Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: ippy on June 12, 2018, 07:15:23 PM
-
Just a link, worth a read.
All of our children should mix at school, the religion of their parents shouldn't figure in any way.
Regards ippy
https://www.tes.com/news/most-people-oppose-faith-based-admission-schools
Just found another link on more or less the same subject:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/06/british-public-opposes-religious-influence-in-education-poll-finds
-
Just a link, worth a read.
All of our children should mix at school, the religion of their parents shouldn't figure in any way.
...Only their Bank Balance.
-
...Only their Bank Balance.
What are you on about now Vlad?
ippy
-
What are you on about now Vlad?
ippy
It's his shorthand for a bit of Whataboutery. In this case it's 'what about fee paying schools?' It's irrelevant to your point.
-
It's his shorthand for a bit of Whataboutery. In this case it's 'what about fee paying schools?' It's irrelevant to your point.
Wait a minute, If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?
-
Wait a minute, If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?
No, that's just whataboutery. Even if you does think that, and you have no evidence he does, then it would just mean that he might be a hypocrite not that the argument was wrong. You would be using the tu quoque fallacy, or whataboutery as it is sometimes called.
-
No, that's just whataboutery. Even if you does think that, and you have no evidence he does, then it would just mean that he might be a hypocrite.
That would do for me.
-
That would do for me.
So You accept that your point is irrelevant to the argument then, good.
-
So You accept that your point is irrelevant to the argument then, good.
Not my argument that there is huge humbuggery around this issue it isn't.
-
Not my argument that there is huge humbuggery around this issue it isn't.
It was exactly your argument when you wrote 'If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?' So you correct your post above for your forgetfulness about what you had written, and we will just say that you now know you were both mistaken is saying the argument would be fallacious in the quote, and that you were mistaken about not having argued that.
-
It was exactly your argument when you wrote 'If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?' So you correct your post above for your forgetfulness about what you had written, and we will just say that you now know you were both mistaken is saying the argument would be fallacious in the quote, and that you were mistaken about not having argued that.
Alright explain how an argument which goes.
Religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right
is a logically coherent argument.
-
Alright explain how an argument which goes.
Religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right
is a logically coherent argument.
It's not an argument - it's a strawman. To help you out think of someone who is smoking saying 'You shouldn't smoke, it's bad for you'. The you shouldn't smoke bit is correct even if they are smoking.
-
It's not an argument - it's a strawman. To help you out think of someone who is smoking saying 'You shouldn't smoke, it's bad for you'. The you shouldn't smoke bit is correct even if they are smoking.
Well I've seen folks on message boards make the mistake of arguing against religious schools on the grounds of integration and support fee paying schools. So your strawman argument convinces me not.
-
Well I've seen folks on message boards make the mistake of arguing against religious schools on the grounds of integration and support fee paying schools. So your strawman argument convinces me not.
They might well do but I doubt they presented it as you did. Further that still doesn't make any difference to whether the argument that religious schools are wrong is correct.
Since no one is presenting any argument about it here, it's not only a fallacy against arguing against religious schools, it's entirely irrelevant to the posters on here as regards any degree of humbuggery. It would be good if you could actually engage with ippy's point at some stage.
-
They might well do but I doubt they presented it as you did. Further that still doesn't make any difference to whether the argument that religious schools are wrong is correct.
Since no one is presenting any argument about it here, it's not only a fallacy against arguing against religious schools, it's entirely irrelevant to the posters on here as regards any degree of humbuggery. It would be good if you could actually engage with ippy's point at some stage.
I have done. I want to know if he genuinely believes segregation of children in the context of education is always wrong. I am awaiting his response.
-
I have done. I want to know if he genuinely believes segregation of children in the context of education is always wrong. I am awaiting his response.
It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.
-
Well I've seen folks on message boards make the mistake of arguing against religious schools on the grounds of integration and support fee paying schools. So your strawman argument convinces me not.
Well, I'm agin both, though I don't want to ban them. I would, however, withdraw state support for religious schools, and take away fee-paying scholls' charitable status. (I'd also make it a lot harder to home-school kids, a thoroughly bad idea, though again I wouldn't ban it completely.)
-
It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.
But I'm sorry Sane we need to know what his argument is.
Is it religious schools stop children mixing full stop or what?
What is his focus. Is it religion or is it Mixing?
He needs to clarify and provide context.
Why did he not just say segregated schools prevent children mixing? We need to get his perspective on what it is he is actually saying.
-
Well, I'm agin both, though I don't want to ban them. I would, however, withdraw state support for religious schools, and take away fee-paying scholls' charitable status.
And that is a consistent argument.
In my opinion Nearly Sane seems to want to defend the argument against religious schools segregating while supporting fee paying schools as somehow reasonable.
I don't understand that.
-
I have done. I want to know if he genuinely believes segregation of children in the context of education is always wrong. I am awaiting his response.
I don't mind answering you Vlad, it's just that if I do answer you, you seem to get into some sort of ginormous muddle with virtually everything that's put before you and it always looks to me as though you deliberately misunderstand whoever it happens to be that's trying their best to communicate with you; you certainly don't communicate English in anything close to the way the most of us do.
Regards ippy.
-
I don't mind answering you Vlad, it's just that if I do answer you, you seem to get into some sort of ginormous muddle with virtually everything that's put before you and it always looks to me as though you deliberately misunderstand whoever it happens to be that's trying their best to communicate with you; you certainly don't communicate English in anything close to the way the most of us do.
Regards ippy.
He says 'I don't mind answering you' and then does a diversionary ad hominem!
have another go Ippy.......
Do you support any of the following schools?
Fee Paying
Special Needs
Grammar schools
Single sex schools
-
Wait a minute, If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?
Fee paying schools aren't funded by the tax payer.
And for grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist. That suggestion is bonkers.
-
Fee paying schools aren't funded by the tax payer.
That's another argument Davey. Do keep up.
-
And that is a consistent argument.
In my opinion Nearly Sane seems to want to defend the argument against religious schools segregating while supporting fee paying schools as somehow reasonable.
I don't understand that.
Any link to where I said that? Because to help you out I haven't.
-
But I'm sorry Sane we need to know what his argument is.
Is it religious schools stop children mixing full stop or what?
What is his focus. Is it religion or is it Mixing?
He needs to clarify and provide context.
Why did he not just say segregated schools prevent children mixing? We need to get his perspective on what it is he is actually saying.
So given that you have ignored my post to which I replied can I take it that you agree that applying absolautes as you were doing is simplistic? If not why not?
Who is 'we'?
-
So given that you have ignored my post to which I replied can I take it that you agree that applying absolautes as you were doing is simplistic? If not why not?
Who is 'we'?
Sorry but you seem to say that backing two contradictory positions was not hypocritical and therefore a reasonable position to hold. There is even a post from you to this effect.
-
That's another argument Davey. Do keep up.
Rather than obfuscating perhaps you'd like to address the main point of my post, namely that for state funded grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist.
-
Rather than obfuscating perhaps you'd like to address the main point of my post, namely that for state funded grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist.
the existence of schools? In the UK I believe that is because they were church foundations.
Fast forward and we have the major atheistic organisations Humanist UK and NSS saying they aren't in the business of founding schools but are happy for the tax payers to found them for them.
As a tax payer I therefore object to the idea of religion not being represented in a meaningful way in schools as suggested by Humanist UK and NSS.
The ideal formula is therefore for each school to openly and joyously declare that they strive to reflect and celebrate the faith and world viewsof their pupils and communities they find themselves in, rather than the oppressive dictat of BHA and NSS.
-
Sorry but you seem to say that backing two contradictory positions was not hypocritical and therefore a reasonable position to hold. There is even a post from you to this effect.
Sorry, this isn't the same as saying I was taking specific positions on religious and fee paying schools - which you did in the post I was replying to. So I take it that you now retract that statement and want to make this one?
In regards to the idea of what you think of as two contradictory positions, I covered this in the post about being against lying and against causing harm, which you again ignored in your reply. Your post above seems to ignore that in its entirety again.
-
Sorry, this isn't the same as saying I was taking specific positions on religious and fee paying schools - which you did in the post I was replying to. So I take it that you now retract that statement and want to make this one?
In regards to the idea of what you think of as two contradictory positions, I covered this in the post about being against lying and against causing harm, which you again ignored in your reply. Your post above seems to ignore that in its entirety again.
But Sane, putting what I said in the context of this thread the two conflicting ideas in question ARE
That religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing
That fee paying schools are right even though they effectively do the same.
-
But Sane, putting what I said in the context of this thread the two conflicting ideas in question ARE
That religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing
That fee paying schools are right even though they effectively do the same.
