Margaret Sanger? Hmmm. Born in the city of famous glass works and not far from the hills where things soar very very well.

So, if one does not support eugenics and I'm sure the percent that do world wide is low and on the S@H fora few to none) and believes/knows Sanger was a racist/eugenicist, how could that one support Planned Parenthood. The ones claims Progressivism in the US follows from her and her ilk, yet swo does Planned Parenthood. Contradiction?

Margaret Sanger? Hmmm. Born in the city of famous glass works and not far from the hills where things soar very very well.

So, if one does not support eugenics and I'm sure the percent that do world wide is low and on the S@H fora few to none) and believes/knows Sanger was a racist/eugenicist, how could that one support Planned Parenthood. The ones claims Progressivism in the US follows from her and her ilk, yet swo does Planned Parenthood. Contradiction?

Not really. If one is able to understand the Nuanced Positions, of those who are neither Narrow Minded Secular or Religious Ideologues.

I am for Planned Parenthood, and disgusted by one of its Founders.

The Disgusting Sanger is used by The Right and Religious Fanatics, to promote their agenda.

I believe The Truth, is The Truth, and cannot be suppressed. Even for the 'Good of The People'.

Sarge...

Understand?

Indeed, positions can be and often are nuanced.
So, if you like, please provide a link or a book I can look up with some nuanced discussion of Sanger. So far, all I've read is a Wiki, but that page seems nuanced. Her politics appear to have been Socialist (left), yet she also spoke to far right groups about birth control.
The way the Right uses her as an example to promote an agenda is to continue to say she was racist and a supporter of eugenics in order to dissuade people from using birth control or having an abortion. Correct?

Note: there is no need for italicizing people's name or screen names.

I will try not to let it worry me that I am about to agree with Clyde :-) I hope this post finds you well, sir? However she mitigated herself, and the good that ultimately may have arisen from her early work, the fact remains that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.

@Sarge

on the S@H fora few to none

I would have left off the none, sir. :-)

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

What's it like to take the 11-plus? 'To be written off as a failure is a travesty'

Fortunately they had scrapped Grammar Schools by the time I went. Although I passed the equivalent exam so would have technically passed the 11+, being a girl could still have meant I was shunted off to the Secondary Modern rather than being allowed to attend the Grammar School. My best friend did not pass, but she now has a PHd and does radio interviews on the politics of the Baltic region. I doubt she would be doing that if there had been Grammar Schools.

The Tories want to bring back something that only worked for a minority of people that would do fine in the regular school system anyway.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Women 'don't understand' fracking due to lack of education, industry chief claims

Many women are against fracking because they “don’t understand” the process due to a lack of education in science, a leading expert has claimed.

Professor Averil Macdonald, chairwoman of industry body UK Onshore Oil and Gas

and emeritus professor of science engagement at Reading University, told The Times newspaper that men tended to be more in favour of fracking than women because they were persuaded by “an awful lot of facts”.

Women 'don't understand' fracking due to lack of education, industry chief claims

Many women are against fracking because they “don’t understand” the process due to a lack of education in science, a leading expert has claimed.

Professor Averil Macdonald, chairwoman of industry body UK Onshore Oil and Gas

and emeritus professor of science engagement at Reading University, told The Times newspaper that men tended to be more in favour of fracking than women because they were persuaded by “an awful lot of facts”.

A lobbyist has claimed opponents don't understand the science, cool. And in other breaking news today, it has been discovered that the pope is catholic.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Women 'don't understand' fracking due to lack of education, industry chief claims

Many women are against fracking because they “don’t understand” the process due to a lack of education in science, a leading expert has claimed.

Professor Averil Macdonald, chairwoman of industry body UK Onshore Oil and Gas

and emeritus professor of science engagement at Reading University, told The Times newspaper that men tended to be more in favour of fracking than women because they were persuaded by “an awful lot of facts”.

A lobbyist has claimed opponents don't understand the science, cool. And in other breaking news today, it has been discovered that the pope is catholic.

So am I against Fracking because I don't understand the science or because I am a woman? Do tell.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Women 'don't understand' fracking due to lack of education, industry chief claims

Many women are against fracking because they “don’t understand” the process due to a lack of education in science, a leading expert has claimed.

Professor Averil Macdonald, chairwoman of industry body UK Onshore Oil and Gas

and emeritus professor of science engagement at Reading University, told The Times newspaper that men tended to be more in favour of fracking than women because they were persuaded by “an awful lot of facts”.

A lobbyist has claimed opponents don't understand the science, cool. And in other breaking news today, it has been discovered that the pope is catholic.

