this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024

124 points (98.4% liked)

UK Politics

3113 readers

191 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

124

Religion may enable homophobia in schools, reports suggest (www.secularism.org.uk)

submitted 1 month ago by RobotToaster@mander.xyz to c/uk_politics

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

No shit lmao

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

In other news, water is wet.

[–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 month ago

Yeah. It absolutely does.

My siblings raise their kids with religion as an important core tenant. The kids refer to all non-straight folks as "gross", and "wrong", and make horrible comments about them. They are also not allowed to talk about different orientations.

The "othering" of folks who live differently from what they believe encourages bullying and hatred. It makes them believe their lifestyle is morally right and good compared to these other sick heathens whose sin is living truthfully to themselves.

It's religion.

[–] Lifebandit666 15 points 1 month ago

My teenage son came out, his Muslim friend through primary and secondary school disowned him because it was against his religion to be friends with him.

Fuck all religions, every one of them

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago

Indeed. Just one reason to abolish them. They also don't teach sex ed or evolution.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

You don't say????

[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

A cuddly toy version of the Surprised Pikachu meme

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

water may be wet, reports suggest

[+] Flax_vert -11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Government reports found faith schools refusing to teach about same-sex marriage

Okay, and? Why would you expect them to? They're religious schools. That's like expecting them to preach the Bible at a Satanist's conference 🤣

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Satanist school would teach bible better than a Christian one, because it would be from academic perspective instead of fundamentalist one

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Remind me what book Satan is from?

[–] Flax_vert 2 points 1 month ago

Fair point 🤣

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Government reports found faith schools refusing to teach about same-sex marriage

Okay, and? Why would you expect them to?

It's the law of the land in the UK, and in many european countries.

School can't omit that unless they're not teaching that civil mariage exist, or teach it while falsely claiming it's reserved to opposite sex couples.

[–] Flax_vert -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It'll be wrong to falsely claim that it doesn't exist as a legal status, although. But if a government is going to let a religious school exist, they shouldn't expect the school to change it's religious doctrine to suit the law.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

they shouldn’t expect the school to change it’s religious doctrine to suit the law

Schools have to follow the laws and regulations. The article states relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is statutory. If a church's doctrine dictates that it bans such education from its schools, that means young people will lack relevant education, causing them to face higher health risks.

These churches may need to make tough choices. They could evolve their doctrine to allow their schools to provide proper education, and to make it so their schools ensure young people's well-being. Or transfer the schools to other organizations that are more able.

It's a hot topic, and there might not be a political will to enforce this regulation. Until there is, some schools will probably keep failing to provide RSHE.

[–] Flax_vert -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If they're "evolving doctrine" on morals, then it's not a religion, just something that bends and changes at a society's will. The government cannot claim to allow religious schools to exist yet not let them stick with their religion.

Is worth noting though that some of the schools were outsourcing the education to other groups, which the article states.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Religions are part of society, they're not outside of it. Their dogma can and do evolve. It wouldn't be the first time a church reinterpret sacred text to better fit in society, for instance :

Around 434, Vincent of Lérins wrote Commonitorium, in which he recognized that doctrine can develop over time. New doctrines could not be declared, but older ones better understood.[15] In John Henry Newman's 1845 "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine", Newman listed seven criteria which "...can be applied in proper proportions to that further interpretation of dogmas aimed at giving them contemporary relevance."[

Countries in the UK and Europe have different forms of governments but none are theocracies. Elected representatives make laws, not churches, and churches cannot ignore laws.

That's a different story for Iran, Afghanistan, the Vatican... and I'm glad we're not following their example.

[–] Flax_vert -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you're constantly changing doctrine, then it's obviously a false religion. You cannot claim to have an all-knowing God yet He keeps changing His mind whenever society wants to do something differently other than what He commanded. The Bible is clear on God's stance and layout of human sexuality and marriage. It's not something that humans can just change on a whim.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're assuming god exist, and that churches have a perfect understanding of god's stance.

Both are doubtful.

[–] Flax_vert -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The major world religions believe God exists. Christianity states that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible which Christians believe is the infallible inspired word of God. Islam also states that it's sinful in the Qur'an which Muslims believe is the dictated word of god. You can't just change what God says because you don't agree with it.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes, many religious groups, thankfully not all, insist on preserving antiquated moral values, and perpetuate the discrimination of women and LGBT people.

This contribute to each new generation being less religious than the previous. People are fleeing and for good reasons.

It's up to each group to decide how to move forward, and whether to move forward at all. I can't force any change, but I do hope that religions that require perpetuation of discrimination will loose their followers.

[–] Flax_vert 1 points 1 month ago

Ironically, it's always the "progressivists" that lose followers more than the religions that stand by what they teach. Believing in a religion just because you like it or not believing in one because you dislike it isn't rational anyway. That's like not believing in climate change because you don't like it (which deep down is the case for many climate change deniers).

Take for example, Christianity. Someone should believe in Christianity, not because they agree with it, but because they believe Jesus of Nazareth is The Christ and He Is Who He says He Is.

I used to struggle with this. I wanted to affirm everything that the world was affirming, and I did. However, I realised that if God was Real and Perfect, then if I disagree with God, I am simply wrong myself, and it's I who needs to change, not God. I can't dictate to God who He should be or what He should believe.

If you wanted Christianity to follow society, you'd also have to remove the "give to the poor" parts in China, the "love your neighbour" part in the USA, and the "stop being a Pharisee and getting obsessed over how pious you are" in first century Jerusalem. If you only remove the part that challenges white society yet keep and preach the parts that offend other societies (like many "progressivists" are doing) that's not Christianity, that's white supremacism.