Still no answer I see to my example about lying which covers this, and you are continually ignoring.
Given the lack of answer to the question about retracting your misrepresentation of what I said, I will assume that you have retracted that but are unable to write that for reasons best known to yourself
-
Still no answer I see to my example about lying which covers this, and you are continually ignoring.
Given the lack of answer to the question about retracting your misrepresentation of what I said, I will assume that you have retracted that but are unable to write that for reasons best known to yourself
Still no answer I see to my example about lying which covers this, and you are continually ignoring.
Given the lack of answer to the question about retracting your misrepresentation of what I said, I will assume that you have retracted that but are unable to write that for reasons best known to yourself
What misrepresentation? Did you or did you not write this on a thread where the context was the argument Religious schools are wrong because the prevent mixing but Fee paying schools are right.
Quote from: Nearly Sane on Today at 09:19:34 AM
''It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.''
..................and by saying it are you not saying that it is reasonable to argue that religious schools are wrong because they stop mixing but fee paying schools are right...that being the context with which you are making the analogy.
And that's without even mentioning Godwin's law
-
the existence of schools? In the UK I believe that is because they were church foundations.
Nonsense and irrelevant.
-
What misrepresentation? Did you or did you not write this on a thread where the context was the argument Religious schools are wrong because the prevent mixing but Fee paying schools are right.
Quote from: Nearly Sane on Today at 09:19:34 AM
''It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.''
..................and by saying it are you not saying that it is reasonable to argue that religious schools are wrong because they stop mixing but fee paying schools are right...that being the context with which you are making the analogy.
And that's without even mentioning Godwin's law
So nothing in that says anything about my opinion fee paying schools. It's a general point that people might have principles that conflict. You seems confused. And merely saying Godwin's law does nothing to deal with the point.
-
Nonsense and irrelevant.
OK let's get back to the question.
Do you think that religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right?
-
OK let's get back to the question.
Do you think that religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right?
That isn't the question. The OP is about state funded faith schools compared to other state funded schools - let's stick to the topic.
So once again:
that for state funded grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist.
-
That isn't the question. The OP is about state funded faith schools compared to other state funded schools - let's stick to the topic.
I fully expect a secular population to use the bonkers argument that state funded religious schools are wrong because they prevent children from mixing but fee paying schools are right even though they do exactly what makes state sponsored religious schools wrong........... although whether that is down to secularist lunacy or lunatic legacy feudal deference I don't know.
-
Vladdo,
I fully expect a secular population to use the bonkers argument that state funded religious schools are wrong because they prevent children from mixing but fee paying schools are right even though they do exactly what makes state sponsored religious schools wrong........... although whether that is down to secularist lunacy or lunatic legacy feudal deference I don't know.
That's not the argument.
-
Vladdo,
That's not the argument.
which is..............?
-
Vladdo,
which is?
The arguments against each are different. Broadly the argument agains religious schools is that, as a general principle, teaching lies to children is a bad idea and in practical outcome terms it leads to tribalism and division.
The argument against fee paying schools is that it denies the best educational resources to the most able children - ie, it's good for rich thick kids but bad for poor smart ones.
Both are bad for society as a whole, but the reasons are different.
-
Vladdo,
The arguments against each are different. Broadly the argument agains religious schools is that, as a general principle, teaching lies to children is a bad idea and in practical outcome terms it leads to tribalism and division.
That's your argument...an inflamed prostatic affair.... which I will gladly address in due course.
However Ippy's angle is that the trouble is that it prevents children from mixing.
-
Vladdo,
That's your argument...an inflamed prostatic affair.... which I will gladly address in due course.
Whether you or I agree with the arguments is a different matter. I was merely explaining to you what they are.
However Ippy's angle is that the trouble is that it prevents children from mixing.
You're looking in the wrong place - segregation. If, say, half the schools educated children whose surnames began with A-M and the other schools educated the rest that would be segregated education but it wouldn't matter much. With faith schools though it's the differential content that's problematic, and with private schools it's the differential quality that's problematic.
It's not hard to grasp if you try.
-
Vladdo,
Whether you or I agree with the arguments is a different matter. I was merely explaining to you what they are.
You're looking in the wrong place - segregation. If, say, half the schools educated children whose surnames began with A-M and the other schools educated the rest that would be segregated education but it wouldn't matter much. With faith schools though it's the differential content that's problematic, and with private schools it's the differential quality that's problematic.
A bit simplistic and we are left with how any of the schools allow children to mix?
-
Vladdo,
A bit simplistic and we are left with how any of the schools allow children to mix?
It's not simplistic (it just explains why you're looking in the wrong place), and we're not "left with" that at all. The arguments against faith schools that segregate and the arguments against private schools that segregate are different: with faith schools it's differential content; with private schools it's differential quality.
As for segregation as a general phenomenon, we already do that widely inasmuch as most schools accept pupils from their catchment areas - that's a form of segregation because children from town A can't go to school in town B. No-one cares much though because it doesn't matter - there are no differential content or differential quality issues involved.
-
Vladdo,
It's not simplistic (it just explains why you're looking in the wrong place), and we're not "left with" that at all. The arguments against faith schools that segregate and the arguments against private schools that segregate are different: with faith schools it's differential content; with private schools it's differential quality.
As for segregation as a general phenomenon, we already do that widely inasmuch as most schools accept pupils from their catchment areas - that's a form of segregation because children from town A can't go to school in town B. No-one cares much though because it doesn't matter - there are no differential content or differential quality issues involved.
Of course it was simplistic. There isn't segregation by alphabetic order for a kick off and to say the only difference between state education and fee paying education is quality ignores it's role in perpetuating the class thing, stifling social mobility and meritocracy and the fact that we seem to be living in a ''Headmasters conferenceocracy'' with it seems an attendant chronic political clusterfuck.
As regards to your specific argument that lies are being taught....You've asserted, You justify.
-
Well, I'm agin both, though I don't want to ban them. I would, however, withdraw state support for religious schools, and take away fee-paying scholls' charitable status. (I'd also make it a lot harder to home-school kids, a thoroughly bad idea, though again I wouldn't ban it completely.)
Why is home schooling a bad idea? Home schooling by religious nutters, yes, but that's mostly an issue Stateside.
-
Vladdo,
Of course it was simplistic. There isn't segregation by alphabetic order for a kick off…
FFS – even the simplest analogy passes you by doesn’t it. There aren’t really people looking for needles in haystacks either. So?
…and to say the only difference between state education and fee paying education ignores it's role in perpetuating the class thing, stifling social mobility and meritocracy and the fact that we seem to be living in a ''Headmasters conferenceocracy'' with it seems an attendant chronic political clusterfuck.
No it doesn’t ignore that at all – it rests on it as you’d know if you’d bothered to understand anything that’s been said here. That’s exactly why people argue against education based on differential quality – giving the best resources to kids whose parents happen to be able to afford it and denying it to kids whose parents can’t will (the argument goes) lead to these outcomes.
As regards to your specific argument that lies are being taught....You've asserted, You justify.
Easily if you want to start a thread on it. This one though is about why people argue as they do, and I've straightened out your misunderstanding of that already. Whether those arguments have merit is another matter.
-
Easily if you want to start a thread on it. This one though is about why people argue as they do, and I've straightened out your misunderstanding of that already. Whether those arguments have merit is another matter.
It's up to you to start a thread on your argument ''faith schools teach lies'', reiterate your claim, justify it and then wait patiently and politely for interlocution. But being interrogated doesn't sit well with you, does it?.
-
Vladdo,
That's not the argument.
Vlad's not in receiving mode today Blue, I don't know when he will be, he thinks he's read my post and doesn't understand whatever bit of it he did read.
He's even more deeply into bollocks mode today than his normal I know it doesn't seem possible, but he is.
Regards ippy
-
ipster,
Vlad's not in receiving mode today Blue, I don't know when he will be, he thinks he's read my post and doesn't understand whatever bit of it he did read.
He's even more deeply into bollocks mode today than his normal I know it doesn't seem possible, but he is.
Clearly so. The hypocrisy of him insisting I start a thread to make an argument when, to my knowledge, he's never, ever argued for anything (preferring instead to ignore or to lie about the arguments that others make) is beyond irony.
-
Vlad's not in receiving mode today Blue, I don't know when he will be, he thinks he's read my post and doesn't understand whatever bit of it he did read.
He's even more deeply into bollocks mode today than his normal I know it doesn't seem possible, but he is.
Regards ippy
Earlier, Ippy wrote.....
I don't mind answering you Vlad,
and how did he answer?
it's just that if I do answer you, you seem to get into some sort of ginormous muddle with virtually everything that's put before you and it always looks to me as though you deliberately misunderstand whoever it happens to be that's trying their best to communicate with you; you certainly don't communicate English in anything close to the way the most of us do.
