NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading the Times and came across the following article, and it got me thinking - should religion have any place in school? I have my own opinion, but will leave this up to you lot to decide.

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4821368.ece)

A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises.

The move, by St Monica’s High School in Prestwich, was condemned as irresponsible by the Department for Health, which began its programme to immunise girls against the sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) this month.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service and medical evidence indicates that it could save the lives of an estimated 400 women each year in England. Trials involving more than 100,000 girls indicate that the overall rates of adverse reactions were low — equivalent to 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses administered — with no associated serious lasting effects.

(there is more - to see follow link)

(apologies for all spelling mistakes. Blame dyslexia)

I was reading the Times and came across the following article, and it got me thinking - should religion have any place in school? I ahve my own opinion, but will leave this up to you lot to decide.

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4821368.ece)

A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises.

The move, by St Monica’s High School in Prestwich, was condemned as irresponsible by the Department for Health, which began its programme to immunise girls against the sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) this month.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service and medical evidence indicates that it could save the lives of an estimated 400 women each year in England. Trials involving more than 100,000 girls indicate that the overall rates of adverse reactions were low — equivalent to 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses administered — with no associated serious lasting effects.

(there is more - to see follow link)

(apologies for all spelling mistakes. Blame dyslexia)

Sounds to me like the school is fighting fact with opinion. These always turn out soooo well. :tongue:

sure. it has a place in church run schools.

Only in private schools that choose such things.

Ishould religion have any place in school?

Depends on where that place is. as a subject, yes. as the only guiding factor to instruct kids? no.

the article tho. is not about religion but one school's view of the vaccine and innoculation process.

so the question should be, should the Governemnt be doing these innoculations at the school and should the Government be forcing these innoculations on the children?

If the parents don't want their children vaccinated, then it's the parent's choice.

I was reading the Times and came across the following article, and it got me thinking - should religion have any place in school? I ahve my own opinion, but will leave this up to you lot to decide.

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4821368.ece)

A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises.

The move, by St Monica’s High School in Prestwich, was condemned as irresponsible by the Department for Health, which began its programme to immunise girls against the sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) this month.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service and medical evidence indicates that it could save the lives of an estimated 400 women each year in England. Trials involving more than 100,000 girls indicate that the overall rates of adverse reactions were low — equivalent to 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses administered — with no associated serious lasting effects.

(there is more - to see follow link)

(apologies for all spelling mistakes. Blame dyslexia)
Well, duh, it's a Roman Catholic school. Parents can choose to send their kids to secular schools, or to get the shots from their own doctors, yes?

Your question and premise are flawed based on the article. You should have asked "Should religious beliefs dictate health care choices for minors?" or something similar.

Your question and premise are flawed based on the article. You should have asked "Should religious beliefs dictate health care choices for minors?" or something similar.

it has nothing to do with Religious Beliefs.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”
it doesn't state that their "religious beliefs states that the vaccine is bad" nor does it state that their "Religious Beliefs dictate that injections should not be administered in school".

backed up with this The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service and medical evidence indicates that it could save the lives of an estimated 400 women each year in England. Trials involving more than 100,000 girls indicate that the overall rates of adverse reactions were low — equivalent to 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses administered — with no associated serious lasting effects.
shows it not about religous beliefs.

The school in the OP story is a religious, church-run school, so, obviously, religion has a place there. In a public school, the only place for religion is as a subject of study, as in comparative religion or history of religion.

Well, duh, it's a Roman Catholic school. Parents can choose to send their kids to secular schools, or to get the shots from their own doctors, yes?

The first is not always possible this country without going private. The CoE and Catholic church run a large proportion of schools, and many others are still officially 'Christian' without being run by the church. And considering the reductions in parental choice in the last few years with 'catchment area' changes, there's little choice left.

The second option is much more feasible. It is just easier for a doctor to go into school and administer to the whole year.

it has nothing to do with Religious Beliefs.


it doesn't state that their "religious beliefs states that the vaccine is bad" nor does it state that their "Religious Beliefs dictate that injections should not be administered in school".

backed up with this
shows it not about religous beliefs.even more reason why the OP's question has no basis in the article.

it doesn't state that their "religious beliefs states that the vaccine is bad" nor does it state that their "Religious Beliefs dictate that injections should not be administered in school".

backed up with this
shows it not about religous beliefs.

It does. They are hiding behind exaggerated calls of 'side-effects' and saying schools are not the right place for it, despite numerous other routine injections and sexual education going on in the same place.

hell no! do not brainwash people from that age, if people want to believe it at an adult age, fine. induct children to this shit? hell no!

<snip>
The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service
<snip>
If this is the case, then I wonder if a more pertinent question would be why this particular school is bucking the church's line.

The first is not always possible this country without going private. The CoE and Catholic church run a large proportion of schools, and many others are still officially 'Christian' without being run by the church. And considering the reductions in parental choice in the last few years with 'catchment area' changes, there's little choice left.

The second option is much more feasible. It is just easier for a doctor to go into school and administer to the whole year.
In the US there are "Health Department Stations" and free clinics that would also vaccinate for free IF the government were to believe this is a necessary vaccination (as for flu shots, MMR, et cetera.

Mightn't they set something similar up? After all, non-school-age persons need to be vaccinated for a variety of things....

hell no! do not brainwash people from that age, if people want to believe it at an adult age, fine. induct children to this shit? hell no!
Have you even read the article, or the first post, to understand what the topic of this thread is?

In the US there are "Health Department Stations" and free clinics that would also vaccinate for free IF the government were to believe this is a necessary vaccination (as for flu shots, MMR, et cetera.

Mightn't they set something similar up? After all, non-school-age persons need to be vaccinated for a variety of things....

Such a thing might exist, but as far as I know, all required vaccinations are done in school. So, I'm assuming this is the case in this particular school, except for this vaccine, which leads me to not believe their excuses. The same things could be said of any of the normal vaccines administered. Their reasons seem to me to imply much more of a moralistic thing about pre-marital sex and promiscuity than anything to do with vaccination risks. In the end, they don't have to allow it on school premises, I just disagree with their reasons to do it.

If this is the case, then I wonder if a more pertinent question would be why this particular school is bucking the church's line.

the quote above it said it.
In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”
which is NOT a religous stance.

the quote above it said it.

which is NOT a religous stance.
I did not say it was.

