(October 3, 2014 at 9:04 am)Michael B Wrote: So Fidel (apt name, by the way), how do you teach religion on an equal, or even a truthful basis, if you don't let them teach claims that are fundamental to their faith?

You are clearly advocating suppression of religious education. Why not be honest about it and defend it rather than tying yourself in knots by trying to say at the same time that you're not advocating suppression of religious education and then saying that you don't believe religions should be able to teach that they have the truth?

It should be obvious to all (and to you really, I think) that you are advocating suppression of religious education.

So taking your example, the freedom of education I support is the freedom for Christians to teach their children (at home, at Church, in study groups, or at a school that parents choose to send their children to) that "Jesus rose from the dead". And I fully accept the freedom of Muslims (again at home, in Mosques, in study groups or in schools that people choose to send their children to) to teach their Children that "Mohammed was the last Prophet of God". That's the freedom we have in the UK (we have choice in schooling, representing the communities that the schools serve), and that's a precious freedom that exists in our pluralistic society.

You're talking about private individuals in their own home. That's beyond the control of the state. People are free to teach whatever they want (well, actually, they're not) in their own home and in places of worship.

I am talking about schools (even private ones which, by law, cannot teach exclusively one religion at the expense of teaching about others, actually) and matters where the state has some authority or duty of care.

Nothing I am advocating is even remotely totalitarian. In fact what I've posted is much, much more accurate of current UK education policy than what you've posted. Keep claiming I'm tying myself in knots all you want but it's far removed from reality.

The OP was about removing influence of religion from society. My response was in counter to your claim that you need to physically remove them (however that's done) and I believe it still stands. You don't need to physically do anything. Just not teach one thing as true and others as false.

And I really wish you'd stop randomly putting 'atheism' or 'atheists' into your posts. I've not mentioned atheism once, but you keep saying it as though it's a bedrock of my argument.

Look up secularism instead, and egalitarianism.

(just a quick clarification because I'm a dumb, are both of you in the UK?)

Yes. I am PhD student who (take note Michael) looks at the influence of religious NGOs in the use of government funding in urban regeneration projects England.

I'm an atheist and I've also lectured to Masters level on religion within international, supranational and national government systems. I believe Michael is a post-doc/PI in the natural sciences.

Cool beans!

(October 3, 2014 at 9:15 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 9:04 am)Michael B Wrote: So Fidel (apt name, by the way), how do you teach religion on an equal, or even a truthful basis, if you don't let them teach claims that are fundamental to their faith?

You are clearly advocating suppression of religious education. Why not be honest about it and defend it rather than tying yourself in knots by trying to say at the same time that you're not advocating suppression of religious education and then saying that you don't believe religions should be able to teach that they have the truth?

It should be obvious to all (and to you really, I think) that you are advocating suppression of religious education.

So taking your example, the freedom of education I support is the freedom for Christians to teach their children (at home, at Church, in study groups, or at a school that parents choose to send their children to) that "Jesus rose from the dead". And I fully accept the freedom of Muslims (again at home, in Mosques, in study groups or in schools that people choose to send their children to) to teach their Children that "Mohammed was the last Prophet of God". That's the freedom we have in the UK (we have choice in schooling, representing the communities that the schools serve), and that's a precious freedom that exists in our pluralistic society.

You're talking about private individuals in their own home. That's beyond the control of the state. People are free to teach whatever they want (well, actually, they're not) in their own home and in places of worship.

I am talking about schools (even private ones which, by law, cannot teach exclusively one religion at the expense of teaching about others, actually) and matters where the state has some authority or duty of care.

Nothing I am advocating is even remotely totalitarian. In fact what I've posted is much, much more accurate of current UK education policy than what you've posted. Keep claiming I'm tying myself in knots all you want but it's far removed from reality.

The OP was about removing influence of religion from society. My response was in counter to your claim that you need to physically remove them (however that's done) and I believe it still stands. You don't need to physically do anything. Just not teach one thing as true and others as false.