In other words he didn't answer me.
-
Vladdo,
In other words he didn't answer me.
Just out of interest, have you ever, ever, ever answered a question that someone has asked you here?
Ever?
-
ipster,
Clearly so. The hypocrisy of him insisting I start a thread to make an argument when, to my knowledge, he's never, ever argued for anything (preferring instead to ignore or to lie about the arguments that others make) is beyond irony.
Your lack of justification for your idea that faith schools teach lies speaks for itself.
-
Vladdo,
Just out of interest, have you ever, ever, ever answered a question that someone has asked you here?
Ever?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Points
-
Vladdo,
Your lack of justification for your idea that faith schools teach lies speaks for itself.
Well that was stupid. Explaining what an argument is and justifying that argument are different things.
Surely even you can grasp that can't you?
Can't you?
-
Vladdo,
Yes.
When?
-
The main atheist organisations BHA and NSS seem simultaneously happy and unhappy with secular state schools.
Unhappy because they object to religion in schools
Happy because secular schools are very nearly the ideal
If the latter is the case then something is wrong, namely the schools are not reflecting the communities they find themselves in or the lives of those communities, rather they represent a narrow type of national secularism.
The BHA and NSS therefore have schools at the expense of taxpayers. Which represents a triumph for a minority.
As I said schools should celebrate and promote their cultural and spiritual context appropriately.
Against such a sensible measure, the BHA and NSS look like an educational dictatorship.
-
Rather than obfuscating perhaps you'd like to address the main point of my post, namely that for state funded grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist.
I think schools are more than places of academic education - they are often described as communities with a particular ethos or values, where children are socialised. Previous governments supported faith schools because they wanted to support diversity and parental choice because it seemed to be a vote winner, presumably based on lobbying from parents and interest groups. Parents might have liked the ethos of faith schools at that time.
If it is no longer a vote winner and the majority of parents oppose faith schools, parents should continue to use the democratic process by approaching their MPs to ask questions and debate the issue in Parliament. If the arguments against faith schools are persuasive and there is peer-reviewed evidence that faith schools lead to social intolerance while secular schools do not, presumably it is in the self-interest of political parties to support a change in education policy, if it is popular.
Labour don't seem to have included anything in their election manifesto pledge about abolishing faith schools or grammar schools or withdrawing charitable status from private schools. Labour did say they would add VAT to school fees.
Apparently the Tories claimed in their election manifesto that they would strip private schools of their tax breaks if they refuse to help neighbouring state school but this plan has been shelved - maybe not a vote winner?
-
Vladdo,
The main atheist organisations BHA and NSS seem simultaneously happy and unhappy with secular state schools.
Unhappy because they object to religion in schools
Happy because secular schools are very nearly the ideal
If the latter is the case then something is wrong, namely the schools are not reflecting the communities they find themselves in or the lives of those communities, rather they represent a narrow type of national secularism.
The BHA and NSS therefore have schools at the expense of taxpayers. Which represents a triumph for a minority.
As I said schools should celebrate and promote their cultural and spiritual context appropriately.
Against such a sensible measure, the BHA and NSS look like an educational dictatorship.
Wrong from beginning to end. The NSS and the BHA don't object to "religion in schools" at all. To the contrary they recognise that religions are widespread and significant cultural phenomena and that children should therefore be taught about them. What they actually object to though is the content of religions being taught as facts alongside the facts of biology and geography.
-
Vladdo,
Wrong from beginning to end. The NSS and the BHA don't object to "religion in schools" at all. To the contrary they recognise that religions are widespread and significant cultural phenomena and that children should therefore be taught about them. What they actually object to though is the content of religions being taught as facts alongside the facts of biology and geography.
Do you really expect us to believe that NSS and HUK do not campaign about the religion which is in secular state schools?
-
Vladdo,
Do you really expect us to believe that NSS and HUK do not campaign about the religion which is in secular state schools?
I expect you to believe that they don't "object to religion in schools" at all, which was the misrepresentation you attempted.
-
Vladdo,
I expect you to believe that they don't "object to religion in schools" at all, which was the misrepresentation you attempted.
The only religion they want is the ''about religion'' namely religion on their terms
A taster from the campaigns page of Humanist UK
''schools and education, including ‘faith’ schools, Religious Education, Science including evolution and creationism, PSHE and sex and relationships education, and collective worship;''. The NSS roll call of objections is similar.
Is there then any area or aspect of religion in education that these organisations don't object to?
-
The BHA and NSS therefore have schools at the expense of taxpayers. Which represents a triumph for a minority.
No they don't.
Please provide me with a single example of a state funded school (or even a non state funded school) run by the BHA or NSS in the same manner as state funded faith schools are run by the RCC or CofE (as examples).
-
No they don't.
Please provide me with a single example of a state funded school (or even a non state funded school) run by the BHA or NSS in the same manner as state funded faith schools are run by the RCC or CofE (as examples).
Wherethese organisations are happy that these schools are running according to their model they have got a school which promotes their belief and for which they merely have to pay taxes as any other citizen while seeking to eliminate religion and introduce mere 'About religion'.
-
Earlier, Ippy wrote.....
and how did he answer?
In other words he didn't answer me.
I don't know Vlad, the biggest failing of yours is, say I was having some discussion with you about sailing, (I'm not actually writing to you about sailing, this only an example), if you were to answer whatever I said about sailing your answer or answers would probably be something about the average summer rainfall figures for Patogonia circa the 1922 season.
Which as most people can see, the ones that try to communicate with you, it makes us think to ourselves how do you manage to get through to this bloke? Namely you Vlad?
If you go back to my original post you should have seen the answers to the question was there for you to perceive in the first place, ie, no need for you to have asked me the question, therefore no need for the question.
Regards ippy
-
I don't know Vlad, the biggest failing of yours is, say I was having some discussion with you about sailing, (I'm not actually writing to you about sailing, this only an example), if you were to answer whatever I said about sailing your answer or answers would probably be something about the average summer rainfall figures for Patogonia circa the 1922 season.
Which as most people can see, the ones that try to communicate with you, it makes us think to ourselves how do you manage to get through to this bloke? Namely you Vlad?
If you go back to my original post you should have seen the answers to the question was there for you to perceive in the first place, ie, no need for you to have asked me the question, therefore no need for the question.
Regards ippy
Ippy what I want is an explanation as to why when the NSS discuss this they only refer to state funded schools. Presumably then they think that segregation on the grounds of religion is fine as long as it's privately paid for.
Perhaps you can oblige.
Also while we are on the subject of the NSS what is Lawrence Krauss's current status in that organisation?
-
Ippy what I want is an explanation as to why when the NSS discuss this they only refer to state funded schools. Presumably then they think that segregation on the grounds of religion is fine as long as it's privately paid for.
Perhaps you can oblige.
Also while we are on the subject of the NSS what is Lawrence Krauss's current status in that organisation?
Maybe you should ask them and not ippy? And does Dawkins know that you have taken down his poster from your wall and replaced it with your photoshopped poster of a naked Lawrence Krauss hiding his citations under your shite stained shirt?
-
Maybe you should ask them and not ippy? And does Dawkins know that you have taken down his poster from your wall and replaced it with your photoshopped poster of a naked Lawrence Krauss hiding his citations under your shite stained shirt?
Ippy's a kind of unofficial local agent for the NSS as you seem to be for exploding Nipples.
-
Ippy's a kind of unofficial local agent for the NSS as you seem to be for exploding Nipples.
No, it was your nipples that exploded with shite, I couldn't take away the grand achievement of your posting.
-
No, it was your nipples that exploded with shite,
You really couldn't make this sort of thing up.
-
You really couldn't make this sort of thing up.
Enjoy yourself, it's shiter than you think
-
Wherethese organisations are happy that these schools are running according to their model they have got a school which promotes their belief and for which they merely have to pay taxes as any other citizen while seeking to eliminate religion and introduce mere 'About religion'.
Wrong - non faith schools no more promote humanism than they promoted catholicism or islam.
And of all our public institutions state funded non faith schools are about as far from being secular as you can get (albeit not as far as the faith schools) - the notion that a school must by law provide daily worship of a broadly christian nature and that that school is secular if completely oxymoronic.
The reality is that there is not a single state funded humanist school in the country, nor is there a single state funded secular school.
-
Wrong - non faith schools no more promote humanism than they promoted catholicism or islam.
How can they do other since the unwritten understanding behind a secular school is that you don't need God for anything....which is de facto Humanism whether the usual clowns on here loudly agree or not.
That is inescapable.
The NSS and BHA do not celebrate religious identity.
