St John’s Church announces plan for Watford town centre primary school

Watford Observer: Father David Stevenson, of St John's Church, in Sutton Road - leading the bid to build a new primary school in central Watford. Father David Stevenson, of St John's Church, in Sutton Road - leading the bid to build a new primary school in central Watford.

A proposed new Church of England free school "will be open to everybody", according to the vicar spearheading the campaign.

Father David Stevenson, of St John’s Church, in Sutton Road, is leading the bid to build a new primary school in central Watford.

Father David said he hopes an application for St John’s Church of England Primary School will be ready to be submitted to the Department for Education in May.

Plans are the school will be open next year, in September 2015.

Father David said he first thought of applying to open a free school during the summer as there was a growing concern among his parishioners as to where their children would be able to go to school.

He said: "The response from parents, and the overwhelming feeling within the community, is that parents are worried about the lack of school places.

"I have been at the parish for two and a half years now and over this time there has been a growing concern among our congregation."

Father David said he intends for there not to be any tests for pupils entering the school.

He added that admission will not be based on faith, but "will be open to everybody".

He explained: "Clearly the Church of England, being an established church, has a responsibility to educate everybody and care for everybody in the community irrespective of their beliefs and whether they have faith or not.

"Of course education has been a big thing in the church and we are going to continue that tradition.

"While it’s difficult to say exactly how entry will be determined, we know there won’t be any testing because a school is here to serve the whole community and that’s why we are very committed to being here in central Watford."

The intention is that the school will be a two-form entry. However, Father David said he is not sure exactly where in central Watford the school would be located.

He added that, while he hopes to find a suitable site in central Watford, until they get approval from the Department of Education to proceed, they are not permitted to enter into negotiations to secure a site.

The closest existing school to the proposed St John’s Primary is Central Primary in Derby Road.

Comments (86)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:55pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

Another faith school in Watford?
We have an abundance already - Perhaps the tax exempt theists need to offset the generous subsidies from the government by providing a outlet for their particular flavour of sky fairy nonsense, whilst at the same time getting their hooks into the younger generation? A win - win position if there ever was one, however if the entry requirements are so magnanimous (which of course they have to be as it will be state funded), why make it related to a church at all?
Will the teachers be required to participate in the church? Will the pupils?
Will the sciences be taught correctly including evolution and Darwinism?
Will religious dogma be biased and more importantly, will the fables in the bible / koran / torah etc be presented as truth?
I doubt the CoE are capable of leaving religion out of the school day as their particular fondness of education is always going to be based on the ancient requirements of a book so out of touch with real life it requires more explanations that it could ever answer.
Im all for education, just leave religion out of it.
Another faith school in Watford? We have an abundance already - Perhaps the tax exempt theists need to offset the generous subsidies from the government by providing a outlet for their particular flavour of sky fairy nonsense, whilst at the same time getting their hooks into the younger generation? A win - win position if there ever was one, however if the entry requirements are so magnanimous (which of course they have to be as it will be state funded), why make it related to a church at all? Will the teachers be required to participate in the church? Will the pupils? Will the sciences be taught correctly including evolution and Darwinism? Will religious dogma be biased and more importantly, will the fables in the bible / koran / torah etc be presented as truth? I doubt the CoE are capable of leaving religion out of the school day as their particular fondness of education is always going to be based on the ancient requirements of a book so out of touch with real life it requires more explanations that it could ever answer. Im all for education, just leave religion out of it. Popeonarope
  • Score: -19

7:42pm Fri 21 Feb 14

WatfordAlex says...

Good luck with it all. Running primary schools requires a lot of hard work and good will, so this won't be easy, but could be a valuable addition to the town.

Barely worth engaging with resident 'rent an atheist' poster above (who only ever comments to slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community). Nevertheless, churches get tax relief because they are charities that do vast amounts of work (from food banks to aid to Africa). If faith schools were not popular and successful the Government would get rid of them - it's a simple as that. CofE Church schools vary in entry requirements - some in London are even full of muslims! They exist to help people, even those of different faiths, or no faith at all. CofE schools teach evolution in science lessons and RE (including all major religions) in RE lessons. Remember, the subject of evolution is only a tiny part of the science syllabus, but evangelical atheists are so obsessed with it that they talk about it like it is the entire subject of science. An atheist friend of mine (a school teacher) told me recently that, pragmatically speaking, he thinks faith schools are a good thing because the voluntary help they facilitate is a life saver in otherwise unloved and underfunded urban schools.
Good luck with it all. Running primary schools requires a lot of hard work and good will, so this won't be easy, but could be a valuable addition to the town. Barely worth engaging with resident 'rent an atheist' poster above (who only ever comments to slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community). Nevertheless, churches get tax relief because they are charities that do vast amounts of work (from food banks to aid to Africa). If faith schools were not popular and successful the Government would get rid of them - it's a simple as that. CofE Church schools vary in entry requirements - some in London are even full of muslims! They exist to help people, even those of different faiths, or no faith at all. CofE schools teach evolution in science lessons and RE (including all major religions) in RE lessons. Remember, the subject of evolution is only a tiny part of the science syllabus, but evangelical atheists are so obsessed with it that they talk about it like it is the entire subject of science. An atheist friend of mine (a school teacher) told me recently that, pragmatically speaking, he thinks faith schools are a good thing because the voluntary help they facilitate is a life saver in otherwise unloved and underfunded urban schools. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 17

8:18pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Arthur says...

Good on you David - a worthy cause - promoted by someone who has the community at heart
Good on you David - a worthy cause - promoted by someone who has the community at heart Arthur
  • Score: 17

8:25pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Nascot says...

No traffic/parking problems at all expected there then!
No traffic/parking problems at all expected there then! Nascot
  • Score: 0

1:32am Sat 22 Feb 14

LSC says...

@WatfordAlex.
As ever, you make some sensible points. But POAR has a point or two too.
If I understand correctly, a free school can opt out of the national curriculum, which may be a good thing, handled correctly.
The fact the very title of the school displays it's bias is, I think, not a good thing. You can't have a school that decides to call itself a C of E school run by someone in the C of E and not expect some bias towards the C of E within it.
That would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

So there will be some hindu, muslim, jewish local residents who might think twice about sending their children there.
That is surely the wrong road to take for a community? In the most cohesive communities, the kids next door go to the same school and we all bump into each other in the local pub or local shop. We start to share the same problems and the same values, the same aims and the same solidarity.

I don't care where anyone goes on a Friday, Sat or Sun in their own time to worship whoever. But these are children, and this is education. Probably the single most important thing on the planet.
We can't mess with their heads at primary school age. Or any other age until they are ready to make an informed choice.
We have decided that we cannot let kids see Arnie machine gun a bunch of people in the cinema until they are old enough to tell fact from fiction. But we will happily sit them down and tell them how god killed everyone on the planet apart from Noah & family when they are toddlers.

That is just weird.

As for you comment: "slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community"
Religion didn't make these people good. They might happen to be religious, and a church or whatever might be a focal point to make it happen, but don't give some god the credit for human beings looking after their fellow man. Some of us do that without any gods.
@WatfordAlex. As ever, you make some sensible points. But POAR has a point or two too. If I understand correctly, a free school can opt out of the national curriculum, which may be a good thing, handled correctly. The fact the very title of the school displays it's bias is, I think, not a good thing. You can't have a school that decides to call itself a C of E school run by someone in the C of E and not expect some bias towards the C of E within it. That would be ridiculous to think otherwise. So there will be some hindu, muslim, jewish local residents who might think twice about sending their children there. That is surely the wrong road to take for a community? In the most cohesive communities, the kids next door go to the same school and we all bump into each other in the local pub or local shop. We start to share the same problems and the same values, the same aims and the same solidarity. I don't care where anyone goes on a Friday, Sat or Sun in their own time to worship whoever. But these are children, and this is education. Probably the single most important thing on the planet. We can't mess with their heads at primary school age. Or any other age until they are ready to make an informed choice. We have decided that we cannot let kids see Arnie machine gun a bunch of people in the cinema until they are old enough to tell fact from fiction. But we will happily sit them down and tell them how god killed everyone on the planet apart from Noah & family when they are toddlers. That is just weird. As for you comment: "slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community" Religion didn't make these people good. They might happen to be religious, and a church or whatever might be a focal point to make it happen, but don't give some god the credit for human beings looking after their fellow man. Some of us do that without any gods. LSC
  • Score: -15

12:25pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Cuetip says...

I would like to know the location which will answer a couple of obvious questions.

Is recreational space needed?

Will it be car free?

How about safe drop off points for the children?

With the town's booming population, just asking if it will be two form entry?

Any chance it will be purpose built and not be a conversion from some building deemed to be unfit for purose?
I would like to know the location which will answer a couple of obvious questions. Is recreational space needed? Will it be car free? How about safe drop off points for the children? With the town's booming population, just asking if it will be two form entry? Any chance it will be purpose built and not be a conversion from some building deemed to be unfit for purose? Cuetip
  • Score: 4

1:19pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Arthur says...

LSC wrote:
@WatfordAlex.
As ever, you make some sensible points. But POAR has a point or two too.
If I understand correctly, a free school can opt out of the national curriculum, which may be a good thing, handled correctly.
The fact the very title of the school displays it's bias is, I think, not a good thing. You can't have a school that decides to call itself a C of E school run by someone in the C of E and not expect some bias towards the C of E within it.
That would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

So there will be some hindu, muslim, jewish local residents who might think twice about sending their children there.
That is surely the wrong road to take for a community? In the most cohesive communities, the kids next door go to the same school and we all bump into each other in the local pub or local shop. We start to share the same problems and the same values, the same aims and the same solidarity.

I don't care where anyone goes on a Friday, Sat or Sun in their own time to worship whoever. But these are children, and this is education. Probably the single most important thing on the planet.
We can't mess with their heads at primary school age. Or any other age until they are ready to make an informed choice.
We have decided that we cannot let kids see Arnie machine gun a bunch of people in the cinema until they are old enough to tell fact from fiction. But we will happily sit them down and tell them how god killed everyone on the planet apart from Noah & family when they are toddlers.

That is just weird.

As for you comment: "slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community"
Religion didn't make these people good. They might happen to be religious, and a church or whatever might be a focal point to make it happen, but don't give some god the credit for human beings looking after their fellow man. Some of us do that without any gods.
Since David became vicar of St John's he has connected very firmly with the local community. Go to one of his Messy Saturday events and meet him and the children attending who seem make up a huge mixture of origins and religions. This church has become a community resources for everyone which in my 30 odd years of living nearby it never was.

He is the driving force behind this project and recognises that there is a dire need for extra school places in our over-crowded locality. He is a good man in the true sense.

Our County Councilor, who doesn't live in the area hasn't a clue, David has and is doing something about it. We should all engage with the project and support him, then it really will become a great addition to our community.

BTW I am an avowed atheist.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: @WatfordAlex. As ever, you make some sensible points. But POAR has a point or two too. If I understand correctly, a free school can opt out of the national curriculum, which may be a good thing, handled correctly. The fact the very title of the school displays it's bias is, I think, not a good thing. You can't have a school that decides to call itself a C of E school run by someone in the C of E and not expect some bias towards the C of E within it. That would be ridiculous to think otherwise. So there will be some hindu, muslim, jewish local residents who might think twice about sending their children there. That is surely the wrong road to take for a community? In the most cohesive communities, the kids next door go to the same school and we all bump into each other in the local pub or local shop. We start to share the same problems and the same values, the same aims and the same solidarity. I don't care where anyone goes on a Friday, Sat or Sun in their own time to worship whoever. But these are children, and this is education. Probably the single most important thing on the planet. We can't mess with their heads at primary school age. Or any other age until they are ready to make an informed choice. We have decided that we cannot let kids see Arnie machine gun a bunch of people in the cinema until they are old enough to tell fact from fiction. But we will happily sit them down and tell them how god killed everyone on the planet apart from Noah & family when they are toddlers. That is just weird. As for you comment: "slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community" Religion didn't make these people good. They might happen to be religious, and a church or whatever might be a focal point to make it happen, but don't give some god the credit for human beings looking after their fellow man. Some of us do that without any gods.[/p][/quote]Since David became vicar of St John's he has connected very firmly with the local community. Go to one of his Messy Saturday events and meet him and the children attending who seem make up a huge mixture of origins and religions. This church has become a community resources for everyone which in my 30 odd years of living nearby it never was. He is the driving force behind this project and recognises that there is a dire need for extra school places in our over-crowded locality. He is a good man in the true sense. Our County Councilor, who doesn't live in the area hasn't a clue, David has and is doing something about it. We should all engage with the project and support him, then it really will become a great addition to our community. BTW I am an avowed atheist. Arthur
  • Score: 18

2:37pm Sat 22 Feb 14

LSC says...

Arthur, I'm sure he is a really nice, hard working guy. Many religious 'leaders' are. Some are not. In fact probably the same proportions as the rest of the population are good or bad people, which suggests the god part of their lives has no bearing on the matter.
So why use it in the title? Why a 'C of E' school and not simply a 'Watford Community school'?
There MUST be a reason for that, because it WILL put some parents off sending children there. The only reason I can think of is that there will be a leaning towards christianity in the education received there.

I, personally do not want my children taught christianity alongside things like maths, history and physics. If my children feel a curiosity towards religion, they can go to a church on a Sunday, attend a Sunday school, or simply read the bible for themselves, and I wouldn't stop them.

But first they would have to learn to read, and THAT is the job of a Primary school, and me as a parent.
Schools should teach kids how to learn as well as basic skills, like reading and writing. 'How do I form a sentence that others can understand?', 'How do I add up this column of figures?', 'What happens if I mix these two chemicals, and why?'.

Religion is not taught that way; it can't be, so it tends to be preached. There is no How, Why, or What If in religion. It is just rules with no explanation.
When it comes to education, religion is just a lazy cop-out. Why do Tigers have stripes? Because that is how god designed them. That isn't education!
Tigers have stripes because they evolved that way, the ones with the best camouflage ate better, lived longer and had more offspring, passing their better camouflage genes along accordingly. That is education.
Arthur, I'm sure he is a really nice, hard working guy. Many religious 'leaders' are. Some are not. In fact probably the same proportions as the rest of the population are good or bad people, which suggests the god part of their lives has no bearing on the matter. So why use it in the title? Why a 'C of E' school and not simply a 'Watford Community school'? There MUST be a reason for that, because it WILL put some parents off sending children there. The only reason I can think of is that there will be a leaning towards christianity in the education received there. I, personally do not want my children taught christianity alongside things like maths, history and physics. If my children feel a curiosity towards religion, they can go to a church on a Sunday, attend a Sunday school, or simply read the bible for themselves, and I wouldn't stop them. But first they would have to learn to read, and THAT is the job of a Primary school, and me as a parent. Schools should teach kids how to learn as well as basic skills, like reading and writing. 'How do I form a sentence that others can understand?', 'How do I add up this column of figures?', 'What happens if I mix these two chemicals, and why?'. Religion is not taught that way; it can't be, so it tends to be preached. There is no How, Why, or What If in religion. It is just rules with no explanation. When it comes to education, religion is just a lazy cop-out. Why do Tigers have stripes? Because that is how god designed them. That isn't education! Tigers have stripes because they evolved that way, the ones with the best camouflage ate better, lived longer and had more offspring, passing their better camouflage genes along accordingly. That is education. LSC
  • Score: -11

7:38pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Good luck with it all. Running primary schools requires a lot of hard work and good will, so this won't be easy, but could be a valuable addition to the town.

Barely worth engaging with resident 'rent an atheist' poster above (who only ever comments to slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community). Nevertheless, churches get tax relief because they are charities that do vast amounts of work (from food banks to aid to Africa). If faith schools were not popular and successful the Government would get rid of them - it's a simple as that. CofE Church schools vary in entry requirements - some in London are even full of muslims! They exist to help people, even those of different faiths, or no faith at all. CofE schools teach evolution in science lessons and RE (including all major religions) in RE lessons. Remember, the subject of evolution is only a tiny part of the science syllabus, but evangelical atheists are so obsessed with it that they talk about it like it is the entire subject of science. An atheist friend of mine (a school teacher) told me recently that, pragmatically speaking, he thinks faith schools are a good thing because the voluntary help they facilitate is a life saver in otherwise unloved and underfunded urban schools.
"Nevertheless, churches get tax relief because they are charities that do vast amounts of work (from food banks to aid to Africa)"
Yes, all charities get tax relief but the churches get tax exemption and subsidies. This provides a additional income they use to not only run charities but to fund their own agendas, run their clubs and promote their own flavour of worship. This is not a small amount of money and has allowed a vast amount of capital and assets to be gathered and used to maintain the stagnation of their beliefs.

Publicly funded schools should not exercise undue influence over young children to adopt religious beliefs before they are mature enough to make up their own minds. The contents of the curriculum ensures the subjects taught fit with the guidelines and present a balanced view of all subjects, but what about the assemblies, outings and after school clubs? These are not controlled and the church affiliation ensures the kids never forget that jeebus is watching their every move for any erroneous thoughts, deeds or activity.

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made. In defense, it tries to hijack and coerce to allow for its own it own continuation.
"The Big Bang Theory? Yes, thats in the bible..., Dinosuars? Yes, they are mentioned too..." The grasping at straws continues unashamedly.
Of course this is absolute nonsense but to allow a continuation of discoveries we need to divorce ourselves from associating with religious organisations and their retarded views on reality. Schools would be an excellent place to start to protect our children from this abuse of misinformation and coercion.
Again, charity, love, nurturing and generosity are not the province only of the faithful. The difference is that an atheist carries these convictions because it is the right thing to do and not because they are are fearful of punishment in an after life.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: Good luck with it all. Running primary schools requires a lot of hard work and good will, so this won't be easy, but could be a valuable addition to the town. Barely worth engaging with resident 'rent an atheist' poster above (who only ever comments to slag off religious people doing valuable work in the community). Nevertheless, churches get tax relief because they are charities that do vast amounts of work (from food banks to aid to Africa). If faith schools were not popular and successful the Government would get rid of them - it's a simple as that. CofE Church schools vary in entry requirements - some in London are even full of muslims! They exist to help people, even those of different faiths, or no faith at all. CofE schools teach evolution in science lessons and RE (including all major religions) in RE lessons. Remember, the subject of evolution is only a tiny part of the science syllabus, but evangelical atheists are so obsessed with it that they talk about it like it is the entire subject of science. An atheist friend of mine (a school teacher) told me recently that, pragmatically speaking, he thinks faith schools are a good thing because the voluntary help they facilitate is a life saver in otherwise unloved and underfunded urban schools.[/p][/quote]"Nevertheless, churches get tax relief because they are charities that do vast amounts of work (from food banks to aid to Africa)" Yes, all charities get tax relief but the churches get tax exemption and subsidies. This provides a additional income they use to not only run charities but to fund their own agendas, run their clubs and promote their own flavour of worship. This is not a small amount of money and has allowed a vast amount of capital and assets to be gathered and used to maintain the stagnation of their beliefs. Publicly funded schools should not exercise undue influence over young children to adopt religious beliefs before they are mature enough to make up their own minds. The contents of the curriculum ensures the subjects taught fit with the guidelines and present a balanced view of all subjects, but what about the assemblies, outings and after school clubs? These are not controlled and the church affiliation ensures the kids never forget that jeebus is watching their every move for any erroneous thoughts, deeds or activity. Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made. In defense, it tries to hijack and coerce to allow for its own it own continuation. "The Big Bang Theory? Yes, thats in the bible..., Dinosuars? Yes, they are mentioned too..." The grasping at straws continues unashamedly. Of course this is absolute nonsense but to allow a continuation of discoveries we need to divorce ourselves from associating with religious organisations and their retarded views on reality. Schools would be an excellent place to start to protect our children from this abuse of misinformation and coercion. Again, charity, love, nurturing and generosity are not the province only of the faithful. The difference is that an atheist carries these convictions because it is the right thing to do and not because they are are fearful of punishment in an after life. Popeonarope
  • Score: -8

12:39am Sun 23 Feb 14

LSC says...

