Faith Schools

[Guest Kincardine]

As things stand teachers already have limitations on what they are allowed to say imposed upon them. For example, in notionally non-faith schools, those teaching RE are not permitted to state overtly their religious beliefs. The head of RMPS at my school was a locum Anglican Priest. I knew this because my mother knew this through her work with the Open University (for whom he also worked part-time). In RMPS you wouldn't have been able to tell his religious convictions by the way he taught: indeed most of the people in my class thought he was an atheist or agnostic and were surprised when I told them the reality. Whenever someone asked him directly what his religious views were, his stock answer was "they are not relevant in this classroom", which was entirely right.

Teachers have views about a great number of aspects of the way a school should operate (from small things like whether the school uniform policy is the right one to whether particular pupils should be excluded or whether religious assemblies should be held). These views are, however, tempered by deference to the rules set by their superiors: for the rank and file teacher their views are tempered by the decision taken by their head of department; for them by the headteacher; and for headteachers by the regulatory education authorities and the laws of the land. That some may try to circumvent or subvert the greater authorities is neither here nor there: that is a question of enforcement mechanisms. It doesn't invalidate the principle of and obligation to deliver secular schooling.

Glad you agree that belting is black and white yet opinions are grey.

[Swampy]

Here most CoE schools (mentioned because they are far in the majority of faith schools) would regard the idea of creationism - for example the earth being 6,000 years old - as bizarre in the extreme. Maybe it'd be best if you try not to extrapolate your limited experience on to the rest of us.

I offered it as an example. In any case what you're discussing is Young Earth Creationism (YEC) which is indeed held only by extreme nutbars. However Old Earth Creationism (OEC) is the mainstream doctrine in most Christian sects, including CoE and CoS. So maybe it'd be best if you were less concerned about scoring points than you were about knowing what's happening, *** boy

[Ad Lib]

Glad you agree that belting is black and white yet opinions are grey.

Congratulations on completely missing the purpose of the analogy.

[Swampy]

THE BELT!!!!! THE BELT!!!! 6,000 YEARS!!!! THE BELT!!!! THE POWER OF *** COMPELS YOU!!!!!

[Guest Kincardine]

I offered it as an example. In any case what you're discussing is Young Earth Creationism (YEC) which is indeed held only by extreme nutbars. However Old Earth Creationism (OEC) is the mainstream doctrine in most Christian sects, including CoE and CoS. So maybe it'd be best if you were less concerned about scoring points than you were about knowing what's happening, *** boy

Leaving aside your pre-pubescent insult tell me what your children are taught at school. Talk me through through their curriculum. Is it faith-based? Secular-based? I'd be delighted to know seeing as I haven't a clue about, "what's happening".

[Swampy]

Leaving aside your pre-pubescent insult tell me what your children are taught at school. Talk me through through their curriculum. Is it faith-based? Secular-based? I'd be delighted to know seeing as I haven't a clue about, "what's happening".

I don't have kids. If I did they'd attend a secular public school pretty much by default. Because I live in Texas, though, there are various nonsense textbooks going about that do things like preface chapters on evolution via natural selection with no end of disclaimers, and to present Phylis Schlafly as anything other than a mildly crazed hypocritical simpleton. It's a problem that surfaces here once a decade or so, but simply saying "oh well, it can't be fixed because people have opinions" isn't really an answer.

[Guest Kincardine]

I don't have kids. If I did they'd attend a secular public school pretty much by default. Because I live in Texas, though, there are various nonsense textbooks going about that do things like preface chapters on evolution via natural selection with no end of disclaimers, and to present Phylis Schlafly as anything other than a mildly crazed hypocritical simpleton. It's a problem that surfaces here once a decade or so, but simply saying "oh well, it can't be fixed because people have opinions" isn't really an answer.

No idea who said, "oh well, it can't be fixed because people have opinions". It certainly wasn't me. I did hint that religious nut jobs can act as heads in a secular system but that's a totally different point.

I'm also amused that you don't have children being educated and I have three going through the state system yet you're happy to say to me, "maybe it'd be best if you were less concerned about scoring points than you were about knowing what's happening, *** boy"? Petty snipes aside I'm absolutely sure I know what's happening to education in our part of the UK than you are.

