Primary school shenanigans

[NotoriousREV]

The point is they get any funding from the state. IMO you either teach holistically and impartially, in which case you're a school and get government funding, or you base admission and syllabus on religious affiliations, in which case you're part of the PR machine for one cult or another, and you can run it as a private business.

And yes, religious indoctrination. If you compel children to attend a religion-based morning assembly, that's religious indoctrination. If you teach the doctrine of your own tribe's religion over others, that's religious indoctrination. If you insist children adhere to rituals around your particular cult (e.g. prayers before mealtimes), that's religious indoctrination. If you decorate your school with the memorabilia and symbolism of your particular cult, that's religious indoctrination. If you teach that creationism *might* even be part of the science syllabus, that's not not only religious indoctrination, that's willful dishonesty and manipulation.

And here comes my argument all over again:

Are you advocating for the removal of a so-called religious indoctrination, to be replaced by your atheist indoctrination instead?

First paragraph of my post - "teach holistically and impartially", don't "base admission and syllabus on religious affiliations" (I'll also now add, don't compel children to participate in any specific act of religious worship). Is that my "atheist indoctrination"?

But you're specifically saying that your atheism is more important than their faith: "If you teach the doctrine of your own tribe's religion over others, that's religious indoctrination". This is literally what you're saying when you say that faith schools should not exist: that your lack of religion is so important that others should denied their right to theirs.

[JLv3.0]

This will be resolved by Page 4, maximum.

[NotoriousREV]

why do we still allow a medieval protection racket run our education system?

Sounds to me like you want the practice banned right here ^

[NotoriousREV]

Where did I say ban anything? And what "world view" have I stated, beyond objecting to specific doctrines being imposed on children via an education system which should be impartial.

Right here. Your world view is that religion shouldn't be "imposed on children via an education system". That's a very clear world view.

[Nefarious]

Neil, loads of what you assume happens just doesn't and isn't happening.

Symbolism, yes. But every school has a school crest and moto, ban those too. Yes it's a tribe, they have their own shit logo, but that's how they brand themselves and you can take it or leave it. As i say, the government can't afford to build schools. Guess what's happening instead, businesses are building academies. Do you think they'll do it for free and leave them unbranded?

And creationism in science lessons?? Again I'll ask; what year do you think it is? I think you have an idea of what a faith school is like and it's not correct. I'm guessing its based on assumption or when you attended one 35 years ago.

My daughter thankfully attends a non-denominational school, but due to a shortage of places at the after-school club, previously had to go to the ASC at the local Catholic school.

Perhaps things are turned up a notch or two in Scotland, but all those things absolutely happen there:
- massive picture of some senior priest in the foyer that all the kids are supposed to bow to (or do some other symbolic gesture to) on entry and exit
- evolution taught with the caveat that its only "one of many possible theories" and creationism is equally valid

[NotoriousREV]

Anecdote != data

[ste]

Also remember, whether you like it or not, we are a christian society. My secondary school wasn't a church school but it was based on the moral framework which the whole country operates within and just happens to be based on christianity. Despite not being a church school we still had an assembly and even sometimes someone said a prayer. In fact once a year we had a founders day where we all marched across town into a big church to have a service.

(FWIW I dropped an OHM one year and spent the entire thing giggling my tits off and have no idea how I didn't get expelled.)

Do something wrong and the court will deal with you based on a christian framework.

Go into the military and you're assigning allegiance to god and the queen.

etc., etc..

I'm an atheist, it washes over me. Rail against it all you like but it's the society you're choosing to live in.

[ZedLeg]

Perhaps things are turned up a notch or two in Scotland, but all those things absolutely happen there:
- massive picture of some senior priest in the foyer that all the kids are supposed to bow to (or do some other symbolic gesture to) on entry and exit
- evolution taught with the caveat that its only "one of many possible theories" and creationism is equally valid

Not in my experience, so it's maybe a problem with that school rather than catholic schools in general.

[Nefarious]

And here comes my argument all over again:

Are you advocating for the removal of a so-called religious indoctrination, to be replaced by your atheist indoctrination instead?

First paragraph of my post - "teach holistically and impartially", don't "base admission and syllabus on religious affiliations" (I'll also now add, don't compel children to participate in any specific act of religious worship). Is that my "atheist indoctrination"?

But you're specifically saying that your atheism is more important than their faith: "If you teach the doctrine of your own tribe's religion over others, that's religious indoctrination". This is literally what you're saying when you say that faith schools should not exist: that your lack of religion is so important that others should denied their right to theirs.

I haven't even stated my religious leanings - other than your knowledge from previous discussions how do you know I'm advocating atheism?. Schools are for education, publicly funded and compulsory. Churches are for religion (if that's your bag), are privately funded and voluntary. Don't get the two mixed up.

[Nefarious]

Where did I say ban anything? And what "world view" have I stated, beyond objecting to specific doctrines being imposed on children via an education system which should be impartial.