But you told us what the individual school said, in the letters to parents, and then you told us what the Catholic Education Service said. The difference is obvious -- the CES says the vaccination program is okay, and the individual school says it isn't. If the CES is speaking on behalf of the church leadership, which presumably also leads this individual school, then I wonder why this school is in disagreement.

even more reason why the OP's question has no basis in the article. See post #5. ;)

It does. They are hiding behind exaggerated calls of 'side-effects' and saying schools are not the right place for it, despite numerous other routine injections and sexual education going on in the same place.
Which has NOTHING to do with religion.

Seems like a secular reason and a secular issue that just happens to come up in a Catholic school.

If a nonsectarian private school acted similarly, we would not hear of this.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

which is NOT a religous stance.

I should point out their claims are incorect and unfactual, as well as being used to hide their true, relegiously minded, reasons (in all likelyhood)

I did not say it was.

But you told us what the individual school said, in the letters to parents, and then you told us what the Catholic Education Service said. The difference is obvious -- the CES says the vaccination program is okay, and the individual school says it isn't. If the CES is speaking on behalf of the church leadership, which presumably also leads this individual school, then I wonder why this school is in disagreement.

the point is, the school is taking the stance. Their stated stance is on their doubts (not doubts baised on any test results, but their own doubts) about the vaccine.

I never said their concerns were right or wrong, nor did I say their stance was right or wrong. I just said it wasn't religious baised.

For all we know, the Govenors of the School may have heard something about the batch sent to their area. or they may believe that Schools should not be a place to administer the vaccination. but either way, their refusal (or reluctance) is not stated as being religous baised.

I should point out their claims are incorect and unfactual, as well as being used to hide their true, relegiously minded, reasons (in all likelyhood)

BACK IT UP.

is the only reason why you insist that it is religiously baised reason is because it's a catholic school?

BACK IT UP.

is the only reason why you insist that it is religiously baised reason is because it's a catholic school?
Indeed, I have run into non-religious groups that oppose mandatory vaccinations for any number of reasons.

Thats a large part of my reason. I'm an athesist I'm biased. I know it, but it doesn't change the fact that their reasons are flawed, as the article shows. I put in (in all likelyhood) to make it clear it was my opinion.

BACK IT UP.

is the only reason why you insist that it is religiously baised reason is because it's a catholic school?

That and perhaps the fact that almost all the opposition to the HPV vaccine (especially in the U.S.) has come from religious and right-wing groups that think vaccinating against a sexually-transmitted disease will somehow encourage young women to be sexually active.

That being said the OP and poll question are ridiculous and Belschaft's subsequent posts are mostly nonsense.

EDIT: Also, note the second of the two paragraphs below (emphasis added):

Frank McCarron, head teacher of St Monica’s, said that he could not comment, but Monsignor John Allen, a parish priest and governor at the school, said: “This is not a moral judgment on the vaccination. It’s a question of where this vaccination should be given and how it should be given. This matter is primarily a public health issue, not a school issue. That’s the reason we came to the decision as governors. We’re saying it’s such an important issue that parents should make that decision in consultation with their family doctor. The school is not to be used for this.”

Last year Monsignor Allen said that he felt pupils were being used as guinea pigs and suggested that the injection might encourage girls to become sexually active. “Morally it seems to be a sticking-plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity. Instead of taking it for granted that teenagers will engage in sexual activity, we can offer a vision of a full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage.”

Are we to believe the Monsignor has dropped his religious/moral objections to the vaccine and really now is holding out on public health concerns?

A Catholic school has made a decision that could cost the lives of one or more of their pupils on the basis they disagree with scientific consensus.

Riiiiiiight.

So they do this for all the other vaccinations? Or just the ones that are STD related and been linked with encouraging promiscuity?

Thats a large part of my reason. I'm an athesist I'm biased. I know it, but it doesn't change the fact that their reasons are flawed, as the article shows. I put in (in all likelyhood) to make it clear it was my opinion.

"in all likeyhood" does not prove anything execpt that it's your opinion. the fact that you (and others) are INSISTING that your (and their) opinion is correct is what I'm arguing against. also the fact that your thread is attempting to start another "Should Religion be in School" debate on a premise that has nothing to do with religion is also wrong.

btw, I also never said their reasons were flawless either. but the question I posed in Post 5 might be a better topic of discussion than should religon be in school. ;)

Should Vaccinations be done at the schools themselves and should they be mandatory?

Which has NOTHING to do with religion.

As has been stated they have deliberately misled about the risks involved, leaving their main reason as the school being the wrong place to administer this. However, schools are required to give certain vaccinations, so it is likely that their problem is with this particular vaccine, which leads thinking onto reasons why, and these are primarily religious.

Not that I expect any of this to be stated by them. Merely it is my interpretation, and I believe, why this school was selected by the media.

HPV Vaccine Myths: http://www.immunizebc.ca/ImmVacPrevDis/10+HPV+Vaccine+Myths.htm
The guinnea-pig quote is at the top of the list

As has been stated they have deliberately misled about the risks involved, leaving their main reason as the school being the wrong place to administer this. However, schools are required to give certain vaccinations, so it is likely that their problem is with this particular vaccine, which leads thinking onto reasons why, and these are primarily religious.and as I stated, I never supported their reason for their concerns. with all the Internet hoaxes going around, it's possible for mis information to be spread. (and Sparkelle proves that)

now I know schools here in the US are required to have certain Vaccinations to be administered to the child for the child to be admitted. but the question I asked was is the school the best place to administer it?

wouldn't a feild trip to the hospital or other care facility (as is sometimes done here in Hawaii) be a better way? That way if there is an usual reaction, the equiptment is right there.

Not that I expect any of this to be stated by them. Merely it is my interpretation, and I believe, why this school was selected by the media. probably... either that or it's the only school to take such a stance.

and as I stated, I never supported their reason for their concerns. with all the Internet hoaxes going around, it's possible for mis information to be spread. (and Sparkelle proves that)

now I know schools here in the US are required to have certain Vaccinations to be administered to the child for the child to be admitted. but the question I asked was is the school the best place to administer it?

wouldn't a feild trip to the hospital or other care facility (as is sometimes done here in Hawaii) be a better way? That way if there is an usual reaction, the equiptment is right there.

I would actually support that kind of field trip, though I think it's likely that the doctors/nurses coming to the school would have the necessary things in case of bad reactions. I can't see many schools thinking it was worth the effort and cost when the children could be in lessons, and also, it is far easier for a team of nurses to go out to each school and do the vaccinations, than 100 or more children roaming around a hospital, and that's just from one school.

probably... either that or it's the only school to take such a stance.

