Is it possible for atheists and theists to discuss their world views without one ooh t of view or the other feeling anything along a scale from dissatisfied to furious?

[BertrandRussell]

Theists get patronising, then defensive, atheists get exasperated, then angry. Is there another way? Or is it just completely impossible and not even worth trying?

"Yes I certainly agreed this outdated schools admission policy needs reviewing. I don't agree with any preferential treatment for education be it grammar, faith etc."

So why do you not think this is an example- and a serious one- of Christian privilege? And why do you think it's OK for Christians to take advantage of it?

You do know that people of faith have access to a third more schools than other people, don't you?

Even if schools were rigidly denominational the most advantaged group would have access to approx 20% additional schools rather than a third.

The situation also varies greatly between areas. Many CoE/RC schools take substantial proportions of non faith in their intake (just locally the RC Comp is >50% non RC, the CoE Comp is >40%, last time I looked at this in detail there were plenty of CoE schools which were majority non Christian let alone non CoE).

I remember one LA (possibly Herts?) which was taken to court by parents being forced to use the faith school miles away rather than the secular school nearby. The LA won - advantage works both ways.

If we were setting up a state school systems from scratch I wouldn't incorporate faith schools but the practical reality is that other than a small number of 'big name' faith schools there are far greater iniquities in the system.
If forced to choose between say, typical modern CoE/RC comprehensives with their mixed intake vs grammar system vs consortium of commercial/evangelical free schools I could live with the first option a lot more easily.

Sunday opening hours- im old enough to remember when pretty much everything was shut because it was a religious day. Glad i lived near jewish and muslim areas so we could still go to the shop

C8 I'm pretty sure I saw a more recent case than this, but here is one, together with the comment from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7404786/Pharmacist-refuses-to-issue-pill-because-of-her-religion.html

Sunday opening hours- im old enough to remember when pretty much everything was shut because it was a religious day

I'm genuinely torn on this one. I also remember it being a pain but I think there is a value to society in having a structured day of the week where most jobs assume non working and where emphasis is on being with family/friends.

I don't care which day it is, but the concept has a value and its loss disproportionately affects lower paid workers. Of course I could just be looking back on my own childhood Sundays with rose spectacles but families getting together to eat, bicker or go out was something I valued.

Katharina

That was 2010, I don't know if Pharmaceutical Society standards have changed but they are quoted saying:

"any attempt by a pharmacist to impose their beliefs on a member of the public seeking their professional guidance, or a failure to have systems in place to advise of alternative sources for the service required, would be of great concern to the RPSGB and could form the basis of a complaint of professional misconduct"

That requirement to advise alternative resources/options would be consistent with the guidelines for doctors.

Are there any cases where people have been denied treatment without being at risk of misconduct?

It impinged on my ability to get a bacon sandwich- i know that much

araiwa that made me chuckle. Or a bottle of wine? Although I guess the Jewish shops may have some

So much whataboutery!

That requirement to advise alternative resources/options would be consistent with the guidelines for doctors. - so if I go to a doctor/pharmacist and they tell me 'I will not provide you this service, as my god does not want me to. But you can get it somewhere else', wouldn't you say someone else's religion has an effect on me?

Bertrand Que?

Katherina

No not at all but there is a difference between being denied access (as happens in the states) and being pointed to a different doctor/pharmacist. In the example given the Pharmaceutical Soc said their professional guidelines required referral/facilitation of alternates. I have actually been pointed at alternate practitioners in the past which was annoying but I wasn't denied treatment.

I think there is a much bigger issues (still) with practitioners holding generally sexist views regarding women's health and ailments. Some of these may overlap with religious views but IME that is not always the case. Or to put it another way - I have generally seen this as a subset of sexism rather than specifically religious.

There are so many interesting things cropping up, that we skip about and don't finish everything! Not sure what to pick up on.

Are we succeeding in having the conversation, though? It's looking pretty good so far.
I wish I had time to research all the info on all the different subjects. Some things have been said I'd like to disagree with, but I won't be able to find the information to back up my thinking.

Christian values, what they are and where they came from...
Faith schools
Bishops in the HOL
Where an individual's beliefs can encroach upon the service they offer...
Many threads' worth of conversations.

The school issue is very significant. When I applied to primary school, my Catholic next door neighbour had a choice of 4 schools within a mile compared to my 2.

Even non-affiliated state schools in the UK are supposed to have an act of broadly Christian worship etc every day, so that affected my children.

The Queen is head of the State and the Church, so it's interwoven into our constitution. I'm a republican anyway, but how could that not have an impact on me? There are only CofE bishops in the HoL too, so no imams or rabbis or even Catholic bishops. How's that encouraging equality of belief?

It would be hard for me to argue against a system while using it, and I do not agree with faith schools.

Whereas I did apply for a faith school for my son, because it was our only option for a state education. If I had not listed any faith schools, we would still have been allocated a faith school - just a worse one a long drive away.

I don't see any conflict between prioritising getting my son a local education and my campaigning against state funded faith schools and state admissions.

I would not because I believe in free will as well. So if God or anyone claiming to be God's messenger asked me to do anything that is against my own moral code and will I would not do it, and what will be will be.

You have to obey god though.

clarity, you're right, I conflated your posts with popcorn's.

I'm a little unclear, though, how I can say 'no, that's not actually what I meant' without saying 'no, that's not actually what I meant.' Is actually a word that comes across as more strident in British English than others (like 'look', as I learned the hard way?) I've lived here many years but am still discovering differnces in language.

My point was that saying 'no, I don't think x position is supported by evidence' is not equivalent to saying 'I support or promote y position' - which is where you'd placed me by setting it up as an 'I think I'm right' scenario. That's not actually the case, and I think that's a really important distinction.

