Ah, the teacher who 'thinks' that evangelism began when the [iBible[/i was translated into English and that religion plays no role in policy making in the UK today.

Bless.

EVANGELICALISM. Look it up in the dictionary. It has a different meaning to EVANGELISM, which is not what you talked about and I responded to.

Bless.

And nor did I ever claim that religion played no role in policy making in the UK today. I was responding to a post about how influential it was, not that it didn't have a role.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?p=16649548#p16649548You need to learn to read.[/url



Not only do you need to learn to read, you need to learn to post clearly what you actually mean.

The relevant post is [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=16650197#p16650197here[/url.

You wrote: "Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago."

Now, however, you'd have us believe that "no influence" is actually the same as "no role in policy making" and you've already had it explained to you that this is factually incorrect ...



















But carry on – dig much further and you'll be in Australia.

That could be said about any subject. It is humans who put meaning and importance into subjects.


The reaction of people can be influential in policy making. Just within schools there are a number of examples where policy has been influenced by the reaction of people: religious education, sex education, citizenship, the content of school meals, to name but four. All these issues divide public opinion. Policy has been made in favour of one opinion or another, not necessarily the majority and sometimes (eg sex ed, content of school meals) as a result of pressure from public opinion.

Here is what I responded to:

[iThat approach has been spreading. You can equally see it in the rise of small, evangelical churches in the UK – there’s an African and Caribbean influence there too.[/i

So where is evangelism mentioned in that paragraph? It followed your point about EVANGELICAL churches.

I really don't think you understand what you are talking about. Again, I suggest you look up these words.

As for influence and having a role in, the two concepts are different.

I can have a role in the running of a school but influence its policy? No. I am not a headteacher or on the senior management team. I have no influence in which school policy is adopted. However, I have a role. I provide my input at staff meetings and practical help in the daily running of the school as a member of the teaching staff.

There now. The difference between 'influence' and 'having a role in' explained in simple terms for someone so caught up in their desire to mock somebody else's education that they don't even realise how uneducated they appear themselves.

Oh, no. No.

You said:



If religion has a role in [ipolicy making[/i, it is having an influence. Your clarity of expression is appalling for someone tasked with educating children.

So, there isn't a rise in "small, evangelical churches in the UK"? And there isn't an "African and Caribbean influence there too"?

And can you quote where I suggested that African and Caribbean Christianity was not a result of Western missionary work, since you started to lecture me about how it was?

Correct. Which was my point. Moreover, evolution is so mainstream in western societies that it cannot in any way be considered controversial - except for a relative handful of religious fanatics.


Indeed. But not the point I was making. You seem to have ignored the word [iminority[/i for a start.


Just because something has been done before doesn't make it a good idea to do it again or even continue doing it. RE and Sex Ed are two other areas where the opinions of a minority should count for nothing when framing policy. I'm not sure which minority influenced Citizenship BTW, and the content of school meals is based on health and nutrition advice.

Quote from the BBC article

"The schools are established as academies, independent of local authorities and with increased control over their curriculum, teachers' pay and conditions, and the length of school terms and days."

It doesn't automatically follow that the church is going to hijack our schools. However what does concern me are the pressure groups like Truth in Science who wish to exert their influence over the teaching of science, particularly evolution. I have followed this "debate" in the USA via many podcasts and these people are not only intellectually dishonest, they are shown to to be outright liars as in Kitzmiller vs Dover. Therefore I do not want such groups getting even the smallest toehold in our schools.

Got to love your irrelevant analogy, maybe you should remember that you're not talking to primary school kids here



Do you dispute that the Bishops and religious reps who sit in the House of Lords have both a role [uand[/u influence?
If you do, then we differ on the constitutional purpose of the House of Lords ... and it ain't me who's got it wrong.

There are currently 24 Lords Spiritual in the HofL.

Con-Libs have 308 out of 789 members, so it is clear that not only do the Lords Spiritual "have a role" in the legislature, they could easily influence it to the point of even holding the casting vote on any measure, depending on which factions support what measure.

