Nonsense merchants appointed

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, the introduction of the word special....now that we think some privileges might be OK......

Your exercised because it's religion however please read what I've said about religious foundation.

Yes, I read what you wrote about that. It's punting a falsehood to say that funding is complex. It isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Why then does the article in the Herald mention creationism and 'this day and age?' Why are the other religious representatives not mentioned? This is not it seems the reasonable complaint you are trying to polish.

You don't think it reasonable to object to someone with these views on an education committee who is only there because they are religious?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I read what you wrote about that. It's punting afaksehoodto say that funding is complex. It isn't.

well there are thirty three members of the south Lanarkshire education resources committee so that suggests some kind of complexity.

I was saying what religion is doing on this kind of committee, That is chiefly because of foundation and the nature of councilisation. I fail to see why there is any scratching of heads over why there should be religious representation.

I perfectly understand also that extreme humanists might want immediate takeover. But hey let's call a spade a spade and cut any pretence of reasonableness eh.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't think it reasonable to object to someone with these views on an education committee who is only there because they are religious?

In a situation whereby the very thing there is a committee for is not due to in part to religious foundation maybe.

On a recent extreme humanist whim? Not so sure.

[Nearly Sane]

well there are thirty three members of the south Lanarkshire education resources committee so that suggests some kind of complexity.

I was saying what religion is doing on this kind of committee, That is chiefly because of foundation and the nature of councilisation. I fail to see why there is any scratching of heads over why there should be religious representation.

I perfectly understand also that extreme humanists might want immediate takeover. But hey let's call a spade a spade and cut any pretence of reasonableness eh.

In what way does the numbers on the committee mean that funding is complex in some way that justifies religious privilege?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Just why?


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15886294.Would_you_Adam_and_Eve_it_____meet_the_creationist_in_the_classroom/

Quite frankly this article reminds me of reading a Daily Wail or Scum article about the co option of an avowed socialist.

It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved. I prefer the more interesting case of Paranthropus, who most creationists disbelieve ever existed, even though we have their fossilised bones. That is a bit like claiming that Haile Selassie is not dead & the bones in the Ethiopian Monastery belonged to somebody else.

[Nearly Sane]

In a situation whereby the very thing there is a committee for is not due to in part to religious foundation maybe.

On a recent extreme humanist whim? Not so sure.

So we should all shut up about someone in an education committee with these views that they hold because they are religious and are on the committee because they are religious because not all religious people are mutters and some many years ago might have set up a school but now have no role in funding.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way does the numbers on the committee mean that funding is complex in some way that justifies religious privilege?

Read what I have written on religious foundation and the councilisation of education services.

An asset and pedagogical grab in the name of secularisation is as distasteful and questionable as the same thing in the case of a council school appropriated similarly by an academy trust.

Your use of Religious privilege is specially pleading religion in a situation where other groups are privileged.

[Nearly Sane]

Quite frankly this article reminds me of reading a Daily Wail or Scum article about the co option of an avowed socialist.

It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved. I prefer the more interesting case of Paranthropus, who most creationists disbelieve ever existed, even though we have their fossilised bones. That is a bit like claiming that Haile Selassie is not dead & the bones in the Ethiopian Monastery belonged to somebody else.

Kudos for the misuse of theory, haven't seen that in some time on the board. And for the idea that science 'proves' theories.  With the use of the 'were you there?' argument from Dr Iskendar that's certainly a line on the creationist pish bingo card.

[Nearly Sane]

Read what I have written on religious foundation and the councilisation of education services.

An asset and pedagogical grab in the name of secularisation is as distasteful and questionable as the same thing in the case of a council school appropriated similarly by an academy trust.

Your use of Religious privilege is specially pleading religion in a situation where other groups are privileged.

Which other groups are privileged?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So we should all shut up about someone in an education committee with these views that they hold because they are religious and are on the committee because they are religious because not all religious people are mutters and some many years ago might have set up a school but now have no role in funding.

Nobody is telling anybody to shut up except the secular humanists here.

Councils have been sensitive to school ethos I.e. Not attempting take it over totally presumably due to community sensitivity.

You however seem to be focussing on secularisation and funding.

Are you a secular humanist FUNDNGMENTALIST or something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which other groups are privileged?

Teachers, school governors, lay people, head teachers, unions,

In which case exactly the same questions can be asked of their privilege.

[Nearly Sane]

Nobody is telling anybody to shut up except the secular humanists here.

Councils have been sensitive to school ethos I.e. Not attempting take it over totally presumably due to community sensitivity.

You however seem to be focussing on secularisation and funding.

Are you a secular humanist FUNDNGMENTALIST or something.

As you have been told previously I am not a humanist. You were the person that mentioned funding. No one is being stopped for being on the committee for being religious.

[Nearly Sane]

Teachers, school governors, lay people, head teachers, unions,

In which case exactly the same questions can be asked of their privilege.

I think your use of lay people here is odd but having peopke involved in education is not privilege, they are there for tgeir expertise. Many of them will be religious too.

[Rhiannon]

Teachers, school governors, lay people, head teachers, unions,

In which case exactly the same questions can be asked of their privilege.

Yeah, teachers on an education committee. Privileged bastards.

[Rhiannon]

So we should all shut up about someone in an education committee with these views that they hold because they are religious and are on the committee because they are religious because not all religious people are mutters and some many years ago might have set up a school but now have no role in funding.

Oh, ok. Makes sense now.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah, teachers on an education committee. Privileged bastards.

And you know what else? They teach in schools! And I'm not allowed to do that even though I'm a Morton fan.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

And you know what else? They teach in schools! And I'm not allowed to do that even though I'm a Morton fan.

And I have an anorak in Paleoanthropology!

[Gordon]

Why then does the article in the Herald mention creationism and 'this day and age?' Why are the other religious representatives not mentioned? This is not it seems the reasonable complaint you are trying to polish.

No doubt because of the previous issues with creationism in Scotland, as noted in this thread, and since the guy highlighted by the link in the OP is apparently a creationist.

[jakswan]

It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved.

Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. You can pick holes in any scientific theory, it is what science tries to do all the time.

[Stranger]

It is possible to pick holes in evolution, the usual one is to simply state that it is a theory that cannot be proved.

That is scientifically illiterate; no theory can be proved. There is, however, copious evidence for it and no credible alternative.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No doubt because of the previous issues with creationism in Scotland, as noted in this thread, and since the guy highlighted by the link in the OP is apparently a creationist.

Look...Gordon
Make up your mind ........is this about religious privilege...or creationism?
Problems had with a group of people therefore ban them is a dangerous argument.

[Gordon]

Look...Gordon
Make up your mind ........is this about religious privilege...or creationism?
Problems had with a group of people therefore ban them is a dangerous argument.

It is about both Vlad: the privilege in terms of the need to have unelected religious representation on council education committees and that one of these people is a creationist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yeah, teachers on an education committee. Privileged bastards.

But we know that national governments don't listen to teachers or consult them........and there are academy trusts who have done away with parent representation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is about both Vlad:

At last!