Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 25, 2017, 09:49:34 PM
-
Neat little essay covering some of the issue of religious tolerance from the basis of John Locke
https://blog.oup.com/2017/04/religious-tolerance-locke-philosophy/
-
It is the religious extremists who should never be tolerated.
-
It is the religious extremists who should never be tolerated.
Any plans for their re-education?
-
Any plans for their re-education?
Probably only a brain transplant would do the trick!
-
Often thought I'd have loved living during the age of Enlightenment (with modern medicine and sanitation of course :)).
-
"And then the intolerant person is in a position to make a case for religious persecution on the part of the state: there should be penalties for non-attendance at church so that people are induced to attend and at least to give a hearing to the teachings of the state-approved religion."
Yeah, lets start the English civil war all over again.
But this just highlights that religions are just social and cultural institutions and customs, which is why all the arguments in the article fail for the faithful. Which is why some try to impose it on others by force. In my view religion shouldn't be tolerated at all. They are archaic and are not suitable for the modern world.
-
It is the religious extremists who should never be tolerated.
The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.
I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.
-
jeremy p - "If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president."
;D
We don't take much notice of them over here. Remember a few years back there was a Christian Alliance political party fronted by someone called Ram Gidoomal (who had been a Hindu, then a Muslim & eventually a Christian but that's another story),and George Hargreaves. they got a lot of air time but when it came to election they sank imto obscurity.
No=one seems to care about religious beliefs of our political leaders as long as they are moderate. Always amazes me what a big thing the Americans make about it.
-
The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.
I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.
No. You send them to a country that lives by that religion. Or if they are moderate in their views, relative to the state they live in, then they live by that countries laws with no special favours. If they show signs of erring from those accepted norms then they know they will be deported. And this is done by them being totally transparent in their affairs.
-
No. You send them to a country that lives by that religion.
What country lives by fundamentalist Christian principles?
Who decides who needs exiling and who doesn't?
-
What country lives by fundamentalist Christian principles?
Who decides who needs exiling and who doesn't?
As I said if they abide by the rules of the law of the land, and don't ask for special arrangements then they can stay.
The culture and law of the land dictates the terms of those who can stay and those that have to be deported.
-
Deported to where if they are born and bred here?
We do have communities here already who, though law abiding, do have special arrangements, eg regarding education of children. They've lived here peaceably for a long time but have an exclusive culture. Would you turf them out (it's happened before)?
-
R
What exactly do you mean when you say
'do have special arrangements, eg regarding education of children' ???
-
Run their own schools with mainly religious curriculum, especially for boys. That's a special arrangement. Not everyone has it.
I am not complaining about them at all Trippy, just highlighting that we do have such communities in our midst and they are part of the UK. I wouldn't like to see them 'deported' & don't understand how they could be, being as they belong here.
There is not just one culture here that everyone has to conform to.
If someone breaks the law that's a different matter; of course they should be arrested and tried,maybe go to prison but someone who is a citizen, like ourselves, can't be just shipped off somewhere else - as convicts were sent to Australia in days gone by.
-
As I said if they abide by the rules of the law of the land, and don't ask for special arrangements then they can stay.
If people don't abide by the rules of the land (and this applies to anybody, not just religious fundamentalists) we already have a system to deal with them: we put them in prison.
-
The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.
I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.
Yes!
If people don't abide by the rules of the land (and this applies to anybody, not just religious fundamentalists) we already have a system to deal with them: we put them in prison.
That's right, if we break the law we risk imprisonment.
I wonder what sort of people you are talking about when you say -As I said if they abide by the rules of the law of the land, and don't ask for special arrangements then they can stay.
The culture and law of the land dictates the terms of those who can stay and those that have to be deported.
Please explain. Could be any of us if we have practices and beliefs that are not the 'cultural norm' (whatever tht is).
-
What about practices such as child brides ????
Where do we draw the line & say NO !!!!!????
-
That's already illegal here anyway. No-one can marry under 16 and then need parental permission but I'd have thought you knew that.
It does happen in other countries and there are charities which we can support to fight it (Plan International UK is one I know about which does tremendous work), but I thought we were talking about here in the UK.
-
The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.
I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.
No they should NOT be tolerated in a free society, if they are abusive and violent.
-
Nobody said abusive and violent people should be tolerated floo; if you read back people have said quite the opposite.
