Christening Children for Schooling purposes

I really don’t think heavy emphasis on facts, is useful.

you are certainly not our current education secretary thats for sure

Can I have a vegan school with no meat and we can say how everyone else is wrong to eat meat etc or should I just accpet that that is one opinion amongst many?

These schools do not say everyone else is wrong, they say other people believe something else. I imagine if there was a strong popular movement, then you probably could have vegan schools.

religious secondary schools do not teach sex education the same as non faith schools or contraception

they do if it is curricular subject.

you are certainly not our current education secretary thats for sure

this is true, i know a little about education.

And not all faith schools are state funded. Some rather sweeping generalisations going on that are not helpful but then again I suppose that is the STW way – why bother with facts if they get in the way of your argument. Keeps it amusing and entertaining and we all keep coming back. 🙂

The better schools also address societal things such as attitudes and character, integrating with others, seeing the wider social picture. Not sure that they qualify as “facts” but are an important aspect of education. And these can be taught equally well in faith and non faith schools as well as being taught horrifically badly in both.

not all faith schools are state funded

and they can do what they damn well like I dont care.

Faith school judged to be guilty of racial discrimination.

A Jewish friend of mine went to this school. She is totally opposed to such faith schools which were allowed to discriminate.

Those of you what know me on here, know that I will defend the right of individuals to practice whatever faith they should so choose, and enjoy the freedom from hate, prejudice and discrimination to do so. But I also believe in equality of education for all, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or wealth. Let’s have a totally level playing field. Anything else simply serves to divide society.

I would object if faith was involved in my medical care too or policing etc

Don’t Babylonians have to swear some sort of oath of allegiance to her Maj the Queen? The head of the Church of England?

Keep the State Secular. Religion has it’s place, just not in the organisation of a multi-racial/cultural/philosophical society.

Bikingcatastrophe – Member
And not all faith schools are state funded.

They are in my town and I struggle to understand how they can write down in their (and the country’s admission policy) about how they will discriminate on religious grounds about who they will or will not admit.

How far do you think any company up in Scotland would go if they openly said they would only employ Protestants?

It beggars belief, but I am wise enough to understand why it happens 🙁

Sorry, double post.

Lords Spiritual.

Religion has it’s place, just not in the organisation of a multi-racial/cultural/philosophical society.

but religion is part of what makes ita multi- cultural/philosophical society

but religion is part of what makes ita multi- cultural/philosophical society

true but that makes no difference to what he said.

overall,whilst it is discriminatory, it isn’t elitist.
There is nothing wrong with being discriminatory, that’s part of meeting individual needs.

These schools do not say everyone else is wrong

So they say there’s is the only one true god but the others are not wrong or they do it so well they break the first commandment

You shall have no other gods before me.

School is currently much more than learning facts. School is about teaching for understanding, reasoning, evaluation, synthesis, discrimination etc. Facts are becoming worth less as google takes over.

Yes that is what league tables and results are all about 🙄
Given that a beleief in god runs through all of those it is hard to see how this does not colour all they do. I agree they can indocrinate their kids if they wish just dont ask us to pay for this via taxation.

Double post

Treble post

There is nothing wrong with being discriminatory, that’s part of meeting individual needs.

maybe so, I dont agree but never mind. The point is though that the state shouldnt sponsor it.

School is currently much more than learning facts. School is about teaching for understanding, reasoning, evaluation, synthesis, discrimination etc. Facts are becoming worth less as google takes over.

Ye sthat is what league tables and results are all about

the exams and qualifications are increasingly less based on facts, and if you look at CVA scores rather than exam results you get a better idea of how good a school is..

Mr Gove doesnt agree with this so it will no doubt change back again

In church schools the particualr religion is not taught as fact, it is taught as faith and it is,in most cases, not integrated with the curricular education. Evolution is taught in biology in religious schools.

You need to watch the Dawkins documentary I linked to earlier:

Faith School Menance?

So they say there’s is the only one true god but the others are not wrong or they do it so well they break the first commandment

You shall have no other gods before me.

you might be surprised how rarely that comes up. They also don’t teach that commandment as fact,but as faith.

