Channel 4 tonight

Tim Robbins

Channel 4 air their latest religious polemic this evening.
http://www.rte.ie/tv/listing.html?channel=18

RTE SITE wrote:

Dispatches
David Modell explores the growth and increasing influence of Christian fundamentalism as the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill makes its way through Parliament

This provides dichotomy to my day as I was attacked by some Christians outside Pearse street station looking for new members for their Church.

Dades

That documentary just sounds annoying. Unless you like shouting at fundies on your TV!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This provides dichotomy to my day as I was attacked by some Christians outside Pearse street station looking for new members for their Church.

Dammit I'm a Pearse every day - why do they never attack me??!

BTW is there some reason you won't fix the typo in your sig? Your campaign might be taken more seriously if you did...

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was attacked by some Christians outside Pearse street station looking for new members for their Church.

Any serious injuries? Did they have weapons?

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

That documentary just sounds annoying. Unless you like shouting at fundies on your TV!

Yes but the question is why is channel four showing so many of them?

BTW is there some reason you won't fix the typo in your sig? Your campaign might be taken more seriously if you did...

No, I like it.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Any serious injuries? Did they have weapons?

Just a headache.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Any serious injuries? Did they have weapons?

I bet they had them dern weapons of mass distraction the Iraqis been hidin' I tells ya!

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

marco_polo

That is disgraceful didn't think they had schools that taught YEC in the UK.

Delirium

And one of them says having lustful thoughts is actually committing adultery. :eek:

They would do well brushing up on what is involved in committing the sins they preach about.:)

marco_polo

Did I hear right one guy implied that he hasn't had sex ever because basicaly he believes that his penis is holy. (but the odd knuckle shuffle is ok )

5uspect

Dades wrote: »

Dammit I'm a Pearse every day - why do they never attack me??!

Must be the white beard and robe...

Akrasia

marco_polo wrote: »

Did I hear right one guy implied that he hasn't had sex ever because basicaly he believes that his penis is holy. (but the odd knuckle shuffle is ok )

of course his penis is holey. How else would the wee come out.

Some people, i just don't know.

Akrasia

just watching the program now.

He's calling death a great adventure

Only a religious person would say that

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was attacked by some Christians outside Pearse street station looking for new members for their Church.

Seems they may be out doing door to door as well. There was a gang of three or four people crowding the door of some unfortunate resident of Cumberland Street behind Pearse station this evening, one of whom wore an embarrassingly egotistical, not to say nonsensical, sweatshirt saying "Come follow me" on the back.

With a bit of luck, the Lord will lead them to my doorbell nearby

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

anyone know how long it takes for dispatches to show up on 4od?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Any serious injuries? Did they have weapons?

I heard they sometimes attack heathens with lumps of the true cross.

niceonetom

i didn't know that 'faith' schools in the u.k. are totally exempt from the national curriculum and can basically teach whatever waffle they want to the kids. that's shocking, and i'd definitely call raising a child in an informational vacuum like that 'abusive'. they don't even allow that in the u.s. do they? i thought even home schoolers have to at least play lip-service to reality.

what's the situation in this country? can schools legally present biblical (or quaranic) myth as real science?

i couldn't care less about the looney adults in most of the documentary but the children, won't somebody think of the children...?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Seems they may be out doing door to door as well. There was a gang of three or four people crowding the door of some unfortunate resident of Cumberland Street behind Pearse station this evening, one of whom wore an embarrassingly egotistical, not to say nonsensical, sweatshirt saying "Come follow me" on the back.

With a bit of luck, the Lord will lead them to my doorbell nearby

They were out again this morning about twice the number as yesterday. Just kept my head down, avoided eye contact and kept going.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=112

you should wear this when you're passing them... nsfw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Attacked? I mean really, attacked?

MrPudding

Mordances with wolves wrote: »

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=112

you should wear this when you're passing them... nsfw

I have that shirt. I also have the "If I have to find Jesus does that mean he is hiding?" With a pic of a beardy bloke peaking out from behind a hedge.

I think technically it is independent or private schools that are exempt from the national curriculum in the UK. The faith schools are set up as independent schools and therefore not subject to the national curriculum, not because they are faith schools per se, but because they are independent.

Personally I found the show as disgusting and scary as I expected it to be.

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I think technically it is independent or private schools that are exempt from the national curriculum in the UK. The faith schools are set up as independent schools and therefore not subject to the national curriculum, not because they are faith schools per se, but because they are independent.

Correct. The situation in the UK is that the primary responsibility for education of children rests with parents. The State's role is providing schools etc. is to help the parents in that responsibility.