So am I against Fracking because I don't understand the science or because I am a woman? Do tell.

Unless you tell us why you are against fracking, then we cannot answer that question.

Women 'don't understand' fracking due to lack of education, industry chief claims

Many women are against fracking because they “don’t understand” the process due to a lack of education in science, a leading expert has claimed.

Professor Averil Macdonald, chairwoman of industry body UK Onshore Oil and Gas

and emeritus professor of science engagement at Reading University, told The Times newspaper that men tended to be more in favour of fracking than women because they were persuaded by “an awful lot of facts”.

A lobbyist has claimed opponents don't understand the science, cool. And in other breaking news today, it has been discovered that the pope is catholic.

So am I against Fracking because I don't understand the science or because I am a woman? Do tell.

Unless you tell us why you are against fracking, then we cannot answer that question.

No we don't, the lobbyist has told us why. Ess is correct, it's because she's a woman and as a result does not understand the science. Aren't lobbyists wonderful for making things simple for us to understand? They even provide us men with facts that we find persuasive.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Today I got a message from the Malala Fund.
https://www.change.org/p/stand-withmalala-for-girls-education-6/u/13930920?tk=J05PlT2uMHNnygfUZWsQdv6B8O7TLfgrpsGDzFkNtPM&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email
Voices seems to count after all.

If true...

Blind girl 7, banned from using white stick

Education secretary made 'error of law' on new religious studies GCSE – high court

The education secretary made “an error of law” when she left “non-religious world views” out of the new religious studies GCSE, the high court has ruled.

The ruling was a victory for three families, supported by the British Humanist Association, who claimed Nicky Morgan had taken a “skewed” approach and was failing to reflect in schools the pluralistic nature of the UK.

Allowing their application for judicial review, Mr Justice Warby, sitting in London, ruled there had been “a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner”.

Changes to RS GCSE subject content were announced last February, leading to complaints over the priority given to religious views – in particular Buddhism, Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.

Totally agree with that judge.

Therefore...

Religious World Views must be included in Non-Religious Courses.

“a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner”.

Since Religion must, of course, be included in "Pluralistic".

What is Good for The Goose, is...

Correct?

Umm, no.

Mr Justice Warby said the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, had erred in asserting that the GCSE, due to come into effect in September next year, would “fulfil the entirety of the state’s RE [religious education] duties”.

That assertion was, he said, in breach of the government’s duty to ensure that the wider school curriculum ensured knowledge was conveyed “in a pluralistic manner”, and information was given about atheism and other non-religious viewpoints.

From the above it seems clear to me that the duty of care is in respect of a religious education (which schools in the UK are, by law, required to provide - though pupils are not required to attend). There is no basis in the article to support the idea that there's a similar duty to ensure pluralism in non-religious education, for example, school's in the UK are not permitted to teach Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) as part of a science curriculum.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Can The Left (I have given up on The Right and Religious Fanatics),

I thought you said the left and right were identical?

---

Therefore...

Religious World Views must be included in Non-Religious Courses.

“a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner”.

Since Religion must, of course, be included in "Pluralistic".

What is Good for The Goose, is...

Correct?

Umm, no.

Mr Justice Warby said the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, had erred in asserting that the GCSE, due to come into effect in September next year, would “fulfil the entirety of the state’s RE [religious education] duties”.

That assertion was, he said, in breach of the government’s duty to ensure that the wider school curriculum ensured knowledge was conveyed “in a pluralistic manner”, and information was given about atheism and other non-religious viewpoints.

From the above it seems clear to me that the duty of care is in respect of a religious education (which schools in the UK are, by law, required to provide - though pupils are not required to attend). There is no basis in the article to support the idea that there's a similar duty to ensure pluralism in non-religious education, for example, school's in the UK are not permitted to teach Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) as part of a science curriculum.

Not complicated, to this Tolerant Atheist.

Forcing one side, and not the other:

Is typical, in this instance, of Acceptable Anti-Religion Bigotry.

Can The Left (I have given up on The Right and Religious Fanatics), please stop forcing their beliefs upon others. And understand Tolerance of others, who are not Them?

Why do you believe broadening the content of a religious education curriculum is an example of acceptable anti-religion bigotry by the left?

[edit]Also, why do you believe that a court stopping a Conservative (which, in a UK context means right wing) government in its attempt to restrict the content of a religious eduction curriculum is an example of the left's intolerance to others?[/edit]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Why do you believe broadening the content of a religious education curriculum is an example of acceptable anti-religion bigotry by the left?