And I really wish you'd stop randomly putting 'atheism' or 'atheists' into your posts. I've not mentioned atheism once, but you keep saying it as though it's a bedrock of my argument.

Look up secularism instead, and egalitarianism.

I was talking about schools as well Fidel (have a re-read - I specifically mentioned schools for both Christians and Muslims as examples). Both our children went to brilliant faith (Catholic) schools where worship, prayer and teaching of Christian faith were warp and weft through the school day (10% of the curriculum, from aged 5 to 16)*. This is the precious freedom we have in the UK, and parents (who pay for the schools through their taxes) love and want this freedom to choose schools that fit with their beliefs (or lack thereof) and values.

Do you support this freedom, and choice, that we have in the UK?

*P.S. They also received a very good education in what other faiths teach (and their curriculum discussed what atheists and secularists thought). They visited other places of worship and had believers of other faiths explain their faith to them - not just a teacher saying "Jews believe this", but having a Jew say "We, as Jews, believe this". They were brought up to respect people of all faiths and none, and to know that different people believe different things, but that was not in opposition to teaching the Christian faith and having Christian worship and prayer every day. We respect the right of other faiths to teach what they believe to their children, even when we know they are teaching that Christianity is wrong. That's pluralism. That's tolerance. That's a mature society.

(October 3, 2014 at 9:28 am)Michael B Wrote: I was talking about schools as well Fidel (have a re-read - I specifically mentioned schools for both Christians and Muslims as examples). Both our children went to brilliant faith (Catholic) schools where worship, prayer and teaching of Christian faith were warp and weft through the school day (10% of the curriculum, from aged 5 to 16). This is the precious freedom we have in the UK, and parents (who pay for the schools through their taxes) love and want this freedom to choose schools that fit with their beliefs (or lack thereof) and values.

Do you support this freedom that we have in the UK?

I do not support publicly funded faith based schools. They should be banned as they are an affront to the secular values society holds and serve to create more disunity than unity.

If religions want to set up their own faith schools they can use their own (often substantial) wealth to do so. They should not be using the tax revenues generated by people who the majority of which do not hold or accept their religion.

I went to a secular grammar school where no religion was taught as true. Our student body was around 25% Muslim. How many children who follow Islam attended your children's faith school?

You're also kidding yourself if you think parents love the schools because of the religion; they love them because of the generally higher grades that children get who attend faith schools. Consider that the number of faith schools has been rising whereas the number of people adhering to those same religions has in almost all circumstances been falling.

Also, there are no 'lack of belief' schools.

(October 3, 2014 at 9:28 am)Michael B Wrote: *P.S. They also received a very good education in what other faiths teach (and their curriculum discussed what atheists and secularists thought). They visited other places of worship and had believers of other faiths explain their faith to them - not just a teacher saying "Jews believe this", but having a Jew say "We, as Jews, believe this". They were brought up to respect people of all faiths and none, and to know that different people believe different things, but that was not in opposition to teaching the Christian faith and having Christian worship and prayer every day. We respect the right of other faiths to teach what they believe to their children, even when we know they are teaching that Christianity is wrong. That's pluralism. That's tolerance. That's a mature society.

No that's tokenism. A school that preaches one religion as true at the expense of all others then goes into other religions to ask what they believe? Doesn't seem like they were taught anything about the 10 commandments in any case!

Specifically: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I ask again, how many non-catholics attended your children's catholic school and how many of those that did were part of the legally required quota that faith schools have to open up (even if they don't fill them)?

Fidel - we do fund our own schools. I'm a higher-rate tax payer: I pay for education. I probably pay in part for your education. So let's not have any of this "use your own wealth". We (I) already do. And where there is taxation I want representation in how that money, my money, is spent.

