Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: ippy on March 14, 2018, 03:06:45 PM
-
I'm for anything that diminishes the ability of the religious teaching their stuff to the very youngest of our school children, this Swedish idea could be a start and it gives a boost to the secularist argument here in the U K.
https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-social-democrats-propose-ban-on-religious-independent-schools
Try this link.
Regards ippy
-
Seems an odd system where so-called Independent schools are publicly funded but run independently :o.
Independent schools here are not publicly funded, they are paid for out of school fees; the government used to fund a certain amount of assisted places but stopped a while back (there may be a very few government scholarships for able pupils, I believe I read something about that, in certain schools. Not a common happening).
-
Independent schools here are not publicly funded
Apart from the fact that they attract tax relief something like charities (assuming by "here" you mean the UK).
I'm not necessarily suggesting they shouldn't get such tax relief - every child that attends a private school is one that the state doesn't have to pay for.
-
Yes they do get tax relief because of charity status but what I meant was the state does not fund the schools.
Seems to be quite different in Sweden where the state does fund Independent schools but they run themselves free of state interference. An unusual system.
I wonder how the so-called Independent schools in Sweden would fare if state funds were withdrawn. It would be 'sink or swim' but in the UK many flourished as fee paying schools after grammar schools were abolished in a lot of
areas.
The thing about faith schools is, do they teach children what they need to get on the world.
When reading about Sweden I was surprised that there were Plymouth Brethren schools (or Exclusive Brethren); I've not come across one before so I googled and we have quite a few in the UK & in Ireland. They have an extremely narrow curriculum. Here's an article by a teacher who used to be on the staff at one of those schools over here:
https://faithschoolersanonymous.uk/2016/06/exclusive-brethren/
The extremely Orthodox Jewish groups such as Haradi have private schools and their curriculum is even more narrow, they learn enough only to work within their own community (in contrast modern Jewish schools are very good indeed).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42580792
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ultra-orthodox-jewish-group-creationism-teacher-school-funding-boycott-hackney-london-a8216686.html
Islamic schools have a high standard of education particularly in science & technology but do not teach all the subjects that are on offer in other schools, eg Drama, Music, Art (except for Design).
As Sweden's faith schools are state funded, the state has the right to look into all of that & correct it.
-
Surely the state has a duty to ensure children's rights in education even if they aren't funding it?
-
Surely the state has a duty to ensure children's rights in education even if they aren't funding it?
Yes they do but it's a start, nothing is going to happen overnight.
-
Yes they do but it's a start, nothing is going to happen overnight.
Sorry, just not getting your point here.
You stated
'As Sweden's faith schools are state funded, the state has the right to look into all of that & correct it.'
Are you now saying that the state funding has nothing to do with what the state has a right to look at but for some children it might be a bit busy to ensure their rights are catered for?
-
You cannot campaign against faith schools on the grounds of segregation and support private schools without a hintette of humbug.
-
Seems an odd system where so-called Independent schools are publicly funded but run independently :o.
Independent schools here are not publicly funded, they are paid for out of school fees; the government used to fund a certain amount of assisted places but stopped a while back (there may be a very few government scholarships for able pupils, I believe I read something about that, in certain schools. Not a common happening).
They sound rather similar to our faith schools - funded publicly but run by a religious foundation. While ours are not called independent, it seems strange to describe these Swedish schools as independent as they are publicly funded and must follow government guidelines on the curriculum, but operate independently.
And that being the case - good on Sweden for looking to tackle this problem - for all sorts of reasons, both on the basis of principle and on pragmatic and fairness grounds, I don't think there should be state funding for religious schools.
-
They sound rather similar to our faith schools - funded publicly but run by a religious foundation. While ours are not called independent, it seems strange to describe these Swedish schools as independent as they are publicly funded and must follow government guidelines on the curriculum, but operate independently.
And that being the case - good on Sweden for looking to tackle this problem - for all sorts of reasons, both on the basis of principle and on pragmatic and fairness grounds, I don't think there should be state funding for religious schools.
The state wouldn't have had much of its educational infrastructure had it not been for religion.
Any holder of a world view such as humanism has the right to apply to run a school.
Also I believe UK secularists take a consumerist view of funding, that it is only money which educates.
-
The humanist approach is that they want the state to fund Humanist schools. What is different between the state funding all schools so they are acceptable to Humanists and some schools so they are acceptable to religionists?
-
The humanist approach is that they want the state to fund Humanist schools.
No they don't - or at least the main humanist society in the UK doesn't. HumanistsUK are very clear they do not want the state to fund humanist schools, and indeed the presence of state funded humanist schools is just as much against their principles as state funded CofE schools (as an example).
So stop lying Vlad.
-
Also I believe UK secularists take a consumerist view of funding, that it is only money which educates.
And on what basis do you make that sweeping and absurdly generalising assertion?
-
Also I believe UK secularists take a consumerist view of funding, that it is only money which educates.
Yes dear, of course we do ::)
Or more seriously I don't. So you are wrong.
-
Yes dear, of course we do ::)
Or more seriously I don't. So you are wrong.
Nor do I.
-
No they don't - or at least the main humanist society in the UK doesn't. HumanistsUK are very clear they do not want the state to fund humanist schools, and indeed the presence of state funded humanist schools is just as much against their principles as state funded CofE schools (as an example).
So stop lying Vlad.
Of course they do. It is Humanist UK aim that religion is excised from schools to make them acceptable to Humanist UK rather than setting up schools under their own aegis or even campaigning for them.
Now I don't run around with my wrists flailing over privilege but I am sure that the closeness of the Humanist UK to convert all schools in the UK to humanist approved schools involving the elimination of religion must represent some kind of position over the religious and victory would certainly represent the triumph of humanism as a world view in education while expecting religious taxpayers to pay for humanist privilege.
-
And yet you are quite happy to accept my humanist tax to pay for religious privilege.
Methinks the poster doth protest too much.
-
And yet you are quite happy to accept my humanist tax to pay for religious privilege.
No....it's clearly not enough.
-
Of course they do. It is Humanist UK aim that religion is excised from schools to make them acceptable to Humanist UK rather than setting up schools under their own aegis or even campaigning for them.
Now I don't run around with my wrists flailing over privilege but I am sure that the closeness of the Humanist UK to convert all schools in the UK to humanist approved schools involving the elimination of religion must represent some kind of position over the religious and victory would certainly represent the triumph of humanism as a world view in education while expecting religious taxpayers to pay for humanist privilege.
Rubbish - from their own site, in response to a question as to why their aren't humanist schools and why HumanistsUk don't set them up:
'Because Humanists UK campaigns positively for integrated inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none. It would be no less ethically unsound and socially divisive to set up overtly humanist schools in a pluralistic society than it is to set up religious schools.'
They do not want state funded humanist schools - they want integrated and inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none.
-
No....it's clearly not enough.
What the religious privilege or my tax? ;)
-
Rubbish - from their own site, in response to a question as to why their aren't humanist schools and why HumanistsUk don't set them up:
'Because Humanists UK campaigns positively for integrated inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none. It would be no less ethically unsound and socially divisive to set up overtly humanist schools in a pluralistic society than it is to set up religious schools.'
They do not want state funded humanist schools - they want integrated and inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none.
It would still unavoidably be a triumph for the humanist world view...and as I keep telling you modern secularism is a council of atheists deciding what the religious are allowed.
IMHO.
-
They do not want state funded humanist schools - they want integrated and inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none.
That may be their intention, but unfortunately since their philosophy is based on logical contradictions, it is doomed to failure.
You only have to look at the implementation of tolerance. Yeah, tolerance is good ... until something disagrees with its tenets, and then the result is intolerance towards anything that doesn't comply.
-
That may be their intention, but unfortunately since their philosophy is based on logical contradictions, it is doomed to failure.
You only have to look at the implementation of tolerance. Yeah, tolerance is good ... until something disagrees with its tenets, and then the result is intolerance towards anything that doesn't comply.
nice of you to support IS killing gay people.
-
SotS,
I assume that this'll be another of your smash and grab raids, but cock-eyed optimist that I am...
That may be their intention, but unfortunately since their philosophy is based on logical contradictions, it is doomed to failure.
What do you think "their philosophy" is and what logical contradictions do you think it's based on?
You only have to look at the implementation of tolerance. Yeah, tolerance is good ... until something disagrees with its tenets, and then the result is intolerance towards anything that doesn't comply.
You seem confused. "Tolerance" doesn't imply tolerance of everything. You know that right?
-
Their philosophy is within what they publish. You do know that mission statements are often idealised shite designed to soothe the gullible don't you.
Leaving aside the paranoid fantasy stuff, is anyone going to have a go at telling us what these supposed "logical contradictions" might be?
-
SotS,
I assume that this'll be another of your smash and grab raids, but cock-eyed optimist that I am...
What do you think "their philosophy" is and what logical contradictions do you think it's based on?
