Sweden's Social Democrats propose ban on religious independent schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SotS,

I assume that this'll be another of your smash and grab raids, but cock-eyed optimist that I am...

What do you think "their philosophy" is and what logical contradictions do you think it's based on?

Since this is about education their philosophy is about the elimination of religion from schools and if RE is to survive it must be objectively taught, Presumably this is somehow different from the objectivity which already exists. Once religion is eliminated schools will be acceptable to humanists...PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE RELIGION HAS GONE and there is a new paradigm in objectivity....presumably acceptible to humanists.

Of course the contradiction here is the whole thing is an exercise in replacing one world view with another while using words like inclusion.

What the end game of secularism is, is wrapped up in the atheist movements I am looking forward to their adjudication.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Since this is about education their philosophy is about the elimination of religion from schools and if RE is to survive it must be objectively taught, Presumably this is somehow different from the objectivity which already exists. Once religion is eliminated schools will be acceptable to humanists...PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE RELIGION HAS GONE and there is a new paradigm in objectivity....presumably acceptible to humanists.

Of course the contradiction here is the whole thing is an exercise in replacing one world view with another while using words like inclusion.

What the end game of secularism is, is wrapped up in the atheist movements I am looking forward to their adjudication.

So that's a "no" then.

It's also utter bollocks - since when did humanism entail "the elimination of religion from schools"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any complaint at religious segregation is at least meaningless if Humanist UK has no policy toward any other form of segregation in education and at worst special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Any complaint at religious segregation is at least meaningless if Humanist UK has no policy toward any other form of segregation in education and at worst special pleading.

So still no "logical contradictions" then.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

SotS,

I assume that this'll be another of your smash and grab raids, but cock-eyed optimist that I am...

What do you think "their philosophy" is and what logical contradictions do you think it's based on?

Of course the contradiction here is the whole thing is an exercise in replacing one world view with another while using words like inclusion.

What he said bluehillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

What he said bluehillside.

And the logical contradictions would be what then to your mind?

At best there's a charge of hypocrisy (albeit a false one by the way) but where are the logical contradictions you claimed?

[Nearly Sane]

Any complaint at religious segregation is at least meaningless if Humanist UK has no policy toward any other form of segregation in education and at worst special pleading.

You don't appear to understand the concept of special pleading and manage to use the tu quoque fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SotS,

And the logical contradictions would be what then to your mind?

At best there's a charge of hypocrisy (albeit a false one by the way) but where are the logical contradictions you claimed?

Waiving your rights to found state supported schools in order/and then to continue to complain at the privilege others have of having founded state supported schools is a circular argument isn't it?

[Gordon]

Waiving your rights to found state supported schools in order/and then to continue to complain at the privilege others have of having founded state supported schools is a circular argument isn't it?

No.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

So it's reasonable is it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Waiving your rights to found state supported schools in order/and then to continue to complain at the privilege others have of having founded state supported schools is a circular argument isn't it?

No, not even close. Try looking up "circular reasoning" to see why.

[SteveH]

That may be their intention, but unfortunately since their philosophy is based on logical contradictions, it is doomed to failure.

You only have to look at the implementation of tolerance. Yeah, tolerance is good ... until something disagrees with its tenets, and then the result is intolerance towards anything that doesn't comply.

No-one in their right mind believes in absolute tolerance. It's like freedom - we should all be as free as possible, but my freedom has to stop at the point at which it starts to restrict other people's freedom. Similarly, there should be a presumption of tolerance, but we can't tolerate anything which is obviously harmful to others, including intolerance. You can think what you like about gay relationships, for example, but you have to tolerate them in practise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, not even close. Try looking up "circular reasoning" to see why.

OK I'm willing to accept your explanation that it isn't circular reasoning for the moment and I guess we are grasping for the name of another logical fallacy which is being committed here.

If anybody can name the fallacy of complaining that the other guy has cake and you haven't because you refuse cake, please tell us now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK I'm willing to accept your explanation that it isn't circular reasoning for the moment…

Not “just for the moment” at all but thanks anyway.

