NationStates Jolt Archive

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html

Yup this is another one of my "Your thoughts" thread.

Waiting for Nodinia to say that the kid should get double detention, and his parents jailed, and that this isn't an issue to be worried about...

Waiting for a reliable news source to verify the story.

Waiting for Nodinia to say that the kid should get double detention, and his parents jailed, and that this isn't an issue to be worried about...

Waiting for the Muslim-haters to go "oh, if he disagrees with me that means he love the ebil mozlem oppressers!1!!!1!"... Oh. There it is.

Edit: This story is so meaningless that I propose we make a game of checking how many posts can be started with sense with the words "waiting for".

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html

Yup this is another one of my "Your thoughts" thread.

My thought is, this looks suspiciously like cut-paste spam.

Waiting for a reliable news source to verify the story.

Pffft its British news, of course you won't find any reliable British news...

My thought is, this looks suspiciously like cut-paste spam.

Ummm no :$

Waiting for the Muslim-haters to go "oh, if he disagrees with me that means he love the ebil mozlem oppressers!1!!!1!"... Oh. There it is.

Edit: This story is so meaningless that I propose we make a game of checking how many posts can be started with sense with the words "waiting for".

I'm waiting for the results of the thread then :cool:

*sigh*

Reason 1,003,542,205,204,530,504..... to why religion should not be taught in schools, at all....

Waiting for the Muslim-haters to go "oh, if he disagrees with me that means he love the ebil mozlem oppressers!1!!!1!"... Oh. There it is.

Edit: This story is so meaningless that I propose we make a game of checking how many posts can be started with sense with the words "waiting for".
Waiting for the sports section to be passed along. Meanwhile, I'll check out the rest of the news section in this issue. Here we go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031903/Police-summoned-deal-mysterious-flying-saucer---discover-MOON.html
HEADLINE:
Police are summoned to deal with mysterious flying saucer ... only to discover it is the MOON

Control: 'Alpha Zulu 20, this object in the sky, did anyone have a look at it?'

Officer: 'Yes, it's the moon. Over.'

:)

Ummm no :$

Ummm, Yes. You offered no commentary of your own. Therefore, it is cut-paste spam.

waiting for the follow up story when the parents sue for millions of dollars.

Waiting for the sports section to be passed along. Meanwhile, I'll check out the rest of the news section in this issue. Here we go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031903/Police-summoned-deal-mysterious-flying-saucer---discover-MOON.html



:)

lols

Waiting for the sports section to be passed along. Meanwhile, I'll check out the rest of the news section in this issue. Here we go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031903/Police-summoned-deal-mysterious-flying-saucer---discover-MOON.html




:)

It's tragically hilarious! :D

Waiting for someone to volunteer to count "waiting for" posts.

That's retarded. When I learned about Islam in school, they managed to get across the method and means of Muslim prayer without making us all try it out for ourselves. If you were looking to cause trouble(and I'm not saying anybody was)you couldn't have done it better.

Pffft its British news, of course you won't find any reliable British news...BBC ain't as bad as Daily Fail. Find something that doesn't try to capitalize on outrage to corroborate your story.

I love how typical of NSG's leftist these responses are....

They don't even talk about what happend...just try to avoid it, make jokes and ignore the topic at hand.

I love how typical of NSG's leftist these responses are....

They don't even talk about what happend...just try to avoid it, make jokes and ignore the topic at hand.Cuz its an anecdote, kiddo. As in, what "happened" may actually not have happened. Hence no need to discuss anything but the OPs inability to find reliable evidence for the events recounted.

I love how typical of NSG's leftist these responses are....

They don't even talk about what happend...just try to avoid it, make jokes and ignore the topic at hand.

Waiting for someone to clue TAI in...

They don't even talk about what happend...just try to avoid it, make jokes and ignore the topic at hand.

This is the Daily Mail, UK's equivalent of Fox news, and has no more credibility than magazine gossip magazines that talk about alien abductions. Until a more reputable news source covers it, nobody is going to take what it says seriously.

Yup this is another one of my "Your thoughts" thread.

Waiting for you to post yours first.

I love how typical of NSG's leftist these responses are....

They don't even talk about what happend...just try to avoid it, make jokes and ignore the topic at hand.

whats to discuss? the story SCREAMS of "they are leaving out some important details".

the UK has school in the summer?

Not sure if I can trust this source. Sounds like another generic religion story floating around.

Waiting for someone to volunteer to count "waiting for" posts.

Waiting for my count to be completed.
10, including mine.

lawl:

I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I've also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.

- Karen Williams, racist mother

This is the Daily Mail, UK's equivalent of Fox news, and has no more credibility than magazine gossip magazines that talk about alien abductions. Until a more reputable news source covers it, nobody is going to take what it says seriously.

Fox news is biased (towards Neo-Conservatism) but that doesn't mean it is not credible. Most media-outlets are biased yet they are still credible. Just because the bias is not in your favor does not mean you get to dictate what is credible and what is not.

For example, I highly enjoy reading The Economist, yet is is heavily biased. Does that mean it's not credible and they simply make up their news?

No.

Same with Fox. Enough, it's getting old.

*Yawn*

S'from the Daily Mail. They don't even pretend to be serious anymore.

Waiting for my count to be completed.
10, including mine.

Waiting for someone else to thank you, as I can't do it within a "waiting for" post with it making sense.

I love how typical of NSG's leftist these responses are....They don't even talk about what happend...just try to avoid it, make jokes and ignore the topic at hand.

I'm not a leftist, but I can't really squeeze out any bile for this because Muslims being outraged at people, or vice versa, people being outraged at Muslims, is, at this point, a 'dog bites man' story of the first order. I.e. it happens so often it's not really news. Besides, making jokes and ignoring the topic at hand is what Internet forums are for.

Fox news is biased (towards Neo-Conservatism) but that doesn't mean it is not credible. Most media-outlets are biased yet they are still credible. Just because the bias is not in your favor does not mean you get to dictate what is credible and what is not.

For example, I highly enjoy reading The Economist, yet is is heavily biased. Does that mean it's not credible and they simply make up their news?

No.

Same with Fox. Enough, it's getting old.
Giving clues to TAI is a waste of clues, but here goes anyway:

FOX is not credible because they just make stuff up.

The Daily Mail is not credible because they just make stuff up.

The Economist is credible because they don't just make stuff up.

See, every news source has a bias, but if you examine the actual content of their reports, it is easy to see the facts beyond the bias. If the facts pan out, then the source is credible, regardless of its bias. If the facts don't pan out, or just plain don't exist, then the source is not credible, again, regardless of its bias.

I do agree that no one should be forced to pray to any god.

In this case, it was done as a lesson in how muslims pray, and it was not done as really praying to that god.
Bad enough, but my child has had a similar experience which I consider to be worse, because it was not a lesson.

During assembly at his school, prayers to the christian god were being said.
My child (10 years old, year 6) did not join in, he sat quietly and waited for the christians to finish.
One teacher then told him he had to pray as well!!

He did not, and the teacher wanted him to leave the assembly and report to his head teacher.
Fortunately for my son his class teacher intervened, and he was then left alone.

But I did complain, and I can only hope that christian teacher has been reprimanded.

Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: "It's difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.

"At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.

"The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn't around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.

"I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment."

sounds like the Daily mail making up one sided bullshit again FFS if your going to bitch about some kind of bizzare Muslim domination at least go about it with some degree of reasoning

Reason 1,003,542,205,204,530,504..... to why religion should not be taught in schools, at all....

and still rendered completely irrelevant when compared to the alternative of completely ignoring one of the pivotal subjects of humanity

The Economist is credible because they don't just make stuff up..

so if I blathered on about some kind of fiscally conservative wonderland future it would be all good? *is pointing out the nack it has for thinking again and again that if you leave something alone (but only in a free market way) it will grow fine*

Cuz its an anecdote, kiddo. As in, what "happened" may actually not have happened. Hence no need to discuss anything but the OPs inability to find reliable evidence for the events recounted.

Define reliable? While we all know the British papers have for a long time been full of shit, and that story about the moon while funny I am wondering if that means that some posters on here are saying that it didn't actually happen or that it is what most papers in the world do and report on what the police have done even if it is responding to some stupid persons emergency call.

Giving clues to TAI is a waste of clues, but here goes anyway:

FOX is not credible because they just make stuff up.

The Daily Mail is not credible because they just make stuff up.

The Economist is credible because they don't just make stuff up.

See, every news source has a bias, but if you examine the actual content of their reports, it is easy to see the facts beyond the bias. If the facts pan out, then the source is credible, regardless of its bias. If the facts don't pan out, or just plain don't exist, then the source is not credible, again, regardless of its bias.
I have never seen an article from Fox news where they totally made it up from the drawing room.

Same for Daily Mail (which I admit I don't actually follow because I'm not British).

Define reliable? While we all know the British papers have for a long time been full of shit, and that story about the moon while funny I am wondering if that means that some posters on here are saying that it didn't actually happen or that it is what most papers in the world do and report on what the police have done even if it is responding to some stupid persons emergency call.I'm not saying it didn't happen, merely that one of Britain's most unreliable daily newspapers isn't evidence that it did. It's highly likely that the story panned out much differently than reported, due to the Mail's low standards for fact-checking its sources.

I have never seen an article from Fox news where they totally made it up from the drawing room.

Same for Daily Mail (which I admit I don't actually follow because I'm not British).

Look harder mate every media source and company does it even the ones some posters like and will claim that they don't.

I have never seen an article from Fox news where they totally made it up from the drawing room.

Same for Daily Mail (which I admit I don't actually follow because I'm not British).Which is irrelevant, since all they'd have to do is make up major parts of it.

Fox news is biased (towards Neo-Conservatism) but that doesn't mean it is not credible. Most media-outlets are biased yet they are still credible. Just because the bias is not in your favor does not mean you get to dictate what is credible and what is not.

For example, I highly enjoy reading The Economist, yet is is heavily biased. Does that mean it's not credible and they simply make up their news?

No.

Fox has been caught red handed making up facts and doctoring images to feed its sensationalist hype. The Daily Mall is well known for misquoting facts and exaggeration in order to gain better shock value. Both have been known to deliberately use misleading terms and words to make events seem far worse than they were.

You make the mistake of assuming that bias is the exact same as fabricating events to make the kernel of fact more sensationalist.

Their credibility is simply not sufficient to make their news worth anything more than a flag indicating that something happened and that one should check it out rather than the boy crying wolf.


Same with Fox. Enough, it's getting old.

It may be old, but until Fox and Daily Mail stop producing sensationalist hype that at best might contain a grain of truth, and start reporting bare facts, the fact that they are not credible will continue to remain undeniable.

I have never seen an article from Fox news where they totally made it up from the drawing room.


How about the time when they claimed Obama was schooled in a hardliner Islamic school? Or that oh so recent alteration of people's images, so as to better demonize them?

How about the time when they claimed Obama was schooled in a hardliner Islamic school? Or that oh so recent alteration of people's images, so as to better demonize them?
The Obama islamic school I didn't see...the alteration was obviously fake and I thought a joke they did....

Show me the Obama islamic school...and even then, if those are the only incidents....everyone makes mistakes.....

What about when The New York Times...I believe it was...posted all that crap against McCain about his affair or something, which turned out to be totally false? The Times is still a credible paper, however biased.

I think calling it a breach of human rights is pushing it a bit.

I like what it says in the article, if muslims were forced to go to a service, and take communion, there would be war.

Agreed.

No one should be forced to take part in a religious service, and praying to any god is NOT part of a learning lesson.

Forced participation in religious services? :sniper:

I like what it says in the article, if muslims were forced to go to a service, and take communion, there would be war.

Agreed.

No one should be forced to take part in a religious service, and praying to any god is NOT part of a learning lesson.

Forced participation in religious services? :sniper:

Since we still only have one side of the story, and it's being told to us exclusively by children and by parents who weren't there, perhaps we ought to reserve judgment until we know that there actually was forced participation in a religious service?

So the boys were apparently punished for "not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped"?

Which is hugely different from being forced to pray to Allah (as the Daily Heil well knows; they had to print 'pray to Allah' in quote marks, indicating there was never a time were the boys were forced to pray to anything).

In my RE class, we looked at a Jewish tefillin and kippah. Does that mean I was forced to worship YHVH?

The Obama islamic school I didn't see...the alteration was obviously fake and I thought a joke they did....

Show me the Obama islamic school...and even then, if those are the only incidents....everyone makes mistakes.....

So, you're willing to excuse Fox News calling Obama a terrorist and so on, and so forth.

Typical rightist view.

And yes, I'll use "typical rightist", as long as you use "typical leftist". Deal.

Forced participation in religious services? :sniper

you'd hate what your government does to the armed forces then...

Technically, the British Army does not have compulsory Church Parades. They were abolished. I have to point this out at the beginning of this page, because it is a surprise to many soldiers within the British Army. This page is about the reality of compulsory and pseudo-compulsory Church Parades, and about communal Christian events in the British Army. We also discuss the frequently-repeated notion that atheists should have to do work duties over Christmas and Easter holidays 'because they don't believe'. We conclude that Memorial Services should be secular, enforced Christianity should be abolished, and religious beliefs should be respected in accordance with existing Army literature such as the British Army Values and Standards booklet.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/military/church_parades.html

So, you're willing to excuse Fox News calling Obama a terrorist and so on, and so forth.

Typical rightist view.

And yes, I'll use "typical rightist", as long as you use "typical leftist". Deal.

Why do I have to be punished for someone else's mistake?

Forced participation in religious services?
No, 'forced' participation in religious education, including a demonstration of the specifics of Islamic prayer.