Since this is about education their philosophy is about the elimination of religion from schools and if RE is to survive it must be objectively taught, Presumably this is somehow different from the objectivity which already exists. Once religion is eliminated schools will be acceptable to humanists...PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE RELIGION HAS GONE and there is a new paradigm in objectivity....presumably acceptible to humanists.
Of course the contradiction here is the whole thing is an exercise in replacing one world view with another while using words like inclusion.
What the end game of secularism is, is wrapped up in the atheist movements I am looking forward to their adjudication.
-
Since this is about education their philosophy is about the elimination of religion from schools and if RE is to survive it must be objectively taught, Presumably this is somehow different from the objectivity which already exists. Once religion is eliminated schools will be acceptable to humanists...PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE RELIGION HAS GONE and there is a new paradigm in objectivity....presumably acceptible to humanists.
Of course the contradiction here is the whole thing is an exercise in replacing one world view with another while using words like inclusion.
What the end game of secularism is, is wrapped up in the atheist movements I am looking forward to their adjudication.
So that's a "no" then.
It's also utter bollocks - since when did humanism entail "the elimination of religion from schools"?
-
Any complaint at religious segregation is at least meaningless if Humanist UK has no policy toward any other form of segregation in education and at worst special pleading.
-
Any complaint at religious segregation is at least meaningless if Humanist UK has no policy toward any other form of segregation in education and at worst special pleading.
So still no "logical contradictions" then.
-
SotS,
I assume that this'll be another of your smash and grab raids, but cock-eyed optimist that I am...
What do you think "their philosophy" is and what logical contradictions do you think it's based on?
Of course the contradiction here is the whole thing is an exercise in replacing one world view with another while using words like inclusion.
What he said bluehillside.
-
SotS,
What he said bluehillside.
And the logical contradictions would be what then to your mind?
At best there's a charge of hypocrisy (albeit a false one by the way) but where are the logical contradictions you claimed?
-
Any complaint at religious segregation is at least meaningless if Humanist UK has no policy toward any other form of segregation in education and at worst special pleading.
You don't appear to understand the concept of special pleading and manage to use the tu quoque fallacy.
-
SotS,
And the logical contradictions would be what then to your mind?
At best there's a charge of hypocrisy (albeit a false one by the way) but where are the logical contradictions you claimed?
Waiving your rights to found state supported schools in order/and then to continue to complain at the privilege others have of having founded state supported schools is a circular argument isn't it?
-
Waiving your rights to found state supported schools in order/and then to continue to complain at the privilege others have of having founded state supported schools is a circular argument isn't it?
No.
-
No.
So it's reasonable is it?
-
Vlad,
Waiving your rights to found state supported schools in order/and then to continue to complain at the privilege others have of having founded state supported schools is a circular argument isn't it?
No, not even close. Try looking up "circular reasoning" to see why.
-
That may be their intention, but unfortunately since their philosophy is based on logical contradictions, it is doomed to failure.
You only have to look at the implementation of tolerance. Yeah, tolerance is good ... until something disagrees with its tenets, and then the result is intolerance towards anything that doesn't comply.
No-one in their right mind believes in absolute tolerance. It's like freedom - we should all be as free as possible, but my freedom has to stop at the point at which it starts to restrict other people's freedom. Similarly, there should be a presumption of tolerance, but we can't tolerate anything which is obviously harmful to others, including intolerance. You can think what you like about gay relationships, for example, but you have to tolerate them in practise.
-
Vlad,
No, not even close. Try looking up "circular reasoning" to see why.
OK I'm willing to accept your explanation that it isn't circular reasoning for the moment and I guess we are grasping for the name of another logical fallacy which is being committed here.
If anybody can name the fallacy of complaining that the other guy has cake and you haven't because you refuse cake, please tell us now.
-
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
-
Vlad,
OK I'm willing to accept your explanation that it isn't circular reasoning for the moment…
Not “just for the moment” at all but thanks anyway.
…and I guess we are grasping for the name of another logical fallacy which is being committed here.
No we’re not. There isn’t one.
If anybody can name the fallacy of complaining that the other guy has cake and you haven't because you refuse cake, please tell us now.
What’s actually happened is that they argue that segregated schools are a bad thing, so they don’t want to run segregated schools of their own. There’s no logical fallacy there, and it would be hypocritical of them to do otherwise.
-
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
If I say: 'schools should not be established on the primary basis of a core aim (or ethos) involving the promotion of any a priori stance on theism or atheism' - do you get it now?
-
I'm for anything that diminishes the ability of the religious teaching their stuff to the very youngest of our school children, this Swedish idea could be a start and it gives a boost to the secularist argument here in the U K.
https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-social-democrats-propose-ban-on-religious-independent-schools
Try this link.
Regards ippy
I'm all for schools that wish to, adopting a certain ethos or culture and influencing those who attend to adopt the same culture and ethos, while still allowing individual thought even if behaviour is governed by school rules. I would want the school to be regulated and held accountable so that parents and wider society through the government have input so that the school's education does not result in violent clashes with the culture of the wider society.
Interesting article, especially the part about boys having to sit at the front of the bus because some boys are disruptive. We have whole schools segregated by sex in this country for a variety of reasons, including that some boys are disruptive. Some studies have shown that "Girls at single-sex schools up to 85% more likely to take advanced STEM subjects than co-ed girls"
"This research confirms that, in an all-girls learning environment, free from gender bias or social pressure from boys, girls thrive in what have been traditionally regarded as male-dominated subjects," said Ms Curtis.
"An all-girls learning environment provides the motivation, self-belief and resilience for girls to feel confident about their abilities in maths and science, they are more assertive, willing to take risks, ask questions and make mistakes," said Ms Bridge.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-girls-single-sex-schools-advanced-stem.html
Personally, if a local Christian school's religious culture also provides motivation, self-belief etc that supports good exam results for non-Christians, I'd send my children to the faith school. Their Muslim religious beliefs or lack of them are influenced by a lot more than school - such as the home environment, extended family, social ties.
If parents in society find that all faith schools do not benefit educational aspirations or despite doing so are divisive in a problematic way that outweighs the benefit of the educational achievements, as assessed through research and inspection, then it makes sense to dispense with all faith schools.
Alternatively, parents might prefer to just dispense with the problematic faith schools and keep the ones that are meeting the needs of the parents' educational aspirations for their children without being unduly divisive.
-
That is a lot of words, Gabriella, but all of them avoid the fact that if schools, or any of the adults in them, are teaching children that any kind of God is true and that there is evidence for such a thing, then children are being taught a falsehood.
-
I'm all for schools that wish to, adopting a certain ethos or culture and influencing those who attend to adopt the same culture and ethos, while still allowing individual thought even if behaviour is governed by school rules. I would want the school to be regulated and held accountable so that parents and wider society through the government have input so that the school's education does not result in violent clashes with the culture of the wider society.
Interesting article, especially the part about boys having to sit at the front of the bus because some boys are disruptive. We have whole schools segregated by sex in this country for a variety of reasons, including that some boys are disruptive. Some studies have shown that "Girls at single-sex schools up to 85% more likely to take advanced STEM subjects than co-ed girls"
"This research confirms that, in an all-girls learning environment, free from gender bias or social pressure from boys, girls thrive in what have been traditionally regarded as male-dominated subjects," said Ms Curtis.
"An all-girls learning environment provides the motivation, self-belief and resilience for girls to feel confident about their abilities in maths and science, they are more assertive, willing to take risks, ask questions and make mistakes," said Ms Bridge.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-girls-single-sex-schools-advanced-stem.html
Personally, if a local Christian school's religious culture also provides motivation, self-belief etc that supports good exam results for non-Christians, I'd send my children to the faith school. Their Muslim religious beliefs or lack of them are influenced by a lot more than school - such as the home environment, extended family, social ties.
If parents in society find that all faith schools do not benefit educational aspirations or despite doing so are divisive in a problematic way that outweighs the benefit of the educational achievements, as assessed through research and inspection, then it makes sense to dispense with all faith schools.
Alternatively, parents might prefer to just dispense with the problematic faith schools and keep the ones that are meeting the needs of the parents' educational aspirations for their children without being unduly divisive.
Yes the only part that I really think would be of benefit to all of the future children would be the removal of religious denominational schools from the frame completely, I feel sure this will happen eventually, but in the meantime I'll settle for any, however small the effort, removal of religion as a specific subject in our schools, especially religion based lessons for the very youngest children, those under seven years of age.
There is plenty of time during the school year for mention of religion in its historical place or context, I really can't see religion being taught in school time being of any useful benefit, surly it's for those that think this religious stuff is necessary for their child's upbringing to make provision for this idea of theirs in their own time outside of the educational system, there are, by far, many, much more important things for the children to learn about than religion during their relatively short period but essential part of their lives in school.
As for the rest of your post, please don't think I'm being dismissive of it, it's just the ridding us of something that unnecessarily divides people is more important to me and I'm sure there is a lot of substance in the rest of your post.
Regards ippy
-
Gabriella,
I'm all for schools that wish to, adopting a certain ethos or culture and influencing those who attend to adopt the same culture and ethos, while still allowing individual thought even if behaviour is governed by school rules. I would want the school to be regulated and held accountable so that parents and wider society through the government have input so that the school's education does not result in violent clashes with the culture of the wider society.
