Religion in our schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So given that you have ignored my post to which I replied can I take it that you agree that applying absolautes as you were doing is simplistic? If not why not?


Who is 'we'?

Sorry but you seem to say that backing two contradictory positions was not hypocritical and therefore a reasonable position to hold. There is even a post from you to this effect.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's another argument Davey. Do keep up.

Rather than obfuscating perhaps you'd like to address the main point of my post, namely that for state funded grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rather than obfuscating perhaps you'd like to address the main point of my post, namely that for state funded grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist.

the existence of schools? In the UK I believe that is because they were church foundations.
Fast forward and we have the major atheistic organisations Humanist UK and NSS saying they aren't in the business of founding schools but are happy for the tax payers to found them for them.

As a tax payer I therefore object to the idea of religion not being represented in a meaningful way in schools as suggested by Humanist UK and NSS.

The ideal formula is therefore for each school to openly and joyously declare that they strive to reflect and celebrate the faith and world viewsof their pupils and communities they find themselves in, rather than the oppressive dictat of BHA and NSS.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry but you seem to say that backing two contradictory positions was not hypocritical and therefore a reasonable position to hold. There is even a post from you to this effect.

Sorry, this isn't the same as saying I was taking specific positions on religious and fee paying schools - which you did in the post I was replying to. So I take it that you now retract that statement and want to make this one?



In regards to the idea of what you think of as two contradictory positions, I covered this in the post about being against lying and against causing harm, which you again ignored in your reply. Your post above seems to ignore that in its entirety again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, this isn't the same as saying I was taking specific positions on religious and fee paying schools - which you did in the post I was replying to. So I take it that you now retract that statement and want to make this one?



In regards to the idea of what you think of as two contradictory positions, I covered this in the post about being against lying and against causing harm, which you again ignored in your reply. Your post above seems to ignore that in its entirety again.

But Sane, putting what I said in the context of this thread the two conflicting ideas in question ARE
That religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing
That fee paying schools are right even though they effectively do the same.

[Nearly Sane]

But Sane, putting what I said in the context of this thread the two conflicting ideas in question ARE
That religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing
That fee paying schools are right even though they effectively do the same.

Still no answer I see to my example about lying which covers this, and you are continually ignoring.

Given the lack of answer to the question about retracting your misrepresentation of what I said, I will assume that you have retracted that but are unable to write that for reasons best known to yourself

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still no answer I see to my example about lying which covers this, and you are continually ignoring.

Given the lack of answer to the question about retracting your misrepresentation of what I said, I will assume that you have retracted that but are unable to write that for reasons best known to yourself

Still no answer I see to my example about lying which covers this, and you are continually ignoring.

Given the lack of answer to the question about retracting your misrepresentation of what I said, I will assume that you have retracted that but are unable to write that for reasons best known to yourself

What misrepresentation? Did you or did you not write this on a thread where the context was the argument Religious schools are wrong because the prevent mixing but Fee paying schools are right.

Quote from: Nearly Sane on Today at 09:19:34 AM
''It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.''

..................and by saying it are you not saying that it is reasonable to argue that religious schools are wrong because they stop mixing but fee paying schools are right...that being the context with which you are making the analogy.

And that's without even mentioning Godwin's law

[ProfessorDavey]

the existence of schools? In the UK I believe that is because they were church foundations.

Nonsense and irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

What misrepresentation? Did you or did you not write this on a thread where the context was the argument Religious schools are wrong because the prevent mixing but Fee paying schools are right.

Quote from: Nearly Sane on Today at 09:19:34 AM
''It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.''

..................and by saying it are you not saying that it is reasonable to argue that religious schools are wrong because they stop mixing but fee paying schools are right...that being the context with which you are making the analogy.

And that's without even mentioning Godwin's law

So nothing in that says anything about  my opinion fee paying schools. It's a general point that people might have principles that conflict. You seems confused. And merely saying Godwin's law does nothing to deal with the point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense and irrelevant.

OK let's get back to the question.
Do you think that religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right?

[ProfessorDavey]

OK let's get back to the question.
Do you think that religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right?

That isn't the question. The OP is about state funded faith schools compared to other state funded schools - let's stick to the topic.

So once again:

that for state funded grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That isn't the question. The OP is about state funded faith schools compared to other state funded schools - let's stick to the topic.

I fully expect a secular population to use the bonkers argument that state funded religious schools are wrong because they prevent children from mixing but fee paying schools are right even though they do exactly what makes state sponsored religious schools wrong........... although whether that is down to secularist lunacy or lunatic legacy feudal deference I don't know.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I fully expect a secular population to use the bonkers argument that state funded religious schools are wrong because they prevent children from mixing but fee paying schools are right even though they do exactly what makes state sponsored religious schools wrong........... although whether that is down to secularist lunacy or lunatic legacy feudal deference I don't know.

That's not the argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

That's not the argument.

which is..............?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

which is?

The arguments against each are different. Broadly the argument agains religious schools is that, as a general principle, teaching lies to children is a bad idea and in practical outcome terms it leads to tribalism and division.

