In the committee stages of the Academies Bill yesterday we had a fascinating debate about the role of faith schools and the risks they pose. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100623-0005.htm#10062341000480 . I am concerned that a quarter of existing academies are faith schools, ranging from the traditional Church of England local community primary schools to the highly selective fundamentalist Christian, minority orthodox Jewish and Islamic schools which are highly selective, employ teachers of only one faith, take up huge chunks of teaching time with reciting the holy books and are so obviously divisive in a community that I am amazed we tolerate their establishment. Most of the C of E schools were established in the early or mid parts of the nineteenth century when the church vestry was in practice the local authority; almost all are broadly non-denominational and non-selective; their contacts with the local church are highly variable. But we heard ample evidence from around the chamber that there was deep concern about the divisiveness of segregated schools on community cohesion. Have we learnt nothing from Northern Ireland? As Lord Kilclooney said, segregated schools attract parents to move near the school and before you know where you are you have ghettoes of families clustering round these schools with very little contact with neighbouring communities. Some of the Islamic schools are little more than madrassas for grooming young people into a fanatic faith. Anyone who doubts me should have a look at these schools websites to see what I mean. We worry about people being taught the idiocies of creationism, but there are now many schools teaching ‘islamic sciences’, another oxymoron. But more important than that, I want children to grow up sitting next to a Christian, a Jew, an Atheist, a Catholic and know them as friends. It is crucial we understand the importance of belief in people’s value systems, all children should be taught about the world’s religions but an in depth understanding is unlikely to occur where exposure is only to one.
Education is the process by which children learn to question, test out ideas, get to grips with logic, reason and hard facts and how to be a good socially responsible citizen. The State should tolerate and respect the religious faiths of all its citizens but should surely not seek to proselytise any of them. (Yes I know we still have the established church although that matter didn’t come up at all) It’s my view that religion is for parents and religious organisations to pursue outside of school if they wish. The new Minister Lord Hill of Oareford gave a fair answer to the many points but I fear that faith schools will continue to grow. See Lord Hill below.
Lord Russell (Bertrand) gave a useful ditinction between on the one extreme Science, on the other Religion and in the middle Philosophy (which some educators today prefer to call ‘Thinking-Skills’).
Russell contends “All definite knowledge belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology”
My problem with Religion and therein with Faith Schools/Academies is that the Theology is imposed directively one-way top-down.
Wi the Education part of it all, there is a big and blurry Issue between on the one hand training for the 25% workplace timeframe and on the other education for the 75% lifestyle timeframe. Training now begins in the cradle now as Education and Development; and Universities have also become job-training places: there are no multiversities (for all-round-learning (which is what the university was originally founded to be).
Even respected professors have said that (‘) You can become the best doctor or lawyer in the whole world, without any education whatsoever ! (‘) [All you need is the right training and the right job-placements at the right time].
Provided Science is taught at one extreme end of the school-buildings and Religion at the other extreme end, there should be no fighting between Evolution and Creationism.
In the middle should strongly thrive all of the Humanities, Business, and other Arts subjects including Philosophy, Psychology, and Lifestyle Abilities (from ‘Mastery of Human Movement’ to ‘Domestic Science’).
So d’accord, I share the fear of the Establishment’s, Parents’, Employers’ religious dogmas being imposed upon children via faith-academies.
Even the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights held that children shall conform to the religious tenets of their parents, rather than (as most adults and children would have it) children shal resolve win-win-win with their parents (and teachers and directors/employers) issues of religion.
“Most of the C of E schools were established in the early or mid parts of the nineteenth century when the church vestry was in practice the local authority”
Those are the CofE primary schools of course Baroness to which you refer, but I regret to say that, for example in the huge borough of Crawley and the other new(-ish) Satellite cities, CofE schools in everything but name have been created at secondary level, cheek by jowl in competition with ‘R’C secondary schools, each of which claims to select on the basis of excellence but in reality takes ANY-body who adhere to the required either RC or CofE denomination.
I only know about Crawley since I did a little research some years ago, but I am certain that the same applies to Milton Keynes, to Swindon, all the dozen or so new
towns round London.
If the CofE/RC pays for the buildings whih they maily do, with government grants, then why should they not have the choice of pupils,by their own denomination.
There is a third factor in this and that is the sink hole of pure, unadulterated state schools built by the state, for the state and with the state money entirely! No religion, no faith, no belief, NO EDUCATION, according to the other believers in the part Diocese (f whichever denom)sponsored schools.
I think I may have added to the noble baroness’ as usual excellent analysis by refering to the ongoing building of CofE/RC
schools in newly built parts of the country.
The financial aspect of the Religious dioceses should perhaps be studied a little more by the noble baroness to understand
that these religions are not dead, but living entities in fairly fierce, but good humoured competition with each other at all times.
