I don’t think that the problems of Ireland can be attributed solely to ‘faith’ schools, there is the matter of several hundred years of history, before that. I would suggest that it is initiated in the home and segregated living areas in NI.
Demand is everything in the modern society and in no context can be described as irrelevant. In every facet/walk of life and business, if people don’t or won’t use something then it stops being made, used etc etc. You only have to look at the businesses that have gone under because many people prefer to sit at home buying everything rather than going out to the shops. You would appear to have little understanding of modern education, as education is blighted by partial and vested interests of money men, running swathes of academies, where the bottom line of results is everything. If the results and targets aren’t met, then they are likely to pull out.
It is, despite whether it’s essential or not, enshrined in law and this needs to altered properly to accommodate these marriages, if they happen.
I’ve watched interviews and read reports where this has been cited by those being interviewed, because in a marriage the surviving spouse is regarded at the de facto benefactor. Whereas in a relationship if one dies the other gets nothing by right. The same as in heterosexual relationships.
I don’t think that they are easily dealt with. You don’t build or make something on the basis that you can go back and fix it, if it can be done right in the first instance. Do this wrong with the law and you introduce a whole world of trouble, it’s probably why we have so many loopholes in law. I don’t see how the law is broken as it serves its purpose.
Sorry but this has lost me. Are you suggesting that on a personal level I do what I do in the ATC, RBL, RAFA and local community because of my religious beliefs and without them I wouldn’t?
My perception is born of many years of reading, seeing and speaking to people about how they formed and coming up with opinions. The amount of bile and spite has to come from some sphere of influence. As I say I’ve seen or heard nothing new.
Define organised religion? All religions are organised in as much there will be a hierarchy and system of belief, and the influence they exert depends solely on the number of followers. If you wish to develop and follow your own beliefs no one is actually stopping you and the freedoms we enjoy allow this.
I wouldn’t kid yourself too much on having your own views any more than anyone else, we all develop views based on reading, teaching and personally appealing influence/views of others. There are some blue sky thinkers but not that many.
I feel the anti-religious zeal and rhetoric you seem to exhibit is on a par with the bible thumping evangalists who I personally don’t like. I wouldn’t have either as staff. I would say that some of your thinking on here could be percieved as threatening.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4024]I don’t think HQACO knew that so many of you took the Guardian.[/quote](…so seriously?) Its a fair point, would just be nice to have something official.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4024]I find it very unusual for 13.3 years old’s to have much of a firm view on what they believe[/quote]Which is exactly why it is totally inappropriate for the Corps to be pushing religion on kids!
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4024]I don’t see where the perceived problem is, unless you examine the ranting here by some people, much like the humanists the non the believers are far more vocal than the believers![/quote]So you have read the “ranting” but refuse to take note of the issues raised, resorting only to criticising the opposite lobby on account of its activity?
I don’t think that the problems of Ireland can be attributed solely to ‘faith’ schools,[/quote]Indeed, and I said nothing of the kind so yet again I ask you to tackle the actual arguments made, rather than ones you made up.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061]there is the matter of several hundred years of history, before that. I would suggest that it is initiated in the home and segregated living areas in NI.[/quote]Indeed, and faith schools are part of the apparatus enforcing unjustified segregation and hatred.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061]Demand is everything in the modern society and in no context can be described as irrelevant. In every facet/walk of life and business, if people don’t or won’t use something then it stops being made, used etc etc.[/quote]Stolen goods are always in demand - does that have relevance to whether goods should be stolen in the first place? Should a child be forced to attend a faith school because of their parent’s religion?
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061]You would appear to have little understanding of modern education, as education is blighted by partial and vested interests of money men, running swathes of academies, where the bottom line of results is everything. If the results and targets aren’t met, then they are likely to pull out.[/quote]This is well known and my not mentioning it has nothing to do with my appreciation of modern education; because those acadamies have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061][quote=“bprichfield” post=4020]Is this rule essential to the principle of marriage? No, therefore it can go.[/quote]It is, despite whether it’s essential or not, enshrined in law and this needs to altered properly to accommodate these marriages, if they happen.[/quote]And? No one has said otherwise. Citing the administrative overhead of changing a law is possibly the worst excuse for not doing so.
