Darcy and Rusty – I love you too 🙂

JY I didn’t know faith schools were obliged to accept non-believers if they have spaces.

Just for clarity my plea for rationality was in relation to the disputable bit not the nice bit. I really hope that didn’t come across as being nasty, as it really wasn’t.

molgrips – Member

So. No show, eh? Problem?

Yes. I can’t be bothered. Everyone on this thread can remember apart from you it seems, so it’ll take me a fair bit of effort without much benefit.

Trans: Either “I’m suffering from false memory syndrome and the illusion that I’ve discussed this with everyone on this thread.”

Or: “I lied and I’m a bit of a disgrace.”

Yes but I would be very surprised jf any have more than 10% tbh. I would also imagine they use other selection criteria that amazingly also results ina hug % of their faith being chosen. Not adig that is a human nature thing not just a religious thing
Also met molly ans rusty at the same time and scared molly with my driving i did know the road like the back of my hand but he did not know this. Ad I was giving a him a lift home I think he forgave me.
Not met DD i never get to hang with the beautiful cool people 😥

Yes I understand that.
What about the question that I asked?

This one …..

Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?

I don’t really know why you asked me that question to be honest.

I made no general claims relating to what you are asking that I’m aware of, I just gave an example based on my own personal experience of attending a Catholic School.

So I replied to your question using examples of my personal experience.

If that’s not good enough for you, then I’m not sure what you require.

Yes but I would be very surprised jf any have more than 10% tbh. I would also imagine they use other selection criteria that amazingly also results ina hug % of their faith being chosen. Not adig that is a human nature thing not just a religious thing

I am aware of a good number of Catholic institutions across the UK hovering around the 50% Catholic mark in terms of student body. Importantly, this is not seen as a bad thing, but a good… and NOT because it is seen as an opportunity to indoctrinate non-Catholics, but because it is the desire of these places to offer the a safe, caring environment in which to learn to the whole community.

N.B. This is an attempt to argue in favour of faith-based institutions; only to underline the fact that there is some real attempt at service going on.

Just for clarity my plea for rationality was in relation to the disputable bit not the nice bit. I really hope that didn’t come across as being nasty, as it really wasn’t.

Yeah, otherwise I’ll send the nasty police round…

Junkyard did scare me a bit with the driving… I just needed a little faith.

There should be a religion thread ride. Starting at a church somewhere, finishing at the Church Inn.

I fail to recall aethists being taken to court for discriminating against gay people in their business or arguing for special rights to discriminate re marriage etc. I am sure there are problems due to the fundamental disagreements but it cuts both ways.

I agree.

However, using select examples to say that Faith schools turn out people who are not well adjusted to live in a multicultural society
is no more valid than saying non faith school turn out rapists.

I could find an example of both I’m sure.

But it would ultimately prove nothing

There should be a religion thread ride. Starting at a church somewhere, finishing at the Church Inn.

Can I lead it?

Now that the thread has gone through (the predicted) cycle and everyone is back to being nice and cuddly, can I suggest that someone saves the posts, so that we can just cut and paste on Sunday? That way, the aggro in the middle can be avoided but the “debate” will still have happened. 😉

The quoting of the Catechisms did make me think though. I am not a RC and have only read as part of comparative theology. But (correct me if I am mis-representing catholicism here), it seems to have at its core four sections – the three theological virtues ie Faith, Hope and Charity (IMO the interesting bits) – and the sacrements (where I tend to turn off).

So there is an argument repeated here that the Catholic Church and others force feed us (or at least the Establishment does.) So a quick look at the Catechims and Q9 (pretty much the start of the Catechisms)

“Faith is a supernatural gift of God.”

So I turn to Monsignor Gilbey, the late Cambridge Univ RC Chaplain (want to avoid the “stupid” issue here) for an explanation of what this means (source “We believe.”)

