Faith Schools

[Ad Lib]

Nah

I'd imagine a fair number of older ones do, but "a lot" is perhaps an exaggeration.

[jojo]

faith schools are a disgrace and they should be banned. Im pretty sure brainwashing children is against their human rights as well. True religion isn't being told what to believe and what to hate and how to behave, it is finging out the truth about god for yourself.

[Guest Kincardine]

Apart from, say, the law, in exactly the same way as physical chastisement has been outlawed in schools, even though a lot of teachers in the profession probably still believe in it?

You'd establish a complaints system to Ofsted/Local Councils, which would then investigate and respond to any religious bias.

Aye great comparison. "You may be head teacher but you can't give the belt" vs "You may be head teacher but you can't give an opinion"

[RossC93]

faith schools are a disgrace and they should be banned. Im pretty sure brainwashing children is against their human rights as well. True religion isn't being told what to believe and what to hate and how to behave, it is finging out the truth about god for yourself.

Get em' telt 

[Swampy]

Aye great comparison. "You may be head teacher but you can't give the belt" vs "You may be head teacher but you can't give an opinion"

You don't think there are already rules in place about what head teachers can and cannot say? I know you're a god-botherer but try to be honest for once in your life.

[madwullie]

Teachers who want to hit kids have long since left / been drummed out the profession.

[Guest Kincardine]

You don't think there are already rules in place about what head teachers can and cannot say? I know you're a god-botherer but try to be honest for once in your life.

Oh hello Mr Angry. How's your blood pressure today?

I'd welcome evidence that I'm a "god-botherer" - and will enjoy watching the mental gymnastics you go through to provide it.

[Ad Lib]

Teachers who want to hit kids have long since left / been drummed out the profession.

That's a very crass way of putting it, and not the same thing as "teachers who believe corporal punishment in schools should be allowed".

At my school there were at least two teachers (one of whom is still a Chemistry teacher, and another who is a Modern Languages teacher) who both openly admitted that they disagreed with the decision to ban the belt. Whilst both are in their 60s, both are still in the profession, and both respect the new law, neither using the belt nor any other form of physical chastisement to discipline children.

By the same token, if state funded schools were forced to be fully secular, a headteacher could disagree all they liked about whether or not they should be allowed to impose an overtly religious agenda (through assemblies, RE content etc) but if they actually went and broke the requirements to satisfy secularist criteria, they could be reported to the relevant authorities, who would then carry out an investigation, eradicating any practices preventing a secular environment and, where necessary, putting the headteacher before a disciplinary panel.

[Swampy]

Oh hello Mr Angry. How's your blood pressure today?

I'd welcome evidence that I'm a "god-botherer" - and will enjoy watching the mental gymnastics you go through to provide it.

I suppose the first heat of our gymnastics festival would be to ask, how can someone bother a god when a god is very unlikely to exist? This, though, is just a semantics game: god-botherer is a mere title like faith-healer or spirit-talker that describes the intended end, rather than the reality.

You've said on here in the past that you're a churchgoer, and if I remember rightly, an Anglican. It's been a long time since I was in a church but I do recall such acts as praying and singing the praises of one's deity and his various sidekicks. In 99.9999% of cases I would expect that the people doing these acts have at least a small attachment to the idea that there's someone else on the other end of the celestial phone line.

For the remaining 0.0001%, it may well be that you do all this simply as a social or traditional event (out of "one's loyalty to the tribe"), in which case I suppose the god-botherer aspect is only partially true. Either way you're being dishonest to someone - which was the style at the time.

p.s. "Mr. Angry", how long did that one take you to come up with? Who said **** don't have a sense of humour?

[Willie Gray Ate My Hamster]

My link

David Cameron, who sends his daughter to a sought-after Church of England primary in west London, said he was a “strong supporter personally and politically” of faith schools.

Great!!!

Religion and education should be kept seperate and for the life of me I can't understand how somebody who believes in a religion should be allowed to teach something like biology to kids.

[Swampy]

That's a very crass way of putting it,

No, it's not - it's a very accurate one.

and not the same thing as "teachers who believe corporal punishment in schools should be allowed".

Assuming that these teachers weren't hypocritical pacifists then they both fit the description of wanting to be able to hit children.

At my school there were at least two teachers (one of whom is still a Chemistry teacher, and another who is a Modern Languages teacher) who both openly admitted that they disagreed with the decision to ban the belt. Whilst both are in their 60s, both are still in the profession, and both respect the new law, neither using the belt nor any other form of physical chastisement to discipline children.

By the same token, if state funded schools were forced to be fully secular, a headteacher could disagree all they liked about whether or not they should be allowed to impose an overtly religious agenda (through assemblies, RE content etc) but if they actually went and broke the requirements to satisfy secularist criteria, they could be reported to the relevant authorities, who would then carry out an investigation, eradicating any practices preventing a secular environment and, where necessary, putting the headteacher before a disciplinary panel.

Absolutely. I don't see why this is a tough matter to grasp. Kincardine's bizarre argument seems to be along the lines of: there is scope for a rule to be abused, therefore the rule shouldn't exist, no matter how limited the scope is. It'd be like abolishing penalties for murder because some people are killers.

[Ad Lib]

Assuming that these teachers weren't hypocritical pacifists then they both fit the description of wanting to be able to hit children.

