Sweden's Social Democrats propose ban on religious independent schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Regards ippy

There have been opposing conclusions that both RE and religious coverage have been neglected.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Why would there be, much less “antitheism”?

Mention of removal of religion and admission that once this was achieved schools would be exactly humanist approved.

Categorically not true. What it mentions is the absence of “religious character” – a very different matter. Indeed it even talks about RE being included when it’s “fair, balanced and objective”. What could anyone possibly object to about that?

Strange aspertions that teachers do not teach objectively.

Categorically not true. It makes no such aspersions.

Evidence please.

For what – your straw man?

Possible logical contradiction that non religious subjects could be RE.

That’s just incoherent. What are you even trying to say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why would there be, much less “antitheism”?

Gordon seemed to suggest there was. It's certainly unfeasible that atheism in some manifestation and context would not be the aim of Humanist UK. Doesn't removal of religion constitute institution of non religion? How is religion being accommodated?

I'm wondering what Humanist UK mean by objective teaching of RE and how the displacement of religion to accommodate non religious ideas would not constitute a removal of religion where that occurs.

Finally do non religion come under religion? I see what you mean and yes I agree that people should learn about humanism and atheism even New Atheism which according to D Sloan Wilson is a stealth religion anyway.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Gordon seemed to suggest there was. It's certainly unfeasible that atheism in some manifestation and context would not be the aim of Humanist UK. Doesn't removal of religion constitute institution of non religion?

Again, there is no "removal of religion". Read the quote you cut and pasted!

I'm wondering what Humanist UK mean by objective teaching of RE and how the displacement of religion to accommodate non religious ideas would not constitute a removal of religion where that occurs.

What they mean by it is teaching comparative religions as a social phenomenon but not teaching its myriad claims and assertions as if they were facts.

It's very simple.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What they mean by it is teaching comparative religions as a social phenomenon

I think that goes on already.
I'm sorry I still can't see where the Humanists are suggesting a)the removal of atheism b) anything except the removal of religion from the act of broadly Christian or religious worship and accomodating non religion into an already crowded timetable. In other words how can religion fail to be displaced?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think that goes on already.

Not in faith schools it doesn’t, and even in secular ones the law still requires that there be a “daily act of worship”.

I'm sorry I still can't see where the Humanists are suggesting a)the removal of atheism…

“The Humanists” as you put it (ie, humanism) are indifferent to the arguments of atheism. That’s why they comment neither on its inclusion nor its exclusion. Inasmuch as it would appear anywhere in the curriculum it would in any case be in lessons on critical thinking, theory of knowledge etc. 

b) anything except the removal of religion…

Again, there’s no suggestion of the “removal of religion”. Rather the suggestion is for the removal of religious teaching as if it were fact. 

…from the act of broadly Christian or religious worship…

That’s a different matter. Yes, humanism does advocate the removal of compulsory acts of worship. Why wouldn’t it as presumably the venerated object would then have to be treated as factually there. 

…and accomodating non religion into an already crowded timetable.

There’s no such thing as “non religion” to be accommodated. Non-alchemy doesn’t have to be accommodated, nor does non-astrology. Why would non-religion be any different.?

In other words how can religion fail to be displaced?

Easily. Again, you’re conflating religious teaching (ie, “this stuff is factually true”) with religious education (ie, these are the various things that people believe and practice”).

As I said, it’s actually very simple.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not in faith schools it doesn’t, and even in secular ones the law still requires that there be a “daily act of worship”.

“The Humanists” as you put it (ie, humanism) are indifferent to the arguments of atheism. That’s why they comment neither on its inclusion nor its exclusion. Inasmuch as it would appear anywhere in the curriculum it would in any case be in lessons on critical thinking, theory of knowledge etc. 

Again, there’s no suggestion of the “removal of religion”. Rather the suggestion is for the removal of religious teaching as if it were fact. 

That’s a different matter. Yes, humanism does advocate the removal of compulsory acts of worship. Why wouldn’t it as presumably the venerated object would then have to be treated as factually there. 

There’s no such thing as “non religion” to be accommodated. Non-alchemy doesn’t have to be accommodated, nor does non-astrology. Why would non-religion be any different.?

Easily. Again, you’re conflating religious teaching (ie, “this stuff is factually true”) with religious education (ie, these are the various things that people believe and practice”).

As I said, it’s actually very simple.

It is simple It is about the elimination of one world view and its replacement by another.
I can dig secularism but the Humanist UK are too in thrall to atheist fundamentalists and fanatics and that includes people that equate secularisation with the institution of national atheism, to be taken seriously IMHO .

[ippy]

  So you wouldn't want it reported?

So sorry N S, I didn't write a multi volumed thesis about this, I thought it would be obvious, a report about religion, how unusual for the BBC it just happened to find this favourable one.