Considering the stance of the Catholic Education Service I'd expect most Catholic schools to allow it, though maybe some of the more strict ones and faith academies would be opposed. It would be nice to see statistics on uptake by schools, categorised by religious authority.

EDIT: I must sleep, I will reply in the morning.

the point is, the school is taking the stance. Their stated stance is on their doubts (not doubts baised on any test results, but their own doubts) about the vaccine.

I never said their concerns were right or wrong, nor did I say their stance was right or wrong. I just said it wasn't religious baised.

For all we know, the Govenors of the School may have heard something about the batch sent to their area. or they may believe that Schools should not be a place to administer the vaccination. but either way, their refusal (or reluctance) is not stated as being religous baised.
Yeah I got that. And like I said, I never said it was religiously based, either. I happen to agree with TCT that it is far morely likely than not that it is religiously based, but I am not arguing that.

All I am saying, and all you are ignoring while you (non)respond to my posts, is that this one school is at variance with the line of the Catholic Education Service and I question why. Do you dispute that the school's stance is at variance with the Catholic Education Service's stance in re HPV vaccine program? If not, then what's your problem with my question?

and as I stated, I never supported their reason for their concerns. with all the Internet hoaxes going around, it's possible for mis information to be spread. (and Sparkelle proves that) <snip>
How does Sparkelle prove that?

"in all likeyhood" does not prove anything execpt that it's your opinion.

If I'm reading the OP correctly that was his POINT.

How does Sparkelle prove that?

From my link on the bottom of the last page on which the BC Ministry of Health gave the facts regarding myths and concerns about the HPV vaccine.

I was about to hit "No" really quickly, but then I thought about it. How can you discuss ideology, culture, society etc without discussing religion? So yes, it must have a place in schools (That's the problem with the yes /no questions - I've found that a huge problem with the NS issues where the choice you are going to make has a little barb thrown in to it like "so what if a few people get hurt in the process?" and you still vote yes and the next day, your country is described as "bloodthirsty" or something. "Dismiss the Issue" I say!)
To the question, "Should religion be poured down kids throats?". I'd say, definitely not - unless the parents are paying the school fees.
I prefer schools to be secular, democratic and tax-payer funded but if people want to go to schools that worship the Divine Pink Fairy, I won't oppose their wishes.... just don't expect my taxes. Should Creationism be taught in schools? No! Should it be discussed as an alternative theory to Evolution? Yes!

I would actually support that kind of field trip, though I think it's likely that the doctors/nurses coming to the school would have the necessary things in case of bad reactions. I can't see many schools thinking it was worth the effort and cost when the children could be in lessons, and also, it is far easier for a team of nurses to go out to each school and do the vaccinations, than 100 or more children roaming around a hospital, and that's just from one school.
not really roaming around the hospital. at the Hospital I work at, it's not unusual to see feild trips and tours being conducted.

by having it orgainized as such, it would be easier to record which child is vaccinated and for what. and if a child develops a fatal allergy/reaction, there's less wait as there wouldn't be any need for an ambulance to be sent. also it might get more students interesting in the medical feild.

Considering the stance of the Catholic Education Service I'd expect most Catholic schools to allow it, though maybe some of the more strict ones and faith academies would be opposed. It would be nice to see statistics on uptake by schools, categorised by religious authority. that would be an interesting study. especially if it's also broken down by the type of vaccination.

EDIT: I must sleep, I will reply in the morning.night!

If I'm reading the OP correctly that was his POINT. no it wasn't. the op was trying to tie in religion and whether or not it belongs in schools by that one story that had nothing to do with religion.

the whole tone of the OP was trying to allude that the Catholic School was refusing the vaccine on a RELIGOUS principle even tho it was never stated as such.

had Belschaft asked if schools are appropriate places for vaccination or if the schools could and should dictate what vaccinations are administered, then that would be different since the article talks more about the School being concerned if school grounds are appropriate places for adminsitering vaccinations.

I don't see what the big deal is... They never offered vaccinations at my public high school, they always made us get them from a clinic off campus. If the students at said Catholic high school want that vaccination, they can go get it, no one is stopping them. They just can't get it while they're on school grounds.

As far as religion in school, I think that religious schools are made for parents who want their children to receive a religious education. As a religious man myself, I don't want to hear about religion getting bashed in public schools, but they shouldn't preach it to the students either. I also think that people who opt to put their children in a private schools (religious or otherwise) should not have to pay taxes into the public education system.

Oh dear gods! Not one of these threads again. *shakes head*

Oh dear gods! Not one of these threads again. *shakes head*

Allow me to help you.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/marvinohno2jl.jpg

There we go.

From my link on the bottom of the last page on which the BC Ministry of Health gave the facts regarding myths and concerns about the HPV vaccine.
I know that, but that list is not itself misinformation, nor does it tell us where the myths come from, so it doesn't serve to show how misinformation can be spread.

I guess, it shows something in that it shows that the myths exist. Okay, then. I get it.

That and perhaps the fact that almost all the opposition to the HPV vaccine (especially in the U.S.) has come from religious and right-wing groups that think vaccinating against a sexually-transmitted disease will somehow encourage young women to be sexually active.

That being said the OP and poll question are ridiculous and Belschaft's subsequent posts are mostly nonsense.

EDIT: Also, note the second of the two paragraphs below (emphasis added):

Frank McCarron, head teacher of St Monica’s, said that he could not comment, but Monsignor John Allen, a parish priest and governor at the school, said: “This is not a moral judgment on the vaccination. It’s a question of where this vaccination should be given and how it should be given. This matter is primarily a public health issue, not a school issue. That’s the reason we came to the decision as governors. We’re saying it’s such an important issue that parents should make that decision in consultation with their family doctor. The school is not to be used for this.”

Last year Monsignor Allen said that he felt pupils were being used as guinea pigs and suggested that the injection might encourage girls to become sexually active. “Morally it seems to be a sticking-plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity. Instead of taking it for granted that teenagers will engage in sexual activity, we can offer a vision of a full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage.”

Are we to believe the Monsignor has dropped his religious/moral objections to the vaccine and really now is holding out on public health concerns?

Red bold states it's not a religious objection. It could be a moral one since he appears to want the parents to make that choice and not have it done at the school without the parent's say (dunno if parents have to consent for the vaccine to be given at UK schools.)

he also encourages the parents to talk to their doctors. are you going to hint that those doctors will be against the HPV vaccine?

and your second bold nicely skips the two words "Last Year". but then again, I guess you think opinions cannot be changed right?

