Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just curious, how would the children get to school then?" according to the news the kids would be banned as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it will stand... There's respecting the beliefs and culture of other communities but they have to accept that times are changing and hopefully our laws would protect their children's education to prevent them being able to turn away children who have been driven by women, surely?" It will be a private schul. I suspect they'll be able to enforce it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it will stand... There's respecting the beliefs and culture of other communities but they have to accept that times are changing and hopefully our laws would protect their children's education to prevent them being able to turn away children who have been driven by women, surely? It will be a private schul. I suspect they'll be able to enforce it." Hmm, that's a shame. I'd be amazed if they did though, there would be uproar from feminist/equalist groups all over the place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it will stand... There's respecting the beliefs and culture of other communities but they have to accept that times are changing and hopefully our laws would protect their children's education to prevent them being able to turn away children who have been driven by women, surely? It will be a private schul. I suspect they'll be able to enforce it. Hmm, that's a shame. I'd be amazed if they did though, there would be uproar from feminist/equalist groups all over the place." I suspect there will be uproar from Jewish groups too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it will stand... There's respecting the beliefs and culture of other communities but they have to accept that times are changing and hopefully our laws would protect their children's education to prevent them being able to turn away children who have been driven by women, surely? It will be a private schul. I suspect they'll be able to enforce it. Hmm, that's a shame. I'd be amazed if they did though, there would be uproar from feminist/equalist groups all over the place. I suspect there will be uproar from Jewish groups too." There must've been already for someone to alert the press. x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Gets tin hat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Gets tin hat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a school it's a community of chasidic Jews. They have voted that it's not modest (very important amongst orthodox Jews) for women to drive and that any children at the school in their community who have been driven their by a woman will be sent home. Just as banning women drivers has no basis in the Koran or sharia law but is ruled to be so in some places, banning women driving has no basis in Talmudic law either." Yes thats it, meant the community. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We all know men are the best drivers anyway
Gets tin hat"Hmm, that's why the insurance is generally more expensive for men, isn't it?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the females of that community should stop having sex with their husbands and claim it is also not modest!" They do get.up to two weeks off every menstrual cycle as that's not allowed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As has been mentioned it's a Charedi Rabbis that have "banned" women drivers. The school is a Charedi school where these Rabbis hold sway. Their way of enforcing this "ban" was to exclude the children driven to school by their mothers or other women. They have mini-buses to pick up the children to "help" compliance with the "ban". The school has been pulled up for the exclusions, which have been overturned. I can't see this particular faction of the Charedi community kicking up a fuss about the "ban" and they will comply. However, others have moved forward and women do drive. Although all fall into the broad Charedi grouping they have many, many sub-groups and it will become a subject of conversation across the community. " can the school do this? Really? Regardless of the faith and community, it isn't exactly in line with the equality and human rights that we are all required to live under in the UK. this is not a criticism or opinion - I am interested | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religious folk!, you just gotta admire their bollocks sometimes "   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As has been mentioned it's a Charedi Rabbis that have "banned" women drivers. The school is a Charedi school where these Rabbis hold sway. Their way of enforcing this "ban" was to exclude the children driven to school by their mothers or other women. They have mini-buses to pick up the children to "help" compliance with the "ban". The school has been pulled up for the exclusions, which have been overturned. I can't see this particular faction of the Charedi community kicking up a fuss about the "ban" and they will comply. However, others have moved forward and women do drive. Although all fall into the broad Charedi grouping they have many, many sub-groups and it will become a subject of conversation across the community. can the school do this? Really? Regardless of the faith and community, it isn't exactly in line with the equality and human rights that we are all required to live under in the UK. this is not a criticism or opinion - I am interested" It's a faith school and, just like academies and free schools, has many more freedoms than a state school. However, the exclusions were picked up by the local authority and questioned. The Rabbis can preach what they want. The school will