We're still nibbling away at the religionists.

[ippy]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/11/high-court-rules-against-education-secretary-for-leaving-non-religious-views-out-of-new-re-gcse

The determination of religionists to ding religion into the heads of our children, especially the young ones.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm all for secular humanism to be taught in schools. It will end the number of numpties who mistake secularism for secular humanism. A con perpetrated by the NSS and BHS which has led some to mistakingly labour under the delusion of being somehow a protector of religious rights while seeking to destroy religion.

Ippy.....nibbling away at religionists makes you sound like some kind of parasite.

[Shaker]

I'm all for secular humanism to be taught in schools. It will end the number of numpties who mistake secularism for secular humanism. A con perpetrated by the NSS and BHS

British Home Stores? The bastards 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

British Home Stores? The bastards 

Sorry....it seems society isn't an apt phrase for British Humanists...........................................It should be Association.

My not terribly good.

[Hope]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/11/high-court-rules-against-education-secretary-for-leaving-non-religious-views-out-of-new-re-gcse

The determination of religionists to ding religion into the heads of our children, especially the young ones.

ippy

ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?

[Shaker]

ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?

I don't know if ippy does but I do:

http://www.christiansinparliament.org.uk/members-stories/rt-hon-nicky-morgan-mp/

Tons more if you want them.

[SqueakyVoice]

ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?

The bigot who Cameron thought should be equality minister.

http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-Nicky-Morgan-explains-voted/story-18148357-detail/story.html

I think that [gay marriage] was one of the issues people, especially those who asked me to vote against, found hardest to accept and it also tied in with my own Christian faith too.

[Shaker]

Add Squeaky to the list 

Surprised you didn't know already, Hope - the Equalities Minister having been openly against equal marriage was in the papers and everything.

[Hope]

The bigot who Cameron thought should be equality minister.

http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-Nicky-Morgan-explains-voted/story-18148357-detail/story.html

Thanks for that SV.  I had a feeling that I'd heard something - but had never seen anything written. 

[Hope]

Surprised you didn't know already, Hope - the Equalities Minister having been openly against equal marriage was in the papers and everything.

I was  aware that she was agin gay marriage, but then I know several gays who have no faith at all who have been against the idea for years.

[Hope]

To return to the OP itself, I and most religious folk I know have no problem with non-religious ideas being taught in that section of the school curriculum.  They regularly are in my experience.  Rather like the idea of the disestablishing of the CofE, where most opposition seems to come from MPs and those not from the CofE, it is often those who don't hold any religious belief who seem most keen that the status be retained.

[Shaker]

I was  aware that she was agin gay marriage, but then I know several gays who have no faith at all who have been against the idea for years.

Grand. Were any of them Equalities Minister?

[Hope]

Grand. Were any of them Equalities Minister?

No, and they didn't believe that this was an issue for the Equalities Minister, because they didn't and still don't see it as an equalities issue, a view that I agree with them on.

[Shaker]

No, and they didn't believe that this was an issue for the Equalities Minister, because they didn't and still don't see it as an equalities issue, a view that I agree with them on.

Not that it matters hugely since the matter is now done and dusted, but how could it possibly not be an equalities issue? Do explain.

[Rhiannon]

The appointment of Morgan was astonishing enough; that she couldn't put aside her prejudices in order to do her job properly should be a resignation matter, surely.

[Hope]

Not that it matters hugely since the matter is now done and dusted, but how could it possibly not be an equalities issue? Do explain.

The folk I referred to regarded heterosexual relationships and therefore marriage on a very different level to homosexual relationships and argued that homosexual marriage was therefore not equal to heterosexual.

Now, that was a view that I understand they had held for many years, certainly since before I knew them and likely before the topic of gay marraige became popular.

[Shaker]

The folk I referred to regarded heterosexual relationships and therefore marriage on a very different level to homosexual relationships and argued that homosexual marriage was therefore not equal to heterosexual.

Why on earth would they or indeed anybody hold such a bizarre attitude?

[Hope]

The appointment of Morgan was astonishing enough; that she couldn't put aside her prejudices in order to do her job properly should be a resignation matter, surely.

It was almost as daft an appointment as her appointment to the Education post.  Don't think I've agreed with a single thing she has said since that appointment.

[Hope]

Why on earth would they or indeed anybody hold such a bizarre attitude?

Why do you believe it to be a bizarre attitude?  Is it because you disagree with them?

[Shaker]

It was almost as daft an appointment as her appointment to the Education post.  Don't think I've agreed with a single thing she has said since that appointment.

I don't know of any examples of her personal beliefs standing in brazen conflict with her position as Education Secretary as they did when she was Equalities Minister, however.

[Shaker]

Why do you believe it to be a bizarre attitude?  Is it because you disagree with them?

I would find it impossible to disagree more than I do; what's bizarre is why anyone would think that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are "on a very different level" to each other and not equal.

[Hope]

I would find it impossible to disagree more than I do; what's bizarre is why anyone would think that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are "on a very different level" to each other and not equal.

Well, I can't speak for their reasoning, but perhaps they feel that homosexual relationships are superior to heterosexual ones.  Perhaps they feel that it is unfair (to a child) to intentionally bring one up in a single-gender family.

I suspect that they would find your thinking no less bizarre than you think theirs.

[Shaker]

Well, I can't speak for their reasoning, but perhaps they feel that homosexual relationships are superior to heterosexual ones.

You seem to be locked in a cycle of repetition - you've already said as much; I'm interested to know why anyone would hold such a peculiar belief.

Perhaps they feel that it is unfair (to a child) to intentionally bring one up in a single-gender family.

Obviously such people would be unaware of the evidence that children raised thusly do no worse and every bit as well as those raised with opposite-sex parents.

I suspect that they would find your thinking no less bizarre than you think theirs.

People with odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs always say that.

[Hope]

... I'm interested to know why anyone would hold such a peculiar belief.

There are plenty of gay people who opposed gay marriage - go out, find them and ask them.

Obviously such people would be unaware of the evidence that children raised thusly do no worse and every bit as well as those raised with opposite-sex parents.

Not sure that there are any longitudinal studies to prove or disprove this assertion, Shakes.

People with odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs always say that.

So, since you believe that their opinion to be bizarre, it clearly shows that you are prone to "odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs".

[Shaker]

There are plenty of gay people who opposed gay marriage - go out, find them and ask them.

I don't need to - I'm already aware of them. What matters is whether somebody is against something for themselves but is happy for others to avail themselves of it if they want to (which is typically the attitude I saw in gay people who opposed equal marriage - they were uninterested rather than actively hostile, regarding it as superfluous) or whether somebody thinks their opposition to something is such that they're entitled to try to forbid it others. Many opponents of equal marriage fell into the latter category.

Not sure that there are any longitudinal studies to prove or disprove this assertion, Shakes.

You could always have a look.

So, since you believe that their opinion to be bizarre, it clearly shows that you are prone to "odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs".

No, as I'm not seeking to discriminate against those who hold such beliefs, as were some of those on the opposing side who opposed the introduction of equal marriage. Merely finding something bizarre is not discriminatory. Nor are my beliefs odd, given that there was clear majority support for equal marriage before it was introduced. In such a situation the minority opinion would be the odd one, wouldn't it.