Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Knockagh wrote: I'm sorry but that's utter drivel, to compare sentiment beings with needs so complex to survive to something so base is pretty pathetic but that's what comedians do, it's a tired old routine. Donald Trump science. Make something ridiculous sound clever, well done clever man. If he can't see the difference between a puddle and a human he needs to do a little more study.
No, it's entirely accurate. Instead of seeing how we have adapted to the world around us (and would have adapted differently in a different world) we assume that the world must have been created to perfectly fit the way we are now. The fact that it might be painful to hear the idea that we aren't special and there's no higher power out there building the perfect home for us doesn't make it any less true, nor does expressing the point with some humor.
Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe there are similar confusions between say Finnish and Dutch or German, though these languages I believe are distantlyrelated.
Finnish really doesn't sound anything like Dutch or German (to me)... I'd personally put Finnish as being closer to Swedish or Norwegian languages, but even that is a stretch.
sirlynchmob wrote: The flat earth was mainly a european idea, based on the bible.
This is a myth. Europeans knew the earth was round, there was never any point where they believed it was flat because of the bible.
This is a myth people get taught about Columbus by people who really shouldn't be teaching about Columbus. The idea that Christians in the middle ages thought the Earth was flat originates in the 19th century, when the debate over evolution was even more intense than it is now and a certain scholars invented the myth, either by design or by misconceptions present in their own time now lost to us.
The one thing that I personally think would perpetuate the myth that people from Europe believed the earth was flat, was because of naval maps.... It's fairly well known that on maps, they'd put "There be monsters here" to denote areas that, ultimately had not been explored yet. But, that's a fairly weak reasoning for someone to believe that you'd simply "fall off" the cube for sailing too far.
Mario wrote: I think this is a succinct allegory regarding the idea of god and intelligent design:
I'm sorry but that's utter drivel, to compare sentiment beings with needs so complex to survive to something so base is pretty pathetic but that's what comedians do, it's a tired old routine. Donald Trump science. Make something ridiculous sound clever, well done clever man. If he can't see the difference between a puddle and a human he needs to do a little more study.
I think you've rather missed the point of his allegory. It was not to compare people to puddles.
Those who promote "intelligent design" often use the argument that our complex needs are exactly catered to by the environment, showing a level of planning. This is actually somewhat backwards, rather our needs and abilities actually evolved to fit (imperfectly) the complex environment. To the incurious, it looks the same, but there is a fundamental difference in causality.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The one thing that I personally think would perpetuate the myth that people from Europe believed the earth was flat, was because of naval maps.... It's fairly well known that on maps, they'd put "There be monsters here" to denote areas that, ultimately had not been explored yet. But, that's a fairly weak reasoning for someone to believe that you'd simply "fall off" the cube for sailing too far.
Yeah, I don't think anyone has put forth a definitive origin for the mythology. Probably the most famous example of its perpetuation is Washington Irvings biography of Christopher Columbus, which including conversations where Columbus was called crazy and his opponents held up the Bible and declared the world flat. This event is not recorded in history, and in fact Columbus was faced with a completely different challenge. That challenge being scholars pointing out he'd horribly miscalculated the Earth's circumference (which he had!). Of course, no one knew the Americas were there, so no one really doubted that you could go straight west and wind up in China or Japan, but many in Columbus' time were skeptical the journey was doable for logistical reasons.
Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe there are similar confusions between say Finnish and Dutch or German, though these languages I believe are distantlyrelated.
Finnish really doesn't sound anything like Dutch or German (to me)... I'd personally put Finnish as being closer to Swedish or Norwegian languages, but even that is a stretch.
Finnish is a Fenno-Ugric language completely unrelated to the Germanic languages of Germany, the Netherlands, and the Nordic languages. As a native speaker of Swedish, Finnish is thoroughly incomprehensible to me.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Finnish is related to Hungarian and Estonian from memory (and they are more estranged cousins than close family).
It's certainly NOT a germanic language. Unlike German, Dutch or the nordic tongues.
I'm not a native speaker of Hungarian (dad was born there) but I find Finnish likewise incomprehensible except for a small hand full of words.