no longer be able to exclude pupils because they have been driven to school by a woman. Overtly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is just a religious attitude. Hey, some (most?) may argue that the Church of England's historic attitude to females and gays is somewhat outdated and offensive and that the Roman Catholics' preachings about contraception are crazy. Leave them be. They are a community of people who have a belief. You no doubt believe in swinging. Many people do not. Variety enriches the world." That's all very well but what about when it comes to things like female genital mutilation? Or stoning "adulterers" to death? Or forced (and sometimes underage) marriage? There are limits to what will be tolerated in this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is just a religious attitude. Hey, some (most?) may argue that the Church of England's historic attitude to females and gays is somewhat outdated and offensive and that the Roman Catholics' preachings about contraception are crazy. Leave them be. They are a community of people who have a belief. You no doubt believe in swinging. Many people do not. Variety enriches the world. That's all very well but what about when it comes to things like female genital mutilation? Or stoning "adulterers" to death? Or forced (and sometimes underage) marriage? There are limits to what will be tolerated in this country." There are, yes. And all of those are thankfully illegal in this country. Thank goodness that being eccentric or having unusual beliefs is not, though. Otherwise, we would not have Morris dancers. Oh, fook, what did I just say? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ....that will reduce vast numbers of 4x4 Chelsea tractors gumming up all the roads in the mornings grrr "Generally not the car of choice for the area. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a school. It is a Hasidic Orthodox Jewish religious group. Saudi Arabia ban women drivers....it is also an extreme Muslim thing over there." Big thing is they are not in saudi arabia and in uk therefore abide by uk laws. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We all know men are the best drivers anyway
Gets tin hat
Hmm, that's why the insurance is generally more expensive for men, isn't it? "It's more expensive for men as men drive more than women so the odds are we are going to crash more! Also men crash more in summer because of you hot women | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We all know men are the best drivers anyway
Gets tin hat
Hmm, that's why the insurance is generally more expensive for men, isn't it? "There is actually little evidence to suggest that either men or women are better drivers. The reason why, statistically, women have less accidents than men is because women, on average, drive less than men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religious folk!, you just gotta admire their bollocks sometimes "Admiring bollocks! That definitely wouldn't be very modest now, would it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a school. It is a Hasidic Orthodox Jewish religious group. Saudi Arabia ban women drivers....it is also an extreme Muslim thing over there. Big thing is they are not in saudi arabia and in uk therefore abide by uk laws." But it's not the law that women HAVE to drive. I don't support this bunch of Rabbis and their new edicts. The fact is that none of them ever really expected that Charedi women would learn to drive, have the approval of their husbands to learn to drive. It's all very Stepford on some matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is just a religious attitude. Hey, some (most?) may argue that the Church of England's historic attitude to females and gays is somewhat outdated and offensive and that the Roman Catholics' preachings about contraception are crazy. Leave them be. They are a community of people who have a belief. You no doubt believe in swinging. Many people do not. Variety enriches the world." I'm all in favour of tolerance but, as a tolerant society, we should always question how much intolerance within are society we should tolerate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is just a religious attitude. Hey, some (most?) may argue that the Church of England's historic attitude to females and gays is somewhat outdated and offensive and that the Roman Catholics' preachings about contraception are crazy. Leave them be. They are a community of people who have a belief. You no doubt believe in swinging. Many people do not. Variety enriches the world. That's all very well but what about when it comes to things like female genital mutilation? Or stoning "adulterers" to death? Or forced (and sometimes underage) marriage? There are limits to what will be tolerated in this country." My feelings exactly. Just not sure yet whether this intolerance, unlike the others you mention, is so intolerant we should not tolerate it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a school. It is a Hasidic Orthodox Jewish religious group. Saudi Arabia ban women drivers....it is also an extreme Muslim thing over there. Big thing is they are not in saudi arabia and in uk therefore abide by uk laws." Not sure, especially if the mothers concerned are willing to comply, that any British law is being broken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is just a religious attitude. Hey, some (most?) may argue that the Church of England's historic attitude to females and gays is somewhat outdated and offensive and that the Roman Catholics' preachings about contraception are crazy. Leave them be. They are a community of people who have a belief. You no doubt believe in swinging. Many people do not. Variety enriches the world. That's all very well but what about when it comes to things like female genital mutilation? Or stoning "adulterers" to death? Or forced (and sometimes underage) marriage? There are limits to what will be tolerated in this country. My feelings exactly. Just not sure yet whether this intolerance, unlike the others you mention, is so intolerant we should not tolerate it." Difficult, isn't it? Communities of traditional Jews will not make electrical connections or play sport on the sabbath. On the other hand, you are less likely to see a traditional Jew robbing your house or sniffing glue. There is much to be said for tolerance in our society. When tolerance turns to support of intolerant behaviour is always going to be subjective. On the whole, I am generally in favour with the tolerant side. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a school. It is a Hasidic Orthodox Jewish religious group. Saudi Arabia ban women drivers....it is also an extreme Muslim thing over there. Big thing is they are not in saudi arabia and in uk therefore abide by uk laws." There is no UK law saying that someone has to drive. If someone feels that driving is against their principles, then no one can force them. There is nothing wrong with this. However I find that a religious community that might potentially prevent a child gaining religious education at a good school is just... a bit silly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just curious, how would the children get to school then?" Maybe walk and stay healthy rather than sit in a car getting fat and developing heart disease. Just a thought... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is a community where men will not shake hands with a woman (she may be menstruating). A community where women wear thick tights from the age of about 5. A community where women wear wigs to cover their hair. Over the last twenty years I have seen the women wearing more make up, having very styled, attractive wigs and participating more in the wider world. I think the men in charge are feeling threatened and seeking to rein in these small freedoms that have occurred. I hope it's the start of a wider emancipation. " There is only so much oppression people can endure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just curious, how would the children get to school then? Maybe walk and stay healthy rather than sit in a car getting fat and developing heart disease. Just a thought..." None of the children live more than half a mile from the school, if that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion." It isn't contradicting English law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just curious, how would the children get to school then? Maybe walk and stay healthy rather than sit in a car getting fat and developing heart disease. Just a thought... None of the children live more than half a mile from the school, if that. " How do you the distance? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law." Equality ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a school. It is a Hasidic Orthodox Jewish religious group. Saudi Arabia ban women drivers....it is also an extreme Muslim thing over there. Big thing is they are not in saudi arabia and in uk therefore abide by uk laws. There is no UK law saying that someone has to drive. If someone feels that driving is against their principles, then no one can force them. There is nothing wrong with this. However I find that a religious community that might potentially prevent a child gaining religious education at a good school is just... a bit silly." I'd say it's "just a bit silly" almost as silly as removing the clitoris from a young girl A senareo where a body of influence makes a rule that inherently reduces the freedoms of one sex or another is more than silly its bronze age chauvinism, inappropriate and should be challenged . I find its defense upon the grounds of "tolerance" or "diversity" actually offensive and inappropriate for a liberated mind The reference to "driving a car is not a UK requirement "is a meaningless red herring | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law. Equality ?" There is no equality law that says women have to drive their kids to school. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a school. It is a Hasidic Orthodox Jewish religious group. Saudi Arabia ban women drivers....it is also an extreme Muslim thing over there. Big thing is they are not in saudi arabia and in uk therefore abide by uk laws. There is no UK law saying that someone has to drive. If someone feels that driving is against their principles, then no one can force them. There is nothing wrong with this. However I find that a religious community that might potentially prevent a child gaining religious education at a good school is just... a bit silly. I'd say it's "just a bit silly" almost as silly as removing the clitoris from a young girl A senareo where a body of influence makes a rule that inherently reduces the freedoms of one sex or another is more than silly its bronze age chauvinism, inappropriate and should be challenged . I find its defense upon the grounds of "tolerance" or "diversity" actually offensive and inappropriate for a liberated mind The reference to "driving a car is not a UK requirement "is a meaningless red herring " Yer but, from your previous posts on other threads, you don't really have much of a reputation for either practicing tolerance or even understanding what tolerance is so it's not much of a surprise that you dismiss it and oppose anything that is not totally in line with what you believe to be right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law. Equality ? There is no equality law that says women