Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

UK Census 2011


Guest MrZigster

Recommended Posts

Which shows how religious education in schools is changing/has changed over time from when we were there to now. And so will it go on changing as new perspectives are brought to the table. I think it should be taught in schools and I dont think parents should have the option to withdraw their children from it, just as I dont believe parents should have the option to withdraw their children from classes full stop - 37.5 million adults in england and wales assigned to having a christian imaginary friend 10 years ago. These people shouldnt have the option of limiting their children's education!!

Psychology wasnt taught in school when I was there, now its an A Level, possibly a GCSE option, I dont know. I'll bet there were more people that were taught A Level Psychology last year than RE A level. Teaching RE at an early age would seem to be having the opposite effect of discounting people wanting to understand why people do things. Indeed, teaching RE could very well be having an impact on kids wanting to go on and learn about how belief systems evolve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I always thought that was semantics. Based on the meaning of the word universe, isn't it a collective noun meaning everything in existence? Therefore, there can be only one universe. Though maybe what they mean is that there's more to the universe than we think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldnt begin to realistically understand M Theory, String Theory or virtually any other theory around quantum mechanics, let alone explain it. But it's very much not simply semantics, its what happens as we understand more and come up with more hypotheses to test. I do understand that the Higgs Boson currently explains how we have mass. I also understand that not only have we never found one, scientists reckon if they haven't found one at the LHC by the end of 2012 then it almost certainly doesn't exist and our understanding is wrong. Science could be seen as much based on a faith system as religion. Just as Im comfortable with teaching religion in schools in the sense of 'this is what these people believe', Im equally comfortable that we are spending billions upon billions upon billions of pounds bashing shit into each other to find out if Higgs was right or not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very fair point. Even back when I was in school, O Level RE was more about the historical background of Jesus' time than Christianity per se. It was really interesting actually. It wasn't preachy at all. The Bible wan't really treated as factual.

It was very philosophical in nature - the philosophical implications of Judas' betrayal of Jesus in relation to free will and eternal damnation, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never even studied christianity at secondary school - well, not that I recall. I definitely did more on judaism and islam though. And I know my daughter knows more about hinduism than she does about the bible. Her religious education comes only from school because neither her mum nor i have been serious church goers. The idea that re in schools is little more than christian indoctrination is anecdotally nonsensical as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do people actually get fined for not filling in the census form or do they just say that to scare you into doing what you're told?

i'll send the form back if i feel like it but don't like the idea of being forced into it.

Edited by llcoolphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LHC creating a black hole is related to science. As cox famously pointed out, anyone believing that is a twat. Alien abductions are only related to science in that in order for them to happen, we need aliens and spaceships. Id say they were totally unrelated to science because there is zero empirical evidence to support them. Anecdotal evidence isnt science.

And Id argue that alien abduction becoming part of popular culture doesnt make it science or religion

I certainly think that its interesting in a pschological sense about how people assign experience, though Id need a definition of 'real' to agree that it's a real experience

That was my point earlier that in 20/50/100 however many years it may be a subject worthy of teaching in itself. But until there is a body of evidence, it remains the subject of psychology and the lengths people will go to to say 'look at me'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that doesnt mean they've been whipped away in a spaceship.

I think the feeling of powerlessness needs neither religion nor aliens. It might be that powerlessness - how many people experience that at some point in their life - is a universal human condition, in which case it is very human but a non-human understanding is sought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all of the above. I think the human capacity to transcend our condition, even if in our imagination, is what gives rise to these reports. We've always strived to go beyond our immediate experience, always felt there's more 'out there'. It's just that I don't think religions deserve more, or less, respect, than other explanations, though I do take the point that one's more socially acceptable than the other. But without good reason. I do think religion is OK to be taught at secondary school in the way that I think it's taught now, as an explanation of different belief structures. I just don't like Christianity being taught to very young children in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there might be something in the idea that by teaching it in schools, it acts as a bullwark against fundamentalism. They don't teach RE in school in america, yet their society is fundamentally less tolerant. Perhaps teaching RE makes us more secular, not less. Religion is, essentially, geographically determined (though decreasingly so admittedly). People might assign themselves as christian in the same way I assign myself british. I am british by geographical determination, but being british doesnt mean anything to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know you don't have to go to church to have faith either...

I have no idea how many people are Christian and how many aren't, overall it makes no difference to my life, I just find it incredibly ignorant that some people are presuming millions of people can't answer a straight forward question on how they feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Have you got some evidence to support this or is it another of your made up statistics? Ive searched and ant find anything to support the claim.

try searching harder. An increasing number of kids in the UK reject evolution in favour of creationism.

That's a view of religion not shared by the vast majority of people

Which just further shows those people's stupidity.

Because 37.5 million people dont believe in the spaghetti monster

and 37.5M don't believe in god either. They merely say they do for cultural and not religious reasons (as the humanist's can prove to you). Church attendances for one make this abundantly clear.

The simple truth is that there's an identical intellectual basis for both 'standard' religions and the Spaghetti Monster. The fact that one is rejected as ridiculous by most just gets to show the ridiculous intellectual standards of 'believers'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

try searching harder. An increasing number of kids in the UK reject evolution in favour of creationism.

Which just further shows those people's stupidity.

and 37.5M don't believe in god either. They merely say they do for cultural and not religious reasons (as the humanist's can prove to you). Church attendances for one make this abundantly clear.

The simple truth is that there's an identical intellectual basis for both 'standard' religions and the Spaghetti Monster. The fact that one is rejected as ridiculous by most just gets to show the ridiculous intellectual standards of 'believers'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Firstly ive searched extensively and there is nothing to support your argument. Do you have a link or not? For someone that believes so much in science you really are rubbish at providing evidence.

do I have a link, no, because I've not looked for one. Have I seen it reported, yes.

I'm telling you what I know. Choose to believe it, or not.

Secondly - are you saying that every scientist with religious beliefs has poor intellectual standards? I'll do you a list when im not on my phone

I apologise for not saying 'most believers', rather than just 'believers' so implying all.

As for any scientists that credits a belief in a 'standard' religion as somehow more worthy than a belief in the Spaghetti Monster, then yes. That would be them taking an emotional standpoint and not an intellectual one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say related to science, I mean that the belief structure behind them is science and this is replacing, in some instances, religion as a belief structure. So our culture is changing, and so are cultural explanations for unexplained phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for any scientists that credits a belief in a 'standard' religion as somehow more worthy than a belief in the Spaghetti Monster, then yes. That would be them taking an emotional standpoint and not an intellectual one.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If it's evidence-based then it has nothing to do with belief

Not entirely true. People choose to have belief in sharable evidence, generally a far greater amount of belief than they do with non-sharable 'evidence'.

If something is evidence based then it has nothing to do with faith. I think that's what you meant to say.

Nor does it have anything to do with intellect.

incorrect. Evidence is evaluated for its worth and significance by the intellect.

The scientist can therefore believe in a religion on the basis of his intellect.

Correct. But I never said that he couldn't. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...