Red bold states it's not a religious objection. It could be a moral one since he appears to want the parents to make that choice and not have it done at the school without the parent's say (dunno if parents have to consent for the vaccine to be given at UK schools.)

he also encourages the parents to talk to their doctors. are you going to hint that those doctors will be against the HPV vaccine?

and your second bold nicely skips the two words "Last Year". but then again, I guess you think opinions cannot be changed right?
I think he is suggesting that he does not believe the Monsignor changed his mind about this.

I think he is suggesting that he does not believe the Monsignor changed his mind about this.

that may be. but it's funny that he takes one aspect to be "fact" but not the other tidbits from the same article.

so the question should be, should the Government be doing these innoculations at the school and should the Government be forcing these innoculations on the children?

The school is a very convenient place to vaccinate large numbers of children, and yes, the government should force innoculations on children.

If the parents don't want their children vaccinated, then it's the parent's choice.

Just like it's their parent's choice on whether or not they go to school or work as child laborers?

I also think that people who opt to put their children in a private schools (religious or otherwise) should not have to pay taxes into the public education system.

Should single people, the childless, or the elderly have to pay into the public education system?

Depends. If there is a special class that children can volunteer for, then yes.

Just like it's their parent's choice on whether or not they go to school or work as child laborers?
mmm actually it is the parent's choice if they do not want their child vacinated. The school should provide a conveinient way for all students to get immunized and educate all parents on the purpose of the vaccine. But ultimately, the parents should be able to choose. If the child later wants to get vaccinated it is still effective on adults.

mmm actually it is the parent's choice if they do not want their child vacinated.

Generally, but I'm talking normatively.

But ultimately, the parents should be able to choose. If the child later wants to get vaccinated it is still effective on adults.

Why? As an adult one could refuse to get booster shots to renew the immunity given to one as a child. As a child one does not have the ability to consent to anything so we usually let parents make decisions unless its deemed that something should either be banned or be mandatory. We ban child labor and make education mandatory for a number of years.

that may be. but it's funny that he takes one aspect to be "fact" but not the other tidbits from the same article.
What makes you think that's what he's doing? He took two "facts." Fact #1 is that the Monsignor said Statement A this year. Fact #2 is that the Monsignor said Statement B last year. Comparing those two facts and placing them against the background of the overall debate about the HPV vaccine, TCT concluded that he did not believe the Monsignor had changed his mind, only that he had changed his rhetoric. I happen to agree with TCT's opinion on this, because the Monsignor's Statement A of this year just happens to coincide exactly with the approved talking points of religiously motivated groups that oppose vaccinating teenage girls against HPV.

What I still don't understand is why this particular Monsignor is not conforming to the main line of his church, as indicated by the approval of the school vaccination program by the CES.

Red bold states it's not a religious objection. It could be a moral one since he appears to want the parents to make that choice and not have it done at the school without the parent's say (dunno if parents have to consent for the vaccine to be given at UK schools.)

he also encourages the parents to talk to their doctors. are you going to hint that those doctors will be against the HPV vaccine?

and your second bold nicely skips the two words "Last Year". but then again, I guess you think opinions cannot be changed right?

Um. If I had wanted to be deceptive, I wouldn't have quoted all that crap you put in red.

You want us to believe it is purely a coincidence that this school (apparently the only school in the UK) with alleged public health objections to this vaccine just happens to be a Catholic school?

And we are still supposed to believe in this coincidence despite the fact that the same people that run the school and imposed this ban had religious objections to the vaccine just a year ago?

And, looking at the school's website (http://www.stmonicas.co.uk/), the school officials just happen to believe a tabloid article with misinformation is helpful to parents?

I have a bridge I want to sell you. Are you interested?

BTW, if you were really paying attention, you'd note that the the OP article said: "Vaccination is not compulsory and parents are sent an explaining letter and consent form."

What is disturbing here, as explained in the article, is that the school is (1) denying the DHS a convenient way to disseminate the vaccine and (2) IRRESPONSIBLY raising INAPPROPRIATE fears about the vaccine's safety.

EDIT: I guess to me, what part of being skeptical of the school's putative reasons for this escapes you? Do you really believe their religious objections just vanished in the last year, but were magically replaced by so-called "public health concerns" that have little or no basis in fact? Are you really going to imply I'm being unfair by being skeptical?

Um. If I had wanted to be deceptive, I wouldn't have quoted all that crap you put in red.

As usual, Cat, you fail to take in to account the percumbent case law:

Note, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 27-29, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905), which utterly proves you wrong.

I know what you're thinking, its from the wrong country, but if you actually took the time to read the precedent, you'd notice that its for Middlesex County, which sounds extremely British. It thus clearly applies.

The fact is, opinions change. I used to dislike Jews because they are the Devil. Now, I dislike them because they carry Tay-Sachs disease, which is extremely deadly, painful, and entirely non-communicable.

mmm actually it is the parent's choice if they do not want their child vacinated.

Should they also get to choose wheather the child gets fed?

If the child later wants to get vaccinated it is still effective on adults.

By which point it may be to late as they may already have the virus.

The school is a very convenient place to vaccinate large numbers of children, and yes, the government should force innoculations on children.



Just like it's their parent's choice on whether or not they go to school or work as child laborers?



Should single people, the childless, or the elderly have to pay into the public education system?

Yes! Just like healthy people should help pay for public health, non-readers pay for public libraries and young singles pay for public retirement homes. Why? Because we are a society.
User pays is a philosophy that sucks. It's designed for the rich and promoted by the rich. Its underlying philosophy is nasty too. It's individuals who were born into or crawled up to the top bracket who are saying "Look at me! I made it all by myself! I owe nobody nothing!" That's bullshit.
"Ask not what your society can do for you; ask what you can do for your society" - A slight misquoting of JFK there.

I don't see what the big deal is... They never offered vaccinations at my public high school, they always made us get them from a clinic off campus.

The big deal is that the school refuses to cooperate with something that is beneficial for its students due to religious objections.

The deal is "made bigger" due to the school also using the classic "if we do not like the facts we say they are wrong and unproven without ever bothering to substantiate our own views" tactic. That is not a mindset one should teach children; unless of course one wants to indoctrinate them.

Of course, as someone who considers religious indoctrination worse than rape, I am a tad bit biased.

not really roaming around the hospital. at the Hospital I work at, it's not unusual to see feild trips and tours being conducted.

