NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

yawha

philologos wrote: »

A = All schools should be faith schools.
NOT A = No schools should be faith schools.

Wow, I think I've read before that you said you studied Computer Science? What were they teaching you guys?

If A = All schools should be faith schools, then NOT A = Not all schools should be faith schools, or "there should exist schools which are not faith schools".

Really, really basic stuff. Predicate logic 101.

philologos

yawha wrote: »

Wow, I think I've read before that you said you studied Computer Science? What were they teaching you guys?

If A = All schools should be faith schools, then NOT A = Not all schools should be faith schools, or "there should exist schools which are not faith schools".

Really, really basic stuff. Predicate logic 101.

Edit: I think I may have been getting the dual of the operation rather than the negation.

The diametric opposite of all is none, but the logical opposite of all is simply not all, a number of elements less than the total in a set. The diametric opposite of none is all, but the logical opposite of none is not none, a number of elements more than an empty set. So, some can then mean "any number of elements less than the total" or "any number of elements greater than zero". Tricky...

Easy mistake to make. Above from here.

Agreed, my bad. If one were to look at the polar opposites though, the opposite of all schools should be faith schools is no school should be a faith school.

I disagree strongly with the latter and the former. It doesn't seem conducive to compromise at all. One can easily sneer at the type of stuff in the OP, but if one is going to do the exact same thing on the opposite side then I suggest that you should look more objectively.

strobe wrote: »

Why, specifically?

(Warning: This may be a leading question. {It's not really, but you seem to always answer as if questions are.})

I think I have answered it sufficiently in that I think that parents should have the liberty to decide to bring their child to a school through which they can give their children the moral and spiritual framework that they feel is best where practicable.

The primary reason most people disagree with faith schools in here I'd presume is because they feel it is child abuse. If they really believed this they would be arguing that the State should take kids from their parents. If you felt genuinely that a child was being abused this is the moral thing to do.

getz

non religious state schools in the UK have alway had classes half a hour twice a week in the christian faith,its called religious instruction,in my day its was just christian bibical studies,safe basic new testament readings,by teachers not priests or vicars,mind you since then a lot of other faiths have arrived in the UK

Paparazzo

philologos wrote: »

Edit: I think I may have been getting the dual of the operation rather than the negation.



Easy mistake to make. Above from here.

Agreed, my bad. If one were to look at the polar opposites though, the opposite of all schools should be faith schools is no school should be a faith school.

I disagree strongly with the latter and the former. It doesn't seem conducive to compromise at all. One can easily sneer at the type of stuff in the OP, but if one is going to do the exact same thing on the opposite side then I suggest that you should look more objectively.



I think I have answered it sufficiently in that I think that parents should have the liberty to decide to bring their child to a school through which they can give their children the moral and spiritual framework that they feel is best where practicable.

The primary reason most people disagree with faith schools in here I'd presume is because they feel it is child abuse. If they really believed this they would be arguing that the State should take kids from their parents. If you felt genuinely that a child was being abused this is the moral thing to do.

Can you expand on the "moral framework"? Having gone to a religious school, the only difference seemed to be religion class and the odd confession. Both of which were considered a doss by every student.

philologos

Paparazzo wrote: »

Can you expand on the "moral framework"? Having gone to a religious school, the only difference seemed to be religion class and the odd confession. Both of which were considered a doss by every student.

These aren't quite the same anywhere else. Jesus Christ is a good starting point when it comes to these things from how I've come to understand it. That's only if a school actually takes a Christian ethos seriously. If it doesn't there is little to no point in having one.

I agree with you.

Here's the moral framework in a jist that I believe that Christianity offers:

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him

......oh, and dont forget the idea that it is just that the majority of posters in this forum, and billions around the world, should burn in hell for eternity (by god's will). You forgot that other central tenent of your faith, Jakkass.

It never ceases to amuse me how you wander around these forums pretending to be tolerant when your hold such intolerant and abhorrent views.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Faith schools tend to provide a moral and spiritual framework for children.

Schools which are controlled by unelected religious officials are able to enforce the teaching of religious stories as though they were factual. I take it that you're happy that "islamic schools" are able to instruct children that all christians are going to burn in hell, just as much as "catholic schools" are permitted to instruct the same concerning protestants. And so on? Does this strike you as a reasonable way to react to the trusting innocence of young children?

philologos wrote: »

The impressionable trusting lark is nonsense really.

I'm not quite sure that I understand you correctly -- are you really saying that young children are neither impressionable nor trusting?

pH

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

I read that, then I read this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/i-can-still-hear-the-kids-screams-20110611-1fyap.html
and laughed.

Now I know you'll do some hand waving and say something like
A) that's not my type of Christianity or
The above is just an ideal, people are weak and fallible

So you should change the above to preface it with "My kind of Christianity (but obviously not all Christianity) ..." or else add a note at the end saying that while the above is an ideal, Christians ignore it and continue to cause misery and pain to others, so it's all rather pointless. Your choice.

After all, arguing about which philosophical and moral system someone isn't following whilst torturing kids seems rather pointless.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

I think I have answered it sufficiently in that I think that parents should have the liberty to decide to bring their child to a school through which they can give their children the moral and spiritual framework that they feel is best where practicable.

I'm pretty sure I have seen you say that parents themselves should be the ones to provide their children a spiritual and moral framework 40 or 50 times?

The primary reason most people disagree with faith schools in here I'd presume is because they feel it is child abuse. If they really believed this they would be arguing that the State should take kids from their parents. If you felt genuinely that a child was being abused this is the moral thing to do.

Well I can't speak for other people and their primary reasons man. Personally I disagree with faith schools for the same reason I would have disagreed with the Hitler Youth.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

It depends on the faith school. Also given that I haven't attended a secular school I have nothing to really compare it to. So I guess it depends on the school.

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

Remove the god component from that, and all of that was covered by my parents.

I used to be on the fence about faith schools being an option as part of public schools. But then I thought how would that work where I grew up. There is 1 educate together school is a 30 mile radius. My local school is a Catholic school. One of my neighbours who was protestant had to go to a school 12 miles away due to all the schools available being RC run schools.

At this time, I'm leaning towards a school model like the educate together model. Why should parents decide to raise kids in a certain religion and then expect the state to all the heavy lifting with regards to religious instruction?

philologos

koth wrote: »

Remove the god component from that, and all of that was covered by my parents.

Without the God component a lot of those aren't possible.

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking (arguably this one in that Jesus is the exemplar of self-sacrifice), the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

Most of them are gone now. I would have to conclude that different ethical principles were involved.

koth wrote: »

I used to be on the fence about faith schools being an option as part of public schools. But then I thought how would that work where I grew up. There is 1 educate together school is a 30 mile radius. My local school is a Catholic school. One of my neighbours who was protestant had to go to a school 12 miles away due to all the schools available being RC run schools.

This isn't an argument against faith schools. It is an argument against adequate alternatives in the education system. I agree with Ruairí Quinn's current efforts but it is far from an adequate argument to get rid of faith schools.

koth wrote: »

At this time, I'm leaning towards a school model like the educate together model. Why should parents decide to raise kids in a certain religion and then expect the state to all the heavy lifting with regards to religious instruction?

And imposing this one everyone? Or just for people who desire it?

If it is the former I have no interest to be honest because I think that parents should have the liberty of choice in this are. In the latter, I think that's only right and fair for you to pursue.

So, philologos, you want a secular government that provides faith schools in addition to secular schools? Is that not a bit of a contradiction?

philologos

gvn wrote: »

So, philologos, you want a secular government that provides faith schools in addition to secular schools? Is that not a bit of a contradiction?

Pluralist education system where faith schools are free to set up providing choice. I don't see how this favours one belief system over another.

It's a State which is impartial to all forms of religious belief. It's not a secular society. I would encourage the former, not the latter. The society contains people of faith and no faith. The Government should try and facilitate these people in so far as it is practicable.

The UK is doing fine with this model. I don't see why we can't either.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Without the God component a lot of those aren't possible.

Most of them are gone now. I would have to conclude that different ethical principles were involved.

A sense of purpose is possible even without god in the equation.

being held always held accountable obviously relies on god existing. Otherwise you're just using fear to get people to do the right thing.

This isn't an argument against faith schools. It is an argument against adequate alternatives in the education system. I agree with Ruairí Quinn's current efforts but it is far from an adequate argument to get rid of faith schools.

but that won't work where I grew up. The population doesn't merit a second school, so it'll be a faith school or a secular school. So what do the parents who don't want a child receiving religious instruction do?

And imposing this one everyone? Or just for people who desire it?

Having only one faith school in a village does the same thing.

If it is the former I have no interest to be honest because I think that parents should have the liberty of choice in this are. In the latter, I think that's only right and fair for you to pursue.

Why should the parents get the state to raise the child as a Catholic when it was the parents who promised to do it?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Pluralist education system where faith schools are free to set up providing choice. I don't see how this favours one belief system over another.

It's a State which is impartial to all forms of religious belief. It's not a secular society. I would encourage the former, not the latter.

People should be free to set up such schools, but I don't think the State should have any part in it.

Schools should be completely secular. The government should remain absolutely secular, always, in all respects and at all times.

If parents want to raise their child into a particular faith then that's their choice--however much I or others might disagree with it. The Government and the public school system should have no part in helping a child's parents with that decision, as far as I'm concerned. Any deviation from this results in a school system that is no longer secular, and thus a government which ceases to be a secular one.

The UK is doing fine with this model. I don't see why we can't either

Have you seen the Channel 4 programme where Dawkins questioned students of an Islamic school on the topic of evolution? How you could think they're doing fine is beyond me.

philologos

koth wrote: »

but that won't work where I grew up. The population doesn't merit a second school, so it'll be a faith school or a secular school. So what do the parents who don't want a child receiving religious instruction do?

What does common sense suggest? - To me it suggests if there is only 1 secular is best. If there are more than one there is room for diversity. I grew up in towns mostly so perhaps that is why your situation differs. My parents brought me to a CofI school in every place I lived.

koth wrote: »

Having only one faith school in a village does the same thing.

See above.

koth wrote: »

Why should the parents get the state to raise the child as a Catholic when it was the parents who promised to do it?

The State doesn't do this. The State simply funds schools that keep to the curriculum. It is up to individual schools as to what ethos they are.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

Schools should be completely secular. The government should remain absolutely secular, always, in all respects and at all times.

The Government can still be secular and provide a good pluralist education system. This policy doesn't involve favouring faith schools over secular schools, nor does it involve favouring one faith over another. Yet it facilitates the wishes of both parties.

gvn wrote: »

Have you seen the Channel 4 programme where Dawkins questioned students of an Islamic school on the topic of evolution? How you could think they're doing fine is beyond me.

I saw it. I think the examples were far from representative. That school failed to teach the curriculum properly and as a result funding should have been removed.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

What does common sense suggest? - To me it suggests if there is only 1 secular is best. If there are more than one there is room for diversity.

See above.

so if people live in a small village they have better odds of a secular school? why not just have it as the norm for all towns/cities/villages?

The State doesn't do this. The State simply funds schools that keep to the curriculum. It is up to individual schools as to what ethos they are.

In my village, yes it does. The only public school is a RCC school, so to my mind it does exactly as I said.

Public schools shouldn't have religious instruction in them. Educate about religions, sure, but leave faith formation to the parents and their respective religious group.

philologos

koth wrote: »

so if people live in a small village they have better odds of a secular school? why not just have it as the norm for all towns/cities/villages?

I think parents have the liberty to decide. I think it is acceptable tha t there should be a diversity of schools to choose from and I think that people can benefit from going to a faith school or that faith schools are better suited to some children.

koth wrote: »

In my village, yes it does. The only public school is a RCC school, so to my mind it does exactly as I said.

Public schools shouldn't have religious instruction in them. Educate about religions, sure, but leave faith formation to the parents and their respective religious group.

It's still mistaken. The State doesn't do this it funds education generally and that is distributed to all schools.

I disagree with you in so far as both exist together there should be reasonable compromise. Saying all schools should be secular is as bad as saying all schools should be faith schools as I see it. I draw the line where choice isn't facilitated. As long as it is I'm more than happy for secular schools to exist and become much more available.

My point is if you want more choice that's fine, but don't deny the choice of others.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

What does common sense suggest? - To me it suggests if there is only 1 secular is best.

Why do you say secular is the best if there is only room for one?

philologos

In such a situation it isn't possible to provide choice. In such cases it is easier and better to have a single school irrespective of religion. Therefore if one wants a specific choice one would have to travel for it.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

The Government can still be secular and provide a good pluralist education system. This policy doesn't involve favouring faith schools over secular schools, nor does it involve favouring one faith over another. Yet it facilitates the wishes of both parties.

I don't agree that it should. Maybe I'm just a hardline-secularist, but the government shouldn't involve itself in helping parents raise a child into any particular belief system, either directly or indirectly; the parent's of a child should of course be allowed to bring their child up into their belief system, but that should be done on their own time, not during school time. I don't see what disadvantage a secularist ethos would have in comparison to a religious ethos.

The (hardline) secularist argument is just one reason I'm against faith schools. I'm generally against segregation; a system of faith schools would seem to introduce into a child a "them and us" attitude. That's certainly the attitude I had instilled in me during my education at both a Catholic primary and secondary school; the "them" in this situation were Protestants. Many of my friends who aren't Catholics any more would still have a deep dislike for Protestants, for reasons they can't even comprehend.

There are many, many other arguments against faith schools, too, I believe.

I saw it. I think the examples were far from representative. That school failed to teach the curriculum properly and as a result funding should have been removed.

But in a real society, as opposed to an idealistic one, the views presented in Dawkin's show were representative. If you think that Islamic schools, or Christian schools, or Jewish schools, or whatever, can remain unbiased when it comes to matters of science and history, and other elements of a non-faith based education, then you're being naive.

Why have dozens of segregationist schools when we can just have school? School should be just that, school. Let matters of faith be taught elsewhere, not in school. Otherwise it's a needless and worrisome complication of society.

(Nice blog by the way.)

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I think parents have the liberty to decide. I think it is acceptable tha t there should be a diversity of schools to choose from and I think that people can benefit from going to a faith school or that faith schools are better suited to some children.

but that's not practical, at least from a public education point of view. The state should be doing it's best to ensure that family doesn't have to worry about the nature of their childs education due to geography.

It's still mistaken. The State doesn't do this it funds education generally and that is distributed to all schools.

Right, so the state is funding the RCC so it can religiously instruct primary school children. That's no way to run the public education system.

I disagree with you in so far as both exist together there should be reasonable compromise. Saying all schools should be secular is as bad as saying all schools should be faith schools as I see it. I draw the line where choice isn't facilitated. As long as it is I'm more than happy for secular schools to exist and become much more available.

No it's not. A faith school will give a narrow focus with regards to religion, and if they choose to teach religious dogma as fact, well thats fine and dandy because it's a faith school.

A secular school to my mind would teach about various religions, this doesn't stop the parents raising a child in whatever faith they see fit.

My point is if you want more choice that's fine, but don't deny the choice of others.

I'm looking for a secular education, so I'm not a fan of public faith schools. If they want to have private faith schools, fire ahead.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

I don't agree that it should. Maybe I'm just a hardline-secularist, but the government shouldn't involve itself in helping parents raise a child into any particular belief system, either directly or indirectly; the parent's of a child should of course be allowed to bring their child up into their belief system, but that should be done on their own time, not during school time. I don't see what disadvantage a secularist ethos would have in comparison to a religious ethos.

The Government simply funds schools. What the schools ethos happens to be is a matter for the school to decide as far as I know.

gvn wrote: »

The (hardline) secularist argument is just one reason I'm against faith schools. I'm generally against segregation; a system of faith schools would seem to introduce into a child a "them and us" attitude. That's certainly the attitude I had instilled in me during my education at both a Catholic primary and secondary school; the "them" in this situation were Protestants. Many of my friends who aren't Catholics any more would still have a deep dislike for Protestants, for reasons they can't even comprehend.

I went to school with people of a variety of different denominations / religions and none. I don't believe faith schools of necessity produce segregation.

It's interesting that you mention that though as the schools that I went to never produced the foaming-in-the-mouth style intolerance that you speak of.

gvn wrote: »

There are many, many other arguments against faith schools, too, I believe.

I don't think that they are arguments against faith schools. They are arguments against particular schools being run in certain ways.

gvn wrote: »

But in a real society, as opposed to an idealistic one, the views presented in Dawkin's show were representative. If you think that Islamic schools, or Christian schools, or Jewish schools, or whatever, can remain unbiased when it comes to matters of science and history, and other elements of a non-faith based education, then you're being naive.

I'm talking about "real society". The schools that Dawkins visited aren't typical of faith schools. I could do a documentary about how awful secular schools are and go to some of the very worst and win the audience over.

I think Christian schools can teach about science in a totally impartial manner because I don't believe that faith and science of necessity conflict as you apparently do.

It's as simple as saying the science curriculum is this. If your school fails to teach this it is probable that funding will be revoked.

I don't see how a secular school would be any less biased. Bias is possible in every school. The New York Post covered a case of an English teacher who was an atheist promoting atheism by what he told them to read. Is this any less biased?

That's just bad teaching. It isn't any less prone to happen in secular schools.

gvn wrote: »

Why have dozens of segregationist schools when we can just have school? School should be just that, school. Let matters of faith be taught elsewhere, not in school. Otherwise it's a needless and worrisome complication of society.

I don't believe that they are of necessity segregationalist. I believe that it is acceptable for a parent to promote certain values to their child and if a faith school helps that so be it. I'm clearly not as intolerant of the idea, just as I'm not intolerant of the idea of secular schools. I support choice and diversity in education rather than the all schools must be Catholic or the all schools must be secular normativity.

koth wrote: »

I'm looking for a secular education, so I'm not a fan of public faith schools. If they want to have private faith schools, fire ahead.

That's fine. Argue for your own choice in respect to your own children. Don't do this in respect to other peoples children. That's simple.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

That's fine. Argue for your own choice in respect to your own children. Don't do this in respect to other peoples children. That's simple.

Not possible, as I'm talking about the public education system. If the system is to my liking, that affects other peoples children. As does any other permutation of school system.

I don't see how you can separate the public system and parents ability to choose a school of their liking for their child.

Denerick

I don't see the problem at all. It would be insane not to have religion classes in a school. Without an adequate understanding of mainstream religions and spirituality, ones understanding of art, philosophy, and pretty much every advance of human beings since the beginning of time would be impaired. Atheists should put an end to this quixotic attempt to wipe religion out of human affairs - religiosity is, for better or worse, part of our past and clearly a part of our present also.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Not possible, as I'm talking about the public education system. If the system is to my liking, that affects other peoples children. As does any other permutation of school system.

I don't see how you can separate the public system and parents ability to choose a school of their liking for their child.

How isn't it possible? Why can't one respect the choice of other people in respect to their children?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

How isn't it possible? Why can't one respect the choice of other people in respect to their children?

because unless you've a faith school of every religion and a secular school in every town/village/city, the lack of availability of a type of schools is going to restrict the potential for the parents choices.

Have secular schools with a religion education class to give students exposure to various religions and let the parents deal with the responsibility of religious instruction.

philologos

koth wrote: »

because unless you've a faith school of every religion and a secular school in every town/village/city, the lack of availability of a type of schools is going to restrict the potential for the parents choices.

How is it? Base the system on demand. As I've said already I think the UK system is an acceptable compromise in that 60% of schools are secular and 30% are faith schools. Why is that so wrong? The percentages should reflect the demand.

koth wrote: »

Have secular schools with a religion education class to give students exposure to various religions and let the parents deal with the responsibility of religious instruction.

I think there should be secular schools. I don't think all should be. It's the polar opposite of the OP. I think parents should be able to decide for their own child.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

How is it? Base the system on demand. As I've said already I think the UK system is an acceptable compromise in that 60% of schools are secular and 30% are faith schools. Why is that so wrong? The percentages should reflect the demand.



I think there should be secular schools. I don't think all should be. It's the polar opposite of the OP. I think parents should be able to decide for their own child.

Two words: unesscessary and complicated.