And as for the "secular values society holds" - as you know, schooling is substantially a choice here in the UK. The types and numbers of school reflect the choices of parents, more now than any recent time in the past. When faith-schools are over-subscribed in an area then the schooling rebalances to reflect that (and vice-versa). The schools we have reflect the values and choices of society. If people didn't want their children to go to faith schools then demand would drop in relation to non-faith schools. We have a good system in the UK. It's not perfect (rebalancing is slow, and a school must have a volume of demand that will sustain it), but it's good - it respects the wishes of parents regarding faith affiliation (or non-affiliation). As it happens, demand for faith schools is increasing overall and the government have asked the Church of England to take on more schools, but if the choice of parents reverses then the system will rebalance again. The funding follows the choices of us parents - schools that fit the demands of local parents well flourish and obtain more funding to accommodate more pupils, while those that don't fit the demands of local parents well have their funding reduced (and will close if they fall below a sustainable level, often to be taken over by a local successful school team).

(October 3, 2014 at 9:51 am)Michael B Wrote: We do fund our own schools. Where do you think tax comes from?

Again, the majority of people who pay for faith schools are not of that faith. If people want their children to be indoctrinated into the same religion as them at a school that caters specifically for that indoctrination, then they need to set aside money to their religion/church with the specific aim of funding it. End of.

(October 3, 2014 at 9:51 am)Michael B Wrote: I'm a higher-rate tax payer: I pay for education. I probably pay in part for your education. So let's not have any of this "use your own wealth". We (I) already do. And where there is taxation I want representation in how that money, my money, is spent (to coin a phrase).

Entirely secular, non-demoninational education at that! Faith schools get the majority of their capital from people who do not subscribe to that religion or its teachings.

You've paid probably less than hundredth of a % in real terms to your faith school. Millions of other Non-catholic Christians/Muslims/non believers have made up the rest.

(October 3, 2014 at 9:51 am)Michael B Wrote: And as for the "secular values society holds" - schooling is substantially a choice.

Actually it's a legal requirement (aside certain unacceptable exemptions afforded to some in society).

(October 3, 2014 at 9:51 am)Michael B Wrote: The types and numbers of school reflect the choices of parents, more now than any recent time in the past. When faith-schools are over-subscribed in an area then the schooling rebalances to reflect that (and vice-versa). The schools we have reflect the values and choices of society.

Faith schools have increased year on year at a greater level than any other school with the possible exception of standard comprehensives.

Yet organised Abrahamic religions, with the exception of Islam and certain minority black Christian churches, are at the lowest recorded level in history or at least since stats have been taken on religious attendance.

I repeat: They are not oversubscribed because of the religion, they are over subscribed because of the grades. Imagine if all those resources could be channelled towards inclusive schools that don't mandate that x amount of pupils have to be of a certain religion or been brought up in a certain tradition?

(October 3, 2014 at 9:51 am)Michael B Wrote: If people didn't want their children to go to faith schools then demand would drop in relation to non-faith schools. We have a good system in the UK.

We have a tremendously unequal education policy in the UK that still favours wealth over access. The new academy/free school system will only serve to exacerbate this as standard comprehensives slowly die as parents take them out and move them towards more affluent free schools that are no longer subject to Governmental management. Achievement will be skewed towards those lucky few with the rest getting less resources and even worse prospects.

(October 3, 2014 at 9:51 am)Michael B Wrote: It's not perfect (rebalancing is slow), but it's good - it respects the wishes of parents regarding faith affiliation (or non-affiliation). As it happens demand for faith schools is increasing and the government have asked the Church of England to take on more schools, but if the choice of parents reverse then the system will rebalance again.

As above; demands are increasing for faith schools because of their ability to get students better grades above standard, secular comprehensives. This is not conducive to a good or fair educational policy. It's the antithesis.

(October 3, 2014 at 4:17 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: I'm gonna raise my hand next time the sociology teacher talks about religion's influence on society and say "you talk a lot about how religion influences society, but you never mention that it's completely unnecessary for a functional society". See how many kids get outraged at that.

Edit: or since the teacher is just being politically correct by respecting religion, I could just ask "would you say that religion is entirely unnecessary for society to function as a whole?"

Or you could just express it as your opinion, rather than phrasing it as a question that could be answered simply, "No."