Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 24, 2018, 04:43:07 AM
-
Just why?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15886294.Would_you_Adam_and_Eve_it_____meet_the_creationist_in_the_classroom/
-
Just why?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15886294.Would_you_Adam_and_Eve_it_____meet_the_creationist_in_the_classroom/
It seems that Greer and McRae are against religious representatives and it is convenient that the humanists have tried and tested whingeomatic devices to cope with a creationist.
One of these devices is to complain of privilege. This person doesn't seem to have any more privilege than ainyone else.
Secular humanist posturing.
-
The legal requirement to have religious representatives is the definition of privilege.
-
The legal requirement to have religious representatives is the definition of privilege.
What other requirements in terms of membership are there though. Or is religion unique here?
-
It seems that Greer and McRae are against religious representatives and it is convenient that the humanists have tried and tested whingeomatic devices to cope with a creationist.
One of these devices is to complain of privilege. This person doesn't seem to have any more privilege than ainyone else.
Secular humanist posturing.
Nope - the issue here is with the unelected having the same governance role as the elected: it is undemocratic privilege and this needs to be addressed.
If religious groups, or indeed any other groups that define themselves as representing any particular perspective, want to have a role in local politics then let them stand for election on a manifesto that sets out their particular perspective and let the electorate award them their place, or not.
-
Nope - the issue here is with the unelected having the same governance role as the elected: it is undemocratic privilege and this needs to be addressed.
If religious groups, or indeed any other groups that define themselves as representing any particular perspective, want to have a role in local politics then let them stand for election on a manifesto that sets out their particular perspective and let the electorate award them their place, or not.
So why is this person being a creationist being rolled out as well?
Which ever way you cut it this is secular humanist posturing.
Do you know that the religious representatives are the only unelected people?
Are there for example people from unions or head teachers? Who elected them.
I'm beginning to get the reek of secular humanist special pleading here.
-
What other requirements in terms of membership are there though. Or is religion unique here?
Being unique isn't tge definition of privileged. Being given representation for the sake of it is.
-
Being unique isn't tge definition of privileged. Being given representation for the sake of it is.
In your thread title you mentioned nonsense merchants in the plural. That cannot be the singular doctor. Who are you referring to here?
-
In your thread title you mentioned nonsense merchants in the plural. That cannot be the singular doctor. Who are you referring to here?
Ah so now you have accepted that the religious are privileged here, we can move on to something else. Hurrah!
The 'good' doctor, you also appear to agree is a nonsense merchant, so again hurrah. Given that the view us a religious one and given the privilege that you appear to have accepted then the plural applies.
-
In your thread title you mentioned nonsense merchants in the plural. That cannot be the singular doctor. Who are you referring to here?
There was a previous issue in Scotland of creationists distributing material in a primary school - which was stopped and led to the removal of teachers, so there is clearly some form of policy regarding creationists in terms of direct access to children. So it does seem perverse to give them access to local politics involving education unless, of course, they get themselves elected on the basis of their religious views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10307520/Head-teachers-removed-in-row-over-creationist-church.html
-
We love the scientists and we respect them very much actually, but they were not there from the beginning so they don’t know everything. They are limited, as I said, not always telling the truth.”
My bold in the quote.
How strange, neither was he. This is unutterable bollocks.
-
I’m still on my first coffee if the day so my brain isn’t really awake yet, but does that article say this committee is made up of three people? In which case he makes up a third of it.
-
Nope - the issue here is with the unelected having the same governance role as the elected: it is undemocratic privilege and this needs to be addressed.
If religious groups, or indeed any other groups that define themselves as representing any particular perspective, want to have a role in local politics then let them stand for election on a manifesto that sets out their particular perspective and let the electorate award them their place, or not.
Agreed.
-
I’m still on my first coffee if the day so my brain isn’t really awake yet, but does that article say this committee is made up of three people? In which case he makes up a third of it.
Not quite, though it could be read that way. The committee will be larger but the council are required to appoint three religious reps
-
Not quite, though it could be read that way. The committee will be larger but the council are required to appoint three religious reps
Yeah, just re-read it and googled the committee. There’s thirty-odd members.
