Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on March 07, 2018, 06:37:17 PM
-
Following on from discussions elsewhere, I thought a poll might be in order. Since it might be difficult to be precise people have 2 votes but you don't have to use them. I would be interested if people expand on their reasoning. My basic answer is no, and while I believe certain beliefs are an issue, the fact that they might be religious does not seem relevant in itself. Hence as I covered elsewhere a primary school teacher who argues for sex with 5 year olds should be stopped from being a primary school teacher regardless of whether the views are based on a religion.
-
either all religious beliefs are acceptable , which poses many risks or none are acceptable , which eliminates those risks .
plus , I simply despise all religious beliefs because they are just that , beliefs . Totally unsupported by ANY evidence .
I personally would not trust them in public office for that reason
-
I say 'No': I know people with religious beliefs who I would happily entrust with the welfare of my family and I can think of one atheist that, if we still had a dog, I be worried about asking him to take said dog for a walk.
As a category 'has religious beliefs' is too broad, as is 'has no religious beliefs', to be useful in terms of individuals: and when in comes to public office I'd imagine that factors such as proven competence and relevant experience are more important, and that these aspects are likely to figure more with the electorate and in any appointment process.
In addition, in my experience, those capable of public office or senior public service positions are able to balance their personal views with public responsibilities, and if they don't then there are process where concerns can be raised. I've had experience of one senior NHS manager recusing themselves from discussion and decisions on a matter that involved their personal religious beliefs.
The problem with 'broad brushes' is that everything gets covered in paint irrespective of whether or not painting was required.
-
I say 'No': I know people with religious beliefs who I would happily entrust with the welfare of my family and I can think of one atheist that, if we still had a dog, I be worried about asking him to take said dog for a walk.
As a category 'has religious beliefs' is too broad, as is 'has no religious beliefs', to be useful in terms of individuals: and when in comes to public office I'd imagine that factors such as proven competence and relevant experience are more important, and that these aspects are likely to figure more with the electorate and in any appointment process.
In addition, in my experience, those capable of public office or senior public service positions are able to balance their personal views with public responsibilities, and if they don't then there are process where concerns can be raised. I've had experience of one senior NHS manager recusing themselves from discussion and decisions on a matter that involved their personal religious beliefs.
The problem with 'broad brushes' is that everything gets covered in paint irrespective of whether or not painting was required.
that's all well and good Gordon , but your experience is based on what HAS happened but what about the future ?
That's what concerns me .
-
Earlier I was looking at previous prime ministers who had private, religious beliefs. None were extreme in any way, no-one seemed to mind - or even care. We're not like America where politicians have to parade their beliefs and make statements about them. I cannot imagine someone who proselytised being elected over here, it's 'unEnglish'. We don't talk about religion and our own money!
Of particular interest to me were Gordon Brown and - one from my childhood, much liked by my parents - Harold Wilson.
So I voted, "No".
-
that's all well and good Gordon , but your experience is based on what HAS happened but what about the future ?
That's what concerns me .
So Gordon 's argument is based on experience, your argument is based on bigotry and for that you want to make all religious people second class citizens, and create apartheid.
-
I went for "For certain roles only and certain beliefs".
I agree with NS that there are wider beliefs that would also be problematic but the fact that some of them would be classified as 'religious' prevents me from choosing the unqualified 'No' answer to the question as stated. Some religious beliefs should preclude holding some public offices.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, you don't want somebody who regards the Apocalypse as a good thing in charge of nuclear weapons and (for another example) you wouldn't want somebody who thinks demon possession is a widespread problem in charge of the mental health budget.
-
I say 'No': I know people with religious beliefs who I would happily entrust with the welfare of my family and I can think of one atheist that, if we still had a dog, I be worried about asking him to take said dog for a walk.
As a category 'has religious beliefs' is too broad, as is 'has no religious beliefs', to be useful in terms of individuals: and when in comes to public office I'd imagine that factors such as proven competence and relevant experience are more important, and that these aspects are likely to figure more with the electorate and in any appointment process.
In addition, in my experience, those capable of public office or senior public service positions are able to balance their personal views with public responsibilities, and if they don't then there are process where concerns can be raised. I've had experience of one senior NHS manager recusing themselves from discussion and decisions on a matter that involved their personal religious beliefs.
The problem with 'broad brushes' is that everything gets covered in paint irrespective of whether or not painting was required.
That's right - it is far more nuanced.
It is more than just about the individual and their belief (whether religious or otherwise) it is critically about how they bring that belief to the table within public office, and also the effect that has on their ability to do their job.
So if someone takes a decision to park their (private) beliefs at the door when performing their public function then that will be much easier to justify than someone who takes an approach whereby they feel they must stamp their belief on the role.
Also the effect on doing the job is important, as gaining the confidence of stakeholders is often critical to doing a public role. So it would be challenging, for example, for a young earth creationist to be an effective minister for science as they would likely have grave difficulty in gaining the confidence of the scientific community.
-
That's right - it is far more nuanced.
It is more than just about the individual and their belief (whether religious or otherwise) it is critically about how they bring that belief to the table within public office, and also the effect that has on their ability to do their job.
So if someone takes a decision to park their (private) beliefs at the door when performing their public function then that will be much easier to justify than someone who takes an approach whereby they feel they must stamp their belief on the role.
Also the effect on doing the job is important, as gaining the confidence of stakeholders is often critical to doing a public role. So it would be challenging, for example, for a young earth creationist to be an effective minister for science as they would likely have grave difficulty in gaining the confidence of the scientific community.
or indeed a Minister for Health who thinks homeopathy has some worth.
-
So Gordon 's argument is based on experience, your argument is based on bigotry and for that you want to make all religious people second class citizens, and create apartheid.
I find that extremely offensive .You have made incorrect assumptions about me and used language of a contemptible nature ,
I want you to withdraw that comment and apologise
-
I went for "For certain roles only and certain beliefs".
I agree with NS that there are wider beliefs that would also be problematic but the fact that some of them would be classified as 'religious' prevents me from choosing the unqualified 'No' answer to the question as stated. Some religious beliefs should preclude holding some public offices.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, you don't want somebody who regards the Apocalypse as a good thing in charge of nuclear weapons and (for another example) you wouldn't want somebody who thinks demon possession is a widespread problem in charge of the mental health budget.
Surely though the point is that it isn't religious beliefs, it is simply what beliefs are acceptable. That one might be branded religious as opposed to not religious is irrelevant. It is the individual and their beliefs that are important not the classification.
-
I find that extremely offensive .You have made incorrect assumptions about me and used language of a contemptible nature ,
I want you to withdraw that comment and apologise
I haven't made any assumption. It is based on your statement that you want to ban religious people from public roles as a class. That's apartheid. You can be offended as you like but it's just what comes of your position.
-
or indeed a Minister for Health who thinks homeopathy has some worth.
Yes - although the approach taken again is important.
So someone who believes in homoeopathy but takes the view that this is a personal belief and parks it at the door when service the public function of health minister may well be fine. That may act in a professional capacity on the basis of accepting that conventional medicine alone should be supported as part of their health brief, even though their private belief is different. Indeed if they treat this as very much a private view then we are likely to be none the wiser as to their views on homeopathy.
-
Surely though the point is that it isn't religious beliefs, it is simply what beliefs are acceptable. That one might be branded religious as opposed to not religious is irrelevant. It is the individual and their beliefs that are important not the classification.
Indeed - but if you answer 'no' to the question 'Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?' - that might well be taken to mean that there are no religious beliefs that are unacceptable in any public office; that if a belief can be called 'religious' it is automatically acceptable.
-
Indeed - but if you answer 'no' to the question 'Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?' - that might well be taken to mean that there are no religious beliefs that are unacceptable in any public office; that if a belief can be called 'religious' it is automatically acceptable.
It's almost impossible to phrase that clearly, and I take your point. I think though that the very classification of religious beliefs as being unaceoryavke rather than beliefs is a mirror of the claim that that should be specially privileged by thinking that they should suffer some special opprobrium.
-
I haven't made any assumption. It is based on your statement that you want to ban religious people from public roles as a class. That's apartheid. You can be offended as you like but it's just what comes of your position.