[edit]Also, why do you believe that a court stopping a Conservative (which, in a UK context means right wing) government in its attempt to restrict the content of a religious eduction curriculum is an example of the left's intolerance to others?[/edit]

What is your definition of Right Wing?

In a UK context, something like Thatcherism.

Please answer the questions I asked.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Why would Thatcherism be considered Right Wing. When it should be considered Conservative?

Erhhhh??????

If you look in any definition of politics left or right**, conservatism is always in the right hand column. And Maggie Thatcher was a conservative P.M.

**Talking of which, just seen this for first time, http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/

Notice, under the right wing it states "Survival of the fittest" presumably trying to reference Charles Darwin. Well he never said that, his comment was "survival of those most able to adapt". And as adaption is probably the last idea in the minds of right wing people, I find it odd they should try to say Charles Darwin was on their side.

Why do you believe broadening the content of a religious education curriculum is an example of acceptable anti-religion bigotry by the left?

[edit]Also, why do you believe that a court stopping a Conservative (which, in a UK context means right wing) government in its attempt to restrict the content of a religious eduction curriculum is an example of the left's intolerance to others?[/edit]

What is your definition of Right Wing?

In a UK context, something like Thatcherism.

Please answer the questions I asked.

bobby...

Why would Thatcherism be considered Right Wing. When it should be considered Conservative?

Seems Illogical.

BTW: Your answer, will probably be the answer to your question. And will probably prove my assertion.

You need to understand the UK context of left and right and how that aligns with the UK Labour and Conservative parties.

Your previous comments appear to suggest that a pluralistic religious eduction that includes atheism is a "one side (left) attacking the other" issue, which in turn implies that there are no right wing atheists. This seems illogical in a UK context (though may be less so in a US context).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Why would Thatcherism be considered Right Wing. When it should be considered Conservative?

Erhhhh??????

If you look in any definition of politics left or right**, conservatism is always in the right hand column. And Maggie Thatcher was a conservative P.M.

**Talking of which, just seen this for first time, http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/

Notice, under the right wing it states "Survival of the fittest" presumably trying to reference Charles Darwin. Well he never said that, his comment was "survival of those most able to adapt". And as adaption is probably the last idea in the minds of right wing people, I find it odd they should try to say Charles Darwin was on their side.

Ideological (read Illogical) Interpretation.

The KKK, and Mass Murdering Nazi's, are also Right.

The Progressives and Mass Murdering Marxists, are also Left.

The Right Wing, Nazi's, KKK, etc. (Not Conservatives). Illogically believe Movements 'Left of Center', are the same.

The Left Wing, Marxists, Progressives, etc. (Not Liberal). Illogically believe Movements 'Right of Center', are the same.

As I have said: The Right and The Left are the same in their Anti-Intellectual and Illogical assertions.

Point proved.

Not sure what point you were trying to prove, if the issue is my use of "right wing" when describing the UK Conservative party, rather than "right of center", my apologies, though to be fair, I'd describe the UK Labour party as left wing or "left of center" if that's your preferred formulation. I would not suggest that "right wing" or "right of center" means the same thing in the US and the UK, likewise for "left wing" or "left of center", the political traditions of the two nations are quite different.

Can you please provide answers to the questions I asked you?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Why would Left/Right Wing. Used as a negative (correctly) in this Country. Not apply to the UK?

No negative connotation was intended by my earlier use of "right wing". If "right of center" removes such a connotation, I'll try to use it in the future.

Or possibly, as Churchill famously said. "Americans and British are one people separated by a common language."

Could be he was onto something.

Re: Answer to you question.

I do observe, and perhaps inappropriately ascribe to the Poster. An Anti-Religious Bias, couched in Academic Speech. A cheering of anything that 'Tweaks the Noses' of Deity Believers.

I, for one, believe in freedom of all opinions. Even a belief in a Deity, should be allowed at a Public University. Without non-believers imposing their opinion, of how it should be taught.

Which I believe is happening.

The topic at hand is not what should be taught at a publicly funded university, it's about the religious education curriculum in publicly funded secondary education (high school in the US). As far as I can tell, the topic at had is also not about disallowing belief in deity (or the study of such beliefs), instead it's about allowing atheism to be studied alongside belief in a deity as part of a secondary/high school's religious education curriculum.

It's not just politics and language that are different in UK and the US. As far as I know, the provision of a religious education is not a statutory requirement of US high schools (note, I'm deliberately avoiding the term "public school" as the term has different meanings in the US and UK).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...