Hope I've conveyed exactly what it was that I meant for you N S.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

So sorry N S, I didn't write a multi volumed thesis about this, I thought it would be obvious, a report about religion, how unusual for the BBC it just happened to find this favourable one.

Hope I've conveyed exactly what it was that I meant for you N S.

Regards ippy

Could you provide some evidence that the BBC did this for the reasons you suggest?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So sorry N S, I didn't write a multi volumed thesis about this, I thought it would be obvious, a report about religion, how unusual for the BBC it just happened to find this favourable one.

Hope I've conveyed exactly what it was that I meant for you N S.

Regards ippy

So you are all for stories which are not favourable for a world view to be reported on?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is simple It is about the elimination of one world view and its replacement by another.

Nope. There is no "elimination" (unless you think that "this stuff is factually true because that's my faith" repeated for the endless varieties of religious traditions counts as "a world view"), and there's no replacement of it by anything.

I can dig secularism...

You'd never know it given your remarks on the thread about Kraus but ok...

...but the Humanist UK are too in thrall to atheist fundamentalists and fanatics...

And your evidence for that remarkable assertion would be what exactly? Oh, and what would an "atheist fundamentalist and fanatic" even be in any case? 

...and that includes people that equate secularisation with the institution of national atheism, to be taken seriously IMHO .

Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?

[ippy]

So you are all for stories which are not favourable for a world view to be reported on?

Yes if the BBC didn't consistently fawn over anything that has the remotest reference or connection to religious belief, it'd make a change, in the overall picture, do let me know when I've been clear enough, oh no I forgot, don't worry about it.

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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?

I wouldn't say it doesn't concern me at all.

In this country, given the evidence of increasing costs of living not matched by a rise in wages, falling religiosity and the change and apparently increasing diversity in religious interpretations, I would be more concerned about exam results than the way religious or moral or cultural beliefs are taught.

I would weigh the concern about a particular school's religious or non-religious ethos against the evidence of whether a particular the school provides good exam results that would potentially lead to more job choices for its pupils, especially for those girls who might be disadvantaged because they might feel less inclined to take the employment risks boys might take for a variety of reasons:

E.g. those girls who might be influenced by the limits of their physical strength to not apply for or not be as good as a man in certain jobs; or where the greater risk of sexual assault compared to a man might influence some girls to not take jobs in remote or confined places where they might be physically vulnerable, or those girls who think they might run the risk of not being employed because they are of child-bearing age and employers might assume they will potentially have health complications or just be less mobile and more fragile due to future pregnancies, or think they are more likely to focus on child-rearing than a man; or those girls who might be influenced in their job choices by the risk of being employed because they are attractive to the man interviewing them and the risk of having to decline his advances without risking their career advancement, or who worry about the risk of taking career breaks due to maternity leave or the risk of missing out on career advancement because of a maternal urge to spend time nurturing their children while male counter-parts devote as many hours to delivering on work deadlines and gaining valuable career experience that makes them more capable in the job.

I think those girls might be more concerned about their academic education than whether the school teaches them religious or non-religious stories about morals, that they might discard as they grow older and gain more independence and freedom.

If a particular faith school is not delivering on education that will give pupils greater choices, then I have no objection to it being closed down or modified. My husband was keen to send my daughters to a Muslim faith school because of the ethos but I was against it. The female Muslim teacher who taught there, and who was a family friend, also advised me that if I was interested in my daughters receiving a good academic education, non-Islamic schools were better suited to achieving that outcome. 

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella #62

Another long post which again, as far as I can see, evades the question of whether you would like, or approve of, assertions being taught as true facts to children, particularly those at a young age.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I wouldn't say it doesn't concern me at all.

In this country, given the evidence of increasing costs of living not matched by a rise in wages, falling religiosity and the change and apparently increasing diversity in religious interpretations, I would be more concerned about exam results than the way religious or moral or cultural beliefs are taught.

I would weigh the concern about a particular school's religious or non-religious ethos against the evidence of whether a particular the school provides good exam results that would potentially lead to more job choices for its pupils, especially for those girls who might be disadvantaged because they might feel less inclined to take the employment risks boys might take for a variety of reasons:

E.g. those girls who might be influenced by the limits of their physical strength to not apply for or not be as good as a man in certain jobs; or where the greater risk of sexual assault compared to a man might influence some girls to not take jobs in remote or confined places where they might be physically vulnerable, or those girls who think they might run the risk of not being employed because they are of child-bearing age and employers might assume they will potentially have health complications or just be less mobile and more fragile due to future pregnancies, or think they are more likely to focus on child-rearing than a man; or those girls who might be influenced in their job choices by the risk of being employed because they are attractive to the man interviewing them and the risk of having to decline his advances without risking their career advancement, or who worry about the risk of taking career breaks due to maternity leave or the risk of missing out on career advancement because of a maternal urge to spend time nurturing their children while male counter-parts devote as many hours to delivering on work deadlines and gaining valuable career experience that makes them more capable in the job.