-
There was a previous issue in Scotland of creationists distributing material in a primary school - which was stopped and led to the removal of teachers, so there is clearly some form of policy regarding creationists in terms of direct access to children. So it does seem perverse to give them access to local politics involving education unless, of course, they get themselves elected on the basis of their religious views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10307520/Head-teachers-removed-in-row-over-creationist-church.html
Again, are any other people or groups apart from religious people privileged by having an ensured place on the committee? Teachers, parents, school governors, unions, County council employees?
If so the special pleading is going on.
The real beef here is that secular humanists don't want opposition to a central tenet of belief. The central importance of evolution in the freedom of people from religion. Is that enough to exclude a creationist from a committee? No.....and I speak as a theistic evolutionist.
-
Again, are any other people or groups apart from religious people privileged by having an ensured place on the committee? Teachers, parents, school governors, unions, County council employees?
If so the special pleading is going on.
The real beef here is that secular humanists don't want opposition to a central tenet of belief. The central importance of evolution in the freedom of people from religion. Is that enough to exclude a creationist from a committee? No.....and I speak as a theistic evolutionist.
Saying that other people might be privileged isn't a justification for privilege. Religion is privileged here.
-
The make up of the committee is here.
The religious are regarded as needing more representation than either parents or teachers.
http://ecas.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/ViewSelectedTerms.asp?c=P62AFQDXZLZ3UTDX
-
Again, are any other people or groups apart from religious people privileged by having an ensured place on the committee? Teachers, parents, school governors, unions, County council employees?
If so the special pleading is going on.
The real beef here is that secular humanists don't want opposition to a central tenet of belief. The central importance of evolution in the freedom of people from religion. Is that enough to exclude a creationist from a committee? No.....and I speak as a theistic evolutionist.
As far as I know these non-elected places are in relation to the education aspect, and not the overall council business. From a petition to change this.
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward legislative proposals to repeal Section 124 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, as amended by Section 31 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.
This would end the legal obligation on local authorities to appoint three unelected religious representatives to sit on their education committees.
http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/PE01498
-
As far as I know these non-elected places are in relation to the education aspect, and not the overall council business. From a petition to change this.
Yes...and are the religious places on the education committee the only non elected ones?
-
Saying that other people might be privileged isn't a justification for privilege. Religion is privileged here.
....and religious....which if there are other groups so privileged would be the real complaint but smuggled in under the cover of something vaguely legitimate.
-
The make up of the committee is here.
The religious are regarded as needing more representation than either parents or teachers.
http://ecas.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/ViewSelectedTerms.asp?c=P62AFQDXZLZ3UTDX
Is that open to non southlanarkshire residents? Or is every antitheist now a South lanarkshirian?
-
As a parent I’d be deeply concerned if either teachers or parents were not represented on education committees. Teachers deliver education and see what is needed and parents are the voice for the children that are educated. It’s hardly ‘privilege’ to for them to have a voice as without teachers and families there is no education.
What role does religion play in education?
-
As a parent I’d be deeply concerned if either teachers or parents were not represented on education committees. Teachers deliver education and see what is needed and parents are the voice for the children that are educated. It’s hardly ‘privilege’ to for them to have a voice as without teachers and families there is no education.
What role does religion play in education?
Possibly the volume of church founded schools.
What is your view of academy chains who have or are removing parental government from their schools?
-
Possibly the volume of church founded schools.
What is your view of academy chains who have or are removing parental government from their schools?
This isn’t discussing academy dickishness, it’s discussing religious privilege. Sorry, but what role does religion play in education today?
-
This isn’t discussing academy dickishness, it’s discussing religious privilege. Sorry, but what role does religion play in education today?
It's discussing a situation in Southlanarkshire that looked liked religious privileged but has turned out to be about religious presence. There is the double turdpolish of using creationism to promote anti religion.
What has secular humanism got to do with religion.? would be the more apt question.
-
It's discussing a situation in Southlanarkshire that looked liked religious privileged but has turned out to be about religious presence. There is the double turdpolish of using creationism to promote anti religion.
What has secular humanism got to do with religion.? would be the more apt question.
Religious presence that is there because of privileging it specifically.
-
Religious presence that is there because of privileging it specifically.
