Yes/no poll on religion in state schools.

[seeker]

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?

don't have to do any research....know all about the outcome for children in care...still doesn't mean they should be placed with homosexual men.....a child needs a mother imo.

.... and I was going to stay away ......

firstly, dp, I am not making you out to be "the anti-Christ". I am merely demonstrating that there are many shades of being a Christian, and you and I are at different parts of the spectrum! You may well be a good catholic ... good for you, I wouldn't know about that, because no, I don't know you. All I have to go by is what I read form you on MN.

I don't understand in what way I am not questioning things - I question everything!

secondly, if you know the outcomes for children in care compared to those adopted, are you really saying it is better for a child to be homeless on leaving care than brought up by 2 loving parents who both happen to be men? I find that exceptionally shocking. You would rather ruin a child's entire life chances in order to make sure homosexuals don't get to adopt. Maybe you should be questioning your own thoughts a bit more?

That just makes it worse You know the poor outcomes for children in care and you would still prefer them to stay in care

Very Christian of you

are you seriously telling me that an adoption agency couldn't find a hetrosexual couple..?.maybe an older couple in their 50's... or a single woman...are they not allowed to adopt..?

do you really expect me to believe that gay men would have been the only people prepared to adopt..? i don't think so....positive discrimination at its best.

DP - do you ever read back over your posts and think - even for a fleeting moment - "Now, I wonder why EVERYONE disagrees with me?"

And, actually, adoption agencies can easily find "heterosexual couples" to adopt NT babies. They are crying out for parents for older children and children with disabilities.

(Must step away form the keybard but am compelled.....)

Dp - by your logic, then, if it were so easy to find "alternatives" to staying in care, there would be no children in care

People looking to adopt have to go through rigorous vetting to ensure that they will offer a loving environment for the child. - probably why there are good outcomes for such children, as the rest of us can have children without getting prior approval (hence children ending up in care....)

i'll leave the thread..ok...

i'm sorry...all i'm trying to do is give you my opinions....i don't spend all day doing research on google..i speak from the heart.

DP - you are always coming on threads, expressing the same opinions, getting the same responses - don't you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong and other people's opinions have some validity too?

DP don't leave the thread, you have as much right to post as anyone else here, even tho some posters seem to have appointed themselves as moderators.

Seeker, everyone does not disagree with dp, I agree with her for one, maybe you ought to think about whether her opinions have some validity and there's a slight possibility you might be wrong.

I'm mostly a lurker butI have to say, I'm getting absolutely sick of the way daft punk is being treated on here, and people who are attempting to bully her off threads when they disagree with her.

I am not attempting to bully anyone. I have asked repeatedly for someone to explain to me why Christian worship should be a part of ordinary state schools, and why non Christian children cannot fully participate in the life of an ordinary (non-Faith) school without paying lip service to a faith they do not espouse. Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer. I would be delighted if you could, lemonmuffin.

And the reason I said that nobody seemed to agree with daftpunk is that nobody who has posted until you has. There may be thousands of lurkers agreeing, but if they don't post then I have kno way of knowing their views!

I'm a keen supporter of faith schools & (fingers crossed) my DD will be starting at one next year. I can see absolutely no reason for the requirement for christian worship in community schools to continue. As I posted earlier, it would be at least a step towards giving parents some choice (so much as any of us have that much "choice" in schools anyway.)

weegiemum, excellent post, I would class myself at your end of the Christian spectrum too

We all know that the idea solution for kids to grow up in is in a home with two parents who love each other, happily married, not on the bread line,garden to play in, roses round the cottage door type thing. HOWEVER loads of kids grow up in less than a "perfect" home, for all sorts of reasons. The most important thing is for kids to have at least one, preferrably two parents who love & cherish them. I can't see why it matters if they are gay, straight, married, cohabiting, single, divorced or whatever, so long as they love their kids & put them first. I am totally that anyone would think it preferable for a kid to grow up in care than be adopted by a gay couple.

Of course DP has the right to post her views. And the rest of us have the right to debate, disagree or agree. I welcome her contributions - whether you like it or not, such views are not uncommon IRL and its just as well not to be allowed to forget it.

