Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?

[ProfessorDavey]

And it remains that Humanist UK deliberately refrain from exercising any rights whatsoever.

What a stupid statement.

Humanist UK do not approve of state schools with a specific belief ethos, whether religious or non religious. So of course they aren't going to apply to run a humanist free school. To imply this to be somehow a failure on their part is bonkers - it would be like having a go at a comprehensive school that doesn't agree with selection for not applying to run a grammar school.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let's return to the main argument - rather than to divert further into whether humanist schools could hypothetically be approved.

Let's return to our check list of special privileges for a hypothetically approved humanist free school and an existing faith school:

Existing catholic faith school (e.g. an academy)
1. Can discriminate in admissions policies to give preference to catholics or admit only catholics
2. Can advertise all posts with being a practising catholic as an essential job requirement
3. Can require all governors to be practising catholics
4. Can use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse.
5. Can teach an RE curriculum that focussed exclusively on their religious beliefs, in line with the tenets of their faith.
6. Can include daily acts of worship of their faith (if this were a jewish faith school, they could replace basic requirement for christian worship with jewish worship
7. Can have their own separate inspection system established by their church to inspect the ethos and RE/faith aspects of the school, but paid for by the tax payer.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.

Hypothetical humanist school (e.g. a free school)
1. Cannot discriminate whatsoever in admissions policies to give preference to humanists or admit only humanists (to do so would be breaking the law)
2. Cannot advertise all posts with being a humanist as an essential job requirement (to do so would be breaking the law) - the only exception being senior staff under genuine occupational requirement as applies to all employers - would only be permitted to be worded as adherence to ethos, not being (for example) a member of humanist UK
3. Cannot require parent/staff governors to be humanists
4. Cannot use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse. (to do so would be breaking the law)
5. Cannot create a curriculum in line with the tenets of their belief, e.g. by replacing RE with a humanist curriculum.
6. Must include a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature
7. Cannot have their own separate inspection system established by humanist UK (for example) to inspect the ethos aspects of the school - inspection entirely by independent Ofsted inspectors.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.

Surely Vlad, even you can see that there is no comparison in the special privileges bestowed on each - with the existing faith school being given massively greater special privileges across the board.

So what we can say is that firstly humanist schools do not exist and secondly were they to exist under the law as it stands now they wouldn't come close to having the same discriminatory special privileges that many thousand current faith schools have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What a stupid statement.

Humanist UK do not approve of state schools with a specific belief ethos, whether religious or non religious. So of course they aren't going to apply to run a humanist free school. To imply this to be somehow a failure on their part is bonkers - it would be like having a go at a comprehensive school that doesn't agree with selection for not applying to run a grammar school.

Then they cannot complain about privilege in terms of foundation unless they know something we don't.
Secondly since founding schools has knacker all it seems to do with Humanism then we are entitled to ask whether the non foundation of schools is strategic or tactical.

All in all that takes us back to vehement complaint  at religion on the grounds of segregation but a different tune or no tune when it comes to segregation mediated through other ways.

Finally, so school founding is not in the DNA of secular Humanism then. If everyone is to become secular humanist, who founds the schools?

[ProfessorDavey]

Then they cannot complain about privilege in terms of foundation unless they know something we don't.

What on earth are you on about - as I have ably demonstrated even if HumanistsUK applied and were permitted to set up a humanist free school it would have virtually none of the special privileges enjoyed by current faith schools - so the issue of special privilege is just as valid. But also HumanistsUk take a principled view that they choose not to apply to run such schools as it runs counter to their own principles that education should be provided in an inclusive manner free from 'isms' of all kinds.

Secondly since founding schools has knacker all it seems to do with Humanism then we are entitled to ask whether the non foundation of schools is strategic or tactical.

Is that actually supposed to mean something or is it just gobbledygook.

All in all that takes us back to vehement complaint  at religion on the grounds of segregation but a different tune or no tune when it comes to segregation mediated through other ways.

Such as - remember we are talking about protected characteristics here Vlad.

Finally, so school founding is not in the DNA of secular Humanism then. If everyone is to become secular humanist, who founds the schools?

Once again is that actually supposed to mean something or is it just gobbledygook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What on earth are you on about - as I have ably demonstrated even if HumanistsUK applied and were permitted to set up a humanist free school it would have virtually none of the special privileges enjoyed by current faith schools

If it were me. I would give those privileges.

Now, we can never tell, but if I was a humanist that would be a terrible thing to be offered, primarily because it scuppers the best card I have in my pack to eliminate religion in the battle of souls I am waging with it.

I must ask you. Why would the state not want humanists to start up schools? Why would they not want to grant humanist schools equal status with faith schools?

[ProfessorDavey]

If it were me. I would give those privileges.

Now, we can never tell, but if I was a humanist that would be a terrible thing to be offered, primarily because it scuppers the best card I have in my pack to eliminate religion in the battle of souls I am waging with it.

So, by inference, your approach to racism wouldn't be to legislate to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, but to let black people discriminate against white people, and white people discriminate against black people. Race to the bottom.

I must ask you. Why would the state not want humanists to start up schools?