Ah, you mean religious privilege as opposed to just privilege. Again Sane are there any other groups or categories that are similarly privileged a place or places on this committee?
If there are then the only important feature is religion.
So sane is this about religion or privilege or religion privilege which is somehow speshul.
-
Ah, you mean religious privilege as opposed to just privilege. Again Sane are there any other groups or categories that are similarly privileged a place or places on this committee?
If there are then the only important feature is religion.
So sane is this about religion or privilege or religion privilege which is somehow speshul.
Again it doesn't matter if there are other privileges. Good to see you are back at accepting this is religious privilege.
-
Again it doesn't matter if there are other privileges. Good to see you are back at accepting this is religious privilege.
If there are other privileges then this isn't really about privilege Sane. This is about religion.
The very term religious privilege is a linguistic travesty in this case and a special pleading and piggybacking antireligion on the back of the word privilege because anti religion is too weak a complaint. Use of the notion of privilege is a disguise.
-
If there are other privileges then this isn't really about privilege Sane. This is about religion.
The very term religious privilege is a linguistic travesty and a special pleading and piggybacking antireligion on the back of the word privilege because anti religion is too weak a complaint. Use of the notion of privilege is a disguise.
No, you would be using a classic tu quoque fallacy here. If privilege like this is wrong then you would be supporting for calling it to be removed. It's religious privilege in thus case because the members have to be religious.
-
I’ve looked and can’t find a similarly privileged position for secularists on the committee.
Remind me which group is getting special favours again?
-
No, you would be using a classic tu quoque fallacy here. If privilege like this is wrong then you would be supporting for calling it to be removed. It's religious privilege in thus case because the members have to be religious.
To single out religious privilege as opposed to any other privilege is special pleading. Sane.
You can't avoid that.
If pointing out one fallacy creates another fallacy then We cannot put much store into The great antitheist fallacy bonanza whackoff trotted out on these boards can we Sane. Ha Ha.
-
It’s important to look in context. Parents play a part in education. Teachers play a part in education.
What part does religion play?
-
I’ve looked and can’t find a similarly privileged position for secularists on the committee.
I understand there are 33 posts.
Perhaps the petition should be to include a secular humanist post rather than eliminate opposition to a secular humanist central tenet of faith.
-
It’s important to look in context. Parents play a part in education. Teachers play a part in education.
What part does religion play?
Many schools are church foundations and this is the education resources committee of SouthLanarkshire.
-
To single out religious privilege as opposed to any other privilege is special pleading. Sane.
You can't avoid that.
If pointing out one fallacy creates another fallacy then We cannot put much store into The great antitheist fallacy bonanza whackoff trotted out on these boards can we Sane. Ha Ha.
No, it isn't special pleading as no one is saying only religious privilege would be wrong. For you, logic appears to be a big closed book in a big closed safe in a big closed room in a big closed house on an island on the other side of the world.
-
I understand there are 33 posts.
Perhaps the petition should be to include a secular humanist post rather than eliminate opposition to a secular humanist central tenet of faith.
what on earth are you talking about? What secular humanist 'tenet of faith'? Who are the secular humanists you are referring to?
-
what on earth are you talking about? What secular humanist 'tenet of faith'? Who are the secular humanists you are referring to?
It is obvious from Macraes intervention that Dr Iskander being a creationist offends the Humanists.
How does he offend the humanists? He does not believe in evolution.
Why might that matter to a humanist who's faith is basically freedom from religion? Answer Humanists see evolution as removing the need for God.
Therefore according to the Scottish Herald this whole hoo har is a secular humanist concoction.
Now, calling non believers everywhere bothered by Dr Iskander. Have the cojones to admit that this is a religious thing and nothing to do with privilege as such. Say after me...Vlad......I admit I have made this a privilege thing when you could see right through it.........Thank you
-
I understand there are 33 posts.
Perhaps the petition should be to include a secular humanist post rather than eliminate opposition to a secular humanist central tenet of faith.
Why one, when religion gets three? What’s so special about religion?
-
Why one, when religion gets three? What’s so special about religion?
Well there's more than one religion, obvs!
They can all get to put their contradictory views forward so that there is less confusion about "The Truth" !
-
It is obvious from Macraes intervention that Dr Iskander being a creationist offends the Humanists.