Very well put Pope.
Very well put Pope. LSC
  • Score: -6

12:12pm Sun 23 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

I object specifically to the proposed school, which is designed to ‘be rooted in Christian heritage’ and come under the St Albans Church of England Diocese.

My objections fall into three specific areas:-

As local residents, we pay Council Tax to Hertfordshire County Council to provide education for our children. This “free” school – which, of course, will not be cost-free for local residents – is an unnecessary duplication of existing and planned provision of primary school places in central Watford. By being placed outside of county council provision, it will ensure that there is no democratic accountability on the part of local County Councillors to account for the quality and quantity of this part of local school provision.

Central Primary School is shortly being expanded though conversion work at The Newton Price Centre to increase capacity of primary school provision in central Watford. This will ensure that there are sufficient primary school places in central Watford for all parents and children wanting school places. There is a danger that by providing additional unplanned school places through the proposed religious primary school, that the numbers of places taken up in both schools may end up undermining the viability of both schools, which will do no one – whether children, parents or school workers – any good at all. Education is a vital local service, which needs to be properly and democratically planned and integrated within the local community.

Central Watford is very much like an inner city area, with a highly diverse community and a high turnover rate of people in the area. It is not like some leafy suburb, where the local community is largely related to one belief system and remains largely fixed over many years. The demands of primary schooling in central Watford are highly unique and require truly talented and committed staff, such as are currently to be found in Central Primary School. By increasing unnecessarily the level of provision of primary school places in central Watford, there is a very real danger that both schools will end up competing for truly scarce and skilled staff, thus undermining the effectiveness of provision at both establishments.

By focusing exclusively on ‘Christian heritage’, there is also a very real danger of alienating those children from other heritages, who constitute a majority of children in the area.

Central Primary School currently provides a largely secular form of schooling, while catering for alternative expressions of belief of all kinds. This is – by far – the best form of provision for all concerned.

Arguably, there is a very real concern that there will be insufficient secondary school places in central Watford, which few – if any – of the local politicians appear to be concerned about. Questions need to be asked as to what extent this area of provision is being catered for: now and in the future?
I object specifically to the proposed school, which is designed to ‘be rooted in Christian heritage’ and come under the St Albans Church of England Diocese. My objections fall into three specific areas:- As local residents, we pay Council Tax to Hertfordshire County Council to provide education for our children. This “free” school – which, of course, will not be cost-free for local residents – is an unnecessary duplication of existing and planned provision of primary school places in central Watford. By being placed outside of county council provision, it will ensure that there is no democratic accountability on the part of local County Councillors to account for the quality and quantity of this part of local school provision. Central Primary School is shortly being expanded though conversion work at The Newton Price Centre to increase capacity of primary school provision in central Watford. This will ensure that there are sufficient primary school places in central Watford for all parents and children wanting school places. There is a danger that by providing additional unplanned school places through the proposed religious primary school, that the numbers of places taken up in both schools may end up undermining the viability of both schools, which will do no one – whether children, parents or school workers – any good at all. Education is a vital local service, which needs to be properly and democratically planned and integrated within the local community. Central Watford is very much like an inner city area, with a highly diverse community and a high turnover rate of people in the area. It is not like some leafy suburb, where the local community is largely related to one belief system and remains largely fixed over many years. The demands of primary schooling in central Watford are highly unique and require truly talented and committed staff, such as are currently to be found in Central Primary School. By increasing unnecessarily the level of provision of primary school places in central Watford, there is a very real danger that both schools will end up competing for truly scarce and skilled staff, thus undermining the effectiveness of provision at both establishments. By focusing exclusively on ‘Christian heritage’, there is also a very real danger of alienating those children from other heritages, who constitute a majority of children in the area. Central Primary School currently provides a largely secular form of schooling, while catering for alternative expressions of belief of all kinds. This is – by far – the best form of provision for all concerned. Arguably, there is a very real concern that there will be insufficient secondary school places in central Watford, which few – if any – of the local politicians appear to be concerned about. Questions need to be asked as to what extent this area of provision is being catered for: now and in the future? John Dowdle
  • Score: -4

4:57pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Robin10 says...

This a great idea. We need more primary school places in Watford . Even with Central Primary increasing to two forms of entry there is still a predicted short fall of places as the population of Watford continues to grow.

Church schools have a long history of providing excellent education for local communities and I think a Church School in Watford is an great addition to the choice of schools available.

If there is also a concern about Secondary School then we need to find a group to consider applying to open a secondary school. Free Schools are currently the only show in town and currently the only way to open new schools.
This a great idea. We need more primary school places in Watford . Even with Central Primary increasing to two forms of entry there is still a predicted short fall of places as the population of Watford continues to grow. Church schools have a long history of providing excellent education for local communities and I think a Church School in Watford is an great addition to the choice of schools available. If there is also a concern about Secondary School then we need to find a group to consider applying to open a secondary school. Free Schools are currently the only show in town and currently the only way to open new schools. Robin10
  • Score: 9

5:13pm Sun 23 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

So-called "free" schools are not the 'only show in town'. We all pay Council Tax to Hertfordshire County Council. As the Local Education Authority, HCC are under a legal duty to ensure adequate provision for local schools and school places. Our locally elected County Councillors are supposed to provide a democratic oversight of these services, together with School Governors. The problem with privatising school services is that it removes any form of democratic oversight and leaves students and parents at the mercy of the organisations controlling these schools. Is that right?
I do wish all the medievalists wanting to see a 15th Century education system would think more carefully about what it is they are wishing for.
So-called "free" schools are not the 'only show in town'. We all pay Council Tax to Hertfordshire County Council. As the Local Education Authority, HCC are under a legal duty to ensure adequate provision for local schools and school places. Our locally elected County Councillors are supposed to provide a democratic oversight of these services, together with School Governors. The problem with privatising school services is that it removes any form of democratic oversight and leaves students and parents at the mercy of the organisations controlling these schools. Is that right? I do wish all the medievalists wanting to see a 15th Century education system would think more carefully about what it is they are wishing for. John Dowdle
  • Score: -5

5:24pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Robin10 says...

John Dowdle - my understanding was that if the LEA want / need to open new schools the only option, currently is to do this as a free school / academy. I do not say that this is good or bad, merely stating that my understanding is that currently this is the only option. My understanding is these school still have School Governors, OFSTED inspections etc - so not really at the mercy of the organisations controlling these schools.
Are you interested in getting a group together to explore opening a secondary school?
John Dowdle - my understanding was that if the LEA want / need to open new schools the only option, currently is to do this as a free school / academy. I do not say that this is good or bad, merely stating that my understanding is that currently this is the only option. My understanding is these school still have School Governors, OFSTED inspections etc - so not really at the mercy of the organisations controlling these schools. Are you interested in getting a group together to explore opening a secondary school? Robin10
  • Score: 5

6:04pm Sun 23 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

If you go to http://www.hertsdire
ct.org/docs/pdf/h/ha
rpexpan.pdf you can see how HCC have investigated the provision of additional secondary school places in the Harpenden area.
The document also has maps covering the Watford and Three Rivers areas too, with projections as to shortages arising after 2015.
If they are doing their job, our county councillors ought to be requesting HCC officers to carry out similar initiatives for the Watford area.
Perhaps some of them will come on to this site and enlighten us as to what they are doing about future provision of secondary school places?
If you go to http://www.hertsdire ct.org/docs/pdf/h/ha rpexpan.pdf you can see how HCC have investigated the provision of additional secondary school places in the Harpenden area. The document also has maps covering the Watford and Three Rivers areas too, with projections as to shortages arising after 2015. If they are doing their job, our county councillors ought to be requesting HCC officers to carry out similar initiatives for the Watford area. Perhaps some of them will come on to this site and enlighten us as to what they are doing about future provision of secondary school places? John Dowdle
  • Score: -4

6:45pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Mrw1973 says...

There is quite a large shortage of places for primary school age pupils in Watford.
As a practicing teacher, there are no schools I know of in this country which teach creationism alone. Yet one of the only statutory subjects is religious education, and there is often a daily act of worship/assembly.

I think that variety is vital in our provision of quality education for future generations, and church schools some of the best results nationally. But an atmosphere of 'loving your neighbour' is surely no bad thing in this day and age.
There is quite a large shortage of places for primary school age pupils in Watford. As a practicing teacher, there are no schools I know of in this country which teach creationism alone. Yet one of the only statutory subjects is religious education, and there is often a daily act of worship/assembly. I think that variety is vital in our provision of quality education for future generations, and church schools some of the best results nationally. But an atmosphere of 'loving your neighbour' is surely no bad thing in this day and age. Mrw1973
  • Score: 7

6:48pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Robin10 says...

For those who might be interested here is the link to the proposed School website which shows more details on the vision for the school.
http://www.saintjohn
swatfordschool.org.u
k/vision.php

The website clearly states the school will be open to all - Its reassuring to note the school will be part of the Diocese of St Albans school family which have a large number of successful schools already.
For those who might be interested here is the link to the proposed School website which shows more details on the vision for the school. http://www.saintjohn swatfordschool.org.u k/vision.php The website clearly states the school will be open to all - Its reassuring to note the school will be part of the Diocese of St Albans school family which have a large number of successful schools already. Robin10
  • Score: 6

6:49pm Sun 23 Feb 14

WatfordAlex says...

LSC: The funny thing is I don't really disagree with you. I wish everyone in a local community went to the nearest state school (whether it be CofE, grammar, academy etc). However, pragmatically speaking, if anyone in this selfish world of ours is willing to go out of their way to help with something then I say good luck to them.

As we have disagreed before, the old cliches of how people are 'good' regardless of religion is all well and good, but then means that if anyone does something 'bad', you can't then blame it on religion either (e.g. suicide bombers). Equally, the old line of how atheists are 'better' than believers because they do 'good' things for selfless reasons relies on the idea that all religious people are dumb 'old testament style' followers. Christians and other people of faith don't just do good things because they're worried about hell, but because they are inspired by the works of Jesus etc - i.e. a positive framework.
LSC: The funny thing is I don't really disagree with you. I wish everyone in a local community went to the nearest state school (whether it be CofE, grammar, academy etc). However, pragmatically speaking, if anyone in this selfish world of ours is willing to go out of their way to help with something then I say good luck to them. As we have disagreed before, the old cliches of how people are 'good' regardless of religion is all well and good, but then means that if anyone does something 'bad', you can't then blame it on religion either (e.g. suicide bombers). Equally, the old line of how atheists are 'better' than believers because they do 'good' things for selfless reasons relies on the idea that all religious people are dumb 'old testament style' followers. Christians and other people of faith don't just do good things because they're worried about hell, but because they are inspired by the works of Jesus etc - i.e. a positive framework. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 6

7:16pm Sun 23 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

There are some bizarre remarks above.

Mrw1973 must be aware of recent research that shows conclusively that the reason church schools perform well academically is because they have far fewer pupils from deprived backgrounds, as indicated by entitlement to free school meals. Most church schools are in leafy suburbs very unlike central Watford. Many church schools require proven church attendance on Sundays before children can even be considered for admittance and in some of these schools a record of church floral arranging and cleaning work is expected of prospective parents of children attending church schools. Is everyone ready for this?

I know we are not talking about the Oratory setting up in Watford any time soon but money and time could soon be working as rationing mechanisms here in central Watford too in due course.

Robin10: the web site also includes statements to the effect that:-

St John’s Church of England Primary School will be rooted in the Christian heritage of educating our young people and supporting families and the community - the local St John's Church will play a central role in the school's work.

We aim to create a school which will:
Be rooted in the Christian belief of love for God, the environment and all Humanity
Enable Christian children to grow in their Christian faith, developing disciplines of worship, prayer and service
Develop the spirituality of all children

We aim to create a school:
Which is underpinned by the Church of England faith and ethos

We aim to create a school:
Which links with the St John’s Church and community to enhance the children’s learning

What I find troubling about these types of applications is the watering down of the commitment to local democratic accountability for the schools – which does not get a mention anywhere.

It all seems part and parcel of an overall central government policy of abrogating any form of democratic accountability.

Without being partisan in any way, it has to be said that this trend has been going on now for decades.

The selling-off of social housing and the increasing privatisation of the health, social and offender management services are all being opened up to private – including religious – provision.

Effectively speaking, it seems we are all sleepwalking our way into a dystopian non-democratic system of government and public service provision. When will people finally wake up to this?

As freethinkers, what we want to see is properly organised provision of services - like health and education - being provided fairly and impartially for all, to the benefit of all equally in society. Private and semi-private providers ( like religious outfits) will not achieve an egalitarian society. Quite the opposite, in fact, as we see where the socio-economic makeup of church schools is concerned.

If you are in favour of elitism then say so but bear in mind it could be your children who end up being excluded and in lower achieving schools.

As a secularist, I believe in keeping religion and politics apart, and I especially dislike the idea of mind-washing children with silly and superstitious nonsense in religious schools.

Government after government over the last 20 years at least has been ramming religion into children's minds in this country - and the outcome?

According to OECD PISA test results, children in this country have fallen behind and look likely to continue to falling behind children in other countries. The same is true in the USA. What connects both of these countries? The absurd insistence in recent decades in allowing religion to take control over our schools. Religion dumbs down our children.
There are some bizarre remarks above. Mrw1973 must be aware of recent research that shows conclusively that the reason church schools perform well academically is because they have far fewer pupils from deprived backgrounds, as indicated by entitlement to free school meals. Most church schools are in leafy suburbs very unlike central Watford. Many church schools require proven church attendance on Sundays before children can even be considered for admittance and in some of these schools a record of church floral arranging and cleaning work is expected of prospective parents of children attending church schools. Is everyone ready for this? I know we are not talking about the Oratory setting up in Watford any time soon but money and time could soon be working as rationing mechanisms here in central Watford too in due course. Robin10: the web site also includes statements to the effect that:- St John’s Church of England Primary School will be rooted in the Christian heritage of educating our young people and supporting families and the community - the local St John's Church will play a central role in the school's work. We aim to create a school which will: Be rooted in the Christian belief of love for God, the environment and all Humanity Enable Christian children to grow in their Christian faith, developing disciplines of worship, prayer and service Develop the spirituality of all children We aim to create a school: Which is underpinned by the Church of England faith and ethos We aim to create a school: Which links with the St John’s Church and community to enhance the children’s learning What I find troubling about these types of applications is the watering down of the commitment to local democratic accountability for the schools – which does not get a mention anywhere. It all seems part and parcel of an overall central government policy of abrogating any form of democratic accountability. Without being partisan in any way, it has to be said that this trend has been going on now for decades. The selling-off of social housing and the increasing privatisation of the health, social and offender management services are all being opened up to private – including religious – provision. Effectively speaking, it seems we are all sleepwalking our way into a dystopian non-democratic system of government and public service provision. When will people finally wake up to this? As freethinkers, what we want to see is properly organised provision of services - like health and education - being provided fairly and impartially for all, to the benefit of all equally in society. Private and semi-private providers ( like religious outfits) will not achieve an egalitarian society. Quite the opposite, in fact, as we see where the socio-economic makeup of church schools is concerned. If you are in favour of elitism then say so but bear in mind it could be your children who end up being excluded and in lower achieving schools. As a secularist, I believe in keeping religion and politics apart, and I especially dislike the idea of mind-washing children with silly and superstitious nonsense in religious schools. Government after government over the last 20 years at least has been ramming religion into children's minds in this country - and the outcome? According to OECD PISA test results, children in this country have fallen behind and look likely to continue to falling behind children in other countries. The same is true in the USA. What connects both of these countries? The absurd insistence in recent decades in allowing religion to take control over our schools. Religion dumbs down our children. John Dowdle
  • Score: -5

9:42pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Vivi100 says...

I am an atheist and member of the British Humanist Association, however I also attend St. John's with my children and welcome the idea of the school. The reason for this is that whilst I don't want to indoctrinate my children with religious beliefs, nor do I want them to grow up atheist purely because I am, or to be ignorant of religion: I think it is important to debate it, and it's role in society. Father David is more than willing to discuss/ debate Christianity and science, and while I disagree with his view that there is an omnipotent creator behind everything, from what I know of him we agree on the science itself. We both think it's important for all religious beliefs to be studied, and this, combined with the fact I will make it clear that Christianity is not what I believe (and why), allays any concerns about my children being indoctrinated.

Yes, Chritianity is contradictatory and people interpret it differently, but there is nothing in the ethos of this particular church or its school that I could possibly disagree with. Yes, as an atheist I want to do good because it is the right thing to do, not from fear of hell or desire for reward, but if a child is being cared for emotionally and taught to be kind, as well as learning the tools to ask 'why' and question the world around them, for me that fits well with my outlook.

I do share some of the concerns voiced here, that a secular education would be the ideal and that church schools are often in affluent areas and select pupils to get better results. But as it is in England, according to section 70 of the 1998 Education Reform Act, subject to the parental right of excusal or other special arrangements, “…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.” Which is "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character." Even the state education seems to lack secularism. And we have a shortage of primary school places. This school will help to provide for more children, and from my understanding will not be selecting students on ability in order to boost results. From my experience Father David is genuinely keen to welcome anyone in to his church, and the sense of community there has made me appreciate a positive side to religion which, in all honesty, I had started to lose sight of. There is no humanist organisation locally (that I know of) that brings together such a range of ages and provides company and conversation like this.
I am an atheist and member of the British Humanist Association, however I also attend St. John's with my children and welcome the idea of the school. The reason for this is that whilst I don't want to indoctrinate my children with religious beliefs, nor do I want them to grow up atheist purely because I am, or to be ignorant of religion: I think it is important to debate it, and it's role in society. Father David is more than willing to discuss/ debate Christianity and science, and while I disagree with his view that there is an omnipotent creator behind everything, from what I know of him we agree on the science itself. We both think it's important for all religious beliefs to be studied, and this, combined with the fact I will make it clear that Christianity is not what I believe (and why), allays any concerns about my children being indoctrinated. Yes, Chritianity is contradictatory and people interpret it differently, but there is nothing in the ethos of this particular church or its school that I could possibly disagree with. Yes, as an atheist I want to do good because it is the right thing to do, not from fear of hell or desire for reward, but if a child is being cared for emotionally and taught to be kind, as well as learning the tools to ask 'why' and question the world around them, for me that fits well with my outlook. I do share some of the concerns voiced here, that a secular education would be the ideal and that church schools are often in affluent areas and select pupils to get better results. But as it is in England, according to section 70 of the 1998 Education Reform Act, subject to the parental right of excusal or other special arrangements, “…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.” Which is "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character." Even the state education seems to lack secularism. And we have a shortage of primary school places. This school will help to provide for more children, and from my understanding will not be selecting students on ability in order to boost results. From my experience Father David is genuinely keen to welcome anyone in to his church, and the sense of community there has made me appreciate a positive side to religion which, in all honesty, I had started to lose sight of. There is no humanist organisation locally (that I know of) that brings together such a range of ages and provides company and conversation like this. Vivi100
  • Score: 15

12:38am Mon 24 Feb 14

LSC says...

