School Task - Conversion To Islam

[agchristie]

Is this wise?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/20/school-sets-children-task-of-writing-letter-explaining-their-conversion-to-islam/

[naomi24]

Pixie, okay. What do you think is wrong with it?

[Svejk]

Wrong, again, andy. Christian scripture neither condones or suggests covering up child abuse. Whereas Islam condones & encourages the subjugation of women. (amongst many much worse things)

[-Talbot-]

That would chime with the rosy non-existent version of Christianity then - where sexual abuse of children is condoned and covered


Why bother to cover it up if it is condoned?

[pixie374]

Naomi, I've said from the beginning- it's a misrepresentation of what they are actually taught and that I think children should be taught about it. Nothing more complicated than that.

[pixie374]

No religions are taught as "fact". The main principles are given of the main religions and students talk about what they think about them. They can obviously ask and talk about anything else that they think is relevant. Extremism-in all religions- is also covered. I can't remember if it was when I was at school.

[jomifl]

The sooner all religions are consigned to the dusbin of history the better. Children have enough to try to comprehend without the extra burden of numerous irrational fantasy worlds.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //Why bother to cover it up if it is condoned? //

Within the Catholic church - it is condoned.

Outside the Catholic church, where the rest of us live, and have to abide by laws, and behave like human beings, and other tedious restrictions not applied to priests - it is covered up.

[-Talbot-]

You started of with Christianity


Sort of ... tarring all Christians with the same brush!

[vetuste_ennemi]

The argument is not about the behaviour of individual Christians or their leaders, Andy; it's about the teachings of Christ.

Did Christ have sex with a nine year old girl? No.
Does the New Testament allow Christians to capture women in battle and rape them? No.

Now ask the same questions about Mohammed and the Koran.

[andy-hughes]

vetuste - //Does the New Testament allow Christians to capture women in battle and rape them? No.

Now ask the same questions about Mohammed and the Koran. //

Hitory tells us that one group of people did exactly that under the banner of Christianity - they were called The Crusaders.

[pixie374]

That isn't the argument either v-e. It's about whether children should be taught about it.

[Svejk]

Under the banner? pmsl. Have you ever, ever, ever in your life admitted you 'misspoke'?

[vetuste_ennemi]

"Hitory tells us that one group of people did exactly that under the banner of Christianity - they were called The Crusaders.".

You are determined to miss the point, Andy. I can't find an explanation for it which is in any way flattering to you.

The crusaders were not able to justify slaughter and rape by reference to the New Testament, or to the example of Christ.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Don't you get it?

[vetuste_ennemi]

It was an argument I was trying to make independently of the OP, Pixie.

Of course children should learn about these things. The school exercise,
however, looks more like an attempt to sanitising the Religion of Peace than educating people about it. Without knowing the details of the RE syllabus I can't be sure of that.

[andy-hughes]

Svejk - //Under the banner? pmsl. Have you ever, ever, ever in your life admitted you 'misspoke'? //

If that post is aimed at me - and history shows that it probably is - there are times without number on the AB when I have admitted that I have been harsh, rude, provocative, and plain wrong, and other times when I have conceded that my argument has been demolished, or I have found other views that have made me reconsider my own viewpoint.

If you read my posts from the point of view of seeing what they actually say, instead of looking for a reason to pull them apart and pick a fight - you would be able to see them.

[andy-hughes]

vetuste - //"Hitory tells us that one group of people did exactly that under the banner of Christianity - they were called The Crusaders.".

You are determined to miss the point, Andy. I can't find an explanation for it which is in any way flattering to you.

The crusaders were not able to justify slaughter and rape by reference to the New Testament, or to the example of Christ.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Don't you get it? //

No need to shout - I do get it.

My post was hastily written, and ill-thought-out, I am happy to concede that it does not contribute to the debate, and withdraw it.

[-Talbot-]

Why do you often struggle with knowing whether a post is for your benefit or not, andy?


My post about tarring everyone with the same brush was for you ... if you were in doubt.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //Why do you often struggle with knowing whether a post is for your benefit or not, andy? //

Because I would not be so self-centred as to assume that any post is for my attention - that is why I copy and paste posts to which I reply, so the poster, and everyone else, can easily see the point to which I am responding.

So, unless a post is a snipe from a usual suspect, I don't assume that any post is for me, and I appreciate being notified so I can respond, if I choose.

[-Talbot-]

if I choose.


Obviously you have chosen to ignore my post on 'tarring'