andymackem wrote:what is a faith school?
CoE schools, Catholic schools, Muslim schools, Jewish schools, Sikh schools.
Thanks for that. I'll try to avoid asking questions with literal answers. What practical difference does it make to the education they provide. Last time I checked, an act of worship was required by law in British schools. If your school is majority Sikh (eg the Heathlands School in Hounslow), should that act of worship be Christian?
As I mentioned, I went to a CoE school without being CoE. It was just the local primary, but was grant-aided by the church. No-one expected me to be a regular church-goer. The girl who lived over the road from me was a regular at the local catholic church and comes from a devout RC family but still went - because it was the local school She also went to the local comp rather than going to St Leonards RC School afterwards.
When I was at my non-religious secondary school, I spent one year in RE studying Judaism (possibly because we had a Jewish RE teacher, famed for her astonishingly large breasts). No effort to explore any other non-Christian faith was attempted. So my 'secular' schooling means I'm no better informed about Islam than the girls from the convent school I used to corrupt on orchestra tours
Can anyone else do better, from a secular or religious background?
andymackem wrote:How do political parties pander to religious viewpoints?
The "Incitement to religious hatred" law?
Controls on human embryology and in-vitro fertilisation?
Controls on stem-cell research?
(The Abortion laws are a different matter as they are usually left to a free vote as a matter of conscience.)
The main example, however, was in Rochdale at the last general election where the Lib-Dem candidate (now the MP) openly accused Labour policies of being "Islamophobic". It is assumed that his victory was largely due to the votes of (traditionally Labour-supporting) Muslims.
Is the incitement to religious hatred any different, morally, from the incitement to racial hatred laws which already exist? In some communities religion is a more relevant point of identity than race, no?
Controls on genetics, as I understand it, are not entirely confined to religious beliefs. In the case of IVF I'm unconvinced that in the face of global over-population allowing rich people to create their own children is a great idea. While I sympathise with childless couples, surely adoption is a more sensible alternative than creating extra people?
As for other genetic issues, I'd refer you to Huxley rather than waffle on indefinitely. Unfettered genetic engineering, especially led by sci-tech corporations, is unlikely to benefit the greater good in the way we might hope. Legislative regulation is the only (rather scant) defence we have against this. In principle, and without any reference to what's 'natural' or who's 'playing God', I'd support this.
I'm not sufficiently expert on the details to defend myself from your next devoted defence of the scientific community, but I'll look forward to it anyway