Interesting article, especially the part about boys having to sit at the front of the bus because some boys are disruptive. We have whole schools segregated by sex in this country for a variety of reasons, including that some boys are disruptive. Some studies have shown that "Girls at single-sex schools up to 85% more likely to take advanced STEM subjects than co-ed girls"
"This research confirms that, in an all-girls learning environment, free from gender bias or social pressure from boys, girls thrive in what have been traditionally regarded as male-dominated subjects," said Ms Curtis.
"An all-girls learning environment provides the motivation, self-belief and resilience for girls to feel confident about their abilities in maths and science, they are more assertive, willing to take risks, ask questions and make mistakes," said Ms Bridge.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-girls-single-sex-schools-advanced-stem.html
Personally, if a local Christian school's religious culture also provides motivation, self-belief etc that supports good exam results for non-Christians, I'd send my children to the faith school. Their Muslim religious beliefs or lack of them are influenced by a lot more than school - such as the home environment, extended family, social ties.
If parents in society find that all faith schools do not benefit educational aspirations or despite doing so are divisive in a problematic way that outweighs the benefit of the educational achievements, as assessed through research and inspection, then it makes sense to dispense with all faith schools.
Alternatively, parents might prefer to just dispense with the problematic faith schools and keep the ones that are meeting the needs of the parents' educational aspirations for their children without being unduly divisive.
Just out of interest, does teaching children assertions as facts when the teachers cannot know them to be facts in a school environment not concern you at all?
-
Given the conversation this is quite interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43420043
-
Hmmm, I've read it. I'd like to know what the RE syllabus is.
-
Given the conversation this is quite interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43420043
What else would you expect from the ridiculously pro religion BBC.
Regards ippy
-
What else would you expect from the ridiculously pro religion BBC.
Regards ippy
So you wouldn't want it reported?
-
If I say: 'schools should not be established on the primary basis of a core aim (or ethos) involving the promotion of any a priori stance on theism or atheism' - do you get it now?
Here is humanist UK on their aims:
Because many schools without a religious character more or less meet our ideal in their ethos and values. If collective worship was ended and RE became universally objective, fair and balanced (and included non-religious views such as Humanism), community schools would indeed be exactly what we would want a school to be.
No mention of atheism
Mention of removal of religion and admission that once this was achieved schools would be exactly humanist approved.
Strange aspertions that teachers do not teach objectively. Evidence please.
Possible logical contradiction that non religious subjects could be RE.
-
What else would you expect from the ridiculously pro religion BBC.
Regards ippy
There have been opposing conclusions that both RE and religious coverage have been neglected.
-
Vlad,
Here is humanist UK on their aims:
Because many schools without a religious character more or less meet our ideal in their ethos and values. If collective worship was ended and RE became universally objective, fair and balanced (and included non-religious views such as Humanism), community schools would indeed be exactly what we would want a school to be.
No mention of atheism
Why would there be, much less “antitheism”?
Mention of removal of religion and admission that once this was achieved schools would be exactly humanist approved.
Categorically not true. What it mentions is the absence of “religious character” – a very different matter. Indeed it even talks about RE being included when it’s “fair, balanced and objective”. What could anyone possibly object to about that?
Strange aspertions that teachers do not teach objectively.
Categorically not true. It makes no such aspersions.
Evidence please.
For what – your straw man?
Possible logical contradiction that non religious subjects could be RE.
That’s just incoherent. What are you even trying to say?
-
Vlad,
Why would there be, much less “antitheism”?
Gordon seemed to suggest there was. It's certainly unfeasible that atheism in some manifestation and context would not be the aim of Humanist UK. Doesn't removal of religion constitute institution of non religion? How is religion being accommodated?
I'm wondering what Humanist UK mean by objective teaching of RE and how the displacement of religion to accommodate non religious ideas would not constitute a removal of religion where that occurs.
Finally do non religion come under religion? I see what you mean and yes I agree that people should learn about humanism and atheism even New Atheism which according to D Sloan Wilson is a stealth religion anyway.
-
Vlad,
Gordon seemed to suggest there was. It's certainly unfeasible that atheism in some manifestation and context would not be the aim of Humanist UK. Doesn't removal of religion constitute institution of non religion?
Again, there is no "removal of religion". Read the quote you cut and pasted!
I'm wondering what Humanist UK mean by objective teaching of RE and how the displacement of religion to accommodate non religious ideas would not constitute a removal of religion where that occurs.
What they mean by it is teaching comparative religions as a social phenomenon but not teaching its myriad claims and assertions as if they were facts.
It's very simple.
-
What they mean by it is teaching comparative religions as a social phenomenon
I think that goes on already.
I'm sorry I still can't see where the Humanists are suggesting a)the removal of atheism b) anything except the removal of religion from the act of broadly Christian or religious worship and accomodating non religion into an already crowded timetable. In other words how can religion fail to be displaced?
-
Vlad,
I think that goes on already.
Not in faith schools it doesn’t, and even in secular ones the law still requires that there be a “daily act of worship”.
I'm sorry I still can't see where the Humanists are suggesting a)the removal of atheism…
“The Humanists” as you put it (ie, humanism) are indifferent to the arguments of atheism. That’s why they comment neither on its inclusion nor its exclusion. Inasmuch as it would appear anywhere in the curriculum it would in any case be in lessons on critical thinking, theory of knowledge etc.
b) anything except the removal of religion…
Again, there’s no suggestion of the “removal of religion”. Rather the suggestion is for the removal of religious teaching as if it were fact.
…from the act of broadly Christian or religious worship…
That’s a different matter. Yes, humanism does advocate the removal of compulsory acts of worship. Why wouldn’t it as presumably the venerated object would then have to be treated as factually there.
…and accomodating non religion into an already crowded timetable.
There’s no such thing as “non religion” to be accommodated. Non-alchemy doesn’t have to be accommodated, nor does non-astrology. Why would non-religion be any different.?
In other words how can religion fail to be displaced?
Easily. Again, you’re conflating religious teaching (ie, “this stuff is factually true”) with religious education (ie, these are the various things that people believe and practice”).
As I said, it’s actually very simple.
-
Vlad,
Not in faith schools it doesn’t, and even in secular ones the law still requires that there be a “daily act of worship”.
“The Humanists” as you put it (ie, humanism) are indifferent to the arguments of atheism. That’s why they comment neither on its inclusion nor its exclusion. Inasmuch as it would appear anywhere in the curriculum it would in any case be in lessons on critical thinking, theory of knowledge etc.
Again, there’s no suggestion of the “removal of religion”. Rather the suggestion is for the removal of religious teaching as if it were fact.
That’s a different matter. Yes, humanism does advocate the removal of compulsory acts of worship. Why wouldn’t it as presumably the venerated object would then have to be treated as factually there.
There’s no such thing as “non religion” to be accommodated. Non-alchemy doesn’t have to be accommodated, nor does non-astrology. Why would non-religion be any different.?
Easily. Again, you’re conflating religious teaching (ie, “this stuff is factually true”) with religious education (ie, these are the various things that people believe and practice”).
As I said, it’s actually very simple.
It is simple It is about the elimination of one world view and its replacement by another.
I can dig secularism but the Humanist UK are too in thrall to atheist fundamentalists and fanatics and that includes people that equate secularisation with the institution of national atheism, to be taken seriously IMHO .
-
So you wouldn't want it reported?
So sorry N S, I didn't write a multi volumed thesis about this, I thought it would be obvious, a report about religion, how unusual for the BBC it just happened to find this favourable one.
Hope I've conveyed exactly what it was that I meant for you N S.
Regards ippy
-
So sorry N S, I didn't write a multi volumed thesis about this, I thought it would be obvious, a report about religion, how unusual for the BBC it just happened to find this favourable one.
Hope I've conveyed exactly what it was that I meant for you N S.
Regards ippy
Could you provide some evidence that the BBC did this for the reasons you suggest?
-
So sorry N S, I didn't write a multi volumed thesis about this, I thought it would be obvious, a report about religion, how unusual for the BBC it just happened to find this favourable one.
Hope I've conveyed exactly what it was that I meant for you N S.
Regards ippy
So you are all for stories which are not favourable for a world view to be reported on?
-
Vlad,
It is simple It is about the elimination of one world view and its replacement by another.
Nope. There is no "elimination" (unless you think that "this stuff is factually true because that's my faith" repeated for the endless varieties of religious traditions counts as "a world view"), and there's no replacement of it by anything.
I can dig secularism...
You'd never know it given your remarks on the thread about Kraus but ok...
...but the Humanist UK are too in thrall to atheist fundamentalists and fanatics...
And your evidence for that remarkable assertion would be what exactly? Oh, and what would an "atheist fundamentalist and fanatic" even be in any case?
...and that includes people that equate secularisation with the institution of national atheism, to be taken seriously IMHO .
Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?
-
So you are all for stories which are not favourable for a world view to be reported on?