The thing is, religious people don’t choose to believe. So to exclude them across the board is to exclude them because of who they are.
It’s possible to be religious and also secular when in public office. If someone abuses their position by pushing a particular agenda then that is a misuse of office, but that’s not something confined to the religious.
-
Rational thinking is not really equal to balance and wisdom.
We know that pure rational thinking is too narrow to solve most real life problems. People with religious beliefs (any religion) tend to rely more on their intuition than on pure rationality. This is a good thing for most decision making at higher levels.
I am not talking of religious fanatics of course.
-
Rhiannon:- It’s possible to be religious and also secular when in public office. If someone abuses their position by pushing a particular agenda then that is a misuse of office, but that’s not something confined to the religious.
Agree Rhiannon. On the whole we'd mind our own business about personal beliefs, if someone in public office starting pushing them they'd soon find themselves out of office. Our past PMs, good and bad, who had personal religious faith got on fine because they upheld the law & democracy, as far as it goes, and were not fanatical. They also didn't sit in judgement on anyone with a different lifestyle, their religion was for them.
-
I voted "no".
I would agree that any belief can be problematic if it clashes with the beliefs of the prevailing culture. So for example French laws did not define that having sex with a person below a fixed age would automatically be rape. Now the government has defined that age as 15 but were originally debating an age between 13 and 15. In this country it might be more problematic if someone held public office and believed that consensual sex with a 13 year old was not rape, but in France the government seem to have been able to have that debate.
Which leads me to the question - what happens if the public office requires the holder to push a particular belief on the public? If the government had decided on 13 instead of 15 and the person holding the public office was required to push this belief onto people who thought 13 was too young for consensual sex, what's the difference between that and pushing any other belief while in public office on people who disagreed with that belief?
What's the difference between saying "I think sex with a consenting 13 year old is ok" and "I believe the Bible says child marriages were ok in the time of Isaac and David so it may be ok to have sex with a consenting 13 year old"?
-
Rhiannon:- It’s possible to be religious and also secular when in public office. If someone abuses their position by pushing a particular agenda then that is a misuse of office, but that’s not something confined to the religious.
Agree Rhiannon. On the whole we'd mind our own business about personal beliefs, if someone in public office starting pushing them they'd soon find themselves out of office. Our past PMs, good and bad, who had personal religious faith got on fine because they upheld the law & democracy, as far as it goes, and were not fanatical. They also didn't sit in judgement on anyone with a different lifestyle, their religion was for them.
Your post seems to me to be written understandably in the context that being religious is automatically suspect. Surely it is fundamentalism which is suspect? Nevertheless hopefully atheists will come to an awareness that, "yes, we didn't do our best by the theist by treating them in casual conversation, and our institutions and in our secularism as though they were odd and suspect".
-
It would be useful to know where there are currently any public offices or public sector (state funded) jobs which religious people are banned from holding purely on the basis of them being religious (rather than any beliefs arising thereof). Perhaps there are, but I cannot think of any.
There are, of course, thousands of public sector jobs which atheists are not permitted to hold, purely on the basis of them being atheist.
-
It would be useful to know where there are currently any public offices or public sector (state funded) jobs which religious people are banned from holding purely on the basis of them being religious (rather than any beliefs arising thereof). Perhaps there are, but I cannot think of any.
There are, of course, thousands of public sector jobs which atheists are not permitted to hold, purely on the basis of them being atheist.
Ah yes, good point Prof D - It would be interesting to see if anyone wants to justify that, and of course it's not just atheists that might be excluded.
-
Ah yes, good point Prof D - It would be interesting to see if anyone wants to justify that, and of course it's not just atheists that might be excluded.
Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.
-
Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.
That it could ban people because of their religion as you seem to want to support? I would doubt that. But at least we see that you want to support apartheid in the job market consistently.
-
That it could ban people because of their religion as you seem to want to support? I would doubt that. But at least we see that you want to support apartheid in the job market consistently.
Privilege, apartheid......... where next is nearly sane going to take this Dodgem which has Professor Davey straddling Teddy Boy like.
-
It would be useful to know where there are currently any public offices or public sector (state funded) jobs which religious people are banned from holding purely on the basis of them being religious (rather than any beliefs arising thereof). Perhaps there are, but I cannot think of any.
I don't know of any such jobs.
There are, of course, thousands of public sector jobs which atheists are not permitted to hold, purely on the basis of them being atheist.
I can think of a few Muslims who would want to get in on the public sector jobs when it comes to allowing unstunned halal meat as opposed to pre-stunned halal meat.
Lancashire council last month became the first local authority to ban unstunned halal meat in school dinners. It may be that some Muslims in that local authority will become more politically active as a result and run for council - whether they succeed in getting elected, who knows.
Apparently the industry body Eblex has estimated the value of the halal meat industry to be around £2.6 billion a year. I don't know how much of that is pre-stunned before slaughter. From what I have read beef is not pre-stunned but most chicken and sheep in this country is.
Eblex's latest report into the halal meat market is Britain also suggests that while Muslims in the UK represent just three per cent of the population, they consume around 20 per cent of all the lamb sold as well as a growing percentage of beef, most of which is halal.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/58447/halal-meat-what-does-it-involve-and-is-it-cruel-to-animals
-
No, of course they shouldn't. On the other hand, neither should they guarantee public office, so no Bishops should have guaranteed seats in the Lords, and the C of E and C of S should be disestablished.
-
No, of course they shouldn't. On the other hand, neither should they guarantee public office, so no Bishops should have guaranteed seats in the Lords, and the C of E and C of S should be disestablished.
The C of S isn't established: it is just the C of E that is the problem.
-
I’m spiritual. I propose that I replace a CofE Bishop on the HoL and represent the spiritual.
-
Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.
Hypothetical - as they don't exist.
I am talking about real jobs that actually exist.
There are plenty of those that atheists aren't permitted to hold simply because they are atheist.
-
Hypothetical - as they don't exist.
And why is this?
-
I’m spiritual. I propose that I replace a CofE Bishop on the HoL and represent the spiritual.
And I would support your application.
-
Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.
Even if they were to exist they wouldn't be able to ban religious people in the manner that faith schools can ban atheists from employment, as the specific opt out from the Equality Act 2010 that allows faith schools to do this applies only to schools with a 'religious character' - humanist or atheist schools would not meet that criteria so would not have the same legal status.
-
Even if they were to exist they wouldn't be able to ban religious people in the manner that faith schools can ban atheists from employment, as the specific opt out from the Equality Act 2010 that allows faith schools to do this applies only to schools with a 'religious character' - humanist or atheist schools would not meet that criteria so would not have the same legal status.
That isn't the reason given by humanist UK who have stated that they choose not to thus putting their anti religious impulses above the founding of schools.
-
I’m spiritual. I propose that I replace a CofE Bishop on the HoL and represent the spiritual.
I would vote for you, except you don't get to vote for HoL members.
-
There are plenty of those that atheists aren't permitted to hold simply because they are atheist.
Can you give some examples?
-
Can you give some examples?
Positions in schools with a religious character which have an exemption from the Equality Act 2010 allowing them to restrict employment to individuals with a religious belief, thereby banning atheists. And that exemption applies to all jobs, not just those where you might claim that having a specific religious belief is a genuine occupational requirement (which you could do anyway).
So a catholic school can refuse to consider an application from an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.
-
Positions in schools with a religious character which have an exemption from the Equality Act 2010 allowing them to restrict employment to individuals with a religious belief, thereby banning atheists. And that exemption applies to all jobs, not just those where you might claim that having a specific religious belief is a genuine occupational requirement (which you could do anyway).
So a catholic school can refuse to consider an application from an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.
I thought we were talking about holders of public office. I wouldn't consider teachers to be holders of public office, although I do agree that there is no justification for the discrimination that can occur legally in faith schools.
-
I thought we were talking about holders of public office. I wouldn't consider teachers to be holders of public office, although I do agree that there is no justification for the discrimination that can occur legally in faith schools.
The question though is whether an atheist school or a humanist school could be classed as a faith school.
-
I too wouldn't consider a teacher to be a holder of public office; however, in reality, how many schools do you know of that put the particular ("an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.'), ideal into practise - I know of none. The important thing would be how they do their job and any religio/non-rel would be secondary as long as they keep it private.