I’ve watched interviews and read reports where this has been cited by those being interviewed, because in a marriage the surviving spouse is regarded at the de facto benefactor. Whereas in a relationship if one dies the other gets nothing by right. The same as in heterosexual relationships.[/quote]Then you only watched/read select parts. The matter you describe is nothing compared to the significance of the primary cause - to be treated as a human being.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061][quote=“bprichfield” post=4020]This is not a valid objection. The law is broken and needs fixing. As often happens, further/unforseen concequences occur but are easily dealt with (if needed).[/quote]I don’t think that they are easily dealt with. You don’t build or make something on the basis that you can go back and fix it, if it can be done right in the first instance. Do this wrong with the law and you introduce a whole world of trouble, it’s probably why we have so many loopholes in law. I don’t see how the law is broken as it serves its purpose.[/quote]The law currently serves the purpose of discrimination and bigotry. Hiding behind potential complexities is farcical. The law is man made and never beyond modification or repair.
Sorry but this has lost me. Are you suggesting that on a personal level I do what I do in the ATC, RBL, RAFA and local community because of my religious beliefs and without them I wouldn’t?[/quote]You and others throughout this thread have stated that the promise won’t be adhered to unless it mentions a benevolent dictator to threaten anyone who breaks it. It appears that you are now seeing how ridiculous such an attitude is?
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061][quote=“bprichfield” post=4020]Your perception of how others have formed their opinions is startling. Alas, it is also ignorant and wrong.[/quote]My perception is born of many years of reading, seeing and speaking to people about how they formed and coming up with opinions. The amount of bile and spite has to come from some sphere of influence. As I say I’ve seen or heard nothing new.[/quote]Just because religious have their strong convictions told to them does not mean we all do. Religion attracts spite because it is spiteful, not because of some grand conspiracy or counter-operation - other than conciousness, perhaps!
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061][quote=“bprichfield” post=4020]Organised religions, which in many cases claim to “tolerate” the human race/condition, do not deserve tolerance. Thier impact on society is too great to ignore let alone live with. People should be free to develop and practice their own beliefs in their own time and without encroaching on others - What more righteous cause is there?[/quote]Define organised religion? All religions are organised in as much there will be a hierarchy and system of belief, and the influence they exert depends solely on the number of followers. If you wish to develop and follow your own beliefs no one is actually stopping you and the freedoms we enjoy allow this.[/quote]This has been explained, numerous times, in previous posts.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061][quote=“bprichfield” post=4020]I have my own views on life, existence and conciousness. They do not fit with the facism of organised religion and therefore I don’t consider myself “religious”. Ergo, someone who is happy (or more accurately, threatened and cajoled) to believe in such, is religious.[/quote]I wouldn’t kid yourself too much on having your own views any more than anyone else, we all develop views based on reading, teaching and personally appealing influence/views of others. There are some blue sky thinkers but not that many.[/quote]Originality isn’t the problem (of course, the religious “lose” on this point), tolerance of views outside of your own, is.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4061]I feel the anti-religious zeal and rhetoric you seem to exhibit is on a par with the bible thumping evangalists who I personally don’t like. I wouldn’t have either as staff. I would say that some of your thinking on here could be percieved as threatening.[/quote]I’d love to see some actual evidence for that? Please, enlighted us by justifying your latest desperate slur.
As for zeal and rhetoric, are only the religious allowed to be passionate about their beliefs? What better cause to be passionate about than trying to stop unnecessary violence and persecution?
Please, anyone making claims of bigotry or similar remarks, should also have the respect to quote the exact wording they feel to be so. Otherwise it is just a useless whine.
Likewise, rather than criticising the quality of debate why not actually elaborate on what isn’t “grown up” and help improve it?