German is just Dutch spoken with less phlegm. (It's a dutch 'joke' - Dad was born shortly before the outbreak of WW2, and spent most of his childhood fostered out in the netherlands, so he spoke both languages - and Russian as well).
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
chromedog wrote: Finnish is related to Hungarian and Estonian from memory (and they are more estranged cousins than close family).
It's certainly NOT a germanic language. Unlike German, Dutch or the nordic tongues.
I'm not a native speaker of Hungarian (dad was born there) but I find Finnish likewise incomprehensible except for a small hand full of words.
German is just Dutch spoken with less phlegm. (It's a dutch 'joke' - Dad was born shortly before the outbreak of WW2, and spent most of his childhood fostered out in the netherlands, so he spoke both languages - and Russian as well).
I'm from Limburg (southern most dutch province), my dialect is part Dutch and part German, get's even weirder then.
Mario wrote: I think this is a succinct allegory regarding the idea of god and intelligent design:
It is a comment on entitlement and land ownership, I dont see any correlation with Intelligent design.
Creationism in any of its forms doesn't assume that universe is made for man. Man might be the pinnacle of life on earth, but earth was not made for man. Man has dominance over other lifeforms, but these lifeforms were made for themselves, not as gifts to man. Neither was the world, humans are just another though more important lifeform.
However saying the land fits me, and therefore I have freedom to do what I want with it is a dangerous principle, which Adams critiques. I do understand that Adams was a critic of religion, but i dont think this is what he is doing here, or if he is, he has a poor understanding of creation theology.
Creationism in any of its forms doesn't assume that universe is made for man. Man might be the pinnacle of life on earth, but earth was not made for man. Man has dominance over other lifeforms, but these lifeforms were made for themselves, not as gifts to man. Neither was the world, humans are just another though more important lifeform.
Again, perhaps this is due to a difference of opinion between christians of different areas... but the idea that all things are "gifts to man" is very present and in the front of much of American flavored Protestantism.
This perception hasn't changed, but I have noticed in the last 15-20 years, a definite shift in reaction to this idea. It used to be that Christians in the US were A-Ok with clearcutting forests, dumping toxic waste into rivers, hunting animals to near extinction.... What I see a bit more of today, is that while these things are gifts, that means we have a duty and near a mandate to conserve and protect all of "gods creatures" precisely because of our position at the top. Still doesn't make any sense to me as far as there being a creator, much less an active deity(ies) over us.
Orlanth wrote: It is a comment on entitlement and land ownership, I dont see any correlation with Intelligent design.
He is apparently speaking about some environmental issue, but his analogy describes something akin to the anthropic principle, which is definitely relevant to a discussion about evolution and design. Personally, I'd give him 7/10 for the analogy... It's a good one, but I don't think it has made the issue significantly easier to understand (given that some people in this topic still didn't understand).
What's important is that liquid changes shape to fit whatever receptacle it is poured into. Pour it into a vase: it will be vase-shaped, pour it into pipe: it will be pipe-shaped; you could even pour it into a complicated mould with lots of details and undercuts, and it will still fit every detail perfectly, because it's a liquid and it adapts its shape to fit whatever environment it is in. This is analogous to life and evolution: living things adapt to suit their environment... or perhaps they don't adapt (in fact most don't), and so the environment kills them. Eventually, you are left only with organisms that seem to be perfectly suited to their environment.
What Douglas Adams was saying is that people are not innately aware that they are organisms which adapt, because the changes take place slowly over thousands of lifetimes, and we only have one lifetime. So he makes the analogy of water, because we all know water changes shape all the time... but in his analogy the water doesn't realise that it changes (just as we don't realize that we evolve). So the water assumes that its shape it permanent, and because everything around it fits that shape perfectly, it assumes that the world must have been designed to perfectly fit its needs.
