Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[bluehillside Retd.]

The NSS monomaniacally focuses on religion in what is a house of privilege. Therefore they are not really antiprivilege but antireligion.

Yet again: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God" etc); secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.     

To be "antirelgion" secualrism (and the NSS) would have to take a position on the content of religious claims.

It doesn't.

Like wading through treacle. A less charitable person might even conclude that Vladdo is on a deliberate wind up here...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Vladdo's still not getting it, here it is again: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God" etc); secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.      .

Arrogate? Arrogate is in Yorkshire Hillside. you should address that to Walter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What power can 3.3% have?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But we aren't talking about whether something is illegal, but about whether it should receive state funding. They are entirely different things.

The law allows all sorts of things to occur, under protection of freedom of speech, including having and expressing racist views (providing that doesn't extend to excitement to violence etc) but that doesn't mean that the state should be an active participant in the promulgation of those views by providing state funding.

So on schools - the state, via LEAs, has a statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places for all compulsory school aged children. It has no obligation under law to provide any particular type of school (except appropriate provision on the basis of disability/special needs). So there is no legal obligation on the state to provide faith schools, regardless of whether some parents might like them - indeed there are a number of LEA that don't provide any faith schools at secondary level. I'm not aware that there has been any legal challenge to that decision and indeed the parents in those areas seem to cope fine and well without faith school provision from the age of 11.

So regardless of the whether it is legally possible for a state funded racist school to be set up I would expect the state to refuse to provide any funding as that school would not fit with the basic obligation to align service provision with its equalities agenda, to ensure services are provided that are suitable for all regardless of protected characteristics and without discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics. Yet when it comes to faith the provision of state funded faith schools rides coach and horses through this imperative.

If it was sufficiently important to the voting public to abolish faith schools, they would get involved in politics to influence political parties to try to do so. The Tory party appears to support faith schools. Labour's policy does not seem to have changed much since Labour's Tristram Hunt said in 2015:

"Our starting point on faith schools has to be that, for better or worse, we are not France. Faith schools are an important and well established part of the English education system and many of them do a terrific job preparing young people for a life in 21st-century multicultural Britain. We need robust systems of accountability – both Ofsted and local – to make sure state schools do not become cultural silos. But one of the lessons of what happened in Birmingham is that religious conservatism can just as easily happen at “secular” state schools as faith schools."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/30/labour-education-policies-schools-tristram-hunt

Given my children are not in the state school system, it's not really my call to decide for other parents using state school. As parents, my husband and I vote by deciding which school to pay fees to - but our choice is still limited to what's available. There are some co-ed schools with better academic results than the all-girls school that my children go to, but they prefer their single-sex school and the friends they have there.

Other parents may also have their own reasons for supporting the particular ethos of faith schools in their district.

I do agree with the idea of local democratic accountability to take some of the power away from voluntary school governors to have undue influence on a school - but the problem is a lack of funding and expertise, which presumably is why we rely on voluntary governors, who may well be happy with faith schools as part  of the system.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   

To be "antireligion" secualrism (and the NSS) would have to take a position on the content of religious claims.

I want religion out of it, I don't understand any of it, I want it removed but it's not as though I'm antireligious or anything.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

So you finally admit that sometimes the flu jab doesn’t work and you have no metrics to determine whether or not it works for left-handed ginger people?

Why are you doing this to yourself when it only makes you look foolish? You came up with a straw man (that the premise “advertising works” only applies when you add “all” before it) that I corrected you on, in response to which you’ve just ignored the correction and snuck in the absence of data on how effectively it works for the C of E specifically as if that in some way undoes the premise.

Again:

Premise 1: Advertising plainly works otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Exceptions don’t invalidate the premise.

Premise 2: There’s no reason arbitrarily to exclude the C of E from Premise 1. The only way to know how much religions’ huge and free PR builds their inter-generational brand loyalty would be to remove it from one faith and then to compare results several generations later. That no-one has done that doesn’t though invalidate the premise. 

More wrongness. I was correcting your odd notion that slowing falling sales isn’t also metric for advertising. The “maybe and if” clearly were there to show you only that there can reasons for business failures that no advertising could fix.             

Whether something causes brand loyalty and by how much it causes brand loyalty are different matters, no matter how much you’ve been trying to conflate the two as if in some way insufficient data for the latter somehow invalidates the premise of the former. 