We aren't talking about humanists starting up a school we are talking about a school with a specific humanist ethos. And, I've no idea - maybe they would, but to date they haven't. I would suspect however that the powerful establishment churches would have something to say.

Why would they not want to grant humanist schools equal status with faith schools?

Because they have legislated to make it impossible - the only way you can get the same privileges as (say) a VA faith school is to be designated by government as a school with a religious character. That is clearly impossible for a humanist school.

[floo]

Your religious beliefs should not prevent you holding public office, unless you use that office as a means of proselytising.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, by inference, your approach to racism wouldn't be to legislate to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, but to let black people discriminate against white people, and white people discriminate against black people. Race to the bottom.

Infer what you like but that wouldn't be my approach to racism and a reading of your recent posts would point to you flagging up the differences between a church school and a humanist school which you argue wouldn't be allowed.

What I am trying to point out is that an antihumanist conspiracy which is kind of what you are suggesting would surely give you the same rights as religion and then let you retreat in order to save your main weapon.

The point being that there is no such antihumanist conspiracy. An application to found a humanist school then would probably go through or at least not fail on those grounds.

[ProfessorDavey]

Infer what you like but that wouldn't be my approach to racism

Glad to hear it.

Which begs the question as to why your approach to dealing with a situation where religious schools can discriminate against non religious people is to allow non religious people to discriminate against religious people by setting up a new set of discriminatory schools.

and a reading of your recent posts would point to you flagging up the differences between a church school and a humanist school which you argue wouldn't be allowed.

I am simply stating fact that the law does not permit the kind of special privileges to discriminate, that many faith schools currently have to be extended to a hypothetical humanist school as that school could not be officially designated as a school with a religious character.

What I am trying to point out is that an antihumanist conspiracy which is kind of what you are suggesting would surely give you the same rights as religion and then let you retreat in order to save your main weapon.

I am in favour of religious people and non religious people having the same rights - that is why I am in favour of a secular state as that is the only way in which it can be achieved.

An application to found a humanist school then would probably go through or at least not fail on those grounds.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't - that is pure speculation as it has never been tested. What we do know, for sure, is that the law would not allow that hypothetical humanist school to have the same scope to discriminate (e.g. exemption from Equality Act 2010) that only schools officially designated to have a religious character currently have as, by definition a humanist school cannot be a school designated to have a religious character.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Glad to hear it.

Which begs the question as to why your approach to dealing with a situation where religious schools can discriminate against non religious people is to allow non religious people to discriminate against religious people by setting up a new set of discriminatory schools.
I am simply stating fact that the law does not permit the kind of special privileges to discriminate, that many faith schools currently have to be extended to a hypothetical humanist school as that school could not be officially designated as a school with a religious character.
I am in favour of religious people and non religious people having the same rights - that is why I am in favour of a secular state as that is the only way in which it can be achieved.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't - that is pure speculation as it has never been tested. What we do know, for sure, is that the law would not allow that hypothetical humanist school to have the same scope to discriminate (e.g. exemption from Equality Act 2010) that only schools officially designated to have a religious character currently have as, by definition a humanist school cannot be a school designated to have a religious character.

But that doesn't answer any questions as to why, if that is the case humanists are not given the same rights should they apply to open a school if that is in fact the case? In other words what ''better counsels'' are operating here? Why are minorities being given protections?

[ProfessorDavey]

But that doesn't answer any questions as to why, if that is the case humanists are not given the same rights should they apply to open a school if that is in fact the case? In other words what ''better counsels'' are operating here? Why are minorities being given protections?

Again - in English please.

[ippy]

Again - in English please.

It can't be you've not come up against Vladobable before Proff?

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again - in English please.

Alright. Why do you think these employment privileges and admission privileges NOT foundation since there is apparently no privilege there, why do you think those privileges exist?

My own theory is this.
Church schools were an independent foundation.
They were bought into the state and the deal was religious character ethos and employment rights remains but funding comes from public money. A state funded catholic school previously independent near me closed. Then reopened as a private catholic school which then was sold to a secular company. who then moved out after which it temporarily rehoused a state school temporarily during an emergency rebuild. All the time the buildings and infra structure was actually and had been owned by an order of Nuns.
You see it was all deals and in the case of the displaced state school I don't believe any money changed other than insurances etc.
Freeschools are funded and have terms and conditions according to where they were school characterwise had they been traditional foundations.

[Sassy]

Following on from discussions elsewhere, I thought a poll might be in order. Since it might be difficult to be precise people have 2 votes but you don't have to use them. I would be interested if people expand on their reasoning. My basic answer is no, and while I believe certain beliefs are an issue, the fact that they might be religious does not seem relevant in itself. Hence as I covered elsewhere a primary school teacher who argues for sex with 5 year olds should be  stopped from being a primary school teacher regardless of whether the views are based on a religion.

WHERE would you find a teacher still a teacher of primary school children who held such a belief?

Only a bloody idiot would argue for such an abominbal thing. Guess he would  find himself friendless, homeless, jobless and hiding from every mother and Father in the world.  I really do not think this was well thought out.. Angus bored now!