Right here. Your world view is that religion shouldn't be "imposed on children via an education system". That's a very clear world view.

Absolutely. Only someone with a vested interest in indoctrinating the next generation, or someone too naive to realise that that is the only purpose of the churches involvement in education, would say otherwise.

[NotoriousREV]

Schools are for education, publicly funded and compulsory. Churches are for religion (if that's your bag), are privately funded and voluntary. Don't get the two mixed up.

In your opinion.

[JLv3.0]

As for accepting atheists, my Twitter stream this weekend included 2 different atheists telling me that I'm being an atheist wrong, repeatedly shouting at me that gods don't exist (despite me saying the same thing), and calling for the absolute banning of all religions. Apparently some people really don't understand that you can be an atheist whilst still being tolerant of other people's views (up to a point, I'll add even though I shouldn't have to but otherwise someone will use it as a strawman argument)

Just as an aside while you breathe and count to, say, 100, what is your version of atheism? It sounds like mine - I don't believe in God or any god, but if other people do, that's fine. I don't try and change their mind and they don't try and change mine.

Same?

(I will admit to when asked if I'm religious, I say no I'm not, due to not being a fucking simpleton - I also don't believe in Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny, for example - but that's just for my own personal amusement.)

[Nefarious]

Also remember, whether you like it or not, we are a christian society.

No we are not. We are a primarily faithless society (53% self-identify as having "no religion"). Anglicanism makes up 3%.

[ste]

I haven't even stated my religious leanings - other than your knowledge from previous discussions how do you know I'm advocating atheism?. Schools are for education, publicly funded and compulsory. Churches are for religion (if that's your bag), are privately funded and voluntary. Don't get the two mixed up.

Attendance of a certain school isn't compulsory. An educatin is compulsory and a parent or guardian has to demonstrate that the child in their care is receiving one, that can be by any means including home schooling.

An organisation pays to have a school built, staff it with experts and offers it to the community for use. If nobody chooses to go, the school will remain empty and the organisation will not get to teach anyone. The parents could send their children to an alternative school, set up a cooperative or academy with their peers or home school them.

Nobody in this country is made to go to a church school. Everyone is there by choice or due to apathy.

[Nefarious]

Schools are for education, publicly funded and compulsory. Churches are for religion (if that's your bag), are privately funded and voluntary. Don't get the two mixed up.

In your opinion.

Yes. I believe this is a discussion board. It's where people express their opinions.

[NotoriousREV]

Where did I say ban anything? And what "world view" have I stated, beyond objecting to specific doctrines being imposed on children via an education system which should be impartial.

Right here. Your world view is that religion shouldn't be "imposed on children via an education system". That's a very clear world view.

Absolutely. Only someone with a vested interest in indoctrinating the next generation, or someone too naive to realise that that is the only purpose of the churches involvement in education, would say otherwise.

Yes, those are absolutely the only 2 possible reasons for someone disagreeing with you.

[ste]

Also remember, whether you like it or not, we are a christian society.

No we are not. We are a primarily faithless society (53% self-identify as having "no religion"). Anglicanism makes up 3%.

Semantics. We are a society founded on christianity. The fact that most don't identify as or practice christianity doesn't change that.

If I buy a size M t-shirt because it fits and then go on a month long beer and pie bender just because the t-shirt no longer fits doesn't make it no longer a size M.

[NotoriousREV]

Schools are for education, publicly funded and compulsory. Churches are for religion (if that's your bag), are privately funded and voluntary. Don't get the two mixed up.

In your opinion.

Yes. I believe this is a discussion board. It's where people express their opinions.

And yet you're stating your opinions as fact, and trying to push those opinions on others and wanting to ban things that don't meet your approval.

[NotoriousREV]

As for accepting atheists, my Twitter stream this weekend included 2 different atheists telling me that I'm being an atheist wrong, repeatedly shouting at me that gods don't exist (despite me saying the same thing), and calling for the absolute banning of all religions. Apparently some people really don't understand that you can be an atheist whilst still being tolerant of other people's views (up to a point, I'll add even though I shouldn't have to but otherwise someone will use it as a strawman argument)

Just as an aside while you breathe and count to, say, 100, what is your version of atheism? It sounds like mine - I don't believe in God or any god, but if other people do, that's fine. I don't try and change their mind and they don't try and change mine.

Same?

(I will admit to when asked if I'm religious, I say no I'm not, due to not being a fucking simpleton - I also don't believe in Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny, for example - but that's just for my own personal amusement.)

Exactly the same. Some people equate Atheism with a hatred of religion and get really angry if you say you're an atheist but then don't condemn religion at every opportunity. Thanks Richard Dawkins, you twat.

[JLv3.0]

We're on exactly the same page - Richard Dawkins is a fucking cunt. Just as bad, if not worse, than the sky-fairy brigade.