Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_aided_school
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_controlled_school

I am well aware of the nature of VA and VC schools and the distinction between them. What exactly is your point?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am well aware of the nature of VA and VC schools and the distinction between them. What exactly is your point?

I felt you minimised to the point of denying any stake of the churches in church schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

I felt you minimised to the point of denying any stake of the churches in church schools.

I suggest you may want to actually read what I said and then actually learn about the financial rules/obligations for the various types of school, the most relevant here being VA schools.

I said:

'There is no requirement for the CofE or RCC to provide a penny toward the running of a state faith school.'

And that is 100% correct.

There is a requirement (although it isn't actually met or enforced) for VA schools to contribute 10% toward certain capital expenditure. However that obligation rests with the Governing body, not with the church - so their is no obligation on the church to provide a penny. And that obligation on the Governing body is met in exactly that same way as every other school's fund-raising. Basically via their PTA and their parents. So the cash comes from the parents, not the church.

And in terms of the actual amount it is tiny. The RCC claims that its community contributes £20million toward its schools - note first the careful wording, not the church, but its community, which means parents at its schools or through other self generated fund raising, so renting halls or sport facilities etc. But the funding to those schools equates to approx. £3.5 billion, so that money is about 0.5% of the cost of running the school. And that is basically the same regardless of the type of school. All schools fundraise and all have a proportion of their expenditure based on those funds raised themselves.

When you put it in terms of children - it equates to perhaps £20 per child per year. If a school is only raising that through its PTA etc then it is a pretty poor PTA or fund raising operation. Looking at the schools in my area the rough figure of self generated income per pupil is about £700 per annum. £20 is in the noise and effectively an irrelevance in terms of any meaningful obligation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest you may want to actually read what I said and then actually learn about the financial rules/obligations for the various types of school, the most relevant here being VA schools.

I said:

'There is no requirement for the CofE or RCC to provide a penny toward the running of a state faith school.'

And that is 100% correct.

There is a requirement (although it isn't actually met or enforced) for VA schools to contribute 10% toward certain capital expenditure. However that obligation rests with the Governing body, not with the church - so their is no obligation on the church to provide a penny. And that obligation on the Governing body is met in exactly that same way as every other school's fund-raising. Basically via their PTA and their parents. So the cash comes from the parents, not the church.

And in terms of the actual amount it is tiny. The RCC claims that its community contributes £20million toward its schools - note first the careful wording, not the church, but its community, which means parents at its schools or through other self generated fund raising, so renting halls or sport facilities etc. But the funding to those schools equates to approx. £3.5 billion, so that money is about 0.5% of the cost of running the school. And that is basically the same regardless of the type of school. All schools fundraise and all have a proportion of their expenditure based on those funds raised themselves.

When you put it in terms of children - it equates to perhaps £20 per child per year. If a school is only raising that through its PTA etc then it is a pretty poor PTA or fund raising operation. Looking at the schools in my area the rough figure of self generated income per pupil is about £700 per annum. £20 is in the noise and effectively an irrelevance in terms of any meaningful obligation.

Yes the running but the infrastructure costs are partly born by the church. What governing bodies provide that 10% and who actually provides that? and church schools have foundation governers connected with the governing body so it is misleading to say the church has no stake similarly your point makes an uninformed distinction between the community and the RCC church where the community are the church.

Your line of argument typifies the problem of a centralising organisation the National Secular Society casting it's remote opinion of the communities in which these schools exist. Did you follow the link concerning academy sponsorship.
Academy sponsors have included the church and independent schools amongst others. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes the running but the infrastructure costs are partly born by the church. What governing bodies provide that 10% and who actually provides that? and church schools have foundation governers connected with the governing body so it is misleading to say the church has no stake similarly your point makes an uninformed distinction between the community and the RCC church where the community are the church.

Did you actually bother to read my post.

The obligation is on the Governing body, not the church and the monies are raising in the normal manner. And as I have pointed out this nominal 10% (which is only on certain types of capital expenditure) equates to about 0.5% of the total expenditure of the school.

And yes that's what governing bodies are ensuring up and down the country as we speak in all types of school - I should know I am a governor. In the current climate you have to bid for capital funding and you have a virtually zero chance of getting it unless you provide a degree of 'matched funding', i.e. the school coughs up a proportion. I'd be delighted if my school was able to get away with just 10%. Our current standard proportional match is 20%. That has to be raised, just as the nominal 10% has to be raised in VA schools - and it doesn't come from the church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you actually bother to read my post.

