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 rlhttps://jerrychicken.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/the-truth-behind-the-song-1/rl

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.

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

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 toThat 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 saidpolicy making in the UK today. I was responding to a post about how influential it was, not that it didn't have a role.'"

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.