It always helps to read the article mentioned. Even from a source as disreputable as the Mail, facts can be gleaned.

Once again:

In my RE class, we looked at a Jewish tefillin and kippah. Does that mean I was forced to worship YHVH?

Why do I have to be punished for someone else's mistake?

Well, so many rightists do the same to so many Muslims... But I was only making a point about TAI's notions.

In my RE class, we looked at a Jewish tefillin and kippah. Does that mean I was forced to worship YHVH?

don't forget that (at least back in my day) the teacher explicitly stated at the beginning of the year that should your parents/religion have issues (apparently there is one batshit insane religion where you cannot touch other religious books) you can just come in with a letter and miss the class

Well, so many rightists do the same to so many Muslims... But I was only making a point about TAI's notions.

But really do you have to paint us with the same brush? Why can't us right wing liberals (and I mean that as a true liberal not an American liberal) be treated differently :(. Nah mate I know what you set out to achieve.

don't forget that (at least back in my day) the teacher explicitly stated at the beginning of the year that should your parents/religion have issues (apparently there is one batshit insane religion where you cannot touch other religious books) you can just come in with a letter and miss the class

The same thing happened with sex-ed when I was in a public primary school. I went to a Catholic high school and we were taught many different religions and denominations of Christianity from Mormon to Oriental Orthodox, from Muslim to Shinto and this may surprise people none of them were presented to us in a degrading way we were taught the aspects of each religion what their beliefs were and how they worshipped, we went to a Greek Orthodox church and was shown the way their services are conducted and we even had a Buddhist monk come into our school and talk to us about his religion. But I suppose that is bound to happen with a left wing catholic teacher another surprise to many people I would think too.

EDIT: [/rant] I just realised I went into a rant which had nothing to do with what I quoted WTF Blouman? I think I will go to bed so I can post properly tomorrow.

But I suppose that is bound to happen with a left wing catholic teacher another surprise to many people I would think too.
Perhaps, though Catholic organisations such as the Jesuits have a good reputation for teaching openly and with a mind to critical thinking.

Typical rightist view.

And yes, I'll use "typical rightist", as long as you use "typical leftist". Deal.

Careful, don't insult real rightist posters who have a rational rightist view. We lack those here, and placing TAI in the same group as them might scare them away.

Careful, don't insult real rightist posters who have a rational rightist view. We lack those here, and placing TAI in the same group as them might scare them away.
Indeed.

There's no point picking up silly habits from certain posters.

Indeed.

There's no point picking up silly habits from certain posters.

But I wanna! :(

Well, a google news search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Alsager%20High%20School&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) reveals no other news sources for this other than Dailymail.

I call bullshit.

I see that you've developed a pavlovian reaction to the approach of my boot to your arse......

Waiting for Nodinia to say that the kid should get double detention, and his parents jailed, and that this isn't an issue to be worried about...

Why would I say that, o liar in residence?

I have never seen an article from Fox news where they totally made it up from the drawing room.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/Foley%20and%20balanced-thumb.jpg

Careful, don't insult real rightist posters who have a rational rightist view. We lack those here, and placing TAI in the same group as them might scare them away.

Agreed.

The whole tendency for people to use "leftist" or "liberal," or "right-wing" or "conservative" as a synonym for "evil shit that sucks" is a nauseating simplification that needs to be eradicated from political discourse.

Well, a google news search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Alsager%20High%20School&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) reveals no other news sources for this other than Dailymail.

I call bullshit.

Weird, the same search pulled up another article from the Mirror when I did it earlier. Maybe they've pulled it.

(Obviously the Mirror is a bit of a joke as well, but if they've pulled it that doesn't say anything good about the validity of the story.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/Foley%20and%20balanced-thumb.jpg

Ah, Neo, that's why I like you.

Another point for the stupidity of education.

Religion should be taught in schools, IMO. It should be part of humanities cources, and should encompass all the major religions, with mention of some minor ones. It should involve learning about and *gasp* perhaps even practicing some of those religion's traditions to make the lessons more interesting. Should kids be forced or threatened with detention if they refuse? No. Should they fail the assignment? Of course. Although, I doubt parental responce would be any different had these kids failed instead of recieved detention.

I honestly think its healthy for children to know about the actual workings of the religions around them. It's a good way to dispel some of the crap in the media. This isn't to say "kids should be forced to participate in religious activities". However, when I was in high school studying the major religions, it was a treat when we took an entire day off school to go on a field trip to visit a church/temple of the major religions. We weren't by any means required to perform the ceremonies, but we were asked to observe the codes of conduct for wherever we were. We were also given a 30 minute talk at each stop by whoevere was in charge, and the nice thing about that was that none of the 5 talks were got were "convert! convert! convert!" We were just told about the main principles, origins, holidays and ceremonies. Quite a fun experience.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/Foley%20and%20balanced-thumb.jpg

Speaking of credibility gaps, isn't there one inherent in using a post from a blog whose ideological bent you approve of to dispute a news source whose ideological bent you disapprove of?

Speaking of credibility gaps, isn't there one inherent in using a post from a blog whose ideological bent you approve of to dispute a news source whose ideological bent you disapprove of?

you would be absolutly right...if there was any dispute that tihs acutally happened. I don't really care about the source of the picture, it was the first one I found.

Of course things from an ideological blog should be taken with a grain of salt. That is, if it wasn't extremely well documented. You can see it yourself here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA)

So no, I fear there's quite a bit of difference between using a source that is known for making things up, claiming something that is not reported or verifiable by any other source, and using a site with an ideological bent as a source for something that undeniably occurred

you would be absolutly right...if there was any dispute that tihs acutally happened. I don't really care about the source of the picture, it was the first one I found.

Of course things from an ideological blog should be taken with a grain of salt. That is, if it wasn't extremely well documented. You can see it yourself here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA)

So no, I fear there's quite a bit of difference between using a source that is known for making things up, claiming something that is not reported or verifiable by any other source, and using a site with an ideological bent as a source for something that undeniably occurred

And that's why that law degree is working out for you...

My thought is, this looks suspiciously like cut-paste spam.

why the F*** was there a praying in the school in the first place??? :mad:

Still no credible sources for this story?

I'm all for educating people about religion, but forcing kids to participate in religious ceremonies goes too far. Make it part of the class, with an option to just observe? Got no issue. But forcing - that is illegal in my opinion.

Also, if I had been in that situation, I would have reacted with violence. Or at least threats.

"OK, teacher, you don't mark me down, I don't beat you over the head with your clipboard."

"I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years."

lol @ Gramps

So, what is the real issue here....that children were punished for refusing to pray in school even if it was simulated prayer meant to educate, or that it was a prayer to teh ebil moslem God?


I think I know the answer, considering that most of the people who are Islamophobic are also the people who tend to support a mandatory "prayer time" in schools.


I dont agree with the teacher's teaching methods, however this is once again just another case of xenophobic loons screaming themselves blue in the face about how the evil muslim hivemind is infiltrating our culture and assimilating our childrenz.


Negotiation is irrelevent. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

why the F*** was there a praying in the school in the first place??? :mad:

There almost certainly wasn't. Daily Mail, man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/Foley%20and%20balanced-thumb.jpg

They did the same with Arlen Specter.

why the F*** was there a praying in the school in the first place???
There wasn't.

I'm all for educating people about religion, but forcing kids to participate in religious ceremonies goes too far.
Good thing that didn't happen then.

I think I know the answer, considering that most of the people who are Islamophobic are also the people who tend to support a mandatory "prayer time" in schools.

Specifically to the CHRISTIAN god and in PUBLIC schools.

sounds like the Daily mail making up one sided bullshit again FFS if your going to bitch about some kind of bizzare Muslim domination at least go about it with some degree of reasoning



and still rendered completely irrelevant when compared to the alternative of completely ignoring one of the pivotal subjects of humanity



so if I blathered on about some kind of fiscally conservative wonderland future it would be all good? *is pointing out the nack it has for thinking again and again that if you leave something alone (but only in a free market way) it will grow fine*
Or you could take your own advice and, if you want to bitch about something, do it with some degree of reasoning. All of the news sources I mentioned are biased. All of the news sources I mentioned purport to contain facts about which they express biased opinions. Now -- and this is the tough part, so go through it slowly -- ignore for a second the fact that you disagree with their bias and look at the things they claim are facts. Are the facts actually real or are they not? Once again, do not pay attention to what they say about the facts and whether you agree or disagree with them. Only look at the facts.

The Economist reports facts. They also express opinions about them, but who cares what their opinions are?

The Daily Mail and Fox claim to report facts, but many of their so-called facts are entirely made up by them, i.e. not true.

So of those three biased sources, which is more credible in regards to facts?

Waiting for a reliable news source to verify the story.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/07/detention-for-refusing-to-kneel-in-class-and-pray-to-allah/

There ya go, the BNP are covering it, what more verification of it's factual basis do you need?! :p

I have never seen an article from Fox news where they totally made it up from the drawing room.

Same for Daily Mail (which I admit I don't actually follow because I'm not British).
Drawing board, and you need to pay more attention. "Terrorist fist jab" just off the top of my head. That was complete bullshit. Oh, and there were the two times they tried to switch members of Congress from one party to another. I think the first time was when Republican Senator Foley got done for diddling boy Congressional pages and Fox reported him as Senator Foley, Democrat. They did that several times, even after being publicly corrected. A couple of years later, some Democrat did something they liked and they reported him as being a Republican. There are more, so many more... I could spend years looking them up for you.

*sigh*

Reason 1,003,542,205,204,530,504..... to why religion should not be taught in schools, at all....

You're a little off Wilgrove. It's reason 1,003,542,205,204,530,505.;)

So, what is the real issue here....that children were punished for refusing to pray in school even if it was simulated prayer meant to educate, or that it was a prayer to teh ebil moslem God?

For me, this. For the Media-grabbing Christian fundies, the second.

I think I know the answer, considering that most of the people who are Islamophobic are also the people who tend to support a mandatory "prayer time" in schools.
Sadly enough.
I dont agree with the teacher's teaching methods, however this is once again just another case of xenophobic loons screaming themselves blue in the face about how the evil muslim hivemind is infiltrating our culture and assimilating our childrenz.
Hmm? They were punished for it! Sheesh! If they hadn't been punished, there'd be no reason to make a fuss about it!

Well, I'll admit the Islamophobes would....

But that's got nothing to do with reason :D.

You're a little off Wilgrove. It's reason 1,003,542,205,204,530,505.;)

Ah of course. How silly of us to forget the Buttermilk Topeka Incident.

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html

Yup this is another one of my "Your thoughts" thread.

That has religious brainwash written all over it. After reading the article it brought back memories of the kind of crap the Baptists pulled at the Baptist school I used to go to. Some, it'd be diversity if the options and religions was presented to them not forced down their throats!

I think the first time was when Republican Senator Foley got done for diddling boy Congressional pages and Fox reported him as Senator Foley, Democrat.

Beat ya :p (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13811957&postcount=60)

Still no credible sources for this story?

Nope, but do note that that won't get in the way of the "ZOMG EVIL MUSLOMZ" crowd from bitching and moaning and telling us all, in apparent seriousness, how this is yet more proof of the liberal PC conspiracy to enact Sharia law and start beheading infidels.

Nope, but do note that that won't get in the way of the "ZOMG EVIL MUSLOMZ" crowd from bitching and moaning and telling us all, in apparent seriousness, how this is yet more proof of the liberal PC conspiracy to enact Sharia law and start beheading infidels.

I've checked BBC and AJE, nothing there, but Yahoo is now carrying it as a Press Association story.

EDIT - Nor why the OP didn't decide to pick up on the Sharia mediation (http://itn.co.uk/news/da9366f062db4e0fccbdca33c42d8976.html) (BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488790.stm)) proposals either.

Beat ya :p (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13811957&postcount=60)

Yes, I saw it. -_- Now go find a picture of the second time they did it, Mr. Speedy-Google.

lawl:



- Karen Williams, racist mother
I think people are naturally defensive these days as someone will always scream 'RACIST' over every little thing. I'd certainly refuse if they ever pulled a stunt like this at my school.

Anyway, here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247388/Schoolboys-disciplined-for-%27refusing-to-pray-to-Allah%27.html) is another souce.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/07/detention-for-refusing-to-kneel-in-class-and-pray-to-allah/

There ya go, the BNP are covering it, what more verification of it's factual basis do you need?! :p

Well now it's beyond reproach. There's no way the BNP could ever be wrong!

No one should be forced to pray to anything. Whilst private schools may say they are whatever religion and require activities to be done about that religion public schools are different.

Public schools are for the public. Some people believe in God, some in Allah and some dont believe in any religion. The beliefs should be respected. At most the public schools should have a prayer room if people choose to pray.

But trying to force some kids to is against the idea of acceptance. Sure teach the kids how the Muslims pray if you have time after English, math and other core subjects. Many would consider it an insult to their god or beliefs to do this. This is just a case of a teacher pushing equality at any cost no matter whos opinions they need to override.

No one should be forced to pray to anything. Whilst private schools may say they are whatever religion and require activities to be done about that religion public schools are different.

Public schools are for the public. Some people believe in God, some in Allah and some dont believe in any religion. The beliefs should be respected. At most the public schools should have a prayer room if people choose to pray.

But trying to force some kids to is against the idea of acceptance. Sure teach the kids how the Muslims pray if you have time after English, math and other core subjects. Many would consider it an insult to their god or beliefs to do this. This is just a case of a teacher pushing equality at any cost no matter whos opinions they need to override.

That's assuming this is even true.

abolishing all faith schools is the best solution, they indoctrinate and discriminate.

