• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    Government reports found faith schools refusing to teach about same-sex marriage

    Okay, and? Why would you expect them to? They’re religious schools. That’s like expecting them to preach the Bible at a Satanist’s conference 🤣

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Satanist school would teach bible better than a Christian one, because it would be from academic perspective instead of fundamentalist one

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 month ago

        Most “academics” are filled with double standards and moving goalposts, I find

    • Hirom@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Government reports found faith schools refusing to teach about same-sex marriage

      Okay, and? Why would you expect them to?

      It’s the law of the land in the UK, and in many european countries.

      School can’t omit that unless they’re not teaching that civil mariage exist, or teach it while falsely claiming it’s reserved to opposite sex couples.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’ll be wrong to falsely claim that it doesn’t exist as a legal status, although. But if a government is going to let a religious school exist, they shouldn’t expect the school to change it’s religious doctrine to suit the law.

        • Hirom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          they shouldn’t expect the school to change it’s religious doctrine to suit the law

          Schools have to follow the laws and regulations. The article states relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is statutory. If a church’s doctrine dictates that it bans such education from its schools, that means young people will lack relevant education, causing them to face higher health risks.

          These churches may need to make tough choices. They could evolve their doctrine to allow their schools to provide proper education, and to make it so their schools ensure young people’s well-being. Or transfer the schools to other organizations that are more able.

          It’s a hot topic, and there might not be a political will to enforce this regulation. Until there is, some schools will probably keep failing to provide RSHE.

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            If they’re “evolving doctrine” on morals, then it’s not a religion, just something that bends and changes at a society’s will. The government cannot claim to allow religious schools to exist yet not let them stick with their religion.

            Is worth noting though that some of the schools were outsourcing the education to other groups, which the article states.

            • Hirom@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Religions are part of society, they’re not outside of it. Their dogma can and do evolve. It wouldn’t be the first time a church reinterpret sacred text to better fit in society, for instance :

              Around 434, Vincent of Lérins wrote Commonitorium, in which he recognized that doctrine can develop over time. New doctrines could not be declared, but older ones better understood.[15] In John Henry Newman’s 1845 “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, Newman listed seven criteria which “…can be applied in proper proportions to that further interpretation of dogmas aimed at giving them contemporary relevance.”[

              Countries in the UK and Europe have different forms of governments but none are theocracies. Elected representatives make laws, not churches, and churches cannot ignore laws.

              That’s a different story for Iran, Afghanistan, the Vatican… and I’m glad we’re not following their example.

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                If you’re constantly changing doctrine, then it’s obviously a false religion. You cannot claim to have an all-knowing God yet He keeps changing His mind whenever society wants to do something differently other than what He commanded. The Bible is clear on God’s stance and layout of human sexuality and marriage. It’s not something that humans can just change on a whim.

                • Hirom@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  You’re assuming god exist, and that churches have a perfect understanding of god’s stance.

                  Both are doubtful.

                  • Flax@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    The major world religions believe God exists. Christianity states that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible which Christians believe is the infallible inspired word of God. Islam also states that it’s sinful in the Qur’an which Muslims believe is the dictated word of god. You can’t just change what God says because you don’t agree with it.