“The very nature of a gift involves the free act of will; and so it is with Faith: it needs to be freely offered by Almighty God. Certainly it needs to be freely accepted by the individual. It cannot be forced…..Since Faith is a gift from Almighty God, it is within our power to accept or to refuse it.” (pp26-27)

Now, the opening gambit in what RCs are supposed to believe seems a very long way from force feeding/thrusting down anyone’s throat? (excuse the analogy here) So aren’t the, “you are lying/no I am not” arguments merely an example that individuals sometimes interpret and act in ways that they shouldn’t? Some may try to ram theology down the impressionable’s throats, others dont (my sons tell me that their theology teachers resolutely refuse to do this) – so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system. Just a thought?

I don’t really know why you asked me that question to be honest.

I made no general claims relating to what you are asking that I’m aware of, I just gave an example based on my own personal experience of attending a Catholic School.

So I replied to your question using examples of my personal experience.

If that’s not good enough for you, then I’m not sure what you require.

Well, you responded to my suggestion by saying that you saw no problem with single faith schools.
I asked a follow up question, in order to continue an interesting area of debate.
I was genuinely interested in your opinion, as your experience with faith schools differs somewhat to mine.
If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. 🙂

Anyone else have a view?

Trans: Either “I’m suffering from false memory syndrome and the illusion that I’ve discussed this with everyone on this thread.”

Or: “I lied and I’m a bit of a disgrace.”

There is a third option. 😀

– so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system. Just a thought?

As always, as with every ‘belief system’.
You could say the same about communism, anarchism capitalism etc.

Problem is, if the belief system itself is incompatable with the current fundamntal state and behaviour of humanity at the time, and fails to take it’s failings into account, it’s doomed to fail.
And people get hurt along the way.

Well, you responded to my suggestion by saying that you saw no problem with single faith schools.
I asked a follow up question, in order to continue an interesting area of debate.

I didn’t actually say I saw “no problem with single faith Schools”..

you said (about single faith schools …

It really isn’t good preparation for adult life and isolates kids from the reality of our society.

and I replied…..

Not in my experience…..

and then gave a couple of examples, from my own experience, as to why I felt you were being far to general in your criticism.

I did not make any general claims, and spoke only from personal experience.

I was genuinely interested in your opinion, as your experience with faith schools differs somewhat to mine.

which was exactly why I commented

If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine.

I think I did answer, as best as I can, from Personal Experience

Neal, that’s fine.
Thnaks for answering.
Have you considered a career in politics, btw? 🙂

I didn’t actually say I saw “no problem with single faith Schools”..

No, you didn’t.
I inferred that from your response. Apologies.

I’ll ask the question again if anyone wants to express an opinion:

Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?

Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?

Not followed the whole thread, so excuse me if I misunderstand the context of your question.
I don’t really believe many schools include the word “single” when describing themselves. Faith- yes. But not “single faith”.
It might seem like I’m knit picking, but it is important to the reasoning of my answer.
Where I grew up, there wasn’t a massive choice of different “faith” schools, so people of different faiths sent their kids to the faith school, as their choice ahead of the secular option. Without making presumptions on their reasoning, they chose “faith” ahead of “non faith” even though it wasn’t the faith they followed.
So, although nominally it was a faith school for a “single faith”, the reality was that it was far more multi-cultural than the secular option.

so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system.

An excellent post a few cuts above most, what with its citations and expert references. And your conclusion posed as a question is clearly a truism. The very nature of the biblical texts make them wide open to interpretation, which is why people interpret it so differently and manage to use bits of it to justify all sorts.

Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?

I’d say theoretically yes. If they teach comparitive religion properly then fine.

However, I might guess that RC schools are less likely to contain a representative sample of the ethnic groups making up the UK, but the same could be said of rural schools. And I can testify that rural monocultural schools do not prepare you well for a multicultural society. The first Indian chap I ever met (in college, age 17) was called Veejay, I thought he was giving his initials, VJ, and that they stood for something else. Despite being well read and having had a good open midned upbringing it was a bit of a shock actually to meet a brown face for the first time, and I felt a bit awkward for a while desperately trying not to say anything out of order.