People are like that water... they look around and see fruit on the trees for them to eat, air to breath, water to drink, and they say: "Hey! this place is perfect for me, it must have been designed to perfectly fit my needs", and just like the water in the analogy, they have got things completely backwards. Case in point: "breathable air". All the wonderful life-giving oxygen that we can't live without, was originally a pollutant, which (as it first built up in the atmosphere) poisoned and killed-off nearly all the Earth's original species. However, a few organisms had mutations which allowed them to survive in an oxygen rich environment, and eventually organisms came to fit the oxygen environment so perfectly, that we can't live for more than a few minutes without it. The oxygen was never put there to fit "our needs": "our needs" were dictated by what was there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/08 12:55:58
Mario wrote: I think this is a succinct allegory regarding the idea of god and intelligent design:
It is a comment on entitlement and land ownership, I dont see any correlation with Intelligent design.
Creationism in any of its forms doesn't assume that universe is made for man. Man might be the pinnacle of life on earth, but earth was not made for man. Man has dominance over other lifeforms, but these lifeforms were made for themselves, not as gifts to man. Neither was the world, humans are just another though more important lifeform.
However saying the land fits me, and therefore I have freedom to do what I want with it is a dangerous principle, which Adams critiques. I do understand that Adams was a critic of religion, but i dont think this is what he is doing here, or if he is, he has a poor understanding of creation theology.
Not only should you refrain from personal attacks, you should also refrain from adding in completely unwarranted personal attacks caused by totally misreading a comment.
I misread nothing. I touched on a point, which I also find quite sensitive, and you got angry. It is best that we drop the matter.
Second you don't know what I was talking about because as usual you eliminate context in order to fit your own agenda..
The fact that I omitted certain elements does not mean I did not know what you were talking about. It simply means that I was only responding to a given point, that I assume anyone who cares can contextualize. The thread is there, after all.
Again necessary. Humanists were indirectly used to bash the CoE, this doesnt imply any conspiracy, many atheists like to bash Christianity given the chance, see thread for details, Blair gave them free reign to do so. imagine what would happen if a hostile government purposely and specifically gave Peregrine or some of the more anti-religious posters here free reign to critique Christian schools. I think they might enjoy finding faults. Much of the bashing was entirely uncalled for. Again coE schools have the best records in the state system as a group, some are very very good. there are many failing schools in the state system, humanists don't seem to care about them though for some reason, even though basic literacy is a problem for many school leavers.
The government wants to end this. Humanists have been basically trolling the CoE for over nearly two decades with the blessing of prior governments, it hasn't helped. CoE standards remained high, Jewish schools likewise, secular schools and Islamic schools are generally not so good, infact outside of grammars, a few flagship schools and the CoE and Jewish faith aschools the state system in the Uk is crap.
Some humanists still like to fault find specifically at the CoE, and even post Trojan horse aren't of a mind to look too deeply as Islamic schools.
To some extent it has become a right to troll.
Most of the nit picking is unhelpful and tiresome, especially as the humanists are self motivated to find fault for any reason and bleat about it if they do even if it is very thin. Its a waste of time and resources dealing with these constant nick pickings (remember the CoE schools get the highest OFSTED reports) its also a form of harassment in some cases. So schools in general not just CoE are now given a buffer against spurious complaints. Complaints must come from parents of guardians of students at the school, or professional inspectors, not politicised groups out to score a point. This way resources are not diverted away from relevant issues.
CoE results are high because they illegally operate selection, which has been demonstrated statistically and successfully challenged in court. The government also fought long and hard to avoid revealing how many schools were being converted to faith-based schools under the academy system because this bs conversion of our state school system is being used as a massive trojan by the CoE to become the biggest provider of state education in the country. Also, the continued approval of religious schools far beyond the need, and often against the will of the local population who want a secular school is denying parental choice.
But I guess if you're in a losing position, trying to brainwash the kiddies is probably the next play.
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
Creationism in any of its forms doesn't assume that universe is made for man.
There are several creationist theories which assume precisely that. Even without specific reference you're left with the problem of Adam and Eve, and the classical Christian creation myth.
Creationism in any of its forms doesn't assume that universe is made for man.
There are several creationist theories which assume precisely that. Even without specific reference you're left with the problem of Adam and Eve, and the classical Christian creation myth.
Its called "the fine tuned universe" if anyone wants to see the argument.
Mario wrote: I think this is a succinct allegory regarding the idea of god and intelligent design:
It is a comment on entitlement and land ownership, I dont see any correlation with Intelligent design.
