Thursday, 17 February 2005 - 9:13 AM GMT

If i was you DY i would have a look at the aparthied education system that exists, at the tax payers expense, within the uk. Specifically look at teh West of Scotland, the RC church, the Labour party and the media to see a pan-nationalist front in action..... mind you a quick swatch at Glasgow District Council may be a better starting point... in particular the 21% of the 21% of the population who have been represented by the last 13 Lord Provest's over the past 30 year....


Woe betide any WASP

Thursday, 17 February 2005 - 9:13 AM GMT

If i was you DY i would have a look at the aparthied education system that exists, at the tax payers expense, within the uk. Specifically look at teh West of Scotland, the RC church, the Labour party and the media to see a pan-nationalist front in action..... mind you a quick swatch at Glasgow District Council may be a better starting point... in particular the 21% of the 21% of the population who have been represented by the last 13 Lord Provest's over the past 30 year....


Woe betide any WASP

Thursday, 17 February 2005 - 1:22 PM GMT

I should jolly well hope that Scottish people were nationalistic towards Anglo-Saxons.

Sunday, 20 February 2005 - 10:05 AM GMT

Because they can do so, at minimal exertion. Showing respect for other cultures or faiths isn't going to bring down the government, let alone the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations Board.

Why do you find this shocking? In my view it is quite harmless. A religious studies GSCE will teach you about the faith system, scriptures and beliefs of many religions. In my own case Christianity, Judaism and Islam were covered. Textbooks put PBUH after the name of the Prophet not to represent their craven indulgence of the growing Islamic hordes as you would suggest, but because they were sensitive to the traditions of the religion, as they were to other religions covered.

You definitely need much stronger case than mere evidence of good manners to start accusing the O,C and RSA of bias and prejudice.

Alex The Gent

Sunday, 20 February 2005 - 1:09 PM GMT

1) Does this sensitivity extend to other religions also? Do they write 'G-d' instead of 'God' for the sake of the observant Jews? Do they refer to Jesus as 'He' instead of 'he' and call him 'the Lord' for the sake of the Christians?

2) Why should they be paying respect at all? What about those of us who think that the world's religious leaders were charlatans? Students should be taught in a neutral and objective fashion. Our history books don't talk about Churchill as 'Greatest Briton' - students have to draw their own conclusions about that.

DY

Sunday, 20 February 2005 - 3:11 PM GMT

From The Rise of Toleration by Henry Kamen (London; Weidenfeld and Nicholson; 1967).

"In the broadest sense, toleration can be understood to mean the concession of liberty to those who dissent in religion. It can be seen as part of the process in history which has led to a gradual development of the principle of human freedom. What should be is that this development has been by no means regular. Even the great English historian Lord Acton, for whom the evolution of freedom lay at the heart of history, was obliged to recognise that toleration has pursued not a linear but a cyclic development; it has not evolved progressively but has suffered periodic and prolonged reverses. The belief that religious liberty is an exclusively modern achievement is of course untrue, and it should cause no great surprise that some countries today are further from full liberty than they were five centuries. Attitudes are in any case conditioned by social and political circumstances, developing erratically according to their milleu, so that there is no inherent reason why a modern doctrine should be any more progressive than a distant one.

By giving due consideration to the social context of philosophies we come closer to understanding the contemporary significance of doctrines."

And yes, of course all other faiths are treated with equal sensitivity.

To me your evidence is about as flimsy as some 'outrage' column in the Daily Mail, except that I can't wipe my bottom with your blog unless I go to the trouble and expense of printing it out. Where did that ink cartidge go?

Sunday, 20 February 2005 - 3:20 PM GMT

OK, let's be more blunt: 'Peace be upon him' seems inappropriate for a man who caused later followers to:

a) invade India and slaughter the inhabitants for idolatry, b) invade northern Africa and southern Europe.

as well as endorsing slavery.

As a historical figure, he should be judged by his message and his actions, not the feelings that devotees have about him. I'm all for tolerance, but that doesn't mean that a UK examining board in the 21st century should wish peace on someone, just because some people do. Students should be told the facts about his life. If they choose to wish peace upon him, that's their business, but an examining body should be above this.

DY

Sunday, 20 February 2005 - 3:51 PM GMT

Good job that Christian leaders have never 'encouraged later followers' to invade the Middle East under religious pretexts. Think of the resentments if wave after wave of 'crusaders' had left Europe to 'recapture' the 'Holy Land'.

You want GSCE students to be taught history in their Religious Studies classes? Time and the curriculum do not permit the kind of in-depth study which is more suited to PhD students than bored 15 year olds. The Religious Studies curriculum is hugely controversial as it is, and I speak as someone whose first ever job was at the old Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority in the RS department (now the QCA, as at qca.org.uk). I read the letters we got from religious loonies from all over the country, all demanding that their own perspectives were taught as Gospel, if you'll pardon the pun. Sensibly the underlying aims laid stress on teaching a positive, fact-based course covering at least three faith systems. Speculative value judgements, such as the ones which you have been dishing out above, were to be avoided as they are controversial and impossible to teach. This is NOT incompatible with respecting the sensitivities of any one religion, as in your original example of attaching an honorific to the Name of the Prophet.

Tuesday, 22 February 2005 - 5:44 PM GMT

Amen to that! :)

Tuesday, 22 February 2005 - 5:45 PM GMT

Amen to that! :)

Wednesday, 23 February 2005 - 1:16 PM GMT

Dave, lets be honest here. It is the fact that this deals with Islam that has you so hot under the collar. If we were dealing with any other religion you wouldnt be so outraged. Islam is not responsible for the attrocities commited by fundamentalists in the same way that Lutherens and Episcopalians arent responsible when some right wing fantaic blows up an abortion clinic.

Dont confuse someones religion with someone elses politics.

Wednesday, 23 February 2005 - 2:42 PM GMT

Well, it's like this.

You put

Two Muslims and one Jew in a cell.
Two Muslims and one Christian in a cell.
Two Jews and one Christian in a cell.
Two Jews and one Muslim in a cell.
Two Christians and one Muslim in a cell.
Two Christians and one Jew in a cell.

And after a few days you will have

One dead Jew.
One dead Christian.
A kibbutz.
An intifada.
A gay Muslim.
Fred Titmus.

Wednesday, 23 February 2005 - 3:41 PM GMT

I suggest attaching the following honorific after the name of your most devoted follower , David.

James Butler PUB

Wednesday, 23 February 2005 - 4:05 PM GMT

Okay, I've been away for two years and the latest abbrevs/acronyms have left me behind.

Though, watch out next week for the Bolly Experience is about to descend upon London Towne.