Yes if the BBC didn't consistently fawn over anything that has the remotest reference or connection to religious belief, it'd make a change, in the overall picture, do let me know when I've been clear enough, oh no I forgot, don't worry about it.
Regards ippy
-
Gabriella,
Just out of interest, does teaching children assertions as facts when the teachers cannot know them to be facts in a school environment not concern you at all?
I wouldn't say it doesn't concern me at all.
In this country, given the evidence of increasing costs of living not matched by a rise in wages, falling religiosity and the change and apparently increasing diversity in religious interpretations, I would be more concerned about exam results than the way religious or moral or cultural beliefs are taught.
I would weigh the concern about a particular school's religious or non-religious ethos against the evidence of whether a particular the school provides good exam results that would potentially lead to more job choices for its pupils, especially for those girls who might be disadvantaged because they might feel less inclined to take the employment risks boys might take for a variety of reasons:
E.g. those girls who might be influenced by the limits of their physical strength to not apply for or not be as good as a man in certain jobs; or where the greater risk of sexual assault compared to a man might influence some girls to not take jobs in remote or confined places where they might be physically vulnerable, or those girls who think they might run the risk of not being employed because they are of child-bearing age and employers might assume they will potentially have health complications or just be less mobile and more fragile due to future pregnancies, or think they are more likely to focus on child-rearing than a man; or those girls who might be influenced in their job choices by the risk of being employed because they are attractive to the man interviewing them and the risk of having to decline his advances without risking their career advancement, or who worry about the risk of taking career breaks due to maternity leave or the risk of missing out on career advancement because of a maternal urge to spend time nurturing their children while male counter-parts devote as many hours to delivering on work deadlines and gaining valuable career experience that makes them more capable in the job.
I think those girls might be more concerned about their academic education than whether the school teaches them religious or non-religious stories about morals, that they might discard as they grow older and gain more independence and freedom.
If a particular faith school is not delivering on education that will give pupils greater choices, then I have no objection to it being closed down or modified. My husband was keen to send my daughters to a Muslim faith school because of the ethos but I was against it. The female Muslim teacher who taught there, and who was a family friend, also advised me that if I was interested in my daughters receiving a good academic education, non-Islamic schools were better suited to achieving that outcome.
-
Gabriella #62
Another long post which again, as far as I can see, evades the question of whether you would like, or approve of, assertions being taught as true facts to children, particularly those at a young age.
-
Gabriella,
I wouldn't say it doesn't concern me at all.
In this country, given the evidence of increasing costs of living not matched by a rise in wages, falling religiosity and the change and apparently increasing diversity in religious interpretations, I would be more concerned about exam results than the way religious or moral or cultural beliefs are taught.
I would weigh the concern about a particular school's religious or non-religious ethos against the evidence of whether a particular the school provides good exam results that would potentially lead to more job choices for its pupils, especially for those girls who might be disadvantaged because they might feel less inclined to take the employment risks boys might take for a variety of reasons:
E.g. those girls who might be influenced by the limits of their physical strength to not apply for or not be as good as a man in certain jobs; or where the greater risk of sexual assault compared to a man might influence some girls to not take jobs in remote or confined places where they might be physically vulnerable, or those girls who think they might run the risk of not being employed because they are of child-bearing age and employers might assume they will potentially have health complications or just be less mobile and more fragile due to future pregnancies, or think they are more likely to focus on child-rearing than a man; or those girls who might be influenced in their job choices by the risk of being employed because they are attractive to the man interviewing them and the risk of having to decline his advances without risking their career advancement, or who worry about the risk of taking career breaks due to maternity leave or the risk of missing out on career advancement because of a maternal urge to spend time nurturing their children while male counter-parts devote as many hours to delivering on work deadlines and gaining valuable career experience that makes them more capable in the job.
I think those girls might be more concerned about their academic education than whether the school teaches them religious or non-religious stories about morals, that they might discard as they grow older and gain more independence and freedom.
If a particular faith school is not delivering on education that will give pupils greater choices, then I have no objection to it being closed down or modified. My husband was keen to send my daughters to a Muslim faith school because of the ethos but I was against it. The female Muslim teacher who taught there, and who was a family friend, also advised me that if I was interested in my daughters receiving a good academic education, non-Islamic schools were better suited to achieving that outcome.
So that's a roundabout way of saying, "yes I am concerned but I think it's a price worth paying for the benefits of religious schools"?
But in that case, why not just keep the practices you think lead to better exam results or life chances and ditch the bit that requires teaching as facts things the teachers cannot know to be facts at all? Surely how we establish verifiable truths - epistemology, theory of knowledge etc - matters quite a lot too doesn't it?
-
Vlad,
Nope. There is no "elimination" (unless you think that "this stuff is factually true because that's my faith" repeated for the endless varieties of religious traditions counts as "a world view"), and there's no replacement of it by anything.
Gibberish.
-
Gabriella,
So that's a roundabout way of saying, "yes I am concerned but I think it's a price worth paying for the benefits of religious schools"?
Correct. But not all religious schools. Only the ones that get good results.
But in that case, why not just keep the practices you think lead to better exam results or life chances and ditch the bit that requires teaching as facts things the teachers cannot know to be facts at all? Surely how we establish verifiable truths - epistemology, theory of knowledge etc - matters quite a lot too doesn't it?
I would if I were running a school or home-schooling my children. But I prioritise other things above running a school or home-schooling my kids so I have to choose from what's on offer from other people who prioritise running schools. Epistemology is important but good exam results are more important ...at least to get a foot in the door to universities and jobs.
-
Yes if the BBC didn't consistently fawn over anything that has the remotest reference or connection to religious belief, it'd make a change, in the overall picture, do let me know when I've been clear enough, oh no I forgot, don't worry about it.
Regards ippy
Ippy I think it would be a good idea for you to link to the BBC when it does that. I haven't seen it, certainly not recently anyway. The only religious programmes I've been aware of (not seen) are when I go through Freeview and see TBN in the middle of the night.
(Other than that I've not much to say on this topic atm because I think I got wrong end of stick about Sweden's school system.)
-
Correct. But not all religious schools. Only the ones that get good results.
I would if I were running a school or home-schooling my children. But I prioritise other things above running a school or home-schooling my kids so I have to choose from what's on offer from other people who prioritise running schools. Epistemology is important but good exam results are more important ...at least to get a foot in the door to universities and jobs.
Back on the old BBC site there was a poster who was a catholic priest. Interestingly although there were many things we disagreed on, we both agreed that there shouldn't be state funded faith schools. Our opposition was based on different grounds. You've heard my reasons against. His were that state funding compromised the ability to actually provide what he considered to be a proper catholic education.
So his view was that there shouldn't be faith schools - that basic schooling should be non faith and largely based on academic development. Catholic education (I think more catholic instruction) according to him should be provided and paid for by the church and delivered completely separately from mainstream schooling. In that I agree with him - if parents think non objective religious education (instruction) is important it is for them and their religious organisations to provide it and fund it. But that should be additional to mainstream schooling.
-
Ippy I think it would be a good idea for you to link to the BBC when it does that. I haven't seen it, certainly not recently anyway. The only religious programmes I've been aware of (not seen) are when I go through Freeview and see TBN in the middle of the night.
(Other than that I've not much to say on this topic atm because I think I got wrong end of stick about Sweden's school system.)
They put on a completly non-religious programme about 'Free Thinking' and they were able to exchange their views without the usual surounding chapperones something the BBC rarely ever permits, they put this programme on radio three at eleven o'clock at night, nothing surprising there.
All programming about ethical and moral subjects go on air via the BBC's Religion and Ethics Department, it's a bit like the Labour party media output having to go out on air via the Tory party central office, or visa versa, the only good thing about this arrangement is that they, the BBC now for the first time have appointed an atheist as head of the R&E department, I look forward hopefully to perhaps see more of a level playing field, than it has been up to now right from the the BBC's earliest days.
Next time almost any time you see a non-religious person allowed to speak on air with the BBC, radio or T V, just make a mental note the ratio of non-religious people to those that differ with them a few times, when the oppertunity presents itself to you, and then you'll find there's no need to take my word for anything I'm saying about the BBC.
Regards ippy
-
Back on the old BBC site there was a poster who was a catholic priest. Interestingly although there were many things we disagreed on, we both agreed that there shouldn't be state funded faith schools. Our opposition was based on different grounds. You've heard my reasons against. His were that state funding compromised the ability to actually provide what he considered to be a proper catholic education.
So his view was that there shouldn't be faith schools - that basic schooling should be non faith and largely based on academic development. Catholic education (I think more catholic instruction) according to him should be provided and paid for by the church and delivered completely separately from mainstream schooling. In that I agree with him - if parents think non objective religious education (instruction) is important it is for them and their religious organisations to provide it and fund it. But that should be additional to mainstream schooling.