[Ebanda's Handyman Services]

^^^

Verge of drowning in tears/self pity/inadequacy

Stop brown-nosing Swampy. As intentionally pompous as he is, you don't have the savvy to match his style.

Inadequacy?! If I ever began feeling inadequate compared to dafties like you, I'd have a serious look at myself.

[Supras]

I kinda feel sorry for Dawkins, given the line of work he is in a lot of people are going to hate him but he himself comes across as a gentle, unassuming man. I wonder how he deals with all the hate mail etc.

I suppose all the money he makes is some comfort.

[Swampy]

No idea who said, "oh well, it can't be fixed because people have opinions". It certainly wasn't me. I did hint that religious nut jobs can act as heads in a secular system but that's a totally different point.

Of course they can, just as religious nut jobs work in all manner of professions that mandate secularism. Somehow you neglect to wring your hands at those!

I'm also amused that you don't have children being educated and I have three going through the state system yet you're happy to say to me, "maybe it'd be best if you were less concerned about scoring points than you were about knowing what's happening, *** boy"? Petty snipes aside I'm absolutely sure I know what's happening to education in our part of the UK than you are.

I don't doubt for a second that you know what's happening in darkest Englandshire more than I do, but my point was that you accused me of discussing "creationism" (sic), which you took to mean the view of the Earth's being 6,000 years old. That isn't what "creationism" means in most cases, let alone all, and I didn't apply it to England. Basically you were champing at the bit to score a point, so you built a silly straw man and proceeded to roundhouse it. The straw went everywhere - it was magnificent - but meanwhile the debate hasn't moved on even a bit.

[Swampy]

Stop brown-nosing Swampy. As intentionally pompous as he is, you don't have the savvy to match his style.

Inadequacy?! If I ever began feeling inadequate compared to dafties like you, I'd have a serious look at myself.

[Guest Kincardine]

Of course they can, just as religious nut jobs work in all manner of professions that mandate secularism. Somehow you neglect to wring your hands at those!

Why the f**k should I wring my hands? Yet another bizarre comment from you.

I don't doubt for a second that you know what's happening in darkest Englandshire more than I do, but my point was that you accused me of discussing "creationism" (sic), which you took to mean the view of the Earth's being 6,000 years old. That isn't what "creationism" means in most cases, let alone all, and I didn't apply it to England. Basically you were champing at the bit to score a point, so you built a silly straw man and proceeded to roundhouse it. The straw went everywhere - it was magnificent - but meanwhile the debate hasn't moved on even a bit.

I didn't take it to mean that - I simply cited that as an example. Not a definition. I'm sure you could remember the difference if you could calm down and think.

I'm certainly not wedded to faith schools of whatever flavour but in "darkest Englandshire" they don't have any resemblance to the picture you paint of Texas secular school.

[centralparker]

The point I'm making is that 99.9% of teachers teach because they like children, enjoy working with them, and want to help them. Hitting a pupil for misbehaving is inconsistent with this.

No it's not. If a minority of disruptive pupils can be kept in line by the threat of the belt then that benefits the kids who are actually interested in learning. Discipline in schools began to fall apart the day the belt was withdrawn.

[Swampy]

Why the f**k should I wring my hands? Yet another bizarre comment from you.

I didn't take it to mean that - I simply cited that as an example.

It's a massively extreme example, though, and one that not even public schools here would dare teach. The straw is still floating to the ground and catching the sun as it goes.

Not a definition. I'm sure you could remember the difference if you could calm down and think.

But you used it in a dishonest fashion. The fact is that every Christian who believes in the most mainstream aspect of theology will believe in some form of creationism, i.e. that the universe was created by a deity. That doesn't even begin to suggest that *O*EC is involved, much less YEC. Take Ad Lib, for example: he seems to be what's commonly termed a deist, i.e. he believes that a deity created the universe and then pretty much sat back to let it take its course. That is a form of creationism. So let's try your sentence again with that:

"Here most CoE schools (mentioned because they are far in the majority of faith schools) would regard the idea of creationism - for example the earth being created as part of a deity's universe - as bizarre in the extreme."

Suddenly it doesn't read so well, and your straw man argument is exposed as a failure.

