mine. Speaking of setting up straw men: To denigrate God as a three-headed orange biscuit barrel, well even I could see where you might find THAT ridiculous. And the contemptuous and summary dismissal of the Torah and its world-changing revelation of the Hebrew's God displays the depth of your Biblical, theological and historical scholarship. Had the world only known of your genius earlier we would have been spared the curse of Western civilization altogether! If you choose not to be a Christian, well, God bless you. If all is not Atman or Brahmin with you, better luck the next time around. If you cannot find the Tao or your tao, blaise a new trail. No need to be hostile. If your parents tried to inculcate you into their faith they did it because they loved you and wanted what they believed to be best for you. If in your desire to rebel and remove the umbilicus you also rejected their religion or their God, that was your choice. That you hold it as a shrine of anger tells me something about you and where you are on your path. If your identity is established because of reactionery responses to your then immediate cultural environment, look deeper. Again, religion is not for everybody nor is Atheism or Agosticism. Lighten up a little and the world will be a much friendlier place. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Stewart Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:40 PM On the benefits of a Christian education: "I speak as one who was intended by my father to be brought up as a Rationalist. He was quite as much of a Rationalist as I am, but he died when I was three years old, and the Court of Chancery decided that I was to have the benefits of a Christian education. I think perhaps the Court of Chancery might have regretted that since. It does not seem to have done as much good as they hoped. Perhaps you may say that it would be rather a pity if Christian education were to cease, because you would then get no more Rationalists. They arise chiefly out of reaction to a system of education which considers it quite right that a father should decree that his son should be brought up as a Muggletonian, we will say, or brought up on any other kind of nonsense, but he must on no account be brought up to think rationally. When I was young that was considered to be illegal." A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas by Bertrand Russell (1947) "I was much cheered on my arrival by the warder at the gate, who had to take particulars about me. He asked my religion, and I replied 'agnostic.' He asked how to spell it, and remarked with a sigh: 'Well, there are many religions, but I suppose they all worship the same God.' This remark kept me cheerful for about a week." Bertrand Russell Cheers, S. in Seattle |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: frogprince Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:19 PM "Religious folk are perfectly happy for all gods OTHER than their own selection not to exist." That does generally seems to be how "religious folk" approach the issue, at least so far as the Christians I know are concerned. One ironic thing about that, is: Christians (conservatives, at least) acknowledge the same God presented in the Old Testament. But the Old Testament is by no means consistently monotheistic. It teaches that Yahweh created everything, which perhaps implies that the other gods aren't really worth calling gods. It teaches that you shouldn't worship any of the others, but doesn't really say they don't exist. There are various instances in which "Show-downs" between Yahweh and some other god occur, which serve to prove that "my God can whup your god", but which tend if anything to imply that the other god exists. There may be claims in places that only Yahweh exists, but the O.T. books aren't consistent about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Fibula Mattock Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:08 PM Agreed Mr Fox! People can believe in 3-headed orange biscuit barrels as gods if they so choose. I don't mind at all what people believe in, but I don't necessarily want to sing from the same (figuartive and literal) hymn sheet. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: cockney Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:45 PM It does seem to be OK to slag off christanity on this site but not judism or islam. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Slag Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:06 PM The quote was more of a paraphrase but close enough to convey the idea (Paul Tillich's) that all humans are religious in some manner. It is a defining attribute. Some people feel that by declaring themselves void of a supreme being or any religious trappings, they are free to tear into someone else's belief. I believe that freedom of religious choice and practice and expression here in the US is a good idea that needs to be protected. It helps our diverse population to still be united as a nation. Seems to me we fought some folks a couple of hundred years ago for the right to hold such an idea. Is this a straw man? Thank God we won that battle against the right strawy King George III head of state and head of the Church of England. PS. You are owned by whomever you owe. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Mr Fox Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:42 AM Fibula Mattock wrote: "Did I say "pretentious crap"? I meant "condescending pretentious crap", sorry." Sanctimonious. You forgot sanctimonious. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Paul Burke Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:47 AM Well, Slag, I like the straw man, nice try. There should be a competition for it. Youy rather ignore the possibility that there might be other things than the self for atheists- like humanity, the world as an interactive system, society etc. etc. And that the postulated higher thing being of the religious might not actually exist. Well, no, actually you don't make that latter mistake. Religious folk are perfectly happy for all gods OTHER than their own selection not to exist. So, no, we are not religious and we are not selfish. Secondly, as for the right to teach beliefs to their "OWN people"(*)- if you followed the thread you'd see that these are not faith schools in the elective sense. They are state- funded schools that are often (usually) the only one in the district, but which for historical reasons happen to be controlled by a religious organisation, the Church of England. In terms of the song, yes, is maudlin, sentimental, simplistic, and as such differs little from many other songs that get sung by utopians (religious or not). The point is whether a state- funded school in a pluralist community should feel it has the right to impose a narrow, sectarian, religious point of view. (*) People haven't "owned" other people in England since 1772, and n the USA since 1865. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Slag Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:43 AM Maybe the problem here is understanding just what religion is and is not. When you are convinced of the "rightness" of your own point of view THAT is religion. Being thuroughly convinced that there is no god then YOU become god for "that which we esteem the highest is our god." So, now that you Atheists realize that you too are religious how does your ability to be tolerant rank with that of the Jews or say the Christians or any other group you so bravely dercry. Excepting those who, for their own reasons of manipulation, inject religion into the political arena, most religious people try to go about their daily lives attempting to be true on a personal level to whatever beliefs they hold dear. They suffer the put-downs and the derision that is heaped on them by the self-appointed know-it-alls, not to mention the jack-booted thuggies who hate their "different ways of dress, speech, thinking. You know, to be TOLERANT you have to hold some belief, some truth dear. Then you can hear what someone else may have to say and accept the fact that they have made a choice different from yours. How ugly, how fascist to condemn someone who seeks to teach and expound upon their beliefs to their OWN people or those seekers who want to understand more about some particular belief system. How open minded YOU sound by condemning someone who is setting a standard in their own school. You certainly make a strong case for intellectualism (self-defined) to win out over conventional religion(s). |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: robomatic Date: 24 Jul 06 - 07:26 PM Maybe some Gilbert & Sullivan would not go amiss here: "Sing a Merry Madrigal" Or one of the lesser known songs from "Utopia, Ltd." |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 06 - 07:14 PM Well, as a fellow non-believer I wish I'd written it. It says what I feel perfectly. Thanks John. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Fibula Mattock Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:49 AM Did I say "pretentious crap"? I meant "condescending pretentious crap", sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Joe Richman Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:32 AM Oops, well I guess Sabine is another one of those names that's a girl's name here and a boy's name there... Like Ashley and Leslie! (Sexual correctness violated by American Mudcatter!!!) Also, those hyphenated family names... not just for wealthy famous married women! My google search came up with a short biography of Mr Rev B.-G. I see he was a major figure of English folk music collection in the 19th century, in addition to being a Class A Victorian eccentric. Now why didn't I remember that? I guess it's because he didn't come over to Kentucky to find his material. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Manitas_at_home Date: 24 Jul 06 - 01:55 AM "I found that"OCS" was written by one Sabine Baring-Gould (words) and Arthur S. Sullivan (music). I know of him, but I'm not so familiar with her." Obviously. Perhaps you should google the Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould! |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: GUEST,Big Ted Date: 24 Jul 06 - 12:52 AM It's a little known fact that the boss of the C of E (well, probably more the second in command), the Archbish of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is actually a life-long fan of The Incredible String Band and even wrote the preface to a book about them. So, if the school in question had chosen The Hedgehog Song instead of Imagine, everything would be fine...right now. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Joe Richman Date: 24 Jul 06 - 12:26 AM The songs most-mentioned in this thread (after John Lennon's "Imagine") are "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "I'm Working on a Building". These are hardly the only alternatives to "Imagine", but still I wanted to check them out. I found that"OCS" was written by one Sabine Baring-Gould (words) and Arthur S. Sullivan (music). I know of him, but I'm not so familiar with her. (My Mother is one of the world's biggest "Gilbert & Sullivan" fans.) Talk about politically incorrect... try having the C of E kids sing "I've Got a Little List"! "IWOAB" was certainly NOT written by "Cowboy Junkies". My edition of Tony Russell's discography gives the first recording as that of the Carter family in 1934 on Bluebird and also sold on the Monkey Ward label. I'm sure that they didn't write it even if the label says they did. I've heard it played by bluegrass gospel bands on TV and in jams. I got a good Methodist upbringing, myself, and I've always felt that the problem with religion and politics is that religion needs protection from politicians, and not the other way around. That's why I can't understand the British state church thing (being a non-conformist and all that...). The one thing I have taken from the organized American United Methodist Church is a wonderful book called "Songs of Zion" published by Abingdon in Nashville in 1981. I can't recommend this book highly enough. It is full of songs that would be much much better choices than any of the songs mentioned so far (with the possible exception of IWOAB). My daughter's High School Choir sang one of them: "The Storm is Passing Over" by Charles Albert Tindley, and it was to me the highlight of their concert. (This was a public American High School, which is to say a Government run school for all my UK readers who probably already know the American idiom.) And finally, as to "the meek shall inherit the earth". This is undoubtedly true. It is a sort of corrolary to "the peg that sticks up is soon hammered down". If you were to view the streets of my native Southern California in time lapse photography you would see a large group of the meek gradually inheriting this piece of earth. Joe |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Abby Sale Date: 23 Jul 06 - 11:41 PM treewind: I appreciate that - and that things have much liberalized in the past 30 years. I did allow that the Established Religion is pretty benign in the UK; both in theory and practice. (Incidentally, in practice it's often far more liberal than many parts of the US. We certainly have no Established Religion in theory but a vast number of USians think we do and/or should.) I firmly believe that even the most benign form is still wildly unfair in practice. I can go into endless examples off list. The taxes I meant are not those for schools per se, the are the general revenue, a significant amount of which goes (went?) directly to the Church for general use. Thus, the English Baptist must pay income tax to directly support all aspects of the C of E and ALSO contribute whatever is needed to support his/her own church. I guarantee this is noticed and resented. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: robomatic Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM Well, the line does go "...and no religion to" and even if we're just being asked to 'imagine' it's clearly put in the light of "oh wouldn't it be wonderful". So there's a chance some kids would wonder why they can sing that as part of a church singing? Now I'm not English and I'm not Christian so I clearly could be missing some nuance of life that puts it that the Church should just 'ignore it and go on'. The types of Christians I'm more familiar with would have simply left out or changed that lyric and gone on with it. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 Jul 06 - 06:30 PM Waste of breath Foxx. Guest (not very) sensible, obviously has no understanding of the basic meaning, or moral ramifications of "the Christian faith". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Purple Foxx Date: 23 Jul 06 - 10:13 AM Guest sensible,The Christian term for FUCK OFF is Go forth & multiply. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: GUEST,sensible Date: 23 Jul 06 - 08:46 AM Here we go - knock the christians - too scared to critcise the murdering jewish state. Too scared to criticise the muslims. What you lot forget is the this is a CHRISTIAN country if you dob't like it FUCK OFF to muslim land. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: mandotim Date: 23 Jul 06 - 05:15 AM I don't like the song much either, but I think it's important to make a distinction here. As I see it, the song is not anti-faith, it's anti-religion. It doesn't say 'Imagine there's no God', does it? Perhaps Lennon was having a pop at organised religion, which given the state of our world, has a lot to answer for. Faith is fine, but religions have killed in their millions on behalf of a human generated idea of 'their' God or Gods. It's still happening all these years later. Tim |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: treewind Date: 23 Jul 06 - 03:50 AM Abby: It shows the essential problem with having an Established religion as in all of the UK. It's law. While it's true that many of the UK's schools and the older universities are historically religious foundations, and that there's no explicit law or constitutional clause fordidding state support of any religion, and of course the monarch is the head of the C of