Been a lot since i last looked in. Have we agreed that there there is no force feeding?
Has anyone given an example of an individual telling them they are immoral and condemned to hell?
Has, was it grum? Answered my question ( again) yet?
Ah no, it was berm bandit

so the failings or otherwise come down to how individuals act not the underlying belief system. Just a thought

That’s pretty much the standard religious get out of jail free card used to explain the obvious fact that what they preach/believe/profit from is clearly nonsense. Try it again from the perspective that the big cheese is all knowing all seeing and infallible. Right about there, as his/her creations, the fact we are fallible clearly either knocks the big cheeses infallibility into a cocked hat, or turns him/her into something akin to a puller offerer of wings.

[edit:]

Answered my question ( again) yet?

See you’re not over the OCQR yet. In answer, No but Moley did inadvertantly come up with a link that pretty much defintively proved the point.

How do you KNOW that religion is Clearly Nonsense?

See you’re not over the OCQR yet. In answer, No but Moley did inadvertantly come up with a link that pretty much defintively proved the point.

Ot really OCQR just a little quirk where in a discussion, i expect one of the discussant to answer a direct question. Not so much to ask is it?

Cant see how moley could prove the point when the qustion was about Who said it to you. there is no point to be proved, just an individual to be identified.

[slight derail]

Vickypea, what Orthodox jurisdiction are you? Greek, Russian, Antiochene, or something else?

[/slight derail]

Not sure I have said anything that says i have a massive problem with CM doing this and I am not sure he has actually targetted me that much or unfairly. I just find it stramge [ and very easy] to pick holes in other arguments when saying nothing yourself – used to do it in debates at uni but we all know there are more questions than answers. I

I do find this a rather strnge observation in the cntext of this discussion. We have not been so much picking holes in arguments as exploring peoples experiences ‘of religion being forced down throats’. As such my beliefs are not really relevant. Imahevnot avoided any questions, as some others seem to be doing andi will happily answer any questions which people feel like asking. i’ve ‘said nothing myself’ in this discussion, only because no one has asked me anything.

I haven’t time to read and digest this entire thread and all the bickering within, but to be honest and frank..

my take on it is that unless you’re into one of the Shamanic religions or Rastafarianism or something, a religious leader banging on about what they know of god and higher meaning is like a primary school kid lecturing on quantum physics..

Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum, how can isolating kids into single faith schools give them an equal or better level of preparation for life in a multicultural society?

rs,
coming back to your question again,
Assuming equality in the standard of education and a standardised curriculum
IMO, is a very difficult assumption to make, the reason being the element of choice involved.

Ignoring the issue of faith completely for a minute:
once you have an element of choice in selecting which path to take, but with a “default” option applied to those who don’t make a choice, then the group of people that do make a positive choice one way or another will obviously contain more of the one’s who are more interested/concerned about the options and outcomes. This creates a form of “self-selection” of people that are “more interested”. And in an otherwise perfectly equal educational situation, I’d expect those that are “more interested” to have that as a slight advantage. Now say that reflects in results, then the reputation of the “chosen institution” grows, the incentive to chose it for the next intake increases, and it becomes a little like a “self-fulfilling prophecy” 😉
In other words, you can’t assume a perfect level playing field when people can chose to opt out of the default pathway.

SaxonRider- I was confirmed in the Greek Orthodox Church but for the last 7 years, I’ve been going to an Orthodox Church that does all services in English and is attended by a mixture of nationalities: Brits, Greeks, Palestinians, Russians, Romanians, Cypriots, Ethiopians, Lebanese, and others.

one of the Shamanic religions or Rastafarianism or something whatever the superstition, a religious leader banging on about what they know of god and higher meaning is like a primary school kid lecturing on quantum physics Maurice the Magic Penguin who lives in the moon..

oooh, Woppit.. I love it when you get all masterful you saucy saucy minx.. 😆

I think the point I was trying to make is that these fellas aren’t even remotely aware of even a fraction of their own existence, let alone anything more ethereal..

and NOT because it is seen as an opportunity to indoctrinate non-Catholics, but because it is the desire of these places to offer the a safe, caring environment in which to learn to the whole community.

