Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:09 pm  

Mintball wrote: ... Jewish fundamentalism – the latter, as illustrated by the recent events in Israel, where some ‘ultra-Orthodox’ Jews share many of the same attitudes as fundamentalist Muslims toward, say, the segregation of the sexes. Indeed, the ultra-Orthodox (polite speak for fundamentalist) Jewish community in north London, which I have already mentioned in terms of its girls’ school where the pupils will spend 50% of their time being taught the Torah, is hardly light years apart... This article on that subject includes the impact on education.

Mintball wrote: ... Jewish fundamentalism – the latter, as illustrated by the recent events in Israel, where some ‘ultra-Orthodox’ Jews share many of the same attitudes as fundamentalist Muslims toward, say, the segregation of the sexes. Indeed, the ultra-Orthodox (polite speak for fundamentalist) Jewish community in north London, which I have already mentioned in terms of its girls’ school where the pupils will spend 50% of their time being taught the Torah, is hardly light years apart... This article on that subject includes the impact on education.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:31 pm  

Mintball wrote: ...the dogma of successive popes... Speaking of which: Tossbag.

Mintball wrote: ...the dogma of successive popes... Speaking of which: Tossbag.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:07 pm  

Rock God X wrote: Speaking of which: Tossbag. I can get my head around not liking LGBT people. I can get my head around people believing, because of their religious beliefs, that any 'alternative' sexuality is immoral. I can get my head around people believing that gay marriage is not a good or desirable thing. I might not agree with them, but I can get my head around it. But such statements simply leave one flabbergasted as to their complete divorce from any logic. However, as only a slight aside, given this thread, what are nearly 180 diplomats doing being addressed by the pope? Why? Do vast numbers of diplomats go to be addressed by the heads of any other religious group? If ever you wanted an illustration of the sway that religion holds over our lives, this is it. And yes, I do know that the Vatican is a state and the pope its head. In which case, I'd ask how many times anyone thinks the head of, say, Switzerland sits down to address 180 diplomats on the biggest threats facing humanity? For balance, I note that the page Rock God linked to does, further down, have a picture gallery of progressive religious leaders spanning a wider religious spectrum than some might expect. Good for them. But one wonders whether – and to what extent – they will prevail against what seems to be rising fundamentalisms.

Rock God X wrote: Speaking of which: Tossbag. I can get my head around not liking LGBT people. I can get my head around people believing, because of their religious beliefs, that any 'alternative' sexuality is immoral. I can get my head around people believing that gay marriage is not a good or desirable thing. I might not agree with them, but I can get my head around it. But such statements simply leave one flabbergasted as to their complete divorce from any logic. However, as only a slight aside, given this thread, what are nearly 180 diplomats doing being addressed by the pope? Why? Do vast numbers of diplomats go to be addressed by the heads of any other religious group? If ever you wanted an illustration of the sway that religion holds over our lives, this is it. And yes, I do know that the Vatican is a state and the pope its head. In which case, I'd ask how many times anyone thinks the head of, say, Switzerland sits down to address 180 diplomats on the biggest threats facing humanity? For balance, I note that the page Rock God linked to does, further down, have a picture gallery of progressive religious leaders spanning a wider religious spectrum than some might expect. Good for them. But one wonders whether – and to what extent – they will prevail against what seems to be rising fundamentalisms.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:29 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I can get my head around not liking LGBT people.

You'd think he'd be all for it, after all they're hardly likely to breed more poofs & lezzas are they?

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:15 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

You'd think he'd be all for it, after all they're hardly likely to breed more poofs & lezzas are they?

~snigger~

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:23 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

WTF is CofE on paper? Do you believe in God? If you don't, whatever it says 'on paper', you're an atheist. If you do, then you need to have a look at the evidence a little closer.

It means although I have been Christened as a child I don't believe. Simple.

This is part of the problem. When people are asked to put down their religion on any sort of official form/survey/census, they often put the religion they were brought up in, or put 'Christian' because they're British and we are a 'Christian country'. If everyone who thought it was nonsense put 'atheist', the true picture would become a lot clearer.

What in your opinion would this picture show?


I don't applaud this attitude one little bit. I'm not picking on you personally, as loads of people have said it, but I can't stand the hypocrisy of it. It's like people who get married in church despite never attending any other time. It's rubbish.

