Faith Schools

[xbl]

That is why fairness and equality aren't the same thing. Fairness comes through choice: competition of ideas and education systems is the best route to fairness, as the best ultimately prevails.

And you are talking about a meritocracy here, where the best prevail due to their ability, not because of the religion or bank balance of their parents. Seems reasonable.

There is no reason why secular state education can't have diversity in the subjects on offer, the methods of teaching, etc. In fact it would be absurd for it to be any other way.

Absolutely, I don't have a problem with this either. So long as the material taught is the same, and no religious ideology or overspecialisation too young comes into the equation then that is fine.

[The big chair]

Okay, fair point, but I'd still like to see the removal of state funded faith schooling, and the includes the C of S toss we get in our village primary school. The minister (who is the absolute double of the actor that played Father Ted, but that's neither here nor there) is never away from the place. Luckily I dealt with the whole imaginary overlord issue when mine was young, so now he doesn't pay any heed, but I'd still like it not to be there in the first place.

Neither I or my wife are religious, but my son attends a catholic primary school. Not because we want him to learn catholic doctrine but because after visiting the three primary schools in our village that was the one we preferred.

He doesn't have to get any religious education, he chooses to go, and we've explained our views to him. He's had other beliefs and scientific facts such as evolution explained to him and the CoS minister comes in and gives the state approved version of secular education from time to time. So we chose his school, our son chose to have RE and the school chooses who teaches it to him. Why would anyone wish to remove this choice just because they don't like the garnish on the curriculum?

The crux of the issue is parenting really. Parents who stamp their feet and demand their own religion be taught in school (or worse, seperate schooling) ought to make the effort to get off their lazy arses and subject their offspring to whatever belief system they want in their own bloody time. Unless of course they're fat, because then they'll be chased away from bus stops at gunpoint, eh?

Take the fatties kids into care and send them to state funded fat camps to break the cycle of poor diet, obesity and burden on the tax payer.

[ICTChris]

, having their fist communion etc.

[Ad Lib]

It's a negative to allow people to enjoy a right?

Yes. Is that really so hard to comprehend? Restriction of the freedom of speech to protect the right not to be discriminated against on grounds proscribed in said legislation.

I'm the one calling for the state to end discrimination here. It's your nasty bigot ilk that wish to limit choice. By allowing any sect to set up a school it gives people the right to choose, and I don't really care if it's Kilt, Ron Hubbard or the flying spaghetti monster as long as they teach the state approved curriculum they should be eligible for state funding

We don't want to limit choice at all; quite the contrary. Swampy alluded to the idea of non-money-based independent schools being the ideal choice creating alternative to state education. All we're suggesting is that the state should not sponsor schools which deal with faith and belief systems thereupon in any way other than from a dispassionate and rational perspective. Would you suggest that fee paying independent schools should be eligible for state funding? After all, they almost always teach to a "state approved" curriculum. No. That is a ridiculous notion. The state should provide a dispassionate, neutral and good minimum standard education environment. If people want something more or different, that is entirely their prerogative, but under no circumstances should they expect the state to sponsor it.

What? You do know that the people who wish to send their kids to faith schools pay taxes too? Why shouldn't their money be used to give their kids the schooling they want them to have. Give people the choice of what school they want to send their kids to, the good ones survive and the crap ones go belly up.

Likewise those sending their children to independent schools not only pay taxes, which go towards state education, but also lessen the pupil burden on the state. They have declined the opportunity to take-up what the state offers, so they are more than free to go and fund something different for themselves. In that scenario do we truly have a system where the good schools survive and the others go belly-up.

Ok Mr pedantic what should we be teaching in schools?

How to critically analyse information in light of evidence to reach conclusions with basis in fact and truth.

There are no secular state schools at the moment, it's the elephant in the room that you're ducking and diving round, and if the state is sponsoring one sect it should sponsor them all.

We're not diving around it at all. The suggestion is that state schools be forced to become truly secular, and that those which don't should no longer expect state funding. We AGREE that you shouldn't sponsor one sect to the exclusion of others, which is why you shouldn't sponsor ANY sects at all. Understand?

It's only important in so much as our taxes should be divided up equally. If there is 15% of tax payers looking for Kilts beliefs to be taught in it's own school then Kilt should receive 15% of the educational budget.