have to drive their kids to school." The child being excluded if they have been driven to school by a woman is an inequality - yes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law. Equality ? There is no equality law that says women have to drive their kids to school. The child being excluded if they have been driven to school by a woman is an inequality - yes?" It's not quite so clear cut if it's a community that has agreed to abide by a set of rules. In some cases the decision of the community can be legally binding on the community. Also I think it would be unlikely that parents that send their children to this school would bring a case. After all they are sending their children to the school that teachers these values about women of their own free choice. I think the real determination of this case would be if the women themselves were complaining or were being forced to do something against their will. This does not appear to be the case. So, in this case, as a tolerant society, I feel there is an argument to be made that their act of intolerance is not so intolerant that a we should not tolerate it. However I have not made up my own mind as to whether it should actually be tolerated or not yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law. Equality ? There is no equality law that says women have to drive their kids to school. The child being excluded if they have been driven to school by a woman is an inequality - yes? It's not quite so clear cut if it's a community that has agreed to abide by a set of rules. In some cases the decision of the community can be legally binding on the community. Also I think it would be unlikely that parents that send their children to this school would bring a case. After all they are sending their children to the school that teachers these values about women of their own free choice. I think the real determination of this case would be if the women themselves were complaining or were being forced to do something against their will. This does not appear to be the case. So, in this case, as a tolerant society, I feel there is an argument to be made that their act of intolerance is not so intolerant that a we should not tolerate it. However I have not made up my own mind as to whether it should actually be tolerated or not yet." a descision can be legally binding within a community, without contradicting British law? (Hello from wales, we have laws too) if it is as the op stated, then it really is clear cut - denying a child education because mum drove them is illegal on two counts. A sexist community imposes Stockholm syndrome from an early age, compliance doesn't make it any less sexist. Tolerance/intolerance, whatever, a religious code stops being tolerable when it excludes or discriminates on factors a person can't change or choose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, in this case, as a tolerant society, I feel there is an argument to be made that their act of intolerance is not so intolerant that a we should not tolerate it. However I have not made up my own mind as to whether it should actually be tolerated or not yet. a descision can be legally binding within a community, without contradicting British law? (Hello from wales, we have laws too) if it is as the op stated, then it really is clear cut - denying a child education because mum drove them is illegal on two counts. A sexist community imposes Stockholm syndrome from an early age, compliance doesn't make it any less sexist. Tolerance/intolerance, whatever, a religious code stops being tolerable when it excludes or discriminates on factors a person can't change or choose." An Academy school (so not a faith school but has more freedoms which are akin to faith schools) not far from this one refused to educate any pupil turning up in the wrong shoes. A mother argued that she couldn't afford to get new shoes. She was deemed belligerent and her child was excluded for a number of days. In both cases the child has been denied an education for a number of days because of the actions of the parent. Where does the equality argument sit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law. Equality ? There is no equality law that says women have to drive their kids to school. The child being excluded if they have been driven to school by a woman is an inequality - yes? It's not quite so clear cut if it's a community that has agreed to abide by a set of rules. In some cases the decision of the community can be legally binding on the community. Also I think it would be unlikely that parents that send their children to this school would bring a case. After all they are sending their children to the school that teachers these values about women of their own free choice. I think the real determination of this case would be if the women themselves were complaining or were being forced to do something against their will. This does not appear to be the case. So, in this case, as a tolerant society, I feel there is an argument to be made that their act of intolerance is not so intolerant that a we should not tolerate it. However I have not made up my own mind as to whether it should actually be tolerated or not yet. a descision can be legally binding within a community, without contradicting British law? (Hello from wales, we have laws too) if it is as the op stated, then it really is clear cut - denying a child education because mum drove them is illegal on two counts. A sexist community imposes Stockholm syndrome from an early age, compliance doesn't make it any less sexist. Tolerance/intolerance, whatever, a religious code stops being tolerable when it excludes or discriminates on factors a person can't change or choose." There does come a point where the