Only yesterday, the HofL rejected Government proposals to means test the benefits of young disabled people and cancer patients. Does the ability to reject Government proposals not count as "influence". Does on my planet, and the rare-as-rocking-horse-poo use of the Parliament Acts does not alter that obvious point.

To suggest that a member of the HofL, who actually has a Yes/No vote on whether something is enacted does not have an influence on policy is about as barking as any argument I've ever seen on here.

HofL? More like ROFL!

Good job you aren't an educator then. If children do not understand the nuances of language - and one of the jobs of a teacher is to enable them to understand this - then they will never be in a position to express themselves clearly or ensure they have understood someone else correctly. However, you know all of this but are being obtuse. And silly with your petty insults.

Unions have a role in policy making but how much influence do they have? In the 1970s they had an inordinate amount of influence; sufficient influence in fact to help bring down a government. Today, well, those with extremist leaders can make life very awkward for customers and management alike and so they could be said to have influence but even so their influence is more constrained than it would have once been.

Oh, I know that. If I was talking to primary school children the responses would be of a far higher quality than most of those on here.

:3t7w9fuq

I'm no saint, but really – you're the one who announced your arrival on this thread with a pompous and arrogant attitude, lecturing anyone who didn't agree with you and posting snide (and factually misleading) comments about, say, how 'secularists were scared by people with belief'. Unless that was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, your own understanding of the "nuances" of language leaves a great deal to be desired.

:3t7w9fuq

"The London Underground" is not a union. And indeed, more than one trades union represents members who work for that company. Still, let's not allow facts or the inability to construct a meaningful sentence interfere, eh?

:3t7w9fuq

Which is not the same as 'has :3t7w9fuqno Purleese. So to speak.

You might find that moral high ground is subject to subsidence. Perhaps like Jesus is reported to have done, you should consider turning the other cheek rather than insulting your audience?

I had been thinking of recommending a reading of the Beatitudes.

But I think the poster in question might struggle to understand them.

While I appreciate your concerns, the government has provided reassurance that creationism will not be taught as part of the science curriculum and so I would imagine that eases your fears? But even if they hadn't done so, the US is a very different culture to our own and although we do sometimes end up experiencing similar trends, not everything travels well. The way in which Americans approach God and matters of faith is very different to the approach over here. Other influences such as the Constitution also mean that there are circumstances in the States in which certain groups and developments can flourish whereas over here they may not even be taken seriously.

I could also follow the example of Jesus who rampaged through the temple, overturning tables and calling the sellers of lies and garbage rude names because they were hypocrites and, frankly, idiots.

Which is entirely my point. You are tasked with teaching children to understand the nuances of language, and yet you are almost totally unable to express yourself clearly and coherently.



Enough for their views to at least be considered before policy is decided. Certainly more than 'none'. And whilst it could easily be argued that unions ought to have some influence, the same cannot be said of the church.

Then there's the fact, which you seem to keep ignoring, that 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. They get to directly influence the laws that are enacted (or not enacted, as the case may be) by parliament. Again, much more influence than 'none'.



Constrained? Perhaps. Eliminated? Not at all.

That's bloody rich coming from someone who thinks a lottery is discriminatory

And that having a role in policy making equates to having no influence.

Don't know how you managed it but you've posted in the future!





I've quoted a post not due to be made for 47 minutes!

See below.

Should interest the Admins.

Not good enough.

What is the point of a faith school except to promote that faith?
Education? Well, it wouldn't need to be labelled as a faith school if that was the sole aim.
No, indoctrination is the aim, under the guise of education, whether by direct "teaching" or by assimilation into a particular social group and it angers me that faith believers want to put such superstitious claptrap into the minds of children.

By the way, why do you keep mentioning about secularists and humanists running scared?
Surely it's the religious who are scared, hence the determination to believe in something which allays those fears but for which there is zero evidence?

Bloody neutrinos, they get everywhere.