I thought we already had the definitive answer to that one as presented in that bible of catholicism, "Angela's Ashes" - the bit where the kid goes for his first communion, goes home and then throws up in the yard sending his granny ballistic as he's just puked up the body and the blood of christ.

She send him back to the priest to ask if its ok to swill the body and the blood of christ down the drain and he says that yes, its ok to do that - so there you are, the priest magically turns bread and wine into body and blood but as soon as you've swallowed it it magically becomes just bread and wine again.

Its quite simple when you work it through really.

PS - I still get upset when I listen to Puff the Magic Dragon, maybe we should concentrate on that poor soul instead, as far as I know he's still agoraphobic and in his cave.

Aye, but he is immortal, so he's got time to get over it.

I reckon the fundamental reason has always been the same. Humans are so egotistical, that they cannot conceive that when they die, that's it, what they experience as their 'self' ceases to be.

People are also so sentimental they simply do not want to believe that if their loved ones die, they cease to exist.

Add to that the obvious physical manifestation that here is the body of (say) what was your mother, but now it does not function, it is easy to see how an attractive explanation for that, which allows for your mother still to be "there", and "watching over you", would be that her "soul" is what's "left her body", and that's why she doesn't work any more, but in "spirit" she's just as much there as ever she was. It would be nice if that were true, and if you have what is to you a respected and all-knowing holy man that tells you yes it IS true. there is the key to religion. These people are the path to letting you speak to dead people, and arranging for you to be re-united.

[url=http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/11292/debt_charity_that_prays_with_clients_gets_licence_to_expandBack to the spurious claim that the influence of religion is not growing in the UK.[/url

Then add to that the gene that has stood mankind in such good stead over the years, the gene that alerts him to everything, leading him to believe that everything has a reason.
So when he smells a lion, he knows to avoid that bit of the jungle.
Or, further North, when the sun becomes reluctant to shine for much of the day, he lights a fire to encourage it to come back ... it worked for him last year, can't see why it won't work this year ...

Then put him in a circumstance where the reason for something isn't apparent ... and he'll still come up with something.

Then start asking him awkward questions about his reasoning ... and the fairy tale becomes more and more elaborate ... ending up with God moving in mysterious ways and we shouldn't question it.

A slightly flippant point (flippant - me ?) but we have a paradox situation on TV where religious worship programmes are permitted on a sunday (are the BBC still obligated to provide one ?) during which I'm sure that some mention is made to everlasting souls and other such balderdash, and yet when Colin Fry or John Edwards try and present a programme on The Living Channel where they claim to speak to dead people the TV company are obligated to prefix the show with a warning that basically says that these people are charlatans and its only to be taken with a pinch of salt for amusement purposes.

Now either you can speak to dead people or you can't, there is either life after death or there isn't, surely this isn't some form of double standard from the broadcasting commissioners ?

So that little lad who used to knock about with Bruce Willis couldn't really see dead people?

It's a dream shattering factory this forum.

i don't know how to put his, but - Bruce Willis doesn't actually exist

What about poor Jackie Paper, will nobody think of the children?

That's right, he's just a fictional character. His real name is John McClane.

Generalising, obviously...

I think that for people of the same faith, and to a lesser degree and only sometimes other faiths, it is about shared values (or, more accurately, beliefs).

From non-believers I'm not sure such esteem or excessive respect exists. If they thought it was that brilliant they'd be more likely to choose to believe themselves, I'd have thought.

If there is, it is probably respect for tradition and historical identity. See also the Royal Family. Even Republicans usually balk at calling the Queen a... you see? I balked.

He grew old and has no remorse at all [urlhttp://jerrychicken.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/the-truth-behind-the-song-1/[/url

I thought I'd got it right. The new academies are going to be subject to the same legal and other procedures as other state funded schools, whether faith or non-faith. There is even a specific directive on the admissions procedure for faith schools.

Clearly then all our schools are going to be hijacked by the church.

You clearly have a serious problem with comprehension.

Ooh that irony meter, it's around here somewhere.

Ah, the teacher who 'thinks' that evangelism began when the [iBible[/i was translated into English and that religion plays no role in policy making in the UK today.

Bless.

EVANGELICALISM. Look it up in the dictionary. It has a different meaning to EVANGELISM, which is not what you talked about and I responded to.

Bless.

And nor did I ever claim that religion played no role in policy making in the UK today. I was responding to a post about how influential it was, not that it didn't have a role.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?p=16649548#p16649548You need to learn to read.[/url



Not only do you need to learn to read, you need to learn to post clearly what you actually mean.

The relevant post is [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=16650197#p16650197here[/url.

You wrote: "Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago."

Now, however, you'd have us believe that "no influence" is actually the same as "no role in policy making" and you've already had it explained to you that this is factually incorrect ...



















But carry on – dig much further and you'll be in Australia.

That could be said about any subject. It is humans who put meaning and importance into subjects.


The reaction of people can be influential in policy making. Just within schools there are a number of examples where policy has been influenced by the reaction of people: religious education, sex education, citizenship, the content of school meals, to name but four. All these issues divide public opinion. Policy has been made in favour of one opinion or another, not necessarily the majority and sometimes (eg sex ed, content of school meals) as a result of pressure from public opinion.

Here is what I responded to:

[iThat approach has been spreading. You can equally see it in the rise of small, evangelical churches in the UK – there’s an African and Caribbean influence there too.[/i

So where is evangelism mentioned in that paragraph? It followed your point about EVANGELICAL churches.

I really don't think you understand what you are talking about. Again, I suggest you look up these words.

As for influence and having a role in, the two concepts are different.

I can have a role in the running of a school but influence its policy? No. I am not a headteacher or on the senior management team. I have no influence in which school policy is adopted. However, I have a role. I provide my input at staff meetings and practical help in the daily running of the school as a member of the teaching staff.

There now. The difference between 'influence' and 'having a role in' explained in simple terms for someone so caught up in their desire to mock somebody else's education that they don't even realise how uneducated they appear themselves.

Oh, no. No.

You said:



If religion has a role in [ipolicy making[/i, it is having an influence. Your clarity of expression is appalling for someone tasked with educating children.

So, there isn't a rise in "small, evangelical churches in the UK"? And there isn't an "African and Caribbean influence there too"?

And can you quote where I suggested that African and Caribbean Christianity was not a result of Western missionary work, since you started to lecture me about how it was?

Correct. Which was my point. Moreover, evolution is so mainstream in western societies that it cannot in any way be considered controversial - except for a relative handful of religious fanatics.


Indeed. But not the point I was making. You seem to have ignored the word [iminority[/i for a start.


Just because something has been done before doesn't make it a good idea to do it again or even continue doing it. RE and Sex Ed are two other areas where the opinions of a minority should count for nothing when framing policy. I'm not sure which minority influenced Citizenship BTW, and the content of school meals is based on health and nutrition advice.