It’ll be wrong to falsely claim that it doesn’t exist as a legal status, although. But if a government is going to let a religious school exist, they shouldn’t expect the school to change it’s religious doctrine to suit the law.
they shouldn’t expect the school to change it’s religious doctrine to suit the law
Schools have to follow the laws and regulations. The article states relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is statutory. If a church’s doctrine dictates that it bans such education from its schools, that means young people will lack relevant education, causing them to face higher health risks.
These churches may need to make tough choices. They could evolve their doctrine to allow their schools to provide proper education, and to make it so their schools ensure young people’s well-being. Or transfer the schools to other organizations that are more able.
It’s a hot topic, and there might not be a political will to enforce this regulation. Until there is, some schools will probably keep failing to provide RSHE.
If they’re “evolving doctrine” on morals, then it’s not a religion, just something that bends and changes at a society’s will. The government cannot claim to allow religious schools to exist yet not let them stick with their religion.
Is worth noting though that some of the schools were outsourcing the education to other groups, which the article states.
Religions are part of society, they’re not outside of it. Their dogma can and do evolve. It wouldn’t be the first time a church reinterpret sacred text to better fit in society, for instance :
Around 434, Vincent of Lérins wrote Commonitorium, in which he recognized that doctrine can develop over time. New doctrines could not be declared, but older ones better understood.[15] In John Henry Newman’s 1845 “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, Newman listed seven criteria which “…can be applied in proper proportions to that further interpretation of dogmas aimed at giving them contemporary relevance.”[
Countries in the UK and Europe have different forms of governments but none are theocracies. Elected representatives make laws, not churches, and churches cannot ignore laws.
That’s a different story for Iran, Afghanistan, the Vatican… and I’m glad we’re not following their example.
If you’re constantly changing doctrine, then it’s obviously a false religion. You cannot claim to have an all-knowing God yet He keeps changing His mind whenever society wants to do something differently other than what He commanded. The Bible is clear on God’s stance and layout of human sexuality and marriage. It’s not something that humans can just change on a whim.
The major world religions believe God exists. Christianity states that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible which Christians believe is the infallible inspired word of God. Islam also states that it’s sinful in the Qur’an which Muslims believe is the dictated word of god. You can’t just change what God says because you don’t agree with it.
Yes, many religious groups, thankfully not all, insist on preserving antiquated moral values, and perpetuate the discrimination of women and LGBT people.
It’s up to each group to decide how to move forward, and whether to move forward at all. I can’t force any change, but I do hope that religions that require perpetuation of discrimination will loose their followers.
Ironically, it’s always the “progressivists” that lose followers more than the religions that stand by what they teach. Believing in a religion just because you like it or not believing in one because you dislike it isn’t rational anyway. That’s like not believing in climate change because you don’t like it (which deep down is the case for many climate change deniers).
Take for example, Christianity. Someone should believe in Christianity, not because they agree with it, but because they believe Jesus of Nazareth is The Christ and He Is Who He says He Is.
I used to struggle with this. I wanted to affirm everything that the world was affirming, and I did. However, I realised that if God was Real and Perfect, then if I disagree with God, I am simply wrong myself, and it’s I who needs to change, not God. I can’t dictate to God who He should be or what He should believe.
If you wanted Christianity to follow society, you’d also have to remove the “give to the poor” parts in China, the “love your neighbour” part in the USA, and the “stop being a Pharisee and getting obsessed over how pious you are” in first century Jerusalem. If you only remove the part that challenges white society yet keep and preach the parts that offend other societies (like many “progressivists” are doing) that’s not Christianity, that’s white supremacism.
It’ll be wrong to falsely claim that it doesn’t exist as a legal status, although. But if a government is going to let a religious school exist, they shouldn’t expect the school to change it’s religious doctrine to suit the law.
Schools have to follow the laws and regulations. The article states relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is statutory. If a church’s doctrine dictates that it bans such education from its schools, that means young people will lack relevant education, causing them to face higher health risks.
These churches may need to make tough choices. They could evolve their doctrine to allow their schools to provide proper education, and to make it so their schools ensure young people’s well-being. Or transfer the schools to other organizations that are more able.
It’s a hot topic, and there might not be a political will to enforce this regulation. Until there is, some schools will probably keep failing to provide RSHE.
If they’re “evolving doctrine” on morals, then it’s not a religion, just something that bends and changes at a society’s will. The government cannot claim to allow religious schools to exist yet not let them stick with their religion.
Is worth noting though that some of the schools were outsourcing the education to other groups, which the article states.
Religions are part of society, they’re not outside of it. Their dogma can and do evolve. It wouldn’t be the first time a church reinterpret sacred text to better fit in society, for instance :
Countries in the UK and Europe have different forms of governments but none are theocracies. Elected representatives make laws, not churches, and churches cannot ignore laws.
That’s a different story for Iran, Afghanistan, the Vatican… and I’m glad we’re not following their example.
If you’re constantly changing doctrine, then it’s obviously a false religion. You cannot claim to have an all-knowing God yet He keeps changing His mind whenever society wants to do something differently other than what He commanded. The Bible is clear on God’s stance and layout of human sexuality and marriage. It’s not something that humans can just change on a whim.
You’re assuming god exist, and that churches have a perfect understanding of god’s stance.
Both are doubtful.
The major world religions believe God exists. Christianity states that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible which Christians believe is the infallible inspired word of God. Islam also states that it’s sinful in the Qur’an which Muslims believe is the dictated word of god. You can’t just change what God says because you don’t agree with it.
Yes, many religious groups, thankfully not all, insist on preserving antiquated moral values, and perpetuate the discrimination of women and LGBT people.
This contribute to each new generation being less religious than the previous. People are fleeing and for good reasons.
It’s up to each group to decide how to move forward, and whether to move forward at all. I can’t force any change, but I do hope that religions that require perpetuation of discrimination will loose their followers.
Ironically, it’s always the “progressivists” that lose followers more than the religions that stand by what they teach. Believing in a religion just because you like it or not believing in one because you dislike it isn’t rational anyway. That’s like not believing in climate change because you don’t like it (which deep down is the case for many climate change deniers).
Take for example, Christianity. Someone should believe in Christianity, not because they agree with it, but because they believe Jesus of Nazareth is The Christ and He Is Who He says He Is.
I used to struggle with this. I wanted to affirm everything that the world was affirming, and I did. However, I realised that if God was Real and Perfect, then if I disagree with God, I am simply wrong myself, and it’s I who needs to change, not God. I can’t dictate to God who He should be or what He should believe.
If you wanted Christianity to follow society, you’d also have to remove the “give to the poor” parts in China, the “love your neighbour” part in the USA, and the “stop being a Pharisee and getting obsessed over how pious you are” in first century Jerusalem. If you only remove the part that challenges white society yet keep and preach the parts that offend other societies (like many “progressivists” are doing) that’s not Christianity, that’s white supremacism.