-
It'll always be a problem to find a way to prevent religionists getting their claws into, as they see it, new recruits, when they consider educating our under seven year old children, I look forward to the day this practice was brought to a full stop, I'm sure there must be a better much more enlightened way to educate these vulnerable young pre seven year old victims.
As for the post seven year old children perhaps it'd be for the best to introduce them to some knowledge about the various religions that are unfortunately still managing to survive and from a personal point of view I would like to see some strict form of enforceable legislation that would prevent all of the religions, being taught as factual matters to any of our children in all of our schools, government funded or otherwise.
Regards ippy
-
It'll always be a problem to find a way to prevent religionists getting their claws into
Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.
-
It'll always be a problem to find a way to prevent religionists getting their claws into, as they see it, new recruits, when they consider educating our under seven year old children, I look forward to the day this practice was brought to a full stop, I'm sure there must be a better much more enlightened way to educate these vulnerable young pre seven year old victims.
As for the post seven year old children perhaps it'd be for the best to introduce them to some knowledge about the various religions that are unfortunately still managing to survive and from a personal point of view I would like to see some strict form of enforceable legislation that would prevent all of the religions, being taught as factual matters to any of our children in all of our schools, government funded or otherwise.
Regards ippy
what about at home?
-
Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.
And they started capitalism too by your logic.
-
Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.
Stop and think for a minute Vlad, this post of yours is completely irrelevant to my post that you think you're commenting on.
Regards ippy
-
what about at home?
As I keep on saying there's not much that can be done about that, but not using those precise words, oh yes and there's nothing I need to add to this comment, that's it.
Regards ippy
-
As I keep on saying there's not much that can be done about that, but not using those precise words, oh yes and there's nothing I need to add to this comment, that's it.
Regards ippy
So all things done outside of the state system is ok? Note I am only askin g about what you think.
-
So all things done outside of the state system is ok? Note I am only askin g about what you think.
H R takes care of the various freedoms, I'm sure the freedom of religion part, there of, is the right thing but as much I would like to see the under sevens protected from any kind of dogma when in a school environment, I can't see how it's possible to seperate these children from religion outside of the schools without infringing their parents H R's.
Much as I dislike belief in religions, I also go along with rights of us all when it comes to H R.
That's my thoughts on the subject, they wont be altering any time soon.
Regards ippy
-
That's my thoughts on the subject, they wont be altering any time soon.
Regards ippy
Unless of course in the very near future you are shown new information that causes you to alter your thoughts and opinions.
-
Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.
No they didn't - societies have been educating their children (and treating their sick for millennia).
And our current notion of both education and healthcare in the UK - universally provided to all and free at the point of use - was established in the late 1940s and the proposals on education (reforms in education leading to the 1994 education act) were opposed by religions who saw the likelihood of influence dwindling. In the case of healthcare the government held its ground and properly nationalised the system. Sadly the 1944 education act contained a fudge that allowed church influence to remain (despite the fact that the church schools were mostly in an appalling state, were going bust and the church's main aim was to get someone else - the taxpayer - to pay for the schools they ran). We are still feeling the effect of that bad decision over 70 years later.
-
No they didn't - societies have been educating their children (and treating their sick for millennia).
And our current notion of both education and healthcare in the UK - universally provided to all and free at the point of use - was established in the late 1940s and the proposals on education (reforms in education leading to the 1994 education act) were opposed by religions who saw the likelihood of influence dwindling. In the case of healthcare the government held its ground and properly nationalised the system. Sadly the 1944 education act contained a fudge that allowed church influence to remain (despite the fact that the church schools were mostly in an appalling state, were going bust and the church's main aim was to get someone else - the taxpayer - to pay for the schools they ran). We are still feeling the effect of that bad decision over 70 years later.
Unfortunately in our increasingly secular society education and healthcare provision free at the point of use look increasingly in jeopardy.
This is due, obviously,to a reduction in charity and an increasingly secular society increasingly believing that not only thee keeps it for ''thee sen'' but what's yours is mine and what's mine you can keep yer stinkin' hands off.
-
Unfortunately in our increasingly secular society education and healthcare provision free at the point of use look increasingly in jeopardy.
This is due, obviously,to a reduction in charity and an increasingly secular society increasingly believing that not only thee keeps it for ''thee sen'' but what's yours is mine and what's mine you can keep yer stinkin' hands off.
May's a Christian, Hunt's a C...
-
Unfortunately in our increasingly secular society education and healthcare provision free at the point of use look increasingly in jeopardy.
I agree that there a severe pressures on our state health and educational systems. But this has absolutely nothing to do with secularisation - it is political (and economic/demographical) in nature
This is due, obviously,to a reduction in charity
That is neither obvious nor true. First there is no way in which a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system can run on charitable donations - can you provide an example please of a country who provides a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system based on charity, rather than taxation and/or direct payment from individuals, via fees and/or insurance.
Secondly where is your evidence that there is a reduction in charity in the UK - see the link and download the full report - effectively when index adjusted the amount of voluntary charitable donations has remained largely flat for years.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05428#fullreport
-
I agree that there a severe pressures on our state health and educational systems. But this has absolutely nothing to do with secularisation - it is political (and economic/demographical) in nature
That is neither obvious nor true. First there is no way in which a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system can run on charitable donations - can you provide an example please of a country who provides a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system based on charity, rather than taxation and/or direct payment from individuals, via fees and/or insurance.
Secondly where is your evidence that there is a reduction in charity in the UK - see the link and download the full report - effectively when index adjusted the amount of voluntary charitable donations has remained largely flat for years.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05428#fullreport
I read Vlad's use of charity here as in the sense of love of humanity
-
I read Vlad's use of charity here as in the sense of love of humanity
Something which is of course completely subjective and impossible to measure.
However you might be able to measure the manifestation of that sense of charity - either in terms of philanthropic donation (which as I have show shows no evidence of being in decline) or in terms of volunteering - which is also very robust. And on the latter the adult group most likely to give their time volunteering are full time students, typically aged 16-25, who are of course the least likely age group to be religious.
-
May's a Christian, Hunt's a C...
May's a Christian, Hunt's a C...
In as much individuals are to blame they certainly can be included but not as much obviously as Cameron, whose faith ''came and went'' and Clegg, the enabler, without whom none of this could have been possible ......an atheist.
And talking of enabling, step forward the Increasingly Secular Great British Public who had ample warning of a lack of charity in the tabloid press starting 2 or 3 years before the 2010 election and who let Cameron in in 2010 by dint of their vote, returned him with an increased majority in 2015, changed there mind in 2016, plumped for the tories in 2017 and are now keeping them on top presumably so they can fulfil their mission of wrecking public service.
-
And talking of enabling, step forward the Increasingly Secular Great British Public who had ample warning of a lack of charity ...
Define what you mean by charity, and then please provide evidence against that definition that charity is reducing.
in the tabloid press starting 2 or 3 years before the 2010 election ...
Are you using the tabloid press as evidence!?!
and who let Cameron in in 2010 by dint of their vote, returned him with an increased majority in 2015, changed there mind in 2016, plumped for the tories in 2017 and are now keeping them on top presumably so they can fulfil their mission of wrecking public service.
But that is just politics, and cyclical.
Also as much as I am very anti-tory, I think many tories would argue that they are very charitable (in its most overt sense) - indeed there is a very strong aspect of tory ideology that feels that private philanthropy and charity is preferable to state intervention.
-
Something which is of course completely subjective and impossible to measure.
However you might be able to measure the manifestation of that sense of charity - either in terms of philanthropic donation (which as I have show shows no evidence of being in decline) or in terms of volunteering - which is also very robust. And on the latter the adult group most likely to give their time volunteering are the youngest, who are of course the least likely age group to be religious.
Health and Education are manifestations of that sense of charity.
Charitable love is not just a warm feeling or emotion. It attends sacrificially to the needs of others and often that targeting is on a national collective level because that is the most effective way of meeting the needs of others.
Tax systems will not go away but if an increasingly secular population has less charitable impulse Taxes go on other things, the individual pays less tax in the hope of making their own health and educational arrangements although, you will note there is never enough for Eton or the Brompton Hospital (and one is never expected to contribute to a privatised Trident Missile).
So health and education are in part charitable activities funded by whatever taxation policy one votes for. An increasingly secular population has seemingly opted for taxation with a far lower charitable component.
-
In as much individuals are to blame they certainly can be included but not as much obviously as Cameron, whose faith ''came and went'' and Clegg, the enabler, without whom none of this could have been possible ......an atheist.
And talking of enabling, step forward the Increasingly Secular Great British Public who had ample warning of a lack of charity in the tabloid press starting 2 or 3 years before the 2010 election and who let Cameron in in 2010 by dint of their vote, returned him with an increased majority in 2015, changed there mind in 2016, plumped for the tories in 2017 and are now keeping them on top presumably so they can fulfil their mission of wrecking public service.