Creationism in any of its forms doesn't assume that universe is made for man. Man might be the pinnacle of life on earth, but earth was not made for man. Man has dominance over other lifeforms, but these lifeforms were made for themselves, not as gifts to man. Neither was the world, humans are just another though more important lifeform.
However saying the land fits me, and therefore I have freedom to do what I want with it is a dangerous principle, which Adams critiques. I do understand that Adams was a critic of religion, but i dont think this is what he is doing here, or if he is, he has a poor understanding of creation theology.
CoE results are high because they illegally operate selection, which has been demonstrated statistically and successfully challenged in court.
Since when. Faith school admissions criteria are still legal. It is also a firm tie in with equality and diversity, many ethnic minorities want faith schools.
The government also fought long and hard to avoid revealing how many schools were being converted to faith-based schools under the academy system because this bs conversion of our state school system is being used as a massive trojan by the CoE to become the biggest provider of state education in the country.
That is a very twisted assessment. The CoE cant be a 'trojan' because 1. they arent radicalising the children, and 2. the CoE has been the bedrock of education in this country for centuries. It isnt an underhand backdoor movement as you imply.
Also the figures of how many schools are faith schools can be found easily enough. A websearch revealed it to be 19%.
Also, the continued approval of religious schools far beyond the need, and often against the will of the local population who want a secular school is denying parental choice.
Is it now? There are no big protests, and a lot of people go to church for a while in order to secure places. Also CoE is more than 19% of the population on its own, and the percentage actually applies to all faiths. There are plenty of secular schools everywhere to choose from, many are places savvy parents dont want to choose.
But I guess if you're in a losing position, trying to brainwash the kiddies is probably the next play.
Brainwashing eh. Do you think the CoE would be able to get away with that allowing for how the British Humanist Society is trying to breath down the necks of select faith schools. The brainwashing came from radical Islamic schools which were unmonitored because nobody wanted to appear 'racist' by scrutinisiing ethnic minority education establishments.
Also the actual membership of the CoE is still very substantial. The idea that is is dying is a myth propagated loudly and often in the hope it becomes true.
I have a friend who has to attend church every Sunday to get his kids in the local church school (because the next nearest is much further away). He guesses 40% of the congregation are doing the same thing, and wouldn't be anywhere near the place otherwise. It is clearly just another way to keep attendance up, and the church seemingly relevant, when it basically isn't anymore.
Another few generations and religion will be removed from education completely, and everyone will be better for it, Telling people X is so, and you just have to believe it (because someone wrote it down in the same book that says the world is 6,000 years old), is infact the absolute antithesis of education. Religion is fine in it's place, but not in schools, there it is brainwashing.
Darkjim wrote: Religion is fine in it's place, but not in schools, there it is brainwashing.
A general religious education class is beneficial though, provided that it absolutely doesn't focus on a single religion and covers all major religions and religious themes in the same depth.
Brainwashing eh. Do you think the CoE would be able to get away with that allowing for how the British Humanist Society is trying to breath down the necks of select faith schools.
The catholic church certainly does it, why else would you have a mandatory mass ever Friday for 5 year olds? My son goes to a Catholic primary school (mostly due to its Ofsted outstanding rating) and a lot of their activities are very much designed to turn small children into Catholics before they can even read. That sounds like brain washing to me. Luckily I act as a counterweight at home
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 07:08:56
Darkjim wrote: Religion is fine in it's place, but not in schools, there it is brainwashing.
A general religious education class is beneficial though, provided that it absolutely doesn't focus on a single religion and covers all major religions and religious themes in the same depth.
Of course, as a historical subject, little if anything has been more influential on human history. Often in the violent, crusading, chop up the unbelievers type of way, but certainly influential.
And yes, it is the necessity for parents to explain to children that even though most of what they learnt in school was worth learning, some of it is a single, misleading viewpoint, that even other factions of the same faith would disagree with, that distorts the genuine parts of the education. 19% of schools being religious would be fine if every parent has a lot to choose from - where the nearest and only local school is faith based, then it is 100%.