I'm certainly not wedded to faith schools of whatever flavour but in "darkest Englandshire" they don't have any resemblance to the picture you paint of Texas secular school.

It's not all schools, or even most.

[Guest Kincardine]

No it's not. If a minority of disruptive pupils can be kept in line by the threat of the belt then that benefits the kids who are actually interested in learning. Discipline in schools began to fall apart the day the belt was withdrawn.

This is just nonsense. There is a huge number of well run and well disciplined schools around and have great teachers who, themselves, were too young to have had the belt.

Ensuring high standards of discipline is important; belting weans is barbaric.

[Guest Kincardine]

But you used it in a dishonest fashion. The fact is that every Christian who believes in the most mainstream aspect of theology will believe in some form of creationism, i.e. that the universe was created by a deity.

I don't have empirical evidence for this but I'd wager most who call themselves Christian don't give a f**k. Maybe ministers/vicars/priests would regard it as important but I can't recall any 'laity' expressing an opinion either way in a decade or more. I'm pretty sure that, in practise, most Christians in England either regard God in very personal terms or simply see 'him' as some sort of moral force/guide. I doubt that many see 'him' as the one behind the big bang or whatever.

Obviously there are lots of people who'd take a different view - and a good dose of those are in Tx - but to state, "The fact is that every Christian who believes in the most mainstream aspect of theology will believe in some form of creationism" shows how poor a grasp you have on facts.

[The Old Northerner]

Obviously there are lots of people who'd take a different view - and a good dose of those are in Tx - but to state, "The fact is that every Christian who believes in the most mainstream aspect of theology will believe in some form of creationism" shows how poor a grasp you have on facts.

Can I ask what you think the 'the most mainstream aspect of theology' might be, if it isn't the existence of a creator?

[Mushroom]

I kinda feel sorry for Dawkins, given the line of work he is in a lot of people are going to hate him but he himself comes across as a gentle, unassuming man. I wonder how he deals with all the hate mail etc.

I suppose all the money he makes is some comfort.

Dawkins main line of work is actually evolutionary biology, it just so happens that evolutionary biology is the branch of science which most contradicts the bible, which naturally lead him to writing a book about atheism.

Then it snowballed a bit, and is now simply seen as an "atheist nutter".

It's a pity as I've never heard him say anything I disagree with, he even openly admits he could be wrong in his "great juju up the mountain" speech. Where he explains that theres no point assuming atheism is wrong, when christianity is still rejecting thousands of potential deities.

He is actually remarkably tolerant towards christians who are tolerant of atheists, he works quite closely with a bishop on some project I seem to recall.

[Swampy]

I don't have empirical evidence for this but I'd wager most who call themselves Christian don't give a f**k. Maybe ministers/vicars/priests would regard it as important but I can't recall any 'laity' expressing an opinion either way in a decade or more. I'm pretty sure that, in practise, most Christians in England either regard God in very personal terms or simply see 'him' as some sort of moral force/guide. I doubt that many see 'him' as the one behind the big bang or whatever.

Obviously there are lots of people who'd take a different view - and a good dose of those are in Tx - but to state, "The fact is that every Christian who believes in the most mainstream aspect of theology will believe in some form of creationism" shows how poor a grasp you have on facts.

First of all, I wonder how great your grasp of what the 'laity' think really is. You have no empirical evidence, you don't describe yourself as a churchgoer (even though you go to church), you claim not to have attended Easter/Christmas services at an Anglican church - the religious service that a plurality of "Christians in England" attend... what are you basing this on, except a desire to score points?

As it happens the last poll I saw said that 67% of people in the UK believed in a god or higher power. If the dwindling percentage of Anglicans, and the slightly rising number of Catholics, in England aren't part of this 67% then there are some pretty interesting ramifications there.

The idea that God is being creation as being something bizarre and weird is an idea that, so far as I'm concerned, originates with you, as all indicators I've seen are to the contrary.

Do me a favour, next time you're in touch with the "laity" gather some data for me. Try to be methodical.

[Swampy]

Can I ask what you think the 'the most mainstream aspect of theology' might be, if it isn't the existence of a creator?

I'm starting to think it's, "Jesus was the son of something who doesn't exist."