…and I guess we are grasping for the name of another logical fallacy which is being committed here.

No we’re not. There isn’t one.

If anybody can name the fallacy of complaining that the other guy has cake and you haven't because you refuse cake, please tell us now.

What’s actually happened is that they argue that segregated schools are a bad thing, so they don’t want to run segregated schools of their own. There’s no logical fallacy there, and it would be hypocritical of them to do otherwise.

[Gordon]

Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege
Government You can apply for schools
Humanists We don't want them
Humanists They have schools it's privilege

If I say: 'schools should not be established on the primary basis of a core aim (or ethos) involving the promotion of any a priori stance on theism or atheism' - do you get it now?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm for anything that diminishes the ability of the religious teaching their stuff to the very youngest of our school children, this Swedish idea could be a start and it gives a boost to the secularist argument here in the U K.

https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-social-democrats-propose-ban-on-religious-independent-schools

Try this link.

Regards ippy

I'm all for schools that wish to, adopting a certain ethos or culture and influencing those who attend to adopt the same culture and ethos, while still allowing individual thought even if behaviour is governed by school rules. I would want the school to be regulated and held accountable so that parents and wider society through the government have input so that the school's education does not result in violent clashes with the culture of the wider society.

Interesting article, especially the part about boys having to sit at the front of the bus because some boys are disruptive. We have whole schools segregated by sex in this country for a variety of reasons, including that some boys are disruptive. Some studies have shown that "Girls at single-sex schools up to 85% more likely to take advanced STEM subjects than co-ed girls"

"This research confirms that, in an all-girls learning environment, free from gender bias or social pressure from boys, girls thrive in what have been traditionally regarded as male-dominated subjects," said Ms Curtis.

"An all-girls learning environment provides the motivation, self-belief and resilience for girls to feel confident about their abilities in maths and science, they are more assertive, willing to take risks, ask questions and make mistakes," said Ms Bridge.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-girls-single-sex-schools-advanced-stem.html

Personally, if a local Christian school's religious culture also provides motivation, self-belief etc that supports good exam results for non-Christians, I'd send my children to the faith school. Their Muslim religious beliefs or lack of them are influenced by a lot more than school - such as the home environment, extended family, social ties.

If parents in society find that all faith schools do not benefit educational aspirations or despite doing so are divisive in a problematic way that outweighs the benefit of the educational achievements, as assessed through research and inspection, then it makes sense to dispense with all faith schools.

Alternatively, parents might prefer to just dispense with the problematic faith schools and keep the ones that are meeting the needs of the parents' educational aspirations for their children without being unduly divisive.     

[SusanDoris]

That  is a lot of words, Gabriella, but all of them avoid the fact that if schools, or any of the adults in them, are teaching children that any kind of God is true and that there is evidence for such a thing, then children are being taught a falsehood.

[ippy]

I'm all for schools that wish to, adopting a certain ethos or culture and influencing those who attend to adopt the same culture and ethos, while still allowing individual thought even if behaviour is governed by school rules. I would want the school to be regulated and held accountable so that parents and wider society through the government have input so that the school's education does not result in violent clashes with the culture of the wider society.

Interesting article, especially the part about boys having to sit at the front of the bus because some boys are disruptive. We have whole schools segregated by sex in this country for a variety of reasons, including that some boys are disruptive. Some studies have shown that "Girls at single-sex schools up to 85% more likely to take advanced STEM subjects than co-ed girls"

"This research confirms that, in an all-girls learning environment, free from gender bias or social pressure from boys, girls thrive in what have been traditionally regarded as male-dominated subjects," said Ms Curtis.

"An all-girls learning environment provides the motivation, self-belief and resilience for girls to feel confident about their abilities in maths and science, they are more assertive, willing to take risks, ask questions and make mistakes," said Ms Bridge.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-girls-single-sex-schools-advanced-stem.html

Personally, if a local Christian school's religious culture also provides motivation, self-belief etc that supports good exam results for non-Christians, I'd send my children to the faith school. Their Muslim religious beliefs or lack of them are influenced by a lot more than school - such as the home environment, extended family, social ties.

