Hawking,Dawkins V The faithful

[Kevin K]

so you're suggesting that faith schools should only exist where they're within a few hundred yards of a non faith school? and where there's not the numbers to warrant two schools, that there should only be non faith schools?

if so, we're agreed

Where numbers and geogrpahy allow, one ought to have the choice of a faith or non-faith school . There will be more non-faith schools than faith ones, so statistically non-faith schools ought to be closer to you. As to how close, will depend on exactly where you live. However, as faith schools will be a minority, so those of us who wish a faith education expect to travel.

With the exception of rural CofE primaries, most faith schools are in urban or suburban areas where a real choice exists.

[thirdcrank]

...Yep, sorry thirdcrank, I've obviosuly missed the point entirely. I'm not really sure what you are asking or epxect me to say....

Sorry - the post you quoted was intended to ask you to say anything, just touching on some of the way you have aapproached this. Your religious beliefs are your own and fair enough. Beyond that you seem to say little of substance in support of state support for faith education.

Edited to add the words after 'substance'.

[hubgearfreak]

those of us who wish a faith education expect to travel.

With the exception of rural CofE primaries

you see, i've got a problem with both these bits. second item first, i don't see COE as more truthful than any other faith, yet the implication is that this is OK?

the other problem is that attending a specialist school to be taught to believe in something that can't be proven to exist therefore necessitating further travel that consumes finite resources, pollutes the environment and causes congestion. (all of which can be proven).
what's wrong with the andy's option, of all scholls being non-faith, and you go off with your children at the weekend to church/ star trek convention/ CTC ride/ football or whatever one's interest is?

[Kevin K]

those of us who wish a faith education expect to travel.

With the exception of rural CofE primaries

you see, i've got a problem with both these bits. second item first, i don't see COE as more truthful than any other faith, yet the implication is that this is OK?

I was stating a fact that "with the exception of rural CofE primaries, most faith schools are in urban or suburban areas where a real choice exists." If you want to draw any implication from the statment it is that there is a problem with rural faith-based schools. I don't know how you draw the conclusion that I see a CofE school as okay for non-faith parents.

the other problem is that attending a specialist school to be taught to believe in something that can't be proven to exist therefore necessitating further travel that consumes finite resources, pollutes the environment and causes congestion. (all of which can be proven).

It seems to me that faith schools aren't really okay with you becasue you don't believe (if that isn't the sub-text why include the bit about "something that can't be proven to exist"?)

what's wrong with the andy's option, of all scholls being non-faith, and you go off with your children at the weekend to church/ star trek convention/ CTC ride/ football or whatever one's interest is?

You are clearly dissmissive of my explanation as to why faith schools are important to those of us who choose them. Dissmissive in a way that I am not of secular education.

[hubgearfreak]

It seems to me that faith schools aren't really okay with you becasue you don't believe

that's right. i honestly don't see any justification in the taxpayer funding something either part or in whole that's for the benefit of a single religion

[glueman]

The bid to get rid of faith schools is driven by the notion it's the first step to getting rid of belief. The tax issue is a ploy, if people were bothered about the detrimental effect of their taxes they'd get rid of Trident, not prayers.

[hartleymartin]

This is starting to look like exactly where I thought this would go.

It seems that in the name of non-discrimination that society must discriminate against all religions and immediately favour atheism/secularism.

[hubgearfreak]

It seems that in the name of non-discrimination that society must discriminate against all religions and immediately favour atheism/secularism.

no, not at all. i'm only suggesting that schools ought to be a place for facts and facts alone. to suggest i'm discriminatory is very insulting

[Si]

Dares to put toe in the water again....

In my experience (other-half works in a faith school, is of that faith, has a degree in Biblical studies, coordinates RE, etc) what the children end up believing is very little to do with what is taught at the school, and a lot more to do with the parents' views. If you are not a believer and send your child to this school, there is very little chance that the child will become as Saul on the road to Damascus, unless the parents are also encouraging it at home.

This leaves us with the issue of the parents' views being at odds with those of the teachers (although you should note that you do not have to be of the faith to teach at the school), and thus undermining the child's confidence in the teacher. This, again, is not an issue: teachers are quite up front about how some people might believe and some might not, and do not try to force their beliefs onto children - they merely tell the class what "this is what I believe as a catholic....", the emphasis is on understanding the belief rather than being forced to follow it. Indeed, the school also organises trips to other faiths' places of worship. If there were some sort of Humanist/Secularist meeting house nearby then they would go there too.

As it is, I think that many of the children are not actually sent to the school because it's catholic, but because the parents believe that the discipline and morals associated with such a school are seen as being superior to those of other schools.

My personal belief (!) is, if we were starting from scratch, that religion should be taught in terms of what it is and why people believe or don't (rather than indoctrination), but that schools should not be run by religious groups. Rather there should be 'add-on' faith classes available for those who want them - just like you can have your child stay late to do extra physics or French. However, I do not believe that the current system is corrupting children and destroying society - if it stays as it is, at least in the schools that I have experience of, then I wouldn't be worried: there are far worse things going 'wrong' with state education that religion, and being sidetracked by the subject of religion is doing a disservice to our children.

[reohn2]

My 2d's worth on the subject of educating our youth I say our as I do think the young are everone's responsibility.
Theres no reason that a secular education system shouldn't be as good academically,socially and ethically responsible as a faith school,so with that said what is the need for religion in schools, other than to be taught as an academic subject?
I would rather have an education system that is of a high level wherever in the country one might live than,as someone said upthread,the dogs breakfast we have at the moment,and as for private companies sponsoring schools of their choice I can't think of anything worse.
Religion and big business should be kept out of our education system,it belongs to the nation and thats how it should stay.
If a religion,whether that be Christian,Muslim,or whatever, feels the need to contribute to education it should be put into a ring fenced pot to be shared out equally among all schools,and similarly so for business companies.

Religion, whatever religion, is the responsibility of the parents and or the organisation/church/faith they belong to,totally seperate from academic and social study/training IMO.

As for Trident, that should have been scrapped years ago and how it got dragged into this debate is anyones guess

[Michael R]

It seems that in the name of non-discrimination that society must discriminate against all religions and immediately favour atheism/secularism.

no, not at all. i'm only suggesting that schools ought to be a place for facts and facts alone. to suggest i'm discriminatory is very insulting

What is a fact?

[glueman]

It seems that in the name of non-discrimination that society must discriminate against all religions and immediately favour atheism/secularism.

no, not at all. i'm only suggesting that schools ought to be a place for facts and facts alone. to suggest i'm discriminatory is very insulting

What is a fact?

Whatever empirical truth is fashionable at the time.

[glueman]

As for Trident, that should have been scrapped years ago and how it got dragged into this debate is anyones guess

Because Hitler and the Nazis had already been taken.

[kwackers]

Whatever empirical truth is fashionable at the time.

Not a fan of empirical then?
(Mind you denying it allows one to throw accusations of hate crime around with gay abandon without requiring evidence... )

[GrahamNR17]

...(Mind you denying it allows one to throw accusations of hate crime around with gay abandon without requiring evidence... )

Oh gawd, don't bring the gays into it, that'll open a whole new can of worms