I can take being a hypocrite if it's for the good of my children. For the record & just in case your wondering, I didn't get married in a church.


Thankfully, the non-faith school in my village is better than the faith school, but if it wasn't, I would have worked harder alongside the teachers to ensure that my son knew everything he needed to know before starting secondary school.

That's fine. I chose the best school available for my children to attend.

I would have told him that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes (not monkeys), and that, whilst some people don't believe that to be the case, the evidence does not support their position. In simpler terms, obviously.

I told him both theories, I used the word monkey rather than ape as we were watching a programme about the Amazon rain forest and he liked the Tamarins.
I also told him which theory I believe & that it was his choice, not mine or his teachers which he believed. I also told him that in time he may change his mind & that was also fine.

As someone has already pointed out, it's always a cause for concern when children believe something that is so demonstrably incorrect. It's never too early to teach your child that reason and evidence will always trump blind faith.

As someone has already pointed out, it's always a cause for concern when children believe something that is so demonstrably incorrect. It's never too early to teach your child that reason and evidence will always trump blind faith.[/quote]

[b]Should I be concerned that he thinks his Grandma is in heaven? Should I tell him there is no such thing? Am I wrong to allow him some comfort in the thought that she will be looked after by angels? Maybe I am, but I certainly won't be the only one on here. As I said earlier, if it means doing what i feel is the best by my children I can live with being a hypocrite.


Edit. Bloody phone!

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:23 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

They have every reason to be defensive, given the disproportionate degree of influence religion already has in the running of our country. This influence will only increase if the proposed changes are adopted.

Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago. As for secularists (and I assume from your agreement with their position you are one yourself), defensive behaviour is usually displayed as a consequence of feeling threatened. Why do secularists feel threatened by religious belief?

As has already been pointed out (I would have thought it was pretty obvious anyway), any school that is able to select which pupils it takes will obtain better results than those without such a privilege. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there's not a single shred of evidence to support the view that the improved exam results in faith schools are as a consequence of the religious flavour of the education rather than the selection policy.

This paragraph is very confused. On the one hand you are against selection on a faith basis (while ignoring the fact that not all faith schools select on a faith basis) and yet you state a belief that selection on a faith basis does not improve academic achievement. So what is your problem then?

However, the fact still remains that faith based schools (and again, I can only speak of the Christian faith) generally enable their children to achieve to a higher standard than non-faith based schools (although obviously there are outstanding non-faith based schools also and plenty of them).

Academies have a great deal of freedom in the curricula they teach. I linked to a lecture given by the head of 'science' at one of these academies earlier in the thread, and what he was teaching was anything other than scientific.

All schools have a great deal of freedom in the curricula they teach. Far more freedom than many would have you believe. The National Curriculum was never intended as a proscriptive document. It was a guide and a guide only. That schools often teach it to the letter is a reflection of many things. However, all a school needs to do is convince OFSTED that the curriculum they choose to use meets the standard and legal requirements set down for the National Curriculum and they are free to teach to that curriculum. As for academies, it was my understanding that they will operate to the same policy but it is their ethos and source of control (ie outside of the Local Authority) which are the essential differences. However, I will check on that.

But that discrimination shouldn't be based on who attends what church, or who is likely to bump that school's exam results up.

As I said earlier, all schools have to discriminate. The last government brought in the lottery system. Do you agree with that as a means of discrimination? It seems idiotic to me.

Why should a person need a reference from a clergyman in order to show that they can teach children effectively? Or to disclose their faith (or lack thereof)? Their ability to do the job should be the only factor in the selection process.

They don't require a reference from a clergyman to show that they can teach children effectively. A clergy reference has nothing to do with their teaching ability but only as confirmation of the faith disclosures in their application statement, just as a reference from a previous employer is - in part at least - confirmation that you actually worked there in the capacity you claim. Not all faith schools request references from clergy, not by a long chalk, as I said earlier. The ones I applied to didn't. They just requested sympathy with the ethos of the school which, as I also said earlier, is a prerequisite of any school, faith-based or not.

