The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[aguero93:20]

Here's something else for George Hannah to start whining about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

High court says Govt's new GCSE RE curriculum is unlawful in not allowing for acknowledgement of non faith structures.

Bloody hell, we're supposed to be devout and backwards in Ireland and even the Catholic secondary schools here have had to teach the subject from a POV off all religions and none since the 90s.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Why do people get so uptight over this sort of thing? The CoE trying to get me to buy into their script is no different to Coke trying to sell me their sugar loaded shit, or McD's trying to convince me that their produce is in fact delicious and not the box of fried shite I tend to think it is.
Eat shit or don't, drink shit or don't, pray to one God or another or don't. Fuck's sake.

They clearly do it to avoid any trouble. Even if they didn't have a blanket no religious adverts policy, they'd still draw the line somewhere. What would happen if a religious group wanted to put an anti-gay message up, for example? Then you're in the area of having to decide what opinions are acceptable to advertise, and you're opening yourself up for claims of discrimination when you play the Christian advert, but you don't play the Muslim one (even if you didn't play the Muslim one for legitimate taste reasons). Easier all round to avoid any adverts about subjects that people get uptight about (including politics).

 

[tonea2003]

Here's something else for George Hannah to start whining about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

High court says Govt's new GCSE RE curriculum is unlawful in not allowing for acknowledgement of non faith structures.

bit by bit the unraveling continues

 

[George Hannah]

Said by whom?

I have just tried to find the reference and failed. It was in a BBC programme about Darwin's religious views aired shortly after the series last year done by Andrew Marr. I'll keep looking.

 

[Matty]

Here's something else for George Hannah to start whining about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

High court says Govt's new GCSE RE curriculum is unlawful in not allowing for acknowledgement of non faith structures.

Given the way society is changing/developing, with a greater number of people, year on year, associating themselves with no religious group, it does seem a little uneven to educate children in the various different religions but chose to omit the perfectly acceptable viewpoint that none of the religions are actually right and there isn't a God. Obviously this viewpoint won't be taught in any particular depth as, by it's very nature, there isn't a great deal of depth to it. There are no parables, books of the bible, miracles or sermons to educate about, and as such the time set aside to it will likely be less. To ignore it totally however seems like an (albeit watered down) version of the deep south of America, where they refuse to teach about evolution and instead teach about creationism and literal bible versions of how the Earth developed.

 

[George Hannah]

He's been consistent for six years doing that.

If you can spare the time it would be helpful if you could identify the arguments I've been hiding behind for the last six years so I know which ones I don't understand.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I'm having a bit of difficulty in getting my head round the idea that RELIGIOUS Education has to involve NON-RELIGIOUS bits. Are maths curricula going to involve things like how long the Saxon spears were at Hastings, or English curricula deciding whether Shakespeare's plays take into account the splitting of the atom, and History has long suffered by not discussing the breadth and depth of eskers and drumlins?

 

[SWP's back]

I have just tried to find the reference and failed. It was in a BBC programme about Darwin's religious views aired shortly after the series last year done by Andrew Marr. I'll keep looking.

I believe you so don't do yourself an injury.

He was a religious bloke which is part of the reason he waited such a long time before publishing as he knew the church attack dogs would 'have at him'

 

[stony]

I believe you so don't do yourself an injury.

He was a religious bloke which is part of the reason he waited such a long time before publishing as he knew the church attack dogs would 'have at him'

Stop being an attack dog.

 

[SWP's back]

They clearly do it to avoid any trouble. Even if they didn't have a blanket no religious adverts policy, they'd still draw the line somewhere. What would happen if a religious group wanted to put an anti-gay message up, for example? Then you're in the area of having to decide what opinions are acceptable to advertise, and you're opening yourself up for claims of discrimination when you play the Christian advert, but you don't play the Muslim one (even if you didn't play the Muslim one for legitimate taste reasons). Easier all round to avoid any adverts about subjects that people get uptight about (including politics).

If that had been the first reply then this thread needn't have existed n