This is poorly worded… I'm reluctant to vote for fear of casting my ballot in a way that will be misconstrued… Double negatives make no sense… Does voting no mean I am against forcible religious education? or does the double negative kick in and mean I'm supporting forcible religious education? in which case what the hell does yes mean?

Religion belongs in school like porn belongs in sex ed. It is fine outside serious academia, but please keep it outside of the classroom and keep it age acceptable.

Religion is an inextricable part of politics, social studies and history.

In so far as politics, social studies and history should be a mandatory part of any secondary education, so teaching about aspects of religion relevant to those studies should be as well.

But that is as different from religious indoctrination as criminology is different from extolling the joys of crime.

Whether religion should be studied would depend on whether the study has more similarity to criminology, or to the extolling of the joys of committing crime.

I voted NO - there should not be forced education. Which means I voted YES they should ban forced education.
So I dont not think there should be a ban to prevent no forcible religious lessons.


And dont force kids to do that presumptuous indoctrination subject they euphemistically call ''Ethics'' either.

Religion is one of the most definitive aspects of Western Civilization, to fail to understand it is to fail to understand our educational heritage. Russell Kirk writes about the tyranny of reason, and the foolish, prideful attitude which causes men to exalt their petty schemes over the collective voice of history. I think he is right. Of course reason is valuable, but people that are well educated must always have a sense of their past and their place in the human predicament, which cannot be understood solely in math and engineering terminology. Nor is it all religious, but understanding religion is an important part of understanding what it means to be human.

I thought the Op was about not banning compulsory forced religious education for people who wanted to refuse it.

Surely it didnt apply to allowing an optional non-exemption for study of comparative religion did it?

Quote:Nor is it all religious, but understanding religion is an important part of understanding what it means to be human.

Pious fools bleat that same shit at every opportunity. How much better off mankind would be without your absurd fixation on death and the "next" world.

No wonder this one is so fucked up.

The poll is completely erroneous.

There is no such thing as "forced" religious studies.

(Well, there might be in some islamic theocracies, but not in the democratic world).

I live in the UK, and parents have every right to withdraw their children from Religious Education, if they want.

(However, if they do not want their child to receive any education about religion, it does beg the question why they selected a school which offers it in the first place).

(March 5, 2013 at 6:35 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: The poll is completely erroneous.

There is no such thing as "forced" religious studies.

(Well, there might be in some islamic theocracies, but not in the democratic world).

I live in the UK, and parents have every right to withdraw their children from Religious Education, if they want.

(However, if they do not want their child to receive any education about religion, it does beg the question why they selected a school which offers it in the first place).

"My experience doesn't include this, and therefore your entire claim is invalid!"

By the way, you're wrong anyway, since the UK has a number of state funded "faith schools" set up for religious purposes. Granted, they're not exclusively christian faiths, but that's hardly the point.

Did you know that the public school I attended in Australia had a scripture class that I was made to attend? It was run by the school's music teacher, and was very much in the "hook 'em young" spirit of religious instruction.

So, you know, before you make blanket generalizations about the western world, maybe think twice.

(March 5, 2013 at 7:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: By the way, you're wrong anyway, since the UK has a number of state funded "faith schools" set up for religious purposes. Granted, they're not exclusively christian faiths, but that's hardly the point.

No, I am not wrong - nor am I arguing from only my own experience.

The provision of faith schools do not mean there is "forced" religious education.

Faith schools exist because thats what some parents choose for their children.

Additionally, it is fact that in western coutnries (I am in the UK) that children can be removed from any class relating to education about religion, if their parents so desire and make this known to the school.

It is a legal right - this fact is not up for dispute.

However - as I said - if a parent doesnt want their child to have any knowledge about any religion, then they should choose a non-religious school i nthe first place. It is only fair that all families have the same freedom of choice regarding their kids education.

(March 5, 2013 at 7:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Did you know that the public school I attended in Australia had a scripture class that I was made to attend?

A fee paying (public) school, huh?

If you were made to attend a scripture class - that is not because religion or school forced you to, its because your parents forced you to.

Religions or schools have no legal power to force anyone to do anything.

(March 5, 2013 at 7:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, you know, before you make blanket generalizations about the western world, maybe think twice.

Perhaps you should take your own advice my man!

As usual, I have posted only known facts, while you have only sought to blame religion for why you resent your parents!