What we are talking about is UK citizens, like ourselves. If they commit a crime (& aif they're caught of course), they will be duly punished, that is what prisons are for, but they cannot be deported anywhere. The days of transportation are over.
Not conforming to 'our' culture, whatever that may be, is not a crime and in a tolerant society we will accept differences - sometimes even celebrate them.
A different scenario would be if a person from another country, without UKcitizenship rights, commits a crime here. For example a person from, say, Brazil or Russia, who is here for a month or two. They would be deported, i don't know how it works, they'd likely be remanded here first but eventually packed off.
-
Nobody said abusive and violent people should be tolerated floo; if you read back people have said quite the opposite.
What we are talking about is UK citizens, like ourselves. If they commit a crime (& aif they're caught of course), they will be duly punished, that is what prisons are for, but they cannot be deported anywhere. The days of transportation are over.
Not conforming to 'our' culture, whatever that may be, is not a crime and in a tolerant society we will accept differences - sometimes even celebrate them.
A different scenario would be if a person from another country, without UKcitizenship rights, commits a crime here. For example a person from, say, Brazil or Russia, who is here for a month or two. They would be deported, i don't know how it works, they'd likely be remanded here first but eventually packed off.
Funny I thought we still deported our citizens to Oz if they were naughty! ::)
-
Some would undoubtedly like to :D. (we could transport a few nasty politicians).
Must have been 'orrible though, thinking about it; people sent there who had often only committed petty crimes. It was a hard life when they got there too,survival of fittest.
-
Some would undoubtedly like to :D. (we could transport a few nasty politicians).
Must have been 'orrible though, thinking about it; people sent there who had often only committed petty crimes. It was a hard life when they got there too,survival of fittest.
Ii would be great to send some of our citizens on a one way voyage to the far reaches of the Universe, paedophiles and serial killers would be top of my list.
-
Imagine the horror/sci fi movies that would generate!
-
Deported to where if they are born and bred here?
We do have communities here already who, though law abiding, do have special arrangements, eg regarding education of children. They've lived here peaceably for a long time but have an exclusive culture. Would you turf them out (it's happened before)?
In my hypothetical proposition if they did not meet the requirements then yes. Past performance is no guarantee for future behaviour - history shows us that.
-
Run their own schools with mainly religious curriculum, especially for boys. That's a special arrangement. Not everyone has it.
I am not complaining about them at all Trippy, just highlighting that we do have such communities in our midst and they are part of the UK. I wouldn't like to see them 'deported' & don't understand how they could be, being as they belong here.
There is not just one culture here that everyone has to conform to.
If someone breaks the law that's a different matter; of course they should be arrested and tried,maybe go to prison but someone who is a citizen, like ourselves, can't be just shipped off somewhere else - as convicts were sent to Australia in days gone by.
The special arrangement you describe above wouldn't be allowed. No religious schools. All children would have to go to a state school. As I have said above I think religion is archaic and not appropriate for modern society.
-
If people don't abide by the rules of the land (and this applies to anybody, not just religious fundamentalists) we already have a system to deal with them: we put them in prison.
I'm not talking about the laws now, as they have been corrupted by the neo-liberal project and political correctness etc. but a set of laws for a modern civilised people, not those who think God and all that exists. Also the laws now are not enforced as we have seen recently with the lack of convictions for FGM and so on. Or how a load of Pakis sadistically sexually abused children and boasted that the law wouldn't dare touch them. These children told the police and were essentially ridiculed and laughed at. Even the Labour councillors knew about this and did nothing because of that fucking brainwashing politically correct shit. The law is worthless unless it has teeth.
-
I wonder what sort of people you are talking about when you say -
.....................
Please explain. Could be any of us if we have practices and beliefs that are not the 'cultural norm' (whatever tht is).
This thread is mainly about the toleration of religion. I don't believe in religious schools or any other opt outs that is contrary to the laws or the culture of the land, as I would see it in this hypothetical exercise.
-
What about practices such as child brides ????
Where do we draw the line & say NO !!!!!????
Who mentioned child brides as in as if it is legal now.....?
-
This thread is mainly about the toleration of religion. I don't believe in religious schools or any other opt outs that is contrary to the laws or the culture of the land, as I would see it in this hypothetical exercise.
I don't believe in faith schools either Jack but would you really go as far as to send people who support them to another land?
-
That's already illegal here anyway. No-one can marry under 16 and then need parental permission but I'd have thought you knew that.
It does happen in other countries and there are charities which we can support to fight it (Plan International UK is one I know about which does tremendous work), but I thought we were talking about here in the UK.
