Its perfectly acceptable to be rude to religous people...

[startrek90]

Definately going to get flamed here but oh well.

I get the feeling that this is perfectly acceptable to be rude about religous people. From reading the threads on this forum, and my experiences in RL, the amount of rudeness and sometimes plain nastiness is awful.

I am religous. I don't care if people are not, if they go to church or how they live their own lives or raise their children. As far as I am concerned as long as you obey the law, do what you want.

So far I have seen people imply that all religous people are closing their childrens mind, are ignorant, bigots.... its horrible!

I don't deny that there are people who are that way and use religion as an excuse.... but quite frankly you can be ignorant and rude without religion.

I am being unreasonable to be offended, but it really bothers me that its culturally acceptable to be rude to and about people of faith. You wouldn't do it to someone from a different culture or race would you? I have never bothered anyone with my faith so please stop taking it as an insult!

(Just venting, been lambasted in RL for daring to buy my son a Noahs ark toy. I thought it was cute with all the animals etc... but apparently I am raising him to be ignorant, bigoted and stupid. He will hate gay people and women and generally be a horrible person.....apparently grrr )

When I was a child we still sang the hymn 'Thy Kingdom Come, O God' which includes the lines:
'O’er heathen lands afar
Thick darkness broodeth yet:'

I thought it had been updated to something like 'oer lands both near and far' but it's still those words in a hymn book published in 1978 which I have in my desk drawer.

"And Hak is being 'nice' when she knows perfectly well that Christians don't equate a belief in God with a belief in fairies" I know they don't. And I don't say it- I asked why it would be rude for me to say it. Because both God and fairies are entities that many people believe in, for which there is no evidence and about which there is a significant amount of written data. As I said, I don't say it. It's rather trite and silly. But I do think I should be allowed to express my lack of belief as forcefully as others express their belief.

I think there should be a form of lottery within defined (walkable) catchments to prevent people buying their way in through more expensive housing.

But then I think there should be religious education, not instruction, in schools. I think there should be the opportunity for prayer in school on the same basis as in workplaces - as a totally optional opportunity, in no way central to school life.

Hak the House of Lords still contains peers. Why limit your disapproval to the clergy?

Tbh I cannot get worked up concerning changes to health legislation, laws preventing certain types are of genetic research, banning euthanasia. I think they are fraught with ethical difficulty anyway. I put my hope elsewhere because of my faith. Sorry. I know people suffer but I do not think these things would prevent suffering overall as they might also cause a lot.

Jassy depending on the fine detail I might accept those kind of proposals.

I think these people have a right cheek to be knocking on my door, same goes for sales people. I don't throw the fact that I believe religion is a form of control down others necks so I don't appreciate the god squad at my door.

I can disapprove on the whole idea of the HoL and still think the bishops and hereditary peers are the two most egregious anomalies, needing the most urgent removal.

We are actually a Christian country-historically, culturally and practically.
Unless you separate the state and the church it can't be anything else.

I think they have a cheek knocking at my door-as do cold callers on the phone. However it takes seconds to get rid of them politely. Shorter and easier than being rude.

"Hak the House of Lords still contains peers. Why limit your disapproval to the clergy?"

I don't. But they are the only group that are there specifically because of their beliefs. And I note that you can't get worked up about this. Because it fits with your beliefs. In the same way that you can't get worked up about collective worship. Because you
want it. Just such colossal selfishness!

I am getting a bit bored with it-but to go back-when asked you said it was bullying if you were stating facts.
If child A is in floods of tears and said child B had ridiculed his belief -would you privately think child B was correct and say 'don't be silly, he is stating a fact-toughen up' or would you be kind and say to child B 'you are upsetting child A, he thinks it very rude so please be kind and don't say it again'
I would do the second. Is there a cut off age for this? If so when?
I have continually told you I think it rude and yet you come back time and again to tell me it isn't-which appears to me to be the first way.

Hak BigDorrit if I am selfish you are equally so. You want the opposite because of your beliefs regarding what is fair and right.

It's now descended into saying how grammar schools in Birmingham are doing good things - completely unrelated to religion!

It is completely related. The middle classes bag the places at all the best schools. They often perceive church schools to be the best.There wouldn't be a problem if they were not the best!

You can't say 'I want a place in that school-but by the way I don't want the ethos'-it would be a different school!

Er, no, they (and I) would prefer a neutral space for everyone, conferring advantages on no group for their religious belief or lack thereof.

The opposite would be 'I want places reserved for atheists in the House of Lords, I want atheism taught in schools and I want atheist children to be given school places ahead of children of religious people'.

'O’er heathen lands afar
Thick darkness broodeth yet:'

I didn't have that hymn in 1960s.
I doubt any school is singing hymns from a hymn book printed 37yrs ago. Throw your hymn book out!

There wouldn't be a problem if they were not the best!

And they are generally perceived- to be the best because they disproportionately select middle class children with engaged parents, which is reflected in the schools and their fundraising abilities, results and behaviour.

Low hanging fruit.

How do you teach atheism? How would you make the HoL fairly represent everyone's views proportionally? We don't even have PR with our voting system.

"Hak BigDorrit if I am selfish you are equally so. You want the opposite because of your beliefs regarding what is fair and right."

No. You have the perfect right to pray with your child whenever you want. You can spend the 18 hours a day he is not in school at church if you want to. You can organise a prayer group at lunchtime for like minded people. You can have an after school club for collective worship. You can go into school 10 minutes early and have collective worship. I have no opportunity for my child to fully participate in th life of the school without being involved in Christian worship. And a 25 seat block vote in the House of Lords for th members of any club is outrageous.

Caps, I was helping you out with the definition of 'opposite', not saying that any of those things are desirable - quite the opposite.

I favour the Australian upper house model, for the record - PR on a regional basis, with half the assembly replaced at each election.

You can opt your child out Hak, as we have discussed at length before. Also, as I have discussed before, with you, my DC experienced plenty of discrimination due to SEN. I was thankful I did not have to find suitable collective worship to introduce my DC to, during what was already a very long week. Dealing with the aforementioned discrimination was enough to exhaust me. I would agree with Jassy churches are not always inclusive enough.

"If child A is in floods of tears and said child B had ridiculed his belief -would you privately think child B was correct and say 'don't be silly, he is stating a fact-toughen up' or would you be kind and say to child B 'you are upsetting child A, he thinks it very rude so please be kind and don't say it again"

If there was ridicule, then of course I would do the same. However, if child A was crying simply because child B said that they held different views, then I wouldn't tell child B he had to keep his thoughts to himself- particularly if the exchange took place in a debating club.