I agree that parents should fund private faith schools if they want them. My view regarding state faith schools is that:- Governments need people and organisations to run state schools to provide a mass education service to the community ;
- The people running state schools have goals and strategies and create a school culture or ethos to help achieve those goals;
- Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture;
- Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people;
- My focus is on whether the output of these schools is pupils who are sufficiently educated and suitably prepared to live relatively self-sufficiently rather than being incapacitated and dependent on the state and an expensive disruption to society.
-
I agree that parents should fund private faith schools if they want them. My view regarding state faith schools is that:- Governments need people and organisations to run state schools to provide a mass education service to the community ;
- The people running state schools have goals and strategies and create a school culture or ethos to help achieve those goals;
- Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture;
- Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people;
- My focus is on whether the output of these schools is pupils who are sufficiently educated and suitably prepared to live relatively self-sufficiently rather than being incapacitated and dependent on the state and an expensive disruption to society.
Try applying your thinking to other public services and see whether you still agree.
Perhaps change the word 'school' to 'hospital' and 'education' to 'healthcare'
Anyone like to make a case for 'faith' hospitals where certain patients are able to jump to the front of the queue on the basis of their religion, while others are always relegated to the back of the queue as they are not of the 'right' religion, or have no religion.
-
Try applying your thinking to other public services and see whether you still agree.
Perhaps change the word 'school' to 'hospital' and 'education' to 'healthcare'
Anyone like to make a case for 'faith' hospitals where certain patients are able to jump to the front of the queue on the basis of their religion, while others are always relegated to the back of the queue as they are not of the 'right' religion, or have no religion.
And of course hospitals that could choose to hire people or sack people on the basis of religion.
-
Try applying your thinking to other public services and see whether you still agree.
Perhaps change the word 'school' to 'hospital' and 'education' to 'healthcare'
Anyone like to make a case for 'faith' hospitals where certain patients are able to jump to the front of the queue on the basis of their religion, while others are always relegated to the back of the queue as they are not of the 'right' religion, or have no religion.
I don't see the health service and education service as having similar goals so I think your comparison is too simplistic.
People tend to go to hospital to be treated for a short period of time and then they leave when they are well enough. They are not required to interact with hundreds of other people every day or buy into and uphold any common ethos or school culture; and patients are not children required to be kept under control in order to pass exams over a period of many years. If the faith ethos or non-faith ethos or being selective helps achieve the goals of the majority of parents at the school for their children to achieve educational and social skills, I'm all for selective schools. I'd leave it up to the parents at the school to decide if the school is working. I opted for private school so it should be up to state school parents to push for schools that reflect the ethos they want.
I compare schools to businesses in terms of culture. If the culture of the organisation is not meeting the needs of the community, there will be a gap in the market and people will look to existing alternatives that have ethics they agree with to meet their needs, or they will lobby the government to create an alternative that has the ethics they want to meet their needs.
-
Gabriella,
I agree that parents should fund private faith schools if they want them. My view regarding state faith schools is that:
Governments need people and organisations to run state schools to provide a mass education service to the community ;
The people running state schools have goals and strategies and create a school culture or ethos to help achieve those goals;
Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture;
Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people;
My focus is on whether the output of these schools is pupils who are sufficiently educated and suitably prepared to live relatively self-sufficiently rather than being incapacitated and dependent on the state and an expensive disruption to society.
Just out of interest, would you be equally sanguine if the "faith ethos or culture" entailed teaching children the "facts" of creationism? How about the "facts" of Marxist-Leninisn or of fascism, or is it just religious lying that's ok?
Also, are you not concerned at all by the risk of stripping kids of their critical faculties by engendering the notion that "faith" is a reliable guide to truth, of the ghettoisation and division caused by sectarianism, of the risk of pupils who think clerics have access to categorical truths doing as they say regardless of what those actions might be - running off to join IS for example?
Seems like a hell of a price to pay to me.
-
I dislike faith schools, and I dislike home-schooling even more. I wouldn't ban either of them, but faith schools should not be state funded, and both faith schools and home-schooling parents should be strictly supervised to make sure they're teaching the full curriculum, and not teaching the kids nonsense such as creationism.
-
There is nothing wrong with home schooling in certain circumstances, as long as it is done properly and for the right reasons. Children must never be isolated from their peers. It should be mandatory for those being home schooled to have regular inspections to see that proper standards are being maintained.
-
I dislike faith schools, and I dislike home-schooling even more. I wouldn't ban either of them, but faith schools should not be state funded, and both faith schools and home-schooling parents should be strictly supervised to make sure they're teaching the full curriculum, and not teaching the kids nonsense such as creationism.
I agree.
-
Steve H,
I dislike faith schools, and I dislike home-schooling even more. I wouldn't ban either of them, but faith schools should not be state funded, and both faith schools and home-schooling parents should be strictly supervised to make sure they're teaching the full curriculum, and not teaching the kids nonsense such as creationism.
I agree obviously, but what then are we to make of Gabriella's "Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture/Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people" if that "faith ethos and culture" is, for example, creationism?
-
Steve H,
I agree obviously, but what then are we to make of Gabriella's "Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture/Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people" if that "faith ethos and culture" is, for example, creationism?
I suspect Gabriella is special pleading.
The implication of her recent post is that provided there are:
1. Some people who want to start a school with a particular ethos
2. There are some parents who want their child to attend
3. The school upholds basic academic standards
4. And (presumably) that the school can establish admissions rules that 'align' with that ethos (as faith schools currently do)
That the state should fund that school.
Beyond the fact that this is simply naive as it is unachievable in practice due to limited resources, what if that ethos is white supremicist.
-
I compare schools to businesses in terms of culture. If the culture of the organisation is not meeting the needs of the community, there will be a gap in the market and people will look to existing alternatives that have ethics they agree with to meet their needs, or they will lobby the government to create an alternative that has the ethics they want to meet their needs.
Businesses exist in the private sector - poor analogy with state funded public services.
-
PRof,
I suspect Gabriella is special pleading.
The implication of her recent post is that provided there are:
1. Some people who want to start a school with a particular ethos
2. There are some parents who want their child to attend
3. The school upholds basic academic standards
4. And (presumably) that the school can establish admissions rules that 'align' with that ethos (as faith schools currently do)
That the state should fund that school.
Beyond the fact that this is simply naive as it is unachievable in practice due to limited resources, what if that ethos is white supremicist.
Quite so. Would she then have an approved/not approved categorising of the "faith ethos and cultures", and who would do that categorising I wonder?
-
Gabriella,
Just out of interest, would you be equally sanguine if the "faith ethos or culture" entailed teaching children the "facts" of creationism? How about the "facts" of Marxist-Leninisn or of fascism, or is it just religious lying that's ok?
Also, are you not concerned at all by the risk of stripping kids of their critical faculties by engendering the notion that "faith" is a reliable guide to truth, of the ghettoisation and division caused by sectarianism, of the risk of pupils who think clerics have access to categorical truths doing as they say regardless of what those actions might be - running off to join IS for example?
Seems like a hell of a price to pay to me.
I would be against the idea of schools teaching facts that are not supported by evidence. Whether I am against the idea of schools teaching pupils their beliefs would depend on the outcome of teaching those beliefs. If the faith school produces comparable exam results and its pupils seem to integrate in a comparable manner with their wider community relative to non-faith state schools, and its pupils are productive law-abiding members of society due to their use of their critical-thinking faculties, then I would be sanguine.
If that is not the case, then I think the State should intervene in that particular school, unless of course all faith schools are producing undesirable results, in which case I would want to investigate why.
-
Gabriella,
I would be against the idea of schools teaching facts that are not supported by evidence.
So you’re against faith schools then?
Whether I am against the idea of schools teaching pupils their beliefs would depend on the outcome of teaching those beliefs. If the faith school produces comparable exam results and its pupils seem to integrate in a comparable manner with their wider community relative to non-faith state schools, and its pupils are productive law-abiding members of society due to their use of their critical-thinking faculties, then I would be sanguine.
If that is not the case, then I think the State should intervene in that particular school, unless of course all faith schools are producing undesirable results, in which case I would want to investigate why.
None of that’s relevant if you’ve already declared against faith schools at all (see above).
-
I would be against the idea of schools teaching facts that are not supported by evidence. Whether I am against the idea of schools teaching pupils their beliefs would depend on the outcome of teaching those beliefs. If the faith school produces comparable exam results and its pupils seem to integrate in a comparable manner with their wider community relative to non-faith state schools, and its pupils are productive law-abiding members of society due to their use of their critical-thinking faculties, then I would be sanguine.
So would you support the establishment of a state funded white supremicist school that met the following criteria
1. Some people wanted to start a school with that particular ethos
2. There are some parents who want their child to attend that school
3. The school upholds basic academic standards
And that the school prioritises white children over non white children in its admissions criteria. And won't employ non white teaching staff.
-
Gabriella,
So you’re against faith schools then?
None of that’s relevant if you’ve already declared against faith schools at all (see above).
I am against schools that are teaching beliefs as facts, rather than beliefs. If faith schools state that they teach faith beliefs that's fine.
