Sweden's Social Democrats propose ban on religious independent schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

Tut tut. That's not the argument. The argument is that faith schools teach their beliefs as facts (look at the RC stuff the Prof referenced some of which I copied and pasted for example) whereas non-faith schools do not (that's the comparative religion of RE). The "backed by science" bit is just something you've added after the event.

One wonders then how YOU propose to teach ethos, morals, rules and Law.

Other reasons why humanists shirk their responsibility to truly address their own world view status in not founding and running educational establishments?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Aren’t Ofsted supposed to be checking that schools are teaching British values? Those won’t be taught as facts but children will be expected to exhibit those values in school.

[ProfessorDavey]

One wonders then how YOU propose to teach ethos, morals,

What you don't do is teach that one approach is necessarily correct - you ensure that students are aware of a range of ethical approaches and positions and teach them the skills to critique those approaches and positions, ultimately allowing them to develop their own view.

You also allow students to recognise that their own personal view may be distinct from that of (some of) their peers.

rules and Law

That they exist, what they are and how they might have evolved over time. That rules/law often align with morals/ethics, but are not the same and sometimes do not appear to align or perhaps run behind changes in moral thinking. That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What you don't do is teach that one approach is necessarily correct - you ensure that students are aware of a range of ethical approaches and positions and teach them the skills to critique those approaches and positions, ultimately allowing them to develop their own view.

You also allow students to recognise that their own personal view may be distinct from that of (some of) their peers.
That they exist, what they are and how they might have evolved over time. That rules/law often align with morals/ethics, but are not the same and sometimes do not appear to align or perhaps run behind changes in moral thinking. That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.

I'm sorry but a school has to have an ethos which is at some limit inflexible.It must also have rules which are similar.
Teaching to critique? Pupils instinctively know how to critique but need to be taught temperance in this since people have a knack of bringing stuff down for the sake of it

Finally we come to law where there are no concessions made.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry but a school has to have an ethos which is at some limit inflexible.It must also have rules which are similar.

Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:

'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'

Teaching to critique? Pupils instinctively know how to critique but need to be taught temperance in this since people have a knack of bringing stuff down for the sake of it

Yes critique - which is completely different to 'bringing stuff down for the sake of it'. Kids need to learn to think, to critique, to reason. If they disagree with something to be able to cogently argue why - if they agree with something to be able to cogently argue why. And the best way to do this is to learn to critique - a common approach being to ask kids to argue for or against an ethical point, regardless of whether they actually agree or disagree with that point.

Finally we come to law where there are no concessions made.

Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:

'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'

Maybe you didn't bother to read my post before replying.

[ProfessorDavey]

I had a look - thanks. I think it's pretty clear in this country that these are faith beliefs, theology, philosophy and not scientific facts, but how it is taught would depend on the school. If there is evidence of a school teaching faith beliefs as facts backed by science I doubt this could be kept secret. There would be reports on it and the state can intervene.

The document says:

The content of Religious Education will help the pupil to make a critique of all other knowledge, leading, for example, to an understanding of the relationship between science and religion or history, and between theology, sport and the human body.

Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to religious educators, stressed the need to enlarge the area of our rationality, to reopen it to the larger questions of the truth and the good, and to link theology, philosophy and science. The religious dimension contributes to the overall formation of the person and makes it possible to transform knowledge into wisdom of life.

Page 7

The aims of Religious Education:

1 To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith;

2 To enable pupils continually to deepen their religious and theological understanding and be
able to communicate this effectively;

3 To present an authentic vision of the Church’s moral and social teaching so that pupils can
make a critique of the underlying trends in contemporary culture and society;

4 To raise pupils’ awareness of the faith and traditions of other religious communities in order
to respect and understand them;

5 To develop the critical faculties of pupils so that they can relate their Catholic faith to daily
life;

6 To stimulate pupils’ imagination and provoke a desire for personal meaning as revealed in the
truth of the Catholic faith;

7 To enable pupils to relate the knowledge gained through Religious Education to their understanding
of other subjects in the curriculum;

8 To bring clarity to the relationship between faith and life, and between faith and culture.

The outcome of excellent Religious Education is religiously literate and engaged young people who have the knowledge, understanding and skills – appropriate to their age and capacity – to reflect spiritually, and think ethically and theologically, and who are aware of the demands of religious commitment in everyday life.

Thanks for spending a long time answering BHSs point, but completely ignoring mine.

I wasn't challenging you on RE being taught as fact.

No I was challenging you on your assertion (a correct one) that RE should support an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'.