-
I too wouldn't consider a teacher to be a holder of public office; however, in reality, how many schools do you know of that put the particular ("an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.'), ideal into practise - I know of none. The important thing would be how they do their job and any religio/non-rel would be secondary as long as they keep it private.
Of course they wouldn't. You don't need to be an atheist to teach maths - or any subject. Neither do you need to be a religious person, unless part of the job is to indoctrinate the children into a religion.
-
The C of S isn't established: it is just the C of E that is the problem.
I stand corrected.
-
I too wouldn't consider a teacher to be a holder of public office; however, in reality, how many schools do you know of that put the particular ("an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.'), ideal into practise - I know of none. The important thing would be how they do their job and any religio/non-rel would be secondary as long as they keep it private.
Not true - many adverts for vacancies in RCC schools indicate specifically that the candidate should be a practising catholic, and while in lower level positions there may be some flexibility it is clear that a candidate who is a practising catholic will be preferred.
For lower level positions there is usually a statement about being a practising catholic or upholding the ethos of the school, which all seems fine and innocuous (because of the 'or'), except this is considered to apply not just during the performance of their duties in the school, but also in their private lives.
So from the Catholic Education Service's own official documentation:
Employment of teachers in Catholic schools
“There are also substantive life choices which are incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church and which may be detrimental or prejudicial to the religious ethos and character of a Catholic school. Some examples of these would be:
• formal apostasy from the Catholic Church ...
• a Catholic contracting a marriage in a non-Catholic church, registry office or any other place without dispensation from canonical form;110 or contracting a marriage where one or both of the parties have been previously married (and whose former spouse is[are] living) without the former marriage(s) being annulled or declared invalid by the Church;
• maintaining a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the Church and which would, at least in the public forum, carry the presumption from their public behaviour of this being a non-chaste relationship; and, where such a presumption in the public forum is not repudiated by the parties within the relationship.”
So in effect even if someone is not a practising catholic, thinks they are OK under 'upholding the ethos of the school' the way that ethos is defined extends to their private life and specifically excludes atheists.
So you can have your contract revoked if you get divorced for example. Or (a real case I know about) have a job offer withdrawn because the applicant was separated from his wife.
-
Not true - many adverts for vacancies in RCC schools indicate specifically that the candidate should be a practising catholic, and while in lower level positions there may be some flexibility it is clear that a candidate who is a practising catholic will be preferred.
For lower level positions there is usually a statement about being a practising catholic or upholding the ethos of the school, which all seems fine and innocuous (because of the 'or'), except this is considered to apply not just during the performance of their duties in the school, but also in their private lives.
So from the Catholic Education Service's own official documentation:
Employment of teachers in Catholic schools
“There are also substantive life choices which are incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church and which may be detrimental or prejudicial to the religious ethos and character of a Catholic school. Some examples of these would be:
• formal apostasy from the Catholic Church ...
• a Catholic contracting a marriage in a non-Catholic church, registry office or any other place without dispensation from canonical form;110 or contracting a marriage where one or both of the parties have been previously married (and whose former spouse is[are] living) without the former marriage(s) being annulled or declared invalid by the Church;
• maintaining a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the Church and which would, at least in the public forum, carry the presumption from their public behaviour of this being a non-chaste relationship; and, where such a presumption in the public forum is not repudiated by the parties within the relationship.”
So in effect even if someone is not a practising catholic, thinks they are OK under 'upholding the ethos of the school' the way that ethos is defined extends to their private life and specifically excludes atheists.
So you can have your contract revoked if you get divorced for example. Or (a real case I know about) have a job offer withdrawn because the applicant was separated from his wife.
But wouldn't humanist and atheist schools (which are allowed) have the same rights to insist on protecting their ethos?
As far as I know there is no barrier to Humanists and atheists founding state funded schools. That they do not seems to me to preserve a ridiculous circularity of not having schools enables them to moan about the religious having schools!
-
But wouldn't humanist and atheist schools (which are allowed) have the same rights to insist on protecting their ethos?
Because they couldn't under the law.
The law only permits exemptions from the Equalities Act 2010 (which is what allows RCC schools to have these 'rights' to discriminate in employment) for schools with a 'religious character'. Humanist or atheist schools would clearly not be considered to be schools with a 'religious character' and would therefore not have these rights to discriminate.
-
Not true - many adverts for vacancies in RCC schools indicate specifically that the candidate should be a practising catholic, and while in lower level positions there may be some flexibility it is clear that a candidate who is a practising catholic will be preferred.
For lower level positions there is usually a statement about being a practising catholic or upholding the ethos of the school, which all seems fine and innocuous (because of the 'or'), except this is considered to apply not just during the performance of their duties in the school, but also in their private lives.
So from the Catholic Education Service's own official documentation:
Employment of teachers in Catholic schools
“There are also substantive life choices which are incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church and which may be detrimental or prejudicial to the religious ethos and character of a Catholic school. Some examples of these would be:
• formal apostasy from the Catholic Church ...
• a Catholic contracting a marriage in a non-Catholic church, registry office or any other place without dispensation from canonical form;110 or contracting a marriage where one or both of the parties have been previously married (and whose former spouse is[are] living) without the former marriage(s) being annulled or declared invalid by the Church;
• maintaining a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the Church and which would, at least in the public forum, carry the presumption from their public behaviour of this being a non-chaste relationship; and, where such a presumption in the public forum is not repudiated by the parties within the relationship.”
So in effect even if someone is not a practising catholic, thinks they are OK under 'upholding the ethos of the school' the way that ethos is defined extends to their private life and specifically excludes atheists.
So you can have your contract revoked if you get divorced for example. Or (a real case I know about) have a job offer withdrawn because the applicant was separated from his wife.
Is this meant to be underlined and not strikethrough?
-
I wasn't thinking of Catholic schools Prof which seem to be a law unto themselves, as do the very Orthodox Jewish schools and the private Islamic ones.
A friend of mine was a head teacher of a state Catholic primary school somewhere outside London; her marriage broke up (husband left for a new model) & I remember her telling me that a divorced teacher would not be employed as a head teacher in another Catholic school which would have applied to her had she wanted to move somewhere else and apply for work at the same grade. Seemed harsh.
A good Catholic comprehensive, not in my area but not that far away & I know a teacher there, plus a very good sixth form college, do not seem to apply such restrictions even if they are in the rules. They also take pupils who aren't Catholic.
-
A friend of mine was a head teacher of a state Catholic primary school somewhere outside London; her marriage broke up (husband left for a new model) & I remember her telling me that a divorced teacher would not be employed as a head teacher in another Catholic school which would have applied to her had she wanted to move somewhere else and apply for work at the same grade. Seemed harsh.
Yes that seem right and is commonplace.
My example involved appointment of a Headteacher to a catholic secondary. A highly experienced person who had been a head teacher at another catholic school was appointed. He was a practising catholic. Between appointment and taking up the post the school became aware that he had recently separated from his wife (they weren't divorced, just separated). The school revoked the appointment.
-
Because they couldn't under the law.
The law only permits exemptions from the Equalities Act 2010 (which is what allows RCC schools to have these 'rights' to discriminate in employment) for schools with a 'religious character'. Humanist or atheist schools would clearly not be considered to be schools with a 'religious character' and would therefore not have these rights to discriminate.
But since Humanist and atheist groups desist from founding schools has this been tested? It seems to me that the reasons Humanists and atheists groups don't found schools and campaign for equal status in terms of ethos is that they would no longer have anything to complain about and they would need to find another weapon with which to introduce and enforce the atheist paradigm.
Also just checked Government guidance on education and the equalities act Humanism apparently comes under the term religion and belief in the definitions section. They have, then surely, the same exemptions.
-
But since Humanist and atheist groups desist from founding schools has this been tested? It seems to me that the reasons Humanists and atheists groups don't found schools and campaign for equal status in terms of ethos is that they would no longer have anything to complain about and they would need to find another weapon with which to introduce and enforce the atheist paradigm.
You are in the Jakswan world of hypotheticals.