If moral beliefs and values are being taught as facts I would be against that in a non-faith school as well. But if the school states that they teach their values as beliefs that pupils are expected to co-operate with, I'm fine with that, provided the school undergoes state inspections and oversight.
-
Businesses exist in the private sector - poor analogy with state funded public services.
It's up to the members of the public who are affected by it to lobby for change in the culture.
-
I suspect Gabriella is special pleading.
The implication of her recent post is that provided there are:
1. Some people who want to start a school with a particular ethos
2. There are some parents who want their child to attend
3. The school upholds basic academic standards
4. And (presumably) that the school can establish admissions rules that 'align' with that ethos (as faith schools currently do)
That the state should fund that school.
No - we already had this discussion. A management accountant can use the available budget and available premises and projected costs in a borough to work out the level of support that would be required for a school to make the school a viable proposition. If the numbers don't show sufficient support for a faith school, give the resources to the non-faith schools.
Beyond the fact that this is simply naive as it is unachievable in practice due to limited resources, what if that ethos is white supremicist.
You can hire management accountants that aren't naive and can calculate the thresholds that would make a school viable.
If the ethos is white supremacist and it produces comparable exam results and its pupils seem to integrate in a comparable manner with their wider community relative to non-white supremacist state schools, and its pupils are productive law-abiding members of society due to their use of their critical-thinking faculties, then I would be sanguine.
-
Gabriella,
I am against schools that are teaching beliefs as facts, rather than beliefs. If faith schools state that they teach faith beliefs that's fine.
You seem confused. Faith schools precisely "teach beliefs as facts" - that's what they do.
If moral beliefs and values are being taught as facts I would be against that in a non-faith school as well. But if the school states that they teach their values as beliefs that pupils are expected to co-operate with, I'm fine with that, provided the school undergoes state inspections and oversight.
See above. As "god" to take an example isn't an evidence-based fact, presumably you'd be against schools that teach it as a fact nonetheless?
-
Gabriella,
You seem confused. Faith schools precisely "teach beliefs as facts" - that's what they do.
See above. As "god" to take an example isn't an evidence-based fact, presumably you'd e against schools that teach it as a fact nonetheless?
I wouldn't know - I never went to a faith school. I await your evidence for that statement. If some faith schools are doing that, parents and Ofsted inspections should highlight it. There are children who go to faith schools who are from a different faith or of no faith, and parents who are unhappy with the way subjects are being taught can tackle the school together.
I can only go by the information in Parliamentary and government documents, which state for example "RE in a school with a religious character must be provided in accordance with the school’s trust deed or, where provision is not made by a trust deed, in accordance with the beliefs of the religion or denomination specified in the order that designates the school as having a religious character."
I am aware that faith schools are inspected by Ofsted. I am also aware that the schools Minister, Elizabeth Truss, commented in a response to a Parliamentary Question in March 2014: Religious education (RE) remains very important for pupils' understanding of the rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country.
The language used such as "diversity", "faiths", "values", and "traditions" does not suggest that the government supports beliefs being taught as facts.
-
I am aware that faith schools are inspected by Ofsted.
RE in faith schools is not inspected by Ofsted, but by separate inspectors appointed by the school's own governing body. Talk about conflict of interest.
-
Gabriella,
I wouldn't know - I never went to a faith school. I await your evidence for that statement. If some faith schools are doing that, parents and Ofsted inspections should highlight it. There are children who go to faith schools who are from a different faith or of no faith, and parents who are unhappy with the way subjects are being taught can tackle the school together.
Good grief. You’re joking right?
You’re seriously asking for evidence that faith schools teach their various faith claims as facts?
Seriously seriously though?
I can only go by the information in Parliamentary and government documents, which state for example "RE in a school with a religious character must be provided in accordance with the school’s trust deed or, where provision is not made by a trust deed, in accordance with the beliefs of the religion or denomination specified in the order that designates the school as having a religious character."
I am aware that faith schools are inspected by Ofsted. I am also aware that the schools Minister, Elizabeth Truss, commented in a response to a Parliamentary Question in March 2014: Religious education (RE) remains very important for pupils' understanding of the rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country.
The language used such as "diversity", "faiths", "values", and "traditions" does not suggest that the government supports beliefs being taught as facts.
That's RE - ie, comparative religion ("some people believe X, some people believe Y" etc) - which is what secular schools teach as a sort of social anthropology. Religious teaching in faith schools on the other hand is a very different matter, as you well know.
-
I am also aware that the schools Minister, Elizabeth Truss, commented in a response to a Parliamentary Question in March 2014: Religious education (RE) remains very important for pupils' understanding of the rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country.
And do you think that a child studying this RE curriculum:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf
Would understand the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'. Or would they effectively only understand catholicism - in huge, huge depth, with every other religion relegated to an afterthought at best.
And don't forget that Ofsted aren't allowed to comment on this RE provision at all - that is inspected by separate inspectors appointed by the school's own governing body (who, don't forget are required to be practicing catholics).
-
Gabriella,
You seem confused. Faith schools precisely "teach beliefs as facts" - that's what they do.
See above. As "god" to take an example isn't an evidence-based fact,
Hillside if I were to look up evidence based fact would it lead me back to this thread?
I guess you mean empirical fact. Who, given the nature of God would be teaching God as an empirical fact in a faith context?
Once again Hillside God is not a giant invisible man.
-
Hillside if I were to look up evidence based fact would it lead me back to this thread?
I guess you mean empirical fact. Who, given the nature of God would be teaching God as an empirical fact in a faith context?
Once again Hillside God is not a giant invisible man.
More a figment of the human imagination.
-
Prof,
And do you think that a child studying this RE curriculum:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf
Would understand the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'. Or would they effectively only understand catholicism - in huge, huge depth, with every other religion relegated to an afterthought at best.
And don't forget that Ofsted aren't allowed to comment on this RE provision at all - that is inspected by separate inspectors appointed by the school's own governing body (who, don't forget are required to be practicing catholics).
From the same document (pages 3,4 – emphases added in bold) :
The Context of Religious Education
The primary purpose of Catholic Religious Education is to come to know and understand God’s revelation which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school is ‘a clear educational project of which Christ is the foundation.’ 6 In the person of Christ, the deepest meaning of what it is to be human — that we are created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his Incarnation — is discovered. 7 This revelation is known through the scriptures and the tradition of the Church as taught by the Magisterium. Religious Education helps the pupil to know and experience the meaning of this revelation in his or her own life and the life of the community which is the Church. Hence ‘the promotion of the human person is the goal of the Catholic school.’ 8 Parents ‘are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their children, and therefore must be recognised as the primary and principle educators’ 9 but in this primary task, parents need the subsidiary help of civil society and other institutions. The family is ‘the primary, but not the only and exclusive educating community’. 10 Among those who cooperate in the task of education, the Catholic school assists in the delivery of a programme of learning in Religious Education appropriate to the age and particular learning needs of the pupil. This Curriculum Directory provides a foundation for the classroom curriculum of such a programme. Religious Education is central to the curriculum of the Catholic school and is at the heart of the philosophy of Catholic education. Religious Education has developed in a way that reflects the particular identity of our Catholic schools in England and Wales. It teaches about the faith in the context of a school which proclaims the Gospel, and invites the individual to respond to the message of Christ. As the individual responds to this invitation, growth in faith and knowledge helps the pupil to respond to the call to holiness and understand the fullness of what it is to be human. For some, then, Religious Education will also be received as evangelisation and for some, catechesis. The relationship between Religious Education and Catechesisis one of distinction and complementarity. What confers on Religious Education in schools its proper evangelizing character is the fact that it is called to penetrate a particular area of culture and to relate to other areas of knowledge. ‘As an original form of the ministry of the word, it makes present the Gospel in a personal process of cultural, systematic and critical assimilation.’ 11 Religious Education in schools sows the dynamic seed
It is necessary, therefore, that Religious Education in schools be regarded as an academic discipline with the same systematic demands and the same rigour as other disciplines. It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth with which other disciplines present their knowledge.
However, it should not simply be regarded as one subject among many, but should be the key element in an inter-disciplinary dialogue. The presentation of the Christian message influences the way in which, for example, the origins of the world, the sense of history, the basis of ethical values, the function of religion in culture, the destiny of the human person, and our relationship with nature, are understood. Religious Education in schools underpins, activates, develops and completes the educational and catechetical activity of the whole school. 13
...thus the Gospel will impregnate the mentality of the students in the field of their learning,
It's astonishing stuff, and a very long way from standard RE.
-
I don't see the health service and education service as having similar goals so I think your comparison is too simplistic.
People tend to go to hospital to be treated for a short period of time and then they leave when they are well enough. They are not required to interact with hundreds of other people every day or buy into and uphold any common ethos or school culture; and patients are not children required to be kept under control in order to pass exams over a period of many years. If the faith ethos or non-faith ethos or being selective helps achieve the goals of the majority of parents at the school for their children to achieve educational and social skills, I'm all for selective schools. I'd leave it up to the parents at the school to decide if the school is working. I opted for private school so it should be up to state school parents to push for schools that reflect the ethos they want.
