Religion in our schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It'll always be a problem to find a way to prevent religionists getting their claws into

Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.

[Nearly Sane]

It'll always be a problem to find a way to prevent religionists getting their claws into, as they see it, new recruits, when they consider educating our under seven year old children, I look forward to the day this practice was brought to a full stop, I'm sure there must be a better much more enlightened way to educate these vulnerable young pre seven year old victims.

As for the post seven year old children perhaps it'd be for the best to introduce them to some knowledge about the various religions that are unfortunately still managing to survive and from a personal point of view I would like to see some strict form of enforceable legislation that would prevent all of the religions, being taught as factual matters to any of our children in all of our schools, government funded or otherwise.

Regards ippy

what about at home?

[Nearly Sane]

Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.

And they started capitalism too by your logic.

[ippy]

Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.

Stop and think for a minute Vlad, this post of yours is completely irrelevant to my post that you think you're commenting on.

Regards ippy

[ippy]

what about at home?

As I keep on saying there's not much that can be done about that, but not using those precise words, oh yes and there's nothing I need to add to this comment, that's it.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

As I keep on saying there's not much that can be done about that, but not using those precise words, oh yes and there's nothing I need to add to this comment, that's it.

Regards ippy

So all things done outside of the state system is ok? Note I am only askin g about what you think.

[ippy]

So all things done outside of the state system is ok? Note I am only askin g about what you think.

H R takes care of the various freedoms, I'm sure the freedom of religion part, there of, is the right thing but as much I would like to see the under sevens protected from any kind of dogma when in a school environment, I can't see how it's possible to seperate these children from religion outside of the schools without infringing their parents H R's.

Much as I dislike belief in religions, I also go along with rights of us all when it comes to H R.

That's my thoughts on the subject, they wont be altering any time soon.

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's my thoughts on the subject, they wont be altering any time soon.

Regards ippy

Unless of course in the very near future you are shown new information that causes you to alter your thoughts and opinions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Religionists didn't get their claws into education, they started it and hospitals too.

No they didn't - societies have been educating their children (and treating their sick for millennia).

And our current notion of both education and healthcare in the UK - universally provided to all and free at the point of use - was established in the late 1940s and the proposals on education (reforms in education leading to the 1994 education act) were opposed by religions who saw the likelihood of influence dwindling. In the case of healthcare the government held its ground and properly nationalised the system. Sadly the 1944 education act contained a fudge that allowed church influence to remain (despite the fact that the church schools were mostly in an appalling state, were going bust and the church's main aim was to get someone else - the taxpayer - to pay for the schools they ran). We are still feeling the effect of that bad decision over 70 years later.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they didn't - societies have been educating their children (and treating their sick for millennia).

And our current notion of both education and healthcare in the UK - universally provided to all and free at the point of use - was established in the late 1940s and the proposals on education (reforms in education leading to the 1994 education act) were opposed by religions who saw the likelihood of influence dwindling. In the case of healthcare the government held its ground and properly nationalised the system. Sadly the 1944 education act contained a fudge that allowed church influence to remain (despite the fact that the church schools were mostly in an appalling state, were going bust and the church's main aim was to get someone else - the taxpayer - to pay for the schools they ran). We are still feeling the effect of that bad decision over 70 years later.

Unfortunately in our increasingly secular society education and healthcare provision free at the point of use look increasingly in jeopardy.

This is due, obviously,to a reduction in charity and an increasingly secular society increasingly believing that not only thee keeps it for ''thee sen'' but what's yours is mine and what's mine you can keep yer stinkin' hands off.

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately in our increasingly secular society education and healthcare provision free at the point of use look increasingly in jeopardy.

This is due, obviously,to a reduction in charity and an increasingly secular society increasingly believing that not only thee keeps it for ''thee sen'' but what's yours is mine and what's mine you can keep yer stinkin' hands off.

May's a Christian, Hunt's a C...

[ProfessorDavey]

Unfortunately in our increasingly secular society education and healthcare provision free at the point of use look increasingly in jeopardy.