Of course this moves us closer to the U.S system where society is much more openly Christian. As ever you are using your misunderstanding, to phrase it charitably, of the term secular
-
Define what you mean by charity, and then please provide evidence against that definition that charity is reducing.
Are you using the tabloid press as evidence!?!
But that is just politics, and cyclical.
Also as much as I am very anti-tory, I think many tories would argue that they are very charitable (in its most overt sense) - indeed there is a very strong aspect of tory ideology that feels that private philanthropy and charity is preferable to state intervention.
By charity I mean enabling people to meet needs that they cannot meet themselves by giving.
Patently however the charity of individual Tories manifestly. The outcome of Political Tory charity is plain to see and measurable.
Historically private philanthropy has never anyway near matched things like The New Deal in the US, The New Town programme, or the Welfare state in the UK.
-
Health and Education are manifestations of that sense of charity.
In which case over the past 150 years as the UK has been increasingly less religious and increasingly more secular there is no doubt that those manifestations of charity have massively increased. While we might worry about the strain on our education and healthcare systems, part of the reason is that more people than ever are benefiting to a greater degree from the health and educational services provided in the UK.
Charitable love is not just a warm feeling or emotion. It attends sacrificially to the needs of others and often that targeting is on a national collective level because that is the most effective way of meeting the needs of others.
Sure - so sacrificing your time to volunteer to help others, or sacrificing income, through charitable donations are clearly manifestations of charity using your definitions.
Tax systems will not go away but if an increasingly secular population has less charitable impulse
But you have absolutely no evidence for this hand waving assertion. Certainly over the past 20 years or so there is no evidence that 'an increasingly secular population has less charitable impulse' given that levels of volunteering and charitable donations (adjusted for inflation) haven't declined, despite a major decline in religiosity over the same time period.
So health and education are in part charitable activities funded by whatever taxation policy one votes for. An increasingly secular population has seemingly opted for taxation with a far lower charitable component.
No it hasn't - so although overall charitable donations have remained broadly constant over the past couple of decades, the amount donated to different type of charitable activity has shifted somewhat - away from religion and towards other causes, including health related and educational - so in effect we give the same overall, but more to health and education and less to religion.
-
Of course this moves us closer to the U.S system where society is much more openly Christian. As ever you are using your misunderstanding, to phrase it charitably, of the term secular
If people are going to laud secular society (a society where the minority are religious)
and the things it has then you are not justified in ignoring any negative aspects which emerge.
Now the NSS when they talk about an increasingly secular society they point to one with decreasing believers, That I move is at least implicit.
-
By charity I mean enabling people to meet needs that they cannot meet themselves by giving.
By giving what?
Time, through volunteering?
Money, through charitable donations?
If so neither are on the decline.
-
If people are going to laud secular society (a society where the minority are religious)
and the things it has then you are not justified in ignoring any negative aspects which emerge.
Now the NSS when they talk about an increasingly secular society they point to one with decreasing believers, That I move is at least implicit.
I note that you evaded the point about the U.S.. And then have made up your definition of secular. And then with no facts have used a correlation implies causation approach with no correlation. Really quite impressively bad post from you.
-
In which case over the past 150 years as the UK has been increasingly less religious and increasingly more secular there is no doubt that those manifestations of charity have massively increased.
And the problem is Davey that there is a massive decrease in charity coinciding with a massive increase in the population claiming to be non religious with no sign that that both are not going to continue.
Explain that.
-
And the problem is Davey that there is a massive decrease in charity coinciding with a massive increase in the population claiming to be non religious with no sign that that both are not going to continue.
Explain that.
Can I have some facts with that straw?
-
By giving what?
Time, through volunteering?
Money, through charitable donations?
If so neither are on the decline.
You have deliberately missed out what you should know I include as charity had you bothered to read my posts.
The giving of money collectively through taxation.
-
Can I have some facts with that straw?
There is austerity, The cut in public service due to collective tax and spending policy.
You yourself have been flagging that up for years.
-
I note that you evaded the point about the U.S.. And then have made up your definition of secular. And then with no facts have used a correlation implies causation approach with no correlation. Really quite impressively bad post from you.
Your ''never mind the UK what about America'' is whataboutery. THAT is quite impressively bad from a chap for whom whataboutery is his lietmotif.
The american christianity you talk about is palpably a syncretism of protestantism and frontier spirit.
-
And the problem is Davey that there is a massive decrease in charity ...
There isn't.
So looking at the past couple of decades:
Proportion of people formally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 27%
2016 - 27%
Proportion of people informally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 34%
2016 - 34%
Average hours per person formally volunteering
2001 - 11.0
2016 - 11.6
Charitable donations (excluding legacies etc) and adjusted for inflation
2002 - £15.7Billion
2006 - £19.6Billion
Total charitable sector income, adjusted for inflation
2002 - £34Billion
2006 - £47Billion
-
There isn't.
So looking at the past couple of decades:
Proportion of people formally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 27%
2016 - 27%
Proportion of people informally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 34%
2016 - 34%
Average hours per person formally volunteering
2001 - 11.0
2016 - 11.6
Charitable donations (excluding legacies etc) and adjusted for inflation
2002 - £15.7Billion
2006 - £19.6Billion
Total charitable sector income, adjusted for inflation
2002 - £34Billion
2006 - £47Billion
And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?
If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.
-
There is austerity, The cut in public service due to collective tax and spending policy.
You yourself have been flagging that up for years.
So that would be no facts then. In order to show a 'massive decrease' in tax receipts, you would need to show a massive decrease in the % of GDP taken in tax, do you have such facts. And I note that you have again ignored the point about the U.S. And the problem of correlation does nor mean causation though you still have to show facts, which you have not done, to have any correlation.
-
Your ''never mind the UK what about America'' is whataboutery. THAT is quite impressively bad from a chap for whom whataboutery is his lietmotif.
The american christianity you talk about is palpably a syncretism of protestantism and frontier spirit.
No, if you are claiming secular means less tax for health and education, then the U'S' falsifies it. You just managed to show that you have no understanding of whataboutery/tu quoque fallacy.
I have no idea how you think your last sentence has relevance.
-
So that would be no facts then. In order to show a 'massive decrease' in tax receipts, you would need to show a massive decrease in the % of GDP taken in tax, do you have such facts. And I note that you have again ignored the point about the U.S. And the problem of correlation does nor mean causation though you still have to show facts, which you have not done, to have any correlation.
The point about US is whataboutery, a deviation but consistent with a British Atheists shite perspective where Christians are generally white, southern, wunnerful teeth and either Robert Tilton/Jerry Falwell types or their followers and if not then poor, helpless and sapped.......completely ignoring the Bishop Curry Christianity.
America has never had a national health service. We have one and an increasingly secular society (NSS understanding) appear to be collectively acting against public services.
-
And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?
If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.
Which is entirely to do with politics and the overall economic position of the UK - which has absolutely nothing to do with secularisation.
-
The point about US is whataboutery, a deviation but consistent with a British Atheists shite perspective where Christians are generally white, southern, wunnerful teeth and either Robert Tilton/Jerry Falwell types or their followers and if not then poor, helpless and sapped.......completely ignoring the Bishop Curry Christianity.
America has never had a national health service. We have one and an increasingly secular society (NSS understanding) appear to be collectively acting against public services.
So once again you show you don't understand whataboutery, and again no facts, and again some irrelevant verbiage. Is there a worst post of the year award that you are trying to win?
-
No, if you are claiming secular means less tax for health and education, then the U'S' falsifies it. You just managed to show that you have no understanding of whataboutery/tu quoque fallacy.
I have no idea how you think your last sentence has relevance.
I think youhave demonstrate that as far as Tu Quoque is concerned you are humbug of the stripiest and minteist variety.
I am asking 1) you to explain why good things in society should be laid at the door of secularisation but bad things shouldn't.
2) Explain why there is a decrease in the giving through taxation to health, care and education, which patently isn't being made good by personal donation in a society which is becoming increasingly secular in terms of an increasingly lower profile of religion and increasing numbers of those claiming to be non religious.
-
And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?
If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.
You are the one with the thesis that secularisation has lead to a 'massive reduction' in tax take. Any facts to support that there has been a 'massive reduction' in tax take? Because I've asked you for some facts several times now and you have provided none. its almost like you don't have any.
-
If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.
You might want to check out these 2 links. These provide data on public spending (i.e. from taxation on health and education), with perhaps the most valuable being as a proportion of GDP.
The data are from 1950 to present - a period of intense reductions in religiosity and increased secularisation - so if your thesis is correct you would expect to see a consistent decline in resources per GDP going into health and education ... but you don't.