To some degree, but the incidence of Christian-educated parents sending their children to Muslim faith schools and vice versa is vanishingly small. That’s the point you keep missing (or avoiding) here. Religions are substantially silos, and the more their specialist schools feed fresh converts into the hopper at the top the more that will continue. Why would it be otherwise?   

The Prof has put you right on this already so I won’t. 
 
You’ve done it frequently and regularly – only recently from memory in respect of adolescents.   

First how about an apology for misquoting me?

Second, I’m not “trying to attribute” it to you – it’s your thesis! Mine is that faith beliefs taught as facts in early years are exceptionally difficult to lose later on (which is why religions invest so much effort in primary-age faith schools); yours is that later on people can make up their own minds in any case. That is, you don’t seem to think the early years bit makes any difference to the adult choices whereas the data regarding the correlation of faith-schooled children to faith-holding adults (and almost always the same faith to boot) falsifies you.         

Not answered before or here. I wasn’t asking you about specific ad campaigns – I was asking whether you accept that as a general business practice advertising works. As it’d be idle to say “no” (ie, WPP should close their doors immediately) I’ll take your avoidance as a “yes”.     

Not answered before or here. I was asking you whether you thought the exceptions (eg Woolworth’s) somehow invalidated the basic premise that advertising as a general business practice works.

I’ll take your avoidance as a “no”.

Not answered before or here. I was asking you whether you now accept that slowing losses is a legitimate metric for advertising despite your previous odd claims that falling C of E attendances invalidated the role of their free PR. 

I’ll take your avoidance as a “yes”.

Not answered before or here. I was actually asking whether you could think of a reason for the C of E in particular to be exempt from the general premises established so far.
 
I’ll take your avoidance as a “no”.
 
You’ve said it over and over. You can look up the various times you did it for yourself.

That’s another of your misquotes – a very bad habit by the way. What I actually said (and you removed) was “as if” unfettered – which is your argument when you tell me that people will make up their own minds, presumably faith-schooled educated or not.     

Lots – the metrics are the correlative statistics about the incidence of Christian faith school children who become Christian adults, Muslim faith school children who become Muslim adults, Jewish….etc.

We can get to the specifics in due course but, for now, no matter how much you throw sand at it your “got any data?” is still entirely irrelevant to the principle. Either you think that the huge and free PR religions enjoy in our society (faith schools included) will influence their brand loyalty or you don’t. It’s binary – either “yes” or “no”.

I suspect that, deep down, even you can’t suggest “no” with a straight face, which is why you’ve ducked and dived so much in response. So now (presumably) we have a “yes of course it makes a difference” now – but only now – does the data issue become relevant. What that’ll tell us is by how much catching ‘em young creates brand loyalty, the basic principle that it clearly does at least to some degree having now been agreed tacitly at least.         

Blue - why are you doing this to yourself when it only makes you look foolish? I have already corrected you on the fact that a company requires metrics to show the advertising works and hasn't in fact lost them business.

I sincerely hope you don't run a business or advise anyone who does. I can just imagine the conversation:

Ad agency: Advertising works - everyone knows that. Ask Volkswagen. What do you know that they don't? Unless you can show us evidence the ad campaign we ran did not work just pay our invoice and we'll run the same campaign for you next year and the year after.

Blue: Yes I see the logic of that. I've just made the bank transfer. I'll just set it up to pay annually shall I - saves us having this conversation next year.

BY the way, I see you have posted no evidence of what you claimed I had said about "making up their own minds", despite me asking for a link or a quote. No exactly a difficult request but yet you are unwilling to substantiate what you claimed. An honest person would back up such claims with actual evidence or admit they got it wrong, but then that's not really you. We've experienced this a few times with you - you make claims and then duck out when asked to produce evidence.

[Walter]

I want religion out of it, I don't understand any of it, I want it removed but it's not as though I'm antireligious or anything.

I totally agree with your first 6 words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I totally agree with your first 6 words.

And that's what makes you a neutral secularist Walter Ha Ha Ha.

[Walter]

And that's what makes you a neutral secularist Walter Ha Ha Ha.

far from neutral PF, the NSS are far too wishy- washy to my liking.  They need a back bone

[Walt Zingmatilder]

far from neutral PF, the NSS are far too wishy- washy to my liking.  They need a back bone

Sssshhhhhh I don't think people like you are supposed to exist according to the ''sssecularisssm isss your fffffriend'' brigade.

[Maeght]

I just have to point you back to my previous posts.
There is the secular and the spiritual therefore real fairness involves both being represented.
A 3.3% stake is considered reasonable at present.0% stake is unreasonable.
The 3.3% acts as an advisory to the 96.7%. A view from a different angle.

