Curiously enough, that broadly describes the secondary school religious education that I had. I’m sure there was a stronger Christian element than I’m making out, but there was definitely lots of comparative religion, after which we largely abandoned any pretence at discussing spiritual matters and spent the last couple of years exclusively discussing moral issues like sex, drugs and crime.
At the time, I had no idea that this was especially unusual, and I’m very sorry that this seems to have been the case.
Oh, and I second Chris’s recommendation for the Kaletsky article – in fact, rather to my surprise, I’ve found The Times has offered much the best coverage of 7/7 of any of the broadsheets (both in terms of depth and intelligent contextualisation).
]]>;-)
]]>So in other words, they’d made quite an effort to integrate with the Yorkshiremen then.
]]>I’m now wearing my extra thick asbestos gimp suit…..
PS
Mr Kaletsky is always a good read and fairly spot on with this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-1693163,00.html
I especially like "Morally, today’s Muslim extremists must be put exactly on a par with neo-Nazis. Their violence and hatred may be motivated by deep philosophical convictions and a genuine sense of grievance, but the same was true of Hitler" and "reducing the concept of martyrdom to what it really amounts to: a sad, lonely and utterly futile suicide."
]]>As far as I’m aware this is actually compulsory in British schools up to the age of 15, however both this and the "daily act of worship, broadly Christian in nature" which is also compulsory tend to go by the by as the schools try to shovel as much league-table fodder into the little dears as possible.
]]>It’s kind of a collective group story telling around the fire (of burning Jews/homos/commies other…..)
]]>Not morally objectionable, maybe. But as a scientist I rather object to all that water into wine, walking on water, coming back from the dead nonsense.
]]>