Are you quite sure you know what's going on IN the UK???
-
I don't believe in faith schools either Jack but would you really go as far as to send people who support them to another land?
Their support for them would be pretty superfluous as the law wouldn't allow them. If they were that keen on them then it may be suggested they leave for a country that allows them.
-
What about practices such as child brides ????
Where do we draw the line & say NO !!!!!????
We draw the line and say no. It doesn't seem difficult to me.
The line in the UK is at 16 years of age.
-
No they should NOT be tolerated in a free society, if they are abusive and violent.
We already don't tolerate violence. What is your point?
-
Moderator A number of posts have been removed from the board. Members should post in line with the Forum Rules, link below. In particular, note posts in breach of 1.h will be removed, and members may be suspended following such a breach.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=7765.0
-
Are you quite sure you know what's going on IN the UK???
Not everything. We all know things go on that area, drugs, money laundering, organised prostitution - all - illegal, e.g. young women transported to the UK from Eastern European countries for the purpose of prostitution. Plenty of other things that are illegal. Tht's the point, the illegality. If it is uncovered, people are prosecuted. Doesn't all happen overnight.
No idea what you are getting at precisely.There are no legal marriages of children here. Go back to the 12/13th centuries, children were married to other children, generally noble-folk, one woman I read about some time ago was widowed twice by the time she was 13! A few years later she contracted a marriage with someone she loved, had children and lived happily for many years but she had still been 'married' at the age of 6 to a little boy. They lived in eachother's houses, played, took lessons etc. like other kids. The parents had arranged the marriages, with the intention of uniting noble houses.
That wouldn't happen now but illegal stuff still goes on. I've not heard of 'child brides' in UK being that common though, might happen but certainly illegal. Happens in other countries especially remote areas - Plan UK is good charity to support that helps stop this sort of thing.
-
Their support for them would be pretty superfluous as the law wouldn't allow them. If they were that keen on them then it may be suggested they leave for a country that allows them.
That makes me think of Jews being driven out of many countries countless times over many centuries & i feel sad at the image of that.
-
Could you imagine a world of evil allowed because of the stupidity of mankind believing religions who kill others like the 9/11 actually have any tolerance for others?
We can all discuss the pros and cons but some religions should not be allowed to practice in other parts of the world.
Do we need to say more. Would probably have kept many a lot safer if it had been done a long time ago.
-
Could you imagine a world of evil allowed because of the stupidity of mankind believing religions who kill others like the 9/11 actually have any tolerance for others?
We can all discuss the pros and cons but some religions should not be allowed to practice in other parts of the world.
Do we need to say more. Would probably have kept many a lot safer if it had been done a long time ago.
I hadn't noticed your take on religion is particularly tolerant, you have condemned me to hell a few times! ;D
-
I'd be interested to know which of SOME religions Sass is on about. Islam certainly but others?
Nick
-
I hadn't noticed your take on religion is particularly tolerant, you have condemned me to hell a few times! ;D
I have never condemned anyone. It has never been mine to judge others.
The words a person speaks and their actions which could be seen to condemn them because of what they have read or believe.
But as you don't believe you could not see yourself as honestly being condemned.
Do you think that God existing for you would change that?
Because man cannot condemn another.
-
I have never condemned anyone. It has never been mine to judge others.
The words a person speaks and their actions which could be seen to condemn them because of what they have read or believe.
But as you don't believe you could not see yourself as honestly being condemned.
Do you think that God existing for you would change that?
Because man cannot condemn another.
Most of your posts directed at people who don't see it your way are condemning and judging their take on faith! ::)
-
Turfing any one religion out of our education system would be the wrong way of dealing with these people, it's necessary to turf them all out so that we don't have the why my lot are being chucked out and not X religion.
I know the history of how the religion has been involved with education, but really it's about time they put in their place, which shouldn't involve education.
Religion can't legitimately be ruled out of our common history, nor should it be, but calling time on lessons specifically about religion wouldn't be out of order.
ippy
-
As religion has played such an important part in world history, for better or for worse, information about the world's leading religions should be part of the school curriculum. However, proselytising must be forbidden.
-
As religion has played such an important part in world history, for better or for worse, information about the world's leading religions should be part of the school curriculum. However, proselytising must be forbidden.
I put this on my previous post Floo, I thought you might have missed it, as follows:
"Religion can't legitimately be ruled out of our common history, nor should it be, but calling time on lessons specifically about religion wouldn't be out of order".
