View Full Version : Should gays adopt?
El Diego
26-01-07, 12:54 AM
I think not (sorry Kaip & Rhod), even if they could be the best parents ever I feel that the kids would be bullied so much it's untrue. Unless they decide to adopt a 10 year old so he knows what he's in for. Your views please.
Is there a surplus of orphans in the world? And a dirth of people wanting to adopt them?
Do you think these children are better off in a system intended to manage them, or a home that wants to love them?
You think 'gays' shouldn't be allowed to adopt as the kids will be bullied because they have gay parents? Kids get bullied for all kinds of horseshit reasons, and lets face it, at least your gay parents would more likely have an understanding of how to deal with it, as they will have possibly suffered from it at some point...
I wholely disagree. Children need a loving home more than an institution. Anyone who says otherwise isn't thinking of the children, as much as they might suggest they are.
:handshake:
Hollowman
26-01-07, 02:06 AM
The practical issue is whether the adoption system will be any better for the Catholic agencies closing down should they not be granted an exception on grounds of belief.
We can argue until the cows come home as to whether benders would fuck kids up any more than the next heterosexual couple, but that's just coffee table bollocks. Nobody in the Catholic church is out campaigning against homosexual couples adopting. They just can't adopt from the church. Plenty of other places to go as the church only places about 4% of all adoptions. However, the church does handle about a third of children who are considered difficult to place, so provisions will have to be made to take up that slack.
Church has been here a fuck load longer than democracy, and it even survived the country going heathen for three hundred years. I say let 'em do what they want. Bead-tickling fuckers will outlast the lot of us anyway.
IrishPaul
26-01-07, 02:31 AM
Is there a surplus of orphans in the world? And a dirth of people wanting to adopt them?
Do you think these children are better off in a system intended to manage them, or a home that wants to love them?
You think 'gays' shouldn't be allowed to adopt as the kids will be bullied because they have gay parents? Kids get bullied for all kinds of horseshit reasons, and lets face it, at least your gay parents would more likely have an understanding of how to deal with it, as they will have possibly suffered from it at some point...
I wholely disagree. Children need a loving home more than an institution. Anyone who says otherwise isn't thinking of the children, as much as they might suggest they are.
:handshake:
Can't argue with that :handshake:
PeachSalsa
26-01-07, 02:43 AM
Agree with Flake. :handshake:
Neil Young
26-01-07, 09:04 AM
The practical issue is whether the adoption system will be any better for the Catholic agencies closing down should they not be granted an exception on grounds of belief.
We can argue until the cows come home as to whether benders would fuck kids up any more than the next heterosexual couple, but that's just coffee table bollocks. Nobody in the Catholic church is out campaigning against homosexual couples adopting. They just can't adopt from the church. Plenty of other places to go as the church only places about 4% of all adoptions. However, the church does handle about a third of children who are considered difficult to place, so provisions will have to be made to take up that slack.
Church has been here a fuck load longer than democracy, and it even survived the country going heathen for three hundred years. I say let 'em do what they want. Bead-tickling fuckers will outlast the lot of us anyway.
I think the issue is whether agencies run by the Catholic Church should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
As for 'nobody in the Catholic Church is out campaigning...' it seems to me that their stance towards gays is intolerant and can only serve to promote intolerance. Maybe they should be more practical or are principles more OK for some than for others? ;)
I saw two young lesbians walking hand in hand this morning, and before they went their separate ways, they snogged like their life depended on it. I got wood. :jizz:
Thanks Shaggy. On a side note, there are usually some very fit Lesbians down Canal street if you want a good perv. :handshake:
I saw two young lesbians walking hand in hand this morning, and before they went their separate ways, they snogged like their life depended on it. I got wood. :jizz:
:haha: Brilliant! Shaggy cuts straight to the issue as always!!
If we genuinely intend to reduce descrimination in society then I think that we have to make no exceptions. There are valid points about the practicalities and the quality of the Catholic adoption agencies. I think that in order to accomodate this we will probably need to have a transitional period, allowing us to integrate their expertise into the secular agencies.
I agree with Flake that a very good case can be made for homosexual parents being much better for a child than being in an institution, which even those who believe that an upbringing in that environment would be worse than one involving a heterosexual couple would accept.
Hollowman
26-01-07, 12:50 PM
I think the issue is whether agencies run by the Catholic Church should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
As for 'nobody in the Catholic Church is out campaigning...' it seems to me that their stance towards gays is intolerant and can only serve to promote intolerance. Maybe they should be more practical or are principles more OK for some than for others? ;)
Like I said, this being a coffee table discussion jokes about practicality and principality can pass for intelligent comment, but the church has been farming kids out for over 170 years without any problems. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the system as it was, but this government's incessant need to legislate absolutely everything is causing needless problems. So the church think gays are evil. Big deal. They'll get over it. They used to think women were evil. Then it was blacks. They'll come chugging along and come to a tacit understanding at some point. Legislating for it just means they'll stand firm.
Besides, let's not shit ourselves here. For all the homo-hugging going on across this thread, the people of Britain aren't exactly gay-friendly. The Daily Politics poll today suggested 55% think gays can raise children aswell as a traditional family unit, and 58% think they shouldn't be allowed to regardless of that.
The Catholic church has never been one to worry about being out of step. Their ideas have lasted the best part of two millenia, which is more than any social or philosophical vogue can claim. But in this instance they don;t seem to be too far away from the majority in your beloved democracy.
As for promoting intolerance, I don't see it. People either accept homosexuality or they don't. Large numbers of people are not going to be swayed by the church's stance on it, especially in this country. People, even catholics, are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, and their views don't have to be in complete accordance with Rome. Sharing faith doesn't have to mean sharing dogma.
I don't think the church were making life any worse for homosexual couples by not allowing them to adopt children. How many gay couples were beating down the doors of churches looking for kids? Not fucking many I'd suspect. The only people hurt by this are the 200 kids who won't have an agency seeking to help them find a home with a Catholic family.
thesilverfoxlfc
26-01-07, 12:54 PM
No way poor kid would have to live with such abuse for people and be deemed as an outsider.
This is NOT a good idea
I agree, catholicism carries such a stigma.:handshake:
alunevans
26-01-07, 05:33 PM
I think not (sorry Kaip & Rhod), even if they could be the best parents ever I feel that the kids would be bullied so much it's untrue. Unless they decide to adopt a 10 year old so he knows what he's in for. Your views please.
That could potentially rule out trainspotters too.
Its bigoted and backward and immoral and cruel to deny a child a loving parent simply based on that potential parent's sexuality.
tomasjj
26-01-07, 08:38 PM
i think not, but I don't really see why this turned into a religious question.
That isn't the crux imo.
Red_hot
26-01-07, 09:39 PM
Like I said, this being a coffee table discussion jokes about practicality and principality can pass for intelligent comment, but the church has been farming kids out for over 170 years without any problems. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the system as it was, but this government's incessant need to legislate absolutely everything is causing needless problems. So the church think gays are evil. Big deal. They'll get over it. They used to think women were evil. Then it was blacks. They'll come chugging along and come to a tacit understanding at some point. Legislating for it just means they'll stand firm.
Besides, let's not shit ourselves here. For all the homo-hugging going on across this thread, the people of Britain aren't exactly gay-friendly. The Daily Politics poll today suggested 55% think gays can raise children aswell as a traditional family unit, and 58% think they shouldn't be allowed to regardless of that.
The Catholic church has never been one to worry about being out of step. Their ideas have lasted the best part of two millenia, which is more than any social or philosophical vogue can claim. But in this instance they don;t seem to be too far away from the majority in your beloved democracy.
As for promoting intolerance, I don't see it. People either accept homosexuality or they don't. Large numbers of people are not going to be swayed by the church's stance on it, especially in this country. People, even catholics, are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, and their views don't have to be in complete accordance with Rome. Sharing faith doesn't have to mean sharing dogma.
I don't think the church were making life any worse for homosexual couples by not allowing them to adopt children. How many gay couples were beating down the doors of churches looking for kids? Not fucking many I'd suspect. The only people hurt by this are the 200 kids who won't have an agency seeking to help them find a home with a Catholic family.
Very good post H. :handshake:
I don't particularly agree with gays adopting kids. I'm just not entirely comfortable with it. That has nothing to do with me being Catholic though I might add.
I saw two young lesbians walking hand in hand this morning, and before they went their separate ways, they snogged like their life depended on it. I got wood. :jizz:
OMG! Take pictures next time! :jizz:
Red Chilli
26-01-07, 10:16 PM
Should gays adopt?
Well they should have to endure the same rigorous vetting procedure that heterosexual couples have to. If they are deemed suitable after that then there is no reason why they shouldn't adopt.
It's all about equal rights in my opinion. Heterosexual couples have to go theough this vetting procedure so equally, homosexual couples should too. If the vetting procedure deems them not suitable then so be it.
tomasjj
26-01-07, 10:58 PM
Equal rights apply only to couples then?
Should a single man be able to adopt?
Jimthered
26-01-07, 11:33 PM
Single men and women can adopt , gay or not.
There is no valid argument on this earth why a gay single person, or a gay couple can not adopt.
alunevans
26-01-07, 11:38 PM
Very good post H. :handshake:
I don't particularly agree with gays adopting kids. I'm just not entirely comfortable with it. That has nothing to do with me being Catholic though I might add.
I wonder whether, subconsciously, the sinister and mythical old link that has been made by some between homosexuality and paedophilia has perhaps stuck somehow.
It's worth asking the question of yourself if you can't quite put your finger on your discomfort. Especially as there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Neil Young
27-01-07, 11:00 AM
Like I said, this being a coffee table discussion jokes about practicality and principality can pass for intelligent comment, but the church has been farming kids out for over 170 years without any problems. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the system as it was, but this government's incessant need to legislate absolutely everything is causing needless problems. So the church think gays are evil. Big deal. They'll get over it. They used to think women were evil. Then it was blacks. They'll come chugging along and come to a tacit understanding at some point. Legislating for it just means they'll stand firm.
Besides, let's not shit ourselves here. For all the homo-hugging going on across this thread, the people of Britain aren't exactly gay-friendly. The Daily Politics poll today suggested 55% think gays can raise children aswell as a traditional family unit, and 58% think they shouldn't be allowed to regardless of that.
The Catholic church has never been one to worry about being out of step. Their ideas have lasted the best part of two millenia, which is more than any social or philosophical vogue can claim. But in this instance they don;t seem to be too far away from the majority in your beloved democracy.
As for promoting intolerance, I don't see it. People either accept homosexuality or they don't. Large numbers of people are not going to be swayed by the church's stance on it, especially in this country. People, even catholics, are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, and their views don't have to be in complete accordance with Rome. Sharing faith doesn't have to mean sharing dogma.
I don't think the church were making life any worse for homosexual couples by not allowing them to adopt children. How many gay couples were beating down the doors of churches looking for kids? Not fucking many I'd suspect. The only people hurt by this are the 200 kids who won't have an agency seeking to help them find a home with a Catholic family.
Well maybe the Catholic Church should be more pragmatic.
To my mind you're still wanting it both ways but I think both of us are aware that we're unlikely to agree on an issue involving the behaviour of the Catholic Church.
:handshake:
Red_hot
27-01-07, 12:02 PM
I wonder whether, subconsciously, the sinister and mythical old link that has been made by some between homosexuality and paedophilia has perhaps stuck somehow.
It's worth asking the question of yourself if you can't quite put your finger on your discomfort. Especially as there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Possibly. I find it strange why gay men would feel the urge to adopt a child but mainly it's because I think children need stability and 'normality', and I don't think living with two gay blokes is 'normal'. Old fashioned maybe but that's just how I feel about it.
Hollowman
27-01-07, 12:31 PM
To my mind you're still wanting it both ways
I don't see why it can't be both ways.
Personally, if a homosexual couple wants to adopt a kid, more power to them. I'm not fucking doing it, and there isn't a great long queue of people looking to either. I'm something of a traditionalist when it comes to the family unit, but kids are better off in a family of any constitution that will love them than they are in the system (Hollowman empowers homosexual community: Gays - better than an orphanage...).
But I also don't see why the church can't place children in a Catholic context. It's not like they don't have a very successful track record. Catholic agencies place kids with catholic families, ideally practising catholic couple who live by catholic values, whatever they're worth. So if you don't fall into that category, why go to the Catholic agency in the first place?
Basically, the wrong debate is being had. People fall over themselves to appear non-discriminatory, and it's fashionable to bash the Church because being a humanist or athiest is 21st century enlightenment. A system that wasn't broken is being fixed by removing one of the options and putting more stress on the rest of the system. Splendid.
And I'm not a practising Catholic, in case anyone presumes this to be a dogmatic defence.
Neil Young
27-01-07, 12:42 PM
I don't see why it can't be both ways.
Personally, if a homosexual couple wants to adopt a kid, more power to them. I'm not fucking doing it, and there isn't a great long queue of people looking to either. I'm something of a traditionalist when it comes to the family unit, but kids are better off in a family of any constitution that will love them than they are in the system (Hollowman empowers homosexual community: Gays - better than an orphanage...).
But I also don't see why the church can't place children in a Catholic context. It's not like they don't have a very successful track record. Catholic agencies place kids with catholic families, ideally practising catholic couple who live by catholic values, whatever they're worth. So if you don't fall into that category, why go to the Catholic agency in the first place?
Basically, the wrong debate is being had. People fall over themselves to appear non-discriminatory, and it's fashionable to bash the Church because being a humanist or athiest is 21st century enlightenment. A system that wasn't broken is being fixed by removing one of the options and putting more stress on the rest of the system. Splendid.
And I'm not a practising Catholic, in case anyone presumes this to be a dogmatic defence.
I don't attack the church on this issue because it is, in some non-specific way, "fashionable" but because I think it is wrong.
I agree with the idea that I cannot imagine why any gay couple would want to adopt from a Catholic agency so we are probably talking about very few possible cases at most. If the Catholic Church is really going to use the argument that children will suffer as a result of it not getting an exemption then I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that by sticking to its principles then the Church itself is causing this problem rather than the government which is sticking to its (I know that sounds weird, the government having principles :D).