“Picking apart” arguments is exactly what debate is. Not just independent statements which follow the ones previous without interacting or referencing them.
You could bore for England mate, bet you’re a humanist as you fit the profile.
The discussion was about changing the Oath not the very nature of Religion, I was pointing out where the ranting had come from to effect this review and that it was incorrect and an imbalanced article by a crap journalist.(not one interview or quote from either the RAF or ACO to either confirm or deny any part of the story)
There might be two oaths on offer- their might be three but there will be variance so the Corps is moving with the times.
I do enjoy talking about Religion, you don’t seem to have one…yet, so I hope you do find something in your hour of need. I hope you never decide to get married in a Church or event to step inside one for other peoples, but of course you probably will…
We must respect parents wishes with regards to 13/3 years old’s not children foibles, if a parent wants a religious Oath then they get it.
Have parents been polled on the topic? Certaintly they haven’t in the past 17 years that I’ve been involved…
I also don’t suppose that any such poll, if it were presented, would produce a different set of opinions than we’re seeing here.
I think it somewhat unrealistic to assume that “parents want a religious oath”.
Have parents been polled on the topic? Certaintly they haven’t in the past 17 years that I’ve been involved…
I also don’t suppose that any such poll, if it were presented, would produce a different set of opinions than we’re seeing here.
I think it somewhat unrealistic to assume that “parents want a religious oath”.[/quote]
We don’t have to repect parents wishes actually. The parents may help cadets decide what relgion they are but can’t decide for them.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4228]You really think most parents pay any attention to that?
Try going against parents wishes and see where UK law falls.[/quote]
I don’t really care if parents ignore it, I won’t.
I’m not going to force a child to make a religious oath againt it’s will. Even if the parents want them to. I struggle to see a situation where I could fall foul of the law on this.
“Going against parents wishes” is a very WIDE sphere…
Would we go against the wishes of a parent who doesn’t want their child to appear in photographs? No.
Would we go against their wishes if they insisted that their child should not take part in skill at arms? No.
Just because a particular parent might like the idea of a religious oath is no reason for the ATC to bend to their will.
If the religious portion of the oath were removed and a parent said they were dissapointed that little Johnny won’t be swearing to god I’d simply point out that this isn’t Sunday school.
Just an as aside…
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4231]
You would go against parents express wishes for a 13.3 year old would you?
Do you actually command an ATC unit?[/quote]
Mr Squadron Commander…you are aware that the requirement for a child to be 13 and 3 months before they can be enrolled was abandonded quite some time ago, aren’t you?
It’s just that you seem to be questioning other people’s ability to command a Squadron based upon some presumed ‘issue’ over parents wanting a religious element…
I’d hate to think that all the while you were denying cadets the oppertunity to be enrolled in a timely fashion just because you’d missed a memo somewhere…
Read the thread- there will be a number of options so the problem is solved.
I now know that some people, well around three by the look of it, would override parents wishes on religious observation.
I question whether the parents wishes in this matter are relevant given article 2 of the UN declaration of the rights of the child and the fact we deal with young people who are mentally competent.
I wouldn’t insist that a Jehova’s Witness cadet has a blood tranfusion.
I don’t insist that my cadets attend the church part of Rememberence Parade, unless they are happy too.
However I would quite happily say (in the nicest possible way) ‘tough luck’ to a parent who tried to insist that I add some arbitrary relgious element to a non-religious organisation.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4246]Read the thread- there will be a number of options so the problem is solved.
I now know that some people, well around three by the look of it, would override parents wishes on religious observation.
Nice.[/quote]
It’s better than overriding the cadet’s religious feeling. Because after, I’m in it for the cadets not the parents.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=4250]I wouldn’t insist that a Jehova’s Witness cadet has a blood tranfusion.
I don’t insist that my cadets attend the church part of Rememberence Parade, unless they are happy too.
However I would quite happily say (in the nicest possible way) ‘tough luck’ to a parent who tried to insist that I add some arbitrary relgious element to a non-religious organisation.[/quote]