I didn't mean to cut out religion entirely from our education system just as I said above, however I do think it would be legitimate to drop religious education specifically aimed at any child under the age of seven, the age where most of us acquire the ability to challenge.
The largest number of religion based schools, funnily enough, are for the pre seven year old age group, I wonder why?
ippy
-
I put this on my previous post Floo, I thought you might have missed it, as follows:
"Religion can't legitimately be ruled out of our common history, nor should it be, but calling time on lessons specifically about religion wouldn't be out of order".
I didn't mean to cut out religion entirely from our education system just as I said above, however I do think it would be legitimate to drop religious education specifically aimed at any child under the age of seven, the age where most of us acquire the ability to challenge.
The largest number of religion based schools, funnily enough, are for the pre seven year old age group, I wonder why?
ippy
No doubt on the basis of, “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” If you indoctrinate a child at a young age, they are more likely to stick with that indoctrination. It would be interesting if any surveys have been done to see how true that is. It didn't work for me, I kicked the faith of my childhood into touch as soon as I began to think about it logically.
-
Most of your posts directed at people who don't see it your way are condemning and judging their take on faith! ::)
I beg to differ, there has been posts from yourself and other atheist which do condemn and judge the religious beliefs of others.
I do not believe you are in any position to judge others given your own history. Class houses and stones come to mind.
-
I beg to differ, there has been posts from yourself and other atheist which do condemn and judge the religious beliefs of others.
I do not believe you are in any position to judge others given your own history. Class houses and stones come to mind.
I have no idea what the heck you are on about, but judging by your posts, neither do you! ::)
-
The special arrangement you describe above wouldn't be allowed. No religious schools. All children would have to go to a state school. As I have said above I think religion is archaic and not appropriate for modern society.
Yet allowing schools on the basis of parental income is I suppose.
-
Turfing any one religion out of our education system would be the wrong way of dealing with these people, it's necessary to turf them all out so that we don't have the why my lot are being chucked out and not X religion.
I think that is correct - we shouldn't have any state schools that have a specific faith ethos.
Indeed over the past few years this issue of 'if we allow schools of x religion, why not schools of y religion' has lead us down the bonkers path where we are increasing the number of faith schools (often to 'correct' the perceived wrong of allowing CofE schools but not jewish schools or Muslim schools) while at the same time in the real world the proportion of people having anything to do with the organised religions that control those schools diminishes.
Parents should be free to bring up their children within a specific faith tradition (providing it doesn't step over the line into being abusive) but it isn't the state's job to pay for it.
-
Yet allowing schools on the basis of parental income is I suppose.
Is that a comment against private schools, or are you trying to make some point about non faith state schools.
If the former - well yes there is an interesting discussion to be had.
If the latter then you are way off the mark as it has been demonstrated time and time again that it is faith schools as a category of school that are disproportionately likely to take kids from affluent backgrounds, when benchmarked against the overall demographics of their catchment area.
So as an example just 12% of pupils at faith primary schools are eligible for free school meals, compared to 18% at the equivalent non faith schools according to the very latest data.
-
Is that a comment against private schools, or are you trying to make some point about non faith state schools.
If the former - well yes there is an interesting discussion to be had.
If the latter then you are way off the mark as it has been demonstrated time and time again that it is faith schools as a category of school that are disproportionately likely to take kids from affluent backgrounds, when benchmarked against the overall demographics of their catchment area.
So as an example just 12% of pupils at faith primary schools are eligible for free school meals, compared to 18% at the equivalent non faith schools according to the very latest data.
Going back to the point I made.
What is the percentage of pupils at fee paying schools eligible for free school meals.
If it is lower than 12% are you prepared to accept that arguing against faith schools on the basis of pupils on free school meals while allowing fee paying schools is not terribly bright?
-
Going back to the point I made.
What is the percentage of pupils at fee paying schools eligible for free school meals.
I don't know - the statistics tend to be recorded for the maintained sector alone.
If it is lower than 12% are you prepared to accept that arguing against faith schools on the basis of pupils on free school meals while allowing fee paying schools is not terribly bright?
Not really - they are two separate arguments. One is about whether we should allow private as well as state schooling. The other about how tax payer funded schools are run.
It is of course to be expected that private schools are likely to attract the more wealthy, for the obvious reason that they charge fees.