I agree that there a severe pressures on our state health and educational systems. But this has absolutely nothing to do with secularisation - it is political (and economic/demographical) in nature

This is due, obviously,to a reduction in charity

That is neither obvious nor true. First there is no way in which a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system can run on charitable donations - can you provide an example please of a country who provides a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system based on charity, rather than taxation and/or direct payment from individuals, via fees and/or insurance.

Secondly where is your evidence that there is a reduction in charity in the UK - see the link and download the full report - effectively when index adjusted the amount of voluntary charitable donations has remained largely flat for years.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05428#fullreport

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that there a severe pressures on our state health and educational systems. But this has absolutely nothing to do with secularisation - it is political (and economic/demographical) in nature
That is neither obvious nor true. First there is no way in which a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system can run on charitable donations - can you provide an example please of a country who provides a comprehensive universal healthcare and educational system based on charity, rather than taxation and/or direct payment from individuals, via fees and/or insurance.

Secondly where is your evidence that there is a reduction in charity in the UK - see the link and download the full report - effectively when index adjusted the amount of voluntary charitable donations has remained largely flat for years.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05428#fullreport

I read Vlad's use of charity here as in the sense of love of humanity

[ProfessorDavey]

I read Vlad's use of charity here as in the sense of love of humanity

Something which is of course completely subjective and impossible to measure.

However you might be able to measure the manifestation of that sense of charity - either in terms of philanthropic donation (which as I have show shows no evidence of being in decline) or in terms of volunteering - which is also very robust. And on the latter the adult group most likely to give their time volunteering are full time students, typically aged 16-25, who are of course the least likely age group to be religious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

May's a Christian, Hunt's a C...

May's a Christian, Hunt's a C...

In as much individuals are to blame they certainly can be included but not as much obviously as Cameron, whose faith ''came and went'' and Clegg, the enabler, without whom none of this could have been possible ......an atheist.

And talking of enabling, step forward the Increasingly Secular Great British Public who had ample warning of a lack of charity in the tabloid press starting 2 or 3 years before the 2010 election and who let Cameron in in 2010 by dint of their vote, returned him with an increased majority in 2015, changed there mind in 2016, plumped for the tories in 2017 and are now keeping them on top presumably so they can fulfil their mission of wrecking public service.

[ProfessorDavey]

And talking of enabling, step forward the Increasingly Secular Great British Public who had ample warning of a lack of charity ...

Define what you mean by charity, and then please provide evidence against that definition that charity is reducing.

in the tabloid press starting 2 or 3 years before the 2010 election ...

Are you using the tabloid press as evidence!?!

and who let Cameron in in 2010 by dint of their vote, returned him with an increased majority in 2015, changed there mind in 2016, plumped for the tories in 2017 and are now keeping them on top presumably so they can fulfil their mission of wrecking public service.

But that is just politics, and cyclical.

Also as much as I am very anti-tory, I think many tories would argue that they are very charitable (in its most overt sense) - indeed there is a very strong aspect of tory ideology that feels that private philanthropy and charity is preferable to state intervention.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something which is of course completely subjective and impossible to measure.

However you might be able to measure the manifestation of that sense of charity - either in terms of philanthropic donation (which as I have show shows no evidence of being in decline) or in terms of volunteering - which is also very robust. And on the latter the adult group most likely to give their time volunteering are the youngest, who are of course the least likely age group to be religious.

Health and Education are manifestations of that sense of charity.
Charitable love is not just a warm feeling or emotion. It attends sacrificially to the needs of others and often that targeting is on a national collective level because that is the most effective way of meeting the needs of others.

Tax systems will not go away but if an increasingly secular population has less charitable impulse Taxes go on other things, the individual pays less tax in the hope of making their own health and educational arrangements although, you will note there is never enough for Eton or the Brompton Hospital (and one is never expected to contribute to a privatised Trident Missile).

So health and education are in part charitable activities funded by whatever taxation policy one votes for. An increasingly secular population has seemingly opted for taxation with a far lower charitable component.

[Nearly Sane]

In as much individuals are to blame they certainly can be included but not as much obviously as Cameron, whose faith ''came and went'' and Clegg, the enabler, without whom none of this could have been possible ......an atheist.

