Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Yes/no poll on religion in state schools.

625 replies

seeker · 08/09/2009 14:32

Do you think state schools should be secular, but with RE lessons giving information about all the main world religions as part of the curriculum?

OP posts:
Original poster
seeker · 14/09/2009 13:20

That agency was closed down by ignorance and bigotry, not by gay rights. Religious people to stupid and wrong headed to see anyone else's point of view.

I really do think Catholics put their own house in order before accusing any group of child abuse.

OP posts:
BunnyLebowski · 14/09/2009 13:21

DP you must sub-consciously be aware of the lunacy of your argument - why else would you link to such a poorly written, factually inaccurate, twisted article in the shiterag that is the Daily Mail ffs.

If I didn't know you were serious I'd find your rantings quite amusing. As it is I can only conclude that you're mental, be glad I don;t know anyone like you and step away from this thread.

GrimmaTheNome · 14/09/2009 13:23

I'd quite like to see how that story is reported by a paper other than the Mail.

Senior bishops put the blame squarely at the door of Government Ministers.

Funnily enough, quite a lot of us will put the blame squarely at the door of the bishops.

daftpunk · 14/09/2009 13:29

i actually read it first in the catholic times....the DM just got hold of it..

it proves that "gay rights" have done damage.....the catholic church did some seriously good work with adoption ...that all had to stop.

GrimmaTheNome · 14/09/2009 13:34

Um, some paper other than the DM or the Catholic Times or Herald... they may not be completely unbiased, y'know.

Yes, I'm sure the Catholic church did run good adoption agencies. The tragedy is that their own judgemental attitude to homosexual would-be parents prevents them from continuing.

prettybird · 14/09/2009 13:36

At the risk of me (and others) banging thier heads against a brick wall, it is not "Gay Rights" that have done the damage. They are not the ones who refused to continue adoptions.

daftpunk · 14/09/2009 14:20

disadvantages for a little girl being brought up by gay men;

firstly, men can't have children...(it's a physical thing,...sorry)...so, by placing a child with two gay men you are immidiately placing that child in a totally false environment....and no matter how much gay men try and get in touch with their "female side"...they are men....a girl might feel uncomfortable in a male dominated environment....even at my age i prefer to see a female doctor.

nothing to do with inappropriate behaviour.

weegiemum · 14/09/2009 14:24

trying to clarify dp?

would you rather a child remained in care than was adopted by a Gay couple?

Do you have the same reservations about lesbian couples?

Oh and men can have children. Its called "fatherhood".

Original poster
seeker · 14/09/2009 14:25

So a little girl shouldn't be brought up by a single father? Or what about all the boys who are brought up by single mothers?

Are you forgetting that gay men have mothers, sisters, grandmothers, women friends?

OP posts:
GrimmaTheNome · 14/09/2009 14:25

So, no disadvantages versus a girl being brought up by a widower?

Your own squeamishness at male doctors is entirely irrelevant to the question.

weegiemum · 14/09/2009 14:27

(I was brought up by a single father for over 3 years of my early teens, and I did just fine - well, just about )

Original poster
seeker · 14/09/2009 14:28

What the f is the relevance of you preferring a female doctor? So do I, as it happens.

OP posts:
BetsyBoop · 14/09/2009 14:33

Haven't got time to read the whole thread. but in response to the OP

No I don't think (all) state schools should be secular, as I believe in parental choice.

I do agree that there isn't sufficient choice for parents who want a secular education at the moment though & as a first step this could be easily addressed by removing the "collective worship broadly christian in nature" requirement in community schools.

It's not that simple to say "scrap church schools", it would take billions of tax payers money to replace church funding and buy the church real estate assets (remembering many schools are on prime sites in urban and village locations, so would demand a high price. Even if you do compulsory purchase, you still have to pay market value. The alternative is to build new schools, again not cheap & possibly they won't be as conveniently placed as current schools. I think there are better uses of tax payer's money ATM. I suppose another way of looking at it would be "would you be happy with 2p on the basic rate of income tax for the next 10 years (or whatever it might be) in order to convert church schools into secular ones?"

Also no matter what this poll of a few dozen people might show, it's a simple fact that many church schools are over subscribed, so they must be popular with some parents

daftpunk · 14/09/2009 14:38

it's a bit different with lesbians...if i was a lesbian i could get pregnant by a male friend and have my girlfriend living with me...nothing anyone could do about that....it's still not right to be brought up by lesbians imo... if i was one, i wouldn't have children.

if i was placed with two men by my local authority, when i grew up i would wonder why? why wasn't i placed with a hetrosexual couple...why was i denied a mother..?

totally different to compare widowers, divorced men, with what i'm talking about.

oh and men can't have children...they haven't got a womb..

UnquietDad · 14/09/2009 14:42

BetsyBoop, a lot of your arguments don't hold water. Plenty of schools are over-subscribed, because they are good schools. Some are faith schools, some are not.

AvengingGerbil · 14/09/2009 14:46

DP, If I thought for a moment that you were even listening to our comments and not responding on autopilot, I would ask why it is different for lesbians to bring up a child to gay men doing so. Just because they have wombs, you are prepared to overlook your antipathy to homosexuality? Just because they could (possibly) biologically reproduce, you will graciously disregard their sexuality? In that case, why not disregard the fact that men don't have wombs?

And you have not once given a reason why it is different for widowers or single male parents. As far as I can see, it still comes down to the fact that you and your church think gay men are damned.

I'd rather be damned with the gay men and the lesbians and the godless than spend eternity with intolerant believers of any stripe.

But you are clearly not open to changing your views any more than we are, so I can't see the point.

daftpunk · 14/09/2009 14:49

AG;

i am listening...believe me i am taking in everything you say to me....i'm trying to understand you..

Snorbs · 14/09/2009 14:51

DP, are you Ann Widdecombe and Paul Dacre's secret love child?

GrimmaTheNome · 14/09/2009 14:51

totally different to compare widowers, divorced men, with what i'm talking about.

what is it you're talking about that's different? No-one else seems to be able to spot it.

Original poster
seeker · 14/09/2009 14:52

If you explain the bits you don't understand maybe we could explain them to you.

OP posts:
Tinfoil · 14/09/2009 16:30

Indoctrination is when you don't allow someone to question what you have told them. This is not the case in most schools and churches. Christians do discuss, debate and disagree.

Tinfoil · 14/09/2009 16:31

No, I didn't say it did either, Grimma. So do you believe in choice, or something else?

"I didn't say that quote from the CofE exactly represented my own views!"

noideawhereIamgoing · 14/09/2009 16:59

"Indoctrination is when you don't allow someone to question what you have told them. This is not the case in most schools and churches. Christians do discuss, debate and disagree."

My four year old was unable to debate discuss and question - due to his level of maturity, he believed everything his teacher told him - I'd call that indoctrination.

prettybird · 14/09/2009 17:06

"Taking part in a daily act of collective worship, broadly Christian in nature", as required by law is not debating nor discussing Christianity.

GrimmaTheNome · 14/09/2009 17:09

On balance I think the choice of faith schools is something we'd be better off without. I would be tolerably happy to settle for the provision of access to a secular state school for every child.