When one considers comments made elsewhere about vague feelings of discomfort about the idea of gay couples adopting as a basis for policy then I think it's reasonable to question the church's (or other moral leaders') contributions to anti-gay sentiment.
I hope a compromise or an accommodation is possible because I don't think it's ideal for a conflict in principles to be resolved by imposition unless there is an impasse - as unfortunately increasingly looks the case in this instance. In other words this debate here is, in its own small way, welcome and I hope the two sides continue to talk.
Red Chilli
27-01-07, 01:20 PM
Possibly. I find it strange why gay men would feel the urge to adopt a child but mainly it's because I think children need stability and 'normality', and I don't think living with two gay blokes is 'normal'. Old fashioned maybe but that's just how I feel about it.
So is a homosexual couple "abnormal" then?
Red_hot
27-01-07, 01:27 PM
So is a homosexual couple "abnormal" then?
To my mind, yes. I don't have anything against them whatsover, I have gay mates but I don't agree mith them adopting kids.
Red Chilli
27-01-07, 01:29 PM
To my mind, yes. I don't have anything against them whatsover, I have gay mates but I don't agree mith them adopting kids.
Fair enough, but I don't see them as abnormal just because of who they like to have sex with.:handshake:
Hollowman
27-01-07, 02:10 PM
I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that by sticking to its principles then the Church itself is causing this problem rather than the government which is sticking to its
In other words, the church should carry on as normal in the knowledge that no gay couples will approach them anyone (save the inevitable twat trying to make a political point), and there'll be an unspoken accordance? Makes sense to me.
But then, Rome doesn't share my pragmatism. It is quite literally all about principle for them, and they're big on straightening out the bender, so I can't see it happening. Fault at both ends.
Hollowman
27-01-07, 02:11 PM
Fair enough, but I don't see them as abnormal just because of who they like to have sex with.:handshake:
I know loads of heterosexual people who I think are abnormal because of who they like to have sex with...
I know loads of heterosexual people who I think are abnormal because of who they like to have sex with...
:haha:
tomasjj
27-01-07, 04:28 PM
Single men and women can adopt , gay or not.
There is no valid argument on this earth why a gay single person, or a gay couple can not adopt.
Oh, they can? Ok.
Don't agree with your statement though. That is quite deterministic. Of course there are arguments, where you stand depends on what you view as most important of different values.
Neil Young
27-01-07, 05:14 PM
In other words, the church should carry on as normal in the knowledge that no gay couples will approach them anyone (save the inevitable twat trying to make a political point), and there'll be an unspoken accordance? Makes sense to me.
But then, Rome doesn't share my pragmatism. It is quite literally all about principle for them, and they're big on straightening out the bender, so I can't see it happening. Fault at both ends.
:handshake:
I know loads of heterosexual people who I think are abnormal because of who they like to have sex with...
:haha:
Well said.
Lots of gay couples would and do make better parents than some people who have children naturally.
Jimthered
27-01-07, 05:15 PM
Oh, they can? Ok.
Yup, when wifey and I went through the training to become foster parents, the class had a couple of gay couples , plus singles too. Some of them were at the training for the first time, the others were having recurrent training and were already very sucessful care providers.
Fair enough on your second point, perhaps I should have said "I personally see no valid argument " .
tomasjj
27-01-07, 05:26 PM
Yup, when wifey and I went through the training to become foster parents, the class had a couple of gay couples , plus singles too. Some of them were at the training for the first time, the others were having recurrent training and were already very sucessful care providers.
Fair enough on your second point, perhaps I should have said "I personally see no valid argument " .
Cheers, I didn't know.
Nothing against gays either, not at all.
I think it is unnatural though to let gay couples adopt, and also lesbians.
I don't think it is a human right to be able to have a child.
Difficult topic though.
Jimthered
27-01-07, 05:45 PM
I can understand peoples concerns about having two parents of the same sex.
The problem is not if it is natural or not, but if it is legal, If the child is placed in the care of the state, then the state is responsible for finding them a home , permanent or otherwise. The sexual orientation of the parent/s is not the issue, it is the ability of said people to provide a safe home for children.
I don't think it is a human right to be able to have a child.
I can think of more than a few who should have that right taken away :handshake:
tomasjj
27-01-07, 06:10 PM
I can understand peoples concerns about having two parents of the same sex.
The problem is not if it is natural or not, but if it is legal, If the child is placed in the care of the state, then the state is responsible for finding them a home , permanent or otherwise. The sexual orientation of the parent/s is not the issue, it is the ability of said people to provide a safe home for children.
I can think of more than a few who should have that right taken away :handshake:
Imo, if it is natural or not does play a role. I am not sure if this issue can be decided by a pure rational logic alone. If we should decide by rational factors I don't see how single people should be allowed to adopt.
Anyway, the ability for the adopting parents to provide safety should be a given. The crux for me is if having same sex parents influence the psychological or social development of the child.
But I am not an expert on how the gender of the parents influence a childs development. Maybe some psychologists on here know more about this?
Neil Young
27-01-07, 06:46 PM
I think it is unnatural though to let gay couples adopt, and also lesbians.
In what way? I mean, isn't adoption itself unnatural? Or, since adoption does take place in other species, why should it matter about the gender of the adoptive parents?
Hollowman
27-01-07, 07:53 PM
Because gays are evil.
Jimthered
27-01-07, 08:38 PM
Anyway, the ability for the adopting parents to provide safety should be a given. The crux for me is if having same sex parents influence the psychological or social development of the child.
Thats a valid point, and I dont know the answer to it, not sure how long over here they have been allowing gay parents to adopt, not sure if it is too soon to know the long term affects.
I have a whole crap load of adoption papers and writing stored away somewhere, have to see what I can find out.
I am guessing it would be hard to establish how much having a gay parent affects the foster child, seeing as most children in foster care will have some kind of issues in thier lives anyway, grief and loss isues, not to mention the high number of children suffering from PTSD due to what they went through before they were placed in care.
Be intresting to find out though.
we'll just be a nation of Wayne Sleeps and Trini and Suzannas
:(
alunevans
27-01-07, 09:26 PM
Possibly. I find it strange why gay men would feel the urge to adopt a child but mainly it's because I think children need stability and 'normality', and I don't think living with two gay blokes is 'normal'. Old fashioned maybe but that's just how I feel about it.
I find it odd that *anyone* would want to adopt a child, but I also find it odd that people wish to have a child of their own too :haha:
How do you define normality though? If normality means "minority" then there are lots of categories that could put one outside normality. The question is which are significant and which aren't, and what makes it significant. Personally though I don't find homosexuality a problem.
Besides, I'd say a care home is certainly less stable and 'normal' than a family where both parents love you but happen to be of the same gender.
tomasjj
27-01-07, 09:27 PM
Imo, if it is natural or not does play a role. I am not sure if this issue can be decided by a pure rational logic alone. If we should decide by rational factors I don't see how single people should be allowed to adopt.
Anyway, the ability for the adopting parents to provide safety should be a given. The crux for me is if having same sex parents influence the psychological or social development of the child.
But I am not an expert on how the gender of the parents influence a childs development. Maybe some psychologists on here know more about this?
i meant to quote this for you Neil.
:handshake:
This is what I meant about naturalness playing into it.
Not against gays.
I just don't think having a child should be a human right.
alunevans
27-01-07, 09:30 PM
I don't think it is a human right to be able to have a child.
But I'd say it is a human right not to be treated differently without valid reason. There is no valid reason, beyond "I can't put my finger on it" prejudice, that I've yet seen.
Jimthered
27-01-07, 09:36 PM
Besides, I'd say a care home is certainly less stable and 'normal' than a family where both parents love you but happen to be of the same gender.
When you say "a family where both parents love you ", are you referring to an adoptive family or a birth family ?
tomasjj
27-01-07, 09:38 PM
But I'd say it is a human right not to be treated differently without valid reason. There is no valid reason, beyond "I can't put my finger on it" prejudice, that I've yet seen.
Imo, what I stated above should be a valid reason, but I don't know enough about how this would influence a childs development.
That is just a personal opinion though, and I guess it depends which rights and values you view as the most important.
alunevans
27-01-07, 09:43 PM
When you say "a family where both parents love you ", are you referring to an adoptive family or a birth family ?
I was discussing the claim that it would be 'abnormal' and unstable for a child to be raised by gay parents.
Personally, I don't buy that argument anyhow, but putting that aside, I was making the point that the alternative is typically a care home, and surely two gay parents who love you is far more stable than that.
alunevans
27-01-07, 09:44 PM
Imo, what I stated above should be a valid reason, but I don't know enough about how this would influence a childs development.
That is just a personal opinion though, and I guess it depends which rights and values you view as the most important.
You asked if it would harm the child's development, but I don't recall (might have missed it) any evidence that it would.
In which case, people are being treated differently for no reason.
Hollowman
27-01-07, 10:06 PM
But I'd say it is a human right not to be treated differently without valid reason. There is no valid reason, beyond "I can't put my finger on it" prejudice, that I've yet seen.
Rome doesn't deal in wishy washy human rights.
Cum conscientia perterrefit lege et luctatur cum judicio Dei, nec rationem, nec legem consulas, sed sola gratia ac verbo consolationis nitaris. Ibi omnino sic te geras, quasi nunquam de lege Dei quidquam audieris, sed ascendas in tenebras, ubi nec lex, nec ratio lucet, sed solum aenigma fidei, quae certo statuat te salvari extra et ultra legem.
Or: Fuck the law. God's word is final.
tomasjj
27-01-07, 10:07 PM
You asked if it would harm the child's development, but I don't recall (might have missed it) any evidence that it would.
In which case, people are being treated differently for no reason.
I don't have any proof at all. I said that the crux of it, for me, was if it would harm their development. But I am no psychologist, so I don't know. I was wondering if someone here could shed some light on this. It is by no means an easy question, and I am on the fence about this here.
Do you think all people should be treated the same, in every way, not just in this case? I mean, is that actually right or best? Should man and woman be treated the same under any circumstances? I actually don't think so, but I also condemn discrimination. In some cases treating people unequally doesn't necessarily mean discrimination, does it?
To be honest, I was thinking maybe gay and lesbian couples should be allowed adoption ahead of single men and women. A couple are surely better equipped to care for a child than a single parent?
I mean, surely one can say that it is "unnatural" for same sex couples, or even single parents, to adopt in some kind of way?
But is it more unnatural for a same sex couple to adopt than when a mixed couple, who for some reason can't have their own child, adopt? To me, a tiny bit, cause the man and the woman were actually born as two differing sexes, and thus per se, able to have children, where as the same sex couples not.
So many facets to this one, at least for me.
Neil Young
27-01-07, 10:21 PM
It's either natural or it's not.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad/mum and mum/dad and dad/single parent/everyone.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
Really there is no good reason to discriminate in the way you want. Regarding having children being a human right and 'unnatural' parenthood then presumably you're against IVF too, eh?
does mean the end of Action Man though
spud_gun
27-01-07, 10:25 PM
Adopt what?
tomasjj
27-01-07, 10:28 PM
It's either natural or it's not.
Really there is no good reason to discriminate in the way you want. Regarding having children being a human right and 'unnatural' parenthood then presumably you're against IVF too, eh?
That was very black and white thinking from you. Are there no degrees?
What is your beef?
You seem to pick and choose what to comment here. Very unlike you this.
:confused:
I am just putting down my thoughts here, trying to be open and polite. If you want to pierce holes in me, at least do it properly.
All the best.
Red_Polo
28-01-07, 12:14 AM
There is an argument that if a child has two parents of the same sex they might grow up with incomplete and abnormal concepts of gender. But considering the massive changes and uncerrtainty in gender roles nowadays, and considering that IF this was true it would be just one of a million and one ways a child can be ever so slightly incompatible to our society, I don't think it really makes much sense to stop gay people adopting.
Well, no more than it makes sense to stop people who put milk in their green tea adopting anyway. That's unusual too. God forbid the child might think the same harmless thing is normal. I do think being gay is 'abnormal', but who gives a shit, people often confuse 'abnormal' with 'wrong'. It's normal to be abnormal in some aspects anyway. As long as all in all the couple would make good parents then all's well and good.
Where do I stand on this new legislation and the possible exception being made for religiously based adoption/foster organisations? Fuck knows. It's pragmatism vs principle round 5 gazillion and 26 isn't it? My first impression is that this is a case of over-legislation causing problems.
alunevans
28-01-07, 01:44 AM
I don't have any proof at all. I said that the crux of it, for me, was if it would harm their development. But I am no psychologist, so I don't know. I was wondering if someone here could shed some light on this. It is by no means an easy question, and I am on the fence about this here.
Do you think all people should be treated the same, in every way, not just in this case? I mean, is that actually right or best? Should man and woman be treated the same under any circumstances? I actually don't think so, but I also condemn discrimination. In some cases treating people unequally doesn't necessarily mean discrimination, does it?
To be honest, I was thinking maybe gay and lesbian couples should be allowed adoption ahead of single men and women. A couple are surely better equipped to care for a child than a single parent?
I mean, surely one can say that it is "unnatural" for same sex couples, or even single parents, to adopt in some kind of way?
But is it more unnatural for a same sex couple to adopt than when a mixed couple, who for some reason can't have their own child, adopt? To me, a tiny bit, cause the man and the woman were actually born as two differing sexes, and thus per se, able to have children, where as the same sex couples not.
So many facets to this one, at least for me.
For me, the only question is "will this potential parent(s) be good parents". All else is by the by. And the question can't be answered by reference to someones sexuality.
why shouldent anyone that is capable of providing a loving environment be prevented from adoption and why should sexual orientation be dragged into it. it really annoys me that the word gay is used to spread fear and bigotry and if the truth be known, gay couples all over the world are probably more scrutinised by their neigbours than anybody else. is abuse likely to occour? my guess is that the percentages would be very low. people need to really check themselves instead of getting in the faces of other people with all this nonsense. the more love in the world, the better the place to be and less judgement of others, is the only way to be. preach tolerance people, the kids are listening.