same intolerance should not be tolerated even on cultural or religious grounds and I think I'm tending towards that opinion to. However I'll reserve my final opinion until I know more of the actual facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law. Equality ? There is no equality law that says women have to drive their kids to school. The child being excluded if they have been driven to school by a woman is an inequality - yes? It's not quite so clear cut if it's a community that has agreed to abide by a set of rules. In some cases the decision of the community can be legally binding on the community. Also I think it would be unlikely that parents that send their children to this school would bring a case. After all they are sending their children to the school that teachers these values about women of their own free choice. I think the real determination of this case would be if the women themselves were complaining or were being forced to do something against their will. This does not appear to be the case. So, in this case, as a tolerant society, I feel there is an argument to be made that their act of intolerance is not so intolerant that a we should not tolerate it. However I have not made up my own mind as to whether it should actually be tolerated or not yet. a descision can be legally binding within a community, without contradicting British law? (Hello from wales, we have laws too) if it is as the op stated, then it really is clear cut - denying a child education because mum drove them is illegal on two counts. A sexist community imposes Stockholm syndrome from an early age, compliance doesn't make it any less sexist. Tolerance/intolerance, whatever, a religious code stops being tolerable when it excludes or discriminates on factors a person can't change or choose. There does come a point where the same intolerance should not be tolerated even on cultural or religious grounds and I think I'm tending towards that opinion to. However I'll reserve my final opinion until I know more of the actual facts." The school has been told it cannot exclude pupils on these grounds. No one can is going to tackle a Rabbi preaching that women shouldn't drive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No religious law or rule should contradict the law of the land in my opinion. It isn't contradicting English law. Equality ? There is no equality law that says women have to drive their kids to school. The child being excluded if they have been driven to school by a woman is an inequality - yes? It's not quite so clear cut if it's a community that has agreed to abide by a set of rules. In some cases the decision of the community can be legally binding on the community. Also I think it would be unlikely that parents that send their children to this school would bring a case. After all they are sending their children to the school that teachers these values about women of their own free choice. I think the real determination of this case would be if the women themselves were complaining or were being forced to do something against their will. This does not appear to be the case. So, in this case, as a tolerant society, I feel there is an argument to be made that their act of intolerance is not so intolerant that a we should not tolerate it. However I have not made up my own mind as to whether it should actually be tolerated or not yet. a descision can be legally binding within a community, without contradicting British law? (Hello from wales, we have laws too) if it is as the op stated, then it really is clear cut - denying a child education because mum drove them is illegal on two counts. A sexist community imposes Stockholm syndrome from an early age, compliance doesn't make it any less sexist. Tolerance/intolerance, whatever, a religious code stops being tolerable when it excludes or discriminates on factors a person can't change or choose. There does come a point where the same intolerance should not be tolerated even on cultural or religious grounds and I think I'm tending towards that opinion to. However I'll reserve my final opinion until I know more of the actual facts. The school has been told it cannot exclude pupils on these grounds. No one can is going to tackle a Rabbi preaching that women shouldn't drive. " Well that saves me getting the legal texts books out.
Feels about right to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It really is about time that the teaching of religion, other than as a comparative study is banned from schools. IMO there should be no faith schools. If people want to indoctrinate their children with false beliefs in a mythical being, making them adhere to ridiculous rituals (which I think should be classified as child abuse), then they should do it on their own time." And who decided what are false beliefs, what is myth, what is ridicules ritual and what is truth. No doubt in your future only people who believe what you believe maybe. I think tolerance is probably a better approach in the end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The school has been told it cannot exclude pupils on these grounds. No one can is going to tackle a Rabbi preaching that women shouldn't drive. " And yet my school used to send us home if our skirts didn't reach the bottom of our knees (God forbid you had a growth spurt), if you had the wrong type of shoes or socks on, or if you had coloured hair. I think this is a serious case of looking in your own back garden before pointing fingers at others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I used to drive in the Stamford Hill area every day when I worked for a parce3l delivery company and having experienced how a lot of these women drive all I can say is: About bloody time." 