So you think it's inconsistent for a teacher to say "I believe teachers should have the authority to use corporal punishment, but I have never had cause to use it and do not personally require it to maintain discipline in my classes".

I note that you changed what madwullie actually said. He said "teachers who want to hit kids" whilst you have said "teachers who want to be able to hit kids" which is the distinction I'm making here.

I see it as no more inconsistent than those who don't take drugs believing that those who do should be able to acquire them without fear of prosecution.

[Swampy]

So you think it's inconsistent for a teacher to say "I believe teachers should have the authority to use corporal punishment, but I have never had cause to use it and do not personally require it to maintain discipline in my classes".

I see it as no more inconsistent than those who don't take drugs believing that those who do should be able to acquire them without fear of prosecution.

I'd believe it's remarkably convenient, rather than logically inconsistent, that at the age of 60 a teacher who believes that hitting kids is acceptable has never had cause to do so. I would wonder why such teachers wouldn't rather see their own remarkable skills of maintaining discipline emulated across the board.

The usage of drugs doesn't logically necessitate harming another person, so you're making a false comparison.

[Guest Kincardine]

I suppose the first heat of our gymnastics festival would be to ask, how can someone bother a god when a god is very unlikely to exist? This, though, is just a semantics game: god-botherer is a mere title like faith-healer or spirit-talker that describes the intended end, rather than the reality.

You've said on here in the past that you're a churchgoer, and if I remember rightly, an Anglican. It's been a long time since I was in a church but I do recall such acts as praying and singing the praises of one's deity and his various sidekicks. In 99.9999% of cases I would expect that the people doing these acts have at least a small attachment to the idea that there's someone else on the other end of the celestial phone line.

For the remaining 0.0001%, it may well be that you do all this simply as a social or traditional event (out of "one's loyalty to the tribe"), in which case I suppose the god-botherer aspect is only partially true. Either way you're being dishonest to someone - which was the style at the time.

p.s. "Mr. Angry", how long did that one take you to come up with? Who said **** don't have a sense of humour?

I haven't.

In fact I go to church at Xmas and Easter sometimes. I also watch Wycombe regularly. I'm not a Wycombe fan. I'm ambivalent to both Wycombe and Christianity but have more hope in the former.

[xbl]

I'd believe it's remarkably convenient, rather than logically inconsistent, that at the age of 60 a teacher who believes that hitting kids is acceptable has never had cause to do so. I would wonder why such teachers wouldn't rather see their own remarkable skills of maintaining discipline emulated across the board.

The usage of drugs doesn't logically necessitate harming another person, so you're making a false comparison.

I agree with what Exuberant is saying actually. You can be in favour of something while never personally wanting or having done it.

Think of the "pro choice" camp when it comes to abortion. I am personally against it, in that I wouldn't ask any woman of mine to have it carried out, and I would prefer her not to, but, I can respect that there are times when people need or want to have one. So despite being against abortion, I'm still "pro-choice".

[Ad Lib]

I'd believe it's remarkably convenient, rather than logically inconsistent, that at the age of 60 a teacher who believes that hitting kids is acceptable has never had cause to do so. I would wonder why such teachers wouldn't rather see their own remarkable skills of maintaining discipline emulated across the board.

Convenient it may be, but not logically inconsistent, and not necessarily hypocritical. This is, anyhow, besides the point, as I was using it to illustrate the fact that regardless of personal opinions of teachers about what they should or shouldn't be allowed to do in the course of their occupation, the law and relatively simple enforcement mechanisms prevent them from having a carte blanche in so far as their work is concerned: a point on which I'm sure we both agree.

The usage of drugs doesn't logically necessitate harming another person, so you're making a false comparison.

I wasn't talking about the justification, rather whether or not it was inconsistent.

[Guest Kincardine]

No, it's not - it's a very accurate one.

Assuming that these teachers weren't hypocritical pacifists then they both fit the description of wanting to be able to hit children.

Absolutely. I don't see why this is a tough matter to grasp. Kincardine's bizarre argument seems to be along the lines of: there is scope for a rule to be abused, therefore the rule shouldn't exist, no matter how limited the scope is. It'd be like abolishing penalties for murder because some people are killers.

It was neither bizarre nor an argument but a simple observation. Head teachers influence their school for good or ill. I'm amazed (though I shouldn't be) that you fail to grasp this concept.

[Swampy]

I haven't.

In fact I go to church at Xmas and Easter sometimes. I also watch Wycombe regularly. I'm not a Wycombe fan. I'm ambivalent to both Wycombe and Christianity but have more hope in the former.

Uh, yes you have, and you've said it again right now. If you attend without believing, fair enough. I used to think that a lot of people did that but these days I'm not so sure. I've seen too many depressing opinion polls.

[Swampy]

It was neither bizarre nor an argument but a simple observation. Head teachers influence their school for good or ill. I'm amazed (though I shouldn't be) that you fail to grasp this concept.

"Without doubt the character and beliefs of a head teacher influence a school. Were we to phase out 'faith schools' then what's to stop a "religious fantasist nutjob" exerting similar influence on the new 'secular' schools?"

"The law"

"BUT THE LAW DOESN'T WORK!!! THE BELT!!!"

[Guest Kincardine]

Uh, yes you have, and you've said it again right now. If you attend without believing, fair enough. I used to think that a lot of people did that but these days I'm not so sure. I've seen too many depressing opinion polls.

Please give evidence of this.