Are they NUTS? - Page 3

Eric · 25-03-2008, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

I left Mount Carmel in 2005, a Roman Catholic High School. My 'Religious Education' lessons were Christian Education and nothing more.

I would back up anyone who would propose for children to be taught about all major religions in schools. Not just major religions but new religious movements and new age secular practices, as their education progresses.

Children should not be made somewhat ignorant by faith schools, as they have been done in the past. (I know - I was one of them. I knew nothing about important beliefs away from Christianity/the West until I took Religious Studies at 'A' level.) Children should be taught about religious diversity regardless of their upbringing or their family's religious convictions.

This is the modern world - a global society. Britain can not continue to be so blinkered and insular. Multiculturalism exists and our children's education should correspond with that. Lack of education about religion breeds ignorance and stereotype, which in turn creates idiocy and hate.

You are a little behind the times ... to say this is a modern world is to say nothing ... Chaucer could have said the same thing about the 14th century. And the global society thing is just about over and done with; it has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Nationalism is back. Look at the map of Europe today and compare it with one 25 years old. Globalism will soon be nothing more than going to exotic places for a vacation and being able to find a good Thai restaurant in your neighbourhood. The Americans are just as isolationist as they ever were ... globalism to them is mainly economic ... putting a Starbucks on every street corner in the world and sending their military wherever their national interests are involved. Canadians are responding to claims on the Arctic by sending troops to that region led by Inuit Rangers. We are welcoming immigrants who have skills we need in this country ... the rest can stay where they are. And the ones that come here can worship how they damn well please as long as they don't seek to change essential Canadian values. Some dumb ass muslims wanting citizenship recently baullked at taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen as part of the citizenship ritual ... screw them, if they don't want to take the oath they don't become citizens ... and as non citizens they sure as hell are not going to tell the rest of us how to run our country, and how to pay respect to our head of state.

I sometimes resist saying what I think about what is happening in England, because it really no longer is any of my business ... having said that, I will shoot off my mouth on this one and say that it seems to me that those in power in England seem not to be able to see the difference between tolerance and surrender. You are bending over backwards ... no, make that forwards ... to accomodate people who blow up your subways and buses and kill and maim your young service men and women.

Within living memory Great Britain along with the three Dominions (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for those who don't know what I am talking about) stood up for the whole world, and held off the Nazis while the Americans took their own sweet time growing a pair. And now, England seems incapable of standing up for itself. Sure the face of England has changed, but from what I read in this forum, the England of our grandparents and great - grandparents is still there, alive, if not well. It's as if pride in one's country and one's history have become distasteful. There is nothing wrong with patriotism ... look at Barb for example, one may not agree with a lot of what she says, but one has to admire ... at least I admire it ... her patriotism and love of her country.

shakermaker · 25-03-2008, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by derekgas

Dont you think this will detract from what they are taught about our own religion? I do.

What the hell is 'our own religion'?

emamum · 25-03-2008, 18:46

Derek, dont have me falling out wi u

im saying that in schools where the majority of kids are muslim do they really need 2 lessons a week on christianity?

derekgas · 25-03-2008, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by emamum23

Derek, dont have me falling out wi u

the majority of kids are muslim do they really need 2 lessons a week on christianity?

Nuff said!

Lampman · 25-03-2008, 20:55

As Eric has said other countries seem to have put their house in order.We however are far too tolerant with those who seek to change the fabric of the British way of life.Having watched the news since my original posting;I am convinced that the lunatics are running the asylum.....and these are home grown ones at that!

emamum · 25-03-2008, 21:01

i think its called adapting......

Eric · 25-03-2008, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by emamum23

i think its called adapting......

I think it's called surrender.

cashman · 25-03-2008, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by emamum23

i think its called adapting......

utter garbage, west indians came over in 1000s late 50s early 60s, the differance was they Integrated, sure there was a bit of aggro at the begining, but that was overcome n they Sucessfully Integrated, ask yourself WHY? cos they took in the main to our way of life. many moslems do the same - the Fanatics will not, n as eric said the fools in our society surrendered cos they are to DUMB to see it. theres been a classic on the news today the loonies are saying Amir Khan should not use the union jack cos hes a muslim. the Muslim Council have finally come forward and said Bakari is talking Rubbish, nothing to do with the koran, its the only way to True Integration n i think the Muslim Council have now grasped the nettle n made a start, they are to be commended for me.

lancsdave · 25-03-2008, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

utter garbage, west indians came over in 1000s late 50s early 60s, the differance was they Integrated,

So have the millions of chinese, italians and greeks.

jambutty · 26-03-2008, 18:23

Someone on the Teletext letters pages suggested that NUT stood for National Union of Traitors.

After this latest nutty idea I could go along with that.

jambutty · 26-03-2008, 18:42

Schools would have more time for the curriculum if they put the school hours back to what they used to be in my day – up to 1952.

That is 9:00am to 12:00noon then 1:00pm to 4:00pm with a 10 minutes ‘playtime’ break morning and afternoon.

Each lesson lasted 40 or 45 minutes so we had 8 periods per day. That’s 40 periods per week. Woodwork, Metalwork and Games were 4 periods long. Most subjects were 2 periods long twice a week with only music and RE for one period once a week.

lancsdave · 26-03-2008, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Schools would have more time for the curriculum if they put the school hours back to what they used to be in my day – up to 1952.

That is 9:00am to 12:00noon then 1:00pm to 4:00pm with a 10 minutes ‘playtime’ break morning and afternoon.

Each lesson lasted 40 or 45 minutes so we had 8 periods per day. That’s 40 periods per week. Woodwork, Metalwork and Games were 4 periods long. Most subjects were 2 periods long twice a week with only music and RE for one period once a week.

It's not changed that much, only half an hour different to the current school day.

derekgas · 26-03-2008, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Someone on the Teletext letters pages suggested that NUT stood for National Union of Traitors.

After this latest nutty idea I could go along with that.

Careful jambutty, I am agreeing with you.

Eric · 26-03-2008, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by derekgas

Careful jambutty, I am agreeing with you.

Yeah, me too ... scary eh.

cashman · 26-03-2008, 19:08

me also without question.