Harriet Harmen makes it really easy for me actually...she says things like "men in power can't be trusted"..."it takes a man and a woman to run the country"....yet she happily lets two men bring up a child....? explain that one.

oh, ok:
Well, apart from the possibilty that Ms Harman is a power-hungry man-hater ...Some men in power can't be trusted. Some can. Exactly the same applies to women.

It takes a man and a woman to run a country... that's a fairly baseless assertion. Its extension to families is spurious. On that basis you'd have to rule out any one-parent family.

Christianity sets a pretty poor example you know - theres a Heavenly Father but no mum and virgin births certainly aren't natural

Lemonmiffin - it's not a case of me considering whether or not I might be wrong. I am not questioning dp's faith or her right to hold it. I am not trying to convert her to my humanist views. What I am questioning is her right to impose her Christian practices on my children in a state school. Not a Faith school, an ordinary state school.

We're not trying to bully DP!

It's just that when asked to provide any explanation of her views, she changes the subject completely or says something that is simply wrong - like there are loads of people queuing up to adopt older/disabled kids/sibling groups. Or that it's better to starve on the streets than have gay parents. Oh, but that's OK, it's "from the heart".

It's incredibly frustrating trying to debate with someone who won't acknowledge - or even think about - any of your points. And sometimes people may allow that to come across in the tone of their posts.

I don't think I'm bullying ... it certainly wasn't my intention.

Just trying to put over a different pov as daftpunk was trying to suggest that all "people of faith" have the same opinion as her, and its just not true.

And what I get back is a suggestion that I don't think things through?

Ah well, must go and do the school run ... praying all the way probably!

I think that there should be religious schools and secular schools. There should be no worship in the secular schools. No parent should ever be put in the position where the only available school for their child is a religious one.

I also agree with earlier posters who have said that RE should be replaced with philosophy and ethics. I can't see what the value of RE is. If schools want to teach diversity, then in addition to philosophy and ethics they could have a part of PSHE called diversity, of which religious diversity would be a tiny part. A lot of ethnic diversity has nothing to do with religion. A lot of diversity isn't ethnic.

Yes.

yes they should be secular and teach about all religions from a purely factual stand point.

May I just mention this petition

• some of you may wish to sign up to it if you haven't already.

Would any of you object to practical activities in school, which help with understanding a religion? Nativity plays, making Diwali decorations, singing Christmas carols?

I wouldn't object to cards and so on. I would object to prayers.

I've said before that I am in favour of celebrating practically anything - up to an including Beltane and Oak Apple Day.

Interestingly, my dd is currently writing an essay on what she thinks of "intelligent design" as proof or otherwise of God's existence - and I'm really pleased. Just the sort of RE I want her to have.

It depends whether you think secularism is a religion. Do I want yet-to-be-born sproglet to go to a school where the only legitimate form of religion sanctioned is secularism, when others are forced out. Do i want "there is no God" to be the religion forced upon them? Not really. But neither do I want them to hear that Jesus=Allah=Buddah=whatever... I'd love my children to grow up hearing the truth all over the place, so I don't like the current multi-faith system in schools.

But i do think that Christian (mostly anglican) schools were set-up to provide education for all, especially those who are sruggling. Christain schools should be serving their communities, taking in the poorest, the socially deprived, the failing, the expelled, and not selecting on the grounds of faith.

I think it's also worth remembering that the USA has a constitution which states that religion must be separate from school. The UK has always based itself on Jesus/The Bible's teaching (though these are currently undermined). What I mean is that the UK might not be in the position it's in now if it hadn't previously been an officially christian country. It is worth thinking about whether it is right to be a secular nation.

In answer to the question: i do think religious schools should receive state funding, and be allowed to teach what they like, as long as they select the weak and the poor and not the rich and the strong, as they do now.

Thanks for this post!

Not sure what you mean by secularism as religion. In my ideal worls children would be taught about all religions, but would not actually do any of them - that would be the preserve of family. I'm not talking about forcing anyone not to practice their religion - just not to ask children practice any religion for the 6 hours they are at school.