Neil Young
28-01-07, 10:21 AM
That was very black and white thinking from you. Are there no degrees?
What is your beef?
You seem to pick and choose what to comment here. Very unlike you this.
:confused:
I am just putting down my thoughts here, trying to be open and polite. If you want to pierce holes in me, at least do it properly.
All the best.
OK, sorry about that. I'm just glad I edited out what I was originally going to say!
I think alun said it best above when he spoke of the only relevant issue in the decision about whether someone is fit to adopt. It seems to me that you're bringing irrelevant issues into it (what is natural, human rights etc.). I do see absolutely no acceptable reason for opposition to gay people adopting children so that probably makes me respond in such monochromatic terms. No offence meant tomas.
The reason I quoted and changed the Philip Larkin poem was simply to try to put across the idea that all parents are imperfect. The argument that gay parents might somehow cause a child problems or damage because of their sexuality is not only unproven but also unfair in that all parents have some negative effects on their children.
As I said, alun said it better.
:handshake:
tomasjj
28-01-07, 10:56 AM
OK, sorry about that. I'm just glad I edited out what I was originally going to say!
I think alun said it best above when he spoke of the only relevant issue in the decision about whether someone is fit to adopt. It seems to me that you're bringing irrelevant issues into it (what is natural, human rights etc.). I do see absolutely no acceptable reason for opposition to gay people adopting children so that probably makes me respond in such monochromatic terms. No offence meant tomas.
The reason I quoted and changed the Philip Larkin poem was simply to try to put across the idea that all parents are imperfect. The argument that gay parents might somehow cause a child problems or damage because of their sexuality is not only unproven but also unfair in that all parents have some negative effects on their children.
As I said, alun said it better.
:handshake:
Just for the record, I am not religious and not against IVF.
I tried to view the issue in several different contexts, hence bringing in what you say are "irrelevant" issues.
Do remember to remain an open-minded understanding liberal, even when you disagree strongly eh?
:crackoff:
fight fight fight!
kicks tomas' bike then runs for cover
tomasjj
28-01-07, 11:00 AM
There is an argument that if a child has two parents of the same sex they might grow up with incomplete and abnormal concepts of gender. But considering the massive changes and uncerrtainty in gender roles nowadays, and considering that IF this was true it would be just one of a million and one ways a child can be ever so slightly incompatible to our society, I don't think it really makes much sense to stop gay people adopting.
Polo, at least you see what I was referring to as the main issue that made me think about this in the first place.
Many others on the thread just flew in my face instantly bypassing this issue all together.
:handshake:
tomasjj
28-01-07, 11:01 AM
fight fight fight!
kicks tomas' bike then runs for cover
:haha:
I figured you were lurking looking for some action.
Well, no more than it makes sense to stop people who put milk in their green tea adopting anyway. That's unusual too. God forbid the child might think the same harmless thing is normal.
To be fair that is both unnatural and wrong. If we let it go peole wil be putting milk in their Bovril and then where will we be?
Neil Young
28-01-07, 12:53 PM
There is an argument that if a child has two parents of the same sex they might grow up with incomplete and abnormal concepts of gender. But considering the massive changes and uncerrtainty in gender roles nowadays, and considering that IF this was true it would be just one of a million and one ways a child can be ever so slightly incompatible to our society, I don't think it really makes much sense to stop gay people adopting.
Trouble is I don't even know what is meant by "incomplete and abnormal concepts of gender". I think there's a good chance that someone brought up with two parents of the same sex is going to be a lot more accepting and understanding of homosexuality than is the norm these days so who is to say what is "incomplete"? As for "abnormal" the trouble with the underlying concept there is that it oversimplifies human sexuality. I mean, what is "normal" anyway? People do a million and one different things sexually, there is a huge variety in terms of how relationships actually work so I think it's a flawed idea.
The only thing that matters is what alun said - how good a parent is someone going to be?
Just for the record, I am not religious and not against IVF.
I tried to view the issue in several different contexts, hence bringing in what you say are "irrelevant" issues.
Do remember to remain an open-minded understanding liberal, even when you disagree strongly eh?
:crackoff:
To be honest I think there's a problem with straightforward intolerance on this issue and I think the Catholic Church is in the vanguard of that. I know, they've been intolerant for centuries so it's hard for it to change despite the enormous hypocrisy of which it is guilty by virtue of its record of protecting paedophile priests.
Helios Creed
28-01-07, 01:11 PM
Adopt what?
outrageous, screaming New York accents?
andyinswinton
28-01-07, 01:41 PM
I think its a difficult question really and probably needs to be judged on an individual basis.
I don't agree with the fact that a lesbian can have a kid and bring it up in an 'all woman' environment but men can't do the same because they can't have children.
Red_Polo
28-01-07, 03:12 PM
To be fair that is both unnatural and wrong. If we let it go peole wil be putting milk in their Bovril and then where will we be?
An Evertonian's house?
An Evertonian's house?
:haha:
Hollowman
28-01-07, 05:05 PM
its record of protecting paedophile priests.
Now who's equating paedophilia with homosexuality...?
The church has done many horrendous things in order to protect and preserve itself. Protecting paedophile priests doesn't even enter the top ten. We're talking about the institution that organised the Inquisition, that was complicit in the forced conversion or Serbs (and massacre of almost a million others) in the second war, and a thousand other things.
All were done with one single endgame in mind - keeping the Church as it is. For a man who loves his principles, you have to grudgingly admire Rome. Say what you like about them, whilst other churches have bent to the times the Catholics haven't changed their fundamental beliefs in two thousand years, and are prepared to demonstrate extraordinary will to protect them. Gays are barely a blip on the radar.
Abdul Alhazred
29-01-07, 06:21 AM
I can think of more than a few who should have that right taken away :handshake:
Amen.
My wife's a child protection social worker, and is firmly of the opinion that a contraceptive should be introduced to the water supply and the antidote only be given to those who can demonstrate a basic level of humanity/competency.
Neil Young
29-01-07, 08:30 AM
Now who's equating paedophilia with homosexuality...?
I was conflating the arguments that the Catholic Church is interested in protecting people from the sin of homosexuality (and by extension protecting adopted children from it) and the fact it has its own skeletons to deal with in terms of child protection. I wasn't equating homosexuality and paedophilia but I can see that I could have made myself clearer.
The church has done many horrendous things in order to protect and preserve itself. Protecting paedophile priests doesn't even enter the top ten. We're talking about the institution that organised the Inquisition, that was complicit in the forced conversion or Serbs (and massacre of almost a million others) in the second war, and a thousand other things.
All were done with one single endgame in mind - keeping the Church as it is. For a man who loves his principles, you have to grudgingly admire Rome. Say what you like about them, whilst other churches have bent to the times the Catholics haven't changed their fundamental beliefs in two thousand years, and are prepared to demonstrate extraordinary will to protect them. Gays are barely a blip on the radar.
:haha: Yes I can see it's worthy of grudging admiration. I do admire them for some things and not others. It's interesting to read your views on the Catholic Church since we obviously have very different perspectives born no doubt out of our different relationships with it.
By the way, I'm not against compromise and, as I said before, I'm in favour of trying to reach an accommodation. However, when there are two principles in conflict I don't see why having been wrong on an issue for fifteen hundred years is a reasonable argument for the Church to continue being wrong (IMHO of course).
Mumsafan
29-01-07, 11:42 AM
An Evertonian's house?
Derogoratory slur!
God no, in response to the title.
Imagine the horror of the kid when he realises what's going on. Terrible terrible problems inflicted by circumstance and through no fault of his/her own.
He/she would get mountains of abuse in school etc and will be so confused that it will generally end up bad, most probably, a psychiatric hospital or suicide.
Mumsafan
29-01-07, 03:04 PM
I think the age of the child being adopted should be taken into consideration definitely. However, once a child gets to a certain age I believe they are allowed to say whether or not they want to go with the prospective adoptive parents. They aren't just going to be tol,d "Julian Clary's coming to fetch you in the morning whether you like it or not" are they.
The thing is, society has allowed gays to have their own children through donations of sperm or eggs and therefore there is a small amount of children in society who are the children of gays and as such are brought up by them and moulded by them. Maybe a study into these children and how they fare, view society, the level of bullying etc would help me decide whether gays should be allowed to adopt or not.
However, in this instance, the question should really be "Should the Catholic Church be allowed to refuse gays the chance to adopt from them?" If they are allowed to refuse gays, then gays will still be able to go to other agencies to adopt so it's not making a big difference, although I suspect some pair of pratts will try to take them to court to force the issue instead of just adopting from elsewhere, begging the question "were they that ideal as adoptive parents anyway as they clearly aren't putting a child first, rather their campaign against the Church". If the Church isn't allowed to refuse them then they will just close their agency.
Very sad. And exemplifying the way people are gradually being told more and more what to think and what to believe in this country.
Red_Polo
29-01-07, 03:23 PM
Derogoratory slur!
:haha: :crackoff:
Weird thread. I swear the other day I saw a post from Coops on this thread, saying faggots shouldn't be allowed to adopt but lezzas are ok. Or did I just imagine it? Or is that post really here and I didnt see it?
I dont know. WTF is going on?
Red_Polo
29-01-07, 04:22 PM
Weird thread. I swear the other day I saw a post from Coops on this thread, saying faggots shouldn't be allowed to adopt but lezzas are ok. Or did I just imagine it? Or is that post really here and I didnt see it?
I dont know. WTF is going on?
I deleted it mate. Was along the lines of 'faggots shouldn't be allowed full stop'. He was probably just on the wind up but the thread was only going to go downhill and off-topic fast after that IMO so I pulled it.
I deleted it mate. Was along the lines of 'faggots shouldn't be allowed full stop'. He was probably just on the wind up but the thread was only going to go downhill and off-topic fast after that IMO so I pulled it.
Fair enough :handshake:
At least I know I'm not going mad, apart from spending £300 on a crappy self-development course.
Red_Polo
29-01-07, 05:07 PM
Fair enough :handshake:
At least I know I'm not going mad, apart from spending £300 on a crappy self-development course.
Just read that now mate. What fuckers. :(
Red_Polo
29-01-07, 05:37 PM
The thing is, society has allowed gays to have their own children through donations of sperm or eggs and therefore there is a small amount of children in society who are the children of gays and as such are brought up by them and moulded by them. Maybe a study into these children and how they fare, view society, the level of bullying etc would help me decide whether gays should be allowed to adopt or not.
Yeah you'd think there would've been studies done on it, but I haven't seen any and I'm crap at research. As for bullying etc - I'm sure a lot of kids would get bullied about it, but we can't let that enter into this IMO. Bullying is the fault of the bullies rather than the child or parents.
Neil Young
29-01-07, 05:46 PM
I think the age of the child being adopted should be taken into consideration definitely. However, once a child gets to a certain age I believe they are allowed to say whether or not they want to go with the prospective adoptive parents. They aren't just going to be tol,d "Julian Clary's coming to fetch you in the morning whether you like it or not" are they.
The thing is, society has allowed gays to have their own children through donations of sperm or eggs and therefore there is a small amount of children in society who are the children of gays and as such are brought up by them and moulded by them. Maybe a study into these children and how they fare, view society, the level of bullying etc would help me decide whether gays should be allowed to adopt or not.
However, in this instance, the question should really be "Should the Catholic Church be allowed to refuse gays the chance to adopt from them?" If they are allowed to refuse gays, then gays will still be able to go to other agencies to adopt so it's not making a big difference, although I suspect some pair of pratts will try to take them to court to force the issue instead of just adopting from elsewhere, begging the question "were they that ideal as adoptive parents anyway as they clearly aren't putting a child first, rather their campaign against the Church". If the Church isn't allowed to refuse them then they will just close their agency.
Very sad. And exemplifying the way people are gradually being told more and more what to think and what to believe in this country.
People can be as smallminded as they want to be. That's not the same as allowing them to discriminate. Try replacing "gays" in the title with "black people" or "jews".
What next: Single parents - should they have their children taken away?
This thread: :rolleyes:
Hollowman
29-01-07, 08:03 PM
We let blacks adopt? Jesus...
The Wolfman
29-01-07, 09:43 PM
hollowman was adopted by two asexual newsagent workers.
His upbringing was much like in the programme "my two dads" - i.e. two dads, but they sat on different armchairs. Not doing "spoons" on the sofa.
tomasjj
29-01-07, 10:04 PM
Didn't Hollowman adopt Jubals?
The Wolfman
29-01-07, 10:14 PM
Didn't Hollowman adopt Jubals?
is that some anti-semitic name you have for hollowman's kid?
bang out of order.....:shake:
steveheighwayrobbery
29-01-07, 10:28 PM
No you should not make it compulsory. Some of them are just feckless headonists
steveheighwayrobbery
29-01-07, 10:29 PM
We let blacks adopt? Jesus...you saying joseph and mary where black?
tomasjj
29-01-07, 10:39 PM
is that some anti-semitic name you have for hollowman's kid?
bang out of order.....:shake:
Look who is talking.
I have no idea what the name means, I just remembered it from the KT days.
The Wolfman
29-01-07, 10:45 PM
i think gays should adopt tomasjj :handshake:
tomasjj
29-01-07, 10:54 PM
i think gays should adopt tomasjj :handshake:
would you volunteer?:jizz:
Hollowman
29-01-07, 10:58 PM
Jubal's insights into the adoption process would be heard if he was allowed a log-in to this site. But he's not. Blame the fascist pig-dogs in charge.
Red_hot
29-01-07, 10:58 PM
I miss Jubal. :(
The Wolfman
29-01-07, 10:59 PM
would you volunteer?:jizz:
to be gay?
nah.