I wonder if you are driven by anti religious rage.

Secular is not the opposite of spiritual!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secular is not the opposite of spiritual!

It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.

I'm all for fulltime atheists, rabbis, imams, Gurus, etc being in the HOL.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.

No it isn't.

To use an analogy - on my school governing body there are 3 classes of governor - staff (elected by other staff members), parent (elected by other parents) and community (appointed by the governing body on the basis of specific skills and expertise). It would be bonkers to talk about staff being the opposite of community (for example). It is equally bonkers to talk about spiritual being the opposite of secular in any context - even less so in HoLs where there is no category called Lords Secular - you are making that up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't.

To use an analogy - on my school governing body there are 3 classes of governor - staff (elected by other staff members), parent (elected by other parents) and community (appointed by the governing body on the basis of specific skills and expertise). It would be bonkers to talk about staff being the opposite of community (for example). It is equally bonkers to talk about spiritual being the opposite of secular in any context - even less so in HoLs where there is no category called Lords Secular - you are making that up.

Look up the meaning of temporal Davey.

[Walter]

It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.

I'm all for fulltime atheists, rabbis, imams, Gurus, etc being in the HOL.

being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office . 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here is the official title of the HOL from Wikipedia.

Officially, the full name of the house is the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled

[Walt Zingmatilder]

being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office .

You cannot be serious?

[Walter]

You cannot be serious?

have you got a problem with that , because I don't .?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

have you got a problem with that , because I don't .?

Wow, next you'll be telling us you are antireligious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

have you got a problem with that , because I don't .?

No I think you might be just the mirror I would want to hold up in front of the secularist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I want religion out of it, I don't understand any of it, I want it removed but it's not as though I'm antireligious or anything.

In which Vladdo persists with his bizarre notion that theism and secularism are opposite sides of the same coin when in fact they’re in different categories entirely. Mind you as he’s never understood that theism and atheism aren’t opposite sides of the same coin either I suppose it’s just an extension of the same howler.

Oh well.

[Walter]

No I think you might be just the mirror I would want to hold up in front of the secularist.

don't try it , I'm not the loveable Labrador I'm the Rottweiler with a cracker up it's arse .

[Nearly Sane]

You cannot be serious?

Since this is the position you have dishonestly been saying is that of the NSS, this post oy yours is just writing 'I am a lying liar who lies'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

don't try it , I'm not the loveable Labrador I'm the Rottweiler with a cracker up it's arse .

I think you are doing a perfectly good job of discrediting atheism and secularism yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Blue - why are you doing this to yourself when it only makes you look foolish? I have already corrected you on the fact that a company requires metrics to show the advertising works and hasn't in fact lost them business.

I sincerely hope you don't run a business or advise anyone who does. I can just imagine the conversation:

Ad agency: Advertising works - everyone knows that. Ask Volkswagen. What do you know that they don't? Unless you can show us evidence the ad campaign we ran did not work just pay our invoice and we'll run the same campaign for you next year and the year after.

Blue: Yes I see the logic of that. I've just made the bank transfer. I'll just set it up to pay annually shall I - saves us having this conversation next year.

BY the way, I see you have posted no evidence of what you claimed I had said about "making up their own minds", despite me asking for a link or a quote. No exactly a difficult request but yet you are unwilling to substantiate what you claimed. An honest person would back up such claims with actual evidence or admit they got it wrong, but then that's not really you. We've experienced this a few times with you - you make claims and then duck out when asked to produce evidence.

What’s curious about your efforts here is that on the one hand you seem to be able to construct a coherent sentence, yet on the other you can post such spectacular drivel that I actually feel quite embarrassed for you. Actually I do advise businesses (though not on advertising strategies) and successfully so.

Here’s how the conversation would actually go: “So you’re concerned that sales are declining or not growing as fast as you’d like and want to try advertising to change that? Fine – here’s how you’ll know either it’s working or not: comparables. We can compare before and after, we can compare advertised vs non-advertised markets, we can compare other variables. And when those comparisons show that consumer behaviour has changed, then you can be pretty sure that the advertising has worked - ie, done the job is was intended to do. That “the job” may turn out just to be extending the date on which your business ultimately goes bust has of course bugger all to do with that”.

Not sure why I have to keep explaining this to you, but there it is anyway.

Oh, and your entire thesis has been that people will make up their own minds. Now you seem to have stopped doctoring what I actually said in response why not just look it up for yourself? There’s plenty of it after all.