You win the prize for the most outright sexist comment on the thread.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It really is about time that the teaching of religion, other than as a comparative study is banned from schools. IMO there should be no faith schools. If people want to indoctrinate their children with false beliefs in a mythical being, making them adhere to ridiculous rituals (which I think should be classified as child abuse), then they should do it on their own time." I don't think we should have faith schools, or free schools where teachers don't have to be qualified or schools that don't follow the national curriculum. This government is opening up the school system to ensure there are no state schools (even though they have most of their funding from the public purse) and all of these and more are now available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The school has been told it cannot exclude pupils on these grounds. No one can is going to tackle a Rabbi preaching that women shouldn't drive. And yet my school used to send us home if our skirts didn't reach the bottom of our knees (God forbid you had a growth spurt), if you had the wrong type of shoes or socks on, or if you had coloured hair. I think this is a serious case of looking in your own back garden before pointing fingers at others." See my post on the Academy down the road from this faith school. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And who decided what are false beliefs, what is myth, what is ridicules ritual and what is truth. No doubt in your future only people who believe what you believe maybe. I think tolerance is probably a better approach in the end." I don't believe in that which cannot be empirically proven. Where there is doubt or conflicting evidence, then I believe in robust discussion and further research. I have no beliefs in belief systems that require faith and would not want anyone else to be forced/indoctrinated into such a belief system. I'm certainly tolerant. If people want to have green hair and wear bin bags, that's fine. I'll even defend their right to listen to rap and hip hop, so long as I don't have to. But forcing those without consent to believe in an omnipresent, pan dimensional hyper being for which no evidence exists, I feel, is being abusive, as well as just plain ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It really is about time that the teaching of religion, other than as a comparative study is banned from schools. IMO there should be no faith schools. If people want to indoctrinate their children with false beliefs in a mythical being, making them adhere to ridiculous rituals (which I think should be classified as child abuse), then they should do it on their own time. And who decided what are false beliefs, what is myth, what is ridicules ritual and what is truth. No doubt in your future only people who believe what you believe maybe. I think tolerance is probably a better approach in the end." My perspective I would be wrong to teach string theory It would be right to teach about string theory It would be wrong to say the big bang is fact It would be right to illustrate the the universe is observed to be expanding Humans have invented a vast number of god concepts In many cases a moderate size guide book or doctrine is associated with the concept Many doctrines have differing perspectives often beyond reconciliation This logical and thus factually Means that even if one doctrine was absolutely correct the others cannot be and are nothing more than the fabrication of a human mind The objective position I would suggest concerning the education of a young mind would be not to indoctrinate any one God concept. To my reasoning this would be being dishonest to the child | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And who decided what are false beliefs, what is myth, what is ridicules ritual and what is truth. No doubt in your future only people who believe what you believe maybe. I think tolerance is probably a better approach in the end. I don't believe in that which cannot be empirically proven. Where there is doubt or conflicting evidence, then I believe in robust discussion and further research. I have no beliefs in belief systems that require faith and would not want anyone else to be forced/indoctrinated into such a belief system. I'm certainly tolerant. If people want to have green hair and wear bin bags, that's fine. I'll even defend their right to listen to rap and hip hop, so long as I don't have to. But forcing those without consent to believe in an omnipresent, pan dimensional hyper being for which no evidence exists, I feel, is being abusive, as well as just plain ridiculous." Have we got empirical evidence of relativity? We still teach it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And who decided what are false beliefs, what is myth, what is ridicules ritual and what is truth. No doubt in your future only people who believe what you believe maybe. I think tolerance is probably a better approach in the end. I don't believe in that which cannot be empirically proven. Where there is doubt or conflicting evidence, then I believe in robust discussion