That has religious brainwash written all over it.
How is education on the practical aspects of Islamic prayer "brainwash"?


No one should be forced to pray to anything.
Of course not. But that's not what happened here.

The Obama islamic school I didn't see...the alteration was obviously fake and I thought a joke they did....

Show me the Obama islamic school...and even then, if those are the only incidents....everyone makes mistakes.....

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/

Here you go. Look at the video linked in the article. It's a record of what they said. And don't even try that "everyone makes mistakes" bullcrap. All it took was for one rival agency to make an international phone call to confirm that Fox was lying through its teeth. I guess you're going to claim Fox is so strapped for cash, they can't even make international calls now.

And alterations as a joke? I suppose you wouldn't mind if Fox found pictures of your face and claimed it to be a rapists then? A respectable news organization does not alter facts. If you want to say that it's fine as a joke, do not ever, ever, refer to Fox news as credible again, because we'll never know when they're not joking then.

But you're going to do it anyway, because it feeds your pet hates, aren't you?

"Oh, they lied? We can't treat it as the truth? A joke, ah ha ha ha. But they still tell the truth!"

And weren't you bawling out about how biased and untruthful AP was for one incident of a reporter adding more smoke to a picture? I sense huge double standards here.


What about when The New York Times...I believe it was...posted all that crap against McCain about his affair or something, which turned out to be totally false? The Times is still a credible paper, however biased.

And of course, you're going to prove that they actually did. Just like I did with the faux Fox news.

The Economist reports facts. They also express opinions about them, but who cares what their opinions are?

The Daily Mail and Fox claim to report facts, but many of their so-called facts are entirely made up by them, i.e. not true.

So of those three biased sources, which is more credible in regards to facts?

The question is what you have posted here facts or are they mearly made up facts to support your own bias ;)

abolishing all faith schools is the best solution, they indoctrinate and discriminate.

:rolleyes:

Yeah they all do don't they? And there has never once been a case of any public school discriminating and never once has a teacher indoctrinating their beliefs religious or not in a public school.

This is an outrage!!!!

We must Invade Iran to rectify this.

To those unfamiliar with the Daily Mail (seems to be primarily Americans so I'll use an analogy I hope is relevant): it's like the Weekly World News except it's taken seriously.

Thus far one or two non-Daily Mail sources saying that there was possibility of this happening and that they're investigating the matter.

In other words, we'll never know the truth, islam haters will be posting as if we had received confirmation of it happening.

Unlike with the teacher who burned cross on student's arm though, there is no chance that the children were lying to their parents, right :rolleyes:

Never believe anything the Daily Mail (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail) says unless it's backed by another source.

The Daily Mail lies (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13192756&highlight=Daily+Mail#post13192756) and lies (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12509761&postcount=35).

To those unfamiliar with the Daily Mail (seems to be primarily Americans so I'll use an analogy I hope is relevant): it's like the Weekly World News except it's taken seriously.

The Weekly World News also had the balls to say that they made everything up.

Well, almost everything. The crime stories and trivia they generally stole off the Internet, so sometimes they actually managed to print something true.

The question is what you have posted here facts or are they mearly made up facts to support your own bias ;)
If they're made up, then they're not facts.

The Weekly World News also had the balls to say that they made everything up.

Well, almost everything. The crime stories and trivia they generally stole off the Internet, so sometimes they actually managed to print something true.
A long time ago, Writer's Digest magazine, in its annual issue on writers' job markets, had The Weekly World News listed under Jobs for Fiction Writers. I will always regret that I never went after a job there.

Ah, I miss The Wiggly World News. :) I always wanted to cover the space alien elections beat.

It's school. If the parents were unhappy about the project, they probably could have had their kids excused from it.

If you refuse to do sit up in PE, you face the consequences as well. So where's the difference?

Well, a google news search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Alsager%20High%20School&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) reveals no other news sources for this other than Dailymail.

I call bullshit.

not familiar with the reputation of British Papers... but this is the list when I clicked on your link. (ok, technically, a link on your link.) ;)

Associated Press (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5itR3ObU5KN4KQ6ECht004C7cysFA)

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247388/Schoolboys-disciplined-for-'refusing-to-pray-to-Allah'.html)

Thaindian News (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/non-muslim-brit-boys-detained-for-not-praying-to-allah_10068046.html)

Liverpool Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/07/05/pupils-were-disrespectful-of-prophet-100252-21266936/)

UK (Daily) Express (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/51167/School-punishes-boys-for-refusing-to-pray-to-Allah)

Daily Star (this looks like a National Inquirer-type Rag... (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/43034/Miss-makes-white-boys-pray-to-Allah/)

WorldNetDaily (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68785)

Congleton Guardian (http://www.congletonguardian.co.uk/news/3194286.Education_chiefs_investigate_Allah_prayer_row/)

Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/04/parents-furious-over-pray-row-89520-20630839/)

and most say the same thing... an investigation is being done.

It's school. If the parents were unhappy about the project, they probably could have had their kids excused from it.

If you refuse to do sit up in PE, you face the consequences as well. So where's the difference?

Difference is that PE doesn't make me bow to a god I don't believe in, or follow religious instructions that I don't agree with. PE is a simple exercise routine. Being forced to bow in reverence to a god you don't believe is serious. I mean, how would you like it if I came up to you and made you bow in a revering manner towards the Judeo-Christian God? I don't think you'd like that too much, would you?

Being forced to bow in reverence to a god you don't believe is serious.

The bolded parts are what makes your claim irrelevant.

You can't revere that which you don't believe in. So you can't be made to 'bow in reverence" to a god you don't believe in. You can be made to act as muslims do when they pray, to understand how the religion is practiced, but you're not required to believe in any of it, and complaining you get punished when you don't follow an assignment is as nonsensical as complaining when you fail math class because you don't believe that 2+2 = 4, and thus refuse to write it down.

The bolded parts are what makes your claim irrelevant.

You can't revere that which you don't believe in. So you can't be made to 'bow in reverence" to a god you don't believe in. You can be made to act as muslims do when they pray, to understand how the religion is practiced, but you're not required to believe in any of it, and complaining you get punished when you don't follow an assignment is as nonsensical as complaining when you fail math class because you don't believe that 2+2 = 4, and thus refuse to write it down.

Or you can watch the news to see how muslims pray. Or read in a book. Or look it up online. Or have a muslim come in a show you. But schools should not FORCE you to participate in something like that. I am surprised that you of all people would argue in favor of this. Perhaps we should bring back school prayer for people, as part of daily assignments and cultural enlightenment?

Or you can watch the news to see how muslims pray. Or read in a book. Or look it up online. Or have a muslim come in a show you.

I can go online and figure out how to do math, or read it in a book, or get a mathematician

In fact I'm willing to bet I can learn everything taught in highschool through those sources. And if that's going to be your argument, why the fuck should we even have schools?

I am surprised that you of all people would argue in favor of this.

Perhaps because we understand that showing how religions function isn't the same as indoctrination?

Difference is that PE doesn't make me bow to a god I don't believe in...
...and neither did this religious education class, it seems.

not familiar with the reputation of British Papers... but this is the list when I clicked on your link. (ok, technically, a link on your link.) ;)

Associated Press (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5itR3ObU5KN4KQ6ECht004C7cysFA)

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247388/Schoolboys-disciplined-for-'refusing-to-pray-to-Allah'.html)

Thaindian News (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/non-muslim-brit-boys-detained-for-not-praying-to-allah_10068046.html)

Liverpool Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/07/05/pupils-were-disrespectful-of-prophet-100252-21266936/)

UK (Daily) Express (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/51167/School-punishes-boys-for-refusing-to-pray-to-Allah)

Daily Star (this looks like a National Inquirer-type Rag... (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/43034/Miss-makes-white-boys-pray-to-Allah/)

WorldNetDaily (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68785)

Congleton Guardian (http://www.congletonguardian.co.uk/news/3194286.Education_chiefs_investigate_Allah_prayer_row/)

Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/04/parents-furious-over-pray-row-89520-20630839/)

and most say the same thing... an investigation is being done.
The AP and the Telegraph are the only ones on your list I know to be even remotely reliable. WorldNetDaily is, if anything, worse than the Daily Mail.

The AP and the Telegraph are the only ones on your list I know to be even remotely reliable. WorldNetDaily is, if anything, worse than the Daily Mail.
Anyhoo, none of the reports differ in any way; they're just re-iterations of the story that two families have made allegations their children were 'forced' to participate in religious education, and quotes from two people apparently more off-topic than the OP.

At the very most, two children were pestered to get involved in a religious education class they didn't want to get involved in. An investigation is underway. If the parents of said children had indicated to the school that they did not want their children involved in religious education, then there might be call for disciplinary action.

Bottom line: no child was forced to pray to any deity.

Ha ha! Those high school kids are so Muslim now! What are they going to do on Christmas? Cry? Ha ha!

Anyhoo, none of the reports differ in any way; they're just re-iterations of the story that two families have made allegations their children were 'forced' to participate in religious education, and quotes from two people apparently more off-topic than the OP. which makes me wonder about the quality of news reporting if it's just unverified reiteration of other's work. but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line: no child was forced to pray to any deity.the issue isn't that anyone was forced to pray, but that they were punished for NOT praying (even if it was considered an 'exercise'.)

the issue isn't that anyone was forced to pray, but that they were punished for NOT praying (even if it was considered an 'exercise'.)
Nobody was praying, forced or otherwise.

All that is reported is that the children were involved in a religious education class and refused to take part in a "practical demonstration" of Islamic prayer. I have been involved in practical demonstrations of Jewish, Hindu, Islamic and Christian prayer, yet during none of these times did I ever pray to any deity.

If the children were forced to do something they felt extremely unhappy to be doing, then the matter should be investigated; as it is. But it is simply false to say that the children were forced to pray, or punished for not praying.

Nobody was praying, forced or otherwise.

All that is reported is that the children were involved in a religious education class and refused to take part in a "practical demonstration" of Islamic prayer. I have been involved in practical demonstrations of Jewish, Hindu, Islamic and Christian prayer, yet during none of these times did I ever pray to any deity.

If the children were forced to do something they felt extremely unhappy to be doing, then the matter should be investigated; as it is. But it is simply false to say that the children were forced to pray, or punished for not praying.

Guess it's a matter of Perspective. Some argue saying "under God" in the Pledge consitutes a violation of Religious Freedom, so it can be argued that being forced to participating in a "Practical Demonstration of Islamic Prayer" is the same as being forced to pray.

and even then, you still called it prayer.

It seems like a dose of political correctness and training teachers to be more sensitive to religious belief is the obvious remedy. Seems like the Daily Mail only subscribes to that when the insensitivity in question comes from non-Christians.

Guess it's a matter of Perspective. Some argue saying "under God" in the Pledge consitutes a violation of Religious Freedom, so it can be argued that being forced to participating in a "Practical Demonstration of Islamic Prayer" is the same as being forced to pray.

There is a practical difference though. One is having children say a reference to god, but not for the purposes of education. The other is teaching them how muslims pray. It's not comparable to having them say a pledge, it would be more comparable to having british students say the american pledge, in order to teach them what american schoolchildren do.

They're not praying to god, they're being given a practical example of how muslims pray to god.

and even then, you still called it prayer.


No, he called it a practical demonstration of muslim prayer. Just as perhaps a showroom sample of a ferrari shell without an engine or drive shaft isn't a car, since it lacks an engine and drive shaft, but it's a demonstration of a car.

There is a practical difference though. One is having children say a reference to god, but not for the purposes of education. The other is teaching them how muslims pray. It's not comparable to having them say a pledge, it would be more comparable to having british students say the american pledge, in order to teach them what american schoolchildren do.

They're not praying to god, they're being given a practical example of how muslims pray to god.

I'd be happy to have my kids tell the school to stuff it. I can't see them forcing students to do speaking in tongues, to show how Pentacostals pray, so I can't see any school in the US forcing kids to pray to Allah without giving the kids an "out".

I.E., "we'll ask for some volunteers, probably Muslims, to show us how this is done - the rest of you can watch".

I fail to see how or why you would require ALL students to do this.

*sigh*

Reason 1,003,542,205,204,530,504..... to why religion should not be taught in schools, at all....

I defy you to find more than 15.

I fail to see how or why you would require ALL students to do this.

Well DK, it's a good thing you've stopped pretending to be a lawyer.

Well DK, it's a good thing you've stopped pretending to be a lawyer.

I can always call the family lawyer. He lives about a block from me.

I've had him look over the thread - there's no way in the US you could force the entire class to pray in this manner, even if it was simply "for demonstration purposes".

If it smacks of religious practice, you have to give the kids an "out".

I've had him look over the thread

suuuuuuure you did.

not familiar with the reputation of British Papers... but this is the list when I clicked on your link. (ok, technically, a link on your link.) ;)

Associated Press (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5itR3ObU5KN4KQ6ECht004C7cysFA)

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247388/Schoolboys-disciplined-for-'refusing-to-pray-to-Allah'.html)

Thaindian News (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/non-muslim-brit-boys-detained-for-not-praying-to-allah_10068046.html)

Liverpool Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/07/05/pupils-were-disrespectful-of-prophet-100252-21266936/)

None of those were there at the time. They only picked the story up from the vigilant and brave .... journalists.... of the BNP and Dailymail. Probably based on what a big sensation this non-issue seems to be, as far as sales goes.

The people crying about this really need to find a real hobby. Including the parents. You know when I was in the 5th grade my teacher had us all sing Christmas songs near Christmas. As a Jew, should I have bitched and moaned about the Christian conspiracy to enforce their religion on me, brainwashing and controlling and repressing me and oh shit the sky is falling help help run like chickens with heads cut off?