I compare schools to businesses in terms of culture. If the culture of the organisation is not meeting the needs of the community, there will be a gap in the market and people will look to existing alternatives that have ethics they agree with to meet their needs, or they will lobby the government to create an alternative that has the ethics they want to meet their needs.
The most important need a child has (although of course they do not know it at the time) is to be given information that is true, facts that are backed up by objective evidence. Information for which such objective evidence does not yet exist whould be clearly shown to be a don't know.
bluehilside #95 That is desperately sad. I haven't looked at the BHA suggested syllabus recently, but it should be more widely known I think.
-
And do you think that a child studying this RE curriculum:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf
Would understand the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'. Or would they effectively only understand catholicism - in huge, huge depth, with every other religion relegated to an afterthought at best.
And don't forget that Ofsted aren't allowed to comment on this RE provision at all - that is inspected by separate inspectors appointed by the school's own governing body (who, don't forget are required to be practicing catholics).
I had a look - thanks. I think it's pretty clear in this country that these are faith beliefs, theology, philosophy and not scientific facts, but how it is taught would depend on the school. If there is evidence of a school teaching faith beliefs as facts backed by science I doubt this could be kept secret. There would be reports on it and the state can intervene.
The document says:
The content of Religious Education will help the pupil to make a critique of all other knowledge, leading, for example, to an understanding of the relationship between science and religion or history, and between theology, sport and the human body.
Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to religious educators, stressed the need to enlarge the area of our rationality, to reopen it to the larger questions of the truth and the good, and to link theology, philosophy and science. The religious dimension contributes to the overall formation of the person and makes it possible to transform knowledge into wisdom of life.
Page 7
The aims of Religious Education:
1 To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith;
2 To enable pupils continually to deepen their religious and theological understanding and be
able to communicate this effectively;
3 To present an authentic vision of the Church’s moral and social teaching so that pupils can
make a critique of the underlying trends in contemporary culture and society;
4 To raise pupils’ awareness of the faith and traditions of other religious communities in order
to respect and understand them;
5 To develop the critical faculties of pupils so that they can relate their Catholic faith to daily
life;
6 To stimulate pupils’ imagination and provoke a desire for personal meaning as revealed in the
truth of the Catholic faith;
7 To enable pupils to relate the knowledge gained through Religious Education to their understanding
of other subjects in the curriculum;
8 To bring clarity to the relationship between faith and life, and between faith and culture.
The outcome of excellent Religious Education is religiously literate and engaged young people who have the knowledge, understanding and skills – appropriate to their age and capacity – to reflect spiritually, and think ethically and theologically, and who are aware of the demands of religious commitment in everyday life.
-
Gabriella,
If there is evidence of a school teaching faith beliefs as facts backed by science...
Tut tut. That's not the argument. The argument is that faith schools teach their beliefs as facts (look at the RC stuff the Prof referenced some of which I copied and pasted for example) whereas non-faith schools do not (that's the comparative religion of RE). The "backed by science" bit is just something you've added after the event.
-
Gabriella,
Tut tut. That's not the argument. The argument is that faith schools teach their beliefs as facts (look at the RC stuff the Prof referenced some of which I copied and pasted for example) whereas non-faith schools do not (that's the comparative religion of RE). The "backed by science" bit is just something you've added after the event.
A fact is something that is proved to be true. I assumed you meant proved true through the methods of science. How else would something be proved to someone else?
Belief truths are values and traditions that we teach our children. God is a belief, not a fact. There is no way of proving God to another person - they either believe it or they don't. If no one can prove God, how is it taught as a fact?
If your objection is where religion is taught in English schools as true based on personal testimony and hearsay, that's the stuff people seem to be increasingly rejecting because it is a belief and there is a lack of proof and it doesn't add value to their lives. When enough people reject it, and think schools in their area can provide a good ethos and results while jettisoning this type of religious education, they will demand change in the way faith schools are funded. Some people retain belief in God because it provides some add-value to their lives but if they are in the minority they won't be able to stop changes to faith school funding.
I did look at the RC stuff - I copied and pasted some of it in my response to PD.
-
Gabriella,
Tut tut. That's not the argument. The argument is that faith schools teach their beliefs as facts (look at the RC stuff the Prof referenced some of which I copied and pasted for example) whereas non-faith schools do not (that's the comparative religion of RE). The "backed by science" bit is just something you've added after the event.
One wonders then how YOU propose to teach ethos, morals, rules and Law.
Other reasons why humanists shirk their responsibility to truly address their own world view status in not founding and running educational establishments?
-
Aren’t Ofsted supposed to be checking that schools are teaching British values? Those won’t be taught as facts but children will be expected to exhibit those values in school.
-
One wonders then how YOU propose to teach ethos, morals,
What you don't do is teach that one approach is necessarily correct - you ensure that students are aware of a range of ethical approaches and positions and teach them the skills to critique those approaches and positions, ultimately allowing them to develop their own view.
You also allow students to recognise that their own personal view may be distinct from that of (some of) their peers.
rules and Law
That they exist, what they are and how they might have evolved over time. That rules/law often align with morals/ethics, but are not the same and sometimes do not appear to align or perhaps run behind changes in moral thinking. That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.
-
What you don't do is teach that one approach is necessarily correct - you ensure that students are aware of a range of ethical approaches and positions and teach them the skills to critique those approaches and positions, ultimately allowing them to develop their own view.
You also allow students to recognise that their own personal view may be distinct from that of (some of) their peers.
That they exist, what they are and how they might have evolved over time. That rules/law often align with morals/ethics, but are not the same and sometimes do not appear to align or perhaps run behind changes in moral thinking. That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.
I'm sorry but a school has to have an ethos which is at some limit inflexible.It must also have rules which are similar.
Teaching to critique? Pupils instinctively know how to critique but need to be taught temperance in this since people have a knack of bringing stuff down for the sake of it
Finally we come to law where there are no concessions made.
-
I'm sorry but a school has to have an ethos which is at some limit inflexible.It must also have rules which are similar.
Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:
'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'
Teaching to critique? Pupils instinctively know how to critique but need to be taught temperance in this since people have a knack of bringing stuff down for the sake of it
Yes critique - which is completely different to 'bringing stuff down for the sake of it'. Kids need to learn to think, to critique, to reason. If they disagree with something to be able to cogently argue why - if they agree with something to be able to cogently argue why. And the best way to do this is to learn to critique - a common approach being to ask kids to argue for or against an ethical point, regardless of whether they actually agree or disagree with that point.
Finally we come to law where there are no concessions made.
Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:
'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'
Maybe you didn't bother to read my post before replying.
-
I had a look - thanks. I think it's pretty clear in this country that these are faith beliefs, theology, philosophy and not scientific facts, but how it is taught would depend on the school. If there is evidence of a school teaching faith beliefs as facts backed by science I doubt this could be kept secret. There would be reports on it and the state can intervene.
The document says:
The content of Religious Education will help the pupil to make a critique of all other knowledge, leading, for example, to an understanding of the relationship between science and religion or history, and between theology, sport and the human body.
Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to religious educators, stressed the need to enlarge the area of our rationality, to reopen it to the larger questions of the truth and the good, and to link theology, philosophy and science. The religious dimension contributes to the overall formation of the person and makes it possible to transform knowledge into wisdom of life.
Page 7
The aims of Religious Education:
1 To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith;
2 To enable pupils continually to deepen their religious and theological understanding and be
able to communicate this effectively;
3 To present an authentic vision of the Church’s moral and social teaching so that pupils can
make a critique of the underlying trends in contemporary culture and society;
4 To raise pupils’ awareness of the faith and traditions of other religious communities in order
to respect and understand them;
5 To develop the critical faculties of pupils so that they can relate their Catholic faith to daily
life;
6 To stimulate pupils’ imagination and provoke a desire for personal meaning as revealed in the
truth of the Catholic faith;
7 To enable pupils to relate the knowledge gained through Religious Education to their understanding
of other subjects in the curriculum;
8 To bring clarity to the relationship between faith and life, and between faith and culture.
The outcome of excellent Religious Education is religiously literate and engaged young people who have the knowledge, understanding and skills – appropriate to their age and capacity – to reflect spiritually, and think ethically and theologically, and who are aware of the demands of religious commitment in everyday life.
Thanks for spending a long time answering BHSs point, but completely ignoring mine.
I wasn't challenging you on RE being taught as fact.
No I was challenging you on your assertion (a correct one) that RE should support an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'.
I challenge anyone to look at the RCC RE curriculum (BHS helpfully posted its summary of context) and claim it supports an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'. At best any religion other than catholicism is merely mentioned as an afterthought and always in the context of catholicism. The RCC curriculum is almost exclusively the study of a single faith.
-
Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:
'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'
Yes critique - which is completely different to 'bringing stuff down for the sake of it'. Kids need to learn to think, to critique, to reason. If they disagree with something to be able to cogently argue why - if they agree with something to be able to cogently argue why. And the best way to do this is to learn to critique - a common approach being to ask kids to argue for or against an ethical point, regardless of whether they actually agree or disagree with that point.
Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:
'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'
Maybe you didn't bother to read my post before replying.
Yes and pupils are taught in our curriculum to analyse different situations in different domains of learning.
But a school must know and be confident in what it is about. It must shape behaviour and attitudes in order to provide secure boundaries. Schools at some point must say yes and no as if they mean it.
Ethos, moral education, rules is not fact learning. Schools are practiced in allowing autonomy at the sixth form.
Your prescription seems another experiment in how to run something on a foundation of moral maybeism. Tried numerous times before often before pupils can be critical without exercising the power over others moral relativism can bestow an individual.
Potentia
Potential recipe for institutional, social and individual disaster.
-
Gabriella,
A fact is something that is proved to be true. I assumed you meant proved true through the methods of science. How else would something be proved to someone else?
Belief truths are values and traditions that we teach our children. God is a belief, not a fact. There is no way of proving God to another person - they either believe it or they don't. If no one can prove God, how is it taught as a fact?
If your objection is where religion is taught in English schools as true based on personal testimony and hearsay, that's the stuff people seem to be increasingly rejecting because it is a belief and there is a lack of proof and it doesn't add value to their lives. When enough people reject it, and think schools in their area can provide a good ethos and results while jettisoning this type of religious education, they will demand change in the way faith schools are funded. Some people retain belief in God because it provides some add-value to their lives but if they are in the minority they won't be able to stop changes to faith school funding.
I did look at the RC stuff - I copied and pasted some of it in my response to PD.
You’ve missed it completely. The point is that faith schools teach their various religious beliefs as facts; secular schools do not. You asked for evidence that faith schools do this and the RC document says that precisely. QED
So, are you against education that teaches faith beliefs as if they were statements of objective fact – there really is a god, there really was a resurrection, that objective truths really are "revealed" in certain ancient texts etc – in exactly the way that science teaches there really are atoms etc, or not?
As I understood it a while back you argued that you thought it was a price worth paying for the benefits, but later on you said that you’d be opposed to it. I just wonder which it is?
-
Yes and pupils are taught in our curriculum to analyse different situations in different domains of learning.
But a school must know and be confident in what it is about. It must shape behaviour and attitudes in order to provide secure boundaries. Schools at some point must say yes and no as if they mean it.
Ethos, moral education, rules is not fact learning. Schools are practiced in allowing autonomy at the sixth form.
Your prescription seems another experiment in how to run something on a foundation of moral maybeism. Tried numerous times before often before pupils can be critical without exercising the power over others moral relativism can bestow an individual.
Potentia
Potential recipe for institutional, social and individual disaster.
Disagree with you very, very profoundly.
Sure discussion has to be age appropriate, but students are able to think for themselves about moral and ethical issues way before the 6th form. You seem to be implying that a school should promulgate teaching on the assumption of moral absolutism, when it is clear that not everyone accepts that to be the case.
And it is very easy (and regularly achieved in practice) for a school to ensure that students recognise the distinction between expected behaviour/rules within the school, which need to be followed and critique of ethical and moral principles learned within a pedagogical context. And of course learning that distinction, is of itself, a valuable lesson for life given that in broader society we will be expected to adhere to rules and laws etc that may sometimes not align with our personal ethical standpoint. And that in those circumstances we cannot expect to ignore those rules without sanction - however we can argue and campaign for those rules to be changed via the appropriate democratic process.
-
Prof,
Disagree with you very, very profoundly.
Sure discussion has to be age appropriate, but students are able to think for themselves about moral and ethical issues way before the 6th form. You seem to be implying that a school should promulgate teaching on the assumption of moral absolutism, when it is clear that not everyone accepts that to be the case.
And it is very easy (and regularly achieved in practice) for a school to ensure that students recognise the distinction between expected behaviour/rules within the school, which need to be followed and critique of ethical and moral principles learned within a pedagogical context. And of course learning that distinction, is of itself, a valuable lesson for life given that in broader society we will be expected to adhere to rules and laws etc that may sometimes not align with our personal ethical standpoint. And that in those circumstances we cannot expect to ignore those rules without sanction - however we can argue and campaign for those rules to be changed via the appropriate democratic process.
Just to note too that he's getting his "oughts" and his "is's" mixed up. The point was about about faith schools teaching as facts certain objective claims - there is a god, there was a resurrection, inerrant rules are written in certain ancient texts etc (ie, the "is's"). Discussions about morality and the like (ie, the "oughts") are a different matter.
-
Inevitably a DaveyHillside academy trust school would be faced with a '' how can you show that your ''ought'' is better than my ''ought'', sir?''
Don't give up the day job of providing fodder for Religionethics chaps.
-
Prof,
Just to note too that he's getting his "oughts" and his "is's" mixed up. The point was about about faith schools teaching as facts certain objective claims - there is a god, there was a resurrection, inerrant rules are written in certain ancient texts etc (ie, the "is's"). Discussions about morality and the like (ie, the "oughts") are a different matter.
Hopefully pupils are taught Popper and the Problem of induction.
-
Inevitably a DaveyHillside academy trust school would be faced with a '' how can you show that your ''ought'' is better than my ''ought'', sir?''
Don't give up the day job of providing fodder for Religionethics chaps.
Don't forget that part of my 'day job' is teaching students ethics.
-
Prof,
Don't forget that part of my 'day job' is teaching students ethics.
Do you teach an entry level primer? Maybe Vlad could enrol...
Prof.: "Can anyone tell me what "ethics" means? Yes you, new boy..."
Vlad.: "Me? Er - is it the county next to Hertfordshire?"
Prof. (sotto voce): "This is gonna be a very long term..."
-
Prof,
Do you teach an entry level primer? Maybe Vlad could enrol...
Prof.: "Can anyone tell me what "ethics" means? Yes you, new boy..."
Vlad.: "Me? Er - is it the county next to Hertfordshire?"
Prof. (sotto voce): "This is gonna be a very long term..."
;)
-
Prof,
Do you teach an entry level primer? Maybe Vlad could enrol...
No Masters level - so way too advanced for old Vlad.
-
Thanks for spending a long time answering BHSs point, but completely ignoring mine.
I wasn't challenging you on RE being taught as fact.
No I was challenging you on your assertion (a correct one) that RE should support an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'.
I challenge anyone to look at the RCC RE curriculum (BHS helpfully posted its summary of context) and claim it supports an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'. At best any religion other than catholicism is merely mentioned as an afterthought and always in the context of catholicism. The RCC curriculum is almost exclusively the study of a single faith.
I agree the RCC RE curriculum probably does not allocate anywhere near as much time to other faiths as some other curriculums. The teachers who promote spirituality may well differ in their individual interpretations of what spirituality encompasses, but provided they teach respect and tolerance for other beliefs and interpretations I don't see the problem in a school adopting a particular set of values and ethos when teaching about their own beliefs.
If there is evidence the school is not doing enough to teach respect and tolerance and pupils are not integrating well in wider society, I would support any decisions by the public for more government oversight or the abolition of state-funded RC schools - it's up to the voters and users of state-funded schools to make their preferences clear.
-
Yes they do get tax relief because of charity status but what I meant was the state does not fund the schools.
It amounts to the same thing.
-
The teachers who promote spirituality …
How, do you think, could any teacher ‘promote’ something which has no clear definition? Faith believers tend to assume they have a monopoly on the word ‘spirituality’, and each faith would probably have a different version of it, while atheists like me challenge anyone who would say that I am not spiritual!!…may well differ in their individual interpretations of what spirituality encompasses, but provided they teach respect and tolerance for other beliefs and interpretations I don't see the problem in a school adopting a particular set of values and ethos when teaching about their own beliefs.
Why should a belief, i.e. the belief or religious faith itself, be respected, when it has zero objective evidence to support it?
-
How, do you think, could any teacher ‘promote’ something which has no clear definition? Faith believers tend to assume they have a monopoly on the word ‘spirituality’, and each faith would probably have a different version of it, while atheists like me challenge anyone who would say that I am not spiritual!!Why should a belief, i.e. the belief or religious faith itself, be respected, when it has zero objective evidence to support it?
Sorry - I just saw this.
I don't see spirituality as solely belonging to the religious or faith believers. As far as I know there is zero objective evidence to support spirituality - I think it's a concept that can only lend itself to subjective evidence.
Out of interest, what's your meaning of "spirituality? Or how do you define "spirituality"?
-
Sorry - I just saw this.
I don't see spirituality as solely belonging to the religious or faith believers. As far as I know there is zero objective evidence to support spirituality - I think it's a concept that can only lend itself to subjective evidence.
Out of interest, what's your meaning of "spirituality? Or how do you define "spirituality"?
Spirituality is a word used to label some parts of our personalities connected with the more aesthetic aspects of life such as the pleasures of listening to one's particular musical choices, reading, seeing and appreciating works of art - I particularly like the more geometrical abstract work of Kandinsky.
There is an excellent little book called'The LittleBook of Atheist Spirituality' by André Comte. My reader read it to me a while back and we both found it most interesting.