The argument against fee paying schools is that it denies the best educational resources to the most able children - ie, it's good for rich thick kids but bad for poor smart ones.

Both are bad for society as a whole, but the reasons are different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

The arguments against each are different. Broadly the argument agains religious schools is that, as a general principle, teaching lies to children is a bad idea and in practical outcome terms it leads to tribalism and division.

That's your argument...an inflamed prostatic affair.... which I will gladly address in due course.
However Ippy's angle is that the trouble is that it prevents children from mixing. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

That's your argument...an inflamed prostatic affair.... which I will gladly address in due course.

Whether you or I agree with the arguments is a different matter. I was merely explaining to you what they are.

However Ippy's angle is that the trouble is that it prevents children from mixing.

You're looking in the wrong place - segregation. If, say, half the schools educated children whose surnames began with A-M and the other schools educated the rest that would be segregated education but it wouldn't matter much. With faith schools though it's the differential content that's problematic, and with private schools it's the differential quality that's problematic.

It's not hard to grasp if you try.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Whether you or I agree with the arguments is a different matter. I was merely explaining to you what they are.

You're looking in the wrong place - segregation. If, say, half the schools educated children whose surnames began with A-M and the other schools educated the rest that would be segregated education but it wouldn't matter much. With faith schools though it's the differential content that's problematic, and with private schools it's the differential quality that's problematic.

A bit simplistic and we are left with how any of the schools allow children to mix?
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

A bit simplistic and we are left with how any of the schools allow children to mix?

It's not simplistic (it just explains why you're looking in the wrong place), and we're not "left with" that at all. The arguments against faith schools that segregate and the arguments against private schools that segregate are different: with faith schools it's differential content; with private schools it's differential quality.

As for segregation as a general phenomenon, we already do that widely inasmuch as most schools accept pupils from their catchment areas - that's a form of segregation because children from town A can't go to school in town B. No-one cares much though because it doesn't matter - there are no differential content or differential quality issues involved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

It's not simplistic (it just explains why you're looking in the wrong place), and we're not "left with" that at all. The arguments against faith schools that segregate and the arguments against private schools that segregate are different: with faith schools it's differential content; with private schools it's differential quality.

As for segregation as a general phenomenon, we already do that widely inasmuch as most schools accept pupils from their catchment areas - that's a form of segregation because children from town A can't go to school in town B. No-one cares much though because it doesn't matter - there are no differential content or differential quality issues involved.

Of course it was simplistic. There isn't segregation by alphabetic order for a kick off and to say the only difference between state education and fee paying education is quality ignores it's role in perpetuating the class thing, stifling social mobility and meritocracy and the fact that we seem to be living in a ''Headmasters conferenceocracy'' with it seems an attendant chronic political clusterfuck.

As regards to your specific argument that lies are being taught....You've asserted, You justify.

[Rhiannon]

Well, I'm agin both, though I don't want to ban them. I would, however, withdraw state support for religious schools, and take away fee-paying scholls' charitable status. (I'd also make it a lot harder to home-school kids, a thoroughly bad idea, though again I wouldn't ban it completely.)

Why is home schooling a bad idea? Home schooling by religious nutters, yes, but that's mostly an issue Stateside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Of course it was simplistic. There isn't segregation by alphabetic order for a kick off…

FFS – even the simplest analogy passes you by doesn’t it. There aren’t really people looking for needles in haystacks either. So?

…and to say the only difference between state education and fee paying education ignores it's role in perpetuating the class thing, stifling social mobility and meritocracy and the fact that we seem to be living in a ''Headmasters conferenceocracy'' with it seems an attendant chronic political clusterfuck.

No it doesn’t ignore that at all – it rests on it as you’d know if you’d bothered to understand anything that’s been said here. That’s exactly why people argue against education based on differential quality – giving the best resources to kids whose parents happen to be able to afford it and denying it to kids whose parents can’t will (the argument goes) lead to these outcomes.

As regards to your specific argument that lies are being taught....You've asserted, You justify.

Easily if you want to start a thread on it. This one though is about why people argue as they do, and I've straightened out your misunderstanding of that already. Whether those arguments have merit is another matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easily if you want to start a thread on it. This one though is about why people argue as they do, and I've straightened out your misunderstanding of that already. Whether those arguments have merit is another matter.

It's up to you to start a thread on your argument ''faith schools teach lies'', reiterate your claim, justify it and then wait patiently and politely for interlocution. But being interrogated doesn't sit well with you, does it?.

[ippy]

Vladdo,

That's not the argument.

Vlad's not in receiving mode today Blue, I don't know when he will be, he thinks he's read my post and doesn't understand whatever bit of it he did read.

He's even more deeply into bollocks mode today than his normal I know it doesn't seem possible, but he is.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Vlad's not in receiving mode today Blue, I don't know when he will be, he thinks he's read my post and doesn't understand whatever bit of it he did read.

He's even more deeply into bollocks mode today than his normal I know it doesn't seem possible, but he is.

Clearly so. The hypocrisy of him insisting I start a thread to make an argument when, to my knowledge, he's never, ever argued for anything (preferring instead to ignore or to lie about the arguments that others make) is beyond irony.