Alex, I don't believe atheists have some sort of higher moral ground than those with religion when they do good; that is the point. They are just people. We all are.
My point is that some sort of god plays no part in it.
A classic example is the International Red Cross. A group of very, very brave people who go into war zones to help people, in the name of a christian god.
But wait; we also have the Red Crescent, a group of very, very brave people who go into war zones to help people in the name of a different god.

The common denominator between those two isn't a god, because they are very different. So it has to be people just being people. No other explanation fits.

I see your point about suicide bombers and accepting that 'nice' could also mean 'nasty' by the same token. But if someone is only being nice to me because some god told them to, not because they personally want to, they can go and take a running jump and I'll find a genuine friend, thanks.
Alex, I don't believe atheists have some sort of higher moral ground than those with religion when they do good; that is the point. They are just people. We all are. My point is that some sort of god plays no part in it. A classic example is the International Red Cross. A group of very, very brave people who go into war zones to help people, in the name of a christian god. But wait; we also have the Red Crescent, a group of very, very brave people who go into war zones to help people in the name of a different god. The common denominator between those two isn't a god, because they are very different. So it has to be people just being people. No other explanation fits. I see your point about suicide bombers and accepting that 'nice' could also mean 'nasty' by the same token. But if someone is only being nice to me because some god told them to, not because they personally want to, they can go and take a running jump and I'll find a genuine friend, thanks. LSC
  • Score: -7

12:52am Mon 24 Feb 14

LSC says...

Robin10 wrote:
For those who might be interested here is the link to the proposed School website which shows more details on the vision for the school.
http://www.saintjohn

swatfordschool.org.u

k/vision.php

The website clearly states the school will be open to all - Its reassuring to note the school will be part of the Diocese of St Albans school family which have a large number of successful schools already.
Of course it says it is open to all; they have to. I might open one myself, "The Free School of Devil Worship and Serial Killing".

Would you think twice about sending your children to my school? After all, what's in a name? Can't be all bad, can it? I'd open it to everyone.
I doubt I'd get any pupils, and if I did I'd be rather frightened of them. And that is the point.
[quote][p][bold]Robin10[/bold] wrote: For those who might be interested here is the link to the proposed School website which shows more details on the vision for the school. http://www.saintjohn swatfordschool.org.u k/vision.php The website clearly states the school will be open to all - Its reassuring to note the school will be part of the Diocese of St Albans school family which have a large number of successful schools already.[/p][/quote]Of course it says it is open to all; they have to. I might open one myself, "The Free School of Devil Worship and Serial Killing". Would you think twice about sending your children to my school? After all, what's in a name? Can't be all bad, can it? I'd open it to everyone. I doubt I'd get any pupils, and if I did I'd be rather frightened of them. And that is the point. LSC
  • Score: -5

1:10am Mon 24 Feb 14

VM1975 says...

What a lovely debate on what people think about free schools/faith schools, however, as a parent from Central Watford with children coming up to primary school admission age, I do wonder how many of the above commentators on the school are also parents from Central Watford with children of school age? If you are not one, then please don't let your personal views try to influence the education of my children. To set the story straight, I have looked into primary school places at an indepth level.
1) There are not enough, and projections are that by 2016, Watford will have over 150 places fewer than expected pupils
2) Central Primary are unlikely to be able to cope with the increased demand, even with their permanent expansion.
3) Central ward has already been identified by the council as one of two areas that are least able to cope with expected growth in terms of GPs and schools.
4) Free schools are the only way forward currently under this government.
So, we need school places, the Church of England are proposing a school and are putting in the effort to make that happen. If anyone else would like to start a school, you will have my blessing.
I certainly don't remember the CoE being creationists, equally, I certainly attended a secular school that still celebrated Christmas with the Nativity, Harvest Festival, Easter (all Christian traditions) - so when is religion too much religion? If you don't like the idea of a Faith school, don't send your children to one.
For the record, I am an atheist (even though I was christened a Roman Catholic, church every Sunday, Sunday school). I still chose my own path in life. I also live close to the church, and I know the community spirit that has been created by the church's team. If you'd asked me five years ago whether I would send my children to a faith school, I probably would have laughed. Now I wholeheartedly support the proposition for the CoE school and hope that my children will go there, as I know that it will be a good school, with many principles that I hold dear (being good to one another, helping those in need etc.) and as for the belief in God - well my children will be able to chose their own path.
What a lovely debate on what people think about free schools/faith schools, however, as a parent from Central Watford with children coming up to primary school admission age, I do wonder how many of the above commentators on the school are also parents from Central Watford with children of school age? If you are not one, then please don't let your personal views try to influence the education of my children. To set the story straight, I have looked into primary school places at an indepth level. 1) There are not enough, and projections are that by 2016, Watford will have over 150 places fewer than expected pupils 2) Central Primary are unlikely to be able to cope with the increased demand, even with their permanent expansion. 3) Central ward has already been identified by the council as one of two areas that are least able to cope with expected growth in terms of GPs and schools. 4) Free schools are the only way forward currently under this government. So, we need school places, the Church of England are proposing a school and are putting in the effort to make that happen. If anyone else would like to start a school, you will have my blessing. I certainly don't remember the CoE being creationists, equally, I certainly attended a secular school that still celebrated Christmas with the Nativity, Harvest Festival, Easter (all Christian traditions) - so when is religion too much religion? If you don't like the idea of a Faith school, don't send your children to one. For the record, I am an atheist (even though I was christened a Roman Catholic, church every Sunday, Sunday school). I still chose my own path in life. I also live close to the church, and I know the community spirit that has been created by the church's team. If you'd asked me five years ago whether I would send my children to a faith school, I probably would have laughed. Now I wholeheartedly support the proposition for the CoE school and hope that my children will go there, as I know that it will be a good school, with many principles that I hold dear (being good to one another, helping those in need etc.) and as for the belief in God - well my children will be able to chose their own path. VM1975
  • Score: 10

8:07am Mon 24 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

Really and truly, we all ought to be getting angry about this current situation - especially those of us who live in central Watford.
This failure to provide adequately for the future education and healthcare needs of local people and - in particular - children, is a damning indictment of a bunch of people who have been asleep at the wheel.
It is the responsibility of the county council - and, in particular, our local County Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst - to have seen this situation coming.
The County Council operates the local registry for births, marriages and deaths. Why have they not been awake as to the future need for school places in central Watford?
If these Liberal Democrats spent less time posing next to pot holes and more time investigating strategically the education needs of local people, we would not be in the position we now find ourselves in.
It could be added Watford Council ought also to have been more awake where this issue is concerned. They do little enough these days; why have they not been more alert to the education needs of local children?
As for local GP provision, successive governments have been so focused on introducing radical changes that we now find ourselves with a cloud of uncertainty over local hospital provision and local general practice provision.
Again, if local MP Richard Harrington spent more time on investigating local healthcare provision instead of trying to cultivate financial relations with the local business community, we might have avoided this current healthcare crisis also emerging.
We have all been badly let down by local politicians and I can understand why the church - predatory as ever - have identified what they must consider to be a market opportunity to peddle their product brand to a new group of consumers.
I say nothing negative about David Stevenson; he is just doing his job of promoting his particular brand of "faith" product. It is, after all, what he is paid to do but it does not augur well for the future of this country and Watford in particular if we find ourselves being reduced to having to turn to millenia old superstitions in order to obtain some sort of partial education for our children who, after all, represent the future of us all.
Really and truly, we all ought to be getting angry about this current situation - especially those of us who live in central Watford. This failure to provide adequately for the future education and healthcare needs of local people and - in particular - children, is a damning indictment of a bunch of people who have been asleep at the wheel. It is the responsibility of the county council - and, in particular, our local County Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst - to have seen this situation coming. The County Council operates the local registry for births, marriages and deaths. Why have they not been awake as to the future need for school places in central Watford? If these Liberal Democrats spent less time posing next to pot holes and more time investigating strategically the education needs of local people, we would not be in the position we now find ourselves in. It could be added Watford Council ought also to have been more awake where this issue is concerned. They do little enough these days; why have they not been more alert to the education needs of local children? As for local GP provision, successive governments have been so focused on introducing radical changes that we now find ourselves with a cloud of uncertainty over local hospital provision and local general practice provision. Again, if local MP Richard Harrington spent more time on investigating local healthcare provision instead of trying to cultivate financial relations with the local business community, we might have avoided this current healthcare crisis also emerging. We have all been badly let down by local politicians and I can understand why the church - predatory as ever - have identified what they must consider to be a market opportunity to peddle their product brand to a new group of consumers. I say nothing negative about David Stevenson; he is just doing his job of promoting his particular brand of "faith" product. It is, after all, what he is paid to do but it does not augur well for the future of this country and Watford in particular if we find ourselves being reduced to having to turn to millenia old superstitions in order to obtain some sort of partial education for our children who, after all, represent the future of us all. John Dowdle
  • Score: -6

12:13pm Mon 24 Feb 14

garston tony says...

I always have to laugh when people trot out the anti religion stuff as they have in this discussion. I especially like the opinions put forward that that religion is made up, its forced on people etc when the very people who are making those claims are themselves a) trying to deny people the freedom of choice and b) wanting to force their own beliefs (which when it comes to how we came about is itself actually known to be made up) on others.

The irony, or should that be hypocrisy?
I always have to laugh when people trot out the anti religion stuff as they have in this discussion. I especially like the opinions put forward that that religion is made up, its forced on people etc when the very people who are making those claims are themselves a) trying to deny people the freedom of choice and b) wanting to force their own beliefs (which when it comes to how we came about is itself actually known to be made up) on others. The irony, or should that be hypocrisy? garston tony
  • Score: 6

12:14pm Mon 24 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC, just because a child is brought up being taught a particular belief that does not remove their choice in later life to stop believing in it. There are countless examples of kids turning away from a faith, just as there are plenty of examples of people having been brought up with no belief choosing one when they are older. Of course if you had your way people would have no choice, it would be big bang and nothing else.

Oh, and LSC those of the Christian faith in the Red Cross and those of the Muslim faith in the Red Crescent do actually believe in the same God by the way.
LSC, just because a child is brought up being taught a particular belief that does not remove their choice in later life to stop believing in it. There are countless examples of kids turning away from a faith, just as there are plenty of examples of people having been brought up with no belief choosing one when they are older. Of course if you had your way people would have no choice, it would be big bang and nothing else. Oh, and LSC those of the Christian faith in the Red Cross and those of the Muslim faith in the Red Crescent do actually believe in the same God by the way. garston tony
  • Score: 5

12:16pm Mon 24 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Pope, there wouldnt be an abundance of faith schools if they were not wanted. The CofE church would not be considering this school if they didnt think it was viable, and the man himself said that many people had approached him over the schooling of their children in the area.

JD you banged on about the council having made provisions for school places in the area, that if this school was to happen there would be a surplus blah blah. Then when several people point out that there will actually still be a shortfall even with the council provisions you bang on about how the council have let this area down by not making provisions. Says it all. Stop trying to hide behind an opportunistic false concern over local school provisions everyone knows the only reason you are commenting on this is because of your anti religious bias.

I particularly liked your comment about being a 'freethinker', yes a 'freethinker' who seems to be hell bent on denying others the same choice to think freely and as they wish.
Pope, there wouldnt be an abundance of faith schools if they were not wanted. The CofE church would not be considering this school if they didnt think it was viable, and the man himself said that many people had approached him over the schooling of their children in the area. JD you banged on about the council having made provisions for school places in the area, that if this school was to happen there would be a surplus blah blah. Then when several people point out that there will actually still be a shortfall even with the council provisions you bang on about how the council have let this area down by not making provisions. Says it all. Stop trying to hide behind an opportunistic false concern over local school provisions everyone knows the only reason you are commenting on this is because of your anti religious bias. I particularly liked your comment about being a 'freethinker', yes a 'freethinker' who seems to be hell bent on denying others the same choice to think freely and as they wish. garston tony
  • Score: 7

12:17pm Mon 24 Feb 14

garston tony says...

I also love this worry thats been expressed about how the school will be run along faith lines. Despite the fact this has been set out from the start some of you are acting like its all clandistine and underhand. Parents are going to know when applying to send their kids to this school that it is going to be faith run and based. There is no suprise, parents will be making the decision knowing the facts and once again all your comments add up to is your wish to deny others the freedom of choice. None of you are coming accross as very nice in this regards!

Oh,and speaking of choice plenty of parents of different faiths or even no faith choose to send their kids to Christian schools. Seriously, once again you claim faith misleads people yet that is precisely the tactics you are trying.
I also love this worry thats been expressed about how the school will be run along faith lines. Despite the fact this has been set out from the start some of you are acting like its all clandistine and underhand. Parents are going to know when applying to send their kids to this school that it is going to be faith run and based. There is no suprise, parents will be making the decision knowing the facts and once again all your comments add up to is your wish to deny others the freedom of choice. None of you are coming accross as very nice in this regards! Oh,and speaking of choice plenty of parents of different faiths or even no faith choose to send their kids to Christian schools. Seriously, once again you claim faith misleads people yet that is precisely the tactics you are trying. garston tony
  • Score: 9

12:20pm Mon 24 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc.

If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.
Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise. garston tony
  • Score: 8

12:48pm Mon 24 Feb 14

LSC says...

garston tony wrote:
Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc.

If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.
I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country.
Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent.
For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so.
When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you. LSC
  • Score: -6

1:39pm Mon 24 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

Tony's bizarre set of rambling statements stand as absolute testimony to the idiocy of religious indoctrination. Need any one say any more?
Tony's bizarre set of rambling statements stand as absolute testimony to the idiocy of religious indoctrination. Need any one say any more? John Dowdle
  • Score: -6

1:42pm Mon 24 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.
I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.
No LSC, that's people for you.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day.

I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement.

I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.[/p][/quote]No LSC, that's people for you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day. I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement. I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing. garston tony
  • Score: 6

1:44pm Mon 24 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
Tony's bizarre set of rambling statements stand as absolute testimony to the idiocy of religious indoctrination. Need any one say any more?
You what? I was responding to you, Pope and LSC. If my comments are rambling then that is a reflection of what YOU wrote.

Its easy to throw out statements like yours but no details I see. THAT says it all.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony's bizarre set of rambling statements stand as absolute testimony to the idiocy of religious indoctrination. Need any one say any more?[/p][/quote]You what? I was responding to you, Pope and LSC. If my comments are rambling then that is a reflection of what YOU wrote. Its easy to throw out statements like yours but no details I see. THAT says it all. garston tony
  • Score: 7

2:30pm Mon 24 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC.
Is that specific enough for you?
Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you? John Dowdle
  • Score: -2

3:14pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.
I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.
No LSC, that's people for you.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day.

I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement.

I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.
It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord").
In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind.

By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion!
Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed.
Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour.

Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.[/p][/quote]No LSC, that's people for you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day. I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement. I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.[/p][/quote]It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"). In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind. By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion! Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed. Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour. Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc. Popeonarope
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Mon 24 Feb 14

LSC says...

"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere."

I can't be bothered to look up verse and chapter, but yes it does. Well, not cut them off, It actually says you should kill them. Any breach of the ten commandments is punnishable by death, as according to the bible Moses himself ordered a man killed for picking up sticks on a sabbath.
The poor bloke probably just wanted to make a fire for a hot dinner, and was stoned to death for it. He was probably so uneducated he didn't even know what day of the week it was.
But they killed him anyway. It's all in your book. How loving.

The koran is no better. It doesn't allow killing. Of believers. Anyone else is fair game.
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere." I can't be bothered to look up verse and chapter, but yes it does. Well, not cut them off, It actually says you should kill them. Any breach of the ten commandments is punnishable by death, as according to the bible Moses himself ordered a man killed for picking up sticks on a sabbath. The poor bloke probably just wanted to make a fire for a hot dinner, and was stoned to death for it. He was probably so uneducated he didn't even know what day of the week it was. But they killed him anyway. It's all in your book. How loving. The koran is no better. It doesn't allow killing. Of believers. Anyone else is fair game. LSC
  • Score: -4

4:01pm Mon 24 Feb 14

LSC says...

Oh, and now you are going to tell me Moses was only human, and therefore prone to mistakes. According to the bible itself, he was 120 years old, and started his career with a murder. That is a big mistake for a holy man, and quite an age for a normal human being, even in this age.
Oh, and now you are going to tell me Moses was only human, and therefore prone to mistakes. According to the bible itself, he was 120 years old, and started his career with a murder. That is a big mistake for a holy man, and quite an age for a normal human being, even in this age. LSC
  • Score: -5

4:02pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Robin10 says...

Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are:
1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford
2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy
3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places

Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents.
Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are: 1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford 2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy 3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents. Robin10
  • Score: 8

4:28pm Mon 24 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

The following can be viewed at http://www.hertsdire
ct.org/docs/pdf/m/me
etingprimary.pdf.

On page 40 of the report, the following plans for Watford Town are revealed:-

A shortage of 1 f.e. in 2013/14 is forecast increasing to 3 f.e. from 2014/15 and 6 f.e. by 2015/16. To date, the increase in demand has primarily been concentrated in central and mid Watford. However, current forecasts indicate demand is also increasing in north Watford towards the end of the forecast period.

Action taken

2009: permanent expansion of Holywell by 0.5 f.e. to 2 f.e.

2010: temporary expansion by 1 f.e. of:
• Laurance Haines Primary to 3 f.e.
• Beechfield Primary to 2 f.e.
• Cassiobury Infant to 2 f.e.

2011: continued temporary expansion by 1 f.e. of:
• Laurance Haines Primary to 3 f.e.
• Beechfield Primary to 2 f.e.
• Cassiobury Infant to 2 f.e.
• temporary expansion of Cherry Tree by 1 f.e. to 2 f.e.

2012: permanent expansion by 1 f.e. of:
• Beechfield Primary to 2 f.e.
• Cassiobury Infant to 3 f.e.
• Holywell Primary to 3 f.e.
• Cherry Tree Primary to 2 f.e.