You really are jaw-droppingly stupid if you actually believe that.

While yours are the rantings of an intolerant bigot.

No.

[Monster]

Neither I or my wife are religious, but my son attends a catholic primary school. Not because we want him to learn catholic doctrine but because after visiting the three primary schools in our village that was the one we preferred.

He doesn't have to get any religious education, he chooses to go, and we've explained our views to him. He's had other beliefs and scientific facts such as evolution explained to him and the CoS minister comes in and gives the state approved version of secular education from time to time. So we chose his school, our son chose to have RE and the school chooses who teaches it to him. Why would anyone wish to remove this choice just because they don't like the garnish on the curriculum?

Take the fatties kids into care and send them to state funded fat camps to break the cycle of poor diet, obesity and burden on the tax payer.

I'm sure my healthy, regulation weight child would be interested in your views. I'll ask him when he comes in after his six hour game of football and finishes his fruit.

There's a clear reason why religious education should be removed as a taxpayer funded choice: the garnish is rotten.

[Tryfield]

I'm sure my healthy, regulation weight child would be interested in your views. I'll ask him when he comes in after his six hour game of football and finishes his fruit.

There's a clear reason why religious education should be removed as a taxpayer funded choice: the garnish is rotten.

I don't think the weans have even been asked yet.........

[The big chair]

Yes. Is that really so hard to comprehend? Restriction of the freedom of speech to protect the right not to be discriminated against on grounds proscribed in said legislation.

To use your own words, that's a ridiculous comparison.

We don't want to limit choice at all; quite the contrary. Swampy alluded to the idea of non-money-based independent schools being the ideal choice creating alternative to state education. All we're suggesting is that the state should not sponsor schools which deal with faith and belief systems thereupon in any way other than from a dispassionate and rational perspective. Would you suggest that fee paying independent schools should be eligible for state funding? After all, they almost always teach to a "state approved" curriculum. No. That is a ridiculous notion. The state should provide a dispassionate, neutral and good minimum standard education environment. If people want something more or different, that is entirely their prerogative, but under no circumstances should they expect the state to sponsor it.

Free to choose as long as it meets your standards and adheres to your beliefs. What an enlightened young man you are

Likewise those sending their children to independent schools not only pay taxes, which go towards state education, but also lessen the pupil burden on the state. They have declined the opportunity to take-up what the state offers, so they are more than free to go and fund something different for themselves. In that scenario do we truly have a system where the good schools survive and the others go belly-up.

So do away with all state funding of state schools and make education the preserve of the rich again?

How to critically analyse information in light of evidence to reach conclusions with basis in fact and truth.

Which is exactly what you've failed to do. There is demand for faith schools, the state already funds a multitude of different faith schools, RE is already part of the nationally approved carriculum, but you think swapping your beleifs for anothers is a progressive step. How did you become some pompous that you think you're right and all these people are wrong?

We're not diving around it at all. The suggestion is that state schools be forced to become truly secular, and that those which don't should no longer expect state funding. We AGREE that you shouldn't sponsor one sect to the exclusion of others, which is why you shouldn't sponsor ANY sects at all. Understand?

A sect, by definition, is a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs. By using your model we'd be adopting your political and philisophical beleifs to the exclusion of all others. You've not really thought this through, have you?

You really are jaw-droppingly stupid if you actually believe that.

I know, imagine thinking everyones opinion is valid and everybody has the right to choose. I feel now that you've pointed that out.

No.

A bigots favourite word.

[The big chair]

There's a clear reason why religious education should be removed as a taxpayer funded choice: the garnish is rotten.

I like balsamic dressing on my salad, but I don't want to live in a world where it's the only dressing and everyone has to use it.

[Monster]

I like balsamic dressing on my salad, but I don't want to live in a world where it's the only dressing and everyone has to use it.

I like no dressing. If I wanted balsamic or any other dressing I'd expect to pay for it, and I wouldn't expect everyone at my table to eat it because I wanted it either.

[vikingTON]

I like no dressing. If I wanted balsamic or any other dressing I'd expect to pay for it, and I wouldn't expect everyone at my table to eat it because I wanted it either.

You just like no salad.

[Swampy]

It's a negative to allow people to enjoy a right?

I put negative in scare-quotes for a reason. In this instance negative isn't a value judgement: it's simply a word. This is what I'm talking about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberties (fixed link, was looking at rights instead of liberties. I got my jargon reversed.)