Ye sthat is what league tables and results are all about 🙄

C’mon Junkyard, this is beneath you.

Either you know what league tables are based on and this statement is meaningless or you don’t know what they are based on and you shouldn’t be posting it.

No, i really don’t need to watch / read Dawkins any more. He spectacularly misses the point by targeting polarities rather than the everyday beliefs.

. The point is though that the state shouldnt sponsor it.

I don’t see why not, lots of taxpayers want it and other alternatives are available.

A_A that is just another league tabled based on exam passes related to intake “grade” or expectations or factors beyond the schools control. yesiot is better but it is still a league table. when did Maths and science get less fact based? Is there no correct answer in education anymore?
ofsted guidance BTW I accept the ability to think , reason ,articulate is also a neccessary skill etc

“No meaning can be attached to an absolute CVA value, and any ranking of schools by their CVA values is meaningless.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7545529.stm

Charlie yes religous people are known the world over for not taking the word of God as a fact and not really acting on it iirc it is what defines them as religous people – And you want to mock me [ you have a point re tables to be fair]

other alternatives are available

no you can only select to go to a faith school you cannot select to go to a non faith school you just get your nearest school they get the choice not us. Technically you can choose but the state will pay the transport if above 3 miles iirc but not if you choose to go to a non religous school

IIRC someone took a court case re this might have gone to Europe as well or be in the process

no you can only select to go to a faith school you cannot select to go to a non faith school you just get your nearest school they get the choice not us.

not sure what you mean here, you can usually chose to go to a few non-faith schools locally, and you can usually only get to your nearest faith school, if you want a faith school. Does that contradict your point?

CharlieMungus – Member

. The point is though that the state shouldnt sponsor it.

I don’t see why not, lots of taxpayers want it and other alternatives are available.

Lots eh? In that case…

Source?

Lots eh? In that case…

Source?

ermm… all the ones in all the faith schools in the UK?

Empirical evidence

science get less fact based

science is not based on facts its based on theories

charlie imagine you live in an area and there are only two schools locally both are religous ones. You can choose the faith school that matches yours. Imagine neither does then you can go to the nearest faith school that matches yours and have the transport paid by LEA. If you are a non believer you cannot go to the nearest non faith school and have your transport fees paid – you will get one of the faith schools. Only religous faith [ not absence] qualifies.
I am tired , hard week did I word it badly before?

Local authorities (LAs) must provide free home to school transport for children if they are between 5 and 16 years old and are attending their nearest suitable school. This is provided that the school is further away than the statutory walking distances, which are:

•2 miles for pupils aged under 8

•3 miles for those aged 8 and over
Examples of a suitable school are:

•a faith school if you have expressed a preference for a school based on your religion or belief
•a special school if your child has special educational needs (SEN)

Someone challenged this as a non beleiver and lost but I cannot recall any details
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/SchoolLife/DG_10013990

the cost in Lancashire is £4 million, 400 k in Bristol etc

science is not based on facts its based on theories

No it isn’t. It’s based on evidence.

when did Maths and science get less fact based

knowing lots of maths facts and science facts. Would not make you good at science or a good scientist / mathematician. Knowing what to do with those facts and when are much more important.

Charlie yes religius people are known the world over for not taking the word of God as a fact and not really acting on it iirc it is what defines them as religious people

but that’s the point, the ‘really religious’ are the ones who make the news. The great ‘mass’ of the ‘quite religious’ and ‘traditionally religious’ manage to be dualistic with life and religion.

And no, I’m not trying to mock you. I am genuinely sorry if that’s how it came across.

science is not based on facts its based on theories

No it isn’t. It’s based on evidence.

String theory?

Mathematics?

Astrophysics?

The great ‘mass’ of the ‘quite religious’ and ‘traditionally religious’ manage to be dualistic with life and religion.

What they beleive and dont believe at the same time? They follow and they dont?

