Disestablishing the Church of England

[Zen Monkey]

They're the same in that they both believe what they do with absolute certainty and look down on those who think differently. I don't entertain zealots, whether individuals or in groups, theist or atheist. I don't care what people believe, they can believe in Buddha, in Jesus, in the Tao, in Jedi, pixies, dragons, fairies, I don't care, but the moment they start forcing it down someone's throat and claiming those who think otherwise are wrong or stupid, then I do care. I have zero tolerance on intolerance - also known as the Paradox of Tolerance.

And I don't subscribe to the notion that, as Replica alluded to, only morons turn to religion. Again, it's looking down on people who think differently to you. Einstein was a religious man. Niels Bohr (the father of quantum mechanics) was a religious man. Socrates was a religious man. I could go on but the point is made. Stupid people are everywhere, some are theist, some are atheist. And just on a personal day to day level, it's not difficult to imagine that someone, let's say a parent with a terminally sick child, might turn to to God for help because of course they love their child more than they care about the laws of physics. That doesn't make them stupid.

[dvdx2]

They're the same in that they both believe what they do with absolute certainty and look down on those who think differently. I don't entertain zealots, whether individuals or in groups, theist or atheist. I don't care what people believe, they can believe in Buddha, in Jesus, in the Tao, in Jedi, pixies, dragons, fairies, I don't care, but the moment they start forcing it down someone's throat and claiming those who think otherwise are wrong or stupid, then I do care. I have zero tolerance on intolerance - also known as the Paradox of Tolerance.

And I don't subscribe to the notion that, as Replica alluded to, only morons turn to religion. Again, it's looking down on people who think differently to you. Einstein was a religious man. Niels Bohr (the father of quantum mechanics) was a religious man. Socrates was a religious man. I could go on but the point is made. Stupid people are everywhere, some are theist, some are atheist. And just on a personal day to day level, it's not difficult to imagine that someone, let's say a parent with a terminally sick child, might turn to to God for help because of course they love their child more than they care about the laws of physics. That doesn't make them stupid.

Imagine the amount of parents in famine ridden Africa counties that turn to god for help because there child is starving, or disease ridden.

Clearly It’s not god they need; it’s fresh drinking water, good food and medicine that is required along with stable governments, jobs, etc etc

[dvdx2]

They're the same in that they both believe what they do with absolute certainty and look down on those who think differently. I don't entertain zealots, whether individuals or in groups, theist or atheist. I don't care what people believe, they can believe in Buddha, in Jesus, in the Tao, in Jedi, pixies, dragons, fairies, I don't care, but the moment they start forcing it down someone's throat and claiming those who think otherwise are wrong or stupid, then I do care. I have zero tolerance on intolerance - also known as the Paradox of Tolerance.

And I don't subscribe to the notion that, as Replica alluded to, only morons turn to religion. Again, it's looking down on people who think differently to you. Einstein was a religious man. Niels Bohr (the father of quantum mechanics) was a religious man. Socrates was a religious man. I could go on but the point is made. Stupid people are everywhere, some are theist, some are atheist. And just on a personal day to day level, it's not difficult to imagine that someone, let's say a parent with a terminally sick child, might turn to to God for help because of course they love their child more than they care about the laws of physics. That doesn't make them stupid.

You think someone really believing in Jedi powers is sensible?

[Dogg Thang]

[MENTION=16623]Zen Monkey[/MENTION] - for clarity, it’s important to point out that I have no problems with the spiritual beliefs of others, unless those beliefs lead to actions that infringe on or endanger others. People turning to a god is not a problem for me. I don’t brand those people morons and I never have. As you rightly point out, there are so many examples of incredibly intelligent people who believe in gods or have spiritual beliefs. Institutional religion is a very different beast and, no, these things are not the same as atheists. Not even close. Institutional religion has been used as a controlling force for thousands of years and still is. Its list of horrors are in no way comparable to present day atheists, as much as many of them might be total knobs. Sure, they both look down on others. You’re right. If only organised religion stopped there, the world would be a better place.

[charlesr]

How many clever people turn to religion if they have never had any in their life? Loads of clever people believe because it's all they have known since birth.

[charlesr]

As for the topic, if someone can decide they are head of a church for laughs, someone else can decide they aren't for laughs. The Queen is probably an atheist but has to keep up pretences

[Neon Ignition]

Yep, religion is possibly as much as 95% if not more reliant on forcing the beliefs of one onto others. The vast majority of religious people only are so, and only believe in the specific religion that they do, because of they were indoctrinated as a child by their parents and peers. There's no getting away from that and no way that if they did religion would ever disappear. There will always be people who find a faith of their own to follow or choose to believe that life required a higher being, that's fine, but it's not something that has any basis in requiring religions to be so closely entwined in our politics, or schools etc. That being the case just endorses that national indoctrination and whilst the UK's growing multi-national population helps to break up the CofE's grip on power it's important that the government doesn't allow other religions to create other pockets of similar powers. It's why their push for more faith schools is so broken and wrong.

[charlesr]

but it's not something that has any basis in requiring religions to be so closely entwined in our politics, or schools etc.

There's actually no requirement for children to attend R.E. lessons. You can just ask the school to let your kids learn something else while everyone else is being taught which part of a church the "nave" is......

[Neon Ignition]

When did they change it so kids can opt out of it? I'm fine with kids being taught RE but more in the sense that it should teach them about the history and social aspects elements. That's likely broadly the case but then having any element of selecting who gets in based on faith is a no go

[Anpanman]

When did they change it so kids can opt out of it? I'm fine with kids being taught RE but more in the sense that it should teach them about the history and social aspects elements. That's likely broadly the case but then having any element of selecting who gets in based on faith is a no go

Our daughter is in a C of E high school so no choice and they have to takes GCSE RE (joy of joys), but in fairness they do a bit from all major religions and non-religion as well so it is a more broad brush approach.

[Cepp]

Our daughter is in a C of E high school so no choice and they have to takes GCSE RE (joy of joys), but in fairness they do a bit from all major religions and non-religion as well so it is a more broad brush approach.

That's how it was for me in the mid to late 90s, I found it quite informative tbh as someone that isn't religious.

[Asura]

Our daughter is in a C of E high school so no choice and they have to takes GCSE RE (joy of joys), but in fairness they do a bit from all major religions and non-religion as well so it is a more broad brush approach.

All kids should take RE purely because it's an easy GCSE. It's a pure memory test.

[Brad]

It shouldn't even be a GCSE though if it's just a memory test. What value is that to anyone? Same goes for all GCSEs that are like this. The poetry section of English Lit is an utter joke. What value is there in testing someone's ability to REMEMBER A POEM!? Specifically they have to remember a whole load of poems on the offchance that one of them will come up in the exam. It's ridiculous.

[wakka]

It's been a while, but you have to do more than that don't you? You have to write an essay analysing it in the exam as I recall.

[Brad]

It's been a while, but you have to do more than that don't you? You have to write an essay analysing it in the exam as I recall.

Yes, but you have to analyse it from memory (according to my daughter). Seriously, why can't you have it written down and analyse that?