Can you post up what they describe as the school ethos or mission statement – I think it will mention religion. I think the staff role profile swill ask the teachers to support the schools faith/religious ethos*. If that is all they cared about they could do it without any religious element to the school. It is not really credible to claim that a religious organisation does not want to create members of that faith – be it via education here or aid abroad- if they did just fund a non religious organisation to do this.

They identifiy the particular faith they belong to in the name of the eschool IME – i cannot actually believe folk are claiming a jewish school , a muslim school or a Catholic school is anything other than a school for that faith and a vehicle for that religion. Incredolous smiley

I do find this a rather strange observation in the cntext of this discussion. We have not been so much picking holes in arguments as exploring peoples experiences ‘of religion being forced down throats’. As such my beliefs are not really relevant.

Careful now you nearly gave an opinion there.
I never said the phrase forced down thoroats but it is far easier to atatck that the original poiint that religion is pervassive hence why you have clung to it whilst claiming neutrality ion all this

* http://www.tes.co.uk/job/director-of-learning-support-117082/
Be committed to supporting the Catholic ethos of the school
Notice it comes as the first thing they look for in a teacher before teaching ability – what you claim is frankly not true and I doubt even a school would try and claim this.

yunki – Member
oooh, Woppit.. I love it when you get all masterful you saucy saucy minx..

Obey, slave…

I never said the phrase forced down thoroats but it is far easier to atatck that the original poiint that religion is pervassive hence why you have clung to it whilst claiming neutrality ion all this

No, but someone did and that was what i wanted resolved. It appers to have been.
I have never claimed to be neutral in all this. Even less so a neutral ion, is that possible? I merely stated that no one had asked me anything about my position.

I wasn’t avoinding the issue of pervasiveness, you will see that i got involved in that debate. This was slightly different from the ‘throats’ debate so both continued for a while. My early point in the pervasiveness argument, which still stands, is in reponse to the main thrust of that argument which is that it is a compulsory provision in state schools. The reponse was that whilst delivery is compulsory, receipt is not. It can hardly be pervasive if you canwalk away from it.

Its irrelevant, the fact remains that it is compulsory to teach RE in schools and therefore make religion pervassive. Whether they try to convert you or not depends entirely on the school IME but it does not negate the point about pervassive no matter how many times you do this, it is taugh mandatory in compulsory education – if this is not a good definition of pervassive then pray tell me what is
Couple it with the compulsory act of worship and what would you call it then if not pervassive?

I’ve just read back through the last four pages or so, and I can’t be arsed to do loads of c’n’p, so the above will have to do.
From my own experience, going through the standard UK education system, which is nominally CofE, yes of course we had RE, but as a kid, just like other subjects, it was something you sat through, tried to look as though you were paying enough attention to not get picked to answer any questions, before going onto the next class. I have little or no memory of anything taught, it was just a class you sat through. There were plenty of my contemporaries who were obliged by their families to attend Sunday School; those poor buggers you really felt sorry for, but I don’t recall any of my friends actually suffering any emotional harm, it was something most tolerated for the sake of an easy life.
I and two of my mates went out with three girls from the Catholic school in Bath, and only one of those three has maintained any regular contact with the church; Jo, my then g/f certainly hasn’t, and she was a a very naughty girl back then, too… 😯
To recap, I really do not have any clear recollection of there being any forcing of religion down our throats as kids back in the sixties, other than the God slot on the Beeb on Sunday nights, with Songs Of Praise, and even that was ignored by reading a book.
Oddly enough, my mum always liked SoP, despite being completely non-religious, she just liked the songs.