If parents in society find that all faith schools do not benefit educational aspirations or despite doing so are divisive in a problematic way that outweighs the benefit of the educational achievements, as assessed through research and inspection, then it makes sense to dispense with all faith schools.

Alternatively, parents might prefer to just dispense with the problematic faith schools and keep the ones that are meeting the needs of the parents' educational aspirations for their children without being unduly divisive.     

Yes the only part that I really think would be of benefit to all of the future children would be the removal of religious denominational schools from the frame completely, I feel sure this will happen eventually, but in the meantime I'll settle for any, however small the effort, removal of religion as a specific subject in our schools, especially religion based lessons for the very youngest children, those under seven years of age.

There is plenty of time during the school year for mention of religion in its historical place or context, I really can't see religion being taught in school time being of any useful benefit, surly it's for those that think this religious stuff is necessary for their child's upbringing to make provision for this idea of theirs in their own time outside of the educational system, there are, by far, many, much more important things for the children to learn about than religion during their relatively short period but essential part of their lives in school.

As for the rest of your post, please don't think I'm being dismissive of it, it's just the ridding us of something that unnecessarily divides people is more important to me and I'm sure there is a lot of substance in the rest of your post.     

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I'm all for schools that wish to, adopting a certain ethos or culture and influencing those who attend to adopt the same culture and ethos, while still allowing individual thought even if behaviour is governed by school rules. I would want the school to be regulated and held accountable so that parents and wider society through the government have input so that the school's education does not result in violent clashes with the culture of the wider society.

Interesting article, especially the part about boys having to sit at the front of the bus because some boys are disruptive. We have whole schools segregated by sex in this country for a variety of reasons, including that some boys are disruptive. Some studies have shown that "Girls at single-sex schools up to 85% more likely to take advanced STEM subjects than co-ed girls"

"This research confirms that, in an all-girls learning environment, free from gender bias or social pressure from boys, girls thrive in what have been traditionally regarded as male-dominated subjects," said Ms Curtis.

"An all-girls learning environment provides the motivation, self-belief and resilience for girls to feel confident about their abilities in maths and science, they are more assertive, willing to take risks, ask questions and make mistakes," said Ms Bridge.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-girls-single-sex-schools-advanced-stem.html

Personally, if a local Christian school's religious culture also provides motivation, self-belief etc that supports good exam results for non-Christians, I'd send my children to the faith school. Their Muslim religious beliefs or lack of them are influenced by a lot more than school - such as the home environment, extended family, social ties.

If parents in society find that all faith schools do not benefit educational aspirations or despite doing so are divisive in a problematic way that outweighs the benefit of the educational achievements, as assessed through research and inspection, then it makes sense to dispense with all faith schools.

Alternatively, parents might prefer to just dispense with the problematic faith schools and keep the ones that are meeting the needs of the parents' educational aspirations for their children without being unduly divisive.

Just out of interest, does teaching children assertions as facts when the teachers cannot know them to be facts in a school environment not concern you at all?

[Nearly Sane]

Given the conversation this is quite interesting


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43420043

[SusanDoris]

Hmmm, I've read it. I'd like to know what the RE syllabus is.

[ippy]

Given the conversation this is quite interesting


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43420043

What else would you expect from the ridiculously pro religion BBC.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

What else would you expect from the ridiculously pro religion BBC.

Regards ippy

  So you wouldn't want it reported?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I say: 'schools should not be established on the primary basis of a core aim (or ethos) involving the promotion of any a priori stance on theism or atheism' - do you get it now?

Here is humanist UK on their aims:

Because many schools without a religious character more or less meet our ideal in their ethos and values. If collective worship was ended and RE became universally objective, fair and balanced (and included non-religious views such as Humanism), community schools would indeed be exactly what we would want a school to be.

No mention of atheism
Mention of removal of religion and admission that once this was achieved schools would be exactly humanist approved.
Strange aspertions that teachers do not teach objectively. Evidence please.
Possible logical contradiction that non religious subjects could be RE.