Not that it's a bad idea, but I just can't see it happening in this country (nor have I ever heard of it happening). It just seems rather impractical to me.

by having it orgainized as such, it would be easier to record which child is vaccinated and for what. and if a child develops a fatal allergy/reaction, there's less wait as there wouldn't be any need for an ambulance to be sent. also it might get more students interesting in the medical feild.

Why would it be easier to record? the same doctors are going to be doing the vaccinations with the same records at either place.

I think the risks of vaccinations have been significantly enlarged by those with unnecessary fears, and this has been highlighted by the MMR fiasco in this Britain. Numerous testing would have been gone through and trials done before it were ever released to children.

that would be an interesting study. especially if it's also broken down by the type of vaccination.

Yes, indeed, though I can see schools such as this seceding from the study.

I was reading the Times and came across the following article, and it got me thinking - should religion have any place in school? I have my own opinion, but will leave this up to you lot to decide.

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4821368.ece)

A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises.

The move, by St Monica’s High School in Prestwich, was condemned as irresponsible by the Department for Health, which began its programme to immunise girls against the sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) this month.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service and medical evidence indicates that it could save the lives of an estimated 400 women each year in England. Trials involving more than 100,000 girls indicate that the overall rates of adverse reactions were low — equivalent to 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses administered — with no associated serious lasting effects.

(there is more - to see follow link)

(apologies for all spelling mistakes. Blame dyslexia)


Not sure what this has to do with the original question?

hell no! do not brainwash people from that age, if people want to believe it at an adult age, fine. induct children to this shit? hell no!

Of course the thing with this line of reasoning is it can also be used the other way.

Induct children into that Atheist shit! No way!

You see what I mean.

Of course the thing with this line of reasoning is it can also be used the other way.

Induct children into that Atheist shit! No way!

Which is why schools should explain there are thousands of religions on this planet, expand on the historical and social importance of some etc. - but should NOT teach that one of those views is correct, let alone base policies that seem detrimental to the students on such beliefs. That is a 16+ lifestyle choice.

Which is why schools should explain there are thousands of religions on this planet, expand on the historical and social importance of some etc. - but should NOT teach that one of those views is correct, let alone base policies that seem detrimental to the students on such beliefs. That is a 16+ lifestyle choice.

Then the answer must be yes, religoin like all docterines or belife systems, or philosophies have a place in schools.

Then the answer must be yes, religoin like all docterines or belife systems, or philosophies have a place in schools.

Of course. Just not the place the school in the OP gives it.

Of course. Just not the place the school in the OP gives it.

Well I don't know. If non religious schools are required to teach RE, then surly religous schools are required to teach secular thought and philosophy?

Well I don't know. If non religious schools are required to teach RE, then surly religous schools are required to teach secular thought and philosophy?

What does that have to do with the OP ?

Which is why schools should explain there are thousands of religions on this planet, expand on the historical and social importance of some etc. - but should NOT teach that one of those views is correct, let alone base policies that seem detrimental to the students on such beliefs. That is a 16+ lifestyle choice.

Having gone to a Catholic school I can tell you that this happened at mine. Of course wasn't the base policy reasoning behind this vaccine because of previous times that it had been administered and the side effects that occurred?

Of course there is a wide variety of beliefs and views and every school makes policy based on these beliefs and views to say that they can't make a school policy would shake the very core of every single school.

Having gone to a Catholic school I can tell you that this happened at mine. Of course wasn't the base policy reasoning behind this vaccine because of previous times that it had been administered and the side effects that occurred?

Of course there is a wide variety of beliefs and views and every school makes policy based on these beliefs and views to say that they can't make a school policy would shake the very core of every single school.

No, this vaccine has not been administered in schools or as part of any mass vaccination programme before. Also every other Catholic School in the country has quite happily agreed to the programme. This is just a headteacher trying to get in the headlines.

What does that have to do with the OP ?

Nothing at all, but then the OP has nowt to do with the question asked.

Curious that a Catholic school should be against the use of these vaccines. After all, the alternative way to prevent HPV is to use condoms, and we can't have that now can we?

But seriously, I seem to remember very different numbers about these vaccines, that is larger numbers of kids for which the side effects got really bad and fewer lives saved, meaning just about any other idea to save lives will be more cost effective. Oh well... lies, damn lies, and statistics. Choose to believe someone elses numbers, and you will get different conclusions.

Me, I'm opposed to forced vaccinations, especially when they're against diseases that can be prevented by not being stupid. And that has nothing to do with religion.

A study from 2006 that I found says the cervarix (i.e. the vaccine in use) "continues to show promise." In 2006. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PDG/is_/ai_n26905698
As in this vaccine is still in the process of study. What about long term effects.

In fact, a report from June of this year (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2008_June_30/ai_n27875490?tag=col1;fa_related_widget) says they are just now submitting their study for approval in England and the U.S.

The argument that the school made was a valid one. This is not the place for such an experimental vaccine. And parents do need to take their daughters to a doctor and discuss it. There is no religious debate here. It's just a religious school arguing on the side of reason.

No, this vaccine has not been administered in schools or as part of any mass vaccination programme before. Also every other Catholic School in the country has quite happily agreed to the programme. This is just a headteacher trying to get in the headlines.

so it is just one headmaster who is doing this, sort of debunks any big theory how the catholic church is involved in this, this could very well happen at any non-religious private school (or public as it is known in the UK)

-snip-

Your article is not a religious issue.

Not that it's a bad idea, but I just can't see it happening in this country (nor have I ever heard of it happening). It just seems rather impractical to me. really? wow.

do you have "take your son/daughter to work day"?

it's an informal occasion here.

Why would it be easier to record? the same doctors are going to be doing the vaccinations with the same records at either place.because records are entered right then and there. without the need for taking things down seperately nor waiting for wireless connectivity. (especially when dealing with patient information and security.)

[QUOTE=Extreme Ironing;14058025]I think the risks of vaccinations have been significantly enlarged by those with unnecessary fears, and this has been highlighted by the MMR fiasco in this Britain. Numerous testing would have been gone through and trials done before it were ever released to children.[QUOTE] I was more concerned with the record keeping than the safety of the vaccination involved. guess that's how much trust I put in these med companies to do the proper research.

I was reading the Times and came across the following article, and it got me thinking - should religion have any place in school? I have my own opinion, but will leave this up to you lot to decide.

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4821368.ece)

A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises.