I hope not, cuz that's not what I did. It wouldn't be reasonable. But then, "reasonable" seems to go out the window when even the rumor of Muslim involvement comes up.

suuuuuuure you did.

Picking up the phone, and having someone surf to a url is not that difficult.

In any case, show me case law where you can force kids to engage in religious practice against their will and against their parents' wishes and beliefs.

A SCOTUS decision will do.

Picking up the phone, and having someone surf to a url is not that difficult.

In any case, show me case law where you can force kids to engage in religious practice against their will and against their parents' wishes and beliefs.


Sorry DK, law doesn't work that way, you'd know that if you were actually a lawyer and didn't just pretend to be one. Something is constitutional until ruled to be unconstitutional.

The burden is on you to find me case law that says that requiring kids to take part in practical demonstrations of religious practices, when there is no attempt to establish or affirm those beliefs, is unconstitutional.

SCOTUS will do.

Why you even talking the Constitution since this is a British case? They have strange ideas about religion anyway, with that whole state-sponsored religion of theirs. One of the reasons we ditched their ass in 1776, ostensibly.

Sorry DK, law doesn't work that way, you'd know that if you were actually a lawyer and didn't just pretend to be one. Something is constitutional until ruled to be unconstitutional.

The burden is on you to find me case law that says that requiring kids to take part in practical demonstrations of religious practices, when there is no attempt to establish or affirm those beliefs, is unconstitutional.

SCOTUS will do.

No, you're the one who has to prove that you can force kids to do this.

My lawyer would be happy to sue the school district if they attempted this.

The school district knows that we're sue-happy parents, and is eager to avoid being sued.

What do you know - we no longer have Muslim prayer rooms in our school here - just by a threatening letter from a law firm. No "showing how to pray to Allah" here - they've also sent threatening letters along those lines.

The school knows it stands on nothing - why don't you represent the school and tell them they have a guaranteed win all around?

...it can be argued that being forced to participating in a "Practical Demonstration of Islamic Prayer" is the same as being forced to pray.
Only by someone with rather poor argumentation and/or logic skills.

A good analogy would be to see the difference in (being forced into) reading an instruction manual for a car, and (being forced into) driving a car. The two are, obviously, quite different.

and even then, you still called it prayer.
I called it 'a "practical demonstration" of Islamic prayer', i.e. talking about and seeing the articles (physical or no) involved in Islamic prayer.


I defy you to find more than 15.
Hear, hear.


I've had him look over the thread - there's no way in the US you could force the entire class to pray in this manner, even if it was simply "for demonstration purposes".
If your lawyer can't tell the difference between demonstration of prayer and prayer itself, I'd urge you to hire a new lawyer.

suuuuuuure you did.

Of course he did, how else could he know the complex legal term "out"?

Why you even talking the Constitution since this is a British case? They have strange ideas about religion anyway, with that whole state-sponsored religion of theirs. One of the reasons we ditched their ass in 1776, ostensibly.

Shush, let them have their lawyer-off. I have money on NA to win.

The school knows it stands on nothing - why don't you represent the school and tell them they have a guaranteed win all around?

How could I, even if I wanted to? I'm not licensed to practice law in britain.

How could I, even if I wanted to? I'm not licensed to practice law in britain.

Pfft, technicalities.

Shush, let them have their lawyer-off. I have money on NA to win.

Mailorderwife always loses. He might dimly be aware of this, in the back of his skull, but then again the power of denial is strong. He might honestly believe he wins all these arguments he runs away from and counters using lies, fallacies and ridiculously stupid claims.

None of those were there at the time. They only picked the story up from the vigilant and brave .... journalists.... of the BNP and Dailymail. Probably based on what a big sensation this non-issue seems to be, as far as sales goes.

The people crying about this really need to find a real hobby. Including the parents. You know when I was in the 5th grade my teacher had us all sing Christmas songs near Christmas. As a Jew, should I have bitched and moaned about the Christian conspiracy to enforce their religion on me, brainwashing and controlling and repressing me and oh shit the sky is falling help help run like chickens with heads cut off?

I hope not, cuz that's not what I did. It wouldn't be reasonable. But then, "reasonable" seems to go out the window when even the rumor of Muslim involvement comes up.

Oh I agree. it's the point of view I take whenever someone cried "Waaaah! [X religion] is forcing itself upon my way of life! Waaaaah!" and it has nothing to do with the religion dictating Governmental law.

A good analogy would be to see the difference in (being forced into) reading an instruction manual for a car, and (being forced into) driving a car. The two are, obviously, quite different. and which is being done. reading a manual or driving the car?
An education authority is investigating claims that two school pupils were punished for refusing to kneel down and pray to Allah during a religious education lesson.

It was claimed that the boys, from a year seven class of 11 and 12-year-olds, were given detention after refusing to take part in a practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

CHESHIRE council has launched an investigation after pupils were punished for refusing to kneel and pray to Allah during a religious education lesson.

sounds like they were told to get behind the wheel and drive.

I called it 'a "practical demonstration" of Islamic prayer', i.e. talking about and seeing the articles (physical or no) involved in Islamic prayer.

too bad it sounds more like having the students actually on their knees and praying instead of reading about it or seeing films.

too bad it sounds more like having the students actually on their knees and praying instead of reading about it or seeing films.

So what? As long as the school did not claim that the practice was true, or should be believed, or was mor or less valid than another faith, it doesn't mean they were forcing them to actually pray, merely engage in the physical conduct that a muslim would when he prays.

and which is being done. reading a manual or driving the car?

sounds like they were told to get behind the wheel and drive.
From only two of your sources listed; and they're sources which have merely changed the wording of a Daily Mail report. The rest run with 'practical demonstration', or are careful to put 'pray to Allah' in scare quotes, indicating there is no evidence the children were asked to pray.

There is no actual proof that the children were ever asked to pray.

too bad it sounds more like having the students actually on their knees and praying instead of reading about it or seeing films.
Let's wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions.

Moreover, if a whole class of kids were asked to pray to Allah (and there's no indication that they were), do you not find it rather odd that only two kids complained?

So what? As long as the school did not claim that the practice was true, or should be believed, or was mor or less valid than another faith, it doesn't mean they were forcing them to actually pray, merely engage in the physical conduct that a muslim would when he prays.
and so are you saying that it's ok to 'force' someone to go though the motions of an action that they themselves are not comfortable with?

From only two of your sources listed; and they're sources which have merely changed the wording of a Daily Mail report. The rest run with 'practical demonstration', or are careful to put 'pray to Allah' in scare quotes, indicating there is no evidence the children were asked to pray. nor was there any evidence that it didn't happen.

There is no actual proof that the children were ever asked to pray. you do know what 'practical demonstration' is... right?

Let's wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions. agreed. note I never said who was right nor wrong. but I did say all articles agree on one point. that it is being investigated.

Moreover, if a whole class of kids were asked to pray to Allah (and there's no indication that they were), do you not find it rather odd that only two kids complained? so are you now saying 'it's ok if everyone is doing it'?

Hey, everyone else believes in a form of God, so why are there a few people complaining about it? :rolleyes:

Mailorderwife always loses. He might dimly be aware of this, in the back of his skull, but then again the power of denial is strong. He might honestly believe he wins all these arguments he runs away from and counters using lies, fallacies and ridiculously stupid claims.

This is perhaps why I didn't get great odds. Ah well, money is money.

lawl:

I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I've also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.

- Karen Williams, racist mother

How does that statement make her a racist? As a matter of fact, she said she was NOT a racist.

How does that statement make her a racist? As a matter of fact, she said she was NOT a racist.

Context. And generally, the people who go out of their way to say "I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever" are what they claim not to be.

This is perhaps why I didn't get great odds. Ah well, money is money.

Actually, time is money.

And money is the root of all evil.

You're just getting more evil as we speak. And I'm getting less. :(

Actually, time is money.

And money is the root of all evil.

You're just getting more evil as we speak. And I'm getting less. :(

Economics is confusing :(

and so are you saying that it's ok to 'force' someone to go though the motions of an action that they themselves are not comfortable with?

I had to climb rope in PE. That was uncomfortable, but I still had to do it :(

and so are you saying that it's ok to 'force' someone to go though the motions of an action that they themselves are not comfortable with?


Am I saying it's ok to force school children to do their math homework, even if they're not comfortable with that? Yes

Am I saying it's ok to force school children to read shakespeare, even if they're not comfortable with that? yes.

Am I saying it's ok to force school children to engage in physical activity, even if they're not comfortable with that? Yes.

We don't stop our educational aims to wonder if the children are "ok with it". We don't tell the students that they don't have to do their homework if they don't want to. We don't let the student have an "out" on his essay about Adam Smith if the student doesn't agree with Smith's economic theories.

In no other subject do we allow the student to avoid doing an assignment that he doesn't want to do. I'm unsure then why, when the subject is world politics and cultural understanding, do we suddenly apply this standard of "we can't make the children do what they don't want to do"

The fuck we can't. The entire educational system is predicated on the understanding that, yes, we can obligate them to do things, even if they don't want to, if it furthers a legitimate educational goal. I'm unsure that why suddenly we should depart from that standard when the idea of Islam comes up.

I'm unsure that why suddenly we should depart from that standard when the idea of Islam comes up.

There is no educational value in forcing someone to engage in a religious activity that they do not wish to engage in. If they wish to talk about Islam in a historical context, fine, but making students engage in the motions of worship is out of line for an educator.

There is no educational value in forcing someone to engage in a religious activity that they do not wish to engage in. If they wish to talk about Islam in a historical context, fine, but making students engage in the motions of worship is out of line for an educator.

There's no educational value in having student create science projects. If they want to talk about science from a book, fine, but making students have practical demonstrations of the science that they learned is out of line for an educator.

Nope, doesn't work. If we recognize the value of practical experience and demonstrations in one subject, you'll really have to show me why it has no practical value in this subject. Otherwise you're simply trying to apply a different educational standard, and you're going to have to demonstrate why this deserves some special privlidge of a different standard.

Am I saying it's ok to force school children to do their math homework, even if they're not comfortable with that? Yes actually, no. if the child continues to refuse to do their homework, then the parents are informed and the worse case is that they fail the class. they are not given detention after one instance of not doing homework (and the article does hint that it was a one time deal.)

Am I saying it's ok to force school children to read shakespeare, even if they're not comfortable with that? yes. yet is it ok to force a child to read the Bible? Koran?

Am I saying it's ok to force school children to engage in physical activity, even if they're not comfortable with that? Yes. rather generalized here. Physical Activity of what sort? do we force them to have sex with each other? no. Do we force them to engage in unrestrained physical violence? no yet those are also physical activities.

We don't stop our educational aims to wonder if the children are "ok with it". We don't tell the students that they don't have to do their homework if they don't want to. We don't let the student have an "out" on his essay about Adam Smith if the student doesn't agree with Smith's economic theories. yet we do filter what those educational aims are.

In no other subject do we allow the student to avoid doing an assignment that he doesn't want to do. I'm unsure then why, when the subject is world politics and cultural understanding, do we suddenly apply this standard of "we can't make the children do what they don't want to do" and where else do we punish an incompletion of one assignment with detention?

The fuck we can't. The entire educational system is predicated on the understanding that, yes, we can obligate them to do things, even if they don't want to, if it furthers a legitimate educational goal. I'm unsure that why suddenly we should depart from that standard when the idea of Islam comes up.
yet it's ok to not force a child to say the pledge of alligence, you cannot force a child to learn about creationism (even if it's to understand the cultural and religious aspect of fundies) you cannot have prayer in school, but suddenly it's ok to force a child to the act of praying in an Islamic way? and YES, a practical demonstration of Islamic Prayer is still prayer. if it's OK to go through the motion becaue one doesn't 'believe', then Prayer in the classroom would NOT be banned because those who don't believe can just "go though the motions".

but because it was forcing one's Religious custom on others, it was banned.

C'mon Neo. if it was one teacher teaching creationism in class I'll bet you would be calling for that teacher to be fired.

I had to climb rope in PE. That was uncomfortable, but I still had to do it :(

and if said "no, I won't climb that rope" what do you think would happen. would you be placed in detention or given another activity to do (like say... run several laps around the court)?

nor was there any evidence that it didn't happen.
No, but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the notion that children weren't "forced to pray to Allah" in a state school.

you do know what 'practical demonstration' is... right?
Of course, but it's far and away from actually praying. As I've said previously in the thread, in RE class back in my school days I had a 'practical demonstration' of Jewish prayer, including instruction of the wearing of the tefillin, kippah and a 'stand-in' Torah; going through the practice of Jewish prayer. I wasn't, however, praying to YHVH.

A 'practical demonstration' of Islamic prayer, including, say, a look and/or wear of the kufi, discussing why many Muslims wish to wear the hat or getting the kids to go through figuring out which direction East is to lay a prayer mat, while discussing why Muslims pray to towards Mecca, etc., is perfectly harmless and positively educational.

If, for some reason, the parents of a child did not want them to take part, or the teacher was too forceful in getting the child to do the tasks, then there needs to be action. The investigation will determine this.

But I fear, in this situation, we have another case of hypersensitivity to Islam, reported by a reactionary section of the media with a long history of rather xenophobic and 'Islamaphobic' views.

agreed. note I never said who was right nor wrong. but I did say all articles agree on one point. that it is being investigated.
Which I am not against.

so are you now saying 'it's ok if everyone is doing it'?
Of course not; no need to be obtuse.