Temporary expansion by 1 f.e of.:
• St Anthony’s Catholic Primary to 2 f.e
• Orchard Primary to 2 f.e
• Kingsway Infant to 3 f.e
• Central Primary to 2 f.e.
• Watford Field Infant and Nursery to 3 f.e.

Next Steps

2013: permanent expansion by 1f.e. of :
• Cassiobury Junior to 3 f.e. (approved)
•St Anthony’s Catholic Primary to 2 f.e (approved)
• The permanent expansion of Orchard Primary School by 1 f.e. (30 places) to 2 f.e. is proposed from September 2013. This is currently subject to public consultation and a final decision is expected in November 2012

As can be seen, expansion of existing schools to accommodate new pupils is possible and has been taking place since 2009, i.e. over the last 5 years.

It seems there is a spike in demand for places still occurring but it has to be questioned if opening extra school places will not end up undermining the viability of existing and possible new schools?
The following can be viewed at http://www.hertsdire ct.org/docs/pdf/m/me etingprimary.pdf. On page 40 of the report, the following plans for Watford Town are revealed:- A shortage of 1 f.e. in 2013/14 is forecast increasing to 3 f.e. from 2014/15 and 6 f.e. by 2015/16. To date, the increase in demand has primarily been concentrated in central and mid Watford. However, current forecasts indicate demand is also increasing in north Watford towards the end of the forecast period. Action taken 2009: permanent expansion of Holywell by 0.5 f.e. to 2 f.e. 2010: temporary expansion by 1 f.e. of: • Laurance Haines Primary to 3 f.e. • Beechfield Primary to 2 f.e. • Cassiobury Infant to 2 f.e. 2011: continued temporary expansion by 1 f.e. of: • Laurance Haines Primary to 3 f.e. • Beechfield Primary to 2 f.e. • Cassiobury Infant to 2 f.e. • temporary expansion of Cherry Tree by 1 f.e. to 2 f.e. 2012: permanent expansion by 1 f.e. of: • Beechfield Primary to 2 f.e. • Cassiobury Infant to 3 f.e. • Holywell Primary to 3 f.e. • Cherry Tree Primary to 2 f.e. Temporary expansion by 1 f.e of.: • St Anthony’s Catholic Primary to 2 f.e • Orchard Primary to 2 f.e • Kingsway Infant to 3 f.e • Central Primary to 2 f.e. • Watford Field Infant and Nursery to 3 f.e. Next Steps 2013: permanent expansion by 1f.e. of : • Cassiobury Junior to 3 f.e. (approved) •St Anthony’s Catholic Primary to 2 f.e (approved) • The permanent expansion of Orchard Primary School by 1 f.e. (30 places) to 2 f.e. is proposed from September 2013. This is currently subject to public consultation and a final decision is expected in November 2012 As can be seen, expansion of existing schools to accommodate new pupils is possible and has been taking place since 2009, i.e. over the last 5 years. It seems there is a spike in demand for places still occurring but it has to be questioned if opening extra school places will not end up undermining the viability of existing and possible new schools? John Dowdle
  • Score: -4

5:06pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Robin10 says...

John, I don't quite follow your arguments - earlier you said that the councils have been asleep and should have foreseen the shortfall of places and now you tell us how hard they have been working in creating extra spaces.?! Which is it? Although, i am guessing you are not delighted to see St Anthony’s Catholic Primary expaning - or are you supportive of that now?
John, I don't quite follow your arguments - earlier you said that the councils have been asleep and should have foreseen the shortfall of places and now you tell us how hard they have been working in creating extra spaces.?! Which is it? Although, i am guessing you are not delighted to see St Anthony’s Catholic Primary expaning - or are you supportive of that now? Robin10
  • Score: 4

5:15pm Mon 24 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories.
There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ?
In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories. There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ? John Dowdle
  • Score: -3

6:40am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC.
Is that specific enough for you?
Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context.

its about parr for the course when you are involved.

i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing garston tony
  • Score: 2

6:46am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.
I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.
No LSC, that's people for you.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day.

I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement.

I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.
It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord").
In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind.

By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion!
Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed.
Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour.

Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc.
What is arrogant about parents wanting a choice of how their children are educated?

there is nothing arrogant about it, its meeting a demand. As i said earlier in response to one of your previous comments there is a 'plethora' of faith schools because there is a demand for them

what is arrogant is thinking you have the right to dictate to others. But ok, stop teaching religion in school. But also stop teaching evolutionary and big bang theory
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.[/p][/quote]No LSC, that's people for you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day. I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement. I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.[/p][/quote]It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"). In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind. By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion! Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed. Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour. Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc.[/p][/quote]What is arrogant about parents wanting a choice of how their children are educated? there is nothing arrogant about it, its meeting a demand. As i said earlier in response to one of your previous comments there is a 'plethora' of faith schools because there is a demand for them what is arrogant is thinking you have the right to dictate to others. But ok, stop teaching religion in school. But also stop teaching evolutionary and big bang theory garston tony
  • Score: 1

6:51am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere."

I can't be bothered to look up verse and chapter, but yes it does. Well, not cut them off, It actually says you should kill them. Any breach of the ten commandments is punnishable by death, as according to the bible Moses himself ordered a man killed for picking up sticks on a sabbath.
The poor bloke probably just wanted to make a fire for a hot dinner, and was stoned to death for it. He was probably so uneducated he didn't even know what day of the week it was.
But they killed him anyway. It's all in your book. How loving.

The koran is no better. It doesn't allow killing. Of believers. Anyone else is fair game.
the example you have given is someone being punished for breaking the commandments not someone being sent to coventry for not believing
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere." I can't be bothered to look up verse and chapter, but yes it does. Well, not cut them off, It actually says you should kill them. Any breach of the ten commandments is punnishable by death, as according to the bible Moses himself ordered a man killed for picking up sticks on a sabbath. The poor bloke probably just wanted to make a fire for a hot dinner, and was stoned to death for it. He was probably so uneducated he didn't even know what day of the week it was. But they killed him anyway. It's all in your book. How loving. The koran is no better. It doesn't allow killing. Of believers. Anyone else is fair game.[/p][/quote]the example you have given is someone being punished for breaking the commandments not someone being sent to coventry for not believing garston tony
  • Score: 2

6:57am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Robin10 wrote:
Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are:
1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford
2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy
3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places

Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents.
Thank you Robin for putting us all in our place, unfortunately whenever there is the slightest hint of a religious aspect to a story you have the usual vultures trying to go in for the kill and i can not let their usually totally incorrect and hypocritical comments go unchallenged.

as you point out the church is responding to a need, and as i said in a previous post parents who send their kids to this school will do so knowing full well the environment in which they will be taught. That is their rightfull choice and one that religious detractors are arrogant to the extreme trying to deny
[quote][p][bold]Robin10[/bold] wrote: Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are: 1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford 2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy 3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents.[/p][/quote]Thank you Robin for putting us all in our place, unfortunately whenever there is the slightest hint of a religious aspect to a story you have the usual vultures trying to go in for the kill and i can not let their usually totally incorrect and hypocritical comments go unchallenged. as you point out the church is responding to a need, and as i said in a previous post parents who send their kids to this school will do so knowing full well the environment in which they will be taught. That is their rightfull choice and one that religious detractors are arrogant to the extreme trying to deny garston tony
  • Score: 3

7:16am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories.
There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ?
Finally the man tells us the truth instead of trying to disguise his bigotry behind a fake 'concern' over local school provisions. Although it was funny seeing you flip flop your comments about that actual matter but i see you done a double contradiction by flipping back to your original fake concern
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories. There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ?[/p][/quote]Finally the man tells us the truth instead of trying to disguise his bigotry behind a fake 'concern' over local school provisions. Although it was funny seeing you flip flop your comments about that actual matter but i see you done a double contradiction by flipping back to your original fake concern garston tony
  • Score: 2

9:00am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?
Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing
Right the context

Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them.

As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them).

The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing[/p][/quote]Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message garston tony
  • Score: 1

9:01am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Its an old trick taking a verse out of context and going tada this is proof of blah blah blah when it is no such thing and I think JD knew he was doing that. I mean picking this text either shows ignorance (which is likely in all events) but also a willingness to 'play dirty'. After all he has admitted now his 'concern' over school places in the area was just a (poorly executed) cover to hide his real reasons for opposing this potential new school.

JD, if you want to 'discuss' religious beliefs you'd do yourself a big favour by not trying to be so blatently underhand.
Its an old trick taking a verse out of context and going tada this is proof of blah blah blah when it is no such thing and I think JD knew he was doing that. I mean picking this text either shows ignorance (which is likely in all events) but also a willingness to 'play dirty'. After all he has admitted now his 'concern' over school places in the area was just a (poorly executed) cover to hide his real reasons for opposing this potential new school. JD, if you want to 'discuss' religious beliefs you'd do yourself a big favour by not trying to be so blatently underhand. garston tony
  • Score: 1

9:58am Tue 25 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.
I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.
No LSC, that's people for you.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day.

I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement.

I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.
It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord").
In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind.

By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion!
Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed.
Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour.

Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc.
What is arrogant about parents wanting a choice of how their children are educated?

there is nothing arrogant about it, its meeting a demand. As i said earlier in response to one of your previous comments there is a 'plethora' of faith schools because there is a demand for them

what is arrogant is thinking you have the right to dictate to others. But ok, stop teaching religion in school. But also stop teaching evolutionary and big bang theory
Now you are being foolish, not just arrogant. No one has ever advocated not teaching children about religion. It has obviously had a profound effect on world history and to know nothing about how religious movements have over time operated to shape the world is to leave children ignorant as to the important drivers of world history. Comparative analysis of religion is also something which is very important for children to undertake if they are to understand the similarities and differences in their modes of belief.
They should also, of course, learn about humanism and secularism too.
What is objectionable is when just one religious brand or product is peddled to the exclusion of all others - as in this instance.
Critical thinking can be informed and developed by comparative historical education and scientific analysis of the natural world.
Education is not about satisfying parents' prejudices or superstitions; it is about helping young people to achieve their full potential in life.
That is why a secular education is best for them and all in society.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.[/p][/quote]No LSC, that's people for you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day. I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement. I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.[/p][/quote]It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"). In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind. By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion! Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed. Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour. Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc.[/p][/quote]What is arrogant about parents wanting a choice of how their children are educated? there is nothing arrogant about it, its meeting a demand. As i said earlier in response to one of your previous comments there is a 'plethora' of faith schools because there is a demand for them what is arrogant is thinking you have the right to dictate to others. But ok, stop teaching religion in school. But also stop teaching evolutionary and big bang theory[/p][/quote]Now you are being foolish, not just arrogant. No one has ever advocated not teaching children about religion. It has obviously had a profound effect on world history and to know nothing about how religious movements have over time operated to shape the world is to leave children ignorant as to the important drivers of world history. Comparative analysis of religion is also something which is very important for children to undertake if they are to understand the similarities and differences in their modes of belief. They should also, of course, learn about humanism and secularism too. What is objectionable is when just one religious brand or product is peddled to the exclusion of all others - as in this instance. Critical thinking can be informed and developed by comparative historical education and scientific analysis of the natural world. Education is not about satisfying parents' prejudices or superstitions; it is about helping young people to achieve their full potential in life. That is why a secular education is best for them and all in society. John Dowdle
  • Score: 1

10:15am Tue 25 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories.
There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ?
Finally the man tells us the truth instead of trying to disguise his bigotry behind a fake 'concern' over local school provisions. Although it was funny seeing you flip flop your comments about that actual matter but i see you done a double contradiction by flipping back to your original fake concern
I leave fakery and falseness to you religious types.
You have all been "at it" since time immemorial.
It is not a matter of bigotry on my part.
Have you not just seen 85 year old former priest Paul Cullen being deported from Spain in the last week in order to face charges of child abuse stretching back for decades?
He was allowed to retire - presumably on a church pension - and he then skipped bail from the UK in order to live as a church-supported fugitive in nice sunny warm Spain for the last 20 years.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-263
21778 for more details.
People like him are a perfect advertisement for the "goodness" and "grace" of religious types. Rank hypocrisy springs to my mind instead.
Incidentally, for people like Robin - who seems to think private sector schools are the absolute answer for everything - see today's latest news that Education Secretary Gove has been forced to step in and take control over 10 of the worst performing academy schools in the country at http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/in-pictures-26
335206.
Simplistic propaganda is of little use in the face of real facts.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories. There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ?[/p][/quote]Finally the man tells us the truth instead of trying to disguise his bigotry behind a fake 'concern' over local school provisions. Although it was funny seeing you flip flop your comments about that actual matter but i see you done a double contradiction by flipping back to your original fake concern[/p][/quote]I leave fakery and falseness to you religious types. You have all been "at it" since time immemorial. It is not a matter of bigotry on my part. Have you not just seen 85 year old former priest Paul Cullen being deported from Spain in the last week in order to face charges of child abuse stretching back for decades? He was allowed to retire - presumably on a church pension - and he then skipped bail from the UK in order to live as a church-supported fugitive in nice sunny warm Spain for the last 20 years. See http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-263 21778 for more details. People like him are a perfect advertisement for the "goodness" and "grace" of religious types. Rank hypocrisy springs to my mind instead. Incidentally, for people like Robin - who seems to think private sector schools are the absolute answer for everything - see today's latest news that Education Secretary Gove has been forced to step in and take control over 10 of the worst performing academy schools in the country at http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/in-pictures-26 335206. Simplistic propaganda is of little use in the face of real facts. John Dowdle
  • Score: -3

10:18am Tue 25 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?
Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing
Right the context

Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them.

As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them).

The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message
Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!!
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing[/p][/quote]Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message[/p][/quote]Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!! John Dowdle
  • Score: -5

10:24am Tue 25 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
Robin10 wrote:
Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are:
1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford
2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy
3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places

Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents.
Thank you Robin for putting us all in our place, unfortunately whenever there is the slightest hint of a religious aspect to a story you have the usual vultures trying to go in for the kill and i can not let their usually totally incorrect and hypocritical comments go unchallenged.

as you point out the church is responding to a need, and as i said in a previous post parents who send their kids to this school will do so knowing full well the environment in which they will be taught. That is their rightfull choice and one that religious detractors are arrogant to the extreme trying to deny
Tony: there is absolutely no need whatsoever for another religious school.
What there is is a market opportunity for a local cleric to expand his operations and to increase his customer base.
This I fully understand.
If I were in his position, I would do exactly the same as him.
After all, that is what he is paid to do; how can he do otherwise?
Parents will not have any real choice if the numbers of places are scarce.
They will have to accept what they are given by the local diocese or go without. Yes, the county council should have made better provision than they appear to have made so far, though they may now be catching up finally with real demand for school places. We will have to wait and see.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin10[/bold] wrote: Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are: 1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford 2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy 3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents.[/p][/quote]Thank you Robin for putting us all in our place, unfortunately whenever there is the slightest hint of a religious aspect to a story you have the usual vultures trying to go in for the kill and i can not let their usually totally incorrect and hypocritical comments go unchallenged. as you point out the church is responding to a need, and as i said in a previous post parents who send their kids to this school will do so knowing full well the environment in which they will be taught. That is their rightfull choice and one that religious detractors are arrogant to the extreme trying to deny[/p][/quote]Tony: there is absolutely no need whatsoever for another religious school. What there is is a market opportunity for a local cleric to expand his operations and to increase his customer base. This I fully understand. If I were in his position, I would do exactly the same as him. After all, that is what he is paid to do; how can he do otherwise? Parents will not have any real choice if the numbers of places are scarce. They will have to accept what they are given by the local diocese or go without. Yes, the county council should have made better provision than they appear to have made so far, though they may now be catching up finally with real demand for school places. We will have to wait and see. John Dowdle
  • Score: -5

10:33am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.
I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.
No LSC, that's people for you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day. I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement. I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.
It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"). In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind. By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion! Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed. Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour. Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc.
What is arrogant about parents wanting a choice of how their children are educated? there is nothing arrogant about it, its meeting a demand. As i said earlier in response to one of your previous comments there is a 'plethora' of faith schools because there is a demand for them what is arrogant is thinking you have the right to dictate to others. But ok, stop teaching religion in school. But also stop teaching evolutionary and big bang theory
Now you are being foolish, not just arrogant. No one has ever advocated not teaching children about religion. It has obviously had a profound effect on world history and to know nothing about how religious movements have over time operated to shape the world is to leave children ignorant as to the important drivers of world history. Comparative analysis of religion is also something which is very important for children to undertake if they are to understand the similarities and differences in their modes of belief. They should also, of course, learn about humanism and secularism too. What is objectionable is when just one religious brand or product is peddled to the exclusion of all others - as in this instance. Critical thinking can be informed and developed by comparative historical education and scientific analysis of the natural world. Education is not about satisfying parents' prejudices or superstitions; it is about helping young people to achieve their full potential in life. That is why a secular education is best for them and all in society.
Erm, JD you quoted a discussion where pope did just advocate not teaching religion in school.

I do agree children should be taught about all the main different beliefs out there, about the different religions and other non faith based beliefs as well. As it happens I cant think of one Christian school I have been to that doesnt cover other beliefs although I'm not saying that there wont be some that dont. But religious schools are far more open than you seem to believe they are.

But you seem to have changed your tune, and you are certainly not in step with your fellow religion haters who would only have secular beliefs taught.