Schools that receive financial support from the Government need to go with the National Curriculum, but parents are free to pay for their children's education or to home school them. The State still inspects private schools (and home schooled children) to ensure that parents are fulfilling their responsibility to educate their children properly, but the National Curriculum is not compulsory. The position of Schools Inspectors on certain faith based schools is that their teaching of Creationism is a deficiency, but that their vastly superior standards in other areas (maths, literacy, music, languages etc.) outweighs that deficiency. Therefore such schools tend to get overall good reports from the Inspectors.

My own daughter attended private faith based schools both in the UK and here in Ireland. No government ever payed a single penny or cent of her educational costs. I worked extra jobs at night time to pay for her schooling.

The school she attended here in Ireland taught information about both Creationism and Evolution, but the presentation of this information was certainly slanted towards Creationism. Funnily enough the critical thinking and analytical skills she learned from other parts of the school's programme led her to reject the Creationist case. According to the State's own School Inspectors, by the time she was 15 she had, like many of that school's pupils, reached an educational standard that would be above the average for students in State-funded schools at Leaving Cert level.

Today she is at University, was recently voted Student of the Year by her tutors and peers in her department, and shows no signs of damage from her experience of faith schools.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The position of Schools Inspectors on certain faith based schools is that their teaching of Creationism is a deficiency, but that their vastly superior standards in other areas (maths, literacy, music, languages etc.) outweighs that deficiency. Therefore such schools tend to get overall good reports from the Inspectors.

Which isn't that difficult when these schools go out of their way to select only the students that already show strong academic ability.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2006/FaithPrimarySchools.htm

There is little evidence the schools are actually better at teaching subjects, but when you allow only the best and the brightest to attend your school you are going to end up high on the league tables.

PDN wrote: »

Today she is at University, was recently voted Student of the Year by her tutors and peers in her department, and shows no signs of damage from her experience of faith schools.

Is she studying biology by any chance? :pac:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Which isn't that difficult when these schools go out of their way to select only the students that already show strong academic ability.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2006/FaithPrimarySchools.htm

There is little evidence the schools are actually better at teaching subjects, but when you allow only the best and the brightest to attend your school you are going to end up high on the league tables.

You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension about what kind of schools we are talking about.

The "faith primary schools" in the article you link to are actually Church of England or Roman Catholic schools that follow the National Curriculum and which receive State funding. The schools that I was referring to are those which receive no State funding and therefore do not need to follow the National Curriculum. These schools generally receive pupils on the basis of Christian commitment and operate no selection process on intelligence or academic grounds. Therefore they do not receive "the brightest and best" students, although, since most of them are evangelical in ethos, they will tend to receive pupils who have the brightest and best parents.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension about what kind of schools we are talking about.

The "faith primary schools" in the article you link to are actually Church of England or Roman Catholic schools that follow the National Curriculum and which receive State funding. The schools that I was referring to are those which receive no State funding and therefore do not need to follow the National Curriculum. These schools generally receive pupils on the basis of Christian commitment and operate no selection process on intelligence or academic grounds. Therefore they do not receive "the brightest and best" students, although, since most of them are evangelical in ethos, they will tend to receive pupils who have the brightest and best parents.

And then milk the parents of all their money just so they can be allowed to teach lies to children.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Correct. The situation in the UK is that the primary responsibility for education of children rests with parents. The State's role is providing schools etc. is to help the parents in that responsibility.

Schools that receive financial support from the Government need to go with the National Curriculum, but parents are free to pay for their children's education or to home school them. The State still inspects private schools (and home schooled children) to ensure that parents are fulfilling their responsibility to educate their children properly, but the National Curriculum is not compulsory. The position of Schools Inspectors on certain faith based schools is that their teaching of Creationism is a deficiency, but that their vastly superior standards in other areas (maths, literacy, music, languages etc.) outweighs that deficiency. Therefore such schools tend to get overall good reports from the Inspectors.

My own daughter attended private faith based schools both in the UK and here in Ireland. No government ever payed a single penny or cent of her educational costs. I worked extra jobs at night time to pay for her schooling.

The school she attended here in Ireland taught information about both Creationism and Evolution, but the presentation of this information was certainly slanted towards Creationism. Funnily enough the critical thinking and analytical skills she learned from other parts of the school's programme led her to reject the Creationist case. According to the State's own School Inspectors, by the time she was 15 she had, like many of that school's pupils, reached an educational standard that would be above the average for students in State-funded schools at Leaving Cert level.

Today she is at University, was recently voted Student of the Year by her tutors and peers in her department, and shows no signs of damage from her experience of faith schools.