I'm saying that if a teacher genuinely did force a class of kids to pray to Allah, then we'd be hearing a hell more about this subject than we are.

No, but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the notion that children weren't "forced to pray to Allah" in a state school. yet if it was reported that a teacher taught creationism, would you still give the school the benefit of the doubt?

Of course, but it's far and away from actually praying. As I've said previously in the thread, in RE class back in my school days I had a 'practical demonstration' of Jewish prayer, including instruction of the wearing of the tefillin, kippah and a 'stand-in' Torah; going through the practice of Jewish prayer. I wasn't, however, praying to YHVH. a 'stand in Torah'? was there any "stand in" anything for that class?

A 'practical demonstration' of Islamic prayer, including, say, a look and/or wear of the kufi, discussing why many Muslims wish to wear the hat or getting the kids to go through figuring out which direction East is to lay a prayer mat, while discussing why Muslims pray to towards Mecca, etc., is perfectly harmless and positively educational. yet, according to the article, they were also supposed to kneel as well. and this is assuming that 'pray' is not the acutal muttering of phrases.

If, for some reason, the parents of a child did not want them to take part, or the teacher was too forceful in getting the child to do the tasks, then there needs to be action. The investigation will determine this. and this I am not arguing with. I admit that an investigation (according to those articles) is taking place. however, alot of the posts here are saying that it's not prayer baised on those self same articles and the fact that 'it's only going through the motions'.

But I fear, in this situation, we have another case of hypersensitivity to Islam, reported by a reactionary section of the media with a long history of rather xenophobic and 'Islamaphobic' views. why does it have to be 'Islam'. Does it mean that if it was about forcing people to pray in a Christian/Shinto/Jewish manner it's ok to lambast them for teaching religion in a state run school?

Of course not; no need to be obtuse.

I'm saying that if a teacher genuinely did force a class of kids to pray to Allah, then we'd be hearing a hell more about this subject than we are. or could it be because of a Hypersenstivity to being hypersensitive to Islam that alot of news services kept the lid on such a story because they didn't want to seem like they were fuling the fires of Islamaphobia?

ever notice that after that daily mail story, alot of other places are starting to post that story? we could apply the same benefit of the doubt and say each outlet has researched the story to see if it's true or we can assume that they are just hopping on the daily mail's bandwagon.

yet is it ok to force a child to read the Bible? Koran?

as an appropriate assignment in the appropriate classroom? Absolutly.

yet it's ok to not force a child to say the pledge of alligence,

Because you can't force anyone to make a pledge of allegance to anything. It's not for the purposes of education, it's for the purposes of swearing an oath of loyalty, to require that is compelled speech, as it has nothing to do with any educational aims.

you cannot force a child to learn about creationism (even if it's to understand the cultural and religious aspect of fundies)

you can't? Who the hell says you can't? What you can't do is:

1) require it be taught in science class as it's unsupported by science
2) promote it as true

can you teach creationism as a belief that some people believe in? Absolutly you can. We were taught greek myths and norse myths and caribbean folklore in highschool, teaching judeochristian creation myth is no different. Where did you get the damned fool idea you can't? Of course you can teach what people believe. You just can't teach it in an inappropriate context, nor can you promote any one belief as true.

you cannot have prayer in school, but suddenly it's ok to force a child to the act of praying in an Islamic way? and YES, a practical demonstration of Islamic Prayer is still prayer. if it's OK to go through the motion becaue one doesn't 'believe', then Prayer in the classroom would NOT be banned because those who don't believe can just "go though the motions".

When you are able to see and appreciate the difference between a school leader, a government official, choosing a prayer, during school time, and leading students in that prayer for the purposes of leading that prayer, and not for a educational purpose, and a teacher leading a class in being taught what a particular relgion believes in, you will be able to contribute usefully in this conversation.

However as it appears that your "examples" do not make this distinction, I can only conclude you are incapable of understanding and appreciating those differences. Thus I don't really see the need in continually pointing them out to you. The onus is really on you at this point to grasp that very simple concept, and if you can't, I really don't know what else to tell you.

but because it was forcing one's Religious custom on others, it was banned.

No, it was banned because it was state sponsorship of a religious belief. It was promoting one belief as true. This hasn't been the case here.

C'mon Neo. if it was one teacher teaching creationism in class I'll bet you would be calling for that teacher to be fired.

If that teacher was teaching creationism in:

1) a class where such teaching was inappropriate (IE science);
2) was promoting that belief as true, and/or;
3) was doing so at the exclusion of a fair representation of faiths

then yes, I would. However if that teacher taught creationism as a way of demonstrating what some people believe, within the context of a class where it was appropriate to teach what some people believe, and did so without promoting it as true, then I would no sooner seek that teacher be fired then I would have sought my highschool world history teacher be fired for teaching the tenants of judaism, christianity and islam, nor my english teacher who taught us greek mytholody.

Teaching what people believe as long as it's done in the proper place, without being promoted as true, nor ot the exclusion of other beliefs, that's perfectly fine, and in fact, I encourage it as useful for students to get a more worldly prospective.

Don't presume to believe that your incomplete, inaccurate, and fundamentally erronious understanding of the laws of this country are mirrored in me. I assure you, it is not. Moreover, I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself and don't need you to speak for me, and once you recognize that those deficiencies in your knowledge that cause you to reach erronious conclusions are not shared in me, I will ask you never to do it again.

and if said "no, I won't climb that rope" what do you think would happen. would you be placed in detention or given another activity to do (like say... run several laps around the court)?

That would depend on the exact situation. (Which teacher, my reason for not being comfortable, my history with that teacher, what I say to the teacher and how I say it etc.)

In short, it's not impossible that I would face detention for refusing to try.

yet if it was reported that a teacher taught creationism, would you still give the school the benefit of the doubt?
If it was reported in the Daily Mail that a teacher 'forced' her pupils to learn creationism, with no statement of the actual events from the school, then yes, I would give the benefit of doubt that it didn't happen.

a 'stand in Torah'?
It wasn't a big fancy Torah, like the ones you get in synagogues.

was there any "stand in" anything for that class?
I don't understand what you're getting at. We were given a tefillin and a kippah, shown how they are worn, with an accompanying discussion of why they are worn, and allowed, if we wished, to try them on.

yet, according to the article, they were also supposed to kneel as well.
Which is bad because...?

It's not an affirmation of the truth of Islam or the existence of Allah. It's a demonstration of the practical aspects of Islamic prayer.

Nothing to be frightened of.

why does it have to be 'Islam'.
Because, if you haven't noticed, there's rather a lot of talk about Islam in 'Western society' these days.

Does it mean that if it was about forcing people to pray in a Christian/Shinto/Jewish manner it's ok to lambast them for teaching religion in a state run school?
For the life of me, I can't understand why you jump to all these strange assumptions.

Forcing people to pray is never a good thing; it's horrible. Education about religion, however, is a great thing. As a staunch atheist, I have enjoyed and gained a huge deal from the years of study of theology and religious education in both school and university.

ever notice that after that daily mail story, alot of other places are starting to post that story? we could apply the same benefit of the doubt and say each outlet has researched the story to see if it's true or we can assume that they are just hopping on the daily mail's bandwagon.
Seeing as all the reports (including the Telegraph's) are almost word-for-word copies of the Mail's report, I'd say the latter seems more likely.

The only other places mentioning it (as of now) are dodgy blogs, and rather undesirable websites such as Stormfront or the BNP's.

as an appropriate assignment in the appropriate classroom? Absolutly. and should the student refuse ONE assignment, would you place that student in Detention?

Because you can't force anyone to make a pledge of allegance to anything. It's not for the purposes of education, it's for the purposes of swearing an oath of loyalty, to require that is compelled speech, as it has nothing to do with any educational aims.yet forcing a student to 'pray' is ok because it's only 'going though the motion'.

you can't? Who the hell says you can't? What you can't do is:

2) promote it as true
what is taught in a school that is not promoted as 'true'? especially if it's in a course that all students are requried to take?

can you teach creationism as a belief that some people believe in? Absolutly you can. We were taught greek myths and norse myths and caribbean folklore in highschool, teaching judeochristian creation myth is no different. Where did you get the damned fool idea you can't? Of course you can teach what people believe. You just can't teach it in an inappropriate context, nor can you promote any one belief as true.and who defines when the context is inappropriate? those kids (if the articles are true) were forced to pray, the subject crossed into what they deemed and inappropriate, their parents also deemed it inappropriate. we can only wait to see what the investigation turns up.

When you are able to see and appreciate the difference between a school leader, a government official, choosing a prayer, during school time, and leading students in that prayer for the purposes of leading that prayer, and not for a educational purpose, and a teacher leading a class in being taught what a particular relgion believes in, you will be able to contribute usefully in this conversation. yet teaching the religion is one thing, forcing participation is something different.

However as it appears that your "examples" do not make this distinction, I can only conclude you are incapable of understanding and appreciating those differences. Thus I don't really see the need in continually pointing them out to you. The onus is really on you at this point to grasp that very simple concept, and if you can't, I really don't know what else to tell you. and what you are not grasping neo, is that religion is not just teachings but the rituals. teaching the prayer habits of various religions is one thing, forcing participation is something else.


If that teacher was teaching creationism in:

1) a class where such teaching was inappropriate (IE science);
2) was promoting that belief as true, and/or;
3) was doing so at the exclusion of a fair representation of faiths

then yes, I would. However if that teacher taught creationism as a way of demonstrating what some people believe, within the context of a class where it was appropriate to teach what some people believe, and did so without promoting it as true, then I would no sooner seek that teacher be fired then I would have sought my highschool world history teacher be fired for teaching the tenants of judaism, christianity and islam, nor my english teacher who taught us greek mytholody. so teaching the religion and forcing the students to partake in the practice is ok because the society that follows that religion ingrained the religion into their customs thus they are not teaching the religion but the customs. Gotcha.

Teaching what people believe as long as it's done in the proper place, without being promoted as true, nor ot the exclusion of other beliefs, that's perfectly fine, and in fact, I encourage it as useful for students to get a more worldly prospective.yet it's not just teaching, it's forcing participation. The students were asked to humble themselves in accordance to a belief system that wasn't theirs.

and what you are not grasping neo, is that religion is not just teachings but the rituals. teaching the prayer habits of various religions is one thing, forcing participation is something else.

. . . .

yet it's not just teaching, it's forcing participation. The students were asked to humble themselves in accordance to a belief system that wasn't theirs.

I'm going to ask you one very simple question of you junii and please just give a yes or a no. I don't want anything else, just a yes or no.

I'm a teacher in a class on economics. I am teaching Smith's economic theories as demonstrated in Wealth of Nations. As part of my assignment, in addition to having the students read the text, I also give each one of them a hypothetical bill that would allow congress to increase regulation in a certain industry. I tell them, as part of their assignment, that I want them to take the role of someone who believes in Smith's model of economics and write a hypothetical letter to their congressman, explaining, from the perspective of someone who believes in Smith's model, why that bill is a good, or a bad idea.

What I want them to do, essentially, is explain to me, as a proponent of smith's economic model would, whether regulation is good or bad. My question thus to you is thus: is this an appropriate assignment, yes or no?

Is s my requiring them as part of an assignment to assume a role, and act as they would in that role, for the purposes of education, appropriate or not?

Or, to put it another way, and do be honest because we'll all know if you're not, would you complain if your child was asked to do this?

so teaching the religion and forcing the students to partake in the practice is ok because the society that follows that religion ingrained the religion into their customs thus they are not teaching the religion but the customs. Gotcha.

What the fuck are you rambling on about here? Not only have you not claimed anything even remotely close to what I said, but that sentence deserves to be taken out back and shot.

Seriously Junii, if you can defend your position, do so valiently. If you can not, then bow out gracefully. But this recent habit of your of building fallacy upon fallacy, making up arguments of your opponents and demonstrating such a level of obtuseness that we are left questioning whether you can even demonstrate basic reading comprehension?

One would think you were better than that.

I'm going to ask you one very simple question of you junii and please just give a yes or a no. I don't want anything else, just a yes or no.

I'm a teacher in a class on economics. I am teaching Smith's economic theories as demonstrated in Wealth of Nations. As part of my assignment, in addition to having the students read the text, I also give each one of them a hypothetical bill that would allow congress to increase regulation in a certain industry. I tell them, as part of their assignment, that I want them to take the role of someone who believes in Smith's model of economics and write a hypothetical letter to their congressman, explaining, from the perspective of someone who believes in Smith's model, why that bill is a good, or a bad idea.

What I want them to do, essentially, is explain to me, as a proponent of smith's economic model would, whether regulation is good or bad. My question thus to you is thus: is this an appropriate assignment, yes or no?if all you want is a yes or no answer, then yes.

Is s my requiring them as part of an assignment to assume a role, and act as they would in that role, for the purposes of education, appropriate or not? no

Or, to put it another way, and do be honest because we'll all know if you're not, would you complain if your child was asked to do this? depends on too many unspoken factors.

What the fuck are you rambling on about here? Not only have you not claimed anything even remotely close to what I said, but that sentence deserves to be taken out back and shot.

Seriously Junii, if you can defend your position, do so valiently. If you can not, then bow out gracefully. But this recent habit of your of building fallacy upon fallacy, making up arguments of your opponents and demonstrating such a level of obtuseness that we are left questioning whether you can even demonstrate basic reading comprehension?

One would think you were better than that.

the teacher was teaching the customs of ISLAM. you do know that Islam is a Religion, right? thus he was teaching the practices of that Religion. the Customs and practices are deeply rooted in the beliefs of that religion, thus to teach the customs, one must teach the beliefs behind those customs. in effect, he was teaching the beliefs.