There also seems to be a belief that ALL religious schools teach is RE, that is rubbish and as you yourself admitted religious schools tend to have a good educational record. Most religious schools do as well and sometimes better at helping the children who attend them achieve their full potential in life (are you assuming that someone who has a faith is somehow limited in potential? You dont have to look far to see how that belief is a load of bull!)
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Whatever the environment people are brought up in there comes a point where they have every freedom to choose for themselves how to live, what to believe etc. If people want to believe in a God let them, its their choice and no one (least of all the anti religious posters on here) has the right to say otherwise.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree entirely with that, although it can get you killed in some parts of the world. Up until the 80s, even in Northern Ireland, part of our own country. Even now there are 'honour killings' for wanting to marry or even just date outside a religion right here in England. Thankfully rare, but I imagine the fear is very prominent. For some, changing or losing a religion means losing family and community at the same time. My wife, born to a catholic family was told she would be disowned if we didn't marry in a catholic church. I don't know how serious they were, but it was enough to make us do so. When we moved in together, she never went to church once; unless her family were around. That is how ingrained it gets. Her family aren't nutters, I really like them as people, but they think she goes to mass every week. I know she doesn't and seeing her lie to them pains me greatly. I just keep out of it. But that's religion for you.[/p][/quote]No LSC, that's people for you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should cut off a family member should they stop believing in God. Nowhere. In fact Jesus by teaching and example befriended the outcasts of His day. I understand that for many people the only thing they 'know' of the Bible or God is how others act, but as you know i have said time and again you need to know the source yourself to make a true judgement. I stopped believing when I was in my late teens and stopped going to church. Of course my parents were not jumping for joy over my decision but no one cut me off and to be honest apart from not attending church I was still being invited to social events, round peoples houses etc. That only stopped when I left the area myself for a number of years. At no time was I pressurised to go back to church or made to feel I was bad for stopping believing.[/p][/quote]It does however,say a lot of things Tony. In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements ("He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"). In Numbers, he addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: Now, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Now I understand this is the Old Testament but are these things acceptable to you as the literal truth or are they just metaphors along with every other part that is no longer fun to teach children? Religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited. It assures them that god cares for them individually, and it claims that the cosmos was created with them specifically in mind. By what right does any church assume the role of teaching our children. No one voted for them. Yet instead of using their temporal powers to lobby elected councils to provide more school places they arrogantly assume the role of mentor not in the best interests of the children but because it furthers their own aims by coercion! Faith schools can cherry pick who they let in; those with the 'right faith' - and who are not, even if they are local children. Imagine if they was proposed for black children or middle class only? It would never be allowed. Using public money to facilitate an agenda not representative of the population is undemocratic at best but because the church is involved everyone assumes it is a good idea. Not all faith schools are successful; even when they can choose who they will serve, which will always tip the balance in their favour. Keep religion out of education and let the kids come to their own conclusions with a balanced view of all subjects. Morality and life lessons could be taught without a religious slant as are other subjects; science, natural history, PE, maths, languages and the arts etc.[/p][/quote]What is arrogant about parents wanting a choice of how their children are educated? there is nothing arrogant about it, its meeting a demand. As i said earlier in response to one of your previous comments there is a 'plethora' of faith schools because there is a demand for them what is arrogant is thinking you have the right to dictate to others. But ok, stop teaching religion in school. But also stop teaching evolutionary and big bang theory[/p][/quote]Now you are being foolish, not just arrogant. No one has ever advocated not teaching children about religion. It has obviously had a profound effect on world history and to know nothing about how religious movements have over time operated to shape the world is to leave children ignorant as to the important drivers of world history. Comparative analysis of religion is also something which is very important for children to undertake if they are to understand the similarities and differences in their modes of belief. They should also, of course, learn about humanism and secularism too. What is objectionable is when just one religious brand or product is peddled to the exclusion of all others - as in this instance. Critical thinking can be informed and developed by comparative historical education and scientific analysis of the natural world. Education is not about satisfying parents' prejudices or superstitions; it is about helping young people to achieve their full potential in life. That is why a secular education is best for them and all in society.[/p][/quote]Erm, JD you quoted a discussion where pope did just advocate not teaching religion in school. I do agree children should be taught about all the main different beliefs out there, about the different religions and other non faith based beliefs as well. As it happens I cant think of one Christian school I have been to that doesnt cover other beliefs although I'm not saying that there wont be some that dont. But religious schools are far more open than you seem to believe they are. But you seem to have changed your tune, and you are certainly not in step with your fellow religion haters who would only have secular beliefs taught. There also seems to be a belief that ALL religious schools teach is RE, that is rubbish and as you yourself admitted religious schools tend to have a good educational record. Most religious schools do as well and sometimes better at helping the children who attend them achieve their full potential in life (are you assuming that someone who has a faith is somehow limited in potential? You dont have to look far to see how that belief is a load of bull!) garston tony
  • Score: 6

10:36am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote: In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories. There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ?
Finally the man tells us the truth instead of trying to disguise his bigotry behind a fake 'concern' over local school provisions. Although it was funny seeing you flip flop your comments about that actual matter but i see you done a double contradiction by flipping back to your original fake concern
I leave fakery and falseness to you religious types. You have all been "at it" since time immemorial. It is not a matter of bigotry on my part. Have you not just seen 85 year old former priest Paul Cullen being deported from Spain in the last week in order to face charges of child abuse stretching back for decades? He was allowed to retire - presumably on a church pension - and he then skipped bail from the UK in order to live as a church-supported fugitive in nice sunny warm Spain for the last 20 years. See http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-263 21778 for more details. People like him are a perfect advertisement for the "goodness" and "grace" of religious types. Rank hypocrisy springs to my mind instead. Incidentally, for people like Robin - who seems to think private sector schools are the absolute answer for everything - see today's latest news that Education Secretary Gove has been forced to step in and take control over 10 of the worst performing academy schools in the country at http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/in-pictures-26 335206. Simplistic propaganda is of little use in the face of real facts.
JD once again you are being underhand, trying to claim that the actions of a few individual is representative of a whole faith is b*ll*cks and you know it. You're the simplistic one around here JD
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: In truth, Robin - or whatever your actual name is - I view any form of religious indoctrination as equally unacceptable, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I consider it to be a form of child abuse to fill the impressionable minds of young children with religious nonsense, if not downright horror stories. There may still yet be a shortfall of school places even though the county council has made belated attempts to open up extra entry forms - we will have to wait and see - but, as I earlier pointed out, they do operate the civil registration service for the county - so why were they not more aware ?[/p][/quote]Finally the man tells us the truth instead of trying to disguise his bigotry behind a fake 'concern' over local school provisions. Although it was funny seeing you flip flop your comments about that actual matter but i see you done a double contradiction by flipping back to your original fake concern[/p][/quote]I leave fakery and falseness to you religious types. You have all been "at it" since time immemorial. It is not a matter of bigotry on my part. Have you not just seen 85 year old former priest Paul Cullen being deported from Spain in the last week in order to face charges of child abuse stretching back for decades? He was allowed to retire - presumably on a church pension - and he then skipped bail from the UK in order to live as a church-supported fugitive in nice sunny warm Spain for the last 20 years. See http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-263 21778 for more details. People like him are a perfect advertisement for the "goodness" and "grace" of religious types. Rank hypocrisy springs to my mind instead. Incidentally, for people like Robin - who seems to think private sector schools are the absolute answer for everything - see today's latest news that Education Secretary Gove has been forced to step in and take control over 10 of the worst performing academy schools in the country at http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/in-pictures-26 335206. Simplistic propaganda is of little use in the face of real facts.[/p][/quote]JD once again you are being underhand, trying to claim that the actions of a few individual is representative of a whole faith is b*ll*cks and you know it. You're the simplistic one around here JD garston tony
  • Score: 7

10:41am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?
Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing
Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message
Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!!
JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context.

Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else.

The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look).
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing[/p][/quote]Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message[/p][/quote]Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!![/p][/quote]JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context. Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else. The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look). garston tony
  • Score: 6

10:45am Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Robin10 wrote: Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are: 1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford 2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy 3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents.
Thank you Robin for putting us all in our place, unfortunately whenever there is the slightest hint of a religious aspect to a story you have the usual vultures trying to go in for the kill and i can not let their usually totally incorrect and hypocritical comments go unchallenged. as you point out the church is responding to a need, and as i said in a previous post parents who send their kids to this school will do so knowing full well the environment in which they will be taught. That is their rightfull choice and one that religious detractors are arrogant to the extreme trying to deny
Tony: there is absolutely no need whatsoever for another religious school. What there is is a market opportunity for a local cleric to expand his operations and to increase his customer base. This I fully understand. If I were in his position, I would do exactly the same as him. After all, that is what he is paid to do; how can he do otherwise? Parents will not have any real choice if the numbers of places are scarce. They will have to accept what they are given by the local diocese or go without. Yes, the county council should have made better provision than they appear to have made so far, though they may now be catching up finally with real demand for school places. We will have to wait and see.
Well the parents that approached this church and its minister seem to think that there is a need for a religious school. The church obviously thinks its viable too otherwise they wouldnt be considering it.

Oh, but of course your statement about there being 'no need' for another religious school is based on your own assumption that you know best. And we all know how you are nearly always wrong there dont we.

Seriously, if you dont believe or like religion thats fine, your choice. Lovely. Why cant you just accept that others have the equal right to believe in a God and live their lives accordingly including in the choice of where they send their children to school?
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin10[/bold] wrote: Lots of discussion going on here about Religion- interesting as that may be, the facts on this story are: 1. There is a shortage of primary school places in Watford 2. The only way currently to open new school places is through the Free Schools policy 3.The local Church is responding to the local need to provide school places Clearly some people are very upset by this, but I suspect they are not the same people who are worrying where their child will go to school next year in Watford. As will all free schools, this one will need to prove there is demand for it before it gets the green light to proceed. The School will have to clearly share its proposed curriculum, its governace arrangments and its educational aspirations. Parents will then have a choice of local schools. I think this is really positive step forward and its good to see people doing something positive rather than just moaning and not doing anything practical to support local parents.[/p][/quote]Thank you Robin for putting us all in our place, unfortunately whenever there is the slightest hint of a religious aspect to a story you have the usual vultures trying to go in for the kill and i can not let their usually totally incorrect and hypocritical comments go unchallenged. as you point out the church is responding to a need, and as i said in a previous post parents who send their kids to this school will do so knowing full well the environment in which they will be taught. That is their rightfull choice and one that religious detractors are arrogant to the extreme trying to deny[/p][/quote]Tony: there is absolutely no need whatsoever for another religious school. What there is is a market opportunity for a local cleric to expand his operations and to increase his customer base. This I fully understand. If I were in his position, I would do exactly the same as him. After all, that is what he is paid to do; how can he do otherwise? Parents will not have any real choice if the numbers of places are scarce. They will have to accept what they are given by the local diocese or go without. Yes, the county council should have made better provision than they appear to have made so far, though they may now be catching up finally with real demand for school places. We will have to wait and see.[/p][/quote]Well the parents that approached this church and its minister seem to think that there is a need for a religious school. The church obviously thinks its viable too otherwise they wouldnt be considering it. Oh, but of course your statement about there being 'no need' for another religious school is based on your own assumption that you know best. And we all know how you are nearly always wrong there dont we. Seriously, if you dont believe or like religion thats fine, your choice. Lovely. Why cant you just accept that others have the equal right to believe in a God and live their lives accordingly including in the choice of where they send their children to school? garston tony
  • Score: 6

10:48am Tue 25 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?
Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing
Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message
Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!!
JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context.

Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else.

The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look).
In all honesty, would you really try teaching the stuff you said above to primary school children? If "Yes", then any rational person's mind would simply boggle. To be fair to you, I just don't think you really understand how ludicrously idiotic most religious teaching is and - in particular - most of the OT and NT. Look at just how much wriggling around you have had to go to in order to justify something you cannot - as a modern person - truly believe.
Keep taking the tablets!!
And make sure you watch the BBC programme "Bible Hunters" - a very good and very interesting programme, particularly on the role of the Gnostic Gospels, which I am sure you would want taught too - Yes?
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing[/p][/quote]Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message[/p][/quote]Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!![/p][/quote]JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context. Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else. The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look).[/p][/quote]In all honesty, would you really try teaching the stuff you said above to primary school children? If "Yes", then any rational person's mind would simply boggle. To be fair to you, I just don't think you really understand how ludicrously idiotic most religious teaching is and - in particular - most of the OT and NT. Look at just how much wriggling around you have had to go to in order to justify something you cannot - as a modern person - truly believe. Keep taking the tablets!! And make sure you watch the BBC programme "Bible Hunters" - a very good and very interesting programme, particularly on the role of the Gnostic Gospels, which I am sure you would want taught too - Yes? John Dowdle
  • Score: -7

12:23pm Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?
Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing
Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message
Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!!
JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context. Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else. The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look).
In all honesty, would you really try teaching the stuff you said above to primary school children? If "Yes", then any rational person's mind would simply boggle. To be fair to you, I just don't think you really understand how ludicrously idiotic most religious teaching is and - in particular - most of the OT and NT. Look at just how much wriggling around you have had to go to in order to justify something you cannot - as a modern person - truly believe. Keep taking the tablets!! And make sure you watch the BBC programme "Bible Hunters" - a very good and very interesting programme, particularly on the role of the Gnostic Gospels, which I am sure you would want taught too - Yes?
What wriggling?! You stupidly threw out a verse out of context in the incredibly idiotic hope that that would 'win' your argument. I've done the intelligent thing and provided the context in which the verse needs to be seen, a context which blows whatever point you were trying to make out of the water.

You were wrong, have been proven wrong, have been caught out and your response (once again) is pure schoolboy bluster completely lacking in any actual meaning.

You have this wholly despicable i know better than you attitude. I said it earlier you may not believe in a God but you look ever more idiotic trying to criticise those that do, we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs as much as you are. If you cant deal with that then all I can say is that for all your old age you're incredibly immature!
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing[/p][/quote]Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message[/p][/quote]Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!![/p][/quote]JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context. Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else. The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look).[/p][/quote]In all honesty, would you really try teaching the stuff you said above to primary school children? If "Yes", then any rational person's mind would simply boggle. To be fair to you, I just don't think you really understand how ludicrously idiotic most religious teaching is and - in particular - most of the OT and NT. Look at just how much wriggling around you have had to go to in order to justify something you cannot - as a modern person - truly believe. Keep taking the tablets!! And make sure you watch the BBC programme "Bible Hunters" - a very good and very interesting programme, particularly on the role of the Gnostic Gospels, which I am sure you would want taught too - Yes?[/p][/quote]What wriggling?! You stupidly threw out a verse out of context in the incredibly idiotic hope that that would 'win' your argument. I've done the intelligent thing and provided the context in which the verse needs to be seen, a context which blows whatever point you were trying to make out of the water. You were wrong, have been proven wrong, have been caught out and your response (once again) is pure schoolboy bluster completely lacking in any actual meaning. You have this wholly despicable i know better than you attitude. I said it earlier you may not believe in a God but you look ever more idiotic trying to criticise those that do, we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs as much as you are. If you cant deal with that then all I can say is that for all your old age you're incredibly immature! garston tony
  • Score: 7

12:34pm Tue 25 Feb 14

LSC says...

Tony, you keep harking back to evolution and big bang as theory, and should not be taught in schools.
The big bang is indeed theory and is, as far as I know taught as such. I don't pretend to understand a word of it, but it does seem to fit observable patterns that can be measured. Nobody I know says it is fact. It just appears, with the information we have, to be the most likely.
Evolution IS proven. There are gaps, but they are getting filled every day.
So I'm happy for that to be taught as fact, because it is.

I'm also happy for children to be taught ABOUT religion. But that is not what happens. And certainly not in an openly religious biased school.
Tony, you keep harking back to evolution and big bang as theory, and should not be taught in schools. The big bang is indeed theory and is, as far as I know taught as such. I don't pretend to understand a word of it, but it does seem to fit observable patterns that can be measured. Nobody I know says it is fact. It just appears, with the information we have, to be the most likely. Evolution IS proven. There are gaps, but they are getting filled every day. So I'm happy for that to be taught as fact, because it is. I'm also happy for children to be taught ABOUT religion. But that is not what happens. And certainly not in an openly religious biased school. LSC
  • Score: -6

1:17pm Tue 25 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote:
garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?
Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing
Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message
Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!!
JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context. Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else. The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look).
In all honesty, would you really try teaching the stuff you said above to primary school children? If "Yes", then any rational person's mind would simply boggle. To be fair to you, I just don't think you really understand how ludicrously idiotic most religious teaching is and - in particular - most of the OT and NT. Look at just how much wriggling around you have had to go to in order to justify something you cannot - as a modern person - truly believe. Keep taking the tablets!! And make sure you watch the BBC programme "Bible Hunters" - a very good and very interesting programme, particularly on the role of the Gnostic Gospels, which I am sure you would want taught too - Yes?
What wriggling?! You stupidly threw out a verse out of context in the incredibly idiotic hope that that would 'win' your argument. I've done the intelligent thing and provided the context in which the verse needs to be seen, a context which blows whatever point you were trying to make out of the water.

You were wrong, have been proven wrong, have been caught out and your response (once again) is pure schoolboy bluster completely lacking in any actual meaning.

You have this wholly despicable i know better than you attitude. I said it earlier you may not believe in a God but you look ever more idiotic trying to criticise those that do, we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs as much as you are. If you cant deal with that then all I can say is that for all your old age you're incredibly immature!
Tony: there are no gods to believe in. They don't exist. They "died" long ago.
They are like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch: they have ceased to exist; they are ex-gods; they have finally pined for the fiords and gone.
I stopped believing in Father Christmas years ago but you hang on in there with the same belief in a non-existent entity even now. It is truly sad.
If you choose to believe in literal non-sense that is up to you and others like you but to inflict such stupid ignorance on others is much worse than sad.
Cleric: leave those kids alone, as Pink Floyd almost once said.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Tony: try reading Luke 14:26 and then try repeating your remarks to LSC. Is that specific enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah JD, the good old pathetic trick of taking a text out of context. its about parr for the course when you are involved. i'm writing this on my mobile so will give a clearer explanation when i can get to a computer but needless to say that you make youraelf look like an idiot doing this type of thing[/p][/quote]Right the context Firstly the text is Jesus talking specifically to people who wanted to become His disciples and the context is Him making it clear to them the difficulties that that could bring for them. As with many Greek words they can have more than one meaning depending on the context of what was written. 'Hate' can also mean murder, it can also mean abandon. Most people that chose to follow Christ in His day were disowned by their families. Far from telling people to hate others, to not associate with non believers this passage taken into context with others is warning those that wanted to become His disciples that they would likely be disowned by their families so they had better not choose that path unless they were willing to abandon their families (because their families would have nothing to do with them). The role of a disciple was to spread Gods/Christs message, thats not something they could do if they were not allowed to associate with non believers! God tells us to honour our parents, to love our spouses, to be good parents, to love your neighbour. That is God's message[/p][/quote]Tony: your dissembling and rambling message says it all far better than I could ever express it. You are to be congratulated for making it so clear that religious belief is utter nonsense. Well done. I salute you !!![/p][/quote]JD you told a lie, I pointed it out and gave the facts and context. Your reply? Further idiotic bluster, nothing else. The game is up for you JD, accept it (for your own sake as the more you say the more stupid you look).[/p][/quote]In all honesty, would you really try teaching the stuff you said above to primary school children? If "Yes", then any rational person's mind would simply boggle. To be fair to you, I just don't think you really understand how ludicrously idiotic most religious teaching is and - in particular - most of the OT and NT. Look at just how much wriggling around you have had to go to in order to justify something you cannot - as a modern person - truly believe. Keep taking the tablets!! And make sure you watch the BBC programme "Bible Hunters" - a very good and very interesting programme, particularly on the role of the Gnostic Gospels, which I am sure you would want taught too - Yes?[/p][/quote]What wriggling?! You stupidly threw out a verse out of context in the incredibly idiotic hope that that would 'win' your argument. I've done the intelligent thing and provided the context in which the verse needs to be seen, a context which blows whatever point you were trying to make out of the water. You were wrong, have been proven wrong, have been caught out and your response (once again) is pure schoolboy bluster completely lacking in any actual meaning. You have this wholly despicable i know better than you attitude. I said it earlier you may not believe in a God but you look ever more idiotic trying to criticise those that do, we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs as much as you are. If you cant deal with that then all I can say is that for all your old age you're incredibly immature![/p][/quote]Tony: there are no gods to believe in. They don't exist. They "died" long ago. They are like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch: they have ceased to exist; they are ex-gods; they have finally pined for the fiords and gone. I stopped believing in Father Christmas years ago but you hang on in there with the same belief in a non-existent entity even now. It is truly sad. If you choose to believe in literal non-sense that is up to you and others like you but to inflict such stupid ignorance on others is much worse than sad. Cleric: leave those kids alone, as Pink Floyd almost once said. John Dowdle
  • Score: -7

2:56pm Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
Tony, you keep harking back to evolution and big bang as theory, and should not be taught in schools. The big bang is indeed theory and is, as far as I know taught as such. I don't pretend to understand a word of it, but it does seem to fit observable patterns that can be measured. Nobody I know says it is fact. It just appears, with the information we have, to be the most likely. Evolution IS proven. There are gaps, but they are getting filled every day. So I'm happy for that to be taught as fact, because it is. I'm also happy for children to be taught ABOUT religion. But that is not what happens. And certainly not in an openly religious biased school.
Why am I having a discussion with people that do not bother to read what others say??