The move, by St Monica’s High School in Prestwich, was condemned as irresponsible by the Department for Health, which began its programme to immunise girls against the sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) this month.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service and medical evidence indicates that it could save the lives of an estimated 400 women each year in England. Trials involving more than 100,000 girls indicate that the overall rates of adverse reactions were low — equivalent to 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses administered — with no associated serious lasting effects.

(there is more - to see follow link)

(apologies for all spelling mistakes. Blame dyslexia)

No...

Frank McCarron, head teacher of St Monica’s, said that he could not comment, but Monsignor John Allen, a parish priest and governor at the school, said: “This is not a moral judgment on the vaccination. It’s a question of where this vaccination should be given and how it should be given. This matter is primarily a public health issue, not a school issue. That’s the reason we came to the decision as governors. We’re saying it’s such an important issue that parents should make that decision in consultation with their family doctor. The school is not to be used for this.”

Far from religion, more towards common sense.

Far from religion, more towards common sense.

Except that the stated reasons to oppose these specific vaccinations are:
-that it might promote having intercourse outside wedlock.
-that noone even knows if they work, without citing sources for that claim

Religion in action that is ;)

I was reading the Times and came across the following article, and it got me thinking - should religion have any place in school? I have my own opinion, but will leave this up to you lot to decide.

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4821368.ece)

A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises.

The move, by St Monica’s High School in Prestwich, was condemned as irresponsible by the Department for Health, which began its programme to immunise girls against the sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) this month.

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

The vaccination programme has been approved by the Catholic Education Service and medical evidence indicates that it could save the lives of an estimated 400 women each year in England. Trials involving more than 100,000 girls indicate that the overall rates of adverse reactions were low — equivalent to 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses administered — with no associated serious lasting effects.

(there is more - to see follow link)

(apologies for all spelling mistakes. Blame dyslexia)

Yes.
A private school, run by a given religion, is perfectly within its rights to run that school as it sees fit.

Far from religion, more towards common sense.

But would they have the same issue with another, less controversial vaccine, like say MMR?

Except that the stated reasons to oppose these specific vaccinations are:
-that it might promote having intercourse outside wedlock.
-that noone even knows if they work, without citing sources for that claim

Religion in action that is ;)

Except the article talks about how the side effects they don't want to be responsible for and that parents not the school should take responsibility over these sort of decisions. Talking about making claims without citing sources for those claims ;)

In a letter to parents, the school says that the vaccine has been proved neither safe nor effective, that girls who took part in a pilot programme last year suffered side-effects and that the vaccine could “interfere with the body’s natural defences”. It concluded: “We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.”

Except the article talks about how the side effects they don't want to be responsible for and that parents not the school should take responsibility over these sort of decisions. Talking about making claims without citing sources for those claims ;)

Noone is forcing the school to involuntarily give it to all students. The school is refusing to offer a vaccine and citing apparent side-effects. I would anticipate that the school would continue to offer MMR or flu shots regardless of the side effects experienced by a few students.

Of course, without knowing whether the school offers other vaccines, we cannot make any assumptions about the school's motivation for not offering this vaccine. However, the chances are high that their religious convictions play a strong role in their decision.

the promoting of any single or particular belief or family of beliefs: no.

that the diversity of beliefs exist, and that existence may not be limited to what we can observe tangably, perhapse yes.

that individual students, instructors and adminsitrators may commune quietely without imposition on others, with their own inner feelings of belief, certainly.

schools need to be about science and art. about useful tangable understanding. about nuts and bolts and tools and gears and not hurting each other and getting along with the web of life the air we breathe depends upon.

about creating and exploring which are the basis of real gratification all our lives.

but absolutely NOT about promoting ANY sort of bias, be it religeous, political, economic, or anything else.

students should not be told not to explore a diversity of beliefs, ANY genuine mostly harmless belief, nor in any way inhibited from doing so.

i think that really defines the limits of what place of any belief, in a public eduction setting legitimately is.

i think students need to be taught about statistical kharma, and the effect, of how all of us togather, contribute to the incentives that motivate the decisions that create the kinds of conditions we experience. but i absolutely believe this can be done, without having to refer to the teachings of any one belief. even beliefs outside of religeon as well, such as political and economic ones.

I was reading the Times and came across the following article, and it got me thinking - should religion have any place in school? I have my own opinion, but will leave this up to you lot to decide.
Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4821368.ece)
[I]A Roman Catholic school is refusing to allow 12 and 13-year-old girls to be immunised against cervical cancer on its premises. .....


Religion has a place in religious schools. This is a non-issue, since they are not preventing anyone from getting an immunization. They are just not allowing them to get it on school premises.

Noone is forcing the school to involuntarily give it to all students. The school is refusing to offer a vaccine and citing apparent side-effects. I would anticipate that the school would continue to offer MMR or flu shots regardless of the side effects experienced by a few students.

Of course, without knowing whether the school offers other vaccines, we cannot make any assumptions about the school's motivation for not offering this vaccine. However, the chances are high that their religious convictions play a strong role in their decision.

Well it also depends what the side effects are, if the side effect of a MMR shot is a chance of feeling faint but the side effects of this shot is much worse or more likely to happen, they feel they don't want it. Regardless the reason was apparent side effect from previous trials unlike what some people are claiming just for the sake of it.

If it's considered under educational pretenses (According to the x Religion, blahblahblah Creationism goes here) rather than (THIS HAPPENED BELIEVE OR GO TO HELL), then sure.

Well, duh, it's a Roman Catholic school. Parents can choose to send their kids to secular schools, or to get the shots from their own doctors, yes?

You know most of the time I agree with this sentiment ... but I find it hard not to get on board with the idea of forcing them to at least not make shit up, or possibly give the vaccine

9/10 of the time their opinion should be theirs, but when it starts fucking with the health of the students they have gone too far

"...and this old man came running after us, and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember … I … I … I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized … like I was shot … like I was shot with a diamond … a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God … the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we."

"...and this old man came running after us, and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember … I … I … I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized … like I was shot … like I was shot with a diamond … a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God … the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we."
Dropping acid again? Or is this quoted from something and posted in reference to something?

A larger scandal is the government penny pinching which led to them choosing a vaccine which only protects against cervical cancer (pretty rare) rather than the slightly more expensive one which also protects against genital warts (very common).

Although in answer to the question in the thread title (even if it isn't followed through in the OP) there's nothing wrong with teaching about religion in school from an objective viewpoint but the current UK system is seriously screwed up. Schools are for education, not indoctrination.

Dropping acid again? Or is this quoted from something and posted in reference to something?

Vietnam war film flashbacks...

Of course the thing with this line of reasoning is it can also be used the other way.