Since those customs and by proxy, the beliefs are being practiced today (as apposed to customs of the Norse or Greek mythologies) there is the fact that those would be held as 'true' to that religion.

Now while teaching it, the teacher apparently required all the students to participate in the religious customs and practices of that religion. In effect, it's not just teaching the customs, it's now teaching the religion as well as having his students participate in that religion.

tell me how can one teach the customs of the religion without teaching the beliefs behind the custom?

and also tell me why the students were 'required to particpate in those customs'?

if all you want is a yes or no answer, then yes.

Good, so you admitted that you find it acceptable that a student be expected to do an assignment as if he believed in Smith's principles of economics. Good.

the teacher was teaching the customs of ISLAM. you do know that Islam is a Religion, right? thus he was teaching the practices of that Religion. the Customs and practices are deeply rooted in the beliefs of that religion, thus to teach the customs, one must teach the beliefs behind those customs. in effect, he was teaching the beliefs.

So the fuck what?

Since those customs and by proxy, the beliefs are being practiced today (as apposed to customs of the Norse or Greek mythologies) there is the fact that those would be held as 'true' to that religion.

So the fuck what?

Now while teaching it, the teacher apparently required all the students to participate in the religious customs and practices of that religion. In effect, it's not just teaching the customs, it's now teaching the religion as well as having his students participate in that religion.]

So the fuck what?

tell me how can one teach the customs of the religion without teaching the beliefs behind the custom?

You can't. What the fuck is wrong with teaching religious beliefs? What is wrong with teaching students what muslims believe? What, exactly, is wrong with that?

Yes, teaching the customs of a religion inherently involves teaching the beliefs of that religion. What is wrong with that? You keep acting like you expect me to suddenly go "OH MY GOD, they're...they're....they're teaching RELIGION!" Yeah, I know, I get that. You're not suddenly making me come to some realization. There's nothing wrong with teaching religion, students should probably know the various faiths and customs of the world, as long as none of them are presented as true, and religions are treated equally and fairly.

There's nothing wrong with teaching students what other people believe, and frankly, you sicken me by implying that there is.

and also tell me why the students were 'required to particpate in those customs'?

Tell me why you wouldn't have a problem with a student being made to write a paper as if he believed in Smith's model of economics and you will understand why I don't have a problem with a student being made to act as if he was a muslim.

You have no problems with a student being made to carry out an assignment as if he believed in Smith's model of economics, why do you have a problem with a student being instructed by matter of carrying out an assignment as if he believed in Islam?

You just admitted you were ok with that, a student being required to participate in an assignment when that assignment requires him to act like he believed in Smith's model of economics. So what's wrong with requiring a student to participate in an assignment when the assignment requires him to believe in Islam?

Why should religion get some special privlidge?

yet is it ok to force a child to read the Bible? Koran?


We read certian passages from the Bible in my Political Philosophy class last year. We actually spent the better part of a month and a half studying these passages.

I took no issue with this. And we all know how much I love religion.

Studying religious aspects outside of learning them as "correct" and nothing else is 100% acceptable. Thats exactly what this was. Complaining about it is just pure, unadulterated Islamaphobia, and you all bloody well know it.

JuNii, you seem very invested in believing that these students were required to practice the religion of Islam. Why is that?

It has been established that there is no evidence in the media report that any actual praying of any kind went on. Your only response to that is that there's no evidence it didn't happen. You know what that means, don't you? It means that you don't know that it happened, but you prefer to assume it did. Why?

The practical difference between actually practicing a religion and merely pantomiming the forms of a religion in order to learn what those forms are has been explained to you in detail. Yet you continue to argue that the teacher did the former rather than the latter -- despite the aforementioned lack of evidence. Why do you do that?

What reason do you have for wanting to believe that this teacher forced the students to practice Islam, despite a total lack of evidence to indicate that the teacher did any such thing?

What reason do you have for wanting to believe that this teacher forced the students to practice Islam, despite a total lack of evidence to indicate that the teacher did any such thing?

Because it's islam, and when muslims are involved, presumptions seem to work backwards.

But even if everything in this story is true I still don't see the problem.

Because it's islam, and when muslims are involved, presumptions seem to work backwards.

But even if everything in this story is true I still don't see the problem.

Lets say that for a European History class, during the class's section on Rome, the students were required to participate in the ritual slaughter of a bull to Jupiter. Would you find this to be a completely unacceptable?

Lets say that for a European History class, during the class's section on Rome, the students were required to participate in the ritual slaughter of a bull to Jupiter. Would you find this to be a completely unacceptable?

of course I would, it would be a flagrant violation of health codes.

Would you care to actually use a comparable example, or would you just prefer to continue with the fallacy and stupidity, because while the later does greatly amuse me, I fear it doesn't do too much for your reputation.

But I will reitterate my challenge to you which you so conveniently ignored. We allow for practical demonstrations of studied material in every other subject. Why should we disallow such for religion? Why is religion deserving of some special privlidge?

Lets say that for a European History class, during the class's section on Rome, the students were required to participate in the ritual slaughter of a bull to Jupiter. Would you find this to be a completely unacceptable?
As Neo Art said, it would be a violation of health codes. Probably a number of other laws having to do with livestock, weapons, etc., as well.

Let's try something more realistic.

What if, in a European History class, during the school's section on Rome, the students were required to act out the parts of different social classes worshipping at the temple of Zeus as well as the officiants at the temple? Or required to act out the parts of oracles, interpreting priests, and clients of oracles? Or required to assume the roles of believers in the many different, competing religious cults that proliferated in Rome, in a kind of ancient religions moot court discussion? What if they were required to act out the parts as if they believed in the religions, so that they might learn what those religions might have meant in the lives of the people who really did believe them?

How would that stack up against this "practical demonstration of Islamic prayer practices"? Pretty well, in my opinion.

As Neo Art said, it would be a violation of health codes. Probably a number of other laws having to do with livestock, weapons, etc., as well.

Let's try something more realistic.

What if, in a European History class, during the school's section on Rome, the students were required to act out the parts of different social classes worshipping at the temple of Zeus as well as the officiants at the temple? Or required to act out the parts of oracles, interpreting priests, and clients of oracles? Or required to assume the roles of believers in the many different, competing religious cults that proliferated in Rome, in a kind of ancient religions moot court discussion? What if they were required to act out the parts as if they believed in the religions, so that they might learn what those religions might have meant in the lives of the people who really did believe them?

How would that stack up against this "practical demonstration of Islamic prayer practices"? Pretty well, in my opinion.

Or as I said earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13814901&postcount=156), we could look at a non religious example and then once we realize that such things are really not inappropriate for a school setting, we can question what makes religion so damned important.

Once again:

In my RE class, we looked at a Jewish tefillin and kippah. Does that mean I was forced to worship YHVH?
If you were made to put them on.

If you were made to put them on.

so the mere act of putting on jewish religious attire means whomever is wearing them is worshipping?

Really? Are you sure you want to go down that particular path of argument?

so the mere act of putting on jewish religious attire means whomever is wearing them is worshipping?

Really? Are you sure you want to go down that particular path of argument?

Are you suggesting that these people aren't engaged in sincere and devout Catholic worship? :eek:

http://www.adultcostumeshop.com.au/contents/media/l_83127-83096.jpg

Are you suggesting that these people aren't engaged in sincere and devout Catholic worship? :eek:

http://www.adultcostumeshop.com.au/contents/media/l_83127-83096.jpg

I suspect that when they say 'God', they do so loudly and passionately. They may even speak in tongues. *nod*

Are you suggesting that these people aren't engaged in sincere and devout Catholic worship? :eek:

http://www.adultcostumeshop.com.au/contents/media/l_83127-83096.jpg

fucking win

Are you suggesting that these people aren't engaged in sincere and devout Catholic worship? :eek:

http://www.adultcostumeshop.com.au/contents/media/l_83127-83096.jpg
Hey! I engage in sincere and devout Catholic worship! I just prefer to do so in those clothes!

Difference is that PE doesn't make me bow to a god I don't believe in, or follow religious instructions that I don't agree with. PE is a simple exercise routine. Being forced to bow in reverence to a god you don't believe is serious. I mean, how would you like it if I came up to you and made you bow in a revering manner towards the Judeo-Christian God? I don't think you'd like that too much, would you?

I never believed in the benefits of physical excersise, but they still forced me to do push-ups.
All they do is ask you to do the moves. If you bow to a god or not is entirely up to you.

And guess what? I have been forced to endure morning prayers for a long time during school. Which in essence meant that they asked me to stand while the others were praying. It did not mean that I had to pray if I didn't want to.

I suspect that when they say 'God', they do so loudly and passionately. They may even speak in tongues. *nod*


I wonder if Sister Mary O'Genuflecta there gives hands-on healings.....

I was under the impression that there isn't ANY prayer in school, or is that just valid if we are talking about Christainity?

I was under the impression that there isn't ANY prayer in school, or is that just valid if we are talking about Christainity?

Er, no, that's just valid if we were talking about a country where prayer in schools is not exceedingly common.

Er, no, that's just valid if we were talking about a country where prayer in schools is not exceedingly common.


If your not allowed to pray to the christian god then the rules should be the same for allah or any other so called god.

If your not allowed to pray to the christian god then the rules should be the same for allah or any other so called god.

Um...that's true? Totally and completely irrelevant, of course, but true.

In other news, if cheddar cheese were banned from schools for ideological reasons, we should probably also ban mozzarella. Just so long as we're stating things that have nothing to do with this story.

Um...that's true? Totally and completely irrelevant, of course, but true.

In other news, if cheddar cheese were banned from schools for ideological reasons, we should probably also ban mozzarella. Just so long as we're stating things that have nothing to do with this story.


We are not talking about cheese, we are talking about religion and it is against the law of the land to pray in school. Personally I think everyone
should be allowed to pray to whoever they wish. I also think that no one should be forced to pray to anyone.

We are not talking about cheese, we are talking about religion and it is against the law of the land to pray in school.

....first, I don't believe I know of any country with such a law. But please do show me a case where a child has been arrested for saying, "Oh please, God, help me pass this test!" in the classroom.

Second, how about you show me any relevant law in the country in which this story takes place. I'm sure you're entirely aware of what country that is, right?

We are not talking about cheese, we are talking about religion and it is against the law of the land to pray in school. Personally I think everyone
should be allowed to pray to whoever they wish. I also think that no one should be forced to pray to anyone.

If you allow people to pray to whoever they wish, soon there will be people praying to their pets and livestock.. We cannot let that happen.

If you allow people to pray to whoever they wish, soon there will be people praying to their pets and livestock.. We cannot let that happen.
Exactly! All hail Ruffy! On your knees you peons! Pray to him! PRAY! :p

....first, I don't believe I know of any country with such a law. But please do show me a case where a child has been arrested for saying, "Oh please, God, help me pass this test!" in the classroom.

Second, how about you show me any relevant law in the country in which this story takes place. I'm sure you're entirely aware of what country that is, right?

I think arresting someone for cheating is a bit much.

Moreover, if a whole class of kids were asked to pray to Allah (and there's no indication that they were), do you not find it rather odd that only two kids complained?

Everything else aside why do you find this odd? It may have only been the two kids who told their parents that they did this in school who ran off to the paper, other may have told their parents who thought nothing of it while others may not have told their parent anything about it.

If they're made up, then they're not facts.

Yes I know that I should have writtern it as 'facts'. So do you claim that what you wrote to be fact or are you just making something up to support your belief ;) It was intended as tounge in cheel Mura I don't know if you missed that or not.

So, let me get this straight...

Most of you believe then that it's ok to punish children for refusing to take communion?

Because it's islam, and when muslims are involved, presumptions seem to work backwards.

Oh, come on. You know that if it were any other religion the reaction would be the same. At least, I should hope so. :p

Personally, I would be equally appalled to be made to take part in a class-wide pratical demonstration of religious worship. However, for some inexplicable reason (;)) I would be completely open to a group-based research/presentation project demonstrating the same pratical aspects of worship for various religions.
Maybe it's just my aversion to spontaneity.

In my RE class, we looked at a Jewish tefillin and kippah. Does that mean I was forced to worship YHVH?


*Look at* vs *actually engage in the physical activity of*. Very different, and very meaningful. If you take the literal definition of "pray", to communicate on a personal level to one's diety, obviously no one can be forced to do it. But to be forced to engage in a physical simulation of it is bad enough. It touches on some really deep feelings. It went way too far. Had it been the reverse, Muslim children forced to physical don Jewish tefillin and Kippah, the usual result would have been expected.

Of course, simulating worship of Pele would have been worse, but then you'd need to have a volcano handy, and a virgin. Good thing She is usually appeased just with dancing and fruit.

It's funny how they say Allah as though he were not the same God as the Judeo-Christian God... Islam is an Abrahamic religion; Christians all pray to Allah, and Muslims all pray to God. "Allah" is the name given by Arabic-speaking Christians to God; he's not just the God of Muslims. It's the same deity.

*Look at* vs *actually engage in the physical activity of*. Very different, and very meaningful. If you take the literal definition of "pray", to communicate on a personal level to one's diety, obviously no one can be forced to do it. But to be forced to engage in a physical simulation of it is bad

I keep asking the question and it keeps getting ignored. I can be forced to stand up in front of the class and read Shakespeare. I can be forced to do a science experiment. I can be forced to do a book report. I can be forced to run around a rack. School forces me to do a lot of things and nobody raises an eyebrow. Every day students are forced into doing things, not merely passively listening, but actively participating. And nobody complans about anything.