The obligation is on the Governing body, not the church and the monies are raising in the normal manner. And as I have pointed out this nominal 10% (which is only on certain types of capital expenditure) equates to about 0.5% of the total expenditure of the school.

And yes that's what governing bodies are ensuring up and down the country as we speak in all types of school - I should know I am a governor. In the current climate you have to bid for capital funding and you have a virtually zero chance of getting it unless you provide a degree of 'matched funding', i.e. the school coughs up a proportion. I'd be delighted if my school was able to get away with just 10%. Our current standard proportional match is 20%. That has to be raised, just as the nominal 10% has to be raised in VA schools - and it doesn't come from the church.

But who built the buildings and who owns the land on which those buildings stand. certainly not the state. Primary schools are largely a church foundation.

[SteveH]

Quote from: ProfessorDavey on Today at 01:36:44 PM
You really don't understand what Secular means do you. To reiterate - from the NSS's vision statement:

'We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all.' [End of quote]
To which Private Frazer replied:
That's what we have at the moment. You also forget the many, many schools that were founded as a manifestation of the practical religion people had.
Well, sort-of - but religion, and Christianity in particular, and the established church in more particular, enjoy many unfair advantages.

[ippy]

The most significant one being that public services should be offered in an equal manner regardless of protected characteristics, in this case faith or belief. Hence we don't have 'faith' hospitals, nor 'faith' GPs, nor 'faith' leisure centres etc, etc and we should not have state funded faith schools.

Also on the principle of social cohesion - that kids should be educated alongside other kids whose make up best reflects that of their local communities. To do something else - i.e segregating kids by religion is social engineering at its worst and acts against social cohesion of communities.

Also fairness - that all parents should have a similar opportunity to gain a place at a school of their choice regardless of their religion. Currently religious parents have a greatly enhanced chances - being favoured for places at faith schools, but having equal chance at non faith schools.

Thanks Proff D, for saving me the trouble of telling Vlad about level playing fields, if you're reading this Vlad try to take it in, not just a particular part, take in all of it!

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks Proff D, for saving me the trouble of telling Vlad about level playing fields, if you're reading this Vlad try to take it in, not just a particular part, take in all of it!

Regards ippy

Admissions policy could change. In any case given the extent of belief there are going to be less religious families anyway.
Anyone supporting independent schools which select on the basis of ability to pay doesn't have a social cohesion argument.
Several schools have selection criteria.

[Robbie]

Plenty of independent schools are very generous with scholarships and bursaries (used to be even more generous in the days of assisted places but they stopped years ago) - & don't care what religion, if any, the pupils follow. That applies to independent schools which have a sort of religious basis or history (eg Eltham College which Eric Liddell attended); they give their free or partly free places with no bias towards a Christian family. A pupil's ability is what counts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Plenty of independent schools are very generous with scholarships and bursaries (used to be even more generous in the days of assisted places but they stopped years ago) - & don't care what religion, if any, the pupils follow. That applies to independent schools which have a sort of religious basis or history (eg Eltham College which Eric Liddell attended); they give their free or partly free places with no bias towards a Christian family. A pupil's ability is what counts.

I sure you can find reasons for independent schools based on means to pay, or gender specific schools, or grammar schools. But if you do you have no recourse to argue that faith schools need to be removed for social cohesion purposes. Given that the primary system is based on church foundation then a church presence is unsurprising.

The NSS case is purely based on anti religious grounds since the other selective schools I mention rule out any other motive for taking them out of church influence.

Antireligion doesn't and shouldn't form a basis for doing anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks Proff D, for saving me the trouble of telling Vlad about level playing fields, if you're reading this Vlad try to take it in, not just a particular part, take in all of it!

Regards ippy

But Ippy it's a bit nonsensical to talk about level playing field in a secular society. It will never be a level playing field on account that religion can never have equal power in a secular environment.
What the NSS regard as privileges should more correctly viewed as concessions. This was typified in the case of religious broadcasting. The unsustainable argument of the NSS that the amount of RB was extravagant was rightly overturned by the BBC and thus shown to be based on NSS prejudices.

In terms of founding schools humanists are able to found their own.

[Maeght]

But Ippy it's a bit nonsensical to talk about level playing field in a secular society. It will never be a level playing field on account that religion can never have equal power in a secular environment.

Equal power with what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robbie,

Plenty of independent schools are very generous with scholarships and bursaries (used to be even more generous in the days of assisted places but they stopped years ago) - & don't care what religion, if any, the pupils follow. That applies to independent schools which have a sort of religious basis or history (eg Eltham College which Eric Liddell attended); they give their free or partly free places with no bias towards a Christian family. A pupil's ability is what counts.

