Our Feminism, who art in schools,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy anti-religion come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is someplace else.
Give us this day our daily political correctness.
Forgive us our trespasses,
as we don’t forgive those who so much as question us.
And lead us not into questioning anything PC,
but deliver us from men. Awomen.
Apologies to Christians. No apologies to feminists (who probably won’t understand the joke, assuming it is a joke).
The following from michaelsavage.com
Atheism lessons planned for schools(Independent) Children should learn about atheism in religious education lessons as part of moves to make the subject more relevant to the modern world, according to a report from a think-tank with close ties to New Labour....
That was from Atheism lessons planned for schools
Children should learn about atheism in religious education lessons as part of moves to make the subject more relevant to the modern world, according to a report from a think-tank with close ties to New Labour.On IPPR (“Britains leading progressive think tank”) site there is an Adobe Acrobat PDF file “What is religious education for – an event report?” includes this from one presentation
Indeed, the subject's name should be changed from religious education to religious, philosophical and moral education, says the study published this week by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).
Guidelines for schools on how to teach the beliefs of atheists, agnostics and humanists are being drawn up by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which is also working on the first national framework for RE with the Department for Education and Skills.
The IPPR report warns that the current "pro-religious" and "anti-science" bias of many RE lessons urgently needs to be addressed, and that since the vast majority of people do not attend a weekly religious service it makes little sense to teach children only about religious beliefs.
“What is RE (religious education) for? Or Why should RE continue to have a place on the compulsory school curriculum?”Note the emphasis on the decline of religion, a favourite of feminists, and the hint that gender studies might be more important. Perhaps this is women’s studies (aka “let’s hate men more studies”) in schools by the backdoor.
RE is a compulsory curriculum subject in state schools in England and Wales
There are 2 standard justifications for compulsory RE
1. A social justification, to the effect that the study of religion equips pupils for life in a multicultural society
An understanding of religious individuals and communities better equips pupils for life in a multicultural society. Whether or not pupils hold religious beliefs themselves, they will live and work among people who do, and they will be better able to communicate and negotiate with such people if they understand their beliefs and values.
In 1980 only 19% of the adult population belonged to a church, mosque, synagogue or temple.
In 1990 the figure had fallen to 17.5%
In 1999 only 7% of British people were attending a weekly service.
There are many more kinds of difference between people than differences of religion. If there is a social case for compulsory RE, there would seem to be an equally strong case for compulsory gender studies, cultural studies, ethnology and psychology.
2. A moral justification, to the effect hat the study of religion is morally educativeThis could quite easily mean that if you send a child brought up to a particular religion to a UK school they could come home and argue about the religion’s validity, and why should they do homework? And theft can be justified by some moral standards. I wouldn’t be surprised if later on there were moves to impose this curriculum on the Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim schools as well as the state schools.
One only has reason to submit to the moral teachings of a religion if one holds that religion to be true. If one believes that there is a divine being whose moral judgements are significantly more reliable then ours, and who issues injunctions thought the texts and institutions of a religious tradition, then it is reasonable to abide by those injunctions. But in the absence of such a belief, there is no reason at all to regard religious texts or institutions as morally authoritative. On the contrary, one has good reason to regard their moral teachings with suspicion, since they are predicated on beliefs one does not share.
The focus would be on learning how to make informed rational judgements on the truth or falsity of religious propositions.
The emphasis would shift from emphasising to evaluating, from trying to imagine what it is like to hold certain beliefs to ask what grounds there are for doing so.
There would be less attention to the differences between religions and much more to the differences between religion and irreligion.
Pupils should be actively encouraged to question they being with them to the classroom, not so that they be better able to defend or rationalise them, but so that they are genuinely free to adopt whatever position on religious matters they judge to be best supported by the evidence.
Don’t get me wrong. I am an atheist, but I am not anti-religious. I like the basic Christian traditions of tolerance and understanding, but dislike fundamentalist ideas. However when you get cries of “judgemental” when criticising the cannibal recently jailed in Germany, I think a little of being judgemental might be a good idea. Strangely this moral relativity, or perhaps not so strange, this doesn’t seem to apply to men who leave the lavatory seat up.
I say this is all part of the feminist anti-religious campaign. Things like abortion, divorce, homosexuality are moral choices, but I bet no-one is encouraged or even allowed to have politically incorrect views on these in the classes they propose. Political correctness and feminism are in effect a religious belief. I look forward to the day we can question their belief. Better yet, I look forward to the day that we can treat feminism as the aberrant fundamentalism it is.
Comments