I challenge anyone to look at the RCC RE curriculum (BHS helpfully posted its summary of context) and claim it supports an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'. At best any religion other than catholicism is merely mentioned as an afterthought and always in the context of catholicism. The RCC curriculum is almost exclusively the study of a single faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:

'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'
Yes critique - which is completely different to 'bringing stuff down for the sake of it'. Kids need to learn to think, to critique, to reason. If they disagree with something to be able to cogently argue why - if they agree with something to be able to cogently argue why. And the best way to do this is to learn to critique - a common approach being to ask kids to argue for or against an ethical point, regardless of whether they actually agree or disagree with that point.
Which is why I said regarding rules and laws that:

'That we might disagree with them (and can campaign to change them), but cannot expect to break them without sanction.'

Maybe you didn't bother to read my post before replying.

Yes and pupils are taught in our curriculum to analyse different situations in different domains of learning.
But a school must know and be confident in what it is about. It must shape behaviour and attitudes in order to provide secure boundaries. Schools at some point must say yes and no as if they mean it.

Ethos, moral education, rules is not fact learning. Schools are practiced in allowing autonomy at the sixth form.

Your prescription seems another experiment in how to run something on a foundation of moral maybeism. Tried numerous times before often before pupils can be critical without exercising the power over others moral relativism can bestow an individual.
Potentia
Potential recipe for institutional, social and individual disaster.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

A fact is something that is proved to be true. I assumed you meant proved true through the methods of science. How else would something be proved to someone else?

Belief truths are values and traditions that we teach our children. God is a belief, not a fact. There is no way of proving God to another person - they either believe it or they don't. If no one can prove God, how is it taught as a fact?

If your objection is where religion is taught in English schools as true based on personal testimony and hearsay, that's the stuff people seem to be increasingly rejecting because it is a belief and there is a lack of proof and it doesn't add value to their lives. When enough people reject it, and think schools in their area can provide a good ethos and results while jettisoning this type of religious education, they will demand change in the way faith schools are funded. Some people retain belief in God because it provides some add-value to their lives but if they are in the minority they won't be able to stop changes to faith school funding.

I did look at the RC stuff - I copied and pasted some of it in my response to PD.

You’ve missed it completely. The point is that faith schools teach their various religious beliefs as facts; secular schools do not. You asked for evidence that faith schools do this and the RC document says that precisely. QED

So, are you against education that teaches faith beliefs as if they were statements of objective fact – there really is a god, there really was a resurrection, that objective truths really are "revealed" in certain ancient texts etc – in exactly the way that science teaches there really are atoms etc, or not?

As I understood it a while back you argued that you thought it was a price worth paying for the benefits, but later on you said that you’d be opposed to it. I just wonder which it is?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and pupils are taught in our curriculum to analyse different situations in different domains of learning.
But a school must know and be confident in what it is about. It must shape behaviour and attitudes in order to provide secure boundaries. Schools at some point must say yes and no as if they mean it.

Ethos, moral education, rules is not fact learning. Schools are practiced in allowing autonomy at the sixth form.

Your prescription seems another experiment in how to run something on a foundation of moral maybeism. Tried numerous times before often before pupils can be critical without exercising the power over others moral relativism can bestow an individual.
Potentia
Potential recipe for institutional, social and individual disaster.

Disagree with you very, very profoundly.

Sure discussion has to be age appropriate, but students are able to think for themselves about moral and ethical issues way before the 6th form. You seem to be implying that a school should promulgate teaching on the assumption of moral absolutism, when it is clear that not everyone accepts that to be the case.

And it is very easy (and regularly achieved in practice) for a school to ensure that students recognise the distinction between expected behaviour/rules within the school, which need to be followed and critique of ethical and moral principles learned within a pedagogical context. And of course learning that distinction, is of itself, a valuable lesson for life given that in broader society we will be expected to adhere to rules and laws etc that may sometimes not align with our personal ethical standpoint. And that in those circumstances we cannot expect to ignore those rules without sanction - however we can argue and campaign for those rules to be changed via the appropriate democratic process.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Disagree with you very, very profoundly.

Sure discussion has to be age appropriate, but students are able to think for themselves about moral and ethical issues way before the 6th form. You seem to be implying that a school should promulgate teaching on the assumption of moral absolutism, when it is clear that not everyone accepts that to be the case.

And it is very easy (and regularly achieved in practice) for a school to ensure that students recognise the distinction between expected behaviour/rules within the school, which need to be followed and critique of ethical and moral principles learned within a pedagogical context. And of course learning that distinction, is of itself, a valuable lesson for life given that in broader society we will be expected to adhere to rules and laws etc that may sometimes not align with our personal ethical standpoint. And that in those circumstances we cannot expect to ignore those rules without sanction - however we can argue and campaign for those rules to be changed via the appropriate democratic process.

Just to note too that he's getting his "oughts" and his "is's" mixed up. The point was about about faith schools teaching as facts certain objective claims - there is a god, there was a resurrection, inerrant rules are written in certain ancient texts etc (ie, the "is's"). Discussions about morality and the like (ie, the "oughts") are a different matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Inevitably a DaveyHillside academy trust school would be faced with a '' how can you show that your ''ought'' is better than my ''ought'', sir?''