And talking of enabling, step forward the Increasingly Secular Great British Public who had ample warning of a lack of charity in the tabloid press starting 2 or 3 years before the 2010 election and who let Cameron in in 2010 by dint of their vote, returned him with an increased majority in 2015, changed there mind in 2016, plumped for the tories in 2017 and are now keeping them on top presumably so they can fulfil their mission of wrecking public service.

Of course this moves us closer to the U.S system where society is much more openly Christian. As ever you are using your misunderstanding, to phrase it charitably, of the term secular

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Define what you mean by charity, and then please provide evidence against that definition that charity is reducing.
Are you using the tabloid press as evidence!?!
But that is just politics, and cyclical.

Also as much as I am very anti-tory, I think many tories would argue that they are very charitable (in its most overt sense) - indeed there is a very strong aspect of tory ideology that feels that private philanthropy and charity is preferable to state intervention.

By charity I mean enabling people to meet needs that they cannot meet themselves by giving.

Patently however the charity of individual Tories manifestly. The outcome of Political Tory charity is plain to see and measurable.

Historically private philanthropy has never anyway near matched things like The New Deal in the US, The New Town programme, or the Welfare state in the UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

Health and Education are manifestations of that sense of charity.

In which case over the past 150 years as the UK has been increasingly less religious and increasingly more secular there is no doubt that those manifestations of charity have massively increased. While we might worry about the strain on our education and healthcare systems, part of the reason is that more people than ever are benefiting to a greater degree from the health and educational services provided in the UK.

Charitable love is not just a warm feeling or emotion. It attends sacrificially to the needs of others and often that targeting is on a national collective level because that is the most effective way of meeting the needs of others.

Sure - so sacrificing your time to volunteer to help others, or sacrificing income, through charitable donations are clearly manifestations of charity using your definitions.

Tax systems will not go away but if an increasingly secular population has less charitable impulse

But you have absolutely no evidence for this hand waving assertion. Certainly over the past 20 years or so there is no evidence that 'an increasingly secular population has less charitable impulse' given that levels of volunteering and charitable donations (adjusted for inflation) haven't declined, despite a major decline in religiosity over the same time period.

So health and education are in part charitable activities funded by whatever taxation policy one votes for. An increasingly secular population has seemingly opted for taxation with a far lower charitable component.

No it hasn't - so although overall charitable donations have remained broadly constant over the past couple of decades, the amount donated to different type of charitable activity has shifted somewhat - away from religion and towards other causes, including health related and educational - so in effect we give the same overall, but more to health and education and less to religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course this moves us closer to the U.S system where society is much more openly Christian. As ever you are using your misunderstanding, to phrase it charitably, of the term secular

If people are going to laud secular society (a society where the minority are religious)
and the things it has then you are not justified in ignoring any negative aspects which emerge.

Now the NSS when they talk about an increasingly secular society they point to one with decreasing believers, That I move is at least implicit.

[ProfessorDavey]

By charity I mean enabling people to meet needs that they cannot meet themselves by giving.

By giving what?

Time, through volunteering?

Money, through charitable donations?

If so neither are on the decline.

[Nearly Sane]

If people are going to laud secular society (a society where the minority are religious)
and the things it has then you are not justified in ignoring any negative aspects which emerge.

Now the NSS when they talk about an increasingly secular society they point to one with decreasing believers, That I move is at least implicit.

I note that you evaded the point about the U.S.. And then have made up your definition of secular. And then with no facts have used a correlation implies causation approach with no correlation. Really quite impressively bad post from you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case over the past 150 years as the UK has been increasingly less religious and increasingly more secular there is no doubt that those manifestations of charity have massively increased.

And the problem is Davey that there is a massive decrease in charity coinciding with a massive increase in the population claiming to be non religious with no sign that that both are not going to continue.

Explain that.

[Nearly Sane]

And the problem is Davey that there is a massive decrease in charity coinciding with a massive increase in the population claiming to be non religious with no sign that that both are not going to continue.

Explain that.

Can I have some facts with that straw?