E... nevertheless the Christian religion is not particularly forced down people's throats at schools nowadays. Britain is very cosmopolitan (especially the big cities) and there is far more emphasis on, for example, comparative religion. In fact one reason why this story is news is because it's so unusual. on entering our child in primary school in Scotland in 1975, we found she would... not be excused for Jewish High Holy Days Scotland is more extreme about these things. In the 1960's I went to an old fashioned English public school (that's what the Americans would call a private school) that certainly taught us Christianity and had prayers in the morning and even its own chapel, but any pupils of other religions were excused from all of that, and certainly some of my friends vanished on Jewish holidays. We even had a Jewish head boy in my year. Of coure you could argue that as the parents were paying the fees the school should provide whatever concessions were asked for, but even where state shools are called "C of E" I don't think anybody feels that they are "supporting the church" by paying taxes for education. Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Purple Foxx Date: 23 Jul 06 - 02:52 AM I remember a theologian being interviewed on TV a year or two back who was putting forward a very convoluted (& obtuse) argument as to why this song epitomised "the Christian message". On balance I prefer this latest approach. Which at least shows some comprehension. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: 282RA Date: 22 Jul 06 - 08:45 PM "Imagine" was my class song although I didn't vote for it. The ballot allowed a write-in so I wrote in Iggy's "No Fun" which turned out to have garnered more votes as a write-in than some of the songs on the ballot. The problem for me is that "Imagine" is not pretentious crap. But it is simply not a song directed at me. To Lennon's credit he wasn't preaching to the converted. "Imagine there's no heaven" is meaningless to me because I don't have to imagine it, it's how I see it. So who is he talking to? Those that believe (and they're the ones who usually proclaim the song pretentious crap and that makes me laugh). He's not preaching to me. He's preaching to you. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: greg stephens Date: 22 Jul 06 - 07:01 PM Well, given that this song is the about the most mawkish hypocritical load of bollocks that anyone is likely to hear in a lifetime: and also given that it is anti-religious: I dont really understand why anybody is demanding that kids in a religious school should be forced to sing it. I know what I'd say to anyone who tried to force me to sing it.Sod off. I hope any children, or parents of children, would do likewis. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: BuckMulligan Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:59 PM Hm - wrong thread entirely. 'Night all. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: BuckMulligan Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:59 PM Lost a post there somewhere, sorry all. Point was "language" is a natural phenomenon that follows its own rules. It isn't something humankind invented, and it isn't something for which humankind's desires and rules should be expected to apply, any more than our expectations about gravity should be expected to apply. (For example - human "common sense" says that a 4 pound cannonball "should" fall four times faster than a one pound cannonball. Does it? And do we bitch about it? Language works the same way - according to its own rules, not according to what we think it should do.) |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: BuckMulligan Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:52 PM Mercifully, "typing" is not part of "language." Or I'd truly be "up shit's creek." |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: BuckMulligan Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:47 PM Excellent point Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Nigel Parsons Date: 22 Jul 06 - 04:12 PM Teaching comparitive religion to the children is a far different matter to encouraging them to sing a song advocating doing away with religion. It is good to see a head teacher of a Church School prepared to set a standard, and getting the support of the local clergy. CHEERS Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Bunnahabhain Date: 22 Jul 06 - 02:35 PM It's about now somebody starts moaning all the good hymn tunes are stolen folk melodies..... Accordsing to the reporting, the kids had spent weeks practicing it before it was pulled, so it's not as if they're not aware of it. I can't see a problem with the school removing it from a concert, if it doesn't feel right for the spirirt the school is trying to convey. It's not as if they're burning the manuscripts.... Also the school is in Exeter, not the middle of nowhere. Parents will have the choice the send their children elsewhere if they object to the decisions being taken at the school. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: fat B****rd Date: 22 Jul 06 - 01:12 PM "....those who are not meek but will inherit the earth all the same" Richard Farina. Just thought I'd join in. Doesn't bother me wether or not the children sing Imagine. I've found it a dirge from the first time I heard it. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Fibula Mattock Date: 22 Jul 06 - 11:41 AM I had to sing "All things bright and beautiful" at school, which pissed me off, as I'm not a Creationist. (Actually all the hymns pissed me off, as I'm an atheist. But hey, I was educated in N. Ireland so we got 14 compulsory years of Christianity forced down our throats whether we believed it or not. I'm all for education ABOUT religion, but not IN religion.) Oh, and I totally agree that Imagine is a pretentious pile of crap. "I'm off to see the Bootleg Beatles/As the bootleg Mark Chapman" (Half Man, Half Biscuit) "The meek ain't gonna inherit shit" (Alabama 3) |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Abby Sale Date: 22 Jul 06 - 11:11 AM Jon says "The decsion seems quite reasonable for a C of E school to take. The song is at odds with Christian teaching." And that's the truth. It shows the essential problem with having an Established religion as in all of the UK. It's law. It's the Official Religion. Schools are not expected to be "fair" in this (although as stated above, they've greatly liberalized over the past few decades), they are expected to be parochial schools that happen to be supported by the state. I gather that Scotland has much eased up on this in practice. We never much held with parochial schools but on entering our child in primary school in Scotland in 1975, we found she would be forced to recite Christian prayer and sing Christian songs and take Christian holidays and would not be excused for Jewish High Holy Days. We would up placing her in a Jewish school. Thue, the state schools (as opposed to the church ones) didn't spend much time teaching religion but they didn't have to - a C of S "atmosphere" was rampant. I believe that even the most benign Established Religion (and I know that it is pretty benign in the UK)) is patently unfair. What non-subscribing Brit or non-established-but-observant Brit (eg, Free Kirk or Baptist) could be comfortable with suppurting (or not) his own church and also paying for C of E/S through his/her taxes? |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 Jul 06 - 10:55 AM "Well, I don't think I'd see the value in educationg kids in "anti-Christianism." How about teaching about alternatives to Christianity, and not be anti-anything?" That's exactly how state (C of E) primary schools in the UK ARE supposed to be operating, Joe. The current GOVERNMENT ruling is that state schools teach comparative religion, and the school that I have worked in for fifteen years past taught about Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism, as well as Christianity, much to the disgust, I might add, of the less tolerant parents. I see no reason, therefore, to try to hide from pupils the fact that some people live good, moral lives without subscribing to any of the above. Discrimination is either wrong, or it is not. It cannot be wrong in one istance, and right in another, according to the prejudices of the person in charge. For this reason, I think this case IS important, and bear in mind that the school is arguably breaking government rules by its action. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: GUEST Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:52 AM "The meek shall inherit the earth" . Show me on f**king meek man who inherited anything. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: GUEST Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:33 AM Unfortunately! |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Slag Date: 22 Jul 06 - 03:16 AM The fact that some psychotic little twit off'd Lennon has nothing to do with Lennon's philosophy or the content of his songs. Chapman's motivation doesn't even qualify Lennon as a martyr, just a victim. I can understand a religious organization banning (if that is the correct word) certain songs due to anti-religious content. Would you tolerate all four verses of "Bringing in the Sheaves" down at the local pub? Probably not. It's kinda like the right to associate. Why try to make an issue of this? Unless you are anti-relgious? As for reasonablilty, most any group has a lot of followers who are content to let some one else do their thinking for them. This is the mainstay of most political parties and it can be gauged by the number of slogans used as opposed to real ideas. Theology and philosophy have long been bedfellows and religious thought has shaped the human mind for millenia. Our very language and thought patterns are steeped in it. You can't escape it. |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Jul 06 - 12:11 AM
I got my education at private Catholic schools in the U.S. No, they didn't teach anti-Catholicism, but they did teach us to respect and learn from a broad spectrum of non-Catholic perspectives. In many ways I felt my Catholic education allowed me to explore far more than I could have in a public school. Since we didn't have special interests saying "don't teach this" or "Don't say that," we could follow where our interests led us. We were taught "critical thinking," including how to think critically about what the Catholics have to say. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Religious Correctness gone mad? From: GUEST Date: 21 Jul 06 - 09:29 PM If the school is serving the whole community it should respect anti-Christianism too and let its have its voice. Educate the children in all things and let them decide. Isn't that how it should be? |
| Share Thread: |