Don't give up the day job of providing fodder for Religionethics chaps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

Just to note too that he's getting his "oughts" and his "is's" mixed up. The point was about about faith schools teaching as facts certain objective claims - there is a god, there was a resurrection, inerrant rules are written in certain ancient texts etc (ie, the "is's"). Discussions about morality and the like (ie, the "oughts") are a different matter.

Hopefully pupils are taught Popper and the Problem of induction.

[ProfessorDavey]

Inevitably a DaveyHillside academy trust school would be faced with a '' how can you show that your ''ought'' is better than my ''ought'', sir?''

Don't give up the day job of providing fodder for Religionethics chaps.

Don't forget that part of my 'day job' is teaching students ethics.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Don't forget that part of my 'day job' is teaching students ethics.

Do you teach an entry level primer? Maybe Vlad could enrol...

Prof.: "Can anyone tell me what "ethics" means? Yes you, new boy..."

Vlad.: "Me? Er - is it the county next to Hertfordshire?"

Prof. (sotto voce): "This is gonna be a very long term..."

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

Do you teach an entry level primer? Maybe Vlad could enrol...

Prof.: "Can anyone tell me what "ethics" means? Yes you, new boy..."

Vlad.: "Me? Er - is it the county next to Hertfordshire?"

Prof. (sotto voce): "This is gonna be a very long term..."

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

Do you teach an entry level primer? Maybe Vlad could enrol...

No Masters level - so way too advanced for old Vlad.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks for spending a long time answering BHSs point, but completely ignoring mine.

I wasn't challenging you on RE being taught as fact.

No I was challenging you on your assertion (a correct one) that RE should support an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'.

I challenge anyone to look at the RCC RE curriculum (BHS helpfully posted its summary of context) and claim it supports an understanding of the 'rich diversity of faiths and communities in the UK and their part in shaping the values and traditions of this country'. At best any religion other than catholicism is merely mentioned as an afterthought and always in the context of catholicism. The RCC curriculum is almost exclusively the study of a single faith.

I agree the RCC RE curriculum probably does not allocate anywhere near as much time to other faiths as some other curriculums. The teachers who promote spirituality may well differ in their individual interpretations of what spirituality encompasses, but provided they teach respect and tolerance for other beliefs and interpretations I don't see the problem in a school adopting a particular set of values and ethos when teaching about their own beliefs.

If there is evidence the school is not doing enough to teach respect and tolerance and pupils are not integrating well in wider society, I would support any decisions by the public for more government oversight or the abolition of state-funded RC schools - it's up to the voters and users of state-funded schools to make their preferences clear.

[jeremyp]

Yes they do get tax relief because of charity status but what I meant was the state does not fund the schools.

It amounts to the same thing.

[SusanDoris]

The teachers who promote spirituality  …

How, do you think, could any teacher ‘promote’ something which has no clear definition? Faith believers tend to assume they have a monopoly  on the word ‘spirituality’, and each faith  would probably have a different version of it, while atheists like me challenge anyone who would say that I am not spiritual!!

…may well differ in their individual interpretations of what spirituality encompasses, but provided they teach respect and tolerance for other beliefs and interpretations I don't see the problem in a school adopting a particular set of values and ethos when teaching about their own beliefs.

Why should a belief, i.e. the belief or religious faith itself, be respected, when it has zero objective evidence to support it?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How, do you think, could any teacher ‘promote’ something which has no clear definition? Faith believers tend to assume they have a monopoly  on the word ‘spirituality’, and each faith  would probably have a different version of it, while atheists like me challenge anyone who would say that I am not spiritual!!Why should a belief, i.e. the belief or religious faith itself, be respected, when it has zero objective evidence to support it?

Sorry - I just saw this.

I don't see spirituality as solely belonging to the religious or faith believers. As far as I know there is zero objective evidence to support spirituality - I think it's a concept that can only lend itself to subjective evidence.

Out of interest, what's your meaning of "spirituality? Or how do you define "spirituality"?

[SusanDoris]

Sorry - I just saw this.

I don't see spirituality as solely belonging to the religious or faith believers. As far as I know there is zero objective evidence to support spirituality - I think it's a concept that can only lend itself to subjective evidence.

Out of interest, what's your meaning of "spirituality? Or how do you define "spirituality"?

Spirituality is a word used to label some parts of our personalities connected with the more aesthetic aspects of life such as the pleasures of listening to one's particular musical choices, reading, seeing and appreciating works of art - I particularly like the more geometrical abstract work of Kandinsky. 
There is an excellent little book called'The LittleBook of Atheist Spirituality' by André Comte. My reader read it to me a while back and we both found it most interesting.