There is no reason, in principle, why kids at state funded faith schools should be demonstrably more affluent as a cohort, than those at state funded non faith schools. But they are.
-
I don't know - the statistics tend to be recorded for the maintained sector alone.
Not really - they are two separate arguments. One is about whether we should allow private as well as state schooling. The other about how tax payer funded schools are run.
It is of course to be expected that private schools are likely to attract the more wealthy, for the obvious reason that they charge fees.
There is no reason, in principle, why kids at state funded faith schools should be demonstrably more affluent as a cohort, than those at state funded non faith schools. But they are.
There are the Grammars and then there are the academies of course. Have you factored these in? Academies of course seem to be able to be more selective in which pupils they retain.
Then of course entry is also dependent on church attendance......and as they say, ''Going to a garage doesn't make one a car.''
I notice you have run up the flag on Private education. Are you able to give the percentage of affluent cohort on that ?
-
There are the Grammars and then there are the academies of course. Have you factored these in?
The distinction I have made is faith school vs non faith. There are grammar schools and academies in both of those categories, so yes they are included but not separated out as this wasn't the analysis I was giving.
I presume your argument is that grammar schools and academies are more affluent (if so I think it is up to you to provide that evidence), but if so that doesn't really help as although there are faith academies and grammar schools these types of school are more common, proportionately, in the non faith sector which would make the distinction in terms of affluence between faith and non faith schools more stark still.
Academies of course seem to be able to be more selective in which pupils they retain.
Confused statement, and also not true.
Firstly do you mean the pupils they admit, rather than retain.
Secondly, although there are some academies that are partially selective (they cannot be fully selective) that isn't common. Most secondary schools are now academies and many primaries are too. Most aren't selective at all. So as an example - all the secondary schools in my city are now academies - none are even partially selective. Many of the primary schools are academies - none are selective.
The schools my three children attend are both academies - neither are selective.
-
The distinction I have made is faith school vs non faith. There are grammar schools and academies in both of those categories, so yes they are included but not separated out as this wasn't the analysis I was giving.
I presume your argument is that grammar schools and academies are more affluent (if so I think it is up to you to provide that evidence), but if so that doesn't really help as although there are faith academies and grammar schools these types of school are more common, proportionately, in the non faith sector which would make the distinction in terms of affluence between faith and non faith schools more stark still.
Confused statement, and also not true.
Firstly do you mean the pupils they admit, rather than retain.
Secondly, although there are some academies that are partially selective (they cannot be fully selective) that isn't common. Most secondary schools are now academies and many primaries are too. Most aren't selective at all. So as an example - all the secondary schools in my city are now academies - none are even partially selective. Many of the primary schools are academies - none are selective.
The schools my three children attend are both academies - neither are selective.
Grammar schools in general have a lower proportion of pupils on free school meals.
Academies have had all sorts of freedoms. I am of course heartened that your experience has been free of any selection.
But to return to my point.
Why deplore faith schools and yet find fee paying schools or public schools acceptable?
There was an interesting article about the Trojan Horse scandal by one of the lawyers involved in the cases which resulted. The lawyer went in with a Govian brief that the secularity of the school space was being defended by the Government but on inspection concluded that actually no school has been, since the 1944 and subsequent education acts, a secular space because of the prescribed acts of worship. I digress.
Many primaries and some secondaries are originally church establishments and all are established under the 1944 and subsequent acts.
-
Grammar schools in general have a lower proportion of pupils on free school meals.
Academies have had all sorts of freedoms. I am of course heartened that your experience has been free of any selection.
Statistics on Grammar Schools and Academies and free school meals.
Grammars - massively lower proportion of free school meals (2.5%) compared to their local area (8.9%) - necessary to compare with local area as grammar schools only exist in a few counties.
Academies - slightly more complicated - primary academies (16.3%) have a higher proportion than the overall average, at 14.5%. Secondary academies (12.5%) have slightly lower than the national average (13.2%).
Note that there are both faith and non faith schools in the academy cohort.
Of interest perhaps - I do not support grammar schools on principle as I disagree with selection in compulsory education. Academies are about an alternative way of running schools rather than something as fundamental as selection. I'm not a fan of the whole academisation agenda, but this is more on pragmatic/polical grounds than on principle. Providing a school is run according the basic principles of provision of education for its local community and without using academic selection in its admissions then whether it is governed as an academy (with funding direct from DfE) or governed as a community school (under the auspices of the LEA) isn't a huge issue to me.