I'm sure that teaching young, impressionable children that, by incantation of a few spells, their 'priests' can literally turn bread and wine into the actual flesh and the actual blood of a man who was executed thousands of years ago; and that once they are old enough to deserve it, they too can literally get to eat the body of and drink the blood of their saviour, every day if they like but compulsorily once a week, can only make them rounded citizens. It is not nutty at all, because it is a central tenet of "faith". Thus demonstrationg that the bigger the lie, the more will believe it.

Considering that you think that a lottery is discriminatory, I hope that you don't teach English or anything that involves logic.

Oh, hang on, you have a faith, right?
Forget the logic bit, you wouldn't understand.

Which, of course, raises the question of why faith itself seems to be considered so highly in our society.

Particularly when you consider how selective that faith usually is.

"The Bible is the word of God and God is infallible."

[i"So you believe there are circumstances when genocide is acceptable, or that a rape victim should have to marry her attacker?"[/i

"Well, no, it shouldn't be interpreted [iliterally[/i - it's merely a [imessage[/i."

[i"Ok, leaving aside the question of quite what message your infallible God was trying to convey in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 (for example), you don't believe that Jesus was born to a virgin mother? Or that he performed miracles?"[/i

"Well, of course we believe [ithat[/i."

[i"So, although the Bible is the word of God - who is in fallible - you only believe the parts of it that you have decided are word believing? You know better than your infallible God?"[/i

"Er..."

Just out of interest, how is it decided which faiths can run a school?
For example, I seem to remember that Scientology (another word for science fiction) was designated as a cult rather than a recognised religion ... I think that was for some charity status application but could be mis-remembering.
Who decides? ... and how?

Indeed. But setting aside that, why is faith itself held in such esteem or with such respect?

Serious question, BTW – to which I do not personally know the answer, even having had faith myself for much of my life.

I literally cannot think of a single good answer to that question. It's seen as a virtue, but it's totally unfathomable as to why. It's not only that there's an absence of evidence for God's existence, but that all available evidence points towards his non-existence. And yet belief that he does exist - totally ignoring the evidence - is somehow seen as a good thing. It's like a celebration of ignorance on a massive scale.

I assume it must be some government department, but what criteria they use is anyone's guess.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13266290A bit of info[/url

I thought we already had the definitive answer to that one as presented in that bible of catholicism, "Angela's Ashes" - the bit where the kid goes for his first communion, goes home and then throws up in the yard sending his granny ballistic as he's just puked up the body and the blood of christ.

She send him back to the priest to ask if its ok to swill the body and the blood of christ down the drain and he says that yes, its ok to do that - so there you are, the priest magically turns bread and wine into body and blood but as soon as you've swallowed it it magically becomes just bread and wine again.

Its quite simple when you work it through really.

PS - I still get upset when I listen to Puff the Magic Dragon, maybe we should concentrate on that poor soul instead, as far as I know he's still agoraphobic and in his cave.

Aye, but he is immortal, so he's got time to get over it.

I reckon the fundamental reason has always been the same. Humans are so egotistical, that they cannot conceive that when they die, that's it, what they experience as their 'self' ceases to be.

People are also so sentimental they simply do not want to believe that if their loved ones die, they cease to exist.

Add to that the obvious physical manifestation that here is the body of (say) what was your mother, but now it does not function, it is easy to see how an attractive explanation for that, which allows for your mother still to be "there", and "watching over you", would be that her "soul" is what's "left her body", and that's why she doesn't work any more, but in "spirit" she's just as much there as ever she was. It would be nice if that were true, and if you have what is to you a respected and all-knowing holy man that tells you yes it IS true. there is the key to religion. These people are the path to letting you speak to dead people, and arranging for you to be re-united.

[url=http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/11292/debt_charity_that_prays_with_clients_gets_licence_to_expandBack to the spurious claim that the influence of religion is not growing in the UK.[/url

Then add to that the gene that has stood mankind in such good stead over the years, the gene that alerts him to everything, leading him to believe that everything has a reason.
So when he smells a lion, he knows to avoid that bit of the jungle.
Or, further North, when the sun becomes reluctant to shine for much of the day, he lights a fire to encourage it to come back ... it worked for him last year, can't see why it won't work this year ...

Then put him in a circumstance where the reason for something isn't apparent ... and he'll still come up with something.

Then start asking him awkward questions about his reasoning ... and the fairy tale becomes more and more elaborate ... ending up with God moving in mysterious ways and we shouldn't question it.

A slightly flippant point (flippant - me ?) but we have a paradox situation on TV where religious worship programmes are permitted on a sunday (are the BBC still obligated to provide one ?) during which I'm sure that some mention is made to everlasting souls and other such balderdash, and yet when Colin Fry or John Edwards try and present a programme on The Living Channel where they claim to speak to dead people the TV company are obligated to prefix the show with a warning that basically says that these people are charlatans and its only to be taken with a pinch of salt for amusement purposes.

Now either you can speak to dead people or you can't, there is either life after death or there isn't, surely this isn't some form of double standard from the broadcasting commissioners ?

So that little lad who used to knock about with Bruce Willis couldn't really see dead people?

It's a dream shattering factory this forum.

i don't know how to put his, but - Bruce Willis doesn't actually exist

What about poor Jackie Paper, will nobody think of the children?

That's right, he's just a fictional character. His real name is John McClane.

Generalising, obviously...

I think that for people of the same faith, and to a lesser degree and only sometimes other faiths, it is about shared values (or, more accurately, beliefs).

From non-believers I'm not sure such esteem or excessive respect exists. If they thought it was that brilliant they'd be more likely to choose to believe themselves, I'd have thought.

If there is, it is probably respect for tradition and historical identity. See also the Royal Family. Even Republicans usually balk at calling the Queen a... you see? I balked.

He grew old and has no remorse at all [urlhttp://jerrychicken.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/the-truth-behind-the-song-1/[/url

I thought I'd got it right. The new academies are going to be subject to the same legal and other procedures as other state funded schools, whether faith or non-faith. There is even a specific directive on the admissions procedure for faith schools.

Clearly then all our schools are going to be hijacked by the church.

You clearly have a serious problem with comprehension.

Ooh that irony meter, it's around here somewhere.