Not even for you mate.
what i suggest is requesting a bedroom with a lock on it, and no bars on the windows. :handshake:
If you are really lucky elton john could be your dad!! :handshake: :haha:
CharlieMansonsSquint
29-01-07, 11:00 PM
Jubal's insights into the adoption process would be heard if he was allowed a log-in to this site. But he's not. Blame the fascist pig-dogs in charge.
You smashed up his fingers with a hammer I bet.
Abdul Alhazred
30-01-07, 12:26 AM
Maybe a study into these children and how they fare, view society, the level of bullying etc would help me decide whether gays should be allowed to adopt or not
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html
Fill your boots
:handshake:
My two cents worth: gays should be subject to exactly the same checks and balances when applying to adopt as everyone else goes through.
A loving, secure home is feck load better than a childhood in care.
As for the Catholic Church, if their faith is based on behaviour being immoral, then to encourage that behaviour is hypocritical in the extreme.
Makes them look ridiculous in my opinion, but no less than frippery and ritual cannibalism.
What amuses me most about the whole catholic church arguement, is that they hardly have the best record for keeping children 'safe' over the years...
Its irony, on a base level, but I like it... :haha:
steveheighwayrobbery
30-01-07, 03:04 PM
What amuses me most about the whole catholic church arguement, is that they hardly have the best record for keeping children 'safe' over the years...
Its irony, on a base level, but I like it... :haha:
the whole catholic religeon is based on hangups if you think about it
Mumsafan
30-01-07, 03:22 PM
Thing is the children in the Catholic homes will have been brought up believing the Catholic views on gay folk. Therefore, it could mess them up being sent to live with a gay family. There really needs to be a cut off age so that a child with preformed ideas isn't faced with that. Maybe children under 4 only or something because once they get to school they hear so much nonsense.
Neil Young
30-01-07, 03:29 PM
It seems to me you're saying in effect that the fact that there's prejudice in society means gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child over a certain age. Well that certainly doesn't seem fair or right.
I can't help thinking that children are generally much more resilient and more openminded than people are giving them credit for. It's adults who seem to have the problem.
Hollowman
30-01-07, 03:38 PM
Thing is the children in the Catholic homes will have been brought up believing the Catholic views on gay folk. Therefore, it could mess them up being sent to live with a gay family. There really needs to be a cut off age so that a child with preformed ideas isn't faced with that. Maybe children under 4 only or something because once they get to school they hear so much nonsense.
The Church isn't a cult. Children aren't sat in small dark rooms and forced to repeat mantras on Catholic morality over and over and scourged with the ferula if they don't.
gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent
I think people have some funny ideas about what it's like to be raised or educated within a Catholic community.
Mumsafan
30-01-07, 04:06 PM
The Church isn't a cult. Children aren't sat in small dark rooms and forced to repeat mantras on Catholic morality over and over and scourged with the ferula if they don't.
gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent
I think people have some funny ideas about what it's like to be raised or educated within a Catholic community.
I know that but it's certainly in their teachings isn't it.
The Wolfman
30-01-07, 04:08 PM
Let people adopt gays if they want to.
Red_Polo
30-01-07, 04:14 PM
Let people adopt gays if they want to.
I think we've done that joke Julia :crackoff:
The Wolfman
30-01-07, 04:15 PM
I think we've done that joke Julia :crackoff:
do you really think i am going to read this thread from the start? :crackoff:
Red_Polo
30-01-07, 04:16 PM
do you really think i am going to read this thread from the start? :crackoff:
Tbh I thought it was you that made the joke :haha:
The Wolfman
30-01-07, 04:17 PM
Tbh I thought it was you that made the joke :haha:
even more reason not to read it then.:handshake: :haha:
The Wolfman
30-01-07, 04:24 PM
just had a thought..........right so we are talking about a couple of woofters wanting a kid to bring up?
like any bloke, gay or straight, would want to have a kid that badly anyway.
Women are much better at bringing up kids than us, i swear the thought of having to do that when you could just avoid it is enough to put even gays off. :haha:
carheex
30-01-07, 04:25 PM
I think not (sorry Kaip & Rhod), even if they could be the best parents ever I feel that the kids would be bullied so much it's untrue. Unless they decide to adopt a 10 year old so he knows what he's in for. Your views please.
I think adoption should be for people who have tried getting pregnant but for one medical reason or another cannot succeed.....
Hollowman
30-01-07, 04:26 PM
I know that but it's certainly in their teachings isn't it.
They don't have indoctrination classes on the evils of homosexuality. Even catechetical instructions would focus on the spiritual and philosophical sides of Catholicism, rather than warning children of the ills of sodomy. Practical instruction would tend to be about the Catholic social justice movements. Catholics like to dwell on abstracts like guilt and eternal damnation, rather than the more aggressive Christian fundamentalists who might harp on about teenage abstinance or gays.
Mumsafan
30-01-07, 04:26 PM
I think adoption should be for people who have tried getting pregnant but for one medical reason or another cannot succeed.....
which rules out gay men then. cos no matter how hard they try they ain't gonna get pregnant :haha:
Mumsafan
30-01-07, 04:28 PM
They don't have indoctrination classes on the evils of homosexuality. Even catechetical instructions would focus on the spiritual and philosophical sides of Catholicism, rather than warning children of the ills of sodomy. Practical instruction would tend to be about the Catholic social justice movements. Catholics like to dwell on abstracts like guilt and eternal damnation, rather than the more aggressive Christian fundamentalists who might harp on about teenage abstinance or gays.
They don't agree with it do they? That's the whole purpose of this thread. If the child is a good practising Catholic then, in the Church's view, they won't believe in it either.
carheex
30-01-07, 04:28 PM
The Church isn't a cult. Children aren't sat in small dark rooms and forced to repeat mantras on Catholic morality over and over and scourged with the ferula if they don't.
gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent
I think people have some funny ideas about what it's like to be raised or educated within a Catholic community.
Not all cults are like that. All religions are cults, it's just that some are more popular than others. Not one of them has any logic or proof of events to back them up. Pure fantasy - praying/talking to god etc it's like imaginary friends but for grown ups.
carheex
30-01-07, 04:28 PM
which rules out gay men then. cos no matter how hard they try they ain't gonna get pregnant :haha:
Exackerley! :-)
Hollowman
30-01-07, 04:32 PM
All religions are cults
Well, no. A cult is a specific system of reverential worship. A religion might include many different systems, with various practices and beliefs. You don't even have to follow a specific method in order to be part of a religion.
Hollowman
30-01-07, 04:35 PM
They don't agree with it do they? That's the whole purpose of this thread. If the child is a good practising Catholic then, in the Church's view, they won't believe in it either.
For a start, the Catholic agencies handle a good proportion of the troubled children, so the notion of them being devout practising Catholics is fanciful. Secondly, not all Catholics think the same. You don't have to adhere to every detail of Vatican doctrine. It is an allegiance of faith above anything else, and the Catholic fraternity happily incorporates a wide spectrum of believers (and, perhaps, non-believers. You never stop being Catholic. You are either practising or fallen...)
golfball
30-01-07, 05:01 PM
not posted much but couldnt leave this one,
heard a gay rights activist going on about religious bigotry and descrimination but couldn't get my head around it, and before anyone slags me off i too have gay friends but in all honesty if me and the missus died would not want my kids going to a gay couple, the only descriminatory factor in all this is "nature" same sex couples cannot by natures design reproduce, so what gives them the right to be parents ?. nature surely doesnt, where does it end ? i was born tall but i have a right to be small, now chop my fukin legs off?.
sorry but a bit fed up with civil liberty/rights groups nowadays, i think they are takin the piss !
just my opinion but there ya go !
Red_Polo
30-01-07, 05:09 PM
the only descriminatory factor in all this is "nature" same sex couples cannot by natures design reproduce, so what gives them the right to be parents ?
Some heterosexual couples cannot have children 'by nature' either. That's usually why people adopt.
alunevans
30-01-07, 05:19 PM
God no, in response to the title.
Imagine the horror of the kid when he realises what's going on. Terrible terrible problems inflicted by circumstance and through no fault of his/her own.
He/she would get mountains of abuse in school etc and will be so confused that it will generally end up bad, most probably, a psychiatric hospital or suicide.
:haha: :haha: :haha: worthy of Brass Eye
Red_Polo
30-01-07, 05:20 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: worthy of Brass Eye
LOL it really is :D
Hollowman
30-01-07, 05:28 PM
A Catholic child was adopted by a gay disguised as a house...
tomasjj
30-01-07, 05:28 PM
*sniff sniff*
Smells like this thread is infested with gay, leftist, pinko commies.
Where is Smphtog?
He would feast on this thread.
:crackoff:
not posted much but couldnt leave this one,
heard a gay rights activist going on about religious bigotry and descrimination but couldn't get my head around it, and before anyone slags me off i too have gay friends but in all honesty if me and the missus died would not want my kids going to a gay couple, the only descriminatory factor in all this is "nature" same sex couples cannot by natures design reproduce, so what gives them the right to be parents ?. nature surely doesnt, where does it end ? i was born tall but i have a right to be small, now chop my fukin legs off?.
sorry but a bit fed up with civil liberty/rights groups nowadays, i think they are takin the piss !
just my opinion but there ya go !
I don't really think this "nature" argument holds at all. Nature didn't allow us to fly. We built planes. The vast majority of our culture is built on doing things that are in one way or another un-natural.
alunevans
30-01-07, 05:37 PM
I think it's amusing that the Church are threatening to get out of adoption by closing down their adoption agencies. Do you think there are any ways in which we can ensure that religion get out of other areas of public life too?
Maybe if they introduced a law forcing them to teach the merits of abortion they'd go and close down the schools as well?
Abdul Alhazred
30-01-07, 05:49 PM
I think people have some funny ideas about what it's like to be raised or educated within a Catholic community.
I wonder why with you as an exemplar :handshake:
Hollowman
30-01-07, 05:59 PM
I wonder why with you as an exemplar :handshake:
FLMAO! Touche.*
* Knut :handshake:
Hollowman
30-01-07, 06:01 PM
Maybe if they introduced a law forcing them to teach the merits of abortion they'd go and close down the schools as well?
We can kiss goodbye to any pretense of civility of we do that.
Come and get them, all the cool kids have them...
Wanting to shut down Catholic schools is an interesting standpoint. I assume you have no experience of them and are talking through your arse?
Neil Young
30-01-07, 06:30 PM
We can kiss goodbye to any pretense of civility of we do that.
Come and get them, all the cool kids have them...
Wanting to shut down Catholic schools is an interesting standpoint. I assume you have no experience of them and are talking through your arse?
Then again, he does pay for them, doesn't he?
Hollowman
30-01-07, 06:42 PM
Then again, he does pay for them, doesn't he?
That smacks of the tyranny of the majority. So taxpayers should stipulate whether faith schools receive funding, based soly on their own ill-informed prejudices?
Interesting how quickly liberalism can turn when faced with something it disagrees with.
Maestro
30-01-07, 06:50 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: worthy of Brass Eye
True, true....:haha:
Mumsafan
30-01-07, 06:52 PM
We can kiss goodbye to any pretense of civility of we do that.
Come and get them, all the cool kids have them...
Wanting to shut down Catholic schools is an interesting standpoint. I assume you have no experience of them and are talking through your arse?
My son goes to school in a town about 10 miles away. It's not the school he's automatically sent to but as a Church school (Cof E Sports College) it has no catchment area and has only 600 pupils on the list. It's one of about 5 or 6 secondary schools in the town. One of these is a Catholic school which, sadly, is probably having to close down because it can't get children to go there. This time last year they changed their policy and said they would allow non Catholics to attend the school, and although some new pupils did go, it still isn't enough to get enough funding to stay open. I think it's a real shame.
alunevans
30-01-07, 09:53 PM
We can kiss goodbye to any pretense of civility of we do that.
Come and get them, all the cool kids have them...
Wanting to shut down Catholic schools is an interesting standpoint. I assume you have no experience of them and are talking through your arse?
Its not just the Catholic schools I want done with. I'd like all religions to get out of education. To get out of the delivery of public policy altogether in fact.
alunevans
30-01-07, 09:56 PM
That smacks of the tyranny of the majority. So taxpayers should stipulate whether faith schools receive funding, based soly on their own ill-informed prejudices?
Interesting how quickly liberalism can turn when faced with something it disagrees with.
Who else but the majority should decide whether faith schools receive public funding, given that the public funding is in the first instance extracted from the public?
Incidentally, I'm not a liberal :)
Hollowman
30-01-07, 10:35 PM
Its not just the Catholic schools I want done with. I'd like all religions to get out of education. To get out of the delivery of public policy altogether in fact.
Why? I'm assuming you have a reason beyond some flippantly marxist 'religion = bad' rationale...
Hollowman
30-01-07, 10:39 PM
Who else but the majority should decide whether faith schools receive public funding, given that the public funding is in the first instance extracted from the public?
How about your duly elected representative? By your rationale gays shouldn't adopt. Several recent polls have shown that more than 50% of people asked believed gay couples shouldn't be allowed to.
You can't have it both ways. If you are for pluralism, then that has to include religious beliefs.
Incidentally, I'm not a liberal :)
No shit. I'm not sure you know what you are. A marxist t-shirt I guess.
tomasjj
30-01-07, 11:03 PM
You can't have it both ways. If you are for pluralism, then that has to include religious beliefs.
:handshake:
alunevans
31-01-07, 11:54 AM
How about your duly elected representative? By your rationale gays shouldn't adopt. Several recent polls have shown that more than 50% of people asked believed gay couples shouldn't be allowed to.
You can't have it both ways. If you are for pluralism, then that has to include religious beliefs.
No shit. I'm not sure you know what you are. A marxist t-shirt I guess.
I think you're getting confused. Most things are nobody's business. Like who I sleep with. It has no relevance to anybody, and it doesn't impact on my ability to parent. To impose the will of the majority on such private matters would indeed be a tyranny.
It would similarly be a tyranny if it was made illegal for someone to be a Catholic, or to worship freely, or if they were disallowed from being an adoptive parent simply for being a Catholic.
