Political Correctness - doesn't go far enough IMO.

Opposition to use the word Saint is going too far and is a negative approach, I feel.

Nothing wrong in being a Christian Country. Though very few people actually go to church (except for baptism, weddings and funeral) or practice Christianity. Which is a shame.

There are signs of american sponsored fundamentalistalism creeping in but by and large Christians in the UK are sensible, moderate and tolerant to other religions.

People should be able to practice their religion, as long as it does not threaten the lives of other people. People who are truly religious tend to develop a sense of unity with all living things.

I hope the oppressive legislation such as the banning of Muslim head scarf and Sikh turbans in France is not repeated in this country.

 

I don't have a problem with religous schools as such as longs as they don't preach and allow the pupils to have opinions which may not follow the beliefs of the religion.

 

My take on political correctness is that it is/was necessary to prevent minorities being offended by certain words/terms that were in common use amongst the white population, and preventing offence in this way can only be a good thing.

Unfortunately now we reach a stage where well-meaning (but IMHO misguided) mostly middle class liberals are trying to dictate to everyone else how they should think, by taking PC to rediculous levels. Please, will somebody find me a black person who finds the descriptive term for a chalkboard 'blackboard' offensive, as I've yet to meet one!

The problem is by taking political correctness to such ludicrous levels, whereby innocent phrases such as 'blackboard' or 'bah bah black sheep' are deemed potentially offensive, and whilst not banned, use of such phrases is discouraged, or taxi drivers urged not to display the St. Georges cross on taxis during football tournament (as occured in Wolverhampton, as apparently it might be deemed a racist symbol), many people incorrectly blame the minorities for this creeping onset of political correctness taken to extremes, and this is why political correctness is (IMHO) becoming a double edged sword that is beginning to hinder race relations as well as help in some respects.

Minorities become the target - people are outraged at, for example, the Christmas holiday break being called 'winterval' by Birmingham City Council (a move they made a couple of years back IIRC that was somewhat unpopular and has since been reverssed), believing it to be a case of ethnic minorities attempting to subvert or change the existing cultures and traditions of this country to suit them, and as such racial, religious and/or ethnic tensions are exacerbated as some elements of the white majority react with hostility to the petty changes they see taking place.

Yet the problem lies not with the minority population, I mean really, do most Hindus/Sikhs/Muslims/Buddhists or whatever really find 'our' celebration of Christmas so offensive? Do epileptics really get offended by the use of 'brain storm' rather than 'mind-map' to describe a way of setting out information? Do many black people get offended at the mention of a blackboard? Apparently they do - these are (to me) some of the more silly ideas to come out of political correctness, but I use them to illustrate a point.

In my experience, no, most minorities are not offended by Christmas, the use of the word blackboard, and so on - but still small changes such as these are made in the name of political correctness that somehow manage to breed resentment amonst the majority population against the people they see behind the issue..

The media is most unhelpful in this respect, tabloids are keen to highlight such issues of political correctness but never point the finger clearly at who is responsible - liberals who think they know what does or doesn't offend people are the ones pushing 'political correctness' to such levels as exist today, not the minority populations political correctness originally set out to help.

All IMHO, I'm sure someone will disagree but thats how I see the issue.

 

a non denominational school will have a religion free assembly however religions will be taught in as far that they are touched upon in history and geography. my daughter was asking me questions about judaism last year as they were doing some study of it. they also covered catholicism in history when doing henry the eighth. i have no problems with this and can't see why anyone else would it expands out childrens view of the world and hopefully will allow them to identify more easily with other cultures and beliefs.
however if my daughter can get a better education but have to sing a few hymns and say the lords prayer in the morning (and she doesn't object to doing this) then why not?

ak,
surely if schools of all denominations get equal funding then there can be no objection? i'd much prefer that there was some govt spending on education and cultural preservation (if treated equally) than it be spent on ill planned buildings or madly expensive wallpaper.
cheers


julian

 

Hi AT,

I thought you lived in Chorlton. Chorlton has a white population of 88.5%, not sure how many of these are British. There is a population of 4.9% of Asian/British Asian people. Chorlton is bang next to Whally Range which has a white population of 56.7% & an Asian/British Asian 28.7%. This will mean that you will get a number of Asian/British Asian people in the areas. Add to the fact that Whalley Range is next to Fallowfield which has a 14.9% Asian/British Asian. Other nearby areas have high Asian/British Asian populations. A large number of these people are from Pakistan or their parents are from Pakistan. Urdu is a main language. This means there is a high number of people will understand the signs. Alot of the customers are Asian. They are catering for their customers. There is nothing to stop anyone using these shops. Most will have signs in English as well.There is nothing to stop you poping in and buying items.

Why is it bollocks? Due to various isms in our society, we need something to address the balance.

The workforce should be made up of people who can do the job. You don't always get your work force from the same area. If someone applies for a job, whatever colour, race etc, they should be treated fairly.

So what if these asian people didn't speak with 'well spoken' northern accents and kept themselves to themselves. Would they be less British?

SCIDB

 

They're not banned totally in France, but aren't allowed in state schools. My understanding (and I might be wrong here) is that they can do this because there is a complete separation between state and religion in France. I believe that we couldn't have this ban because we're a Christian country. Our culture makes such a ban unlikely anyway.

I think 'equal opportunities' is a good thing but 'quotas' are bollocks.

... and another thing...

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) has warned that children are thrill-seeking on building sites and railway lines because playgrounds have become so boring.

RoSPA said councils are so scared of being sued they had eliminated all the risk - and with it the fun.


Has anyone seen those tee-shirts with a big leaf from a Horse Chestnut tree and a slogan that reads "Legalize Conkers"?