How does he offend the humanists? He does not believe in evolution.
Why might that matter to a humanist who's faith is basically freedom from religion? Answer Humanists see evolution as removing the need for God.
Therefore according to the Scottish Herald this whole hoo har is a secular humanist concoction.
Now, calling non believers everywhere bothered by Dr Iskander. Have the cojones to admit that this is a religious thing and nothing to do with privilege as such. Say after me...Vlad......I admit I have made this a privilege thing when you could see right through it.........Thank you
Evolution is not a matter of faith.
-
Many schools are church foundations and this is the education resources committee of SouthLanarkshire.
So religion has a say over schools that aren’t religiously founded? And if those ‘religiously founded’ schools, how many are state funded? I’m thinking ‘all of them’ if they are run by the council. So the responsibility if religion to run state educational establishments is over.
-
Why one, when religion gets three? What’s so special about religion?
Alright, three.
I told you what is special about religion vis a vis an education resource committee. Many schools are church foundations.
-
So religion has a say over schools that aren’t religiously founded? And if those ‘religiously founded’ schools, how many are state funded? I’m thinking ‘all of them’ if they are run by the council. So the responsibility if religion to run state educational establishments is over.
Arrangements concerning foundation and funding are complicated and there will have been at councilisation of schools several agreements to ameliorate a straight land and property and pedagogical grab. Hence religious involvement.
Of course nothing is set in stone and arrangements change locally and hopefully by agreement.
In this case there seems to be a bit of hoo har by the Humanists to promote certain campaigns by using extremists to tar all religionists, the "in this day and age" bollocks among them.
-
Evolution is not a matter of faith.
No, but that it somehow aids atheism/humanist cause of removing religion IS. Why on earth do you think the secular humanists are so exercised.
-
No, but that it somehow aids atheism/humanist cause of removing religion IS. Why on earth do you think the secular humanists are so exercised.
Well I am 'exercised' because of giving the religious the special privilege.
-
Well I 'exercised' because of giving the religious the special privilege.
Ah, the introduction of the word special....now that we think some privileges might be OK......
Your exercised because it's religion however please read what I've said about religious foundation.
-
In this case there seems to be a bit of hoo har by the Humanists to promote certain campaigns by using extremists to tar all religionists, the "in this day and age" bollocks among them.
Not really: the concern involves only those who have a privileged default influence on wider local education policy by dint of their religious role.
-
Not really: the concern involves only those who have a privileged default influence on wider local education policy by dint of their religious role.
Why then does the article in the Herald mention creationism and 'this day and age?' Why are the other religious representatives not mentioned? This is not it seems the reasonable complaint you are trying to polish.
-
Ah, the introduction of the word special....now that we think some privileges might be OK......
Your exercised because it's religion however please read what I've said about religious foundation.
Yes, I read what you wrote about that. It's punting a falsehood to say that funding is complex. It isn't.
-
Why then does the article in the Herald mention creationism and 'this day and age?' Why are the other religious representatives not mentioned? This is not it seems the reasonable complaint you are trying to polish.
You don't think it reasonable to object to someone with these views on an education committee who is only there because they are religious?
-
Yes, I read what you wrote about that. It's punting afaksehoodto say that funding is complex. It isn't.
well there are thirty three members of the south Lanarkshire education resources committee so that suggests some kind of complexity.
I was saying what religion is doing on this kind of committee, That is chiefly because of foundation and the nature of councilisation. I fail to see why there is any scratching of heads over why there should be religious representation.
I perfectly understand also that extreme humanists might want immediate takeover. But hey let's call a spade a spade and cut any pretence of reasonableness eh.
-
You don't think it reasonable to object to someone with these views on an education committee who is only there because they are religious?
In a situation whereby the very thing there is a committee for is not due to in part to religious foundation maybe.
On a recent extreme humanist whim? Not so sure.
-
well there are thirty three members of the south Lanarkshire education resources committee so that suggests some kind of complexity.
I was saying what religion is doing on this kind of committee, That is chiefly because of foundation and the nature of councilisation. I fail to see why there is any scratching of heads over why there should be religious representation.
I perfectly understand also that extreme humanists might want immediate takeover. But hey let's call a spade a spade and cut any pretence of reasonableness eh.