But when it comes to the administration of public policy, then I don't see how its a tyranny of the majority for the public to decide who does it and how.
alunevans
31-01-07, 11:58 AM
No shit. I'm not sure you know what you are. A marxist t-shirt I guess.
I do love this line though :haha: I'm gonna use it on my signature for a bit :handshake:
tomasjj
31-01-07, 12:07 PM
But when it comes to the administration of public policy, then I don't see how its a tyranny of the majority for the public to decide who does it and how.
It is not the majority who run the country.
That is an illusion.
It has always been the few who decide the important matters.
And, being a firm believer that the majority are ignorant, an intellectual elite should run a country.
Sorry for the hijack.
alunevans
31-01-07, 12:17 PM
It is not the majority who run the country.
That is an illusion.
It has always been the few who decide the important matters.
And, being a firm believer that the majority are ignorant, an intellectual elite should run a country.
Sorry for the hijack.
Are you Plato in disguise?
Hollowman
31-01-07, 12:59 PM
I think you're getting confused. Most things are nobody's business. Like who I sleep with. It has no relevance to anybody, and it doesn't impact on my ability to parent. To impose the will of the majority on such private matters would indeed be a tyranny.
It would similarly be a tyranny if it was made illegal for someone to be a Catholic, or to worship freely, or if they were disallowed from being an adoptive parent simply for being a Catholic.
But when it comes to the administration of public policy, then I don't see how its a tyranny of the majority for the public to decide who does it and how.
So Catholics don't have the right to raise their children in an environment congruent to their religious beliefs? Why not? Fact of the matter is, faith schools have always been an essential part of this country's education. A pretty effective one too. 42% of the top 200 comprehensive schools are faith schools, despite only accounting for 17% of the total. The Catholic church has continually brought education to deprived inner city areas, long before the government did so. Even taking into account the percentage of students on free school meals the faith schools outperform other comprehensives. So let's be clear here, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
What you're suggesting is also in gross violation of the second article of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unless you're happy to bypass such documents.
Clearly you have no idea what you're on about. You have some wooly idea about the "administration of public policy" which, aside from any philosophical objections it might raise, it quite simply moronic on practical grounds.
Most faith schools are voluntary aided schools. They are state funded but receive a lot of extra funds from both their local communities and whatever organisation might back them. Without that extra funding a lot of them wouldn't exist. Which would mean the state would have to provide an extra school on less money.
But their is a greater reason for state funded faith schools. Britain is, and will always be (assuming you don't someone get into a position of influence), a pluralist society. There is a great variety of races, creeds, and cultures. The primary concern with any such society is segregation and cultural isolation. If faith schools had to be entirely privately funded, then all that would happen is there would be less of them, but those that existed would have absolutely no responsiblity to social cohesion whatsoever. Where's the advantage to that? Catholic schools especially tend to be far more multicultural than other schools in their districts. Students travel great distances to them, so you get a healthy blend of race and class. The state "administration of pulic policy" (you notice it's a phrase that doesn't sound any smarter the more you repeat it...) would have students attending local schools. The rich school with the rich. The poor with the poor. And in some areas of big cities it leads to significant racial divides between schools.
Quite literally the only problem you have with these schools is that they identify themselves by their faith. And you would have that one aspect of them held above everything they offer. And you call them dogmatic? Rome might be a lot of things, but a devisive educator it is not. It's just a pity that they are rarely judged on the merits of the education they provide, but instead on lazy and foolish preconceptions.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:20 PM
I think all public funded schools should be secular too.
tomasjj
31-01-07, 01:20 PM
Are you Plato in disguise?
Do you think the majority is fit to rule then?
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:22 PM
Do you think the majority is fit to rule then?
In the UK? Absolutely NOT! :haha:
Red_hot
31-01-07, 01:33 PM
The Church isn't a cult. Children aren't sat in small dark rooms and forced to repeat mantras on Catholic morality over and over and scourged with the ferula if they don't.
gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent. gays must repent
I think people have some funny ideas about what it's like to be raised or educated within a Catholic community.
:handshake: I'm a Catholic and brought up as one and I was never told that gays are bad! My parents/school/church have always taught about tolerance.
Red_hot
31-01-07, 01:34 PM
So Catholics don't have the right to raise their children in an environment congruent to their religious beliefs? Why not? Fact of the matter is, faith schools have always been an essential part of this country's education. A pretty effective one too. 42% of the top 200 comprehensive schools are faith schools, despite only accounting for 17% of the total. The Catholic church has continually brought education to deprived inner city areas, long before the government did so. Even taking into account the percentage of students on free school meals the faith schools outperform other comprehensives. So let's be clear here, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
What you're suggesting is also in gross violation of the second article of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unless you're happy to bypass such documents.
Clearly you have no idea what you're on about. You have some wooly idea about the "administration of public policy" which, aside from any philosophical objections it might raise, it quite simply moronic on practical grounds.
Most faith schools are voluntary aided schools. They are state funded but receive a lot of extra funds from both their local communities and whatever organisation might back them. Without that extra funding a lot of them wouldn't exist. Which would mean the state would have to provide an extra school on less money.
But their is a greater reason for state funded faith schools. Britain is, and will always be (assuming you don't someone get into a position of influence), a pluralist society. There is a great variety of races, creeds, and cultures. The primary concern with any such society is segregation and cultural isolation. If faith schools had to be entirely privately funded, then all that would happen is there would be less of them, but those that existed would have absolutely no responsiblity to social cohesion whatsoever. Where's the advantage to that? Catholic schools especially tend to be far more multicultural than other schools in their districts. Students travel great distances to them, so you get a healthy blend of race and class. The state "administration of pulic policy" (you notice it's a phrase that doesn't sound any smarter the more you repeat it...) would have students attending local schools. The rich school with the rich. The poor with the poor. And in some areas of big cities it leads to significant racial divides between schools.
Quite literally the only problem you have with these schools is that they identify themselves by their faith. And you would have that one aspect of them held above everything they offer. And you call them dogmatic? Rome might be a lot of things, but a devisive educator it is not. It's just a pity that they are rarely judged on the merits of the education they provide, but instead on lazy and foolish preconceptions.
:handshake: :respect:
I think all public funded schools should be secular too.
Why?
I have to say that it is my instinctive prejudice too. I really can't see any valid reason for it though, as long as you make the fairly safe assumption that they do not try to teach any extremist views or creationism.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:41 PM
Not sure why, I just have a problem with publically funded schools refusing to accept children because of their parent's religion. If they were prepared to take children of all religions then fine, but then they're not a faith school.
I think it's the discrimination of children based on their parents religion that I have a problem with and not particularly what they teach as they have to follow the national curriculum just like everyone else.
alunevans
31-01-07, 01:45 PM
I wasn't attacking Rome. I was questioning why religion should play a role in the education of children. Nothing you have said has convinced me that it should.
I'm happy for schools to teach tolerance etc but you don't need to be a religious school for that.
What I do object to however is children being told by the education system that there is a God or to push other such religious theories onto children as if they are fact.
If religions seek to persuade people that there is a God etc, then I've no problem with it, but I don't think it is valid to do so as part of an education system to children who will naturally be expecting factual information, not groundless superstition dressed up as truth.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:47 PM
Being taught about all major world religions is part of a good education though IMO, I'm just against schools discriminating against children based on their parent's religion.
Do faith schools teach about other religions? Red Hot? Hollowman?
Mumsafan
31-01-07, 01:49 PM
So Catholics don't have the right to raise their children in an environment congruent to their religious beliefs? Why not? Fact of the matter is, faith schools have always been an essential part of this country's education. A pretty effective one too. 42% of the top 200 comprehensive schools are faith schools, despite only accounting for 17% of the total. The Catholic church has continually brought education to deprived inner city areas, long before the government did so. Even taking into account the percentage of students on free school meals the faith schools outperform other comprehensives. So let's be clear here, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
What you're suggesting is also in gross violation of the second article of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unless you're happy to bypass such documents.
Clearly you have no idea what you're on about. You have some wooly idea about the "administration of public policy" which, aside from any philosophical objections it might raise, it quite simply moronic on practical grounds.
Most faith schools are voluntary aided schools. They are state funded but receive a lot of extra funds from both their local communities and whatever organisation might back them. Without that extra funding a lot of them wouldn't exist. Which would mean the state would have to provide an extra school on less money.
But their is a greater reason for state funded faith schools. Britain is, and will always be (assuming you don't someone get into a position of influence), a pluralist society. There is a great variety of races, creeds, and cultures. The primary concern with any such society is segregation and cultural isolation. If faith schools had to be entirely privately funded, then all that would happen is there would be less of them, but those that existed would have absolutely no responsiblity to social cohesion whatsoever. Where's the advantage to that? Catholic schools especially tend to be far more multicultural than other schools in their districts. Students travel great distances to them, so you get a healthy blend of race and class. The state "administration of pulic policy" (you notice it's a phrase that doesn't sound any smarter the more you repeat it...) would have students attending local schools. The rich school with the rich. The poor with the poor. And in some areas of big cities it leads to significant racial divides between schools.
Quite literally the only problem you have with these schools is that they identify themselves by their faith. And you would have that one aspect of them held above everything they offer. And you call them dogmatic? Rome might be a lot of things, but a devisive educator it is not. It's just a pity that they are rarely judged on the merits of the education they provide, but instead on lazy and foolish preconceptions.
Brilliant post
Mumsafan
31-01-07, 01:50 PM
Not sure why, I just have a problem with publically funded schools refusing to accept children because of their parent's religion. If they were prepared to take children of all religions then fine, but then they're not a faith school.
I think it's the discrimination of children based on their parents religion that I have a problem with and not particularly what they teach as they have to follow the national curriculum just like everyone else.
The majority of them do take children of all faiths nowadays.
alunevans
31-01-07, 01:50 PM
Being taught about all major world religions is part of a good education though IMO, I'm just against schools discriminating against children based on their parent's religion.
Children should be taught ABOUT religions yes, in the sense of "this is what x believe". What I object to is a religion stating their beliefs eg "there is a God" as truth.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:51 PM
The majority of them do take children of all faiths nowadays.
NO problem with that then :handshake:
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:53 PM
Children should be taught ABOUT religions yes, in the sense of "this is what x believe". What I object to is a religion stating their beliefs eg "there is a God" as truth.
I agree. Although I don't know whether this is what happens in faith schools. They have to follow the National Curriculum these days. I thought that was what Sunday school was for, least it was in my day.
I wasn't attacking Rome. I was questioning why religion should play a role in the education of children. Nothing you have said has convinced me that it should.
I'm happy for schools to teach tolerance etc but you don't need to be a religious school for that.
What I do object to however is children being told by the education system that there is a God or to push other such religious theories onto children as if they are fact.
If religions seek to persuade people that there is a God etc, then I've no problem with it, but I don't think it is valid to do so as part of an education system to children who will naturally be expecting factual information, not groundless superstition dressed up as truth.
How much time is spent in a faith school teaching religion? I know my secondary school (no a faith school or anything) was marked down by OFSTED for not having enough religious content in the week - both in terms of R.E. lessons and assemblies devoted to the subject. I think that in the right context - such as an activity external to lessons like an assembly then religious teaching can be beneficial in terms of making children think about issues such as morality.
I would genuinely be interested to know what level of teaching/preaching of the specified faith goes on in faith schools. I rather suspect it is not a great deal, with the main difference being that services might be included in the daily program. If this is the case then I really fail to see the distinction with the freedom parents have to make their children go to church and sending them to a faith school.
Mumsafan
31-01-07, 01:53 PM
Being taught about all major world religions is part of a good education though IMO, I'm just against schools discriminating against children based on their parent's religion.
Do faith schools teach about other religions? Red Hot? Hollowman?
Yes they do. My son goes to a faith school, C of E (Sports College). It accepts children of other faiths as well. He follows the National Curriculum on Religious Studies and he can take it as a GCSE, which he probably will. Thew school goes out of it's way to accommodate the children who attend who are not C of E, or indeed Christian. The Christian children are also taken on trips/ outings to various place/ temples/ buildings of other religions as well. Plus once a term there is a service at either one of the Cof E churches or the Catholic one where the two come together. Sadly, though, it looks as if the Catholic school willbe closing.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:55 PM
Yes they do. My son goes to a faith school, C of E (Sports College). It accepts children of other faiths as well. He follows the National Curriculum on Religious Studies and he can take it as a GCSE, which he probably will. Thew school goes out of it's way to accommodate the children who attend who are not C of E, or indeed Christian. The Christian children are also taken on trips/ outings to various place/ temples/ buildings of other religions as well. Plus once a term there is a service at either one of the Cof E churches or the Catholic one where the two come together. Sadly, though, it looks as if the Catholic school willbe closing.
Thanks for the info, as I thought about the National Curriculum.
Can't see what is wrong with any of that then.
Red_hot
31-01-07, 01:56 PM
Being taught about all major world religions is part of a good education though IMO, I'm just against schools discriminating against children based on their parent's religion.
Do faith schools teach about other religions? Red Hot? Hollowman?
Yes they do. They are also taught about tolerance towards all religions/races etc etc. I see nothing wrong with having faith schools.
Mumsafan
31-01-07, 01:56 PM
How much time is spent in a faith school teaching religion? I know my secondary school (no a faith school or anything) was marked down by OFSTED for not having enough religious content in the week - both in terms of R.E. lessons and assemblies devoted to the subject. I think that in the right context - such as an activity external to lessons like an assembly then religious teaching can be beneficial in terms of making children think about issues such as morality.
I would genuinely be interested to know what level of teaching/preaching of the specified faith goes on in faith schools. I rather suspect it is not a great deal, with the main difference being that services might be included in the daily program. If this is the case then I really fail to see the distinction with the freedom parents have to make their children go to church and sending them to a faith school.
When I was at school, not a faith school but certainly one independent of govt funding, we had an assembly once a week, plus the usual RE lessons, and because it was a boarding school, we went to church on Sunday.
The local secondary school had an assembly as well but no hymns were sung and there was no religious theme to it at all.
