DooDoot wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:04 am
I have no wish to have "LGBT...etc." taught in schools, but would recognise the concerns raised in the report regarding issues of sexual orientation. If schools are teaching that some sexual orientations are somehow "wrong", then I think they should stop doing so.
For me, I disagree here. I have no issues with religious schools being required to teach British law pertaining to LGBT however I think religious schools should be able to also teach a homosexual way of life is contrary to their religions; just as killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying & persecution of LGBT is contrary to Buddhism. Imagine if Buddhist teachers were prohibited from teaching Buddhist non-violence because it was against the British laws about military service & conscription or contrary to a British war.
Yes, I see your point, and to some extent I'm sympathetic. For me, the difference would be whether the "wrongness" of a sexual orientation is taught as meaning that one should not engage in certain sexual activities as a practitioner/member of the faith; or whether it actively claims that those with an unfavoured orientation are somehow "bad" and should be discriminated against. This would set the religious minority at odds with the law. I have little problem with Buddhism or Anglican Christianity in this respect, because both are capable of enormous respect towards minorities. For example, I've never known a more gay-friendly environment than certain corners of the Church of England; and Buddhists don't seem to care much about sexual orientation either way. I can't imagine non-violence within Buddhism (or Hinduism, or atheism, come to that) ever being proscribed in schools. There has always been a very strong tradition of Pacifism in the UK, with conscientious objectors being given rights in law.
I have no issues with celebrating diversity however I think religions who do not recommend the LGBT way of life are also part of this "diversity". Celebrating diversity means both pro-LGBT & anti-LGBT are embraced (as long as they do not break the law pertaining to violence. But once law becomes 'thought-police', this is totalitarianism).
Agreed. My objection is that it is a waste of valuable school time, and if people want it they can pay rather than using my taxes.
I think religions should be allowed to teach metaphysics in religious schools because that is the reason why parents send their children, which often is more costly, to religious schools.
In this case, the education is free. The state pays. If people believe in an after-life, then they are probably better at inculcating the basics than a harassed school-teacher. My wife, who is an Anglican priest, despairs at the "theology" taught by the local Church School. I could see this leading to all sorts of problems...
Maybe, just as Christianity (which is the 1st word in the British nation anthem, namely: "God save our gracious Queen") is British.
It depends on what is meant by "being British". Christianity didn't originate here, of course, but Anglicanism and many of its offshoots and nonconformist parallels certainly did. And which names are unequivocally British? How far back to we go in order to eliminate all those Norman and Roman invaders? The point is, it is very welcome here, as are the Patels, Kellys, Goldsteins, and so on.
If this is so, imo, this is wrong. I found it hard to think its like this in Britain but if so, i think this is very wrong. All schools should teach the basic subjects of English & Maths and offer a full selection of academic subjects required for further education, such as physics, chemistry, economics, etc, plus physical education.
In practice, most do, of course. But there is no compulsion to. Children do not have to go to school at all, and there is no limit (other than case law and issues of cruelty, etc.) on what one teaches or doesn't teach one's children.
People send their children to religious schools because there is discipline & morality in the schools and not a pre-occupation with the opposite sex.
Yes, it's the same in the UK. The issue here is that this tendency was spotted and encouraged in the 1990s, because middle class parents who lacked the money to privately educate their children wanted more discipline and a better ethos. As the report suggests, though, the law of unintended consequences has kicked in and the fear is that religious indoctrination is being prioritised, and the taxpayer is paying for it.
Again, thanks for your insightful and civilised discussion.