I think those girls might be more concerned about their academic education than whether the school teaches them religious or non-religious stories about morals, that they might discard as they grow older and gain more independence and freedom.

If a particular faith school is not delivering on education that will give pupils greater choices, then I have no objection to it being closed down or modified. My husband was keen to send my daughters to a Muslim faith school because of the ethos but I was against it. The female Muslim teacher who taught there, and who was a family friend, also advised me that if I was interested in my daughters receiving a good academic education, non-Islamic schools were better suited to achieving that outcome.

So that's a roundabout way of saying, "yes I am concerned but I think it's a price worth paying for the benefits of religious schools"?

But in that case, why not just keep the practices you think lead to better exam results or life chances and ditch the bit that requires teaching as facts things the teachers cannot know to be facts at all? Surely how we establish verifiable truths - epistemology, theory of knowledge etc - matters quite a lot too doesn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. There is no "elimination" (unless you think that "this stuff is factually true because that's my faith" repeated for the endless varieties of religious traditions counts as "a world view"), and there's no replacement of it by anything.

Gibberish.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

So that's a roundabout way of saying, "yes I am concerned but I think it's a price worth paying for the benefits of religious schools"?

Correct. But not all religious schools. Only the ones that get good results.

But in that case, why not just keep the practices you think lead to better exam results or life chances and ditch the bit that requires teaching as facts things the teachers cannot know to be facts at all? Surely how we establish verifiable truths - epistemology, theory of knowledge etc - matters quite a lot too doesn't it?

I would if I were running a school or home-schooling my children. But I prioritise other things above running a school or home-schooling my kids so I have to choose from what's on offer from other people who prioritise running schools. Epistemology is important but good exam results are more important ...at least to get a foot in the door to universities and jobs.

[Robbie]

Yes if the BBC didn't consistently fawn over anything that has the remotest reference or connection to religious belief, it'd make a change, in the overall picture, do let me know when I've been clear enough, oh no I forgot, don't worry about it.

Regards ippy

Ippy I think it would be a good idea for you to link to the BBC when it does that. I haven't seen it, certainly not recently anyway. The only religious programmes I've been aware of (not seen) are when I go through Freeview and see TBN in the middle of the night.

(Other than that I've not much to say on this topic atm because I think I got wrong end of stick about Sweden's school system.)

[ProfessorDavey]

Correct. But not all religious schools. Only the ones that get good results.
I would if I were running a school or home-schooling my children. But I prioritise other things above running a school or home-schooling my kids so I have to choose from what's on offer from other people who prioritise running schools. Epistemology is important but good exam results are more important ...at least to get a foot in the door to universities and jobs.

Back on the old BBC site there was a poster who was a catholic priest. Interestingly although there were many things we disagreed on, we both agreed that there shouldn't be state funded faith schools. Our opposition was based on different grounds. You've heard my reasons against. His were that state funding compromised the ability to actually provide what he considered to be a proper catholic education.

So his view was that there shouldn't be faith schools - that basic schooling should be non faith and largely based on academic development. Catholic education (I think more catholic instruction) according to him should be provided and paid for by the church and delivered completely separately from mainstream schooling. In that I agree with him - if parents think non objective religious education (instruction) is important it is for them and their religious organisations to provide it and fund it. But that should be additional to mainstream schooling.

[ippy]

Ippy I think it would be a good idea for you to link to the BBC when it does that. I haven't seen it, certainly not recently anyway. The only religious programmes I've been aware of (not seen) are when I go through Freeview and see TBN in the middle of the night.

(Other than that I've not much to say on this topic atm because I think I got wrong end of stick about Sweden's school system.)

They put on a completly non-religious programme about 'Free Thinking' and they were able to exchange their views  without the usual surounding chapperones something the BBC rarely ever permits, they put this programme on radio three at eleven o'clock at night, nothing surprising there.

All programming about ethical and moral subjects go on air via the BBC's Religion and Ethics Department, it's a bit like the Labour party media output having to go out on air via the Tory party central office, or visa versa, the only good thing about this arrangement is that they, the BBC now for the first time have appointed an atheist as head of the R&E department, I look forward hopefully to perhaps see more of a level playing field, than it has been up to now right from the the BBC's earliest days.

Next time almost any time you see a non-religious person allowed to speak on air with the BBC, radio or T V,  just make a mental note the ratio of non-religious people to those that differ with them a few times, when the oppertunity presents itself to you, and then you'll find there's no need to take my word for anything I'm saying about the BBC.