LSC i've in the past and in a previous post on this very discussion stated that i'm more than happy for kids to be taught ABOUT big bang/evolution in schools and i've been to many a Christian school were it is.

Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not

What I have a problem with is people saying religion is man made and shouldnt be taught in schools when they want what is acknowledged by science itself to be man made ideas about evolution/big bang taught exlusively. That is hypocrisy and its arrogant. Either both should be taught or neither
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: Tony, you keep harking back to evolution and big bang as theory, and should not be taught in schools. The big bang is indeed theory and is, as far as I know taught as such. I don't pretend to understand a word of it, but it does seem to fit observable patterns that can be measured. Nobody I know says it is fact. It just appears, with the information we have, to be the most likely. Evolution IS proven. There are gaps, but they are getting filled every day. So I'm happy for that to be taught as fact, because it is. I'm also happy for children to be taught ABOUT religion. But that is not what happens. And certainly not in an openly religious biased school.[/p][/quote]Why am I having a discussion with people that do not bother to read what others say?? LSC i've in the past and in a previous post on this very discussion stated that i'm more than happy for kids to be taught ABOUT big bang/evolution in schools and i've been to many a Christian school were it is. Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not What I have a problem with is people saying religion is man made and shouldnt be taught in schools when they want what is acknowledged by science itself to be man made ideas about evolution/big bang taught exlusively. That is hypocrisy and its arrogant. Either both should be taught or neither garston tony
  • Score: 6

3:02pm Tue 25 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you.

Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you.
Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you. Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you. garston tony
  • Score: 7

3:12pm Tue 25 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you.

Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you.
That's OK, Tony - you trot along to your temple and worship Mars.
What's that you say? He is no longer a god?
Who would have thought it?
Well, there's always Zeus as a fall-back for you.
What's that you say?
He too has ceased to exist as a god?
Well, you can always worship the Sun on Sunday, the Moon on Monday, some god or another I have forgotten on Tuesday, Woden on Wednesday, Thor on Thursday, and Freya on Friday.
What? No one worships any of them any longer?
How have we managed to get by now all our gods have gone, I wonder?
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you. Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you.[/p][/quote]That's OK, Tony - you trot along to your temple and worship Mars. What's that you say? He is no longer a god? Who would have thought it? Well, there's always Zeus as a fall-back for you. What's that you say? He too has ceased to exist as a god? Well, you can always worship the Sun on Sunday, the Moon on Monday, some god or another I have forgotten on Tuesday, Woden on Wednesday, Thor on Thursday, and Freya on Friday. What? No one worships any of them any longer? How have we managed to get by now all our gods have gone, I wonder? John Dowdle
  • Score: -9

6:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

Just for the record i have no problem with children being taught about religion in schools as long as the schools are not religious.

I think it is important that they should be aware that:
1. In a world of science, critical thinking and evidence there are still many people who insist that faith is a virtue instead of an excuse for ignorance.
2. That it misrepresents the origins of human and animal life and of the universe.
3. It is the cause and result of repression, fear and phobias of all kinds.
4. Prayer is an excuse to feel better about doing nothing and ultimately is wish thinking.
5. The foundation of all religions are based on information so spurious in its accuracy they cannot be taken than anything but fiction.

We only have to look at the countries where religion is still in dominance to show examples of temporal dictatorships. Historically, the churches used to kill anyone who asked difficult questions (and still do in some countries), so it would be useful if children were able to learn in a safe and professional environment.

Presumably the people asking the CoE to set up a school instead of lobbying the council are the same people who attend the same CoE church? Almost sounds like they are all slightly biased already! Or maybe that's just crazy talk...
Just for the record i have no problem with children being taught about religion in schools as long as the schools are not religious. I think it is important that they should be aware that: 1. In a world of science, critical thinking and evidence there are still many people who insist that faith is a virtue instead of an excuse for ignorance. 2. That it misrepresents the origins of human and animal life and of the universe. 3. It is the cause and result of repression, fear and phobias of all kinds. 4. Prayer is an excuse to feel better about doing nothing and ultimately is wish thinking. 5. The foundation of all religions are based on information so spurious in its accuracy they cannot be taken than anything but fiction. We only have to look at the countries where religion is still in dominance to show examples of temporal dictatorships. Historically, the churches used to kill anyone who asked difficult questions (and still do in some countries), so it would be useful if children were able to learn in a safe and professional environment. Presumably the people asking the CoE to set up a school instead of lobbying the council are the same people who attend the same CoE church? Almost sounds like they are all slightly biased already! Or maybe that's just crazy talk... Popeonarope
  • Score: -4

11:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

LSC says...

"Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not"

It has, pretty much, and we all know it is just a matter of time before we fill in the gaps.

What we know for sure is that there was no Adam and Eve beginning. Which makes the first chapter of the bible wrong, provably.
If the first chapter is wrong, which it is without shadow of a doubt, then we must surely question the rest? And we do. And it all falls apart.
This fiction might be a comfort and a living, to some. But keep it out of schools.
"Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not" It has, pretty much, and we all know it is just a matter of time before we fill in the gaps. What we know for sure is that there was no Adam and Eve beginning. Which makes the first chapter of the bible wrong, provably. If the first chapter is wrong, which it is without shadow of a doubt, then we must surely question the rest? And we do. And it all falls apart. This fiction might be a comfort and a living, to some. But keep it out of schools. LSC
  • Score: -8

9:24am Wed 26 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote: Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you. Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you.
That's OK, Tony - you trot along to your temple and worship Mars. What's that you say? He is no longer a god? Who would have thought it? Well, there's always Zeus as a fall-back for you. What's that you say? He too has ceased to exist as a god? Well, you can always worship the Sun on Sunday, the Moon on Monday, some god or another I have forgotten on Tuesday, Woden on Wednesday, Thor on Thursday, and Freya on Friday. What? No one worships any of them any longer? How have we managed to get by now all our gods have gone, I wonder?
Oh dear JD, totally missing the point again. Considering what you believe you're possibly the last one to be casting stones JD.

But IF you want to go down this route which of the myriad of differing theories of big bang and evolution do you hold to in particular?

Not that it matters, they'll be different in a few years time. And once you've settled on one of those at a future date, if you're lucky to still be around you'll just have to pick a new one a few years after that. And so on so forth

Whats that I hear?! Oh, its the sound of glass shattering around you
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you. Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you.[/p][/quote]That's OK, Tony - you trot along to your temple and worship Mars. What's that you say? He is no longer a god? Who would have thought it? Well, there's always Zeus as a fall-back for you. What's that you say? He too has ceased to exist as a god? Well, you can always worship the Sun on Sunday, the Moon on Monday, some god or another I have forgotten on Tuesday, Woden on Wednesday, Thor on Thursday, and Freya on Friday. What? No one worships any of them any longer? How have we managed to get by now all our gods have gone, I wonder?[/p][/quote]Oh dear JD, totally missing the point again. Considering what you believe you're possibly the last one to be casting stones JD. But IF you want to go down this route which of the myriad of differing theories of big bang and evolution do you hold to in particular? Not that it matters, they'll be different in a few years time. And once you've settled on one of those at a future date, if you're lucky to still be around you'll just have to pick a new one a few years after that. And so on so forth Whats that I hear?! Oh, its the sound of glass shattering around you garston tony
  • Score: 10

9:30am Wed 26 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
Just for the record i have no problem with children being taught about religion in schools as long as the schools are not religious. I think it is important that they should be aware that: 1. In a world of science, critical thinking and evidence there are still many people who insist that faith is a virtue instead of an excuse for ignorance. 2. That it misrepresents the origins of human and animal life and of the universe. 3. It is the cause and result of repression, fear and phobias of all kinds. 4. Prayer is an excuse to feel better about doing nothing and ultimately is wish thinking. 5. The foundation of all religions are based on information so spurious in its accuracy they cannot be taken than anything but fiction. We only have to look at the countries where religion is still in dominance to show examples of temporal dictatorships. Historically, the churches used to kill anyone who asked difficult questions (and still do in some countries), so it would be useful if children were able to learn in a safe and professional environment. Presumably the people asking the CoE to set up a school instead of lobbying the council are the same people who attend the same CoE church? Almost sounds like they are all slightly biased already! Or maybe that's just crazy talk...
Pope, you're using an unproven opinion to claim that another belief is misrepresentative.

Isnt that, well, unscientific

I know why you have your views, but if you really knew what you were on about you would know the difference between what man has done in the 'name of God' but for their own purposes and gain and what man has done which is actually His will. There is a huge difference

Once again however you are wanting your tenuous views promoted as the only option whilst trying to deny other people their own free will to believe what they want. That doesnt sound very scientific either
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: Just for the record i have no problem with children being taught about religion in schools as long as the schools are not religious. I think it is important that they should be aware that: 1. In a world of science, critical thinking and evidence there are still many people who insist that faith is a virtue instead of an excuse for ignorance. 2. That it misrepresents the origins of human and animal life and of the universe. 3. It is the cause and result of repression, fear and phobias of all kinds. 4. Prayer is an excuse to feel better about doing nothing and ultimately is wish thinking. 5. The foundation of all religions are based on information so spurious in its accuracy they cannot be taken than anything but fiction. We only have to look at the countries where religion is still in dominance to show examples of temporal dictatorships. Historically, the churches used to kill anyone who asked difficult questions (and still do in some countries), so it would be useful if children were able to learn in a safe and professional environment. Presumably the people asking the CoE to set up a school instead of lobbying the council are the same people who attend the same CoE church? Almost sounds like they are all slightly biased already! Or maybe that's just crazy talk...[/p][/quote]Pope, you're using an unproven opinion to claim that another belief is misrepresentative. Isnt that, well, unscientific I know why you have your views, but if you really knew what you were on about you would know the difference between what man has done in the 'name of God' but for their own purposes and gain and what man has done which is actually His will. There is a huge difference Once again however you are wanting your tenuous views promoted as the only option whilst trying to deny other people their own free will to believe what they want. That doesnt sound very scientific either garston tony
  • Score: 8

10:04am Wed 26 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
"Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not" It has, pretty much, and we all know it is just a matter of time before we fill in the gaps. What we know for sure is that there was no Adam and Eve beginning. Which makes the first chapter of the bible wrong, provably. If the first chapter is wrong, which it is without shadow of a doubt, then we must surely question the rest? And we do. And it all falls apart. This fiction might be a comfort and a living, to some. But keep it out of schools.
How do we know there was no Adam and Eve please? Thats a pretty big statement considering you have no proof to back it up?

I know all about scientific claims about minimum population sizes etc. but interestingly enough that 'scientific' claim contradicts (as so often happens) the theory of evolution itself which supports the idea that our ancestors came from at best a small number (it could be argued two, but then you can argue so much with your beloved theories).

And this is the basis on which you attack my faith on, theories which are full of holes that dont even agree with each other. Nice one, keep trying
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not" It has, pretty much, and we all know it is just a matter of time before we fill in the gaps. What we know for sure is that there was no Adam and Eve beginning. Which makes the first chapter of the bible wrong, provably. If the first chapter is wrong, which it is without shadow of a doubt, then we must surely question the rest? And we do. And it all falls apart. This fiction might be a comfort and a living, to some. But keep it out of schools.[/p][/quote]How do we know there was no Adam and Eve please? Thats a pretty big statement considering you have no proof to back it up? I know all about scientific claims about minimum population sizes etc. but interestingly enough that 'scientific' claim contradicts (as so often happens) the theory of evolution itself which supports the idea that our ancestors came from at best a small number (it could be argued two, but then you can argue so much with your beloved theories). And this is the basis on which you attack my faith on, theories which are full of holes that dont even agree with each other. Nice one, keep trying garston tony
  • Score: 10

12:17pm Wed 26 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote: Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you. Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you.
That's OK, Tony - you trot along to your temple and worship Mars. What's that you say? He is no longer a god? Who would have thought it? Well, there's always Zeus as a fall-back for you. What's that you say? He too has ceased to exist as a god? Well, you can always worship the Sun on Sunday, the Moon on Monday, some god or another I have forgotten on Tuesday, Woden on Wednesday, Thor on Thursday, and Freya on Friday. What? No one worships any of them any longer? How have we managed to get by now all our gods have gone, I wonder?
Oh dear JD, totally missing the point again. Considering what you believe you're possibly the last one to be casting stones JD.

But IF you want to go down this route which of the myriad of differing theories of big bang and evolution do you hold to in particular?

Not that it matters, they'll be different in a few years time. And once you've settled on one of those at a future date, if you're lucky to still be around you'll just have to pick a new one a few years after that. And so on so forth

Whats that I hear?! Oh, its the sound of glass shattering around you
Tony: you are being deliberately silly.
You know full well that all scientific knowledge is provisional and usually subject to change, adaptation, even - if you will excuse the term - evolution.
The word dogma only - as far as I know - applies to religion.
Which means the creation of a deliberate policy of non-learning.
After all, if you already possess the absolute truth for all eternity, what more is there to say? Is this not a definition of religion?
You still retain your bizarre belief in Adam and Eve as being the very first human beings to inhabit the planet Earth (though even this assertion is, I believe, dodgy).
If you read the bible carefully, there is more than a suggestion that other human beings were allegedly "created" before Adam and Eve.
After slaying Abel, did Cain go to the land of Nod to take himself a wife?
Really?
Where did she come from - and who created her?
Not your god, apparently.
Explain.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Oh poor JD, you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact but old age will do that to you. Even so your sense of self importance is rather tedious and so are you.[/p][/quote]That's OK, Tony - you trot along to your temple and worship Mars. What's that you say? He is no longer a god? Who would have thought it? Well, there's always Zeus as a fall-back for you. What's that you say? He too has ceased to exist as a god? Well, you can always worship the Sun on Sunday, the Moon on Monday, some god or another I have forgotten on Tuesday, Woden on Wednesday, Thor on Thursday, and Freya on Friday. What? No one worships any of them any longer? How have we managed to get by now all our gods have gone, I wonder?[/p][/quote]Oh dear JD, totally missing the point again. Considering what you believe you're possibly the last one to be casting stones JD. But IF you want to go down this route which of the myriad of differing theories of big bang and evolution do you hold to in particular? Not that it matters, they'll be different in a few years time. And once you've settled on one of those at a future date, if you're lucky to still be around you'll just have to pick a new one a few years after that. And so on so forth Whats that I hear?! Oh, its the sound of glass shattering around you[/p][/quote]Tony: you are being deliberately silly. You know full well that all scientific knowledge is provisional and usually subject to change, adaptation, even - if you will excuse the term - evolution. The word dogma only - as far as I know - applies to religion. Which means the creation of a deliberate policy of non-learning. After all, if you already possess the absolute truth for all eternity, what more is there to say? Is this not a definition of religion? You still retain your bizarre belief in Adam and Eve as being the very first human beings to inhabit the planet Earth (though even this assertion is, I believe, dodgy). If you read the bible carefully, there is more than a suggestion that other human beings were allegedly "created" before Adam and Eve. After slaying Abel, did Cain go to the land of Nod to take himself a wife? Really? Where did she come from - and who created her? Not your god, apparently. Explain. John Dowdle
  • Score: -2

8:49pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
"Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not" It has, pretty much, and we all know it is just a matter of time before we fill in the gaps. What we know for sure is that there was no Adam and Eve beginning. Which makes the first chapter of the bible wrong, provably. If the first chapter is wrong, which it is without shadow of a doubt, then we must surely question the rest? And we do. And it all falls apart. This fiction might be a comfort and a living, to some. But keep it out of schools.
How do we know there was no Adam and Eve please? Thats a pretty big statement considering you have no proof to back it up?

I know all about scientific claims about minimum population sizes etc. but interestingly enough that 'scientific' claim contradicts (as so often happens) the theory of evolution itself which supports the idea that our ancestors came from at best a small number (it could be argued two, but then you can argue so much with your beloved theories).

And this is the basis on which you attack my faith on, theories which are full of holes that dont even agree with each other. Nice one, keep trying
Tony - "How do we know there was no Adam and Eve please? Thats a pretty big statement considering you have no proof to back it up? I know all about scientific claims about minimum population sizes etc. but interestingly enough that 'scientific' claim contradicts (as so often happens) the theory of evolution itself which supports the idea that our ancestors came from at best a small number (it could be argued two, but then you can argue so much with your beloved theories). And this is the basis on which you attack my faith on, theories which are full of holes that dont even agree with each other. Nice one, keep trying"

Tony, i cant help but think if the bible said 2+2=5 you would be insisting it is true. If nothing else sums up why children should not taught this nonsense this is it. I could not make better example of brainwashing and indoctrination if i tried.

The human genome has been mapped; this is easily checked and repeatedly verified shows there could NOT be a genetic bottleneck as small as two people as there are to many variations in the human to revert to a single male and female chromosome. At best the smallest 'bottleneck' not involving recent colonization is a group of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That is as small a population as our ancestors had.
Incidentally, It also shows our irrefutable evolution from great apes who share 98% of our DNA with chromosome number two being the fused pair that began the human process of evolution... for some of us anyway.
Friedrich Miescher discovered DNA in 1869, although scientists did not understand DNA was the genetic material in cells until 1943. Prior to that time, it was widely believe that proteins stored genetic information.