My son's school has a Christian based assembly in the main, although children of other religions are allowed to attend or decide to hold their own assembly. The school has it's own chapel. There is a Church service about twice a term. There is prayers for the school in the chapel once a month on a MOnday evening.
Red_hot
31-01-07, 01:58 PM
I went to a Catholic convent school and we were taught about other religions during our RE lessons.
alunevans
31-01-07, 01:58 PM
How much time is spent in a faith school teaching religion? I know my secondary school (no a faith school or anything) was marked down by OFSTED for not having enough religious content in the week - both in terms of R.E. lessons and assemblies devoted to the subject. I think that in the right context - such as an activity external to lessons like an assembly then religious teaching can be beneficial in terms of making children think about issues such as morality.
A class in Ethics would do that better in my view, as it would tackle ethical questions from a broader perspective rather than holding discussions around the church's view on an issue.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 01:59 PM
The vast majority of faith schools are happy to accept proposed compromises which involves up to 25% of their intake not being restricted to faith. This becomes slightly problematic with some Islamic schools where the cultural distinction is as large as the religious one, but it's not an unsurmountable obstacle.
Personally, it's more of a compromise than I would make, and I'm not even a practising Catholic. The option should always be available for parents to have their children educated in a religious environment. I really cannot see a problem with that. Catholics are citizens too, and many of them cannot afford private fees, so it is right that their wishes are funded by the state. I don't see it as a negative discrimination. These schools cater for people who value faith. Four out of five comprehensive schools are secular. They receive the same funding as faith schools. Faith schools possess receive no special treatment above other schools. They simply offer a service tailored towards a specific section of society who see the church as a big part of their lives.
Equally, there are academically selective Voluntary Aided schools, and I cannot see a problem with there being institutes that cater for more capable students. Surely if faith schools cannot be state funded, then neither can any other selective schools?
The whole argument is ridiculous. When did homogeneity and uniformity of nature become desirable?
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 01:59 PM
There was a faith school where I grew up which was Roman catholic but my parents weren't.
My best mate went there to secondary school and I rememner being devastated when I was told by my parents that I couldn't go there. I couldn't understand why and neither could my mate. Looking back, that was a pretty poor thing to happen and turned me off religion to a certain extent. Obviously, it seems like a big deal when you're that age to be seperated from your mates. From what we're told this situation doesn't happen much these days.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:00 PM
I went to a Catholic convent school and we were taught about other religions during our RE lessons.
Honest question seeking an honest answer. Did the school promote a particular view as fact. Eg did they tell you there might be a God, that there was no evidence for the existence of God, or did they teach you that there IS a God.
All my mates who went to Catholic schools were taught the latter.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:03 PM
The vast majority of faith schools are happy to accept proposed compromises which involves up to 25% of their intake not being restricted to faith. This becomes slightly problematic with some Islamic schools where the cultural distinction is as large as the religious one, but it's not an unsurmountable obstacle.
Personally, it's more of a compromise than I would make, and I'm not even a practising Catholic. The option should always be available for parents to have their children educated in a religious environment. I really cannot see a problem with that. Catholics are citizens too, and many of them cannot afford private fees, so it is right that their wishes are funded by the state. I don't see it as a negative discrimination. These schools cater for people who value faith. Four out of five comprehensive schools are secular. They receive the same funding as faith schools. Faith schools possess receive no special treatment above other schools. They simply offer a service tailored towards a specific section of society who see the church as a big part of their lives.
Equally, there are academically selective Voluntary Aided schools, and I cannot see a problem with there being institutes that cater for more capable students. Surely if faith schools cannot be state funded, then neither can any other selective schools?
The whole argument is ridiculous. When did homogeneity and uniformity of nature become desirable?
Why do catholic parents not want their children mixing with children of different faiths though? That seems to be what you are eluding to by saying it's more of a compromise than you'd be prepared to make.
If there are to be state funded catholic schools then where does it end?
State funded Rastafarian schools?
You'd have to cater for every religious faith in that case.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:03 PM
The vast majority of faith schools are happy to accept proposed compromises which involves up to 25% of their intake not being restricted to faith. This becomes slightly problematic with some Islamic schools where the cultural distinction is as large as the religious one, but it's not an unsurmountable obstacle.
Personally, it's more of a compromise than I would make, and I'm not even a practising Catholic. The option should always be available for parents to have their children educated in a religious environment. I really cannot see a problem with that. Catholics are citizens too, and many of them cannot afford private fees, so it is right that their wishes are funded by the state. I don't see it as a negative discrimination. These schools cater for people who value faith. Four out of five comprehensive schools are secular. They receive the same funding as faith schools. Faith schools possess receive no special treatment above other schools. They simply offer a service tailored towards a specific section of society who see the church as a big part of their lives.
Equally, there are academically selective Voluntary Aided schools, and I cannot see a problem with there being institutes that cater for more capable students. Surely if faith schools cannot be state funded, then neither can any other selective schools?
The whole argument is ridiculous. When did homogeneity and uniformity of nature become desirable?
Its not about that. Its about the question of whether religious theories are delivered to a child as truth. If so, then this has no role in education.
I can only imagine the Daily Mail's fury if a string of publicly funded Marxist School for children was opened.
Basically, if we cannot definitively say that there IS a God, then no education system should be happy telling children that there is.
Red_hot
31-01-07, 02:03 PM
Honest question seeking an honest answer. Did the school promote a particular view as fact. Eg did they tell you there might be a God, that there was no evidence for the existence of God, or did they teach you that there IS a God.
All my mates who went to Catholic schools were taught the latter.
Yes they carried on what I was taught in primary school/by my parents that there IS a God and that is what I still believe.
Honest question seeking an honest answer. Did the school promote a particular view as fact. Eg did they tell you there might be a God, that there was no evidence for the existence of God, or did they teach you that there IS a God.
All my mates who went to Catholic schools were taught the latter.
Is it necissarily a problem if they do? To me it very much depends on wether they educate kids to ask questions and value science etc., I really don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Reading what Hollowman has said it would appear that faith schools do at least as good a job as any other of making well educated and questioning individuals capable of forming their own world view.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:05 PM
Why do catholic parents not want their children mixing with children of different faiths though? That seems to be what you are eluding to by saying it's more of a compromise than you'd be prepared to make.
If there are to be state funded catholic schools then where does it end?
State funded Rastafarian schools?
You'd have to cater for every religious faith in that case.
Why just religious faiths? Why not other world views that are not based on religion getting public money to open up schools? Like you say, where does it end?
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:06 PM
Why just religious faiths? Why not other world views that are not based on religion getting public money to open up schools? Like you say, where does it end?
Exactly :handshake: State funded Jedi schools :haha: , state funded athiest schools etc.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:07 PM
I wasn't attacking Rome. I was questioning why religion should play a role in the education of children. Nothing you have said has convinced me that it should.
They don't have to convince anyone. They DO play a role, have ALWAYS played a role, and all things being equal do it BETTER than anyone else. Being as they are incumbant in the system, and entrenched since its origins, it should be for people like you to demonstrate why they should NOT be involved.
What I do object to however is children being told by the education system that there is a God or to push other such religious theories onto children as if they are fact.
If religions seek to persuade people that there is a God etc, then I've no problem with it, but I don't think it is valid to do so as part of an education system to children who will naturally be expecting factual information, not groundless superstition dressed up as truth.
This is the kind of ignorant shit that makes me sick.
If your views are in any way representative of what secular education fosters, then I really don't think the church has any worries. The rest of the country will simply stupid itself to death.
Where the hell do you get your ideas from? Do you think priests have kids sat in classrooms reading about how Darwin was a heretic and the world was created in seven days? Whilst most schools are lumping the sciences together into a catch all "Double science" GCSE, the Jesuits are still teaching the seperate disciplines. They also teach humanist ideas as well as Christian theology. I read Marx and Kant at my school. What the fuck were you doing?
For someone who harps on about the church teaching superstition as fact, you spout an awful lot of nonsense without backing it up with anything resembling a fact.
Unbelievable.
Why just religious faiths? Why not other world views that are not based on religion getting public money to open up schools? Like you say, where does it end?
Surely the funding is there for any organisation/group that is willing to set up a school in the correct way. I have to say I am a little bit uncertain about some of the proposals the government have bought forward in terms of specialist schools butfor example we have sports and technology orientated schools.
Religious bodies are simply more likely to care about the moral and social issues that schooling incorporates than other organisations. Problems only arise for me when the body running the schools wish to make substansive changes to the curriculum, be that to make it business orientated or to push a specific set of religious beliefs.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:11 PM
Yes they carried on what I was taught in primary school/by my parents that there IS a God and that is what I still believe.
That is my objection to it Sarah. If they taught that some think there is a God, thats religious education.
Education deals in facts. It is meant to inform children. Not brainwash them.
Any school teaching something as truth is in my view wrong. And I don't want to help pay for an education system that teaches children that something IS, when the accurate description would be "some believe".
No matter how firmly held your own religious beliefs, one can surely only say "I believe there is a God", not "there is one and thats that."
My point is that the pushing of these religious views should not be part of an education system, because one cannot present unproven faith as outright fact and still pretend you're engaged in education.
The Church has every right to persuade people that there is a God. But it has no place to do so as part of the education system.
If this is being presented as fact to children then those children are being short changed and brainwashed.
Doubtless this is why the Church thought getting involved in education was such a good idea in the first place.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:12 PM
Yes they carried on what I was taught in primary school/by my parents that there IS a God and that is what I still believe.
To be fair, my school wasn't a faith school yet I remember being taught that there IS a God etc etc in RE as well as the theory of evolution in Biology.
I wasn't listening though :haha:
RE was only once a week and it was our best opportunity to piss about, which we used religiously :D It's not as though before assembly and at the end of the day we had to repeat "There is a God".
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:12 PM
Why do catholic parents not want their children mixing with children of different faiths though? That seems to be what you are eluding to by saying it's more of a compromise than you'd be prepared to make.
If there are to be state funded catholic schools then where does it end?
State funded Rastafarian schools?
You'd have to cater for every religious faith in that case.
Well, for a start the Jesuits taught be to allude rather than elude. And secondly, you inferred that, I wasn't implying it at all. It's not about not wanting them to mix with other faiths, it's about wanting them to be educated within a Catholic environment. It's a positive decision, not a negative one. Anything else is spin.
Secondly, how many Rastafarian schools are there? Or Jedi schools? The Catholic church has been providing free education to children in Britain longer than the state. They have been in it from the ground up. That's why there are state funded faith schools.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:15 PM
They don't have to convince anyone. They DO play a role, have ALWAYS played a role, and all things being equal do it BETTER than anyone else. Being as they are incumbant in the system, and entrenched since its origins, it should be for people like you to demonstrate why they should NOT be involved.
This is the kind of ignorant shit that makes me sick.
If your views are in any way representative of what secular education fosters, then I really don't think the church has any worries. The rest of the country will simply stupid itself to death.
Where the hell do you get your ideas from? Do you think priests have kids sat in classrooms reading about how Darwin was a heretic and the world was created in seven days? Whilst most schools are lumping the sciences together into a catch all "Double science" GCSE, the Jesuits are still teaching the seperate disciplines. They also teach humanist ideas as well as Christian theology. I read Marx and Kant at my school. What the fuck were you doing?
For someone who harps on about the church teaching superstition as fact, you spout an awful lot of nonsense without backing it up with anything resembling a fact.
Unbelievable.
Sarah has just confirmed that Church schools present the existence of God as fact. So there you go.
Incidentally, I'm perfectly happy for the Church to continue educating children so long as they are not allowed to use public money to do this.
If it is education and not brainwashing that they are interested in, they'll have no objection.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:15 PM
Doubtless this is why the Church thought getting involved in education was such a good idea in the first place.
A shameless and willful misinterpretation of history. Genuinely amazing to me. Who do you think was offering free education when the state wasn't? Do you think there was a flourishing state education programme and the church just pitched up and hijacked it? Hilarious.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:18 PM
Sarah has just confirmed that Church schools present the existence of God as fact. So there you go.
Incidentally, I'm perfectly happy for the Church to continue educating children so long as they are not allowed to use public money to do this.
If it is education and not brainwashing that they are interested in, they'll have no objection.
You, sir, are a mountebank.
Brainwashing? Can we try to make it even more extreme? Jesus. It's like listening to Fox News report on a madras in Pakistan.
As far as your education goes, faith schools consistantly deliver better exam results. What more is to be said about that?
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:18 PM
Is it necissarily a problem if they do?
Very much so. What else can be presented as fact in a school which actually isn't.
If its not fact, don't tell primary school children that it is.
Like I've said, if the Church leaves its propoganda outside the education system then as far as I'm concerned I'm happy for them to continue educating.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:20 PM
A shameless and willful misinterpretation of history. Genuinely amazing to me. Who do you think was offering free education when the state wasn't? Do you think there was a flourishing state education programme and the church just pitched up and hijacked it? Hilarious.
Who on earth suggested there was a flourishing education system that the church hijacked? I discussed the church's motivation in offering education, I never said they hijacked something pre existing. Where did ya get that from?
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:21 PM
You, sir, are a mountebank.
Brainwashing? Can we try to make it even more extreme? Jesus. It's like listening to Fox News report on a madras in Pakistan.
As far as your education goes, faith schools consistantly deliver better exam results. What more is to be said about that?
"There is a God". Is this fact or supposition? If not fact, why would any sincere educator present it as such?
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:22 PM
Quite right. Ethics can't be proven as fact either. We'll leave them at the door too. Might as well dump all philosophy while we're at it. Hmm. Fiction. Not sure on that. Bunch of made up stories. Don't like that. Out it goes. Right, science. Remember, we can't have any theories. Only things we can demonstrably prove. We wouldn't want to foster a desire for research. Kids might start thinking for themselves. Then where would we be?
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:22 PM
Well, for a start the Jesuits taught be to allude rather than elude. And secondly, you inferred that, I wasn't implying it at all. It's not about not wanting them to mix with other faiths, it's about wanting them to be educated within a Catholic environment. It's a positive decision, not a negative one. Anything else is spin.