In what way does the numbers on the committee mean that funding is complex in some way that justifies religious privilege?
-
Just why?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15886294.Would_you_Adam_and_Eve_it_____meet_the_creationist_in_the_classroom/
Quite frankly this article reminds me of reading a Daily Wail or Scum article about the co option of an avowed socialist.
It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved. I prefer the more interesting case of Paranthropus, who most creationists disbelieve ever existed, even though we have their fossilised bones. That is a bit like claiming that Haile Selassie is not dead & the bones in the Ethiopian Monastery belonged to somebody else.
-
In a situation whereby the very thing there is a committee for is not due to in part to religious foundation maybe.
On a recent extreme humanist whim? Not so sure.
So we should all shut up about someone in an education committee with these views that they hold because they are religious and are on the committee because they are religious because not all religious people are mutters and some many years ago might have set up a school but now have no role in funding.
-
In what way does the numbers on the committee mean that funding is complex in some way that justifies religious privilege?
Read what I have written on religious foundation and the councilisation of education services.
An asset and pedagogical grab in the name of secularisation is as distasteful and questionable as the same thing in the case of a council school appropriated similarly by an academy trust.
Your use of Religious privilege is specially pleading religion in a situation where other groups are privileged.
-
Quite frankly this article reminds me of reading a Daily Wail or Scum article about the co option of an avowed socialist.
It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved. I prefer the more interesting case of Paranthropus, who most creationists disbelieve ever existed, even though we have their fossilised bones. That is a bit like claiming that Haile Selassie is not dead & the bones in the Ethiopian Monastery belonged to somebody else.
Kudos for the misuse of theory, haven't seen that in some time on the board. And for the idea that science 'proves' theories. With the use of the 'were you there?' argument from Dr Iskendar that's certainly a line on the creationist pish bingo card.
-
Read what I have written on religious foundation and the councilisation of education services.
An asset and pedagogical grab in the name of secularisation is as distasteful and questionable as the same thing in the case of a council school appropriated similarly by an academy trust.
Your use of Religious privilege is specially pleading religion in a situation where other groups are privileged.
Which other groups are privileged?
-
So we should all shut up about someone in an education committee with these views that they hold because they are religious and are on the committee because they are religious because not all religious people are mutters and some many years ago might have set up a school but now have no role in funding.
Nobody is telling anybody to shut up except the secular humanists here.
Councils have been sensitive to school ethos I.e. Not attempting take it over totally presumably due to community sensitivity.
You however seem to be focussing on secularisation and funding.
Are you a secular humanist FUNDNGMENTALIST or something.
-
Which other groups are privileged?
Teachers, school governors, lay people, head teachers, unions,
In which case exactly the same questions can be asked of their privilege.
-
Nobody is telling anybody to shut up except the secular humanists here.
Councils have been sensitive to school ethos I.e. Not attempting take it over totally presumably due to community sensitivity.
You however seem to be focussing on secularisation and funding.
Are you a secular humanist FUNDNGMENTALIST or something.
As you have been told previously I am not a humanist. You were the person that mentioned funding. No one is being stopped for being on the committee for being religious.
-
Teachers, school governors, lay people, head teachers, unions,
In which case exactly the same questions can be asked of their privilege.
I think your use of lay people here is odd but having peopke involved in education is not privilege, they are there for tgeir expertise. Many of them will be religious too.
-
Teachers, school governors, lay people, head teachers, unions,
In which case exactly the same questions can be asked of their privilege.
Yeah, teachers on an education committee. Privileged bastards.
-
So we should all shut up about someone in an education committee with these views that they hold because they are religious and are on the committee because they are religious because not all religious people are mutters and some many years ago might have set up a school but now have no role in funding.
Oh, ok. Makes sense now.
-
Yeah, teachers on an education committee. Privileged bastards.
And you know what else? They teach in schools! And I'm not allowed to do that even though I'm a Morton fan.
-
And you know what else? They teach in schools! And I'm not allowed to do that even though I'm a Morton fan.
And I have an anorak in Paleoanthropology!
-
Why then does the article in the Herald mention creationism and 'this day and age?' Why are the other religious representatives not mentioned? This is not it seems the reasonable complaint you are trying to polish.