Effectively what you are saying is - if humanist or atheist schools existed (hypothetical 1), noting that this may require a change in the law to allow them to be formed (hypothetical 2) or even if allowed in principle to be approved in practice by government (hypothetical 3), that the courts may consider them to be 'schools of a religious character' (hypothetical 4) or the Equality Act 2010 might be amended (hypothetical 5) to allow these schools to discriminate in the manner of faith schools.
Back in the real world there are adverts out there right now for jobs in faith schools which ban atheists from being considered.
-
You are in the Jakswan world of hypotheticals.
Effectively what you are saying is - if humanist or atheist schools existed (hypothetical 1), noting that this may require a change in the law to allow them to be formed (hypothetical 2) or even if allowed in principle to be approved in practice by government (hypothetical 3), that the courts may consider them to be 'schools of a religious character' (hypothetical 4) or the Equality Act 2010 might be amended (hypothetical 5) to allow these schools to discriminate in the manner of faith schools.
Back in the real world there are adverts out there right now for jobs in faith schools which ban atheists from being considered.
That there are no atheist or humanist schools is due to humanists and atheists not exercising their rights NOT because of religious privilege.
That is the reality. I'm almost moved to quit the forum on the grounds of Monstrous humbug on the part of atheists who it seems not only express an OCD over a religion free HOL but gross bullshitting over the question of religious 'privilege' in education......we got there in the end.
Therefore whenever you talk about religious schools can do this and religious schools do that. That too would apply to Humanist and atheist schools which are prevented by humanists who want to carry on complaining about religious privilege.
As it happens non religious character single sex schools have exemptions under the Equality Act 2010!!!
-
Worth noting too that Catholic schools often require all governors to be practising catholics. Again from the Catholic Education Service official documentation indicating suggested words to be included in application forms for governors:
‘I am a practising Catholic in full communion with the See of Rome, and I am not the subject of any canonical censure or penalty; my appointment places a duty upon me to ensure that the religious character of the school is preserved and developed and that the school is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Deed of the Diocese of........................; my appointment requires me to comply with the provisions of Canon Law, the teachings of the Catholic Church and such directives made by the Bishop and his Trustees and their agent in respect of the school or other schools situated in the Diocese’
In many schools this will apply to all 'classes' of Governor, including parent and staff. So in effect if you are a non catholic parent of a child in a catholic school you are banned from becoming a governor - likewise if you a non catholic member of staff you cannot become a staff governor. That is in spite of the fact that both those categories are supposed to be democratically elected by the relevant electorate (all parents and all staff).
-
That there are no atheist or humanist schools is due to humanists and atheists not exercising their rights NOT because of religious privilege.
Can you prove that please - can you provide me with evidence that the setting up of atheist or humanist schools is permitted under the current legislation on setting up of schools in principle, and also that in practice a proposal would be approved by the DfE and/or regional schools commissioner.
-
You are in the Jakswan world of hypotheticals.
Effectively what you are saying is - if humanist or atheist schools existed (hypothetical 1), noting that this may require a change in the law to allow them to be formed (hypothetical 2) or even if allowed in principle to be approved in practice by government (hypothetical 3), that the courts may consider them to be 'schools of a religious character' (hypothetical 4) or the Equality Act 2010 might be amended (hypothetical 5) to allow these schools to discriminate in the manner of faith schools.
Looking at the Government definitions in the equality act 2010
No change in law would be required.
They come under the definitons
Courts would only be involved if the act was challenged
No amendment seems necessary since humanists are included in definitions.
-
Looking at the Government definitions in the equality act 2010
No change in law would be required.
They come under the definitons
Courts would only be involved if the act was challenged
No amendment seems necessary since humanists are included in definitions.
Where is humanism included in the definition of 'school with a religious character' in the Equality Act 2010.
Actually looking at the info on setting up a free school (which is presumably the only way theoretically that a humanist or atheist school could be set up), it is clear that it would be completely impossible to set up a humanist free school that functions in the manner of (for example) a RCC school, in other words being able to discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of religion or belief.
In fact it is de facto impossible full stop as a humanist or atheist free school would be required to hold a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature by law - that is somewhat incompatible with the premise of a humanist or atheist school, don't you think.
-
As it happens non religious character single sex schools have exemptions under the Equality Act 2010!!!
Not in relation to employment they don't. A girl's school cannot discriminate against men when recruiting staff. They cannot advertise for a female Head teacher, or a female Deputy head. They cannot indicate in the job description that being female is an essential or even desirable requirement for the post.
A Catholic school can (and does) advertise for a Head teacher or deputy where being a practicing catholic is an essential requirement in the job description.
-
Can you prove that please - can you provide me with evidence that the setting up of atheist or humanist schools is permitted under the current legislation on setting up of schools in principle, and also that in practice a proposal would be approved by the DfE and/or regional schools commissioner.
My two evidences are:
https://humanism.org.uk/education/education-policy/humanist-schools-why-not/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315587/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf
-
Where is humanism included in the definition of 'school with a religious character' in the Equality Act 2010.
Actually looking at the info on setting up a free school (which is presumably the only way theoretically that a humanist or atheist school could be set up), it is clear that it would be completely impossible to set up a humanist free school that functions in the manner of (for example) a RCC school, in other words being able to discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of religion or belief.
In fact it is de facto impossible full stop as a humanist or atheist free school would be required to hold a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature by law - that is somewhat incompatible with the premise of a humanist or atheist school, don't you think.
That is not the only way and yes it is a way.
The other way would be to set up an independent Humanist and atheist school and then opt into the state system.
That is how church schools started.
According to Government definitions Humanism is a religion or belief.
Would a daily act of broadly Christian worship change the whole character of a humanist or atheist school? No.
The way round it would be to have a reading from the KJV as recommended and supported by Richard Dawkins himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-king-james-bible
-
According to Government definitions Humanism is a religion or belief.
Link please.
But that isn't sufficient - for schools it isn't religion or belief to gain the exemptions under the Equality Act 2010, it is a further sub category, that of a school with a religious character.
The information on setting up free schools, makes it absolutely clear that having a specific ethos isn't enough to gain the exemptions, nor even just being a faith school, so the exemptions are only for schools with a religious character, formally designated as such by government. So the government might well consider humanism to be a belief (so they should as belief included non religious) I cannot see how it could possibly define a humanist school, let alone an atheist school, as a school with a religious character - therefore the exemptions will not apply.
-
Link please.
But that isn't sufficient - for schools it isn't religion or belief to gain the exemptions under the Equality Act 2010, it is a further sub category, that of a school with a religious character.
The information on setting up free schools, makes it absolutely clear that having a specific ethos isn't enough to gain the exemptions, nor even just being a faith school, so the exemptions are only for schools with a religious character. So the government might well consider humanism to be a belief (so they should as belief included non religious) I cannot see how it cold possibly define a humanist school, let alone an atheist school, as a school with a religious character - therefore the exemptions will not apply.
I have provided numerous links.
What is the governments definition of a religion?
-
My two evidences are:
https://humanism.org.uk/education/education-policy/humanist-schools-why-not/
Indeed that is pretty well what I said upthread, about not compounding inequality with further inequality.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315587/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf
Yup read it - hence all the stuff about schools designated by government as having a religious character.
But you might want to read this too:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579906/Info-How_to_apply_to_set_up_a_free_school_guidance.pdf
Particularly the sections at the end which clearly delineate between schools with a specific ethos (humanist may well be OK there), Faith ethos schools and the sub-set of schools specifically designated to have a religious character. Only the last category (which would not include humanist schools) gains all the special privileges, including but not limited to exemptions under the Equality Act, ability to discriminate by faith in admissions etc.
-
Worth noting too that Catholic schools often require all governors to be practising catholics...
I'm a practising Anglican. I hope to get the hang of it one day.
-
What is the governments definition of a religion?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561516/Freedom_of_Religion_or_Belief_Toolkit_-_2016.pdf
Religion:
'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'
Clearly neither humanism nor atheism is a religion under that definition in the government document. They do however fall under the definition of 'belief' - see below:
Belief
'The term “belief” does not necessarily involve a divine being; it denotes a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. So not all beliefs are covered by this protection. For example, if someone believed that the moon was made of cheese, this belief would not be likely to meet the test above. But in general a very wide meaning is given to this term. The following are examples of beliefs considered to fall within the protection of this freedom: druidism, veganism, pacifism, the divine light mission, Krishna Consciousness Movement, humanism, atheism and agnosticism.'