Secondly, how many Rastafarian schools are there? Or Jedi schools? The Catholic church has been providing free education to children in Britain longer than the state. They have been in it from the ground up. That's why there are state funded faith schools.
Right, well your spelling/english might be better than mine but it doesn't provide any validity on the existance of exclusively Catholic schools.
What does "educated in a catholic environment" involve exactly?
Any school which supports exclusion based on religious faith of the parents is dangerous in my opinion and wrong, be they Catholic, Islamic or Jedi and should not be part of public funding.
The compromise seems to be a very sensible idea which I support completely.
As for your second point, you are betraying what you wrote in another post about Catholic's being citizens too and therefore being entitled to educate their children in whatever way they choose.
Well if that's the case for Catholics, then the same applies to Rastafarians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and yes, even Jedis. They are all citizens and all their schools should be funded to the same degree.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:23 PM
"There is a God". Is this fact or supposition? If not fact, why would any sincere educator present it as such?
It's neither. It's faith. The substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen. If you fail to grasp that it plays a major role in the lives of other people, then that says more about you than it does them.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:25 PM
Do faith schools allow teachers of different faiths to be teachers? e.g. Could you have a Sikh head teacher in a Catholic school?
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:25 PM
Right, well your spelling/english might be better than mine but it doesn't provide any validity on the existance of exclusively Catholic schools.
What does "educated in a catholic environment" involve exactly?
Any school which supports exclusion based on religious faith of the parents is dangerous in my opinion and wrong, be they Catholic, Islamic or Jedi and should not be part of public funding.
The compromise seems to be a very sensible idea which I support completely.
As for your second point, you are betraying what you wrote in another post about Catholic's being citizens too and therefore being entitled to educate their children in whatever way they choose.
Well if that's the case for Catholics, then the same applies to Rastafarians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and yes, even Jedis. They are all citizens and all their schools should be funded to the same degree.
There are Muslim schools. There are Jewish schools. And if there was demand for a Rasterfarian school or a Jedi school, I imagine they would exist too.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:26 PM
There are Muslim schools. There are Jewish schools. And if there was demand for a Rasterfarian school or a Jedi school, I imagine they would exist too.
Are they all exclusive? If they're not then that's fine, I like the idea of the compromise.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:26 PM
Do faith schools allow teachers of different faiths to be teachers? e.g. Could you have a Sikh head teacher in a Catholic school?
Depends on the school. Faith schools are almost all Voluntary Aided, which means their own board of govenors rather than the local council get to decide appointments.
I think trying to use such an example is just ever so slightly silly though.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:27 PM
Depends on the school. Faith schools are almost all Voluntary Aided, which means their own board of govenors rather than the local council get to decide appointments.
I think trying to use such an example is just ever so slightly silly though.
Not really, to deny someone a job based on their religion is, I think, illegal and should be stamped out.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:28 PM
Are they all exclusive? If they're not then that's fine, I like the idea of the compromise.
Some of them are, some of them aren't.
The reason they are exclusive is because secualr schools don't offer any religious interaction to children. So there are limited places in schools that do, and every place in a faith school taken up by a child who is not brought up outside the school in that particular faith is one less place for a child who wants it. Which is a bit silly given that the non-faith child can get a non-faith education in the majority of schools.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:28 PM
Quite right. Ethics can't be proven as fact either. We'll leave them at the door too. Might as well dump all philosophy while we're at it. Hmm. Fiction. Not sure on that. Bunch of made up stories. Don't like that. Out it goes. Right, science. Remember, we can't have any theories. Only things we can demonstrably prove. We wouldn't want to foster a desire for research. Kids might start thinking for themselves. Then where would we be?
Now you're being disingenuous.
If its a theory, call it a theory. No problem.
The Church calls its theories fact as Sarah has confirmed. Thats the problem as well you know.
And one can teach ethics, philosophy and yes religion without telling people that this is fact, again as you well know. You can say "plato said this", but "kant said this", and "St Thomas Aquinas said this". Which would all be true, and their views can then all be discussed.
What I object to is the presentation of theories as fact. If its a theory call it a theory. The day Church schools agree to this when they teach their own theories is the day I cease to have a problem with them.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:29 PM
Not really, to deny someone a job based on their religion is, I think, illegal and should be stamped out.
If the Sikh could say the rosary and lead the school in an Our Father, then more power to him. Give him the job. If he can't, fuck's he doing applying for the head role in a Catholic school?
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:30 PM
Now you're being disingenuous.
If its a theory, call it a theory. No problem.
The Church calls its theories fact as Sarah has confirmed. Thats the problem as well you know.
And one can teach ethics, philosophy and yes religion without telling people that this is fact, again as you well know. You can say "plato said this", but "kant said this", and "St Thomas Aquinas said this". Which would all be true, and their views can then all be discussed.
What I object to is the presentation of theories as fact. If its a theory call it a theory. The day Church schools agree to this when they teach their own theories is the day I cease to have a problem with them.
They have to follow the National Curriculum these days anyway.
Mumsafan
31-01-07, 02:30 PM
Right, well your spelling/english might be better than mine but it doesn't provide any validity on the existance of exclusively Catholic schools.
What does "educated in a catholic environment" involve exactly?
Any school which supports exclusion based on religious faith of the parents is dangerous in my opinion and wrong, be they Catholic, Islamic or Jedi and should not be part of public funding.
The compromise seems to be a very sensible idea which I support completely.
As for your second point, you are betraying what you wrote in another post about Catholic's being citizens too and therefore being entitled to educate their children in whatever way they choose.
Well if that's the case for Catholics, then the same applies to Rastafarians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and yes, even Jedis. They are all citizens and all their schools should be funded to the same degree.
I'm pretty sure that my son's school gets most of it's funding from the C of E and the Anglican Sports Colleges Alliance. I think the problem with the Catholic school in the town is that they are losing funding from the govt because they haven't got enough children on the roll. Schools, faith or otherwise, do not receive unconditional funding.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:31 PM
Now you're being disingenuous.
If its a theory, call it a theory. No problem.
The Church calls its theories fact as Sarah has confirmed. Thats the problem as well you know.
And one can teach ethics, philosophy and yes religion without telling people that this is fact, again as you well know. You can say "plato said this", but "kant said this", and "St Thomas Aquinas said this". Which would all be true, and their views can then all be discussed.
What I object to is the presentation of theories as fact. If its a theory call it a theory. The day Church schools agree to this when they teach their own theories is the day I cease to have a problem with them.
You have a child like view of this. Bordering on idiotic. It is a given that children educated in a faith school will be taught in an environment where it is universally held that God exists. They don't have classes on the idea. When Sarah said 'presented' she didn't mean children are sat down and spoonfed Papal propaganda.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:32 PM
If the Sikh could say the rosary and lead the school in an Our Father, then more power to him. Give him the job. If he can't, fuck's he doing applying for the head role in a Catholic school?
It might be a promotion for him, he might not have the opportunity to apply for a head teachers job elsewhere.
I didn't realise that teachers had to "say the rosary etc". I'm not sure whether I agree with teachers doing that.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:32 PM
They have to follow the National Curriculum these days anyway.
Faith schools have an opt out of the NC when it comes to Religious Education.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:32 PM
It's neither. It's faith. The substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen. If you fail to grasp that it plays a major role in the lives of other people, then that says more about you than it does them.
I know it plays a role in people's lives. Good for them. No problem. That's a private matter for them. Its not my world view, but if its theirs then cool.
Just don't teach faith as fact in a school of all things and we'll have no argument.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:33 PM
I'm pretty sure that my son's school gets most of it's funding from the C of E and the Anglican Sports Colleges Alliance. I think the problem with the Catholic school in the town is that they are losing funding from the govt because they haven't got enough children on the roll. Schools, faith or otherwise, do not receive unconditional funding.
So funding is based on demand to some degree. Seems reasonable, thanks.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:33 PM
Faith schools have an opt out of the NC when it comes to Religious Education.
Lose the opt out and I lose the problem I have with them.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:33 PM
It might be a promotion for him, he might not have the opportunity to apply for a head teachers job elsewhere.
I didn't realise that teachers had to "say the rosary etc". I'm not sure whether I agree with teachers doing that.
You might think differnetly if you were Catholic. Which is why we have....Catholic schools. The world is full of a wondrous variety of thought and belief, and all are catered for.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:34 PM
Faith schools have an opt out of the NC when it comes to Religious Education.
Interesting. Well I disagree with that for starters :haha: Can they opt out of the NC where it comes to teaching evolution?
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:34 PM
Lose the opt out and I lose the problem I have with them.
Were you taught Kant at school? Or John Donne?
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:35 PM
Interesting. Well I disagree with that for starters :haha: Can they opt out of the NC where it comes to teaching evolution?
No. Which is why I said they have an opt out for RE. Not science. The opt out is so that they can stray from the NC and teach more. Not teach less.
alunevans
31-01-07, 02:36 PM
You have a child like view of this. Bordering on idiotic. It is a given that children educated in a faith school will be taught in an environment where it is universally held that God exists. They don't have classes on the idea. When Sarah said 'presented' she didn't mean children are sat down and spoonfed Papal propaganda.
Why do they need the national curriculum opt out?
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:36 PM
You might think differnetly if you were Catholic. Which is why we have....Catholic schools. The world is full of a wondrous variety of thought and belief, and all are catered for.
I just think teachers should be teaching and there should be a distinction between religious practises and teaching. It would be easy for a child to get the 2 confused eg "is the teacher teaching us or are they performing a religious ceremony*"
* or whatever the correct term for it is.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:37 PM
I know it plays a role in people's lives. Good for them. No problem. That's a private matter for them. Its not my world view, but if its theirs then cool.
Just don't teach faith as fact in a school of all things and we'll have no argument.
Faith isn't 'taught' at all. It's simply a presupposition upon entering such a school, so that the school might offer Mass, Confession or other chaplaincy services.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:39 PM
I just think teachers should be teaching and there should be a distinction between religious practises and teaching. It would be easy for a child to get the 2 confused eg "is the teacher teaching us or are they performing a religious ceremony*"
* or whatever the correct term for it is.
The child would have to be mentally retarded.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:40 PM
The child would have to be mentally retarded.
Well, mentally retarded children do exist you know and I don't like the way they are treated like second class citizens in some posts (not necessarily yours but generally).
I think the way you posted that comment reflects very poorly on you in a way the rest of the thread doesn't. You ought to count your blessings.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 02:43 PM
Indubitably.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 02:45 PM
A very good friend of mine has a mentally retarded child and it is certainly not a laughing matter.
But anyway, back to the thread : Gay, adoption, religion, education :haha:
Hollowman
31-01-07, 03:12 PM
You ought to count your blessings.
Don't look now, but...
alunevans
31-01-07, 03:12 PM
A very good friend of mine has a mentally retarded child and it is certainly not a laughing matter.
But anyway, back to the thread : Gay, adoption, religion, education :haha:
:handshake:
Finally someone spotted my mischevious ploy.
What starts as a thread where the Church puts gays under the spotlight, becomes a thread where the spotlight is put back on the Church :haha:
Plus it produced the "marxist tshirt" line which I genuinely did enjoy.
Don't look now, but...
:haha:
The Glove
31-01-07, 05:24 PM
To bea fair, History is taught in school as fact. It aint all fact what they teach.
Religion isnt rammed down any kids throat at school, and as they develop they are also taught how to think for themselves. If they then choose to ignore religion then there isnt such a big deal. They have made a balanced judgement on what they know. Not being taught religion would do more harm. Even if it is taught as fact, it is still questionable to the individual. At school they are presented with religion as fact and also evolution as fact. Its not like they only hear one side and thats them tainted for life.
Red_hot
31-01-07, 05:31 PM
To bea fair, History is taught in school as fact. It aint all fact what they teach.
Religion isnt rammed down any kids throat at school, and as they develop they are also taught how to think for themselves. If they then choose to ignore religion then there isnt such a big deal. They have made a balanced judgement on what they know. Not being taught religion would do more harm. Even if it is taught as fact, it is still questionable to the individual. At school they are presented with religion as fact and also evolution as fact. Its not like they only hear one side and thats them tainted for life.
Spot on. In Catholic schools noone is brainwashed. Mainly, kids are taught the basics such as that we should love each other and be kind to one another. I don't think thats a bad thing. My kids go to a Catholic school and apart from making their Holy Communion, all RE consists of is learning about their families and that God loves us and that they should always be kind to others, same as when I was at school. This notion of brainwashing is ridiculous.
Red Chilli
31-01-07, 05:33 PM
Other faith schools may be different though, I don't know, but it doesn't just apply to catholic schools.
alunevans
31-01-07, 05:41 PM
Spot on. In Catholic schools noone is brainwashed. Mainly, kids are taught the basics such as that we should love each other and be kind to one another. I don't think thats a bad thing. My kids go to a Catholic school and apart from making their Holy Communion, all RE consists of is learning about their families and that God loves us and that they should always be kind to others, same as when I was at school. This notion of brainwashing is ridiculous.
Stop ganging up you two :)
My view is that RE should simply teach kids about the various religious beliefs out there.
I think to start with some sort of presupposition that God exists isn't right. I believe good education on a subject is to present the many ideas that are out there and then let people choose. Not to start with one view presented as the "right" answer.
It's a subtle difference but I think a key one.
BobTheCharmer
31-01-07, 05:48 PM
having two dad's that happen to fuck each other up the wrong un. No thanks. One's bad enough.
Red_hot
31-01-07, 05:59 PM
Stop ganging up you two :)
My view is that RE should simply teach kids about the various religious beliefs out there.
I think to start with some sort of presupposition that God exists isn't right. I believe good education on a subject is to present the many ideas that are out there and then let people choose. Not to start with one view presented as the "right" answer.
It's a subtle difference but I think a key one.