I'm the one calling for the state to end discrimination here. It's your nasty bigot ilk that wish to limit choice. By allowing any sect to set up a school it gives people the right to choose, and I don't really care if it's Kilt, Ron Hubbard or the flying spaghetti monster as long as they teach the state approved curriculum they should be eligible for state funding

Screaming "bigot" at secularists is the height of hysterical stupidity.

You already said that there needs to be a threshold for pupil interest, while Growl3th implied that there needs to be a taxpayer threshold of some kind. What are these figures? If seeking to expand choice is the goal here (and I don't think it is, but I'll play along) then surely one pupil is sufficient.

What? You do know that the people who wish to send their kids to faith schools pay taxes too? Why shouldn't their money be used to give their kids the schooling they want them to have. Give people the choice of what school they want to send their kids to, the good ones survive and the crap ones go belly up.

Can you address the example I gave about the legal system earlier? Why does this apply to schooling and not criminal justice?

Ok Mr pedantic what should we be teaching in schools?

That's beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to discuss pedagogy start a new one.

There are no secular state schools at the moment, it's the elephant in the room that you're ducking and diving round, and if the state is sponsoring one sect it should sponsor them all.

I don't think you know what "elephant in the room" means, I imagine you just read it somewhere last week and are trying to shoehorn it in. It's abundantly clear that we, like you, are talking about how the education system should work, and not how it presently does.

It's only important in so much as our taxes should be divided up equally. If there is 15% of tax payers looking for Kilts beliefs to be taught in it's own school then Kilt should receive 15% of the educational budget.

Again, would you provide the same criterion for the legal system?

While yours are the rantings of an intolerant bigot.

I challenge you to find anything intolerant in my reasoning on secular schooling. Merely saying that it is bigoted doesn't make it bigoted. It's the classic dog-whistle of a West of Scotland conservative, and it doesn't work with rational audiences.

[The big chair]

I like no dressing. If I wanted balsamic or any other dressing I'd expect to pay for it, and I wouldn't expect everyone at my table to eat it because I wanted it either.

I'd expect my balsamic dressing or any other dressing to be covered by the price of the meal. If you choose not to use it then that's up to you just as it should be up to everyone else at the table how they want their salad.*

* This should not be construed as an attempt to force salad on anyone, but those with a BMI greater than 29 should probably be forced to eat nothing but it as a condition of free health care.

[Monster]

I'd expect my balsamic dressing or any other dressing to be covered by the price of the meal. If you choose not to use it then that's up to you just as it should be up to everyone else at the table how they want their salad.*

* This should not be construed as an attempt to force salad on anyone, but those with a BMI greater than 29 should probably be forced to eat nothing but it as a condition of free health care.

I would rather the meal was better value for money, and those who wished to add extras would pay for them as they chose.*

*This should not be construed as an attempt to force the narrow of mind to accept logic, but those with a lack of it should probably be forced to see it as a condition of modern living.

[Swampy]

Free to choose as long as it meets your standards

Contradiction fallacy: you've already said that any such school must adhere to the national curriculum, which is someone's "standards"

and adheres to your beliefs. What an enlightened young man you are

Contradiction fallacy: it follows necessarily that the national curriculum is the product of someone's beliefs.

So do away with all state funding of state schools and make education the preserve of the rich again?

Factual error: schools in Scotland were run by churches long before they were funded by the state

Which is exactly what you've failed to do. There is demand for faith schools, the state already funds a multitude of different faith schools, RE is already part of the nationally approved carriculum, but you think swapping your beleifs for anothers is a progressive step.

Argument from tradition, fallacious.

How did you become some pompous that you think you're right and all these people are wrong?

Appeal to emotion, fallacious. Appeal to popularity, fallacious.

1a. A sect, by definition, is a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs.

1b. By using your model we'd be adopting your political and philisophical beleifs to the exclusion of all others. You've not really thought this through, have you?

2. I know, imagine thinking everyones opinion is valid and everybody has the right to choose. I feel now that you've pointed that out.

3. A bigots favourite word.

1a. A rare journey into a reference book for you.