Induct children into that Atheist shit! No way!

You see what I mean.

I can't think of anyone prominent in the UK who's suggested that schools should indoctrinate children with atheism, and as an atheist I'd personally be strongly against the idea (although I do think atheism/humanism deserves more coverage in RS). The argument is that schools should be religiously neutral: they don't say that any particular religion's right but they don't say it's wrong either unless it blatantly contradicts the known facts (Young Earth Creationism for example).

A larger scandal is the government penny pinching which led to them choosing a vaccine which only protects against cervical cancer (pretty rare) rather than the slightly more expensive one which also protects against genital warts (very common).

Although in answer to the question in the thread title (even if it isn't followed through in the OP) there's nothing wrong with teaching about religion in school from an objective viewpoint but the current UK system is seriously screwed up. Schools are for education, not indoctrination.


Sooooo education is not indoctrination then?

I can't think of anyone prominent in the UK who's suggested that schools should indoctrinate children with atheism, and as an atheist I'd personally be strongly against the idea (although I do think atheism/humanism deserves more coverage in RS). The argument is that schools should be religiously neutral: they don't say that any particular religion's right but they don't say it's wrong either unless it blatantly contradicts the known facts (Young Earth Creationism for example).

Yeah I agree, although in a faith school you would expect more emphasism on that particular faith.

Sooooo education is not indoctrination then?

It certainly shouldn't be. Any decent teacher will give their students (or at least, be able to give) a justification for what they're teaching, such as "Historians know that Caesar was murdered in the senate because of these sources" or "Geologists know about continental drift because of this evidence". These explanations should be accepted by any reasonable, unbiased person. The claim "God exists" is much more contentious, and when you get onto doctrines like Transubstantiation there's no way to give a non-sectarian justification.

It certainly shouldn't be. Any decent teacher will give their students (or at least, be able to give) a justification for what they're teaching, such as "Historians know that Caesar was murdered in the senate because of these sources" or "Geologists know about continental drift because of this evidence". These explanations should be accepted by any reasonable, unbiased person. The claim "God exists" is much more contentious, and when you get onto doctrines like Transubstantiation there's no way to give a non-sectarian justification.


No I disagree. The teaching of history is a classic example, although admitidly it seems to be getting better.

You realise of course I do not mean religious indoctirnation here?

I always went to Catholic school. Religion was part of my education, and to me it´s normal to have it in the regular curriculum. But I had classmates that didn´t take it as a subject matter because of their respective family beliefs. I guess it´s just the choice the parents make.

I was in a protestant school. I spent most of my time in trouble because I kept questioning contradictions in the bible. :p

I always went to Catholic school. Religion was part of my education, and to me it´s normal to have it in the regular curriculum. But I had classmates that didn´t take it as a subject matter because of their respective family beliefs. I guess it´s just the choice the parents make.

Yeah I agree. My boys go to a CofE school(coz it's the best school I could get them into) both of them are athiest, I'm religous, the school teaches about other religoins, and my boys tell me that they do not feel like they are being indoctirnated into the Christian faith, so all is cool.

I was in a protestant school. I spent most of my time in trouble because I kept questioning contradictions in the bible. :p

Heh I did have some of that with my oldest I urged him to keep his opinions to himsself and concentrate on the learning.

I don't see what the big deal is... They never offered vaccinations at my public high school, they always made us get them from a clinic off campus. If the students at said Catholic high school want that vaccination, they can go get it, no one is stopping them. They just can't get it while they're on school grounds.

It's very standard in the UK to do vaccinations during school. Helps make sure basically everyone gets it, and generally helps economies of scale to kick in.

So I've had most of my jabs since I moved here in school: MMR (I think), tetanus boosters, etc. They do the whole year group at once, slight timetable disruption for a couple days, and everyone's covered.

Bloody good idea, really.

As far as religion in school, I think that religious schools are made for parents who want their children to receive a religious education. As a religious man myself, I don't want to hear about religion getting bashed in public schools, but they shouldn't preach it to the students either. I also think that people who opt to put their children in a private schools (religious or otherwise) should not have to pay taxes into the public education system.

In the UK, many state schools are faith schools. They have government funding, but are run by/affiliated with a particular faith. And they are, on occasion, the only real option around.

Yes.
A private school, run by a given religion, is perfectly within its rights to run that school as it sees fit.

As this is the UK, chances are very high it is, in fact, a state funded school. As a result, it does not have the right to put the health of its students at risk in this way.

For the parents to say "No, we don't want our child to receive this vaccination" is one thing. For the school to say "We're going to refuse to offer this" is quite another, and completely unacceptable for any state funded school (leaving aside private schools for now).

No I disagree. The teaching of history is a classic example, although admitidly it seems to be getting better.

You realise of course I do not mean religious indoctirnation here?

I'd assumed your point was to equivocate the teaching of religion with the teaching of any other subject in terms of 'indoctrination', but apologies if this isn't what you were saying. :fluffle:

I was in a protestant school. I spent most of my time in trouble because I kept questioning contradictions in the bible. :pOne of my roommates said he was kicked out of religion class for asking "What does 'virgin' mean?" He really didn't know.

Thank God I wasn't in a religious school. When I was about nine we were meant to do a project on some religious figure, and when given a Bible I apparently threw it straight out the window (I don't remember doing this, but friends swear it happened)

One of my roommates said he was kicked out of religion class for asking "What does 'virgin' mean?" He really didn't know.

lol that sounds extreme :p

I send my daughter to catholic school, where, obviously, religion is a big part of the education. However, in public school, where there is a good chance they'd be conflicting one religious belief with another. So the way I figure it, to be fair, you got to teach them all or nothing. Which would mean spending a lot of time in class learning nothing but religion. Who needs to learn to read when you can learn the history of mormon.

Of course religion has a place in school. Classes on religion, or group prayers before or after school, or silent prayer at the students' discretion.

Religion has no place in school as it is imagined by some on the right, in a dictatorial or sole-authority manner.

So are the priest basically saying that if they get this immunization they will be tempted to have sex?

So are the priest basically saying that if they get this immunization they will be tempted to have sex?No, more like: if they do have sex, they might evade the punishment that God intended for them if they get this immunization.

Me, I'm opposed to forced vaccinations, especially when they're against diseases that can be prevented by not being stupid. And that has nothing to do with religion.

For the record, that's pretty much identical to being opposed to vaccinations, period. Vaccines only really work if everyone gets them.