Not everyone has the same views on religion that you do though. Some people think it is to blame for all the woes of the world whereas I don't. People use religion as an excuse. I think everyone has a right to believe what they want. If I believe in the existance of God then I'm not harming anyone else am I? Same as you aren't by not believing.
I'll tell you something weird. When I grew older and went to Uni, I never went to church once and I decided I thought it was all balls and it didn't matter but that changed when my dad died and when I had my own kids and I suddenly realised what the point of it all is. It gives us/me something to believe in and a hope that there is 'more than this'. If others find that stupid well let them. I don't care.
hertsred
31-01-07, 06:01 PM
TO a certain extent this debate misses the point. The Catholic Church does not oppose gay couples adopting, it simply refuses to carry out these adoptions itself. What is at issue with this legislation is not whether they should be forced to do so, but whether they should be forced to do so if they take tax money from the state to continue to operate.
I happen to believe that if they want to spend my tax money, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. I also think that this could be solved by a rule ordering Catholic adoption agencies to refer any couple with whom they are uncomfortable to another, less bigoted agency.
Hollowman
31-01-07, 06:42 PM
Stop ganging up you two :)
My view is that RE should simply teach kids about the various religious beliefs out there.
I think to start with some sort of presupposition that God exists isn't right. I believe good education on a subject is to present the many ideas that are out there and then let people choose. Not to start with one view presented as the "right" answer.
It's a subtle difference but I think a key one.
I don't think the difference is subtle, and I see your point. I can't speak for Muslim schools as I've never been in one, but Catholic schools don't spend a great deal of time 'teaching' kids that God exists. As faith is a presupposition of attendence, it would be a waste of time. My religious education dealt not at all with the pomp and ceremony of services. We were taught most of the stuff that is on the NC, and anything that wasn't largely involved studying the works of major thinkers, Catholic and protestant alike. I fail to see how studying Luther, Kant, More, or Donne is to any child's detriment. Indeed, any educational establishment that manages to gloss over such figures is doing its wards a considerable disservice.
The key difference between a faith school and a secular school is that we had a shit load more priests about the place and there was a weekly Mass all attended (and a daily lunchtime service if you were especially pious. They were packed to the rafters, brainwashed mob that we were...).
Obviously generalisations aren't helpful, but I can tell you this from experience - a civvie teacher I would have no hesitation giving lip to. But a Jesuit was a different matter. My education can stand only for me in so much as any individual's experience cannot fully represent the whole, but the best teachers I ever had were all Jesuit. And wouldn't have thought twice about handing out puishments. Fuck about with one of those fellers and you'd get yourself learned in a hurry.
Mumsafan
31-01-07, 07:30 PM
having two dad's that happen to fuck each other up the wrong un. No thanks. One's bad enough.
:haha:
alunevans
31-01-07, 08:17 PM
Not everyone has the same views on religion that you do though. Some people think it is to blame for all the woes of the world whereas I don't. People use religion as an excuse. I think everyone has a right to believe what they want. If I believe in the existance of God then I'm not harming anyone else am I? Same as you aren't by not believing.
I'll tell you something weird. When I grew older and went to Uni, I never went to church once and I decided I thought it was all balls and it didn't matter but that changed when my dad died and when I had my own kids and I suddenly realised what the point of it all is. It gives us/me something to believe in and a hope that there is 'more than this'. If others find that stupid well let them. I don't care.
Its not my world view thats true. But this isn't about whether its stupid to believe in religion. Its a question about a principle of education that I believe in that states that a child, who is yet to make up their mind, should have information presented to them impartially.
The Church has every right to promote its view to the populace generally but I think its inappropriate when it does so as part of education, even if it does the rest of its job of educating pretty darn well.
Educators educate, and so that demands information presented without presupposition.
alunevans
31-01-07, 08:19 PM
Obviously generalisations aren't helpful, but I can tell you this from experience - a civvie teacher I would have no hesitation giving lip to. But a Jesuit was a different matter. My education can stand only for me in so much as any individual's experience cannot fully represent the whole, but the best teachers I ever had were all Jesuit. And wouldn't have thought twice about handing out puishments. Fuck about with one of those fellers and you'd get yourself learned in a hurry.
:haha: My mate says the same about a Jesuit education. "Hardest bastards in the Catholic Church" is how he (proudly) describes them :haha: :handshake:
Abdul Alhazred
31-01-07, 09:09 PM
Counter-Reforming-sons-of-bitches. Backing up with anecdotal evidence of my own, 87% of the the stroppiest pedants I know where schooled by Iggy's boys.
Mattshark
01-02-07, 06:15 PM
Its not just the Catholic schools I want done with. I'd like all religions to get out of education. To get out of the delivery of public policy altogether in fact.
:handshake:
Teaching child about the worlds religions is one thing, but they should not be indoctrinated with it in school.
Red_hot
02-02-07, 10:30 AM
:handshake:
Teaching child about the worlds religions is one thing, but they should not be indoctrinated with it in school.
Yes and we aren't. Have you actually read any of the posts by people who went to religious schools???
Hollowman
02-02-07, 10:45 AM
It has to be said, all of the negative posts as regards faith schools have approached the issue as though it were an abstract, talking of possible problems. It's all ifs and buts. There are loads fo faith schools. Where are all the indoctrinated children?
Avalanche of bollocks.
Snigger
02-02-07, 02:58 PM
The practical issue is whether the adoption system will be any better for the Catholic agencies closing down should they not be granted an exception on grounds of belief.
We can argue until the cows come home as to whether benders would fuck kids up any more than the next heterosexual couple, but that's just coffee table bollocks. Nobody in the Catholic church is out campaigning against homosexual couples adopting. They just can't adopt from the church. Plenty of other places to go as the church only places about 4% of all adoptions. However, the church does handle about a third of children who are considered difficult to place, so provisions will have to be made to take up that slack.
Church has been here a fuck load longer than democracy, and it even survived the country going heathen for three hundred years. I say let 'em do what they want. Bead-tickling fuckers will outlast the lot of us anyway.
Has the priesthood not been a breeding ground for kiddies fiddlers though?
On the subject of same sex families, I think it's hard enough for any kid coming to terms with growing up and realising they are gay and somehow different to their parents, school mates etc.. - reversing that and having a hetro kid with gay parents could have psychological consequences, finding out you are adopted must be hard enough but then to find out your parents are benders..........
Hollowman
02-02-07, 03:32 PM
Has the priesthood not been a breeding ground for kiddies fiddlers though?
Yes, if you like a good story.
When you look at pesky things like facts and testimonies and any actual reflection of reality, then no.
Between 1982 and 1993 about 500 priests in North America were reported for sexual abuse. Now, even if we take every single case as being true (which they clearly weren't), and leave aside the fact that many of the accusations reached back to 1960s (meaning these reports are spread across thirty years), it means about 0.2% of priests were molesting children, which is hardly a more significant incidence than any other part of society.
It's just that 'plumber fixes kid's pipes' doesn't make for the same reading as a paedophile priest. Most child molestation takes place within the family unit, and the offender is defined in the media by their relationship to the child rather than their occupation. Priests, or Catholic priests at any rate, are more likely to abuse someone else's kids, so they become defined by their status as clergy.
Philip Jenkins wrote a good book on it.
Snigger
02-02-07, 03:44 PM
Yes, if you like a good story.
When you look at pesky things like facts and testimonies and any actual reflection of reality, then no.
Between 1982 and 1993 about 500 priests in North America were reported for sexual abuse. Now, even if we take every single case as being true (which they clearly weren't), and leave aside the fact that many of the accusations reached back to 1960s (meaning these reports are spread across thirty years), it means about 0.2% of priests were molesting children, which is hardly a more significant incidence than any other part of society.
It's just that 'plumber fixes kid's pipes' doesn't make for the same reading as a paedophile priest. Most child molestation takes place within the family unit, and the offender is defined in the media by their relationship to the child rather than their occupation. Priests, or Catholic priests at any rate, are more likely to abuse someone else's kids, so they become defined by their status as clergy.
Philip Jenkins wrote a good book on it.
This could be your specialist subject when you go on mastermind.
Mumsafan
02-02-07, 03:46 PM
This could be your specialist subject when you go on mastermind.
:haha:
I've been watching Junior Mastermind with my lads. Some of the kids are awful, but some of the topics even worse. One kid was allowed to answer questions on Take That!
Hollowman
02-02-07, 03:48 PM
This could be your specialist subject when you go on mastermind.
And your specialist subject is Hollowman vs the heathen. You have 90 seconds from now...
Snigger
02-02-07, 03:50 PM
Did you know Julian nearly joined the priesthood?
Hollowman
02-02-07, 03:52 PM
I think it's a different sort of dog collar Julian is interested in.
Red_hot
02-02-07, 03:53 PM
And your specialist subject is Hollowman vs the heathen. You have 90 seconds from now...
:haha:
Mattshark
02-02-07, 09:59 PM
Yes and we aren't. Have you actually read any of the posts by people who went to religious schools???
No sorry, but I went out with numerous girls from Upton Convent and they had a horrifically one sided catholic religous indoctrination based teachings.
Comprehensive schools in the UK are run with Christian indoctrination, I never went to a religous run school and they all had enforced religion.
Mumsafan
03-02-07, 10:45 AM
No sorry, but I went out with numerous girls from Upton Convent and they had a horrifically one sided catholic religous indoctrination based teachings.
Comprehensive schools in the UK are run with Christian indoctrination, I never went to a religous run school and they all had enforced religion.
That is one faith school out of many. That's like saying "I met a couple of Liverpool fans who were football hooligans, therefore ALL Liverpool fans are football hooligans".
Comprehensive schools in the UK today have very very little Christian teaching. Many don't even have an assembly or Christmas/ Easter services.
Mattshark
03-02-07, 11:16 AM
That is one faith school out of many. That's like saying "I met a couple of Liverpool fans who were football hooligans, therefore ALL Liverpool fans are football hooligans".
Comprehensive schools in the UK today have very very little Christian teaching. Many don't even have an assembly or Christmas/ Easter services.
I was just using it as an example, and my using my school experience.
Less religion is better imo
Mumsafan
03-02-07, 11:24 AM
I was just using it as an example, and my using my school experience.
Less religion is better imo
That's why there should be faith schools. So the parents who want their child to have religion in their lives can send them there, and alternatively, parents who don't want it can send their kids to comprehensive. There has to be a choice.
Snigger
03-02-07, 12:37 PM
No sorry, but I went out with numerous girls from Upton Convent and they had a horrifically one sided catholic religous indoctrination based teachings.
Comprehensive schools in the UK are run with Christian indoctrination, I never went to a religous run school and they all had enforced religion.
Matt, the fact that none of them would shag you may not be down to their catholic upbringing. ;)
Helios Creed
03-02-07, 02:44 PM
Counter-Reforming-sons-of-bitches. Backing up with anecdotal evidence of my own, 87% of the the stroppiest pedants I know where schooled by Iggy's boys.
The Stooges. :rock:
My wife went to a convent school with nuns and everything, but isn't religious at all. My kids go to a Catholic school and I'm very happy even though I'm not religious, as it's one of the best in the country. They do not seem to be being brain-washed, but they do seem to be taught good behaviour e.g. to be nice to other people, as part of their religious teaching, this seems to be totally lacking in the standard curriculum, as is discipline, which seems to be far less "modern" (i.e. non-existent) than in regular schools.
Mumsafan
03-02-07, 03:04 PM
The Stooges. :rock:
My wife went to a convent school with nuns and everything, but isn't religious at all. My kids go to a Catholic school and I'm very happy even though I'm not religious, as it's one of the best in the country. They do not seem to be being brain-washed, but they do seem to be taught good behaviour e.g. to be nice to other people, as part of their religious teaching, this seems to be totally lacking in the standard curriculum, as is discipline, which seems to be far less "modern" (i.e. non-existent) than in regular schools.
I think you hit the nail on the head there Jon. Respect, good behaviour,discipline, tidy uniform, a total lack of bullying and a good work ethic are the glaring differences between the school my son goes to and the local comprehensive.
Of course these things are also good features of our local grammar schools but getting into a grammar school is a lot harder than getting into a faith school. My youngest son is awaiting his 11+ results but will be quite happy to go to his brother's school should he fail to get in.
Mumsafan
03-02-07, 03:04 PM
Matt, the fact that none of them would shag you may not be down to their catholic upbringing. ;)
:haha: :haha:
Of course these things are also good features of our local grammar schools but getting into a grammar school is a lot harder than getting into a faith school. My youngest son is awaiting his 11+ results but will be quite happy to go to his brother's school should he fail to get in.
I thought 11+s where disbanded.
I went to a grammar school off the back of my results in secondary school. i.e. primary, secondary, grammar, uni.
Mumsafan
03-02-07, 03:31 PM
I thought 11+s where disbanded.
I went to a grammar school off the back of my results in secondary school. i.e. primary, secondary, grammar, uni.
Well I was under the impression that Warwickshire was the only county who still did them but RS4 was saying one of his kids was taking one as well. I don't know whether he meant the school had put that in place or the Local Education Authority. With us it's the LEA but I know in Worcester the grammar school do it. It's a pathetic exam which tests almost nothing about the child apart from their capability to spell. If they can't spell then they haven't got a hope of passing it.
Well I was under the impression that Warwickshire was the only county who still did them but RS4 was saying one of his kids was taking one as well. I don't know whether he meant the school had put that in place or the Local Education Authority. With us it's the LEA but I know in Worcester the grammar school do it. It's a pathetic exam which tests almost nothing about the child apart from their capability to spell. If they can't spell then they haven't got a hope of passing it.
I think we had them, but i refused to do it... wasn't keen on academia.
Only pupil in my year took it. He failed... and after secondary school ended up in the comp school. I think he never recovered from the disappointment. :haha:
11 is way too young to be under any kinda exam pressure.
Mumsafan
03-02-07, 03:43 PM
They do their first exams at 6/7 now. SATs. Then the 11+ if they can, then more SATs at 10/11, then more SATs at 13/14, then GCSEs, then A levels, the list goes on
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.