and further research. I have no beliefs in belief systems that require faith and would not want anyone else to be forced/indoctrinated into such a belief system. I'm certainly tolerant. If people want to have green hair and wear bin bags, that's fine. I'll even defend their right to listen to rap and hip hop, so long as I don't have to. But forcing those without consent to believe in an omnipresent, pan dimensional hyper being for which no evidence exists, I feel, is being abusive, as well as just plain ridiculous." But you can never empirically prove the existence of a 'pan dimensional hyper being' one way or another so who is anyone to say one does not exist. So long as religion is not taught as science I see no problem with it being taught or for people to pass on what they believe to be truth to their children. After all The truth of any faith can only become a matter of ridicule among others if any, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny clearly shows to be false. (Thomas Aquinas c. 1240) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Have we got empirical evidence of relativity? We still teach it. " Yes, loads. Let's start with the Special Theory. Due to time dilation, as defined by the Lorentz/Einstein equations, time passes more slowly in a relativistic frame of reference when compared to a stationary one. This has been proven several times with atomic clocks being flown at high speed and then comparing them with identical ones which remained stationary (albeit, the Earth is also moving, but it's the comparison between two frames of reference that is the factor). When GPS was first deployed, the physicists stated that it would be inaccurate without compensating for this. It was deployed without compensating for time dilation and found to be inaccurate by exactly the predicted amount. GPS was subsequently adjusted to compensate for time dilation and is now accurate. The General theory is more complex and deals with inertial and mass gravity. I'm on the edge of my knowledge here and I'm sure some other fabster can explain it better than I. However, what we do know is that the observed data from analysis of black holes is consistent with the General theory. And this is how science works. It rarely says that something is an immutable truth. It merely states that the observations fit a proposed theory or model, and that theory is used until further observations conflict with it. Then the model is revised to accommodate new findings after much research and corroborative evidence. When events and phenomenae are repeatedly observed despite exhaustive and extensive research to find conflicting evidence, then they are generally termed Laws. E.g. the law of gravity states that the mutully attractive force between two masses is proportional to the product of those masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This has, thus far, found to be true for all conditions and observations and is thus termed a Law. Basically, the fatter you are, the more you will weigh, but if you travel a long way from Earth, you will still be as fat, but not weigh as much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And who decided what are false beliefs, what is myth, what is ridicules ritual and what is truth. No doubt in your future only people who believe what you believe maybe. I think tolerance is probably a better approach in the end. I don't believe in that which cannot be empirically proven. Where there is doubt or conflicting evidence, then I believe in robust discussion and further research. I have no beliefs in belief systems that require faith and would not want anyone else to be forced/indoctrinated into such a belief system. I'm certainly tolerant. If people want to have green hair and wear bin bags, that's fine. I'll even defend their right to listen to rap and hip hop, so long as I don't have to. But forcing those without consent to believe in an omnipresent, pan dimensional hyper being for which no evidence exists, I feel, is being abusive, as well as just plain ridiculous." Nobody can be forced to believe anything. They can be forced to sit and listen while they are educated about what some people believe, but that is not the same thing. I had 14 years of Catholic school education and at no point did anyone tell me I had to believe something. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. " Exactly. By a tiny sect within a niche sect of Judaism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. " The second half, while straying from the thread, is definitely way more interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. " I'm guessing the number of religions that don't allow female preachers have nothing to do with an interpretation of the base text behind said religions I would certainly agree it's absolutely NOT the ideology of a god However it can be illustrated anti equal rights ideology is NOT just the preserve of men is it, there are indeed many women who have either been conditioned or made a fully reasoned decision to maintain and enforce an unequal patriarchy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. The second half, while straying from the thread, is