Hilarious typo gag CM did you notice your own spelling in the bit I quoted?. Well state education is free to all children but you can opt out of it. The NHS is everywhere but you can opt out of it. You seem to think compulsory and pervasive mean the same thing. When only maths English and re are compulsory to deliver , a daily act of worship is mandatory to deliver. Out of interest what more would you require for it to be classed as pervasive? IMHO it is impossible to grow up withou exposure to religion and the state education system and law is but one part of that.

No, but someone did and that was what i wanted resolved. It appers to have been.

How has it been resolved? I and some others stated our opinion (based on our experience), you and some others stated a different opinion. The fact that you think that means the argument has been resolved in your favour is telling.

And perhaps you should look up the definition of the word pervasive.

I thought it was resolved because some folks talked about being told they were condemned to hell, but were unable to identify the individuals who ahad actually directly done that. Either they identified with a grup which they thought had been condemned or there was a general description of being condemned, which looked like more of a statement of ‘fact’ rather than a condemnation as such. The Lumen wotsit had a bit about if you are ot with us, then you are knacked, but it was also, later on and unquoted, pretty vague and inclusive about who is ‘with us’.

Intersted that you it was ‘telling’ what did it tell you? Because i have had complaints that i’ve been ‘telling’ nothing about myself.

I have a pretty good understanding of the word ‘pervasive’. Let me try, in general it means that it is spread widely, nowif that is all you mean and that it is not a problem, in the way that oxygen or eduaction are pervasive, then ok, I’d be happy to agree with you, it would be a lot easier! However, i guess you are probably tied to the common understanding that it is widespread and ‘unwelcome’. Am i right? Now i think if it is unwelcome but you can chose not to be avail yourself of it, then it cannot really be pervasive. It is widespread but optional, so not pervasive.

The NHS is everywhere but you can opt out of it

This might serve to clarify then. Do you think the NHS is pervasive?

I must say, I have gone almost every day of my life unaffected by religion, since leaving primary school (where we did do hymns and the Lord’s Prayer) in 1986. It is never raised in conversation with any of my friends or colleages, it’s not on tv at any point other than Songs of Praise and do they still do a Sunday morning slot? Unless it’s a historical programme. It’s not in the papers or in the news unless it’s a significant newsworthy item (and I’d argue that big religious issues are made newsworthy simply because it’s an issue that affects a large number of people). It’s not mentioned on any other TV or radio programme.

I would not call that pervasive. Strictly Come Dancing gets way more coverage.

. It is never raised in conversation with any of my friends or colleages, it’s not on tv at any point other than Songs of Praise and do they still do a Sunday morning slot? Unless it’s a historical programme. It’s not in the papers or in the news unless it’s a significant newsworthy item (and I’d argue that big religious issues are made newsworthy simply because it’s an issue that affects a large number of people). It’s not mentioned on any other TV or radio programme.

What about all the times it’s mentioned on STW ?

I thought it was resolved because some folks talked about being told they were condemned to hell, but were unable to identify the individuals who ahad actually directly done that.

we must read different threads then as i gave one as did others[Grum and rusty iirc].
I dont think there is any actual dount about what the abrhamic religions say about what happens to sinners so I am not sure what you would expect them to say – no its not important what you do god loves so do as you please and we all go to heaven is not their core message. Anyone who does not follow the rules is going to hell is their view. iirc its is why they try and save us.

I have a pretty good understanding of the word ‘pervasive’. Let me try, in general it means that it is spread widely,

Agreed. Clearly I think it is unwelcome as well but that is realy just saying whteher you like or dislike religion or tolerate if you prefer – I tolerate it in the sense i would not ban them from believing in something with no evidence and wont kill them for disagreeing with me or engaie in a holy war to spread my message]. What i would say it I dont think they should have the right to deliver it in schools, ask teachers to support the religious ethos or deliver an act of worship – that goes beyond exposure and is in to the lands of imposition.
A fairer system or compromise would probably involve schools opting out so that non religious children can attend a school that meets with their beliefs rather than just the religious having this right currently and imposing it legally [ with an opt out] Do you think the religious would like compulsory aetheism classes with an opt out and even religious schools having to deliver it? Whether the opt out is enough to consider it nor pervassive is an interesting debate and for the reasons mentioned above I think it is not. It is worth noting that education is only one area where the religious get their voice and as molly notes there are other avenues as pervassive and just as dangerous FFS my kids dance to gangham style and like One Direction- equally pervassive and lacking in judgement IMHO. Could god save them from this ? 😉

This might serve to clarify then. Do you think the NHS is pervasive?