Humanism is a belief, it is not a religion, likewise atheism.
Only schools with a religious character - not a 'belief' character are permitted exemptions under the Equality Act 2010.
-
What is the governments definition of a religion?
Defined also with regard to Charity Law, which again makes the distinction between a religion and a belief:
'When considering whether or not a system of belief constitutes a religion for the purposes of charity law, the courts have identified certain characteristics which describe a religious belief. These characteristics include:
belief in a god (or gods) or goddess (or goddesses), or supreme being, or divine or transcendental being or entity or spiritual principle (‘supreme being or entity’) which is the object or focus of the religion
a relationship between the believer and the supreme being or entity by showing worship of, reverence for or veneration of the supreme being or entity
a degree of cogency, cohesion, seriousness and importance
an identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework'
Humanism and atheism clearly do not meet those criteria - they are not a religion as defined under UK Law.
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561516/Freedom_of_Religion_or_Belief_Toolkit_-_2016.pdf
Religion:
'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'
Clearly neither humanism nor atheism is a religion under that definition in the government document. They do however fall under the definition of 'belief' - see below:
Belief
'The term “belief” does not necessarily involve a divine being; it denotes a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. So not all beliefs are covered by this protection. For example, if someone believed that the moon was made of cheese, this belief would not be likely to meet the test above. But in general a very wide meaning is given to this term. The following are examples of beliefs considered to fall within the protection of this freedom: druidism, veganism, pacifism, the divine light mission, Krishna Consciousness Movement, humanism, atheism and agnosticism.'
Humanism is a belief, it is not a religion, likewise atheism.
Only schools with a religious character - not a 'belief' character are permitted exemptions under the Equality Act 2010.
I could not find a glossary of terms here
and your definition contradicts that which you provide for charity law. There is therefore not the clarity you claim.
Given the free school advisory you mention.
There is it seems opportunity to found atheist and humanist schools under the category Free school with a world view schools which are not religious character schools. The latter seems to allow employment discrimination.
-
I could not find a glossary of terms here
and your definition contradicts that which you provide for charity law. There is therefore not the clarity you claim.
Given the free school advisory you mention.
There is it seems opportunity to found atheist and humanist schools under the categories faith free and faith ethos schools which are not religious character schools. The latter seems to allow employment discrimination.
Nope - you are wrong:
'Unlike schools that are faith designated as having a religious character, faith ethos schools, cannot teach religious education and provide collective worship in line with the tenets of their faith. Faith ethos schools are also not permitted to adopt faith-based admission arrangements. Having a faith ethos does not entitle free schools to any additional freedoms other than in making faith a genuine occupational requirement when hiring a senior leader.'
Note that any employer can make a claim that hiring someone with a particular protected characteristic (e.g. gender, race, religion or belief, etc) is a genuine occupational requirement. Therefore what this statement actually means is that 'faith ethos' free school has no exemptions from the standard Equality Act 2010 provisions, which already permit genuine occupational requirement for everyone.
A catholic schools can (due to its exemption) put out an advert indicating that a NQT maths teacher must be a practising catholic or that preference would be given to a practising catholic. That can only be justified under the exemption as it is clearly not a genuine occupational requirement for the job. A humanist 'faith ethos' free school (if one was even allowed to exist) would break the law if it put out an advert requiring a MQT maths teacher to be a humanist, or even to give preference to a humanist.
-
and your definition contradicts that which you provide for charity law.
No it doesn't. The are worded differently but the overall meaning is very similar between:
'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'
And
'belief in a god (or gods) or goddess (or goddesses), or supreme being, or divine or transcendental being or entity or spiritual principle (‘supreme being or entity’) which is the object or focus of the religion
a relationship between the believer and the supreme being or entity by showing worship of, reverence for or veneration of the supreme being or entity
a degree of cogency, cohesion, seriousness and importance
an identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework'
What is clear from both is that neither humanism nor atheism are religions.
-
Nope - you are wrong:
'Unlike schools that are faith designated as having a religious character, faith ethos schools, cannot teach religious education and provide collective worship in line with the tenets of their faith. Faith ethos schools are also not permitted to adopt faith-based admission arrangements. Having a faith ethos does not entitle free schools to any additional freedoms other than in making faith a genuine occupational requirement when hiring a senior leader.'
Note that any employer can make a claim that hiring someone with a particular protected characteristic (e.g. gender, race, religion or belief, etc) is a genuine occupational requirement. Therefore what this statement actually means is that 'faith ethos' free school has no exemptions from the standard Equality Act 2010 provisions, which already permit genuine occupational requirement for everyone.
A catholic schools can (due to its exemption) put out an advert indicating that a NQT maths teacher must be a practising catholic or that preference would be given to a practising catholic. That can only be justified under the exemption as it is clearly not a genuine occupational requirement for the job. A humanist 'faith ethos' free school (if one was even allowed to exist) would break the law if it put out an advert requiring a MQT maths teacher to be a humanist, or even to give preference to a humanist.
You are allowed to set up a school with a specific worldview and schools that are not designated as religious can include faith ethos which are able to insist that senior leaders adhere to the faith as an occupational requirement.
-
No it doesn't. The are worded differently but the overall meaning is very similar between:
'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'
And
'belief in a god (or gods) or goddess (or goddesses), or supreme being, or divine or transcendental being or entity or spiritual principle (‘supreme being or entity’) which is the object or focus of the religion
a relationship between the believer and the supreme being or entity by showing worship of, reverence for or veneration of the supreme being or entity
a degree of cogency, cohesion, seriousness and importance
an identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework'
What is clear from both is that neither humanism nor atheism are religions.
It is clear from above that one suggests belief in the transcendent is common but not necessary and the other suggests that it is.
-
Many thanks to Prof Davey for his clear outlining of the rights of religions in some cases to discriminate in a large number of public office appointments. Be interested to see if anyone wants to justify this.
-
It is clear from above that one suggests belief in the transcendent is common but not necessary and the other suggests that it is.
Nit picking - humanism couldn't ever be considered to fit with either definition.
-
Many thanks to Prof Davey for his clear outlining of the rights of religions in some cases to discriminate in a large number of public office appointments. Be interested to see if anyone wants to justify this.
what is this number?
-
Nit picking - humanism couldn't ever be considered to fit with either definition.
How does this prevent atheists or humanists from setting up state schools of a '' specific world view''?
-
So perhaps we might want to look at the differences that would exist between a hypothetical humanist school (even if one were permitted to be established by Government) and a current faith school, lets use a catholic one as an example. This is based entirely on current law:
Existing catholic faith school (e.g. an academy)
1. Can discriminate in admissions policies to give preference to catholics or admit only catholics
2. Can advertise all posts with being a practising catholic as an essential job requirement
3. Can require all governors to be practising catholics
4. Can use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse.
5. Can teach an RE curriculum that focussed exclusively on their religious beliefs, in line with the tenets of their faith.
6. Can include daily acts of worship of their faith (if this were a jewish faith school, they could replace basic requirement for christian worship with jewish worship
7. Can have their own separate inspection system established by their church to inspect the ethos and RE/faith aspects of the school, but paid for by the tax payer.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Hypothetical humanist school (e.g. a free school)
1. Cannot discriminate whatsoever in admissions policies to give preference to humanists or admit only humanists (to do so would be breaking the law)
2. Cannot advertise all posts with being a humanist as an essential job requirement (to do so would be breaking the law) - the only exception being senior staff under genuine occupational requirement as applies to all employers - would only be permitted to be worded as adherence to ethos, not being (for example) a member of humanist UK
3. Cannot require parent/staff governors to be humanists
4. Cannot use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse. (to do so would be breaking the law)
5. Cannot create a curriculum in line with the tenets of their belief, e.g. by replacing RE with a humanist curriculum.
6. Must include a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature
7. Cannot have their own separate inspection system established by humanist UK (for example) to inspect the ethos and aspects of the school - inspection entirely by independent Ofsted inspectors.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Perhaps you might begin to understand what we mean by special privileges for religion, Vlad.