No doubt because of the previous issues with creationism in Scotland, as noted in this thread, and since the guy highlighted by the link in the OP is apparently a creationist.
-
It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved.
Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. You can pick holes in any scientific theory, it is what science tries to do all the time.
-
It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved.
That is scientifically illiterate; no theory can be proved. There is, however, copious evidence for it and no credible alternative.
-
No doubt because of the previous issues with creationism in Scotland, as noted in this thread, and since the guy highlighted by the link in the OP is apparently a creationist.
Look...Gordon
Make up your mind ........is this about religious privilege...or creationism?
Problems had with a group of people therefore ban them is a dangerous argument.
-
Look...Gordon
Make up your mind ........is this about religious privilege...or creationism?
Problems had with a group of people therefore ban them is a dangerous argument.
It is about both Vlad: the privilege in terms of the need to have unelected religious representation on council education committees and that one of these people is a creationist.
-
Yeah, teachers on an education committee. Privileged bastards.
But we know that national governments don't listen to teachers or consult them........and there are academy trusts who have done away with parent representation.
-
It is about both Vlad:
At last!
-
At last!
You say that as if anyone has denied that it's about both. The creationism is an illustration of a problem created by the religious being privileged.
-
You say that as if anyone has denied that it's about both. The creationism is an illustration of a problem created by the religious being privileged.
That may be valid if no other groups were not equally privileged but complete humbug if not.
The mention of creationism merely muddies the waters in this debate and the attempted linking with creationism with religion is mere Shitspreading, You are conflating and possibly suggesting a slippery slope fallacy.
Non believers caught brown handed I'm afraid ....and you've been caught with conflatus
-
That may be valid if no other groups were not equally privileged but complete humbug if not.
The mention of creationism merely muddies the waters in this debate and the attempted linking with creationism with religion is mere shitspreading.
Non believers caught brown handed I'm afraid ....and you've been caught with conflatus
I'd have thought I made my position on religious involvement in education clear yonks ago: that religious observance has no place in state education. Thankfully it was relatively easy to ensure my kids, and now grandkids, weren't/aren't exposed to religious proselytising or participated in religious observances when they are at school.
You can't be too careful though: some these evangelist types are persistent.
-
That may be valid if no other groups were not equally privileged but complete humbug if not.
The mention of creationism merely muddies the waters in this debate and the attempted linking with creationism with religion is mere shitspreading.
Non believers caught brown handed I'm afraid ....and you've been caught with conflatus
Ah so creationism is not linked with religion in your world. What colour is the sky there?
And again who are these other privileged groups? Your earlier attempts didn't have any as they were on the committee for their expertise in education, the subject of the committee.
-
linking with creationism with religion
Is it linked with anything other than religion? :-\
-
I'd have thought I made my position on religious involvement in education clear yonks ago: that religious observance has no place in state education. Thankfully it was relatively easy to ensure my kids, and now grandkids, weren't/aren't exposed to religious proselytising or participated in religious observances when they are at school.
You can't be too careful though: some these evangelist types are persistent.
As long as you were never in a position to dictate to other people that is fine by me.
-
Ah so creationism is not linked with religion.
Not in the conflationary way Greer, Macrae and their apologists are arguing here no.
-
As long as you were never in a position to dictate to other people that is fine by me.
I don't.
In my view religion is a personal and/or family matter and I fully respect that other people are religious and that they think being involved in religion is beneficial for their children: I recognise that, for them, religion is part of how they support, care for and love for their children, and I have no problem with that at all.
-
Not in the conflationary way Greer, Macrae and their apologists are arguing here no.
What way would that be? He's one of the religious reps and he is a creationist. Surely that's relevant?
-
What way would that be? He's one of the religious reps and he is a creationist. Surely that's relevant?
Religion equals creationism equals privilege.
Is being a creationist relevant? How?
-
Religion equals creationism equals privilege.
Is being a creationist relevant? How?
No, no one has said that. The privilege comes with the reps for religion. This particular rep happens to be a creationist which is a problem on an education committee. This is used to highlight the issue of the privilege but no one has suggested that all religious people are creationists.