In this case, I don't have a thesis. As you say, there's a complex evidence base. However, alongside not knowing I can say that I don't think the evidence base supports the idea of discretely Christian values that were created by Christ and Christianity. I'm not promoting an alternative thesis - I just don't think that one stands up. I can't be 'right' on the issue of where values derive as I don't actually have a position I'm advancing. I don't 'believe' (to use your words) a particular theory. I'm comfortable with not knowing, while at the same time recognising the potential cultural damage caused by those who claim them as and for Christianity and promote them in that way, and raising that as an issue here.

So as a believing catholic, I can't be a GP, because I may have to be involved in abortion. I can't be a pharmacist or a midwife for the same reason.
I can't be a registrar because I would have to register marriages between 2 people of the same sex. My doing that makes me a part it.
I cannot to talk to colleagues outside of work who ask about my beliefs because I may then be sacked for expressing them (outside the workplace).
I can't be a baker, because I may have to produce cakes with slogans offensive to me on them. (Yes I know someone who has given up her cake making business to avoid this).
I'm wondering how my kids are going to actually earn a living.

Everytime I see a doctor or a midwife I have to explain again that no, I don't want contraception, and please don't talk about that in front of my children.
Everytime I see a midwife when pregnant I have to tell them again that, no, I don't want to kill my own child.
I cannot trust my doctor or midwife to give me and my unborn child the care we need, because I know they have killed other people's children at the same age.
Nor can I set up a hospital where these things don't happen because that would be discrimination. (Even if it didn't take public funds)

My grandparents and their fellow Churchgoers, spent lots of money building a school and coming to an agreement with the government of the day for shared funding, so their children could receive their education in a religious context.
Non-Catholic think this is unfair. Well, get together, pay up and come an arrangement with the government, like we have.
My children are still taught atheistic rubbish at their catholic school, the law says they have to be. I know many people who want to close the catholics schools and set up our own (without public funding)where we teach what we actually know to be true. (That's also wouldn't be allowed in law. )

None of us can avoid our beliefs impinging on others. That is what happens if we want to live together and share resources.

In answer to the OP.
I think these debates end up in arguments because
A) none of us really want to change what we think.
B) we have such differing world views that we don't even have a shared language to discuss it. (And our basic underlying assumptions about everything are different.)
C)we have all be hurt by 'the other side' to a greater or lesser degree, so take personally what is not meant personally.

Why then if God exists did he create so many gays only to torment them.

Why allow it to happen at all or fix what god deems to be a flaw.

My children are still taught atheistic rubbish at their catholic school - what, like evolution, dinosaurs and stuff?

Even non-affiliated state schools in the UK are supposed to have an act of broadly Christian worship etc every day, so that affected my children

This one interests me - does it vary by region? None of the local schools, primary or secondary do this. They have assemblies which are either administrative or 'thought for the day' style. They acknowledge all the main religious festivals as they fall. Even the local church schools don't have a daily act of worship. Maybe my area is unusual.

There are only CofE bishops in the HoL too that is true of the Lords Spiritual but not of the Lords Temporal who do include rabbis, imams etc as voting members. I think RC Bishops are excluded from government roles by the vatican.

I would rather see the HoL composed in a different way but I'm not sure Lords Spiritual are worse than inherited titles or buying a lordship via party donation.

I'm not religious in either direction but I don't see all these issues as primary influences rather than secondary in the UK. From living and working in different places I find religion reflects local society and customs at least as much as vice versa. In that situation there is no clear line between what is attributable to religion vs society.

isittheholidaysyet, isn't there a step here of people of faith being willing to say 'yes, I acknowledge that my practising of my faith has an impact on others who do not share that faith, and it is perfectly reasonable for them to be unhappy about that'? So much of the discourse tends to circle around 'Well, it's my faith, so you just have to suck it up' which is unpalatable.

Can I ask what 'atheistic rubbish' you feel your children are being taught?

Can I also ask whether you think describing things in those sorts of words is conducive to mutually respectful discussion and understanding? I think both sides have been pretty measured on this thread even where there are areas of intractable disagreement and I'd be sad to see this descend into yet another bunfight over whose beliefs (or lack of) are more 'rubbish'.

Jassy,

"I'm a little unclear, though, how I can say 'no, that's not actually what I meant' without saying 'no, that's not actually what I meant.' Is actually a word that comes across as more strident in British English than others (like 'look', as I learned the hard way?"

There is nothing wrong with what you said, at all but if you wanted to sound less forthright you could say, "...that is not what I was intending to suggest. In order to clarify, what I meant was..." But this is splitting hairs really. The tone of posts comes across quite subliminally and is often as much about reader preconceptions as what is written.

Direct language is good and to the point, however it can comes across as less amenable as adding in the 'niceties', which themselves have the disadvantage of seeming less sure. I also think people pick up habits depending on the different social groups they are used to talking to.

My children are still taught atheistic rubbish at their catholic school, the law says they have to be.

Really what? The vatican declared evolution as a valid theory consistent with its teaching decades ago. What other topics do you mean?

I know many people who want to close the catholics schools and set up our own (without public funding)where we teach what we actually know to be true. (That's also wouldn't be allowed in law. )

Actually free schools have a ridiculous amount of liberty in this respect, hence schools teaching creationism in 2017 UK. Not sure where you are that the local RCs want to revert to that kind of education.

Are you NC?

freeniki there's a long and complicated answer to that, which can't be answered in chat room sound bites. If you really are interested in the answer. I suggest you do some study and research. There's plenty of information freely available on the Internet.

Katharina
No, catholics don't have a problem with evolution or the existence of dinosaurs (or the big bang etc)
I was thinking more like:
God is not real.
You don't need to attend Church on a Sunday.
You can behave how you like as long as you are nice to people (and follow school rules and wear correct uniform).