-
You're a waste of time Vlad.
ippy
-
How does this prevent atheists or humanists from setting up state schools of a '' specific world view''?
See above - however it is unclear whether the government would ever approve a humanist free school anyway. The desire by Humanist UK to set one up (not that they have that desire) doesn't guarantee that it would be approved. So once again you are comparing hypotheticals with real situations.
And as I have outlined above even if such a hypothetical school were permitted to be established under current law it wouldn't come close to being equivalent to current faith schools in terms of the special privileges those schools have.
-
So perhaps we might want to look at the differences that would exist between a hypothetical humanist school (even if one were permitted to be established by Government) and a current faith school, lets use a catholic one as an example. This is based entirely on current law:
Existing catholic faith school (e.g. an academy)
1. Can discriminate in admissions policies to give preference to catholics or admit only catholics
2. Can advertise all posts with being a practising catholic as an essential job requirement
3. Can require all governors to be practising catholics
4. Can use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse.
5. Can teach an RE curriculum that focussed exclusively on their religious beliefs, in line with the tenets of their faith.
6. Can include daily acts of worship of their faith (if this were a jewish faith school, they could replace basic requirement for christian worship with jewish worship
7. Can have their own separate inspection system established by their church to inspect the ethos and RE/faith aspects of the school, but paid for by the tax payer.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Hypothetical humanist school (e.g. a free school)
1. Cannot discriminate whatsoever in admissions policies to give preference to humanists or admit only humanists (to do so would be breaking the law)
2. Cannot advertise all posts with being a humanist as an essential job requirement (to do so would be breaking the law) - the only exception being senior staff under genuine occupational requirement as applies to all employers - would only be permitted to be worded as adherence to ethos, not being (for example) a member of humanist UK
3. Cannot require parent/staff governors to be humanists
4. Cannot use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse. (to do so would be breaking the law)
5. Cannot create a curriculum in line with the tenets of their belief, e.g. by replacing RE with a humanist curriculum.
6. Must include a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature
7. Cannot have their own separate inspection system established by humanist UK (for example) to inspect the ethos and aspects of the school - inspection entirely by independent Ofsted inspectors.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Perhaps you might begin to understand what we mean by special privileges for religion, Vlad.
Humanist schools are permitted.
-
See above - however it is unclear whether the government would ever approve a humanist free school anyway.
I don't think it is at all unclear given the guidelines you posted.
-
So perhaps we might want to look at the differences that would exist between a hypothetical humanist school (even if one were permitted to be established by Government) and a current faith school, lets use a catholic one as an example. This is based entirely on current law:
Existing catholic faith school (e.g. an academy)
1. Can discriminate in admissions policies to give preference to catholics or admit only catholics
2. Can advertise all posts with being a practising catholic as an essential job requirement
3. Can require all governors to be practising catholics
4. Can use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse.
5. Can teach an RE curriculum that focussed exclusively on their religious beliefs, in line with the tenets of their faith.
6. Can include daily acts of worship of their faith (if this were a jewish faith school, they could replace basic requirement for christian worship with jewish worship
7. Can have their own separate inspection system established by their church to inspect the ethos and RE/faith aspects of the school, but paid for by the tax payer.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Hypothetical humanist school (e.g. a free school)
1. Cannot discriminate whatsoever in admissions policies to give preference to humanists or admit only humanists (to do so would be breaking the law)
2. Cannot advertise all posts with being a humanist as an essential job requirement (to do so would be breaking the law) - the only exception being senior staff under genuine occupational requirement as applies to all employers - would only be permitted to be worded as adherence to ethos, not being (for example) a member of humanist UK
3. Cannot require parent/staff governors to be humanists
4. Cannot use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse. (to do so would be breaking the law)
5. Cannot create a curriculum in line with the tenets of their belief, e.g. by replacing RE with a humanist curriculum.
6. Must include a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature
7. Cannot have their own separate inspection system established by humanist UK (for example) to inspect the ethos and aspects of the school - inspection entirely by independent Ofsted inspectors.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Perhaps you might begin to understand what we mean by special privileges for religion, Vlad.
Why would any school wish to replace objective teaching of RE especially Humanist UK and NSS who have apparently
campaigned on this very ticket.
What is a humanist curriculum?
-
Humanist schools are permitted.
Are they Vlad - the way you would prove that it to point to an existing humanist school. But you can't, because there aren't any.
As far as I am aware the only free schools that have been allowed to be created with a distinct ethos are where that ethos is either religious or specific educational philosophies (e.g. Steiner, Montessori).
-
Why would any school wish to replace objective teaching of RE especially Humanist UK and NSS who have apparently
campaigned on this very ticket.
Why would any schools want to replace objective teaching of RE involving not partisan comparisons between major religions with this:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf
But nearly 2000 state funded schools in England and Wales do.
-
Why would any school wish to replace objective teaching of RE especially Humanist UK and NSS who have apparently
campaigned on this very ticket.
I am not saying they would want to - what I am saying is that they are not allowed to even if they wanted to.
By contrast faith schools can develop their own RE curriculum that can be as biased as they like and focus pretty well entirely on just their faith. And they have the right to refuse to have this aspect of the school inspected by the normal Ofsted inspectors, but to appoint their own inspectors. Talk about conflict of interest.
-
Are they Vlad - the way you would prove that it to point to an existing humanist school. But you can't, because there aren't any.
As far as I am aware the only free schools that have been allowed to be created with a distinct ethos are where that ethos is either religious or specific educational philosophies (e.g. Steiner, Montessori).
Yes there aren't any because the Humanist refuse to set up schools...in order to complain they can't set up schools ?
Secondly You have been selective in your drawing from the government guidelines. Let me supply a fuller version of your second paragraph.
''Faith free schools, free schools with a distinctive educational philosophy or world view (including Steiner, Montessori and Maharishi) and integrated free schools If you are proposing to set up a faith free school (either a school with a faith ethos or a school designated as having a religious character12), or a free school with a distinctive educational philosophy or world view, you should note that: • All free schools are expected to be inclusive, including those with a designated faith or faith ethos. The requirement is tested rigorously at every stage of assessment and ‘pre-opening’ as well as after schools open;''
source:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579906/Info-How_to_apply_to_set_up_a_free_school_guidance.pdf
-
Yes there aren't any because the Humanist refuse to set up schools...in order to complain they can't set up schools ?
So can you provide an examples of any other free schools set up with a distinctive world view that isn't a distinctive educational philosophy or religious faith. Just because HumanistsUK don't want to establish schools surely other non religious, not educational philosophy distinctive world view people might.
-
Why would any schools want to replace objective teaching of RE involving not partisan comparisons between major religions with this:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf
But nearly 2000 state funded schools in England and Wales do.
Well then we agree on the objective teaching of RE then unless the Humanist approach is for the teacher to shout ''There is no god' every thirty seconds.
-
So can you provide an examples of any other free schools set up with a distinctive world view that isn't a distinctive educational philosophy or religious faith. Just because HumanistsUK don't want to establish schools surely other non religious, not educational philosophy distinctive world view people might.
The provision is there for distinctive world views or maybe even world views. It's in the guidelines.
Why did you not mention world views in your post?
-
The provision is there for distinctive world views or maybe even world views. It's in the guidelines.
Why did you not mention world views in your post?
But the world views they give as examples are in fact educational philosophies (Steiner, Montessori and Maharishi).
Actually more recent guidance further de-emphasises world view. This from the New Schools Network (the organisation set up to support government in the establishment of free schools) from Nov 2017. Section heading:
'Applicants proposing a school with a religious character or religious ethos or a distinctive educational philosophy'
As far as I can see world view is considered to be synonymous with educational philosophy.
Can you provide an example of a free school set up with a distinctive world view that isn't either a religious character or ethos or a distinctive educational philosophy.
-
But the world views they give as examples are in fact educational philosophies (Steiner, Montessori and Maharishi).
No, they acknowledge educational philosophies and outline them. And they mention schools of a distinctive world view.
It's there in blue and black.
-
No, they acknowledge educational philosophies and outline them. And they mention schools of a distinctive world view.
It's there in blue and black.