Incidentally, did you know that it is a parent's legal entitlement to withdraw their child from any religious education at school and that it is a legal right for a teacher to withdraw from teaching religious education? I exercised that right once when on teaching practice in a Catholic school. They had a half hour instruction session each morning and because I am not a Catholic of any description I did not consider myself fit to teach their version of the Christian faith and so I invoked my legal right to withdraw.

In a time where the overwhelming majority of the British public do not attend church regularly, this is intolerable.

Interesting. I need to find a reference to it but at the last poll taken of people's faith orientation, I think about five years ago, approximately 70% claimed to be Christian. Polls are polls but they give an indication if not a definitive description.

It's not about monsters, you dimwit.

Oh yes, you definitely feel threatened!

It's to do with the curriculum (particularly science) being subverted by a minority group, and lack of equality in both staff and pupil selection.

You have not got a clue what you are talking about. Science is taught as science; religious education as religious education. The two never meet except in broad discussions, usually within citizenship sessions.

Would you be happy if the majority of schools in this country were run by the Muslim faith? Or Scientologists, perhaps?

So long as their standard of education was high, they learned about other faiths and (in the case of your Scientology example) children weren't put at risk, I wouldn't care. Children are fascinated by learning and they will discuss all sorts of things and think about all sorts of things. Lots of those things they will reject as they grow older but some they will retain. That applies to all areas of learning, and not just faith.

As my opening link made clear, there are only 3.6% of British people who say that they attend a church once a month.

How many attend once a week, twice a month, three times a month? How many are C & E Christians? How many are agnostic? How many would want to marry in a church or be buried with a vicar at the helm? You'll be surprised just how many people profess a faith of some kind but do not necessarily go on missionary duty. I would suggest that actually secularists are a smaller minority than faith based people because anecdotally anyway most people simply don't know.

Even if it's not, should the unfounded beliefs of less than 4% of the population have such a great influence on the education of the remaining 96%?

I could ask you the same question. Should your secularism influence the majority? Should any perceived minority influence the majority? It happens in all sorts of ways and sometimes yes, it is funded by the tax payer. I could make a list of the things I resent my taxes funding, as could everybody on here. That argument doesn't wash. At the end of the day, if faith based schools are more successful academically then they should be encouraged, not hounded out by threatened minorities. Most parents want their children to be well educated and they will sort out all the rest at home. That's the job of the parent.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:59 pm  

Common sense http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961

Common sense http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:02 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago.

So why do the bishops cling on to their seats in the House of Lords and will continue to do so?

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:07 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

WTF is CofE on paper? Do you believe in God? If you don't, whatever it says 'on paper', you're an atheist. If you do, then you need to have a look at the evidence a little closer.

I[b]t means although I have been Christened as a child I don't believe. Simple.

This is part of the problem. When people are asked to put down their religion on any sort of official form/survey/census, they often put the religion they were brought up in, or put 'Christian' because they're British and we are a 'Christian country'. If everyone who thought it was nonsense put 'atheist', the true picture would become a lot clearer.

What would this true picture show.


I don't applaud this attitude one little bit. I'm not picking on you personally, as loads of people have said it, but I can't stand the hypocrisy of it. It's like people who get married in church despite never attending any other time. It's rubbish.

I can take being a hypocrite if it's for the good of my children. For the record & just in case your wondering, I didn't get married in a church.


Thankfully, the non-faith school in my village is better than the faith school, but if it wasn't, I would have worked harder alongside the teachers to ensure that my son knew everything he needed to know before starting secondary school.

That's fine. I chose the best school available for my children to attend.

I would have told him that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes (not monkeys), and that, whilst some people don't believe that to be the case, the evidence does not support their position. In simpler terms, obviously.

I told him both theories, I used the word monkey rather than ape as we were watching a programme about the Amazon rain forest and he liked the Tamarins.
I also told him which theory I believe & that it was his choice, not mine or his teachers which he believed. I also told him that in time he may change his mind & that was also fine.


As someone has already pointed out, it's always a cause for concern when children believe something that is so demonstrably incorrect. It's never too early to teach your child that reason and evidence will always trump blind faith.

Should I be concerned that he thinks his Grandma is in heaven? Should I tell him there is no such thing? Am I wrong to allow him some comfort in the thought that she will be looked after by angels? Maybe I am, but I certainly won't be the only one on here. As I said earlier, if it means doing what i feel is the best by my children I can live with being a hypocrite.