A further point is of course putting people who are just believed, regardless, in charge of impressionable and gullible children is also a very bad idea. A school I almost had to attend in the 70s has been revealed since as the site of 41 cases of child abuse, and that's only the cases that were fully prosecuted, from what people I know went there said, it was hundreds of times that. It isn't just religious schools where this occurs, but it does make it much, much easier, when the abuser in question has the power of the lord behind him.
CoE results are high because they illegally operate selection, which has been demonstrated statistically and successfully challenged in court.
Since when. Faith school admissions criteria are still legal. It is also a firm tie in with equality and diversity, many ethnic minorities want faith schools.
I didn't say faith school admission criteria aren't legal. I said faith schools are operating illegal criteria to select, which is why faith schools are consistently unrepresentative of their local socio-economic community.
The government also fought long and hard to avoid revealing how many schools were being converted to faith-based schools under the academy system because this bs conversion of our state school system is being used as a massive trojan by the CoE to become the biggest provider of state education in the country.
That is a very twisted assessment. The CoE cant be a 'trojan' because 1. they arent radicalising the children, and 2. the CoE has been the bedrock of education in this country for centuries. It isnt an underhand backdoor movement as you imply.
Also the figures of how many schools are faith schools can be found easily enough. A websearch revealed it to be 19%.
Teaching children faith before their critical thinking skills have been extensively developed is brainwashing. Also that's two comments in a row you've either not read properly or you're strawmanning. I used future tense "to become" not current tense "is".
Also, the continued approval of religious schools far beyond the need, and often against the will of the local population who want a secular school is denying parental choice.
Is it now? There are no big protests, and a lot of people go to church for a while in order to secure places. Also CoE is more than 19% of the population on its own, and the percentage actually applies to all faiths. There are plenty of secular schools everywhere to choose from, many are places savvy parents dont want to choose.
Why would there be big protests, these are local matters? And there have been petitions. There aren't plenty of schools, there is a significant under-provision of school places in general, it gets reported on every year.
But I guess if you're in a losing position, trying to brainwash the kiddies is probably the next play.
Brainwashing eh. Do you think the CoE would be able to get away with that allowing for how the British Humanist Society is trying to breath down the necks of select faith schools. The brainwashing came from radical Islamic schools which were unmonitored because nobody wanted to appear 'racist' by scrutinisiing ethnic minority education establishments.
Also the actual membership of the CoE is still very substantial. The idea that is is dying is a myth propagated loudly and often in the hope it becomes true.
Yeah, I mean the London Oratory school's admission code was only illegal in 105 different ways, and "It is amongst the ten most socio-economically selective state secondary schools in the country, taking just 6% of pupils eligible for school meals compared to 36% locally." But yeah, it's the big bad BHA that are in the wrong and not LO for massively abusing public money.
Sure, the CoE may well have a stable membership, but Christianity on the whole has had a significant decline over the last 15 years, and that's despite using a biased phrasing in the Census question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 08:07:16
CoE results are high because they illegally operate selection, which has been demonstrated statistically and successfully challenged in court.
Since when. Faith school admissions criteria are still legal. It is also a firm tie in with equality and diversity, many ethnic minorities want faith schools.
I didn't say faith school admission criteria aren't legal. I said faith schools are operating illegal criteria to select, which is why faith schools are consistently unrepresentative of their local socio-economic community.
The admissions criteria were legal, the law ha changed very recently and has been complied with. This accommodated concession to the faith schools, namely the removal of expensive trolling lawsuits from groups unrelated to the parents, mostly to force a political agenda.
The government also fought long and hard to avoid revealing how many schools were being converted to faith-based schools under the academy system because this bs conversion of our state school system is being used as a massive trojan by the CoE to become the biggest provider of state education in the country.
That is a very twisted assessment. The CoE cant be a 'trojan' because 1. they arent radicalising the children, and 2. the CoE has been the bedrock of education in this country for centuries. It isnt an underhand backdoor movement as you imply.
Also the figures of how many schools are faith schools can be found easily enough. A websearch revealed it to be 19%.
Teaching children faith before their critical thinking skills have been extensively developed is brainwashing. Also that's two comments in a row you've either not read properly or you're strawmanning. I used future tense "to become" not current tense "is".