So come on then please provide me with some examples of free schools that the government has permitted to be set up which have a distinct ethos based on a worldview that isn't either a religion or a educational philosophy.
They may exist - I'm not aware of any.
-
So come on then please provide me with some examples of free schools that the government has permitted to be set up which have a distinct ethos based on a worldview that isn't either a religion or a educational philosophy.
Irrelevent to whether they are legal.
-
Irrelevent to whether they are legal.
Not at all - given that they are only legal if the government approves them. You have failed to provide any evidence that the government is actually prepared to approve free schools that have a distinct ethos based on a worldview that isn't either a religion or a educational philosophy.
-
Not at all - given that they are only legal if the government approves them. You have failed to provide any evidence that the government is actually prepared to approve free schools that have a distinct ethos based on a worldview that isn't either a religion or a educational philosophy.
You provided the evidence by providing the guidlines where it mentions schools of a distinctive world view.
Charities can also found free schools.
Have applications for schools with a distinctive world view or world view been turned down on those grounds?
-
You provided the evidence by providing the guidlines where it mentions schools of a distinctive world view.
Charities can also found free schools.
Have applications for schools with a distinctive world view or world view been turned down on those grounds?
I have no idea - I'm not the one making the claim that these schools exist or can exist.
The onus is on you to demonstrate their existence.
All we can say otherwise is that the guidance theoretically allows applications to be made for such schools - we have no evidence that any such schools have actually been approved. We do have evidence that religious faith free schools have been approved and that free schools with a distinctive educational philosophy have been approved.
-
I have no idea - I'm not the one making the claim that these schools exist or can exist.
The onus is on you to demonstrate their existence.
All we can say otherwise is that the guidance theoretically allows applications to be made for such schools - we have no evidence that any such schools have actually been approved. We do have evidence that religious faith free schools have been approved and that free schools with a distinctive educational philosophy have been approved.
So what is your position. There are no humanist schools because they are not allowed or because they have not exercised their rights to. I say the latter and have provided the link to my evidence.
We also have a Government document which you suggested which gives guidance to those applying to start Free schools. There is advice to groups hoping to start schools of a distinctive world view or world view.
I will leave it to readers to decided whether the Government are holding back humanist schools or indeed schools of a distinctive world view or world view. but IMV there seems to be no reason why they cannot be other than the will to set them up.
I shall be looking out with interest at the question but in my own time. You are welcome to wait. fingers crossed for any info but I am not working to a timescale.
-
Have applications for schools with a distinctive world view or world view been turned down on those grounds?
Actually if you go here (I know it is the Humanist UK site)
https://humanism.org.uk/2015/02/13/first-time-government-provides-bha-names-free-school-applicants-prior-deciding-open/
And click on the first link you can download a spreadsheet of free school applications to that date.
As far as I can see there are virtually no applications with a 'religion or belief' (column D) that are neither religious or educational philosophy. The only ones I can see are applications from Sri Aurobindo And The Mother's Children in waves 7 and 9 (described as spiritual world view in wave 9). From what I can see all were rejected.
By contrast there are loads of applications from religious or educational philosophy, many of which have been approved.
-
Actually if you go here (I know it is the Humanist UK site)
https://humanism.org.uk/2015/02/13/first-time-government-provides-bha-names-free-school-applicants-prior-deciding-open/
And click on the first link you can download a spreadsheet of free school applications to that date.
As far as I can see there are virtually no applications with a 'religion or belief' (column D) that are neither religious or educational philosophy. The only ones I can see are applications from Sri Aurobindo And The Mother's Children in waves 7 and 9 (described as spiritual world view in wave 9). From what I can see all were rejected.
By contrast there are loads of applications from religious or educational philosophy, many of which have been approved.
What ground were they turned down on?
Why is looking at a list of applications to 2013 of any use. Surely 2018?
Freeschools are turned down all the time I would imagine I was just reading about a faith school that was turned down. The humanist UK or NSS have not put forward any application I take it?
-
So what is your position. There are no humanist schools because they are not allowed or because they have not exercised their rights to. I say the latter and have provided the link to my evidence.
They are only allowed if the government approves them. Therefore the way to provide this beyond doubt is to find a 'world view' school application that has been approved.
As far as I am aware there are none. That may be because there have been very few applications (we know there have been some), and that those applications were weak. However we still have no evidence that the government has ever approved a school in the free school programme with a distinctive ethos that isn't either religious of educational philosophy.
-
What ground were they turned down on?
Why is looking at a list of applications to 2013 of any use. Surely 2018?
Freeschools are turned down all the time I would imagine I was just reading about a faith school that was turned down. The humanist UK or NSS have not put forward any application I take it?
The full details are available here
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/free-school-applications
As far as I can see there have been a tiny number of applications from schools with a designated ethos that isn't religious or educational philosophy but all have been rejected.
We already know that neither the NSS or Humanist UK have applied as it doesn't align with their vision education.
However, do remember that the free school programme is supposed to encourage applications from all sorts of people, groups etc (partly via the New Schools Network). There is very little evidence that the government are actively encouraging schools with designated ethos that isn't religious or educational philosophy. They are very clearly encouraging applications with a religious ethos and seem very supportive of applications with a distinct educational philosophy.
-
They are only allowed if the government approves them. Therefore the way to provide this beyond doubt is to find a 'world view' school application that has been approved.
As far as I am aware there are none. That may be because there have been very few applications (we know there have been some), and that those applications were weak. However we still have no evidence that the government has ever approved a school in the free school programme with a distinctive ethos that isn't either religious of educational philosophy.
What document forbids schools of a distinctive world view from applying for free school status?
If there are none we needn't immediately imply that the government forbids them. That would be contrary to their guidelines.
Secondly it is a mistake to claim that the government forbids such schools because applications are turned down since the world view is presumably not the only consideration.
And it remains that Humanist UK deliberately refrain from exercising any rights whatsoever.
-
What document forbids schools of a distinctive world view from applying for free school status?
Where did I ever say it did - stop misrepresenting me.
What I have said is that a right to apply (anyone can apply - you or I could) doesn't indicate that the government will approve that school. And the only way we can be sure that those schools are legal is when (or if) we have evidence that an application has been made and has been approved.
Currently that isn't the case. There is currently no example of an application for a free school with a designated ethos that isn't religious or educational philosophy that has been successful. There are a small number that have been unsuccessful.
In all other categories (schools without a designated ethos, and those with a designated ethos that is religious or educational philosophy) there are examples of successful applications.
-
And it remains that Humanist UK deliberately refrain from exercising any rights whatsoever.
What a stupid statement.
Humanist UK do not approve of state schools with a specific belief ethos, whether religious or non religious. So of course they aren't going to apply to run a humanist free school. To imply this to be somehow a failure on their part is bonkers - it would be like having a go at a comprehensive school that doesn't agree with selection for not applying to run a grammar school.
-
Let's return to the main argument - rather than to divert further into whether humanist schools could hypothetically be approved.
Let's return to our check list of special privileges for a hypothetically approved humanist free school and an existing faith school:
Existing catholic faith school (e.g. an academy)
1. Can discriminate in admissions policies to give preference to catholics or admit only catholics
2. Can advertise all posts with being a practising catholic as an essential job requirement
3. Can require all governors to be practising catholics
4. Can use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse.
5. Can teach an RE curriculum that focussed exclusively on their religious beliefs, in line with the tenets of their faith.
6. Can include daily acts of worship of their faith (if this were a jewish faith school, they could replace basic requirement for christian worship with jewish worship
7. Can have their own separate inspection system established by their church to inspect the ethos and RE/faith aspects of the school, but paid for by the tax payer.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Hypothetical humanist school (e.g. a free school)
1. Cannot discriminate whatsoever in admissions policies to give preference to humanists or admit only humanists (to do so would be breaking the law)
2. Cannot advertise all posts with being a humanist as an essential job requirement (to do so would be breaking the law) - the only exception being senior staff under genuine occupational requirement as applies to all employers - would only be permitted to be worded as adherence to ethos, not being (for example) a member of humanist UK
3. Cannot require parent/staff governors to be humanists
4. Cannot use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse. (to do so would be breaking the law)
5. Cannot create a curriculum in line with the tenets of their belief, e.g. by replacing RE with a humanist curriculum.
6. Must include a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature
7. Cannot have their own separate inspection system established by humanist UK (for example) to inspect the ethos aspects of the school - inspection entirely by independent Ofsted inspectors.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.