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_education_analysis
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_healthcare_analysis
The trend on health is clearly up, while on education it is more complex, with recent reductions in spend per GDP associated with a politically motivated austerity agenda. But even then spending per GDP is significantly higher than in the (oh so more religious and less secular) 1950s
-
I think youhave demonstrate that as far as Tu Quoque is concerned you are humbug of the stripiest and minteist variety.
I am asking 1) you to explain why good things in society should be laid at the door of secularisation but bad things shouldn't.
2) Explain why there is a decrease in the giving through taxation to health, care and education, which patently isn't being made good by personal donation in a society which is becoming increasingly secular in terms of an increasingly lower profile of religion and increasing numbers of those claiming to be non religious.
That's brilliant on showing you don't understand the tu quoque, you have actually used a tu quoque. A moebius strip of idiotic irony.
Point 1) - I haven't made any such claim
Point 2) You haven't demonstrated any 'massive reduction' that you have claimed so there isn't anything to explain. You need to show some facts.
-
Unless of course in the very near future you are shown new information that causes you to alter your thoughts and opinions.
Of course you're right every idea is subject to evidence and I very much doubt there will be anything worthy of the name in the way of evidence supplied by any religion any time soon anywhere.
Regards ippy.
-
And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?
If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.
You can go even further - back to 1900 (a period of way higher religiosity, so therefore the health and education systems should have been awash with resources.
Yet.
In 1900 we spent just 1.3% of our GDP on education - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 4.5% of GDP on education.
Health is even more stark in improved resourcing - in 1900 we spent just 0.3% of our GDP - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 7.3% of GDP.
And that period is associated with slow and then rapid decline in religiosity and an increasing secular society.
Maybe you've got your graphs the wrong way up, if you are seeing this 'massive reduction'.
-
You might want to check out these 2 links. These provide data on public spending (i.e. from taxation on health and education), with perhaps the most valuable being as a proportion of GDP.
The data are from 1950 to present - a period of intense reductions in religiosity and increased secularisation - so if your thesis is correct you would expect to see a consistent decline in resources per GDP going into health and education ... but you don't.
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_education_analysis
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_healthcare_analysis
The trend on health is clearly up, while on education it is more complex, with recent reductions in spend per GDP associated with a politically motivated austerity agenda. But even then spending per GDP is significantly higher than in the (oh so more religious and less secular) 1950s
So there has been no austerity then, everybody with needs is as well off as they have ever been, The NHS and social care are providing more to individuals than they have ever done and it's only going to get better and better.
Here we see blind faith in secular progress in action.
Health professionals concerned about provision. A and E waiting times longer.
Social care provision in trouble school heads constantly reporting cuts.
While this has happened we have observed a phenomenal drop in religious belief.
But no..... for your standard Public atheist things are just getting better and better.
-
You can go even further - back to 1900 (a period of way higher religiosity, so therefore the health and education systems should have been awash with resources.
Yet.
In 1900 we spent just 1.3% of our GDP on education - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 4.5% of GDP on education.
Health is even more stark in improved resourcing - in 1900 we spent just 0.3% of our GDP - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 7.3% of GDP.
And that period is associated with slow and then rapid decline in religiosity and an increasing secular society.
Maybe you've got your graphs the wrong way up, if you are seeing this 'massive reduction'.
The NHS could have around another £26 million if the chaplains were paid for by those organisations that they represent, including I believe it's the one humanist chaplain.
Before anyone goes into an argument about the good works chaplains do in our hospitals, I'm referring to the funding of chaplains and have no complaints about them being there in our NHS.
Regards ippy
-
So there has been no austerity then
I never said that - quite the reverse.
What I have said is that there is no evidence that the declining religiosity and increasing secularisation in the Uk that has occurred over the past few decades is associated with declining public spending on health and education (it isn't). Nor is it associated with declining levels of private charitable giving or volunteering.
-
I note on you post 117 Vlad you still haven't got a clue about secularism you really don't understand the whole of the secularist idea.
Regards ippy
-
I never said that - quite the reverse.
What I have said is that there is no evidence that the declining religiosity and increasing secularisation in the Uk that has occurred over the past few decades is associated with declining public spending on health and education (it isn't). Nor is it associated with declining levels of private charitable giving or volunteering.
I never said that - quite the reverse.
What I have said is that there is no evidence that the declining religiosity and increasing secularisation in the Uk that has occurred over the past few decades is associated with declining public spending on health and education (it isn't). Nor is it associated with declining levels of private charitable giving or volunteering.
Spending on health and education is ultimately in the hands of the electorate which of course is increasingly non religious.
You say there is no link but there has in the last couple of decades been a phenomenal decline in the religious.
Using the graphs from your recommended website. The trend on health spending has remarkably altered, Dare I say downward? Certainly not enough to keep up.
Nobody but those who vote for a certain general tax and spend policy is responsible for that, Davey. Responsibility lies with the increasingly secular (NSS understanding) society obviously.
-
I note on you post 117 Vlad you still haven't got a clue about secularism you really don't understand the whole of the secularist idea.
Regards ippy
I take my cue from the National Secularists who take their idea of an increasingly secular society from the declining numbers of the religious.
You should know this because you triumphantly keep us informed of the success of secularism and, and as, the decline in religion.
That is why I am now adding ''NNS understanding'' every time I use it.
-
I take my cue from the National Secularists who take their idea of an increasingly secular society from the declining numbers of the religious.
You should know this because you triumphantly keep us informed of the success of secularism and, and as, the decline in religion.
That is why I am now adding ''NNS understanding'' every time I use it.
Yes I do convey my personal views to you and also keep you updated on the decline of religion but my personal view isn't necessarily a word for word description of the secular point of view and that's where you go wrong you still don't understand the views and aims of secularism, you get them mixed up with my personal point of view.
Regards ippy
-
You say there is no link but there has in the last couple of decades been a phenomenal decline in the religious.
I'm not sure I would use the term 'phenomenal' but certainly there has been a steady decline in religiosity.
Using the graphs from your recommended website. The trend on health spending has remarkably altered, Dare I say downward?
Rubbish.
Even following the period of austerity post 2010 health spending per GDP is markedly up over the past two decades. In 1996 health spending was 5.07% of GDP - fast forward 2 decades to 2016 and it is now 7.27% of GDP. How can you claim that to be a decline?
-
I'm not sure I would use the term 'phenomenal' but certainly there has been a steady decline in religiosity.
Rubbish.
Even following the period of austerity post 2010 health spending per GDP is markedly up over the past two decades. In 1996 health spending was 5.07% of GDP - fast forward 2 decades to 2016 and it is now 7.27% of GDP. How can you claim that to be a decline?
The trouble is the fast forwarding since you are bidding us to consider just two reference points which should be enough to endanger any scientific reputation. However anyone looking at the charts will notice a change of trend in the last ten years.
-
The trouble is the fast forwarding since you are bidding us to consider just two reference points which should be enough to endanger any scientific reputation. However anyone looking at the charts will notice a change of trend in the last ten years.
Sure, but if your thesis were the case you'd expect religiosity to have increased through 1996-2010 (when public spending consistently increased) and then declined from 2010 onwards as austerity kicked in.
But as you rightly pointed out previously religiosity has declined throughout that period, so there is no correlation between the spending and the religiosity. This is more associated with short range political shifts.
However if you take a much longer view - for example from 1900 there is a very clear trend - firstly slow and then more rapid declines in religiosity, and massive increases in healthcare spending (also rather slower at the beginning).
So were you included to assess a correlation between religiosity and public spending per GDP on health there would be a clear inverse trend.
But correlation or association doesn't necessarily equate to causation.
-
Sure, but if your thesis were the case you'd expect religiosity to have increased through 1996-2010 (when public spending consistently increased) and then declined from 2010 onwards as austerity kicked in.
But as you rightly pointed out previously religiosity has declined throughout that period, so there is no correlation between the spending and the religiosity. This is more associated with short range political shifts.
However if you take a much longer view - for example from 1900 there is a very clear trend - firstly slow and then more rapid declines in religiosity, and massive increases in healthcare spending (also rather slower at the beginning).
So were you included to assess a correlation between religiosity and public spending per GDP on health there would be a clear inverse trend.
But correlation or association doesn't necessarily equate to causation.
People are responsible for health spending.
There has been a sharp decline in religion recently.
The trend for health spending is practically and categorically changed for the worse.
-
Just another link on this subject: https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/06/british-public-opposes-religious-influence-in-education-poll-finds
Regards to all, ippy
-
Just another link on this subject: https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/06/british-public-opposes-religious-influence-in-education-poll-finds
Regards to all, ippy
Good to see the Society talking about World views.
-
People are responsible for health spending.