But when suddenly the thing they're being made to do is a simulation of a religious activity, every body goes apeshit. It's ok to make kids writ ea book report. It's ok to make them go to PE, it's ok to make them read in front of the class, it's ok to make them do little thanksgiving plays of being pilgrims and indians, but when it turns to religion it's "too far".

My question again is...why? Why should religion get some special privlidge?

I keep asking the question and it keeps getting ignored. I can be forced to stand up in front of the class and read Shakespeare. I can be forced to do a science experiment. I can be forced to do a book report. I can be forced to run around a rack. School forces me to do a lot of things and nobody raises an eyebrow. Every day students are forced into doing things, not merely passively listening, but actively participating. And nobody complans about anything.

But when suddenly the thing they're being made to do is a simulation of a religious activity, every body goes apeshit. It's ok to make kids writ ea book report. It's ok to make them go to PE, it's ok to make them read in front of the class, it's ok to make them do little thanksgiving plays of being pilgrims and indians, but when it turns to religion it's "too far".

My question again is...why? Why should religion get some special privlidge?

Could there be exceptions in special cases?

If a particular religion carried some emphatic prohibition against even simulating other religious acts (and this could be verified by some reasonable means), could a child be excused from the lesson, or be permitted to merely observe?

Could there be exceptions in special cases?

If a particular religion carried some emphatic prohibition against even simulating other religious acts (and this could be verified by some reasonable means), could a child be excused from the lesson, or be permitted to merely observe?

Well sure, but that has less to do with the act and more to do with the belief of the holder. I'd have no problem excusing someone from taking part in a practical demonstration if their religion forbade them from doing so.

But on the same time, I'd have no problem excusing someone from taking part in running around the track if their religion forbade them running in circles...

But on the same time, I'd have no problem excusing someone from taking part in running around the track if their religion forbade them running in circles...

You'd probably insist that they held some 'mainstream' religion with its own Wikipedia article before you exempted them, though. :mad:

Well sure, but that has less to do with the act and more to do with the belief of the holder. I'd have no problem excusing someone from taking part in a practical demonstration if their religion forbade them from doing so.

But on the same time, I'd have no problem excusing someone from taking part in running around the track if their religion forbade them running in circles...

Pentacostal Christian, Ten Commandments. Oh, and innumerable references to Jesus being the "only" way, and Jesus's admonition on "how" to pray (Lord's Prayer).

Also, on the subject of you being a lawyer, I find you still have to wipe the ten tons of egg off of your face on how wrong you were about the Second Amendment.

Also, on the subject of you being a lawyer, I find you still have to wipe the ten tons of egg off of your face on how wrong you were about the Second Amendment.

care to find a link for me there DK?

No?

Didn't think so.

Well sure, but that has less to do with the act and more to do with the belief of the holder. I'd have no problem excusing someone from taking part in a practical demonstration if their religion forbade them from doing so.

But on the same time, I'd have no problem excusing someone from taking part in running around the track if their religion forbade them running in circles...

Huh...maybe if I can convince myself to become a Scientologist, I can quit taking my court appointed meds.

Could there be exceptions in special cases?

If a particular religion carried some emphatic prohibition against even simulating other religious acts (and this could be verified by some reasonable means), could a child be excused from the lesson, or be permitted to merely observe?

I sorta get that. Even if say the children where Atheist then what harm befalls them if they just do it?

Huh...maybe if I can convince myself to become a Scientologist, I can quit taking my court appointed meds.

I need to be a scientologist so I can stop taking my meds, but I need to stop taking my meds in order to believe in scientology!

Huh...maybe if I can convince myself to become a Scientologist, I can quit taking my court appointed meds.

Just quit taking your court appointed meds and you'll be a Scientologist before you know it.

Edit: Damn, beaten to the punch.

I sorta get that. Even if say the children where Atheist then what harm befalls them if they just do it?

Yeah...perhaps some are concerned with what algorithm will be used to determine which of the thousands of possible spiritual practices should be demonstrated?

There is a sizable community of Muslims in Londom (I'm told), so I can see where a basic introduction to the ideas of Islam might be culturally helpful, but on the other hand, introducing the less common beliefs might also serve a purpose.

Oh, shit, dude, peyote and other entheogens...too cool for school!

I sorta get that. Even if say the children where Atheist then what harm befalls them if they just do it?

They have their self-esteem damaged. Plenty of court cases where atheists win when they're forced to engage in any religious activity - even as simple as singing Christmas carols, or doing Christmas art activities.

Yeah...perhaps some are concerned with what algorithm will be used to determine which of the thousands of possible spiritual practices should be demonstrated?

There is a sizable community of Muslims in Londom (I'm told), so I can see where a basic introduction to the ideas of Islam might be culturally helpful, but on the other hand, introducing the less common beliefs might also serve a purpose.

Oh, shit, dude, peyote and other entheogens...too cool for school!


There are many many Muslims in and around London. Yeah it is a good idea to make sure kids have an understanding of the belifes and lifestyle choices of our multiethnic, and religous community. Although religion being the sticky thing that it is shoud perhaps be better thought about first.

I mean I wonder how a devout Hindu child would react to being told they had bow down face East and pray to Allah?

Indeed I wonder how a devout Muslim would react to being told that he had to let his little sister put a tread sournd his wrist?

When it comes to Catholicism, the one exclusive religious rite to Catholicism (Eucharist) is actually closed to anybody who's not Catholic. Protestants don't believe its actually body and blood of Christ, so we tell them not to join in our religious communion at Mass. We definitely don't force the Eucharist on anybody, at least not anymore. And to the people who compare economics (which I love) to religion, I declare you to be a moron. Religion is much deeper to the self than economics is. Religion enters into who someone is, economics does not. Unless that someone is Ayn Rand:)

So, let me get this straight...

Most of you believe then that it's ok to punish children for refusing to take communion?
I doubt it. It's only because it's islamic prayer that they're defending, probably because it helps 'cultural understanding' or some crap like that. If it was Christian prayer those same people would probably be screaming about racism and religious persecution.

Anyway, it seems that the teacher has been suspended. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032915/Teacher-suspended-punishing-boys-refused-kneel-pray-Allah.html) Great, I hope the bitch loses her job!

Do you remember when that child got in trouble for naming his teddy bear Allah?

They have their self-esteem damaged. Plenty of court cases where atheists win when they're forced to engage in any religious activity - even as simple as singing Christmas carols, or doing Christmas art activities.

I wouldn't force any student to do something which, for cultural or personal reasons deeply troubles them. I myself once avoided cutting up a living frog.
I wouldn't ask a black kid to "simulate" being a slave for purposes of discussing American history. I wouldn't ask an animal lover to simulate clubbing a baby seal for purposes of teaching about the Canadian economy.

Fact: There is time when simulation like that is truly necessary in teaching, and that is when you expect the learner to be actually doing it at a later date. Driver's Ed? Yes. Martial Arts? Yes. Comparative Religion? There is nothing there that can't be effectively taught in less potentially hurtful manner- reading and discussion, or maybe a short film. So why would a teacher pick this play acting method?

I have all kinds of answers, none of them good, so to be generous I'll fall back on the old Axom: never attribute to Malice that which can be explained by Stupidity.

She also added that suspension was not a disciplinary measure.
Anyway, it seems that the teacher has been suspended. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032915/Teacher-suspended-punishing-boys-refused-kneel-pray-Allah.html)
She also added that suspension was not a disciplinary measure.

Do you remember when that child got in trouble for naming his teddy bear Allah?
No.


It was the teacher, and the bear was called Muhammad.

She also added that suspension was not a disciplinary measure.

Yeah. Teachers are suspended all the time for shits and giggles.

RE teachers should be punished.

Yeah. Teachers are suspended all the time for shits and giggles.

:rolleyes:

There is an investigation into the allegations. The teacher has been suspended while the investigations take place.

Stop the press, it is unheard of. Eek eek, oh the eek.

Save your silly antics for the conclusion of the investigation.

I hope the bitch loses her job!

I would like you to provide links to similar reactions of yours to teachers enforcing Christian prayers, or to pharmacists not filling contraceptive prescriptions for religious reasons - and so on.

I mean, surely, you are a coherent person, right?

Yes I know that I should have writtern it as 'facts'. So do you claim that what you wrote to be fact or are you just making something up to support your belief ;) It was intended as tounge in cheel Mura I don't know if you missed that or not.
I was aware that you were trying to be witty. Also, I didn't make up anything that I said.

When it comes to Catholicism, the one exclusive religious rite to Catholicism (Eucharist) is actually closed to anybody who's not Catholic. Protestants don't believe its actually body and blood of Christ, so we tell them not to join in our religious communion at Mass. We definitely don't force the Eucharist on anybody, at least not anymore. And to the people who compare economics (which I love) to religion, I declare you to be a moron. Religion is much deeper to the self than economics is. Religion enters into who someone is, economics does not. Unless that someone is Ayn Rand:)
Maybe at your church. I'm not Catholic, but I've attended Catholic services (at holidays and funerals) where I practically had to fake a seizure to get out of the invitations to partake of the eucharist.

Oh, and before you start calling people morons or other personal insults, you should make an effort to understand what they were saying. The comparison was to two sets of beliefs that any given student could think is wrong. So, the question is, if a student can reasonably be expected to pretend to support an economic philosophy that he really doesn't support at all, for the sake the classwork, then why can't he do the same for a religion he doesn't believe in? Remember, to the person who doesn't believe in the religion, it really doesn't have any more personal impact than economic theory.

Or are you suggesting that if a Christian were to act like a Muslim for 15 minutes, he wouldn't feel like a Christian anymore, because he would have suffered a blow to his sense of who he is a person?

So, the teacher is being suspended. *Not* as a punishment (right).

Can I use the teacher to demonstrate a Christian baptism? Just hold them underwater for 20-30 minutes (to wash off all them nasty sins) then when they come up, they will have found Jesus. It's simple, educational and informative.

*Look at* vs *actually engage in the physical activity of*. Very different, and very meaningful.
I engaged in some physical activities involved in Jewish prayer; wearing the items for a brief period. I was in no way praying.

I wasn't forced to do it, as I've always enjoyed learning about religion, but if we are to condemn the teacher we must make a distinction: were the children in question 'forced' to take part in a religious education class, part of their compulsory curriculum IIRC, or were they actually forced to pray to a deity they didn't worship?

So, the teacher is being suspended. *Not* as a punishment (right).

Can I use the teacher to demonstrate a Christian baptism? Just hold them underwater for 20-30 minutes (to wash off all them nasty sins) then when they come up, they will have found Jesus. It's simple, educational and informative.Not to mention homicide.

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah
Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html


1.they weren't "forced". "forcing" someone means to use force on him. they were asked to do something by their teacher and they refused. we can argue whether it was a valid educational project - and I think it wasn't: I think that ANY RE is totally useless - , but they weren't forced. they got punished for not obeying the teacher.

2.title and caption of the article are quite contradicting. title says "punished for not praying Allah". article says "punished for not taking part in the demonstration of how muslim pray".

3.there is no "Muslim headgear" - except for that white cap hadji alone can wear iirc, and I doubt that someone had the kids wear that as it is unlikely that they went in pilgrimage to Mecca. there are various headgears of various cultures where the plurality is muslim, but no "official muslim headgear by the Prophet's appointment". that would be like saying that a Fedora or a Borsalino are "christian headgear".

4.then again, it's the DaiLIE Mail.

I think that ANY RE is totally useless
Why is education about one of the most potent and powerful forces in the world 'useless'?

there is no "Muslim headgear" - except for that white cap hadji alone can wear iirc, and I doubt that someone had the kids wear that as it is unlikely that they went in pilgrimage to Mecca.
The article(s) are probably talking about the kufi, but as you correctly say, it's not a strictly Islamic piece of headgear; many men of all faiths or none in Africa and the Middle East wear one.

IIRC, it's a tradition that Mohammed's companions never left their heads bare, so many Muslim men feel their head should be covered by a kufi, keffiyeh or similar.

4.then again, it's the DaiLIE Mail.

Richard Osborne (of all people) was going through a few Telegraph and Mail stories there on CH4 on monday night. Interestingly enough, the shite about muslims is identical in intent to the articles they used publish abnout the Jews in the 1920's and 30's....

They also looked into the whole muslim "handwash" nonsense. Hysteria, hype and bollocks, according to the various (non muslim) medical people he talked to. Likewise a supposed "muslim" attack on soldiers housing...It was interesting, though rather depressing. I'd imagine its available via that 4OD thing.

Why is education about one of the most potent and powerful forces in the world 'useless'?
Because most of the time it takes either the meaning of:
1.let's indoctrinate kids to the local mainstream religion (this not being the case I guess)
2.let's explain to the kids that all people should worship some kind of deity (this being the case I guess)

anyway, my experience says that being an atheist kid in a school with compulsory RE does SUCK (compulsory catholic RE in italian state school until '83, when you could opt to leave the class during RE). having some of your class fellows yelling you "godless heathen, you'll go to hell, you don't exist, God hates yoo!" or the RE teacher forbidding you to say "I disagree" because "it's GOSPEL!" makes you quite uncomfortable with the idea of RE in schools. you want RE, go ter church/mosque/whatevah!

Richard Osborne (of all people) was going through a few Telegraph and Mail stories there on CH4 on monday night. Interestingly enough, the shite about muslims is identical in intent to the articles they used publish abnout the Jews in the 1920's and 30's....


It's called recycling... it's good for the environment! :D

Because most of the time it takes either the meaning of:
1.let's indoctrinate kids to the local mainstream religion (this not being the case I guess)
2.let's explain to the kids that all people should worship some kind of deity (this being the case I guess)
It's unfortunate if you had to sit through the above bullshit, but I don't think "most of the time" it is the case.