Actually only 16% of faith schools have a mandatory religious curriculum at all, that is a listed statistic too. So you are just spouting scare stories perpetrated by atheist political movements.
There is not evidence that outside he Islamic trojan horse schools this is laced above any other portion of the curriculum.
There is a pattern here, because its a faith school it must in yor mind be evil and indoctrinating because you are incapable of seeing otherwise. The government itself admits that the Christian faith schools n the UK were under constant unsupervised monitor from hostile secular societies looking for fault to find. If there was a mind to harm children, which is an offensive and baseless assumption they would not be able to get away with it. No such evidence has been found, yet people are still being brainwashed into thinking there is an evil brainwashing agenda.
Lets face facts there are bigots in the UK who hate with a passion the idea that the church has any part to play in education, seeth at the truth that they generally do a better of than their secular counterparts; and want to find any excuse, plausible or not, valid or not, to condemn them and are blind to any positive sides to what they do. The government is now taking action though.
Also, the continued approval of religious schools far beyond the need, and often against the will of the local population who want a secular school is denying parental choice.
Is it now? There are no big protests, and a lot of people go to church for a while in order to secure places. Also CoE is more than 19% of the population on its own, and the percentage actually applies to all faiths. There are plenty of secular schools everywhere to choose from, many are places savvy parents dont want to choose.
Why would there be big protests, these are local matters? And there have been petitions. There aren't plenty of schools, there is a significant under-provision of school places in general, it gets reported on every year.
Constant petitions and complaints from the humanist and secular societies, not the local communities, the actual parents are generally a lot happier and want the trolls to butt out.
But I guess if you're in a losing position, trying to brainwash the kiddies is probably the next play.
Brainwashing eh. Do you think the CoE would be able to get away with that allowing for how the British Humanist Society is trying to breath down the necks of select faith schools. The brainwashing came from radical Islamic schools which were unmonitored because nobody wanted to appear 'racist' by scrutinisiing ethnic minority education establishments.
Also the actual membership of the CoE is still very substantial. The idea that is is dying is a myth propagated loudly and often in the hope it becomes true.
Yeah, I mean the London Oratory school's admission code was only illegal in 105 different ways, and "It is amongst the ten most socio-economically selective state secondary schools in the country, taking just 6% of pupils eligible for school meals compared to 36% locally." But yeah, it's the big bad BHA that are in the wrong and not LO for massively abusing public money.
First the London Oratory Schools is not CoE its Roman Catholic. Its admission code was separate because Blair and other New Labour leaders sent their kids there. Labour don't want to share their childrens school classrooms with plebs and yet don't want to be seen to send them to private school for the most part.
You cant blame the churches or that or the CoE at all. Also London Oratory's policies are not 'illegal', they are legal until forced to review, there is no evidence of non-compliance of matters reviewed.
Sure, the CoE may well have a stable membership, but Christianity on the whole has had a significant decline over the last 15 years, and that's despite using a biased phrasing in the Census question.
The current government is not longer promoting bishops solely on their ability to spout Blairite dogma, or closing successful churches because they are growing, and atheists are no longer given a free pass to bash the church in the BBC with a one sided critique. aka things are changing.
The Pentecostal movement is outgrowing Islam, which it did at the turn of the century, but is now what the government wants rather than doesnt want the trend will be supported rather than trodden on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 13:04:01
Its about religion and its application and influence in UK education.
Applied rather than theory subtopic of the thread.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
So let me get this straight... Its bullying for an outside civil rights group to point out illegal activities? The fact that some parents don't like it means absolutely nothing.
The reason these "secular bullies" exist is to protect people's civil rights. Just because some people are against certain civil rights doesn't mean what they are doing is immoral.
And yes, religion is declining in the western world, including the US. England is a majority non religious country for example, and it makes sense that people are upset that their child is only able to go to a religious school, where in some cases defenseless children are indoctrinated into an unhealthy world view.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/17 02:21:29
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
(It's a dutch 'joke' - Dad was born shortly before the outbreak of WW2, and spent most of his childhood fostered out in the netherlands, so he spoke both languages - and Russian as well).