Only in a rather indirect manner.
There has been a sharp decline in religion recently.
Which has been going on at pretty well the same rate for decades, including the periods 1997-2010 and 2010-present.
The trend for health spending is practically and categorically changed for the worse.
I would agree for the period since 2010. But I would argue (and I think you might agree) that the period from 1997-2010 saw major improvements in health provision, and undoubtedly in health spending.
So you have one measure (health spending and quality of provision) that has bounced up and down depending on the nature of the government while the other measure has consistently declined (religiosity). There is no short range correlation between the two.
However when we look across a much longer range there is a clear correlation - as we have become less religious we have spent more on our GDP on health. Not that that, of course, implies causation.
-
Good to see the Society talking about World views.
If you were to bring yourself up to speed on and about secularism you would find that there's nothing unusual about the NSS taking the world view.
Regards ippy.
-
However anyone looking at the charts will notice a change of trend in the last ten years.
Which doesn't correlate with a change in trend on religiosity.
-
Which doesn't correlate with a change in trend on religiosity.
I think the decline got sharper.
-
I think the decline got sharper.
Clutching at straws.
Now it is highly likely that the government will announce a major uplift in health spending in the next few weeks to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the NHS. So in your bizarre world this must be associated with a corresponding uplift in religiosity in the next few weeks.
Bonkers
-
Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.
Another example of Vlad's dishonesty, his reply to my original post in full below:
It'll always be a problem to find a way to prevent religionists getting their claws into, as they see it, new recruits, when they consider educating our under seven year old children, I look forward to the day this practice was brought to a full stop, I'm sure there must be a better much more enlightened way to educate these vulnerable young pre seven year old victims.
As for the post seven year old children perhaps it'd be for the best to introduce them to some knowledge about the various religions that are unfortunately still managing to survive and from a personal point of view I would like to see some strict form of enforceable legislation that would prevent all of the religions, being taught as factual matters to any of our children in all of our schools, government funded or otherwise.
No small wonder you're often accused of lying Vlad.
ippy
-
Another example of Vlad's dishonesty, his reply to my original post in full below:
It'll always be a problem to find a way to prevent religionists getting their claws into, as they see it, new recruits, when they consider educating our under seven year old children, I look forward to the day this practice was brought to a full stop, I'm sure there must be a better much more enlightened way to educate these vulnerable young pre seven year old victims.
As for the post seven year old children perhaps it'd be for the best to introduce them to some knowledge about the various religions that are unfortunately still managing to survive and from a personal point of view I would like to see some strict form of enforceable legislation that would prevent all of the religions, being taught as factual matters to any of our children in all of our schools, government funded or otherwise.
No small wonder you're often accused of lying Vlad.
ippy
Not sure what this post is about. Did Hillside ask you to put it up?
-
Another example of Vlad's dishonesty, his reply to my original post in full below:
He is also historically illiterate if he thinks that religionists started education.
-
Not sure what this post is about. Did Hillside ask you to put it up?
Even you are not that simple Vlad.
ippy
-
He is also historically illiterate if he thinks that religionists started education.
Certainly in this country.
-
Certainly in this country.
Wrong again.
-
Wrong again.
England such as it was was clear of schools before St August inexorably from which there is a straight line of ecclesiastical involvement until comparatively recently.
Secular provision as we know know is not a fixed priority.
-
England such as it was was clear of schools before St August inexorably from which there is a straight line of ecclesiastical involvement until comparatively recently.
Secular provision as we know know is not a fixed priority.
The level of ignorance is stunning.
What about the provision of schools by the Romans from AD43 to about AD400, which predates St Augustine by hundreds of years.
And, of course, the education and schooling established under the Roman model was much more recognisable in a modern context, in that it was broadly educational, covering a range of subjects, from writing to maths to rhetoric. It wasn't specifically linked to a single vocation and wasn't basically vocational training. The 'education' established by St Augistine and thereafter wasn't education as we know it, it was training for the clergy. There is a difference between education and training.
Indeed broad educational provision (broad in content of course, rather than broad in who benefited) effectively vanished for hundreds of years following the end of the Roman period, really only reappearing in the 12th and 13thC when a series of new schools remerged whose remit was not purely the vocational training of clergy, but broader education for the local community (albeit only those from wealthy backgrounds). While some of those schools were re-purposed cathedral schools, many others were foundations of the civic society of the town or city in which they arose. Indeed quite a few are still in existence.
But the basic point is that the earliest formal educational and schooling in this country predates the arrival of christianity at it was Roman - and the Roman educational model was secular and civic, not religious.
-
Yeah, but what have the Romans ever done for us?
-
The Celts had their own formal schooling. Just saying.
-
The Celts had their own formal schooling. Just saying.
As of course did the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese etc etc etc. And educating the young has always been part of human society, and of other cognitively advanced social animals.
But as far as Vlad is concerned no-one had invented education until the christians came along.
-
As of course did the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese etc etc etc. And educating the young has always been part of human society, and of other cognitively advanced social animals.
But as far as Vlad is concerned no-one had invented education until the christians came along.
Please explain the role the Greeks and the Chinese had in establishing schools in England.
Any roman system of schools had died off before Augustine
-
The Celts had their own formal schooling. Just saying.
Really? Tell us about it.
-
Any roman system of schools had died off before Augustine
So you accept that there was education and a schooling system in Britain long before christianity hit these shores then.
-
Any roman system of schools had died off before Augustine
Not true - the Roman culture and society left a legacy way beyond their departure from Britain - indeed we retain elements of our society today that can be traced straight back to those Roman times.
So I suspect that when christianity arrived in Britain they would have adopted all sorts of Roman cultural norms, including in education. Don't forget that the key element of Augustine's 'education' (really vocational training) was learning Latin ... which comes from where exactly.
-
Any roman system of schools had died off before Augustine
Would you like to remind us where Augustine was born, was brought up and educated (and therefore his societal and cultural influences) prior to coming to Britain
-
Not true - the Roman culture and society left a legacy way beyond their departure from Britain - indeed we retain elements of our society today that can be traced straight back to those Roman times.
So I suspect that when christianity arrived in Britain they would have adopted all sorts of Roman cultural norms, including in education. Don't forget that the key element of Augustine's 'education' (really vocational training) was learning Latin ... which comes from where exactly.
There were no legacy Roman schools by Augustines arrival.
As an example of secular education it's relatively short span makes the Roman school system a bad example to hold up.
-
Would you like to remind us where Augustine was born, was brought up and educated (and therefore his societal and cultural influences) prior to coming to Britain
He was a religious who started an education system in this country such as it was.
Unlike the romans it marked a commitment to schools lasting well over a millennium.
-
There were no legacy Roman schools by Augustines arrival.
I don't think that is correct.
But even if it were what cultural legacy would Augustine have brought with him when he arrived in Britain - in other words what was his cultural heritage from birth, upbringing and education.
-
He was a religious who started an education system in this country such as it was.
No he didn't - he established a very narrow system for training of clergy. That isn't an education system as we know it. By contrast the Roman system, with its broad curriculum not aimed at narrow vocational training, is recognisable in our current educational context.
Actually education as we know was established by the romans in Britain - then largely disappeared for centuries, only really reappearing in the 11thC onward. And that re-emergence of education was associated with both religious and non religious foundation schools.
Bottom line education in Britain was not started by christians and was around before christianity even arrived at our shores.
-
No he didn't - he established a very narrow system for training of clergy. That isn't an education system as we know it. By contrast the Roman system, with its broad curriculum not aimed at narrow vocational training, is recognisable in our current educational context.
Actually education as we know was established by the romans in Britain - then largely disappeared for centuries, only really reappearing in the 11thC onward. And that re-emergence of education was associated with both religious and non religious foundation schools.
Bottom line education in Britain was not started by christians and was around before christianity even arrived at our shores.
I am not arguing that there wasn't a roman system of schools or that it wasn't swell. Just that it became defunct, ended, finished, closed down without being turned into an academy, shuffled of its mortal coil, went the way of the dinosaurs and the dodo.......as you say before Augustine by a fairly long chalk.
I don't see you praising the ancient Persians for the discovery of the battery, the educational equivalent you are attempting here..
Although I understand ancient batteries were mouldering in cellars. whereas there were no legacy Roman British schools.
Sorry.
-
Although I understand ancient batteries were mouldering in cellars. whereas there were no legacy Roman British schools.
Sorry.
Hmm - so a country with a heritage of roman education is visited by a person born in ... Rome, brought up under Roman culture, society and education and sent from Rome to Britain establishes a training regime in Britain in which effectively the only subject is learning ... umm ... Latin.
And yet there is no footprint of Roman education on the British education system. Let's face it notion that Latin remains part of classical british establishment education is proof beyond doubt of the legacy of the Roman education system in the UK.