RE, both in school and university, has always been completely non-denominational, no preaching, just a rounded education in the practices and beliefs of many different religions. It has helped me wonderfully in understanding some very strange beliefs from around the world, and in the case of major religions that underpin many beliefs of the worlds populace, it's been a vital tool in digging through the layers of perceived wisdom. (A discussion of Eastern philosophy, for example, would be hampered without a rudimentary knowledge of Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism, in particular.)

having some of your class fellows yelling you "godless heathen, you'll go to hell, you don't exist, God hates yoo!" or the RE teacher forbidding you to say "I disagree" because "it's GOSPEL!" makes you quite uncomfortable with the idea of RE in schools.
That's not religious education, that's religious indoctrination.

you want RE, go ter church/mosque/whatevah!
Then how would I learn about religious traditions that don't have a temple/meeting place near me?

Maybe at your church. I'm not Catholic, but I've attended Catholic services (at holidays and funerals) where I practically had to fake a seizure to get out of the invitations to partake of the eucharist.


I don't know what the conversation is about but I very much doubt those are traditional catholic churches by any means, in fact it's quite rude to partake in the Eucharist if you're not catholic. I used to do this for a while whenever I went to a catholic church and also at services at my secondary school (which was a catholic school) until someone pointed out that I'm supposed to actually receive a blessing instead, when one family found out that I had been taking the bread without going through the various required sacraments, the mother was actually quite offended and it was an awkward situation.

It's unfortunate if you had to sit through the above bullshit, but I don't think "most of the time" it is the case.

...

That's not religious education, that's religious indoctrination.


Then I guess that your country is a bit more civilized than mine.

RE in Italy, since the times of Mussolini's Lateran Pacts with the Catholic Church, means indoctrination to catholicism, and it is formally called "IRC", that is "insegnamento della religione cattolica" (lesson of catholic religion). The RE teachers, even in the State schools, are paid by the State, but are appointed by the local catholic bishop - and can get fired from teaching RE at his whim.

I guess my personal experience has biased my quite strongly against any kind of RE.

Then I guess that your country is a bit more civilized than mine.
Perhaps, though you guys do have decent pasta.

And sun.

appointed by the local catholic bishop - and can get fired from teaching RE at his whim.
That's pretty fucked up.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m298/rw4th/Veritas_Vos_Liberabit.png

then again, it's the DaiLIE Mail.

Actually, it was also on the BBC North West regional news program (North West Tonight) only it said the school was in Cheshire. So unless exactly the same thing has happened in two schools, either the BBC or the Daily Mail have made a mistake.

Or are you suggesting that if a Christian were to act like a Muslim for 15 minutes, he wouldn't feel like a Christian anymore, because he would have suffered a blow to his sense of who he is a person?
The genuine 1st- and 2nd-century Christians believed they should accept death by gruesome torture rather than play-act at worship of another god, regardless of whether it was without any inner belief. A Christian who considers temporary play-acting as no big deal is, indeed, not true to the tradition of Christianity at all.

I don't know what the conversation is about
Rule of thumb: This is where you should always stop typing and go read the thread before posting anything.

but I very much doubt those are traditional catholic churches by any means, in fact it's quite rude to partake in the Eucharist if you're not catholic. I used to do this for a while whenever I went to a catholic church and also at services at my secondary school (which was a catholic school) until someone pointed out that I'm supposed to actually receive a blessing instead, when one family found out that I had been taking the bread without going through the various required sacraments, the mother was actually quite offended and it was an awkward situation.
I don't know any new-agey, Unitarian-style Catholics. All the Catholics I know are WW2 or Korea vets and their peers -- my aged relatives and their friends from the factory or golf course. They neither go to nor are buried by non-traditional churches.

However, I guess the churches they do go to are more worried about sending people away hungry or something. Maybe it's because they are mostly Italian congregations. I don't know. My experiences were all along the lines of the priest and everybody else looking at me and offering it in a "Are you sure you don't want any?" kind of manner, and keeping that up until it felt more awkward to say no-thanks. It was especially uncomfortable at the funeral of one of my grandmothers. The non-Catholic relatives were the majority attending the service, and she'd said she wanted a Mass so we paid (donated) for one, and I don't know if nobody explained to the priest that we weren't Catholic or or if he was just bound and determined to make it look like a good Mass for the dead lady, or what, but anyway... it was weird and embarrassing, but nobody got offended.

The genuine 1st- and 2nd-century Christians believed they should accept death by gruesome torture rather than play-act at worship of another god, regardless of whether it was without any inner belief. A Christian who considers temporary play-acting as no big deal is, indeed, not true to the tradition of Christianity at all.
Piffle, for the following reasons:

1) If modern Christianity were still adhering to the standards of the 1st and 2nd century Christians, they'd be ordaining women right and left and worshipping in their homes, not building fancy churches.

2) The ancient Christians were not being asked to pretend to stand in someone else's shoes for a brief time in order to understand those other people better. They were being ordered to renounce their own true beliefs and conform to the official social norm of the time, for their whole lives, or else forfeit those lives. No one was asking those schoolkids to convert to a different religion under threat of death or injury. So your analogy is false.

3) And anyway, now that I think of it, the early Christians who were persecuted by the Romans were not asked to convert at all. In fact, emperors like Claudius, Nero, and Trajan were happy to have them not convert and proudly proclaim their faiths, because it made them more visible targets for scapegoating, to distract the Roman masses from the problems caused by their corrupt government. If the Christians had converted (even falsely), they would have become useless in that way. I mean, what point would there have been in all those spectacular massacres if the Christians appeared to be just like other Romans? (Though it backfired on them anyway.) So, your analogy fails on the grounds that you got your history wrong, too.

Wonder if the students will also be forced to participate in the chopping off of an infidel's head, the achievement or martyrdom through an explosive vest, female genital mutilation, or any other cultural awareness exercises.

I'm waiting for Nazi History day where I can wear a slick SS uniform in a giant parade, round up all the "untermensch" in the classroom for deportation and gassing, and plot the takeover of France. Thats a great learning experience too, and would help me understand the Nazis far better.

The genuine 1st- and 2nd-century Christians believed they should accept death by gruesome torture rather than play-act at worship of another god, regardless of whether it was without any inner belief. A Christian who considers temporary play-acting as no big deal is, indeed, not true to the tradition of Christianity at all.

Inaccurate "traditional" reference.

Piffle, for the following reasons:

1) If modern Christianity were still adhering to the standards of the 1st and 2nd century Christians, they'd be ordaining women right and left and worshipping in their homes, not building fancy churches.

2) The ancient Christians were not being asked to pretend to stand in someone else's shoes for a brief time in order to understand those other people better. They were being ordered to renounce their own true beliefs and conform to the official social norm of the time, for their whole lives, or else forfeit those lives. No one was asking those schoolkids to convert to a different religion under threat of death or injury. So your analogy is false.

3) And anyway, now that I think of it, the early Christians who were persecuted by the Romans were not asked to convert at all. In fact, emperors like Claudius, Nero, and Trajan were happy to have them not convert and proudly proclaim their faiths, because it made them more visible targets for scapegoating, to distract the Roman masses from the problems caused by their corrupt government. If the Christians had converted (even falsely), they would have become useless in that way. I mean, what point would there have been in all those spectacular massacres if the Christians appeared to be just like other Romans? (Though it backfired on them anyway.) So, your analogy fails on the grounds that you got your history wrong, too.

Valid counterpoint.

Wonder if the students will also be forced to participate in the chopping off of an infidel's head, the achievement or martyrdom through an explosive vest, female genital mutilation, or any other cultural awareness exercises.

I'm waiting for Nazi History day where I can wear a slick SS uniform in a giant parade, round up all the "untermensch" in the classroom for deportation and gassing, and plot the takeover of France. Thats a great learning experience too, and would help me understand the Nazis far better.

Delusional psychotic rant.

Wonder if the students will also be forced to participate in the chopping off of an infidel's head, the achievement or martyrdom through an explosive vest, female genital mutilation, or any other cultural awareness exercises.

I'm waiting for Nazi History day where I can wear a slick SS uniform in a giant parade, round up all the "untermensch" in the classroom for deportation and gassing, and plot the takeover of France. Thats a great learning experience too, and would help me understand the Nazis far better.


...or spend a few years coked out of ones head, land a governorship, then a presidency, then rely on faith in 'Gawd', mom and apple pie (and possibly ol yeller) to start a war, with a damn good possiblity of a second, while ones buddies justify it with such vigour that 'freedom' and 'democracy' become cyphers for 'imperilalism' and 'hypocrisy'..... you could just go for a green card straight after...

(An off topic observation - Turning 'freedom' into almost a dirty word...Thats his legacy)

Delusional psychotic rant.

It's called sarcasm - something you're unfamiliar with.

It's called sarcasm - something you're unfamiliar with.

No, it's called reductio ad absurdum, a fallacy, which, in this case, is based on misconceptions about how the Muslim religion works.

As for sarcasm, I'm perfectly familiar with it. For instance:

Your posts are very intelligent and insightful and have lots of good points, and you're not DK, no sir!

Piffle

:eek: :p

Nobody was praying, forced or otherwise.

All that is reported is that the children were involved in a religious education class and refused to take part in a "practical demonstration" of Islamic prayer.

And if taking part in a practical demonstration of prayer isn't prayer then what is?

And if taking part in a practical demonstration of prayer isn't prayer then what is?

A demonstration. Much like you don't need someone who's asphyxiating to perform a CPR demonstration.

Wonder if the students will also be forced to participate in the chopping off of an infidel's head, the achievement or martyrdom through an explosive vest, female genital mutilation, or any other cultural awareness exercises.

I'm waiting for Nazi History day where I can wear a slick SS uniform in a giant parade, round up all the "untermensch" in the classroom for deportation and gassing, and plot the takeover of France. Thats a great learning experience too, and would help me understand the Nazis far better.
You know what you don't have to wait for? Strawman Day. Because that's every day that we have you in the party.

And if taking part in a practical demonstration of prayer isn't prayer then what is?
Well... praying would be, I guess.

But taking part in a demonstration is no more praying than playing with dollhouses is homeownership.

Wonder if the students will also be forced to participate in the chopping off of an infidel's head, the achievement or martyrdom through an explosive vest, female genital mutilation, or any other cultural awareness exercises.


This is as offensive and laughably alarmist as saying that a day when my mother cooked latkes for the 3rd grade is a sign to "wonder if the students will also be forced to participate in the execution of the Lord Christ, the achievement of Israeli supremacy by bombing Palestinian children, male genital mutilation or any other cultural awareness exercises."


I'm waiting for Nazi History day where I can wear a slick SS uniform in a giant parade, round up all the "untermensch" in the classroom for deportation and gassing, and plot the takeover of France. Thats a great learning experience too, and would help me understand the Nazis far better.

For some reason, I'm sure you are indeed waiting for that day.

This is as offensive and laughably alarmist as saying that a day when my mother cooked latkes for the 3rd grade is a sign to "wonder if the students will also be forced to participate in the execution of the Lord Christ, the achievement of Israeli supremacy by bombing Palestinian children, male genital mutilation or any other cultural awareness exercises."



For some reason, I'm sure you are indeed waiting for that day.

You're good!!! :eek:

I'm waiting for Nazi History day where I can wear a slick SS uniform in a giant parade, round up all the "untermensch" in the classroom for deportation and gassing, and plot the takeover of France. Thats a great learning experience too, and would help me understand the Nazis far better.

With your advocation of termination and sterilization programs for Muslims, which was part of the research goals of Nazi Germany for the "lesser races" by the way, along with your ardent support for the subjugation of foreign nations, as well as the surrendering of practically all civil and political rights towards the state in the name of "National Security", you don't really need help to understand the Nazis any better.

And if taking part in a practical demonstration of prayer isn't prayer then what is?
Actual prayer.

When the teacher demonstrates how to have sex in sex education, are you actually having sex with him/her?

With your advocation of termination and sterilization programs for Muslims, which was part of the research goals of Nazi Germany for the "lesser races" by the way, along with your ardent support for the subjugation of foreign nations, as well as the surrendering of practically all civil and political rights towards the state in the name of "National Security", you don't really need help to understand the Nazis any better.

Game, Set, Match and Checkmate.

I keep asking the question and it keeps getting ignored. I can be forced to stand up in front of the class and read Shakespeare. I can be forced to do a science experiment. I can be forced to do a book report. I can be forced to run around a rack. School forces me to do a lot of things and nobody raises an eyebrow. Every day students are forced into doing things, not merely passively listening, but actively participating. And nobody complans about anything.

But when suddenly the thing they're being made to do is a simulation of a religious activity, every body goes apeshit. It's ok to make kids writ ea book report. It's ok to make them go to PE, it's ok to make them read in front of the class, it's ok to make them do little thanksgiving plays of being pilgrims and indians, but when it turns to religion it's "too far".

My question again is...why? Why should religion get some special privlidge?


As my school didn't do any practical demonstrations of religion than I'm not sure how it would have dealt with that. I do know that if we were doing dissections in biology, and you felt squeamish about it, then you didn't have to take part so Religion isn't the only area where exceptions are made.

It's important to note that dissections aren't part of any biology exam. If they were necessary for the exam, you would either have had to do them or not take biology for a-level.

I think when it comes to non-essential parts of lessons like dissections and practical demonstrations of religious practice, its fine to show sensitivity about the student's feelings. There is a difference between these situations and cases like homework and chemistry experiments. These both specifically relate to the curriculum and are therefore necessary to be able to sit the exam.