Yes. I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise tbh nor can i see why they would think this with religion. Your view seems to be it is but you can opt out so it is not. I disagree that the opt out impacts on pervassive as opting out of the NHS makes that no less pervassive. It may well reduce [ one would assume it must] its influence on me but i am still going to see adverts on tv, ambulances, perhaps know about stopping smoking or eating 5 a day and know what the NHS is and what it does. Religion is no different I will still know about it because it pervassive.
In reality [IME]the opt is not easy to do tbh as what do you do re christmas? I celebrate but not for a religious reason. There are still some cultiural aspects of religion even aethists do [ another argument for pervassive perhaps?]

FWIW, considerable doubt remains within the Catholic Church and between it and Protestants and other religions with respect to what happens to sinners. It is not as clear cut as you suggest JY. The RC make the distinction between original and actual sin and,within actual sin, between mortal and venial sin. Given the root of the word venial (the Latin for pardon) some argue that venial sins do not result in hell etc.. But the catechisms Q110 to 127 still leave a lot that is unclear eg what exactly constitutes mortal sin, are mortal and venial sinners treated in the same way (interesting that there are two answers to that question) etc.

I often wonder if the opposition to faith schools stems less from the fact that they are faith schools and more to the fact that places in them tend to be heavily oversubscribed. One result is all kind of odd practices from parents in an effort to secure places. One has to wonder why this scramble exists for establishments that are (by all accounts) determined to harm ones children. I would have thought that these evil (sic) establishments would struggle to fill places. And yet……

I dont know thier inner machinations on exactly what happens to sinners but my simplified message is broadly accurate of their position if not exactly how Rowan Williams would articulate it.

I often wonder if the opposition to faith schools stems less from the fact that they are faith schools and more to the fact that places in them tend to be heavily oversubscribed.

So 14 pages into this debate with folks stating their views and you still wonder what the real reason is – one that no one has said so far. Its an excellent faith based judgment made despite the evidence

One result is all kind of odd practices from parents in an effort to secure places. One has to wonder why this scramble exists for establishments that are (by all accounts) determined to harm ones children. I would have thought that these evil (sic) establishments would struggle to fill places. And yet……

I would imagine it is to do with league tables* and the alternative choices…not sure why it is beyond anyone to work this out. Even i would send my kids to a good [ academic results] religious school rather than a failing non religious school which would still deliver religion anyway.
If you give them a good non faith choice school they dont do this.
* whilst the evidence is mixed it would appaer they over achieve as they are over subscribed so they can select so they select the [generally] more able as well as those of their faith. Its not religion or the ethos that makes them better.

Perhaps the predominantly white middle class parents want to send their kids to a school where most others are white and middle class too?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8897782/Catholic-Church-in-new-row-over-school-admissions.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/01/faith-schools-admissions-unfair

One has to wonder why this scramble exists for establishments that are (by all accounts) determined to harm ones children. I would have thought that these evil (sic) establishments would struggle to fill places. And yet……

Pretty poor straw man argument there. Where has anyone said religious schools are ‘evil’ and ‘determined to harm children’? People have merely stated their opposition to them.

It is however interesting to think how any other organisation that had systematically covered up child abuse over decades would be treated if they said they wanted to run schools.

Where has anyone said religious schools are ‘evil’ and ‘determined to harm children’? People have merely stated their opposition to them.

So some people are opposed to religious schools even though they don’t think they harm children ? 😀