For once in my life I have to agree with PDN, (shock, horror!!:D) faith schools can often (not always) be most excellent teaching institutions. Having been a product of them myself, I can testify that they are excellent right up until a few small sections of biology and physics....but like PDN's daughter and myself, critical thinking will fill in those gaps. My only concern is for the people who take everything without questioning it themselves - these will certainly be the people who come off worse for wear for a faith school.

pH

PDN wrote: »

Today she is at University, was recently voted Student of the Year by her tutors and peers in her department, and shows no signs of damage from her experience of faith schools.

You may have created an evangelical Christian child, but unless she got 600 points in her LC you have no idea how much damage you did to her education by wasting your money on fundamentalist Christian education.

Oh, and when you say "University" do you mean DkIT?

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

For once in my life I have to agree with PDN, (shock, horror!!:D) faith schools can often (not always) be most excellent teaching institutions. Having been a product of them myself, I can testify that they are excellent right up until a few small sections of biology and physics....but like PDN's daughter and myself, critical thinking will fill in those gaps. My only concern is for the people who take everything without questioning it themselves - these will certainly be the people who come off worse for wear for a faith school.

Its good to see someone who doesn't just shoot their bigotted mouth off represent some atheists here. Maybe the rest of you should stop watching Channel 4. I'm not a Catholic, yet from the time I was 4 til the time I left school I had religion class. Remember back then it was not learning about various religions, it was catholocism. My parents were my authoritive teachers. If you guys have no confidence in your own parenting capabilities to be able to teach your child, so that they question and reason, then thats your problem. some of us, give ourselves more credit than that!

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic, yet from the time I was 4 til the time I left school I had religion class.

Likewise! Though if the RE teachers (inc. priests) in my school were anything to go by I'd 'hope' they have better ones in "faith" schools.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Likewise! Though if the RE teachers (inc. priests) in my school were anything to go by I'd 'hope' they have better ones in "faith" schools.

TBH, we had some good and some bad. Thing is, my parents gave me the tools to question, and to think. No teacher was going to remove that. Having the ability to talk openly to my parents, and my older bro and sis, who were 12 and 10 years my senior was priceless. This fear of faith schools is bogus! 'Jesus Camp' type parents is what you should be concerned about. Though some don't seem to be able to seperate the two unfortunately.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

These schools generally receive pupils on the basis of Christian commitment and operate no selection process on intelligence or academic grounds. Therefore they do not receive "the brightest and best" students, although, since most of them are evangelical in ethos, they will tend to receive pupils who have the brightest and best parents.

Umm, perhaps reading the report would help clarify this -

The reason for this is that Faith schools (and other schools classed as Voluntary Aided or
Foundation; see Section 0) were allowed to interview families – ostensibly to determine their
religious or other ethical convictions; however, it has long been suspected that this leads to some form of covert selection based on parental and pupil characteristics that are correlated with pupil

This study is looking at VA or Foundation schools which require some level of adherence to state standards. Independent schools don't, they are completely free to select students as they like.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm, perhaps reading the report would help clarify this -

The reason for this is that Faith schools (and other schools classed as Voluntary Aided or
Foundation; see Section 0) were allowed to interview families – ostensibly to determine their
religious or other ethical convictions; however, it has long been suspected that this leads to some form of covert selection based on parental and pupil characteristics that are correlated with pupil

This study is looking at VA or Foundation schools which require some level of adherence to state standards. Independent schools don't, they are completely free to select students as they like.

My daughter is in a private school in the UK. It is not a faith school, btw. There are entrance tests and they will not take "weak" children.

MrP

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm, perhaps reading the report would help clarify this -

The reason for this is that Faith schools (and other schools classed as Voluntary Aided or
Foundation; see Section 0) were allowed to interview families – ostensibly to determine their
religious or other ethical convictions; however, it has long been suspected that this leads to some form of covert selection based on parental and pupil characteristics that are correlated with pupil

This study is looking at VA or Foundation schools which require some level of adherence to state standards. Independent schools don't, they are completely free to select students as they like.

So your link, which is about VA or Foundation schools, is irrelevant to the schools I was discussing. I think one of the major reasons why Independent religious schools (not State funded) produce better results is actually for sociological, rather than academic, reasons. Parents who are committed members of religious communities are, on average, more likely to encourage their children to do homework etc and less likely to let them roam the local estate wearing hoodies and stealing mobile phones. Protestant work ethic and all that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So your link, which is about VA or Foundation schools, is irrelevant to the schools I was discussing.

Only if the schools you are discussing do not screen students and their families based the religious affiliation, as these schools do.

do they?

PDN wrote: »

I think one of the major reasons why Independent religious schools (not State funded) produce better results is actually for sociological, rather than academic, reasons. Parents who are committed members of religious communities are, on average, more likely to encourage their children to do homework etc and less likely to let them roam the local estate wearing hoodies and stealing mobile phones.

Indeed :rolleyes:

Perhaps when you want to discuss this seriously you can get back to me ....

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if the schools you are discussing do not screen students and their families based the religious affiliation, as these schools do.

do they?

Not in my experience, I must say. It would be very rare that parents who do not share the religious beliefs of such schools would apply to send their kids there, but I know of one or two cases where this happened and the kids were accepted as a matter of course.

The only screening I know of was where some parents saw the school as an opportunity to 'fix' children with behavioural difficulties who had already been kicked out a few other schools. The first few times this happened the Christian schools happily accepted them (possibly because such schools tend to operate on a financial knife edge & even 1 or 2 extra pupils can help them achieve the critical mass necessary to break even) but couldn't cope. One destructive child in a school of 500 is a problem, but in a school of 30 they become a disaster zone. After one or two such very painful episodes the schools decided not to accept pupils who had already been expelled from other schools. That was the only screening I ever saw.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Protestant work ethic and all that.

Jewish people are kicking your gangs' *sses in any barometer of intellectual achievement. God obviously doesn't mind that much, if they worship Jesus as their saviour!

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Jewish people are kicking your gangs' *sses in any barometer of intellectual achievement. God obviously doesn't mind that much, if they worship Jesus as their saviour!

Which would pretty well prove my point about "parents who are committed members of religious communities", wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not in my experience, I must say.

Which is what exactly?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Which would pretty well prove my point about "parents who are committed members of religious communities", wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Well no. I can't think of any Evangelical Christians who have contributed uniquely to any intellectual field.

The Jewish thing appears more of a genetic thing, as most of them including the author of the book I am currently reading Jonathan Haidt, describe themselves as Jewish atheists.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well no. I can't think of any Evangelical Christians who have contributed uniquely to any intellectual field.

The Jewish thing appears more of a genetic thing, as most of them including the author of the book I am currently reading Jonathan Haidt, describe themselves as Jewish atheists.

We were discussing primary schools rather than what you consider to be unique intellectual contributions - but troll away there, Tim.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is what exactly?

I was part of the pastoral staff of a church that established an independent school. I have several close friends who are principals of such schools. I have also, on a voluntary basis, taught classes in such schools.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

We were discussing primary schools rather than what you consider to be unique intellectual contributions - but troll away there, Tim.

So I prove your point and I troll away at the sametime.
If you were programming, I think you'd have got a compile error there PDN.

djpbarry

niceonetom wrote: »

what's the situation in this country? can schools legally present biblical (or quaranic) myth as real science?

Nope - it's not on the syllabus.

MrPudding wrote: »

I have that shirt. I also have the "If I have to find Jesus does that mean he is hiding?" With a pic of a beardy bloke peaking out from behind a hedge.

I can top that; "I've found Jesus - he was behind the couch."

PDN wrote: »

Parents who are committed members of religious communities are, on average, more likely to encourage their children to do homework etc and less likely to let them roam the local estate wearing hoodies and stealing mobile phones. Protestant work ethic and all that.

Just what this discussion was lacking - a nice sectarian element.

Dades

djpbarry wrote: »

Just what this discussion was lacking - a nice sectarian element.

In an over-the-top PC world, maybe...

PDN

Dades wrote: »

In an over-the-top PC world, maybe...

Or one where people are ignorant of sociology?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Or one where people are ignorant of sociology?

Well if it's back to sociology, and not just primary schools, why is there such a low correlation between those who have achieved something intellectual and Evangelical Christians?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well if it's back to sociology, and not just primary schools, why is there such a low correlation between those who have achieved something intellectual and Evangelical Christians?

Somewhat off topic, but if Dades is happy to allow me I'm happy to answer.

It is an interesting question since evangelicals founded many of the most prestigious US universities. In the American context I think it may be connected with the fact that evangelicalism is strongest in the most economically depressed parts of the country. There is a direct correlation between economic prosperity and academic achievement.

Also, many modern evangelical movements grew out of fundamentalism which is pretty anti-intellectual.

There is an interesting article about it here: http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i35/35b01201.htm

In some other countries, such as India and China, evangelicals are disproportionately over-represented among intellectuals and academics.

Dades

Work away, lads.
The thread was a heads-up to documentary aired two days ago, started by TimR anyway.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Somewhat off topic, but if Dades is happy to allow me I'm happy to answer.

That's a bit stupid, I started this thread and could argue you already took it off topic.

It is an interesting question since evangelicals founded many of the most prestigious US universities. In the American context I think it may be connected with the fact that evangelicalism is strongest in the most economically depressed parts of the country. There is a direct correlation between economic prosperity and academic achievement.

Also, many modern evangelical movements grew out of fundamentalism which is pretty anti-intellectual.

There is an interesting article about it here: http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i35/35b01201.htm

In some other countries, such as India and China, evangelicals are disproportionately over-represented among intellectuals and academics.

The poverty correlation argument is more applicable to India and China. If the government bans google searches or poverty is rife, Western connections facilitated by Evangelical Christian missionaries would definetly make someone average look bright.

The fact is, scan through major intellectuals achievements and there's about as much contribution from Evangelical Christians as there is from the Scientologists. Poverty nonsense in the US? All that money for those mega churches? Why not put some money for new books for the library?

I am reminded of Mr. Russell:
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."

Amongst the intelligentsia, it certainly appears to be the case.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's a bit stupid, I started this thread and could argue you already took it off topic.

And there I was thinking I was giving a polite reply to a straightforward question. Ah well, what else can you expect from a stupid anti-intellectual evangelical?

If the government bans google searches or poverty is rife, Western connections facilitated by Evangelical Christian missionaries would definetly make someone average look bright.

I'm speechless.

Are you actually arguing that standards of educational and intellectual achievement in China and India are so poor that people of average intelligence look bright? Have you any idea what is happening in places like Shanghai or Bangalore?

The fact is, scan through major intellectuals achievements and there's about as much contribution from Evangelical Christians as there is from the Scientologists. Poverty nonsense in the US? All that money for those mega churches? Why not put some money for new books for the library?

'All those mega churches'? Most evangelicals belong to churches with less than 100 members.

There are certainly millions of well educated evangelicals. I think that there is scope for an interesting discussion as to why that doesn't translate into what you see as intellectuals, but I think any discussion with you, Tim, is unlikely to yield more heat than light since it inevitably gets into point scoring rather than any serious discussion.

Within the US, educational achievement and economic disparity is an undeniable factor. Evangelicals are disproportionately overrepresented among blacks and hispanics, who also happen to have a lower average income and lower rates of college graduation (hardly surprising in a country where studying for a College degree can leave you $40,000 in debt).

I am, however, intrigued by the fact that you want to make an issue out of Jewish intellectual achievements when compared to evangelical Christians ('kicking their asses' in your own words) - given that you see the Jewish thing as ethnic and are comparing that to people who hold a specific belief. Have you any other such comparisons that you find significant?

Did you know that black people produce more Olympic gold medalists than do Methodists? Or that Japanese people are better at Karate than Catholics?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

And there I was thinking I was giving a polite reply to a straightforward question. Ah well, what else can you expect from a stupid anti-intellectual evangelical?

Polite me b*ll*x. You were trying to be smart.

Are you actually arguing that standards of educational and intellectual achievement in China and India are so poor that people of average intelligence look bright? Have you any idea what is happening in places like Shanghai or Bangalore?

Not just in China, or India but anywhere.
If educational standards are low in Malawi, Kerry or a township in South Africa, someone who has access to education through missionaries will achieve more academically and intellectually than someone who doesn't?

Are you seriously trying to argue educational access makes no difference?

'All those mega churches'? Most evangelicals belong to churches with less than 100 members.

Well we need to clarify what we both mean when uses that word. You mean Evangelical churches, I mean Evangelical in their ethos i.e. those who hold literally every word of scripture as truth and believe in only a conservative interpretation of the Bible.

This would include those in the mega Churches.

PDN wrote:

There are certainly millions of well educated evangelicals.

If they are millions who are well educated? why labour this following point?

Within the US, educational achievement and economic disparity is an undeniable factor. Evangelicals are disproportionately overrepresented among blacks and hispanics, who also happen to have a lower average income and lower rates of college graduation (hardly surprising in a country where studying for a College degree can leave you $40,000 in debt).

I am, however, intrigued by the fact that you want to make an issue out of Jewish intellectual achievements when compared to evangelical Christians ('kicking their asses' in your own words) - given that you see the Jewish thing as ethnic and are comparing that to people who hold a specific belief. Have you any other such comparisons that you find significant?

Well I could elaborate into other comparisons, but you have already accused me of taking a thread (which I actually started) off point, so why invite me to do that again?