Again, just because you dont understand or like the implications doesn't make it less true. The bible is nonsense, as is the koran and torah, they are so full of errors and contradictions basing any argument on its content is a non starter. Religion is man made, even the people who made it cant agree on its contents.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Evolution in the sense that humans have grown taller and live longer etc over the years is proven, evolution in the sense that we all evolved from a single cell billions of years ago is not" It has, pretty much, and we all know it is just a matter of time before we fill in the gaps. What we know for sure is that there was no Adam and Eve beginning. Which makes the first chapter of the bible wrong, provably. If the first chapter is wrong, which it is without shadow of a doubt, then we must surely question the rest? And we do. And it all falls apart. This fiction might be a comfort and a living, to some. But keep it out of schools.[/p][/quote]How do we know there was no Adam and Eve please? Thats a pretty big statement considering you have no proof to back it up? I know all about scientific claims about minimum population sizes etc. but interestingly enough that 'scientific' claim contradicts (as so often happens) the theory of evolution itself which supports the idea that our ancestors came from at best a small number (it could be argued two, but then you can argue so much with your beloved theories). And this is the basis on which you attack my faith on, theories which are full of holes that dont even agree with each other. Nice one, keep trying[/p][/quote]Tony - "How do we know there was no Adam and Eve please? Thats a pretty big statement considering you have no proof to back it up? I know all about scientific claims about minimum population sizes etc. but interestingly enough that 'scientific' claim contradicts (as so often happens) the theory of evolution itself which supports the idea that our ancestors came from at best a small number (it could be argued two, but then you can argue so much with your beloved theories). And this is the basis on which you attack my faith on, theories which are full of holes that dont even agree with each other. Nice one, keep trying" Tony, i cant help but think if the bible said 2+2=5 you would be insisting it is true. If nothing else sums up why children should not taught this nonsense this is it. I could not make better example of brainwashing and indoctrination if i tried. The human genome has been mapped; this is easily checked and repeatedly verified shows there could NOT be a genetic bottleneck as small as two people as there are to many variations in the human to revert to a single male and female chromosome. At best the smallest 'bottleneck' not involving recent colonization is a group of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That is as small a population as our ancestors had. Incidentally, It also shows our irrefutable evolution from great apes who share 98% of our DNA with chromosome number two being the fused pair that began the human process of evolution... for some of us anyway. Friedrich Miescher discovered DNA in 1869, although scientists did not understand DNA was the genetic material in cells until 1943. Prior to that time, it was widely believe that proteins stored genetic information. Again, just because you dont understand or like the implications doesn't make it less true. The bible is nonsense, as is the koran and torah, they are so full of errors and contradictions basing any argument on its content is a non starter. Religion is man made, even the people who made it cant agree on its contents. Popeonarope
  • Score: -1

1:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Oh dear, how you follow blindly in your beloved theories.

For there to have been no less than 10-15,000 people at any one time (and you've been busy googling havnt you Pope) we have to assume that at the VERY SAME TIME 10-15,000 transitional creatures gave birth to what you would call a 'human'. That doesnt sit at all well with the whole theory of evolution which is based on incremental changes does it. The statistics are even worse when you consider that any mutation from the last 'pre human' to human has to involve a double mutation to take into account males and females.

This is one of the big flaws of evolutionary theory, why would a genetic mutation continue to mutate if the original mutation didnt prove advantageous to its survival as a species. Remember there is no design here apparently, so you're relying on a completely useless small, minute random genetic mutation being mutated minutely again and again and again and again countless times (remaining useless for pretty much the entire process) before it becomes something that actually may be useful to its species. Even if you believe that happened even under evolutionary theory its over a massive amount of time.

So as I said, to believe that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 people is actually going against evolutionary theory itself as the chances of a 'pre human' species suddenly giving birth to this amount of humans at the very same time doesnt fit in with the theory. The theory itself supports the idea that the human race (or any species for that matter) started from a small number of 'first of the species'

But thank you again, especially Pope, for using man made ideas as 'proof' that there is no God. Keep it coming, its good to know all my study on the matter hasnt gone to waste. Oh yes JD,my faith ENCOURAGES me to LEARN, to study and its obvious I know more about what you two claim to believe than you do (keep googling Pope!)
Oh dear, how you follow blindly in your beloved theories. For there to have been no less than 10-15,000 people at any one time (and you've been busy googling havnt you Pope) we have to assume that at the VERY SAME TIME 10-15,000 transitional creatures gave birth to what you would call a 'human'. That doesnt sit at all well with the whole theory of evolution which is based on incremental changes does it. The statistics are even worse when you consider that any mutation from the last 'pre human' to human has to involve a double mutation to take into account males and females. This is one of the big flaws of evolutionary theory, why would a genetic mutation continue to mutate if the original mutation didnt prove advantageous to its survival as a species. Remember there is no design here apparently, so you're relying on a completely useless small, minute random genetic mutation being mutated minutely again and again and again and again countless times (remaining useless for pretty much the entire process) before it becomes something that actually may be useful to its species. Even if you believe that happened even under evolutionary theory its over a massive amount of time. So as I said, to believe that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 people is actually going against evolutionary theory itself as the chances of a 'pre human' species suddenly giving birth to this amount of humans at the very same time doesnt fit in with the theory. The theory itself supports the idea that the human race (or any species for that matter) started from a small number of 'first of the species' But thank you again, especially Pope, for using man made ideas as 'proof' that there is no God. Keep it coming, its good to know all my study on the matter hasnt gone to waste. Oh yes JD,my faith ENCOURAGES me to LEARN, to study and its obvious I know more about what you two claim to believe than you do (keep googling Pope!) garston tony
  • Score: 2

2:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

And Cain's wife?
And Cain's wife? John Dowdle
  • Score: -1

4:16pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
Oh dear, how you follow blindly in your beloved theories.

For there to have been no less than 10-15,000 people at any one time (and you've been busy googling havnt you Pope) we have to assume that at the VERY SAME TIME 10-15,000 transitional creatures gave birth to what you would call a 'human'. That doesnt sit at all well with the whole theory of evolution which is based on incremental changes does it. The statistics are even worse when you consider that any mutation from the last 'pre human' to human has to involve a double mutation to take into account males and females.

This is one of the big flaws of evolutionary theory, why would a genetic mutation continue to mutate if the original mutation didnt prove advantageous to its survival as a species. Remember there is no design here apparently, so you're relying on a completely useless small, minute random genetic mutation being mutated minutely again and again and again and again countless times (remaining useless for pretty much the entire process) before it becomes something that actually may be useful to its species. Even if you believe that happened even under evolutionary theory its over a massive amount of time.

So as I said, to believe that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 people is actually going against evolutionary theory itself as the chances of a 'pre human' species suddenly giving birth to this amount of humans at the very same time doesnt fit in with the theory. The theory itself supports the idea that the human race (or any species for that matter) started from a small number of 'first of the species'

But thank you again, especially Pope, for using man made ideas as 'proof' that there is no God. Keep it coming, its good to know all my study on the matter hasnt gone to waste. Oh yes JD,my faith ENCOURAGES me to LEARN, to study and its obvious I know more about what you two claim to believe than you do (keep googling Pope!)
Yes science, tested and proven time and time again. Verifiable and documented with multiple occurrences arriving at the same conclusion.
You dont understand the time scales, failures and sheer variations that occurred from the Cambrian Period onwards. That's okay, neither do i but evolution posits that modern organisms should show a variety of structures from simple to complex, reflecting an evolutionary history rather than an instantaneous creation. This can be mapped and although it is not complete offers more explanation in this one subject than the entirety of Genesis could because we can see the evidence in front of us.

Of course i cannot prove the non existence of any god (take your pick of the entire collective of thousands) but the holes in the bible that you take as proof of everything are nonsense and are fiction; this is not proof, evidence or anything to begin a argument with. I could use any other fantasy book that describes the creation of the world and have the same chance to prove it was real.

"The real "miracle" is that we, who share genes with the original bacteria that began life on the planet, have evolved as much as we have. Other creatures did not develop eyes at all, or developed extremely weak ones. There is an intriguing paradox here: evolution does not have eyes but it can create them. The brilliant Professor Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the double helix, had a colleague named Leslie Orgel who encapsulated this paradox more elegantly than I can. "Evolution," he said, "is smarter than you are." But this compliment to the "intelligence" of natural selection is not by any means a concession to the stupid notion of "intelligent design." Some of the results are extremely impressive, as we are bound to think in our own case. ("What a piece of work is a man!" as Hamlet exclaims, before going on to contradict himself somewhat by describing the result as a "quintessence of dust"; both statements having the merit of being true.) But the process by which the results are attained is slow and infinitely laborious, and has given us a DNA "string" which is crowded with useless junk and which has much in common with much lower creatures. The stamp of the lowly origin is to be found in our appendix, in the now needless coat of hair that we still grow (and then shed) after five months in the womb, in our easily worn-out knees, our vestigial tails, and the many caprices of our urinogenital arrangements.
Why do people keep saying, "God is in the details"? He isn't in ours, unless his yokel creationist fans wish to take credit for his clumsiness, failure, and incompetence."
Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, how you follow blindly in your beloved theories. For there to have been no less than 10-15,000 people at any one time (and you've been busy googling havnt you Pope) we have to assume that at the VERY SAME TIME 10-15,000 transitional creatures gave birth to what you would call a 'human'. That doesnt sit at all well with the whole theory of evolution which is based on incremental changes does it. The statistics are even worse when you consider that any mutation from the last 'pre human' to human has to involve a double mutation to take into account males and females. This is one of the big flaws of evolutionary theory, why would a genetic mutation continue to mutate if the original mutation didnt prove advantageous to its survival as a species. Remember there is no design here apparently, so you're relying on a completely useless small, minute random genetic mutation being mutated minutely again and again and again and again countless times (remaining useless for pretty much the entire process) before it becomes something that actually may be useful to its species. Even if you believe that happened even under evolutionary theory its over a massive amount of time. So as I said, to believe that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 people is actually going against evolutionary theory itself as the chances of a 'pre human' species suddenly giving birth to this amount of humans at the very same time doesnt fit in with the theory. The theory itself supports the idea that the human race (or any species for that matter) started from a small number of 'first of the species' But thank you again, especially Pope, for using man made ideas as 'proof' that there is no God. Keep it coming, its good to know all my study on the matter hasnt gone to waste. Oh yes JD,my faith ENCOURAGES me to LEARN, to study and its obvious I know more about what you two claim to believe than you do (keep googling Pope!)[/p][/quote]Yes science, tested and proven time and time again. Verifiable and documented with multiple occurrences arriving at the same conclusion. You dont understand the time scales, failures and sheer variations that occurred from the Cambrian Period onwards. That's okay, neither do i but evolution posits that modern organisms should show a variety of structures from simple to complex, reflecting an evolutionary history rather than an instantaneous creation. This can be mapped and although it is not complete offers more explanation in this one subject than the entirety of Genesis could because we can see the evidence in front of us. Of course i cannot prove the non existence of any god (take your pick of the entire collective of thousands) but the holes in the bible that you take as proof of everything are nonsense and are fiction; this is not proof, evidence or anything to begin a argument with. I could use any other fantasy book that describes the creation of the world and have the same chance to prove it was real. "The real "miracle" is that we, who share genes with the original bacteria that began life on the planet, have evolved as much as we have. Other creatures did not develop eyes at all, or developed extremely weak ones. There is an intriguing paradox here: evolution does not have eyes but it can create them. The brilliant Professor Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the double helix, had a colleague named Leslie Orgel who encapsulated this paradox more elegantly than I can. "Evolution," he said, "is smarter than you are." But this compliment to the "intelligence" of natural selection is not by any means a concession to the stupid notion of "intelligent design." Some of the results are extremely impressive, as we are bound to think in our own case. ("What a piece of work is a man!" as Hamlet exclaims, before going on to contradict himself somewhat by describing the result as a "quintessence of dust"; both statements having the merit of being true.) But the process by which the results are attained is slow and infinitely laborious, and has given us a DNA "string" which is crowded with useless junk and which has much in common with much lower creatures. The stamp of the lowly origin is to be found in our appendix, in the now needless coat of hair that we still grow (and then shed) after five months in the womb, in our easily worn-out knees, our vestigial tails, and the many caprices of our urinogenital arrangements. Why do people keep saying, "God is in the details"? He isn't in ours, unless his yokel creationist fans wish to take credit for his clumsiness, failure, and incompetence." Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great Popeonarope
  • Score: 0

7:39am Fri 28 Feb 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
And Cain's wife?
Tell you what JD, hows about you explain to us how there could only ever have been a minimum 10-15,000 humans and i'll respond to that point (and yes there is a response).

As usual (it happens EVERY time you are involved in this type of discussion) you conveniently ignore the flaws in your own beliefs so to redress that i'm not going to respond until you start answering some questions.

Of course last time I challenged you on your beliefs you blundered and blustered and then ran away without answering. I'm not going to be at all suprised if you do the same here. Oh and I note Pope didnt have an answer either. Suprise that hey
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: And Cain's wife?[/p][/quote]Tell you what JD, hows about you explain to us how there could only ever have been a minimum 10-15,000 humans and i'll respond to that point (and yes there is a response). As usual (it happens EVERY time you are involved in this type of discussion) you conveniently ignore the flaws in your own beliefs so to redress that i'm not going to respond until you start answering some questions. Of course last time I challenged you on your beliefs you blundered and blustered and then ran away without answering. I'm not going to be at all suprised if you do the same here. Oh and I note Pope didnt have an answer either. Suprise that hey garston tony
  • Score: 1

8:09am Fri 28 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat.

Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea.

Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them.

I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs.

JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears.

You resort to googling and copy/pasting.

At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again.

And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like.
Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat. Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea. Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them. I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs. JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears. You resort to googling and copy/pasting. At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again. And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like. garston tony
  • Score: 1

9:02am Fri 28 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

You still have not answered my query about Cain's wife - have you?
And this is now the THIRD time I have mentioned it.
Who is ducking and diving on this issue?
Which humans are you talking about? There have been at least three different species which co-evolved over time and we are what remains.
Put simply, our ancestors were the "fittest" when it came to survival.
Of course, it is now generally accepted that some present-day humans (homo sapiens sapiens) share a very small genetic inheritance with the now extinct species homo neanderthalis (about 4 per cent).
A separate species Pithecanthropus Erectus or Java Man existed until as recently as 3,000 years ago. They had a "hobbit"-like appearance.
There have been other species of homo erectus too but what all these early varieties of humankind have in common is that they are lower branches on the evolutionary tree of life to us.
This is not to decry them as we would not be here without them.
They, in turn, are descended from ape primates; as Pope has pointed out to you already, we share 98 per cent of our genes with our close primate ape cousins.
This may offend your feelings of superiority over the rest of the natural world but I cannot help you with that; you will just have to come to terms with the fact that you are descended ultimately from primordial slime, however uncomfortable that makes you feel.
As for big bang theory (originally coined as a term of abuse by Bernard Lovell) this has been calculated mathematically, based on the rate of red shift in the light reaching out planet Earth from various stellar objects in near to deep space. This clearly established that the rest of the Universe is moving away from us and moving apart at an ever increasing rate.
This is indicative of an initial condition where there was an early massive rate of expansion of the Universe from a tiny single point or singularity.
The theory fits with the facts of universal expansion. That is why it stands and that is why all scientists or virtually all proper scientists accept it.
I have provided you with salient facts which underpin evolution and the big bang theory. There is a lot more I could say but I do not want to have to bore others who are already cognizant of these facts.
You can carry on with your Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation all you like but this will not change the facts of evolution and an expanding Universe.
Neither of those processes are going to wait on you, Tony.
Neither will your inability to answer a very simple question I have posed:
What about mythical Cain's mythical wife ?
You still have not answered my query about Cain's wife - have you? And this is now the THIRD time I have mentioned it. Who is ducking and diving on this issue? Which humans are you talking about? There have been at least three different species which co-evolved over time and we are what remains. Put simply, our ancestors were the "fittest" when it came to survival. Of course, it is now generally accepted that some present-day humans (homo sapiens sapiens) share a very small genetic inheritance with the now extinct species homo neanderthalis (about 4 per cent). A separate species Pithecanthropus Erectus or Java Man existed until as recently as 3,000 years ago. They had a "hobbit"-like appearance. There have been other species of homo erectus too but what all these early varieties of humankind have in common is that they are lower branches on the evolutionary tree of life to us. This is not to decry them as we would not be here without them. They, in turn, are descended from ape primates; as Pope has pointed out to you already, we share 98 per cent of our genes with our close primate ape cousins. This may offend your feelings of superiority over the rest of the natural world but I cannot help you with that; you will just have to come to terms with the fact that you are descended ultimately from primordial slime, however uncomfortable that makes you feel. As for big bang theory (originally coined as a term of abuse by Bernard Lovell) this has been calculated mathematically, based on the rate of red shift in the light reaching out planet Earth from various stellar objects in near to deep space. This clearly established that the rest of the Universe is moving away from us and moving apart at an ever increasing rate. This is indicative of an initial condition where there was an early massive rate of expansion of the Universe from a tiny single point or singularity. The theory fits with the facts of universal expansion. That is why it stands and that is why all scientists or virtually all proper scientists accept it. I have provided you with salient facts which underpin evolution and the big bang theory. There is a lot more I could say but I do not want to have to bore others who are already cognizant of these facts. You can carry on with your Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation all you like but this will not change the facts of evolution and an expanding Universe. Neither of those processes are going to wait on you, Tony. Neither will your inability to answer a very simple question I have posed: What about mythical Cain's mythical wife ? John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Fri 28 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Oh JD, every time you post you're such a dissapointment! And predictable.

You pick me up for not answering one question when you NEVER answer ANY questions brought up about the flaws in what you believe. You are the definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

Once again I'll answer your question about Cains wife when you answer mine about the major flaw in the minimum population size claim and evolutionary theory. Its about time you started to justify your position, and none of this vague wishy washy responses that you usually do. You'd make a good politician, able to waffle a lot without saying anything
Oh JD, every time you post you're such a dissapointment! And predictable. You pick me up for not answering one question when you NEVER answer ANY questions brought up about the flaws in what you believe. You are the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. Once again I'll answer your question about Cains wife when you answer mine about the major flaw in the minimum population size claim and evolutionary theory. Its about time you started to justify your position, and none of this vague wishy washy responses that you usually do. You'd make a good politician, able to waffle a lot without saying anything garston tony
  • Score: -1

9:13pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat.

Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea.

Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them.

I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs.

JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears.

You resort to googling and copy/pasting.

At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again.

And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like.
I said i couldn't understand the complexities of evolution from the Cambrian Period forward. Neither do you, neither does anyone because it is so complex it is still a theory. However, the modern examination of genetics and the mapping of the human genome is not a theory, it is fact and is answering more questions about our beginnings then the bible has in two thousand years. Not bad for a science that has only been around in our lifetime.

Blinkered, narrow minded and closed minded coming from a creationist is a bit harsh. I cannot and will not except the stories of the bible as anything but fearful nonsense without proof, yet there is none, never can be, never will be. I mock your beliefs because they are funny, hilarious even

Noone knows for sure the origins of the universe but the indications that it was a big sky fairy that popped everything into existence are getting less and less each year. Each discovery is another nail in the coffin until religion goes the way of the dinosaurs or ironically evolves into something that doesn't try and mind control the masses. Unless of course it hasn't caused us all to burn in a nuclear inferno first, again ironically starting in the middle east and Israel.