Surely Vlad, even you can see that there is no comparison in the special privileges bestowed on each - with the existing faith school being given massively greater special privileges across the board.
So what we can say is that firstly humanist schools do not exist and secondly were they to exist under the law as it stands now they wouldn't come close to having the same discriminatory special privileges that many thousand current faith schools have.
-
What a stupid statement.
Humanist UK do not approve of state schools with a specific belief ethos, whether religious or non religious. So of course they aren't going to apply to run a humanist free school. To imply this to be somehow a failure on their part is bonkers - it would be like having a go at a comprehensive school that doesn't agree with selection for not applying to run a grammar school.
Then they cannot complain about privilege in terms of foundation unless they know something we don't.
Secondly since founding schools has knacker all it seems to do with Humanism then we are entitled to ask whether the non foundation of schools is strategic or tactical.
All in all that takes us back to vehement complaint at religion on the grounds of segregation but a different tune or no tune when it comes to segregation mediated through other ways.
Finally, so school founding is not in the DNA of secular Humanism then. If everyone is to become secular humanist, who founds the schools?
-
Then they cannot complain about privilege in terms of foundation unless they know something we don't.
What on earth are you on about - as I have ably demonstrated even if HumanistsUK applied and were permitted to set up a humanist free school it would have virtually none of the special privileges enjoyed by current faith schools - so the issue of special privilege is just as valid. But also HumanistsUk take a principled view that they choose not to apply to run such schools as it runs counter to their own principles that education should be provided in an inclusive manner free from 'isms' of all kinds.
Secondly since founding schools has knacker all it seems to do with Humanism then we are entitled to ask whether the non foundation of schools is strategic or tactical.
Is that actually supposed to mean something or is it just gobbledygook.
All in all that takes us back to vehement complaint at religion on the grounds of segregation but a different tune or no tune when it comes to segregation mediated through other ways.
Such as - remember we are talking about protected characteristics here Vlad.
Finally, so school founding is not in the DNA of secular Humanism then. If everyone is to become secular humanist, who founds the schools?
Once again is that actually supposed to mean something or is it just gobbledygook.
-
What on earth are you on about - as I have ably demonstrated even if HumanistsUK applied and were permitted to set up a humanist free school it would have virtually none of the special privileges enjoyed by current faith schools
If it were me. I would give those privileges.
Now, we can never tell, but if I was a humanist that would be a terrible thing to be offered, primarily because it scuppers the best card I have in my pack to eliminate religion in the battle of souls I am waging with it.
I must ask you. Why would the state not want humanists to start up schools? Why would they not want to grant humanist schools equal status with faith schools?
-
If it were me. I would give those privileges.
Now, we can never tell, but if I was a humanist that would be a terrible thing to be offered, primarily because it scuppers the best card I have in my pack to eliminate religion in the battle of souls I am waging with it.
So, by inference, your approach to racism wouldn't be to legislate to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, but to let black people discriminate against white people, and white people discriminate against black people. Race to the bottom.
I must ask you. Why would the state not want humanists to start up schools?
We aren't talking about humanists starting up a school we are talking about a school with a specific humanist ethos. And, I've no idea - maybe they would, but to date they haven't. I would suspect however that the powerful establishment churches would have something to say.
Why would they not want to grant humanist schools equal status with faith schools?
Because they have legislated to make it impossible - the only way you can get the same privileges as (say) a VA faith school is to be designated by government as a school with a religious character. That is clearly impossible for a humanist school.
-
Your religious beliefs should not prevent you holding public office, unless you use that office as a means of proselytising.
-
So, by inference, your approach to racism wouldn't be to legislate to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, but to let black people discriminate against white people, and white people discriminate against black people. Race to the bottom.
Infer what you like but that wouldn't be my approach to racism and a reading of your recent posts would point to you flagging up the differences between a church school and a humanist school which you argue wouldn't be allowed.
What I am trying to point out is that an antihumanist conspiracy which is kind of what you are suggesting would surely give you the same rights as religion and then let you retreat in order to save your main weapon.
The point being that there is no such antihumanist conspiracy. An application to found a humanist school then would probably go through or at least not fail on those grounds.
-
Infer what you like but that wouldn't be my approach to racism
Glad to hear it.
Which begs the question as to why your approach to dealing with a situation where religious schools can discriminate against non religious people is to allow non religious people to discriminate against religious people by setting up a new set of discriminatory schools.
and a reading of your recent posts would point to you flagging up the differences between a church school and a humanist school which you argue wouldn't be allowed.
I am simply stating fact that the law does not permit the kind of special privileges to discriminate, that many faith schools currently have to be extended to a hypothetical humanist school as that school could not be officially designated as a school with a religious character.
What I am trying to point out is that an antihumanist conspiracy which is kind of what you are suggesting would surely give you the same rights as religion and then let you retreat in order to save your main weapon.
I am in favour of religious people and non religious people having the same rights - that is why I am in favour of a secular state as that is the only way in which it can be achieved.
An application to found a humanist school then would probably go through or at least not fail on those grounds.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't - that is pure speculation as it has never been tested. What we do know, for sure, is that the law would not allow that hypothetical humanist school to have the same scope to discriminate (e.g. exemption from Equality Act 2010) that only schools officially designated to have a religious character currently have as, by definition a humanist school cannot be a school designated to have a religious character.
-
Glad to hear it.
Which begs the question as to why your approach to dealing with a situation where religious schools can discriminate against non religious people is to allow non religious people to discriminate against religious people by setting up a new set of discriminatory schools.
I am simply stating fact that the law does not permit the kind of special privileges to discriminate, that many faith schools currently have to be extended to a hypothetical humanist school as that school could not be officially designated as a school with a religious character.
I am in favour of religious people and non religious people having the same rights - that is why I am in favour of a secular state as that is the only way in which it can be achieved.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't - that is pure speculation as it has never been tested. What we do know, for sure, is that the law would not allow that hypothetical humanist school to have the same scope to discriminate (e.g. exemption from Equality Act 2010) that only schools officially designated to have a religious character currently have as, by definition a humanist school cannot be a school designated to have a religious character.
But that doesn't answer any questions as to why, if that is the case humanists are not given the same rights should they apply to open a school if that is in fact the case? In other words what ''better counsels'' are operating here? Why are minorities being given protections?
-
But that doesn't answer any questions as to why, if that is the case humanists are not given the same rights should they apply to open a school if that is in fact the case? In other words what ''better counsels'' are operating here? Why are minorities being given protections?
Again - in English please.
-
Again - in English please.
It can't be you've not come up against Vladobable before Proff?
Regards ippy
-
Again - in English please.
Alright. Why do you think these employment privileges and admission privileges NOT foundation since there is apparently no privilege there, why do you think those privileges exist?
My own theory is this.
Church schools were an independent foundation.
They were bought into the state and the deal was religious character ethos and employment rights remains but funding comes from public money. A state funded catholic school previously independent near me closed. Then reopened as a private catholic school which then was sold to a secular company. who then moved out after which it temporarily rehoused a state school temporarily during an emergency rebuild. All the time the buildings and infra structure was actually and had been owned by an order of Nuns.
You see it was all deals and in the case of the displaced state school I don't believe any money changed other than insurances etc.
Freeschools are funded and have terms and conditions according to where they were school characterwise had they been traditional foundations.
-
Following on from discussions elsewhere, I thought a poll might be in order. Since it might be difficult to be precise people have 2 votes but you don't have to use them. I would be interested if people expand on their reasoning. My basic answer is no, and while I believe certain beliefs are an issue, the fact that they might be religious does not seem relevant in itself. Hence as I covered elsewhere a primary school teacher who argues for sex with 5 year olds should be stopped from being a primary school teacher regardless of whether the views are based on a religion.
WHERE would you find a teacher still a teacher of primary school children who held such a belief?
Only a bloody idiot would argue for such an abominbal thing. Guess he would find himself friendless, homeless, jobless and hiding from every mother and Father in the world. I really do not think this was well thought out.. Angus bored now!