How many is ”plenty”, what percentage of their places were offered as scholarships, and what percentage of those were taken up by pupils without the same religious beliefs the schools were peddling?

And in the meantime, presumably you’d be down then with me setting up a chain of Marxist-Leninist primary schools where we’d teach the inalienable facts of the revolutionary development of the bourgeois state provided I threw in a few scholarships while the state ponied up some 99% of the overall funding? Hey, maybe I’d even convert a few of the scholarship kids by putting them through the same curriculum!

Cool!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Equal power with what?

Secular authorities of course.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Equal power with what?

Equal with the unwarranted “power” it enjoys just now presumably. You see this quite often – religionists complaining about the supposed attacks on them from the secular state when in fact what secularism entails is the separation of religiosity from the offices of state while at the same time protecting the rights of people to hold and practice whatever religious beliefs they like. I caught a bit of Ricky Gervais the other day making an analogous point about the Republican right in the US complaining about the dilution of their rights from the empowerment of ethnic minorities, women, LGBT people etc when in fact what’s happening is that the privileges they’ve enjoyed for decades are just being realigned and they don’t like it. 

The point here is that religious “power” in a 21st century state is anachronism – it’s a legacy from more authoritarian times – but suggesting that removing its bony fingers from access by right to the legislature, to education, to the media is painted as an attack on their fundamental rights whereas it’s actually an attack on their unwarranted privilege.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,

Equal with the unwarranted “power” it enjoys just now presumably. You see this quite often – religionists complaining about the supposed attacks on them from the secular state when in fact what secularism entails is the separation of religiosity from the offices of state while at the same time protecting the rights of people to hold and practice whatever religious beliefs they like. I caught a bit of Ricky Gervais the other day making an analogous point about the Republican right in the US complaining about the reduction in their rights from empowerment of ethnic minorities, women, LBGT people etc when in fact what’s happening is that the privileges they’ve enjoyed for decades are just being realigned and they don’t like it. 

The point here is that religious “power” in a 21st century state is something they shouldn’t have at all – it’s a legacy from more authoritarian times – but suggesting that removing its bony fingers from access by right to the legislature, to education, to the media is painted as an attack on their fundamental rights whereas it’s actually an attack on their unwarranted privilege.

what better argument could there be to demonstrate the invalidity of NSS arguments concerning church privilege in the UK than the one here that invites us to imagine we are hard done by atheists in another country and forget about the concessions that are allowed in our secular society.

Thank you Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

what better argument could there be to demonstrate the invalidity of NSS arguments concerning church privilege in the UK than the one here that invites us to imagine we are hard done by atheists in another country and forget about the concessions that are allowed in our secular society.

Thank you Hillside.

And the downward spiral into rhetorical gibberish continues.

Anyways, as I was saying - it's the attack on unwarranted privilege the unwarrantedly privileged don't like, whether that unwarranted privilege happens to be religious or anything else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the downward spiral into rhetorical gibberish continues.

Anyways, as I was saying - it's the attack on unwarranted privilege the unwarrantedly privileged don't like, whether that unwarranted privilege happens to be religious or anything else.

Arse clenching gervaisist NSS cock and bull. IMHO.
Humanists have the ability to set up there own schools Hillside the national secular society have that right, the religious are licence payers also, and let's face it, at a time before universal suffrage the bishops would have been the only channel through which common parishioners would notionally have any vague link to power.

[bluehillside Retd.]

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

QED

Let me remind you Hillside that supporting any segregation of pupils for any reason disqualifies that person from making an argument based on privilege.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Let me remind you Hillside that supporting any segregation of pupils for any reason disqualifies that person from making an argument based on privilege.

Nope, no idea. There are definitely words involved here which is a good start. The coherent thought bit needs considerably more work though.

[Maeght]

what better argument could there be to demonstrate the invalidity of NSS arguments concerning church privilege in the UK than the one here that invites us to imagine we are hard done by atheists in another country and forget about the concessions that are allowed in our secular society.

Thank you Hillside.

Don't really see it that way,  but anyway, can I ask again, equal power with what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Don't really see it that way,  but anyway, can I ask again, equal power with what?

No-one could see it that way - it's just more incoherence. White noise.

Be aware that he doesn't "do" answers by the way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't really see it that way,  but anyway, can I ask again, equal power with what?

Secular authorities.