definitely way more interesting." Okay. I've just brewed up. I'll give it a go but if you are leading me down the path to much of a muchness i'll be sending plagues. BRB | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. I'm guessing the number of religions that don't allow female preachers have nothing to do with an interpretation of the base text behind said religions I would certainly agree it's absolutely NOT the ideology of a god However it can be illustrated anti equal rights ideology is NOT just the preserve of men is it, there are indeed many women who have either been conditioned or made a fully reasoned decision to maintain and enforce an unequal patriarchy" but in this case it's men | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. I'm guessing the number of religions that don't allow female preachers have nothing to do with an interpretation of the base text behind said religions I would certainly agree it's absolutely NOT the ideology of a god However it can be illustrated anti equal rights ideology is NOT just the preserve of men is it, there are indeed many women who have either been conditioned or made a fully reasoned decision to maintain and enforce an unequal patriarchy but in this case it's men" I have little idea who is responsible ? Could you tell me your sources ? I did however hear on r4 pm on Thurs a mother from the cult who was vehemently in favour , and seemed to be as responsible for promoting the idea as any man? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. I'm guessing the number of religions that don't allow female preachers have nothing to do with an interpretation of the base text behind said religions I would certainly agree it's absolutely NOT the ideology of a god However it can be illustrated anti equal rights ideology is NOT just the preserve of men is it, there are indeed many women who have either been conditioned or made a fully reasoned decision to maintain and enforce an unequal patriarchy but in this case it's men I have little idea who is responsible ? Could you tell me your sources ? I did however hear on r4 pm on Thurs a mother from the cult who was vehemently in favour , and seemed to be as responsible for promoting the idea as any man?" For Charedi Jews no woman can become a Rabbi. The decree has come from the Rabbis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. I'm guessing the number of religions that don't allow female preachers have nothing to do with an interpretation of the base text behind said religions I would certainly agree it's absolutely NOT the ideology of a god However it can be illustrated anti equal rights ideology is NOT just the preserve of men is it, there are indeed many women who have either been conditioned or made a fully reasoned decision to maintain and enforce an unequal patriarchy but in this case it's men I have little idea who is responsible ? Could you tell me your sources ? I did however hear on r4 pm on Thurs a mother from the cult who was vehemently in favour , and seemed to be as responsible for promoting the idea as any man? For Charedi Jews no woman can become a Rabbi. The decree has come from the Rabbis. " Your implication is fair, I wonder if it requires some women to be complicit ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" but in this case it's men I have little idea who is responsible ? Could you tell me your sources ? I did however hear on r4 pm on Thurs a mother from the cult who was vehemently in favour , and seemed to be as responsible for promoting the idea as any man? For Charedi Jews no woman can become a Rabbi. The decree has come from the Rabbis. Your implication is fair, I wonder if it requires some women to be complicit ?" They are adherents, and depending on which sub-sect of Charedi Judaism may be proselytising too. The definition of that is clear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've read about half way down. I'm surprised at people's assertions that the ban is part of religion. It hasn't. It's the ideology of a few men. Not God. I'm guessing the number of religions that don't allow female preachers have nothing to do with an interpretation of the base text behind said religions I would certainly agree it's absolutely NOT the ideology of a god However it can be illustrated anti equal rights ideology is NOT just the preserve of men is it, there are indeed many women who have either been conditioned or made a fully reasoned decision to maintain and enforce an unequal patriarchy but in this case it's men I have little idea who is responsible ? Could you tell me your sources ? I did however hear on r4 pm on Thurs a mother from the cult who was vehemently in favour , and seemed to be as responsible for promoting the idea as any man? For Charedi Jews no woman can become a Rabbi. The decree has come from the Rabbis. Your implication is fair, I wonder if it requires some women to be complicit ?" To be fair, it was said it was the "ideology" of a few men which I suggest we could illustrate not the case, some women share the same ideology I foolishly then wrongly used the word responsibility which can clearly pointed to the men | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