-
No, no one has said that. The privilege comes with the reps for religion. This particular rep happens to be a creationist which is a problem on an education committee. This is used to highlight the issue of the privilege but no one has suggested that all religious people are creationists.
What is the problem with the rep being a creationist. Answers on a postcard, no anti religious bigotry, conflation or slippery slopes thank you.
Also How is non creationist religious representation affected by this. Answers on a postcard stating how religious privilege is different from any other type of privilege. No Slippery slope arguments. Ha ha.
-
What is the problem with the rep being a creationist. Answers on a postcard, no anti religious bigotry, conflation or slippery slopes thank you.
Also How is non creationist religious representation affected by this. Answers on a postcard stating how religious privilege is different from any other type of privilege. No Slippery slope arguments. Ha ha.
Creationism is unscientific bollocks. habpving him on a committee for education is a piece of nonsense. The issue with the religious reo s is not to do with creationism but rather it's the privilege.
If there were any other groups such as people who have ginger hair, or who like Russ Abbot who got reps I would oppose that too. Do you know of any?
-
Creationism is unscientific bollocks. habpving him on a committee for education is a piece of nonsense. The issue with the religious reo s is not to do with creationism but rather it's the privilege.
If there were any other groups such as people who have ginger hair, or who like Russ Abbot who got reps I would oppose that too. Do you know of any?
So no real answer here then.
-
So no real answer here then.
No, I gave you an answer. If you disagree with it explain why.
I note that you didn't answer my question.
-
No, I gave you an answer. If you disagree with it explain why.
I note that you didn't answer my question.
1:"its bollocks?
2:" it's nonsense"?
Not much to go on is it?
Also are the 30 secular appointment EE's to the committee non creationist?Know what I'm saying?
-
1:"its bollocks?
2:" it's nonsense"?
Not much to go on is it?
Also are the 30 secular appointment EE's to the committee non creationist?Know what I'm saying?
I see you didn't answer the question again. Note I don't want do creationism taught in schools and as Gordon has already pointed out there was a significant issue about that already in Scotland.
And no, I don't really know what you are saying. I wouldn't want a YEcreationist on the committee but this isn't about banning views despite ypu r attempts to portray it, it's about restricting the privilege.
-
1:"its bollocks?
2:" it's nonsense"?
Not much to go on is it?
Also are the 30 secular appointment EE's to the committee non creationist?Know what I'm saying?
I've no idea what you are saying, and I suspect you don't either.
The point is that it seems the other 30 members are elected, and as such their religious beliefs are irrelevant to their place on this committee and being a member of the council: but these other three are there simply because they represent religious views and these three are unelected.
Can you see the problem yet?
-
I've no idea what you are saying, and I suspect you don't either.
The point is that it seems the other 30 members are elected, and as such their religious beliefs are irrelevant to their place on this committee and being a member of the council: but these other three are there simply because they represent religious views and these three are unelected.
Can you see the problem yet?
A fair bit of special pleading Gordon after all a creationist is a creationist is a creationist.
Are the other 30 members on this committee elected councillors? I'm not sure.
That certainly would be something to look into. However the situation you describes sounds more like an antitheists wet dream.
-
For information concerning religious involvement on education committees Scotland.
https://www.parliament.scot/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee/General%20Documents/PE1498_B_Scottish_Episcopal_Church_24.01.14.pdf
-
For information concerning religious involvement on education committees Scotland.
https://www.parliament.scot/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee/General%20Documents/PE1498_B_Scottish_Episcopal_Church_24.01.14.pdf
I posted a link to this petition earlier, and this is one of the responses. It includes this:
We live and work in an increasingly secular society but this must not mean that we
lose sight of the fact that at heart we remain a Christian society and should be proud
of our history and heritage in education. At the very least we should remain a society
that honours the importance of the very Scottish and very spiritual values of wisdom,
compassion, integrity and justice.
The claim that Scotland is 'at heart' a Christian society is no longer the case, as more recent surveys indicate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084
Neither is it the case that the values of 'wisdom, compassion, integrity and justice.' are the exclusive province of the religious or spiritual (whatever that means).
What this is about is the Piskies wanting to retain the privileged position of organised religion within local council education committees.
-
It's the outrageous system of giving churches guaranteed, unelected seats on the councils that's at fault.