1b. The only part of this post that comes within a thousand miles of being a decent point. It's one worth considering: while we may assume that our own worldviews are default and everyone else's deviant, what right have we to hold this view? Subscribers to the liberal project would argue that theirs has been shown to be the best at enabling freedom of enquiry and of investigation. I think that this is correct. It doesn't mean it's the only one, and that the doors to all alternatives should be sealed shut - but it does mean that inferior systems that have been shown not to work have a lot of effort to put in to be used in secular schooling.

Put it this way: there's a reason we don't learn by rote any more in the West, and there's a reason that we don't practice blood-letting any more to cure disease. The two are more connected than you might think

2. It really depends what you mean by "valid." There are people whose opinion, and belief, is that the world is 6,000 years old. This is valid in the sense that they must of course be allowed to believe as they wish, and that it isn't inherently self-contradictory. It is, however, massively, massively incorrect. If you value truth ahead of dogma and tradition you will recognise that "everyone's opinion is valid" is an intellectual minefield that can't just be waved away. In any case: appeal to emotion, fallacious.

3. Poisoning the well, fallacious.

[Ad Lib]

To use your own words, that's a ridiculous comparison.

Do you know what the word "comparison" means? I was explaining to you what Swampy meant by a "negative" being used to protect the freedom in question.

Free to choose as long as it meets your standards and adheres to your beliefs. What an enlightened young man you are

What the f**k are you on about? Sorry, but the whole point of secularism is that beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with it, only rational analysis based on evidence.

So do away with all state funding of state schools and make education the preserve of the rich again?

I didn't say that at all. Are you some kind of mutant?

Which is exactly what you've failed to do. There is demand for faith schools, the state already funds a multitude of different faith schools, RE is already part of the nationally approved carriculum, but you think swapping your beleifs for anothers is a progressive step. How did you become some pompous that you think you're right and all these people are wrong?

What the f**k? You asked "what should we be teaching in schools". I answered "How to critically analyse information in light of evidence to reach conclusions with basis in fact and truth." Faith based schools, by their very definition can't do that, as they are sponsors of a particular belief system. The sponsored belief system is put on a pedestal, preventing rational debate and objective thought processes among the less naturally critical thinking children.

I'm not "swapping [my] beliefs for another's" at all. All I'm saying is that it is not the role of the state to promote religious indoctrination, and by funding faith schools, they are doing just that. If there is truly enough of a demand for faith schools, let them exist and thrive in the private sector. At no point am I saying that I think their belief systems are wrong (although I actually do think this, I'm not forcing my view on them; quite the contrary), merely that if they want to promote their religion then state schools are not the place to do it.

A sect, by definition, is a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs. By using your model we'd be adopting your political and philisophical beleifs to the exclusion of all others. You've not really thought this through, have you?

Are you some kind of fucking zoomer? The whole point of having a secular state education is that it doesn't profess any religious or political beliefs, but fosters individual's capacities to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

I know, imagine thinking everyones opinion is valid and everybody has the right to choose. I feel now that you've pointed that out.

Not everyone's opinion is valid. Some self-invalidate, some have no evidence or flawed logic and some are valid. I'm not denying ANYONE the right to choose; merely stating that the consequence of their choice should be self-sustained and not sustained by what is supposed to be an impartial state on matters of religion.

A bigots favourite word.

Have fun with that.

[The big chair]

I put negative in scare-quotes for a reason. In this instance negative isn't a value judgement: it's simply a word. This is what I'm talking about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I only read the first word in your link but how can someone advocating the removal of choice use libertarian theology to back up their argument?

Screaming "bigot" at secularists is the height of hysterical stupidity.

Someone intolerant of the beliefs of others is a text book definition of bigot. If the shoe fits.......

You already said that there needs to be a threshold for pupil interest, while Growl3th implied that there needs to be a taxpayer threshold of some kind. What are these figures? If seeking to expand choice is the goal here (and I don't think it is, but I'll play along) then surely one pupil is sufficient.

I've already qualified that statement, every child should have the same allocation of the states education budget spent on them no matter what belief system they follow.

Can you address the example I gave about the legal system earlier? Why does this apply to schooling and not criminal justice?

You waffle so much pish, can you be a wee bit more specific.

That's beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to discuss pedagogy start a new one.

Why bring it up then?

I don't think you know what "elephant in the room" means, I imagine you just read it somewhere last week and are trying to shoehorn it in. It's abundantly clear that we, like you, are talking about how the education system should work, and not how it presently does.