 

Yes I do live in Chorlton I suppose it is a good point about people from outside using the shops. I just think if people want to live in this country they should learn English in the same way as I think its wrong that a lot of shops in parts of Spain are all in english and not spannish to cater of them.

Equal oppurtunities is a good thing but that should be determined by society and not over the top laws. If a company employs 100% black or white people it may be seemed racist but the fact is its probably just the local area. I think what I don't agree with is over the top equal oppurtunities monitoring. If you have a company of say 100 people in say Whalley Range and all the people are white then somthing is probably wrong, but whats happening now is that places are being told to employ a certain quata of different races and sexes even though there may not be many suitable people from that group. For example you say the I.T industry is sexist as its mainly men, but if women don't want to study I.T no government law can change that. The balance needs to be address but there is a very real danger it could go the other way .

Of course if aisans don't speak good english it dosn't make them less British but they should make the effort to be as apart of society as possible. At the same time everybody has this responsability. British white people probably need to learn more about asian and other minorities society.

 

excuse me while I put my flameproof suit on...

I agree with some of the aims of the PC brigade. I just find it incredibly sad that we need legislation to instill the values of tolerance, equality and fairplay

With the above in mind though I am of the strong opinion that England is an Anglican country and that to sacrifice our national religion on the alter of multiculturalism is a crime.

IMO faith-schools perform better academically than non-faith schools because they have a clearly defined morality that provides a sense of belonging to every individual in the group. This unity elevates the group and provides the structure in which a climate of positive expectation can flourish. I believe this to be true regardless of the faith. The same effect is seen in Grammar and Public Schools. It's not so much a question of faith as opportunity.

Given the choice I'd send my son to a high performing C.of E. school every time. Why should his future chances be limited simply to meet someone elses ideas of political correctness? That's restricting choice, not opening up opportunity.

Keep the Saints and keep the choice.

Hex

 

FWIW I have nothing against religion, but we do live in a multicultural society, and agree that teaching ABOUT religion ie in history is great, however I feel resentment when someone elses ideas about christianity, and the "adam and Eve" stories that are told to these young children, just confuses them, they are taught as if they are fact, however there is no proof of this, as there is with the dinosaurs, we tell kids about dinosaurs and how men wern't around then, then confuse them with stories about how god created the world etc, there is no proof of this and it only confuses young kids, if you want to teach your kids that that's fine but do it in your own time, the new no religious school she goes to spend time on the 3 R's and sport and dance and music, and it's children perform better academically, they are also made to feel a comunity spirit and godd morals are encouraged and uphelp. there is immorality within the various faiths just as there are moral non believers.

Your last statment hex is very snobbish and arrogant, you suggest that because of no religeous teachings, the other schools lack morality, I don't know hwere you live, but the performance of schools in Scotland perform as per socialeconomic groups, not religion, inner city areas doing poorly no matter what the schools denomination

 

I know in Manchester religious schools perform much better than normal comprehensives with few exceptions. However its not clear cut some of the worst performing schools are also religious ones. However there are two primary schools near me, one is a cathlic school and it recently go the best ofsted inspection out of any school in the country. I didn't go there I went to the a normal primary school.

I agree with the adam and eve thing, as much as I am patriotic about Britian we do need to move and religion must be taught as opinion and not fact. I have always been taught about Dawin rather than Jesus though. I am not sure if that is common amongst most people of my generation. I suppose looking back the navity play was always taught as fact rather than just a story though

The issue is very complicated and interference from local councils is just making things worse. The PC brigade have achieved a lot of good but there is only so far you can go. What they don't do is get to the root of the problem. They ban things but the undlying problem is often still there.

 

France is a secular state and the recent reaffirmation of that secularity outlawed the wearing of any overtly religious symbols whether they be muslim outfits, sikh turbans, Christian crosses and fish or Jewish caps within the state education system.
Incidentally 7V sats the school mentioned in the press was church funded. Only partially. The church put up £2million of the building costs, the majority was put up by the state.

Bob

 

I think that kids have a remarkable ability to remain unconfused, even when faced with our society's myths that range from Jesus Christ to Santa Claus and dinosaurs to the tooth fairy.

Kids already live in what to them is an amazingly confusing world but somehow they manage to make sense of it.

 

What Bob said. To quote Principal Skinner's boss from the Simpsons: “Religion belongs in school as much as facts belong in a church…â€Â.

Tony.

 

Well that is one thing France has got right.

 

All this talk of religion (and the constant bang of the fireworks and not to mention my family!) has reminded me...

Happy Diwali to all Sikhs and Hindus

 

I'm a member of the Church of St John Coltrane and my mission is to convert the lot of you :torkmada:

 

Before you lot start debating about state funding for church schools it's probably best that you know how they are funded

The National Society founded 1819 to create schools.

C of E Board of Education The body that manages the central role of the C of E in education. FWIW my father used to be head honcho of this lot ten years ago but I know very little about the subject so don't ask me.

Steve. Although the monarch is technically the Head of the Church and the Lords have 21 bishops sitting the actual numbers of christians of any denomination is below 30%. We are no longer a Christian country and although a practising christian I think it's time we disestablished the links between church and state

 

Antidisestablishmentarianism

Lord Melvyn will soon start campaigning to have the Church of St John Coltrane made the official State Religion.
All Children will be required to sing the sacred chant before and after assembly:
A Love Supreme
A Love Supreme
A Love Supreme

 

What I said was that "faith-schools have a clearly defined morality". I did not say that non-faith schools lack morality.

Children perform better in a structured social group with clearly defined boundaries. IMO faith schools, grammar and public schools are better at acheiving that framework than the average state school.

Hex

 

Fair enough