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Back on the old BBC site there was a poster who was a catholic priest. Interestingly although there were many things we disagreed on, we both agreed that there shouldn't be state funded faith schools. Our opposition was based on different grounds. You've heard my reasons against. His were that state funding compromised the ability to actually provide what he considered to be a proper catholic education.

So his view was that there shouldn't be faith schools - that basic schooling should be non faith and largely based on academic development. Catholic education (I think more catholic instruction) according to him should be provided and paid for by the church and delivered completely separately from mainstream schooling. In that I agree with him - if parents think non objective religious education (instruction) is important it is for them and their religious organisations to provide it and fund it. But that should be additional to mainstream schooling.

I agree that parents should fund private faith schools if they want them. My view regarding state faith schools is that:

• Governments need people and organisations to run state schools to provide a mass education service to the community ;
• The people running state schools have goals and strategies and create a school culture or ethos to help achieve those goals;
• Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture;
• Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people;
• My focus is on whether the output of these schools is pupils who are sufficiently educated and suitably prepared to live relatively self-sufficiently rather than being incapacitated and dependent on the state and an expensive disruption to society.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that parents should fund private faith schools if they want them. My view regarding state faith schools is that:

• Governments need people and organisations to run state schools to provide a mass education service to the community ;
• The people running state schools have goals and strategies and create a school culture or ethos to help achieve those goals;
• Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture;
• Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people;
• My focus is on whether the output of these schools is pupils who are sufficiently educated and suitably prepared to live relatively self-sufficiently rather than being incapacitated and dependent on the state and an expensive disruption to society.

Try applying your thinking to other public services and see whether you still agree.

Perhaps change the word 'school' to 'hospital' and 'education' to 'healthcare'

Anyone like to make a case for 'faith' hospitals where certain patients are able to jump to the front of the queue on the basis of their religion, while others are always relegated to the back of the queue as they are not of the 'right' religion, or have no religion.

[Nearly Sane]

Try applying your thinking to other public services and see whether you still agree.

Perhaps change the word 'school' to 'hospital' and 'education' to 'healthcare'

Anyone like to make a case for 'faith' hospitals where certain patients are able to jump to the front of the queue on the basis of their religion, while others are always relegated to the back of the queue as they are not of the 'right' religion, or have no religion.

And of course hospitals that could choose to hire people or sack people on the basis of religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Try applying your thinking to other public services and see whether you still agree.

Perhaps change the word 'school' to 'hospital' and 'education' to 'healthcare'

Anyone like to make a case for 'faith' hospitals where certain patients are able to jump to the front of the queue on the basis of their religion, while others are always relegated to the back of the queue as they are not of the 'right' religion, or have no religion.

I don't see the health service and education service as having similar goals so I think your comparison is too simplistic.

People tend to go to hospital to be treated for a short period of time and then they leave when they are well enough. They are not required to interact with hundreds of other people every day or buy into and uphold any common ethos or school culture; and patients are not children required to be kept under control in order to pass exams over a period of many years. If the faith ethos or non-faith ethos or being selective helps achieve the goals of the majority of parents at the school for their children to achieve educational and social skills, I'm all for selective schools. I'd leave it up to the parents at the school to decide if the school is working. I opted for private school so it should be up to state school parents to push for schools that reflect the ethos they want.

I compare schools to businesses in terms of culture. If the culture of the organisation is not meeting the needs of the community, there will be a gap in the market and people will look to existing alternatives that have ethics they agree with to meet their needs, or they will lobby the government to create an alternative that has the ethics they want to meet their needs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I agree that parents should fund private faith schools if they want them. My view regarding state faith schools is that:
Governments need people and organisations to run state schools to provide a mass education service to the community ;
The people running state schools have goals and strategies and create a school culture or ethos to help achieve those goals;
Some of the people who helpfully run schools for the rest of the community who don't want to run schools themselves follow a particular faith ethos and culture;
Some other parents in the community like a school's ethos and want to send their children to schools run by other people;
My focus is on whether the output of these schools is pupils who are sufficiently educated and suitably prepared to live relatively self-sufficiently rather than being incapacitated and dependent on the state and an expensive disruption to society.

Just out of interest, would you be equally sanguine if the "faith ethos or culture" entailed teaching children the "facts" of creationism? How about the "facts" of Marxist-Leninisn or of fascism, or is it just religious lying that's ok?   

Also, are you not concerned at all by the risk of stripping kids of their critical faculties by engendering the notion that "faith" is a reliable guide to truth, of the ghettoisation and division caused by sectarianism, of the risk of pupils who think clerics have access to categorical truths doing as they say regardless of what those actions might be - running off to join IS for example?   

Seems like a hell of a price to pay to me.