Thank God I wasn't in a religious school. When I was about nine we were meant to do a project on some religious figure, and when given a Bible I apparently threw it straight out the window (I don't remember doing this, but friends swear it happened)

That's a common reaction when it starts to burn ones flesh.

I was in a protestant school. I spent most of my time in trouble because I kept questioning contradictions in the bible. :p

I once got banned from Sunday School for conclusively proving that Jesus Christ couldn't have actually been the savior prophesied about by the Jews.

It has a little thing to do with some horrendous translation issues between Hebrew and Greek and the resulting problems that show up in the New Testament because of people attempting to make Jesus fit the Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew prophesy...

A larger scandal is the government penny pinching which led to them choosing a vaccine which only protects against cervical cancer (pretty rare) rather than the slightly more expensive one which also protects against genital warts (very common).

Genital warts don't get the votes.

I once got banned from Sunday School for conclusively proving that Jesus Christ couldn't have actually been the savior prophesied about by the Jews.

It has a little thing to do with some horrendous translation issues between Hebrew and Greek and the resulting problems that show up in the New Testament because of people attempting to make Jesus fit the Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew prophesy...

Two thousand years of scholars, academics, scribes and philosophers, and it took you in a Sunday school class to prove it, huh? You must be something very special.

I was in a protestant school. I spent most of my time in trouble because I kept questioning contradictions in the bible. :p

Having gone to a Catholic school I did this a lot, while I never found myself in trouble for that (a few other things but that's for another time), we always had a lively discussion about it with the teacher and other students, almost just sitting around having a chat. Shame your teachers won't as willing to discuss, though how did you go about contradicting it?

One of my roommates said he was kicked out of religion class for asking "What does 'virgin' mean?" He really didn't know.

Reminds me of the good old days, hearing shit like this.

Two thousand years of scholars, academics, scribes and philosophers, and it took you in a Sunday school class to prove it, huh? You must be something very special.

Considering I was relying upon the work of Hebrew scholars, people who actually speak and read the format the prophesy was originally written in, and that there have been far more people than me who've covered the topic far more in depth than you'd believe and have come to the same conclusion? All I did was bring in evidence, arguments, and data that already existed and make a fool out of a minister.

Considering I was relying upon the work of Hebrew scholars, people who actually speak and read the format the prophesy was originally written in, and that there have been far more people than me who've covered the topic far more in depth than you'd believe and have come to the same conclusion? All I did was bring in evidence, arguments, and data that already existed and make a fool out of a minister.

And all that was enough to prove conclusively, was it? I'll bet you sure showed that minister, what with your superior evidence which, as you said, conclusively disproved his faith.
I think what you mean is that you provided an opposing view with its own backing, the conclusion of which challenged his. Try not to think too highly of your argument than it warrants, makes for bad debating.

And all that was enough to prove conclusively, was it? I'll bet you sure showed that minister, what with your superior evidence which, as you said, conclusively disproved his faith.
I think what you mean is that you provided an opposing view with its own backing, the conclusion of which challenged his. Try not to think too highly of your argument than it warrants, makes for bad debating.

Considering the whole point of the faith is that Jesus is the one mentioned in that prophesy, being able to find that he isn't based on the actual prophesy itself (the wording in Greek and Hebrew do not match up, and there are several cases where ideas do not translate properly) in the format it was originally written is proof that he wasn't.

Now, I could point out the little hole in this entire matter that makes the argument I made back then moot and which will give people a lot of relief on this issue. But, I'll wait to see if you can point it out.

Considering the whole point of the faith is that Jesus is the one mentioned in that prophesy, being able to find that he isn't based on the actual prophesy itself (the wording in Greek and Hebrew do not match up, and there are several cases where ideas do not translate properly) in the format it was originally written is proof that he wasn't.

Now, I could point out the little hole in this entire matter that makes the argument I made back then moot and which will give people a lot of relief on this issue. But, I'll wait to see if you can point it out.

Being able to argue that He isn't is what you have done, not prove it. Your attempts at translation, and those of prior scholars, might serve as evidence that the prophecies have not been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but they do not serve as conclusive evidence of that. You are committing a fallacy, in claiming as conclusive the opinions of those whose work supports your own. This leads you to, as stated earlier, think more highly of your own argument than you ought.

But would they have the same issue with another, less controversial vaccine, like say MMR?

Well from what I quoted from the article, it seems as if they just have a problem with doing it in the schools themselves. It's not like "If you get this vaccine, it's devil juice, and you've secured yourself a one way ticket to hell!!!".

And I totally agree with that. I don't think it's the schools place to be handing out vaccines. When I was a child we had to go to the doctor and get the vaccines, and have the doctor signs a sheet saying the vaccine was given. To me it makes more sense having an actual physician taking care of you.

Well from what I quoted from the article, it seems as if they just have a problem with doing it in the schools themselves. It's not like "If you get this vaccine, it's devil juice, and you've secured yourself a one way ticket to hell!!!".

And I totally agree with that. I don't think it's the schools place to be handing out vaccines. When I was a child we had to go to the doctor and get the vaccines, and have the doctor signs a sheet saying the vaccine was given. To me it makes more sense having an actual physician taking care of you.

When I was a child, we had vaccines at school, as did my parents (polio).

So...what?

Two thousand years of scholars, academics, scribes and philosophers, and it took you in a Sunday school class to prove it, huh? You must be something very special.

You acting like a dick soooo enhances your argument. And you wonder why people stop trying.

Well from what I quoted from the article, it seems as if they just have a problem with doing it in the schools themselves. It's not like "If you get this vaccine, it's devil juice, and you've secured yourself a one way ticket to hell!!!".

And I totally agree with that. I don't think it's the schools place to be handing out vaccines. When I was a child we had to go to the doctor and get the vaccines, and have the doctor signs a sheet saying the vaccine was given. To me it makes more sense having an actual physician taking care of you.

We had vaccines at my school. I didn't have to have them. But you could sign your kids up to have them. It was a great way for busy parents to ensure their child was still vaccinated.

And I as a former teacher, don't happen to think school is the place for a lot of things - teaching oral hygiene (tooth-brushing is done at many primary schools in Queensland) or providing breakfast for example. But if parents won't do it, then somebody has to.

One of my roommates said he was kicked out of religion class for asking "What does 'virgin' mean?" He really didn't know.

Heheh I once earned myself a detention in Biology, for answering the teachers question 'What do rabbits eat?'; thusly, 'Chicken, miss'.

Based on witnessing our very own pet rabbit chomping down on a chicken carcus.