-
Hmm - so a country with a heritage of roman education is visited by a person born in ... Rome, brought up under Roman culture, society and education and sent from Rome to Britain establishes a training regime in Britain in which effectively the only subject is learning ... umm ... Latin.
And yet there is no footprint of Roman education on the British education system. Let's face it notion that Latin remains part of classical british establishment education is proof beyond doubt of the legacy of the Roman education system in the UK.
But there were no schools left.
-
But there were no schools left.
And nor were there, in the sense that we understand (as educational establishments, rather than purely vocational training forums) for about 500 years after St Augustine arrived.
And let's not forget that the notion of formalising vocational training wasn't new, nor unique, to St Augustine. How do you think the next generation of blacksmiths, potters, weavers etc etc were trained down the centuries. St Augustine establishing a narrow system for training clergy was merely one of many systems, formal and informal, that existed long before he arrived on these shores for vocational training.
-
I see Vlad's into his usual load of old muddled cobblers that have no connection with the reality of the present day need to put religion into it's present day place in our schools, with the big no no on teaching any form of religion as though they are true facts and protecting the vulnerable pre seven years of age children from most forms of indoctrination whilst in the school environment.
Like I have said I'm O K with indoctrinating children into thinking for themselves, I'm certain that would do more good than harm.
Regards ippy
-
And nor were there, in the sense that we understand (as educational establishments, rather than purely vocational training forums) for about 500 years after St Augustine arrived.
And let's not forget that the notion of formalising vocational training wasn't new, nor unique, to St Augustine. How do you think the next generation of blacksmiths, potters, weavers etc etc were trained down the centuries. St Augustine establishing a narrow system for training clergy was merely one of many systems, formal and informal, that existed long before he arrived on these shores for vocational training.
I'm wondering if in light of what you have said skillcentres....remember them?....run by the manpower services commission or indeed apprenticeships could be classed as schools.
-
I see Vlad's into his usual load of old muddled cobblers that have no connection with the reality of the present day need to put religion into it's present day place in our schools, with the big no no on teaching any form of religion as though they are true facts and protecting the vulnerable pre seven years of age children from most forms of indoctrination whilst in the school environment.
Like I have said I'm O K with indoctrinating children into thinking for themselves, I'm certain that would do more good than harm.
Regards ippy
Bonkers
-
I'm wondering if in light of what you have said skillcentres....remember them?....run by the manpower services commission or indeed apprenticeships could be classed as schools.
Let us remind ourselves of your comment that started this line of discussion:
'Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it'
So we aren't talking about schools, but education. So to answer your question, vocational training and education are distinct things. The romans established educational establishments (call them schools) in Britain in the period when they were in occupation in Britain. St Augustine did not establish educational establishments in Britain - he established narrow vocational training establishments, similar to those for training people for other trades and professions. Educational establishment didn't really reappear in Britain until the 11th and 12thC - some of which were linked to religious establishments some not.
Indeed there are examples of battles where narrow training schools were removed from monastic control and secularised in order to provide education rather than mere clergy training, which were resisted by the incumbent monastic orders.
-
Let us remind ourselves of your comment that started this line of discussion:
'Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it'
So we aren't talking about schools, but education. So to answer your question, vocational training and education are distinct things. The romans established educational establishments (call them schools) in Britain in the period when they were in occupation in Britain. St Augustine did not establish educational establishments in Britain - he established narrow vocational training establishments, similar to those for training people for other trades and professions. Educational establishment didn't really reappear in Britain until the 11th and 12thC - some of which were linked to religious establishments some not.
Indeed there are examples of battles where narrow training schools were removed from monastic control and secularised in order to provide education rather than mere clergy training, which were resisted by the incumbent monastic orders.
It's that quote out of context again the same one: 'Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it'.
I was referring to the way the various religions grab the very young, pre seven year old, children the ones they know full well are the most likely to succumb to their influence.
The reference was then about how the various religions couldn't wait to get their claws into these pre seven year old vulnerable children as the're the most likely source for blindly following new recruits, it was not about the various religions getting their claws into education in general.
Vlad is often dishonest in this way, mind the false Hungarian/English, English/Hungarian dictionary he uses doesn't help, I'm sure English isn't Vlad's first language?
(False Hungarian dictionary or phrase book? from those wonderful, old now, Python days)
Found another link on the subject of this thread as follows:
https://www.tes.com/news/faith-schools-discriminate-against-non-religious-pupils
Regards Prof D, ippy
-
Let us remind ourselves of your comment that started this line of discussion:
'Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it'
So we aren't talking about schools, but education. So to answer your question, vocational training and education are distinct things. The romans established educational establishments (call them schools) in Britain in the period when they were in occupation in Britain. St Augustine did not establish educational establishments in Britain - he established narrow vocational training establishments, similar to those for training people for other trades and professions. Educational establishment didn't really reappear in Britain until the 11th and 12thC - some of which were linked to religious establishments some not.
Indeed there are examples of battles where narrow training schools were removed from monastic control and secularised in order to provide education rather than mere clergy training, which were resisted by the incumbent monastic orders.
But the thread is about schools.
Ippy itv portrays a long and noble system of secular schooling which somehow the religious got their claws into. You are saying that the church schools were only ever established and run, ever, to train the clergy....obvious nonsense.
This of course is nonsense and rank revisionism.
On the other hand no humanist or atheist group is apparently prepared to found any school and are continually bleating that the taxpayer does not provide wholly or satisfactory secular schools.
-
But the thread is about schools.
Ippy itv portrays a long and noble system of secular schooling which somehow the religious got their claws into. You are saying that the church schools were only ever established and run, ever, to train the clergy....obvious nonsense.
This of course is nonsense and rank revisionism.
On the other hand no humanist or atheist group is apparently prepared to found any school and are continually bleating that the taxpayer does not provide wholly or satisfactory secular schools.
I'm not saying anything different to the original post I made on this thread, about seven year olds etc, unlike you where you are doing your dishonest best to disrupt any thread subject you you don't like, by, well it might as well be Hungarian, gibberish anyway.
Regards ippy
-
I'm not saying anything different to the original post I made on this thread, about seven year olds etc, unlike you where you are doing your dishonest best to disrupt any thread subject you you don't like, by, well it might as well be Hungarian, gibberish anyway.
Regards ippy
Sorry
I now see you are the sort of person who sees talk about religion and schools as highly disruptive of a thread on religion and schools.
There are a number of people in my opinion still reeling from the audacity of people disagreeing with them
Your picture of church schools is as credible as the existence of the child catcher in Chitty chitty bang bang.
-
But the thread is about schools.
But my involvement was in response to your comment implying that somehow religionists (or rather christians as your later comments make clear) somehow invented or 'started' education.
They didn't - regardless of whether you consider this in a merely UK context or more broadly.
But even if we are talking about schools - you are all wrong as it is absolutely clear that there were schools in Britain long before the christianity arrived. And those earliest schools that we know existed in Britain were run on Roman lines - which means they were genuinely educational, rather than merely vocational training, and were also aligned with civic secular roman society and not religion.
So whichever way you look at it Vlad, you are simply wrong.
-
But my involvement was in response to your comment implying that somehow religionists (or rather christians as your later comments make clear) somehow invented or 'started' education.
They didn't - regardless of whether you consider this in a merely UK context or more broadly.
But even if we are talking about schools - you are all wrong as it is absolutely clear that there were schools in Britain long before the christianity arrived. And those earliest schools that we know existed in Britain were run on Roman lines - which means they were genuinely educational, rather than merely vocational training, and were also aligned with civic secular roman society and not religion.
So whichever way you look at it Vlad, you are simply wrong.
Christianity did start schools since they were history by the time of Augustine in this country and continued to do so and maintain them for over a millennium. That is incontravertable.
-
Christianity did start schools since they were history by the time of Augustine in this country and continued to do so and maintain them for over a millennium. That is incontravertable.
So what - christianity didn't 'start' education in Britain nor were they the first to establish schools in Britain.
Accept you are wrong in claiming that christianity started education, and move on.
Post the Romans the first schools, as we would recognise them, didn't emerge until the 11th and 12thC - some had religious foundations, some others were non religious in their foundation.
-
Sorry
I now see you are the sort of person who sees talk about religion and schools as highly disruptive of a thread on religion and schools.
There are a number of people in my opinion still reeling from the audacity of people disagreeing with them
Your picture of church schools is as credible as the existence of the child catcher in Chitty chitty bang bang.
You still can't be honest Vlad; I'm not talking about how young children should be treated our schools in anything like the way you have described in this, another of your frequent dishonest mailings.
No wonder you're frequently called out for lying, I can see why.
ippy