Got to love your irrelevant analogy, maybe you should remember that you're not talking to primary school kids here Oh, I know that. If I was talking to primary school children the responses would be of a far higher quality than most of those on here.

I'm no saint, but really – you're the one who announced your arrival on this thread with a pompous and arrogant attitude, lecturing anyone who didn't agree with you and posting snide (and factually misleading) comments about, say, how 'secularists were scared by people with belief'. Unless that was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, your own understanding of the "nuances" of language leaves a great deal to be desired.



"The London Underground" is not a union. And indeed, more than one trades union represents members who work for that company. Still, let's not allow facts or the inability to construct a meaningful sentence interfere, eh?



Which is not the same as 'has no influence'. [My emphasis] Purleese. So to speak.

You might find that moral high ground is subject to subsidence. Perhaps like Jesus is reported to have done, you should consider turning the other cheek rather than insulting your audience?

I had been thinking of recommending a reading of the Beatitudes.

But I think the poster in question might struggle to understand them.

While I appreciate your concerns, the government has provided reassurance that creationism will not be taught as part of the science curriculum and so I would imagine that eases your fears? But even if they hadn't done so, the US is a very different culture to our own and although we do sometimes end up experiencing similar trends, not everything travels well. The way in which Americans approach God and matters of faith is very different to the approach over here. Other influences such as the Constitution also mean that there are circumstances in the States in which certain groups and developments can flourish whereas over here they may not even be taken seriously.

I could also follow the example of Jesus who rampaged through the temple, overturning tables and calling the sellers of lies and garbage rude names because they were hypocrites and, frankly, idiots.

Which is entirely my point. You are tasked with teaching children to understand the nuances of language, and yet you are almost totally unable to express yourself clearly and coherently.



Enough for their views to at least be considered before policy is decided. Certainly more than 'none'. And whilst it could easily be argued that unions ought to have some influence, the same cannot be said of the church.

Then there's the fact, which you seem to keep ignoring, that 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. They get to directly influence the laws that are enacted (or not enacted, as the case may be) by parliament. Again, much more influence than 'none'.



Constrained? Perhaps. Eliminated? Not at all.

That's bloody rich coming from someone who thinks a lottery is discriminatory

And that having a role in policy making equates to having no influence.

Don't know how you managed it but you've posted in the future!

I've quoted a post not due to be made for 47 minutes!

See below.

Should interest the Admins.

Not good enough.

What is the point of a faith school except to promote that faith?
Education? Well, it wouldn't need to be labelled as a faith school if that was the sole aim.
No, indoctrination is the aim, under the guise of education, whether by direct "teaching" or by assimilation into a particular social group and it angers me that faith believers want to put such superstitious claptrap into the minds of children.

By the way, why do you keep mentioning about secularists and humanists running scared?
Surely it's the religious who are scared, hence the determination to believe in something which allays those fears but for which there is zero evidence?