Re knowledge of course applying facts is just as important as knowing them but great thinkling, a keen mind and limited facts wont help that much see the great Greek philosphers/thinkers views on medicine – people need both facts/knowledge and thinking. Re fact good point re use of word but maths may be a better example honestly 1 + 1 = 2 Russell and Whitehead proved it
EDIT;Charlie we may be in danger here of confusing lack of certainty/clarity with fact. String theory may be disproved/proved by evidence , experiment greater knowledge but creationism cannot becuase it is the word of god

Couldn’t be arsed to read much of this thread, but my take on this:

As someone who grew up going to church (C of E), went to a church school (C of E), has been around churchy people most of my life, but has never had any kind of faith / belief, and has relatives (by marriage) who are Catholics….

C of E = Really fairly harmless, well meaning, wooly, nothing too much to be scared of, won’t employ mind-bending tactics to ensnare your children.

Roman Catholics = properly ****ed up, attracts really quite odd / unhinged people, wouldn’t trust my kids anywhere near them.

FWIW I am playing the system to get my kids into a local, very good C of E funded school. (Hence church attendance forms part, a big part, of the selection criteria)

* No offence intended to any Catholics on here, I know there are a few who have faced totally unwarranted abuse in the past.

What they beleive and dont believe at the same time? They follow and they dont?

Actually, yes.

1 + 1 = 2

not with raindrops it doesn’t. Maths is just a model which can be applied in a wide range of situations

Roman Catholics = properly ****ed up, attracts really quite odd / unhinged people, wouldn’t trust my kids anywhere near them.

you really have no idea what you are talking about, you realise this sounds like ‘Christians who are like me are fine, but those other ones…Dangerous!!’

science is not based on facts its based on theories
No it isn’t. It’s based on evidence.

String theory?

Mathematics?

Astrophysics?

String theory is a hypothesis – it cannot be a theory without the ability to be falsified. Like religion in some ways. (Edit: someone made it up as an idea. That doesn’t make it science. If you think so then I have a thesis about flying aardvarks to discuss. The ones I just made up.)
Mathematics: some say it is, some say it isn’t but just a servant of science, e.g. link.
Astrophysics – of course it is. Without the evidence of planetary bodies being there and moving as they do with the properties they exhibit (e.g. ‘evidence’) then it wouldn’t exist.

you really have no idea what you are talking about, you realise this sounds like ‘Christians who are like me are fine, but those other ones…Dangerous!!’

Au contraire, as I have already stated I have almost a lifetime’s experience of the church, albeit C of E. Hence I know exactly what I am talking about.

My views on the RC church are based on very little personal experience, hence I am happy to be contradicted by any practising Catholics, or anyone with far more knowledge of the Catholic church than me.

CharlieMungus, perhaps you’d care to reveal the experience that has led to your views on the church – maybe then I’ll treat your views / utterings with respect.

Mathematics: some say it is, some say it isn’t but just a servant of science,

ok, but what do you think?

Evidence of phenomena which might be explained by the existence is not the same as evidence of the body.

What do I think? Fair enough.

I think that mathematics is a pure abstract that is not a science but is a tool to describe interrelationships within theories of physical phenomena. It is the only tool that can ever prove anything as it is abstract. You cannot prove any science as it is based upon theories used to match evidence of phenomena. I am trained as a scientist but mathematics is not my branch so my foundations are not certain (but this *is* STW!).

Evidence of phenomena .. statement, while fairly opaque etc. still does not matter. The important part is ‘Evidence of….’ That’s where science starts and the theories are then rolled in for fun.

Roman Catholics = properly ****ed up, attracts really quite odd / unhinged people, wouldn’t trust my kids anywhere near them.

My views on the RC church are based on very little personal experience,

is why i said

you really have no idea what you are talking about,

CharlieMungus, perhaps you’d care to reveal the experience that has led to your views on the church – maybe then I’ll treat your views / utterings with respect.

Perhaps??? Oooh the suspense, i try to prove my credentials to you then wait in eager anticipation to see if you will treat my views with respect. Oh my oh my. Oooh the tension. Will I make it?? No, I can’t do it! The tension is too much. Sorry, I’m not very good under pressure.

‘Evidence of….’ That’s where science starts and the theories are then rolled in for fun.

hmmm, don’t you need a theory before you can say what it is evidence of?

I can see the two are closely related, but if I see power spikes as evidence of ghosts, it’s not yet science is it?