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.
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.
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.
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 Iran, Afghanistan, the Vatican… and I’m glad we’re not following their example.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :
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 Iran, Afghanistan, the Vatican… and I’m glad we’re not following their example.
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.
You’re assuming god exist, and that churches have a perfect understanding of god’s stance.
Both are doubtful.