Medieval relic or recent bad idea?

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by Dogbrain, Jun 13, 2010.

  1. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was reading the front page for this site, and came across the following article: Humanists praise Ofsted RE report : Interfaith. I did some further research, and my "eh?" rocketed to "WTF!?!?!?"

    Religious education within government-run schools is COMPULSORY in the UK? Is this a relic of the Middle Ages or a new stupid thing being done over there?


     
  2. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    We have always had religious education in our schools. Until my youth it was generally just Christianity but over the past 3 decades or so it has become multi faith. So kids now learn a little about the main faiths and it helps them to understand the various faith followers they will come across in their lives.
     
  3. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Remember, Dogbrain, that the English Monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that the UK is still effectively a Protestant country, if nothing else in its roots rather than most practices. We still have high ranking clergy afforded a place in the House of Lords (equivalent to the upper house in the USA) as a matter of tradition.

    However, the UK does not suffer the extreme views that are well-seeded in the US - there are no fights about pushing religion into general curriculum studies, or pushing science into religious education.
     
  4. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    The House of Lords is equivalent to the US Senate?
    The Senate has the following powers:

    Initiate any legislation except for the main budget.
    Approve or REJECT any Presidential appointee--with no recourse from the House, President, or Supreme Court in the case of rejection, and no say from the House or Supreme Court in the case of Approval (a President is always free to dismiss an appointee).
    Any bills originating in the House of Representatives can be simply killed in the Senate. The Senate is not limited to merely delaying or amending a bill. If the Senate does not consent, the bill never becomes law.
    Membership and eligibility for the Senate cannot be changed by legislation that goes through ordinary channels. If Constitutional Amendment is attempted, the Senate will have to approve unless a Constitutional Convention of all the states is convened.
    The Senate can ratify or REFUSE TO RATIFY any treaty. Nobody can reverse this but the Senate.

    Does your House of "Lords" have that kind of power? Do not claim that your toothless "Lords" are equivalent to the US Senate unless they do.
     
  5. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ok, so there are clear constitutional differences - there's a surprise, thanks for pointing it out. :)

    What I was illustrating was the role of the House of Lords is the highest tier of government beneath the country's recognised rule - and yes, the House of Lords can and does kill, reject, and amend legislation.

    And back to the point I raised, the ruling monarch is the head of the Church of England, hence why a number of CoE figures are given seats in the House of Lords.

    I think many Americans would freak if Bush had been able to automatically put a few dozen preachers in Senate seats without a vote. :)
     

Share This Page