Ive met enough religious people to have a very good idea of what someone who believes in god is like. From early school to universities, to the volunteer work overseas, to the work that took me all over the world; they are the reason i am an atheist.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat. Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea. Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them. I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs. JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears. You resort to googling and copy/pasting. At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again. And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like.[/p][/quote]I said i couldn't understand the complexities of evolution from the Cambrian Period forward. Neither do you, neither does anyone because it is so complex it is still a theory. However, the modern examination of genetics and the mapping of the human genome is not a theory, it is fact and is answering more questions about our beginnings then the bible has in two thousand years. Not bad for a science that has only been around in our lifetime. Blinkered, narrow minded and closed minded coming from a creationist is a bit harsh. I cannot and will not except the stories of the bible as anything but fearful nonsense without proof, yet there is none, never can be, never will be. I mock your beliefs because they are funny, hilarious even Noone knows for sure the origins of the universe but the indications that it was a big sky fairy that popped everything into existence are getting less and less each year. Each discovery is another nail in the coffin until religion goes the way of the dinosaurs or ironically evolves into something that doesn't try and mind control the masses. Unless of course it hasn't caused us all to burn in a nuclear inferno first, again ironically starting in the middle east and Israel. Ive met enough religious people to have a very good idea of what someone who believes in god is like. From early school to universities, to the volunteer work overseas, to the work that took me all over the world; they are the reason i am an atheist. Popeonarope
  • Score: 2

2:02pm Sat 1 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

For a FOURTH time I question Cain's wife - and Tony has no answer.

Putting that little unsolvable conundrum of his to one side, what he also appears unaware of is that there have been a series of mass extinction events during the history of the planet Earth and that is why there have been estimates of the early human population plunging to low levels, possibly as low as a few thousand at one time. The fact that they managed to survive and breed is something we all obviously celebrate because if they had not, we would not be here. That is a true wonder to behold; that we are even here at all, despite all the problems of the past.

I think trying to reason with Tony on a rational basis is impossible; the truth is that his head is so far up his anus where religion is concerned that he can neither see not hear real truth. It is a pity and a shame because he seems otherwise to be a perfectly nice person. His religious fanaticism however acts as a valuable object lesson to the rest of us that if people like him were even given completely free rein to run our societies, all the bad old days of literal witch-hunting and burning, along with people being stoned to death or having their limbs hacked-off (as in present Day Saudi) would come back.

No Thank You - I prefer the much kinder and gentler world we currently live in due to the increasingly secular nature of our societies.

Let people believe in strange and weird things like religion but NEVER allow them any actual basis for real action on them.

To come back to the original topic, this is why all forms of religious indoctrination must be opposed. There are already more than enough dangerous, crackpot religious lunatics on Earth today.

Why would any rational person support creating even more?
For a FOURTH time I question Cain's wife - and Tony has no answer. Putting that little unsolvable conundrum of his to one side, what he also appears unaware of is that there have been a series of mass extinction events during the history of the planet Earth and that is why there have been estimates of the early human population plunging to low levels, possibly as low as a few thousand at one time. The fact that they managed to survive and breed is something we all obviously celebrate because if they had not, we would not be here. That is a true wonder to behold; that we are even here at all, despite all the problems of the past. I think trying to reason with Tony on a rational basis is impossible; the truth is that his head is so far up his anus where religion is concerned that he can neither see not hear real truth. It is a pity and a shame because he seems otherwise to be a perfectly nice person. His religious fanaticism however acts as a valuable object lesson to the rest of us that if people like him were even given completely free rein to run our societies, all the bad old days of literal witch-hunting and burning, along with people being stoned to death or having their limbs hacked-off (as in present Day Saudi) would come back. No Thank You - I prefer the much kinder and gentler world we currently live in due to the increasingly secular nature of our societies. Let people believe in strange and weird things like religion but NEVER allow them any actual basis for real action on them. To come back to the original topic, this is why all forms of religious indoctrination must be opposed. There are already more than enough dangerous, crackpot religious lunatics on Earth today. Why would any rational person support creating even more? John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

9:32am Mon 3 Mar 14

garston tony says...

Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote: Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat. Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea. Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them. I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs. JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears. You resort to googling and copy/pasting. At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again. And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like.
I said i couldn't understand the complexities of evolution from the Cambrian Period forward. Neither do you, neither does anyone because it is so complex it is still a theory. However, the modern examination of genetics and the mapping of the human genome is not a theory, it is fact and is answering more questions about our beginnings then the bible has in two thousand years. Not bad for a science that has only been around in our lifetime. Blinkered, narrow minded and closed minded coming from a creationist is a bit harsh. I cannot and will not except the stories of the bible as anything but fearful nonsense without proof, yet there is none, never can be, never will be. I mock your beliefs because they are funny, hilarious even Noone knows for sure the origins of the universe but the indications that it was a big sky fairy that popped everything into existence are getting less and less each year. Each discovery is another nail in the coffin until religion goes the way of the dinosaurs or ironically evolves into something that doesn't try and mind control the masses. Unless of course it hasn't caused us all to burn in a nuclear inferno first, again ironically starting in the middle east and Israel. Ive met enough religious people to have a very good idea of what someone who believes in god is like. From early school to universities, to the volunteer work overseas, to the work that took me all over the world; they are the reason i am an atheist.
So Pope, you are admitting then that there are huge flaws in your beloved theory. Wow, thats a first.

Maybe now you could do the right thing and not be so judgemental what other people believe?

Doubt it you bigoted hypocrit
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat. Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea. Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them. I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs. JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears. You resort to googling and copy/pasting. At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again. And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like.[/p][/quote]I said i couldn't understand the complexities of evolution from the Cambrian Period forward. Neither do you, neither does anyone because it is so complex it is still a theory. However, the modern examination of genetics and the mapping of the human genome is not a theory, it is fact and is answering more questions about our beginnings then the bible has in two thousand years. Not bad for a science that has only been around in our lifetime. Blinkered, narrow minded and closed minded coming from a creationist is a bit harsh. I cannot and will not except the stories of the bible as anything but fearful nonsense without proof, yet there is none, never can be, never will be. I mock your beliefs because they are funny, hilarious even Noone knows for sure the origins of the universe but the indications that it was a big sky fairy that popped everything into existence are getting less and less each year. Each discovery is another nail in the coffin until religion goes the way of the dinosaurs or ironically evolves into something that doesn't try and mind control the masses. Unless of course it hasn't caused us all to burn in a nuclear inferno first, again ironically starting in the middle east and Israel. Ive met enough religious people to have a very good idea of what someone who believes in god is like. From early school to universities, to the volunteer work overseas, to the work that took me all over the world; they are the reason i am an atheist.[/p][/quote]So Pope, you are admitting then that there are huge flaws in your beloved theory. Wow, thats a first. Maybe now you could do the right thing and not be so judgemental what other people believe? Doubt it you bigoted hypocrit garston tony
  • Score: 0

9:38am Mon 3 Mar 14

garston tony says...

No JD, for the FOURTH TIME I ask YOU for an answer that you refuse to give. You dont even acknowledge the question, THAT says it all.

WHY? Because YOU DONT HAVE ONE, evolution and big bang is the biggest 'unsolvable mystery' of them all, especially for people like like you and Pope who know nothing about what they profess to believe in.

I say it again, there is an answer to your question about Cain and I will give it to you once you have the decency to finally answer the one single question that I have put to you directly. I've answered plenty of yours, its about time you started justifying yourself.

Of course you wont as you cant, not just because you're ignorant about your own beliefs but because there isnt an answer.
No JD, for the FOURTH TIME I ask YOU for an answer that you refuse to give. You dont even acknowledge the question, THAT says it all. WHY? Because YOU DONT HAVE ONE, evolution and big bang is the biggest 'unsolvable mystery' of them all, especially for people like like you and Pope who know nothing about what they profess to believe in. I say it again, there is an answer to your question about Cain and I will give it to you once you have the decency to finally answer the one single question that I have put to you directly. I've answered plenty of yours, its about time you started justifying yourself. Of course you wont as you cant, not just because you're ignorant about your own beliefs but because there isnt an answer. garston tony
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Mon 3 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

garston tony wrote:
No JD, for the FOURTH TIME I ask YOU for an answer that you refuse to give. You dont even acknowledge the question, THAT says it all.

WHY? Because YOU DONT HAVE ONE, evolution and big bang is the biggest 'unsolvable mystery' of them all, especially for people like like you and Pope who know nothing about what they profess to believe in.

I say it again, there is an answer to your question about Cain and I will give it to you once you have the decency to finally answer the one single question that I have put to you directly. I've answered plenty of yours, its about time you started justifying yourself.

Of course you wont as you cant, not just because you're ignorant about your own beliefs but because there isnt an answer.
I have answered both of your questions already, as you well know.
I don't expect any answer to my question - because you do not have one.
If you want to learn more about the big bang, watch Horizon on BBC TV tonight at 8.00 p.m. You never know, you might just actually learn something for a change - but I will not hold my breath waiting for this rare phenomenon!
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: No JD, for the FOURTH TIME I ask YOU for an answer that you refuse to give. You dont even acknowledge the question, THAT says it all. WHY? Because YOU DONT HAVE ONE, evolution and big bang is the biggest 'unsolvable mystery' of them all, especially for people like like you and Pope who know nothing about what they profess to believe in. I say it again, there is an answer to your question about Cain and I will give it to you once you have the decency to finally answer the one single question that I have put to you directly. I've answered plenty of yours, its about time you started justifying yourself. Of course you wont as you cant, not just because you're ignorant about your own beliefs but because there isnt an answer.[/p][/quote]I have answered both of your questions already, as you well know. I don't expect any answer to my question - because you do not have one. If you want to learn more about the big bang, watch Horizon on BBC TV tonight at 8.00 p.m. You never know, you might just actually learn something for a change - but I will not hold my breath waiting for this rare phenomenon! John Dowdle
  • Score: -1

2:44pm Tue 4 Mar 14

garston tony says...

John Dowdle wrote:
garston tony wrote: No JD, for the FOURTH TIME I ask YOU for an answer that you refuse to give. You dont even acknowledge the question, THAT says it all. WHY? Because YOU DONT HAVE ONE, evolution and big bang is the biggest 'unsolvable mystery' of them all, especially for people like like you and Pope who know nothing about what they profess to believe in. I say it again, there is an answer to your question about Cain and I will give it to you once you have the decency to finally answer the one single question that I have put to you directly. I've answered plenty of yours, its about time you started justifying yourself. Of course you wont as you cant, not just because you're ignorant about your own beliefs but because there isnt an answer.
I have answered both of your questions already, as you well know. I don't expect any answer to my question - because you do not have one. If you want to learn more about the big bang, watch Horizon on BBC TV tonight at 8.00 p.m. You never know, you might just actually learn something for a change - but I will not hold my breath waiting for this rare phenomenon!
Er, no you havent. You've waffled and tried to divert attention but no sign of an answer

Oh, and yes I did watch that horizon show. It WAS interesting but still an hours programme about peoples guessess!
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: No JD, for the FOURTH TIME I ask YOU for an answer that you refuse to give. You dont even acknowledge the question, THAT says it all. WHY? Because YOU DONT HAVE ONE, evolution and big bang is the biggest 'unsolvable mystery' of them all, especially for people like like you and Pope who know nothing about what they profess to believe in. I say it again, there is an answer to your question about Cain and I will give it to you once you have the decency to finally answer the one single question that I have put to you directly. I've answered plenty of yours, its about time you started justifying yourself. Of course you wont as you cant, not just because you're ignorant about your own beliefs but because there isnt an answer.[/p][/quote]I have answered both of your questions already, as you well know. I don't expect any answer to my question - because you do not have one. If you want to learn more about the big bang, watch Horizon on BBC TV tonight at 8.00 p.m. You never know, you might just actually learn something for a change - but I will not hold my breath waiting for this rare phenomenon![/p][/quote]Er, no you havent. You've waffled and tried to divert attention but no sign of an answer Oh, and yes I did watch that horizon show. It WAS interesting but still an hours programme about peoples guessess! garston tony
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 4 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

And still no explanation at the FIFTH time of asking as to who or what created Cain's wife - because you can't. Not even the slightest attempt at it - says it all.
And still no explanation at the FIFTH time of asking as to who or what created Cain's wife - because you can't. Not even the slightest attempt at it - says it all. John Dowdle
  • Score: -1

12:16am Wed 5 Mar 14

Popeonarope says...

garston tony wrote:
Popeonarope wrote:
garston tony wrote: Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat. Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea. Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them. I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs. JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears. You resort to googling and copy/pasting. At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again. And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like.
I said i couldn't understand the complexities of evolution from the Cambrian Period forward. Neither do you, neither does anyone because it is so complex it is still a theory. However, the modern examination of genetics and the mapping of the human genome is not a theory, it is fact and is answering more questions about our beginnings then the bible has in two thousand years. Not bad for a science that has only been around in our lifetime. Blinkered, narrow minded and closed minded coming from a creationist is a bit harsh. I cannot and will not except the stories of the bible as anything but fearful nonsense without proof, yet there is none, never can be, never will be. I mock your beliefs because they are funny, hilarious even Noone knows for sure the origins of the universe but the indications that it was a big sky fairy that popped everything into existence are getting less and less each year. Each discovery is another nail in the coffin until religion goes the way of the dinosaurs or ironically evolves into something that doesn't try and mind control the masses. Unless of course it hasn't caused us all to burn in a nuclear inferno first, again ironically starting in the middle east and Israel. Ive met enough religious people to have a very good idea of what someone who believes in god is like. From early school to universities, to the volunteer work overseas, to the work that took me all over the world; they are the reason i am an atheist.
So Pope, you are admitting then that there are huge flaws in your beloved theory. Wow, thats a first.

Maybe now you could do the right thing and not be so judgemental what other people believe?

Doubt it you bigoted hypocrit
As usual you are only reading what you want to read. Not flaws, just gaps though not at large as the one between your ears.
I guess i will never understand how someone can build a argument for the universe on a book of tedious rewriting of plagiarized fables but you never fail to promote it as proof without the proof.
Keep reading your Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin books, you might even learn something useful.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Pope, stating scientifically tried and tested isnt an answer especially when the truth is that when tested it falls flat. Its not suprising that you cant explain why the theory that there was only ever a minimum of 10-15,000 humans doesnt match up with the rest of the theory of evolution as there is no explanation. Its one of the many glaring flaws in the whole trumped up idea. Once again you mock my beliefs yet you are exhibiting exactly the same traits you criticise me for in your own beliefs in big bang and evolution neither of which are proven at all. At least I've studied my beliefs, and yours too for that matter! You clearly resort to googling answers as you havent a clue, in my experience practically everyone i've come accross who says they believe in big bang/evolution doesnt actually know jack doo doo about it. Yet so many of them are ready to mock people who believe differently to them. I recall a couple of years ago Roy Stockdill being particularly vocal in his opposition to the idea of God and he always referred to big bang and evolution theory as proof. Yet when challenged he had to admit he knew nothing much about either beliefs. JD when challenged tends to try and deflect attention and then usually dissapears. You resort to googling and copy/pasting. At least LSC is usually honest enough to admit when he doesnt actually know something, but then even when proven wrong he usually makes the same incorrect points time and time again. And all of you are just a smallest tip of the iceberg. All of you are blinkered, narrow AND closed minded. Oh, hang on a sec, isnt that what i'm supposed to be? I'll have to give all my books by Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin and so on (you have at least heard of those three havent you!) away as I dont want to upset your ignorant little picture of what a someone who believes in God is supposed to be like.[/p][/quote]I said i couldn't understand the complexities of evolution from the Cambrian Period forward. Neither do you, neither does anyone because it is so complex it is still a theory. However, the modern examination of genetics and the mapping of the human genome is not a theory, it is fact and is answering more questions about our beginnings then the bible has in two thousand years. Not bad for a science that has only been around in our lifetime. Blinkered, narrow minded and closed minded coming from a creationist is a bit harsh. I cannot and will not except the stories of the bible as anything but fearful nonsense without proof, yet there is none, never can be, never will be. I mock your beliefs because they are funny, hilarious even Noone knows for sure the origins of the universe but the indications that it was a big sky fairy that popped everything into existence are getting less and less each year. Each discovery is another nail in the coffin until religion goes the way of the dinosaurs or ironically evolves into something that doesn't try and mind control the masses. Unless of course it hasn't caused us all to burn in a nuclear inferno first, again ironically starting in the middle east and Israel. Ive met enough religious people to have a very good idea of what someone who believes in god is like. From early school to universities, to the volunteer work overseas, to the work that took me all over the world; they are the reason i am an atheist.[/p][/quote]So Pope, you are admitting then that there are huge flaws in your beloved theory. Wow, thats a first. Maybe now you could do the right thing and not be so judgemental what other people believe? Doubt it you bigoted hypocrit[/p][/quote]As usual you are only reading what you want to read. Not flaws, just gaps though not at large as the one between your ears. I guess i will never understand how someone can build a argument for the universe on a book of tedious rewriting of plagiarized fables but you never fail to promote it as proof without the proof. Keep reading your Dawkins, Hawkins, Darwin books, you might even learn something useful. Popeonarope
  • Score: 3

1:03am Wed 5 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

If we are to go over to a total system of religious schools, I could get my diploma from the Holy Church of the Spaghetti Flying Monster as a minister.
Then, I could teach children that it was the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster which created the entire universe, including the Earth which, in its early days, was populated by pirates and volcanoes of foaming beer. Great !!!
Eventually the Holy Spaghetti Flying Monster realised the pirates were lonely, leading to disputes and fights, and so the Most Holy Spaghetti Flying Monster created saucy wenches to keep the pirates company.
The decline in pirates and saucy wenches ever since is why the quality of life has gone down all over the planet Earth. It is high time we took on the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta HMS Ruddigore and insisted that henceforth the plot and lyrics are changed so that young boys no longer become pirates by accident but that they become pirates by design.
Only the restoration of pirates and saucy wenches can induce His Holiness The Spaghetti Flying Monster to return back to planet Earth to carry out his messianic mission - though until the foaming beer is restored back to the volcanoes all over the Earth no one is quite sure as to what the messianic mission actually is.
When all is said and done "It's a pirate's life for me"!!!!
I am sure school children will find this kind of religious instruction far more entertaining than the usual boring drivel religionists try to drum into them.
If we are to go over to a total system of religious schools, I could get my diploma from the Holy Church of the Spaghetti Flying Monster as a minister. Then, I could teach children that it was the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster which created the entire universe, including the Earth which, in its early days, was populated by pirates and volcanoes of foaming beer. Great !!! Eventually the Holy Spaghetti Flying Monster realised the pirates were lonely, leading to disputes and fights, and so the Most Holy Spaghetti Flying Monster created saucy wenches to keep the pirates company. The decline in pirates and saucy wenches ever since is why the quality of life has gone down all over the planet Earth. It is high time we took on the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta HMS Ruddigore and insisted that henceforth the plot and lyrics are changed so that young boys no longer become pirates by accident but that they become pirates by design. Only the restoration of pirates and saucy wenches can induce His Holiness The Spaghetti Flying Monster to return back to planet Earth to carry out his messianic mission - though until the foaming beer is restored back to the volcanoes all over the Earth no one is quite sure as to what the messianic mission actually is. When all is said and done "It's a pirate's life for me"!!!! I am sure school children will find this kind of religious instruction far more entertaining than the usual boring drivel religionists try to drum into them. John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree