The next referendum: Secularism

rick_chasey

Yeah I'm pretty confused.

My understanding was that a faith school is exaclty that; a school for people of a particular faith.


I went to primary school that did a lot of CoE stuff in assemblies but it wasn't a faith school because you didn't have to be CoE. It was just the local school you went to because it was the nearest.

That's how I always saw it anyway. Maybe that's wrong.

drlodge

From fairadmissions.org.uk:

"More than one third of state-funded primary schools in England and Wales, and about one fifth of secondaries, are schools designated with a religious character (commonly known as ‘faith schools’). Thanks to an exception in the Equality Act 2010, all of them are legally permitted to have an admissions policy that selects children on religious grounds when the school is oversubscribed, though a school’s policy is set differently, depending on its type."

This is my principle objection. There is less of an issue (albeit still one in some schools) about what is taught, its the admissions policy that can legally discriminate on religious grounds and this has to stop.

My local junior school that both my children went to, has an admissions policy that gives precedence to children who's parents are on the local CofE church electoral roll over those that aren't. As we lived at the far end of the village, they only got into the school as my ex was on the electoral roll. Otherwise we would have been outside the "catchment area" and they wouldn't have got it. I don't know which school they would have ended up at otherwise.

Pross

drlodge wrote:

Pross wrote:

The school prioritised applications from Catholic families

That's discrimination right there. Outrageous.

Pross wrote:

I think your comment just shows how little those who criticise faith schools understand what they are like.

Er no I don't think so. However I'm focusing on the *admissions* criteria which you admit, is discriminatory.

Pross wrote:

The above may differ somewhere like Glasgow with big religious divides and sufficient Catholic families to fill the school but I suspect it is the case in most places.

It is certainly different in Northern Ireland.

So a school part funded by the Catholic Church and which is clearly labelled as a church school is discriminatory because it has a policy of prioritising Catholic children? Yes, in the same way as a fee paying school is discriminating against poor people. All schools have a selection policy and by the very nature of selection you could argue that they discriminate on some grounds. It's all above board and legal.

Rick seems to be on the other end of the scale and assumed everyone had to be from the same faith.

Obviously there is some bias to the beliefs of the relevant church body but they certainly weren't anywhere near the extents that people seem to assume when condemning them.

drlodge

Pross wrote:

So a school part funded by the Catholic Church and which is clearly labelled as a church school is discriminatory because it has a policy of prioritising Catholic children? Yes, in the same way as a fee paying school is discriminating against poor people.

No, its not "in the same way" at all.

Discrimination based on religion is unlawful in every other aspect of life, so why are schools allowed to discriminate in this manner? And the amount the church funds is minimal - is predominately tax payer funded and therefore these schools should be open to everyone irrespective of belief or lack thereof.

Discrimination based on ability to pay is common place, in fact that's one of the principles of the market economy. You can't stop a restaurant from charger what they like, and you can't stop private schools charging what they like either. I think its called "choice".

I would have less of an issue if private schools were allowed to discriminate in this way, my issue would then turn to what they were teaching.

Oh and by the way, the term "catholic children" is abhorrent. There is no such thing. They are children of catholic parents.

mrb123

While we're on this subject, can we get rid of the law that school assemblies should include an act of collective worship.

drlodge

MrB123 wrote:

While we're on this subject, can we get rid of the law that school assemblies should include an act of collective worship.

Amen to that!!

Pross

Schools are hardly the only thing that is exempt from discrimination. You have boy / girl only grammar schools, woman only insurance companies, women only gyms, men only clubs, women only short lists for political parties etc. etc.

Also, I'm now confused by your point of view - originally I thought you were opposed to faith schools but now you seem opposed to the fact that not everyone can get into a faith school. If there were no choices then I would agree that it was a problem but in my small town I had a choice of at least 3 other primary schools and the town where my comprehensive school was (10 miles from home and one of two Catholic schools covering an entire county) was one of 4 comprehensives in the town (there was also a girl's grammar school).

As for the objection to using the abhorrent phrase 'Catholic children' that was my own phrase and I would have thought anyone reading it would understand it to mean 'children from a Catholic family'.

mamba80

Grammar schools discriminating on the grounds of intelligence...... abhorrent.

Mainstream so called faith schools are a tiny issue, if at all, look at some of the Muslim faith schools, teaching or indoctrinating people to fight against the system they live in.

rick_chasey

You don't have female only insurance companies thanks to the EU and I'd be happy to get rid of single sex schools in most instances.

drlodge

Pross wrote:

Also, I'm now confused by your point of view - originally I thought you were opposed to faith schools but now you seem opposed to the fact that not everyone can get into a faith school.

My main objection is the discrimination of the admissions policy. They are predominately state funded schools so all tax payers should have equal opportunity to send their children to their local state school, faith oriented or not.

I am also opposed to faith schools per se, but that's a separate issue. As has been mentioned, I think the Christian schools aren't so much of an issue, but certainly some of the Islamic schools are questionable.

pinno

Since when did we discover the age of the Universe? I thought it was the BIg Bang THEORY, not a fact.

So, the above is subjective and so is a lot of this thread. Pross cannot seem to see outside of his own experience and drlodge, I presume is in Narden Eyrlan - a place where religion has been used and is still used as a badge, as an excuse for violence and so the sectarianism continues.

At a philosophical level, mankind has yet to reach a moral code above the virtues set by a deity. Collectively, we haven't reached that higher ground and I doubt we will. For the masses, the 'flock of sheep', the absence of a god for many has meant a huge degree of social fabrication and it has been replaced by the desire for materials and wealth.

We are at a juxtaposition, or one could say a 'social purgatory': The majority don't believe in a god and without god, they don't know how to conduct themselves, so lets buy a f*cking great TV, matching curtains, wallpaper and freeze and dream of a house with a Belfast sink and a Ferrari parked outside.

A society bereft of the threat of a higher moral being is lost. It has meandered into a rut of egocentricity and greed.

Personally, I don't know where I stand. I find religious schools tolerable so long as they are benign but wish we could have an education system that teaches moral philosophy and social responsibility from a young age. Unfortunately, this would again make up for the lack of parental input - just like reading, writing, maths and the acquisition of knowledge should not be sole responsibility of the state.

bobmcstuff

Pinno wrote:

I thought it was the BIg Bang THEORY, not a fact.

This a red herring: That's not exactly what we mean by a scientific theory - in science a theory is a hypothesis which you test the evidence against.

Wikipedia sums it up better than me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge".

The reason Big Bang theory is so widely accepted is because it describes the observed evidence extremely well.

One reason religion/god etc are distinct from science and can't be included in a scientific theory is that there is nothing to test against, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God (for example).

bobmcstuff

On the subject of religious schools, I accept they generally aren't really indoctrinating people (my GF went to a catholic school but isn't at all religious), but out of pure principle I don't think religious bodies should play any part in state funded education.

I also don't think there should be bishops in the Lords either, and so on.

pinno

bobmcstuff wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I thought it was the BIg Bang THEORY, not a fact.

This...God (for example).

No bollox. It's cosmological heresy to think of anything else in the West. In fact, in the USA certain colleges get less funding if they don't spout Big Bang claptrap.

But that is digressing and I don't disagree with the principle you are making.

bobmcstuff

/\ also as an atheist my counter-view to your points on morality is that the society of the day creates it's own morals, and religion is just an expression of that (someone codifying society's morals at that point in time).

Hence why today we view slavery (for example) as entirely wrong and abhorrent whereas it's fine in most religions, e.g., Christianity (in both old and new testaments) because that was the prevailing view in society at the time.

Just my opinion though obviously.

pblakeney

bobmcstuff wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I thought it was the BIg Bang THEORY, not a fact.

This a red herring: ...

Word it any way you like, it is still only a theory. Our best theory, but only that.

bobmcstuff

PBlakeney wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I thought it was the BIg Bang THEORY, not a fact.

This a red herring: ...

Word it any way you like, it is still only a theory. Our best theory, but only that.

If you say so.

pinno

bobmcstuff wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I thought it was the BIg Bang THEORY, not a fact.

This a red herring: ...

Word it any way you like, it is still only a theory. Our best theory, but only that.

If you say so.

Warning: Off topic.

Any credible hypothesis can only be confirmed with one if. The Big Bang theory relies on multiple 'ifs', which means that it does not have much scientific or analytical credibility.
For example: The age of certain stars and clusters was pretty much written in stone but as soon as the big bang theory came along, the astrologers and mathematicians had to re-evaluate hundreds of stars because it didn't fit the BBT - they were older than the so called 'beginning of time'.
Anyway, out of 15 observable galaxies 9 are in the Blue shift and 6 are in the red shift. The conclusion: space is expanding. It's hardly categorical. It doesn't allow for the ebb and flow theory. The light being emitted is very historical and there is little that is substantial enough to confirm the theoretical expansion from a theoretical epicentre.

So from the few examples given: Expansion of the universe is theoretical, the age of the stars and galaxies is debatable, the number of Galaxies in red or blue shift does nothing to confirm the expansion theory, background noises can be from innumerable sources and for innumerable reasons - there is nothing concrete about their origins. It is another convenient factor which can be manipulated to suit the theory, which is again, a false hypothesis.

I'll put it to you, that man is organic and is born and eventually dies, so to think in infinite terms is humanly impossible. It's more than just coincidence that Western theories of the Universe fit the Judeo-Christian concept of beginning, middle and end and the far eastern theories are cyclical, just like Buddhism and Hinduism. Now, since the far eastern cultures have been in existence for far longer than the West (Written laws 6000 years ago in what is now Central China) and yet we have the all encompassing theory of the Universe. What a load of arrogant bollox. Just like the arrogant bollox which accepts that Christopher Columbus was the first to discover the Americas.

Why is it that religion wants to believe in a creator and the scientific community wants an all encompassing theory that explains everything created and the creator was an explosion billions of years ago? With the BBT, we are replacing one set of flawed ideas with another.

To accept the Big Bang Theory as fact, is as flawed as every other whacky all enveloping theory. We still cannot replicate a miniature self-perpetuating living earth for the Mars mission beyond 3 months and we still haven't plumbed the depths of the deepest oceans, we still cannot agree on climate change or accurately predict the weather nor do we fully understand the behaviour of certain viruses and bacteria, yet we think we know how the Universe 'started' and 'started' is a presumption in itself.

bobmcstuff

I agree with some of your points but I disagree with your conclusion and I think you have misinterpreted what scientific theories are for. Specifically what the big bang theory is trying to do, it makes no claims as to how the universe actually started, just how it evolved, it fits much of the evidence very well and there are plenty of recognised gaps which many scientists are working on - but little in the way of show stoppers (if you look at some previous theories such as continental drift they got dropped pretty fast after the evidence didn't fit the theory). One of the recent popes actually said BBT wasn't incompatible with catholicism, according to current understanding we may never know what was before the big bang so there's space for God right there. Big bang theory and religion are not incompatible.

Also depending on what happens at the end of the universe (big crunch or heat death, we're not 100% yet although heat death seems more likely) it is entirely possible that big bang theory could lead to a cyclical universe. So I disagree on that one too.

However I don't want to derail this thread any further...

pinno

bobmcstuff wrote:

... it makes no claims as to how the universe actually started...

Yes, it does.

We will leave it there.

mrb123

Pinno wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

... it makes no claims as to how the universe actually started...

Yes, it does.

We will leave it there.

Yeah, you're needed over on the Big Girls thread!

pinno

MrB123 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

... it makes no claims as to how the universe actually started...

Yes, it does.

We will leave it there.

Yeah, you're needed over on the Big Girls thread!

Does it need emergency maintenance? Or perhaps it's you that needs some maintenance.

BelgianBeerGeek

Don't matter what you believe. Bye and bye, we are all the same...nothing.
Love and peace.

Pep

drlodge wrote:

I think the worst CofE schools do is teach pseudo science, like the universe is only 6,000 years old.

I am a scientist and I am catholic. And I also know the Universe is much older than that.
Mind you, none of the christian scientists I met in my life think the universe is only thousands of yr old.
I went to a catholic school and they did not teach me the universe is only thousands of yr old.
One of my best friend, from Uni, is a cosmologist. He studies the big bang for a living. He is also a very devoted catholic.

Pep

drlodge wrote:

Evolution is a fact in the same way that the earth revolves around the sun, and should be taught as such. That's my point...to teach otherwise is pseudo science and should be stopped.

I agree completely. However, the present school system allowes pupils to graduate without learning good English, any foreign language, extremely simple numeracy, nutrition, respect for the others. Not that teaching something wrong should continue, but it does not as much harm as something else...

Pep

Here in Germany at some point during your tax live the government learns about your religious standing. If they learn that you believe, for example if there is record that you were baptised, or if you married in a church, then they force you to pay "church tax". Sounds fair to me.

Of course it sometimes happen that you change your religious standing. Yes, you have right to stop paying the church tax (but it's a rather very long painful burocratic process).