The elephant is quite clearly that our non-dom schools have a clear religious bias, to suggest the scrapping of faith schools while this is standing in the room is idiotic.

Again, would you provide the same criterion for the legal system?

If you want to talk about the legal system start a thread about it.

I challenge you to find anything intolerant in my reasoning on secular schooling. Merely saying that it is bigoted doesn't make it bigoted. It's the classic dog-whistle of a West of Scotland conservative, and it doesn't work with rational audiences.

Your whole argument is based on intolerance, you beleive your beleifs are right and everyone should fall in line with you.

[Swampy]

I only read the first word in your link but how can someone advocating the removal of choice use libertarian theology to back up their argument?

I don't know. Why don't you ask someone to whom that question would apply?

Look up what "theology" means while you're at it.

Someone intolerant of the beliefs of others is a text book definition of bigot. If the shoe fits.......

Again, I challenge you to back this up with something other than smirking innuendo.

I've already qualified that statement, every child should have the same allocation of the states education budget spent on them no matter what belief system they follow.

How many five-year-olds do you know with a belief system?

It is a simple fact of neuroscience that young children cannot process beliefs in the same way as adults. Why on earth would you try to deny this? There is no qualitative difference for a child between "don't go into the tiger enclosure" and "say your prayers or you'll be to the lake of fire" or "be good or Santa will know, and bring you coal."

I'm willing to be charitable and assume that you simply haven't considered the above. If you have thought about it but retain your opinion that young children follow a belief system then I can say without any qualification that this is evil. There is no other word for it.

You waffle so much pish, can you be a wee bit more specific.

Have a look at post 38.

Why bring it up then?

Again, ask someone who brought it up. My discussion of schooling has related only to method and goal, not what is taught.

The elephant is quite clearly that our non-dom schools have a clear religious bias, to suggest the scrapping of faith schools while this is standing in the room is idiotic.

Yeah, someone would almost think we were in a thread discussing the pros and cons of faith schooling or something.

I repeat: you barely know what "elephant in the room" means, you think it makes you sound smart, and you've shoehorned it in. It hasn't worked.

If you want to talk about the legal system start a thread about it.

If I can be assured of your responding to it then I'd be happy to re-post my question in post 38 in the form of a new thread. Does that sound fair?

Your whole argument is based on intolerance, you beleive your beleifs are right and everyone should fall in line with you.

Again, can you back this up with anything other than smirking innuendo?

[Ad Lib]

I only read the first word in your link but how can someone advocating the removal of choice use libertarian theology to back up their argument?

It's not removing choice. What gave you that ridiculous idea?

Someone intolerant of the beliefs of others is a text book definition of bigot. If the shoe fits.......

We tolerate others' beliefs... within a forum where the merit attributed is based on evidence, and not by double standards and sponsorship by the state.

I've already qualified that statement, every child should have the same allocation of the states education budget spent on them no matter what belief system they follow.

We don't disagree with that. It bears no relevance on where that money should be spent, though.

Edit: Swampy also makes an extremely valid point in that it would be impossible to do this because you haven't the mental faculties to have a coherent belief system as a young child.

The elephant is quite clearly that our non-dom schools have a clear religious bias, to suggest the scrapping of faith schools while this is standing in the room is idiotic.

The elephant that both Swampy and I have said about 6 times between us now that should be abolished, establishing a truly secular state system?

Your whole argument is based on intolerance, you beleive your beleifs are right and everyone should fall in line with you.

Yes, because pupils can't put forward their beliefs in a secular environment

[Swampy]

We tolerate others' beliefs... within a forum where the merit attributed is based on evidence, and not by double standards and sponsorship by the state.

That is absolutely perfect. I couldn't have put that any better myself.

[Mushroom]

I agree totally with this. A ban would be illiberal. But state schooling should not favour any one sect over another. In Scotland the CoS is given massive preference in the so-called "non-denominational" arena - or at least it did when I was in school - while the RCC also has its own schools. This is a historical relic from the time when all education was parochial. It's time to take it out back and shoot it, and switch to teaching based on evidence and reason.

I would dispute that.

I would say that a liberal ideology is basically "do what you want as long as it doesn't adversley affect others". I would argue that faith schools adversley affect the children by removing their freedom to not be indoctrinated into a religion.