Ghettoes do not develop in these new towns in the UK, round the denominational churches, since there is a Planning officer, the great architect in the sky, who ensures that no such thing will happen in his great and glorious town!!!!!!!!!!!
The town architects/planning officers have considerable power, are highly respected, have many years of training, and do an excellent job of work ensuring that no such thing happens in these islands of Great Britain.
I am also certain that the planning officers of those Districts and counties where there has been a huge influx of immigrants will do their level best to ensure that it does not happen there either.
The facts of Muslim schools in CofE buildings does wonders to the spirit and soul of the people of these magnificent and tiny islands, schools governed by CofE clergy, but with
a 90% Muslim clientele.
Have no fear! It is a small world!
“I am amazed we tolerate their establishment”
You cannot prevent the building of schools by those who have got the money to do it.
The Christian churches have, and have also traditionally claimed govt grants; then ALL faiths and none must ALSO be allowed to do the same, provided they comply with basic educational standards, and building requirements.
It’s as easy as that. It’s a democratic society, and hopefully, a democratic world!!!
Here here. Now there is a very easy solution to this.
Don’t fund them.
Lord Blagger
I am an atheist, and completely opposed to state financed religious schools on principle. But it is an unfortunate fact that in some parts of London (which I know about – the same might apply in other cities) the only good schools are the religious ones. How much of this is because the parents are a self-selected group, and how much from the way the schools themselves work, would be interesting to know. Whatever the reason, just scrapping them would condemn some children to a worse education. We already have class ghettoes, based on housing cost, in which nearness to good schools is a major factor. Some of the religious schools reduce this ghetto effect by being good schools in poor areas. It is going to be extremely hard to untangle this, although at least we could stop digging.
To say that pedagogic drilling, training and schooling is “education” is to have missed more than one point about Life, Work and the Divine…
Kindergarten tends to be all-round child-development, doesn’t it ?
Schools, Colleges, Universities and especially post-graduate PhD-islands and territories, should have in place an annual All-Round foundation and refreshment curriculum which should also contain first-resort problem and conflict solving resorts.
Lord Lindsay had it exactly, and deeply insightfully, right when he founded the 4-year bachelor-degree Keele university (gnothi heouton) where every student had to complete a foundation year (one term each in Arts, Humanities and Sciences) and then choose their five-subjects for their degree-course in which there had to be at least one subject from each of the three faculties).
(Alas! It was the biggest tragedy of my life, that I fell temporarily quite ill there in 1954, was wrongly diagnosed and therefore wrongly treated and iatrogenicly-injured, chose to give up my scholarship from Plymouth department of education; and have been having a rough and struggling (but real) lower-income life ever since).
Like those who did graduate onwards and upwards, I have nonetheless acquired a workable-familiarity with a powerful ‘core’ of modern knowledge advancements; and it is from that core that I try to choose references relevant to our Common or Special interests or intentions.
Method III; Six Thinking Hats; Perceptual Self-Control; Self-Theory; Life-Energy; Holistic Living; Civilisations; Superimmunity; Atlas of Planet Management …
“From ‘A Clergyman’s Daughter'” is worth quoting from:
“Dorothy hesitated and did not take the wafer. She dared not take it…Then it happened…a momentary spear of sunlight…through the leaves of the limes…A flood of joy ran through Dorothy’s heart. The flash of living colour had brought back to her, by a process deeper than reason, her peace of mind, her love of God, her power of worship. Somehow, because of the greenness of the leaves, it was again possible to pray. O all ye green things of the Earth, praise ye the Lord!
She began to pray, ardently, joyfully, thankfully. The wafer melted upon her tongue”.
(Entry 23 in “the Portable Atheist”, selections by Christopher Hitchens, my lords).
I had not been so ‘lucky’, my Lords; for at the tender age of eight in a mixed comprehensive County School I was caned senseless on both hands by the Headmaster, for something I did not do; such that only a year or two ago whilst passing through a Counselling course a teaching-counsellor entered in the report: ‘Childhood abuse by Headmaster canings’. That thought had never before crossed my mind: (Me, childhood abused ?)
But apparently at that early age of 8 I had been largely ‘rescued’ by following in father’s footsteps into an Anglican church choir…where (digressing, I realise) one little theological-problem yarn took root in my still-alive mind:
A new vicar had come, but did not know of a longstanding old farm-labourer, who only turned up to Communion every year or so, and always managed to reach the kneeling-rail first.
The priest delivered the chalice which the worker took reverently in both hands, and quaffed the lot, emptied it at one draught.
The priest went back to the altar, consecrated some more wine and, having completed the Communion, waited at the church-door and gently asked the worker “Mr Somebody, why don’t you take just a small sip, like everybody else ?”
The farm-worker’s wrinkled old face wrinkled even further for an instant, as if puzzled. Then he quoted (my Lords, his face cleared and he Quoted):
” ‘Drink ye All of this’, that’s what Jesus instructed, vicar, isn’t that right ? Not just one tiny drop”!
(jsdm1200F260610).
I’m an atheist too as well. I’m generally against religious schools, not just on separation of Church and State grounds, but also on the grounds that they are (generally) part of the upper-tier of the two-tier school system.
However, on a purely empirical grounds, I wonder if religious schools at-least incorporate religious nut jobs into a state school system. We don’t have a culture of the religious wackos homeschooling their kids like in the US, and perhaps being somewhat tolerant of religious schools has helped that.
Lets say we have vouchers. You get voucher for 4,000 pounds to spend on your child’s education (what every a pro rata share is of the current cost).
Now ignoring the question of what you do when people who have opted out of the state system, get something for their tax money, what’s the problem if parents do what they want to do, rather than accept what is given?
As I see it, so long as they conform to the law, what does it matter if parents get together and form a school to teach their children? It only matters if the measure of success is up to them to decide.
ie. So long as the measure of success is measured externally, exams, then there is no problem.
Compare that with the current system that is turning out people not able to read from primary schools, which means they are failed before the off.
ie. It’s a comparison that matters.
My hearty thanks for your concern and informedness of this issue–your title sums it up as succinctly as can be done.
Compulsory critical thinking classes–we do have an A-level critical thinking course, but it’s usually restricted to ‘gifted’ students–in primary school and pre-GCSE, with strict enforcement of the syllabus thereof would be of immense benefit, not just after academies proliferate further, but now as well.
Ethics and philosophy in early education would also be of great help.
Equipping children early to defend themselves from non-thought is the most powerful and effective means we have for ensuring British citizens become critical thinkers and thus have a positive influence and contribution to society and politics in their adult lives.
This is why fundamentalist groups are so desperate to inject dogma into vulnerable, pre-critical minds.
See for instance http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/kids-need-protection-from-ads–and-bible-bashers-20100620-yofe.html
“Kids need protection from ads – and Bible bashers
[…]
Get scripture into people’s homes, so that by the time [kids] are in year 6 they’ve had a strong grounding in what the gospel is all about and they won’t be so easily falling for the ethics material”
“Falling for the ethics material”–falling? FALLING? For the sake of all that is worth working towards, we must prevent the–dare I say–evil manipulation of these dystopian individuals.
Mrs Murphy, if there is absolutely anything I can do with regard to this issue–debate, discuss, help draft bills or help in your dialogues with MPs or other peers, please do not hesitate to ask.
The population has increased from 48m to 60m
from about 30 years ago, so the work of the Diocesan education boards of both Catholic and Church of England has been pretty enormous.
The state of the UK should be jolly thankful that they can leave such building and development decisions to religious oragnizations, and the county /district architects, even if it is Waldorf Steiner schools applying to develop and promoting the
wisdom of theosophy and anthroposophy.
In the words of one great man, probably with the initials of JSDM, or Blagger “what the hell does it matter? We’re all human!”
I am all in favour of as much diversity as possible in schooling, and we are getting it!
If there are 1m Muslims in the UK then they may jolly well have schools for 1/60th child population if that is what they can afford to sponsor and obtain the grants to build.
What is more I, yes, I want to know more about Islam and world faiths too!
Gareth Howell, I agree with your principle that diversity is good and like the idea tht all children should know about all religions in an accurate and knowledgeable way. But that isn’t what many faith schools are teaching. They are simply proseltyzing their own faith. These groups may raise the capital for the building but it is our taxes that will fund the children’s education. I don’t especially want my taxes to go to teaching gobbledegook religious nonsense to anybody’s children. The matter of independently funded schools is problematic but they represent such a small minority of the faith schools serving communities containing multiple cultures I am less worried about their overall impact on community cohesion and mutual understanding.
“The matter of independently funded schools is problematic but they represent such a small minority of the faith schools”
Noble Baroness,
How do you distinguish between independent and faith in the context of “Muslim”?!
“isn’t what many faith schools are teaching. They are simply proseltyzing their own faith.”
Salesmen proselytize every day. I find the
salesmanship done by the NY religion of the Jehovah’s Witness thoroughly objectionable, underhand, deceitful, if not down right criminally corrupt. They may have schools.
I do not find the same for the Muslim schools of the UK.
We have to be guided by the British supreme court swearing in, where they do not care sixpence how a man swears in, or with what holy book, or even without one, provided he does.
That is enlightened thinking!
Baroness Murphey, from what I read here, and I mean no real disrespect but I must say, all I see is that you are an Intolerant person, who really, really wants to force your Religion down everyone else’s throats, and will stoop to the tired old rhetoric about how Divisive Religion is to get your own way.
I mean, I know you define yourself as Not Religious, but the truth is, you obviously hold to a very specific Philosophical system which informs you on how to view the word that has nothing to distinguish it from a Religion. The only reason such Non-Religious Philosophies as Secular Humanism are seen as Non-Religious is because the Secular Humanists or assorted Atheists and Agnostics throw a Hissy Fit every time their beliefs are labeled as such. You really act as if giving up Religion automatically equates to full Embrace of whatever you happen to believe in and as if your specific beliefs are THE Alternative to Religion. Then you turn about and claim, rather falsely, that Religion is divisive and talk about how horrible it is that Faith Schools exist and how this will only lead to people who go to them being GASP! Proselytised into the Faith the school is Built Around! Why this will lead to streetfights between people who go to other Faith Schools or hold to other Religions, or the Rational and ever kind people like you who have no Relgion at all!
Come off it. In the real world, people tend to not get too bent out of shape by the fact that their Neighbour is of a different Relgion than they are. I recently traveled to California and on the way sat with a Muslim Family, and felt no Compulsion to hurl insults much less fists at them. I’ve seen people who attend Private Religious Schools in both the UK and US, and they seem well mannered and well educated.
All this talk of yours is simply scare mongering. Its bads enough the Atheists and Agnostics have to insist they aren’t Religious and pretend that the Humanistic Beliefs they hold to are nothing like Religion and are the only beliefs people can adhere to who aren’t Religious, but to open a post by saying that Religious Education is an Oxymoron is blatantly Bigoted.
I also am reminded of how wonderful, rational Secularists often attack me for my beliefs,a and when an Argument erupts they use this as yet another example of how Religion causes conflicts. Its not that they where rude and belligerent, rather they were rational, I’m an illogical irrational Religious person, and if I wasn’t I’d agree with them.
So of course, Secularism is not Divisive, its that Cursed Religion that is! We all know Secularists are never to blame for anything wrong.
It reminds me of the common quite I as one of those stupid and Violent Religious people hear all the time now. “If Religious people where Rational they wouldn’t be Religious People”. Golly, that sounds kind of insulting. I guess you can get away with it by saying its true and I have to cower behind a rock and ask permission to even speak on behalf of my irrational beliefs.
Don’t you think that this high and mighty self proclaimed superiority to your Non-Religious Secular belief system which is ever so peaceful is itself something that is simply driven by your own need to Proslytise? You really want everyone to simply follow lock step with your own beliefs which are just as unproven and based around Ideology and Philosophy as a Christian or Muslim or Jewish Faith Schools CHarter, and the bottom line is that you will insult Religious Schools as not really providing an education to play off the general conception that Religion and Reason are at odds and true Learning can only be secular ONLY to force your stance into something more noble than it is.
The reason you oppose Faith Schools is because you don’t like the fact that they promote a Religion that you don’t belong to. The reason you don’t want them Tolerated is because you want sole power over the Minds of the Young so you can guide the next Generation into Happy Agnostics who follow the same Humanist beliefs you hold to. Your simply not willing to admit this, or that your end goal is a society which basically follows your Religion (Which you will deny is a Religion) and pretend that its rather about how Divisive Religion is and how people don’t really learn.
But I’d like to see real evidence of either Divisiveness or that the Faith Schools underperform in Education before such blatantly Biased claims are made. I know I wont get any as no evidence is needed. We all know how unintelligent Religion is.
But do you really think Intolerance of others beliefs and insistence everyone believes your way is the right way to go?
All I see here is the usual trife abotu how Religion and Education are incomputable because Religion is not about intellect, how Religious people cant be smart or educated, and how wonderful society will be when Religion is abolished in Favour of the Enlightenment/Humanism/Communism/ whathave you, and the end result is the same, an attempt at monopolising the schools to ensure that only one perspective is ever taught and the vast majority of students follow the Ideology that is given them from on high.
Its all Rather Hypocritical, and I don’t believe for a moment that Religious Education is an Oxymoron, that Religion is somehow an impediment to learning, or that your supposedly nonReligius beliefs are in any way superior.
I certainly don’t think people like you should be allowed to dictate what is and is not a True education based solely on your private Religious beliefs, and find your claim that Religious Education is an Oxymoron simply a Bigoted insult from someone who just can’t stand people not living up to your idellic vision of a perfect society.
In fact, I find your intolerance and fearmongering much more frighting.
Also, Baroness Murphey, may I suggest that your own Religious Views may be seen as Gobbdygoop to those who do not share your Faith?
Why is it that Modern day Atheists and Agnostics have this odd idea in their head that they are completely free to mock and critisise everyone else’s beliefs based on the idea that theirs is the ONLY claim to reason, logic, and Science, and thus Religion (which I remind you you only claim not to have) can thus be attacked as irrational nonsence?
Do you really think that such a posture proves you to be more enlightened and reasonable?
I am a Christian, does that mean I am automatically an irrational and illogical person to you? Perhaos wprthy of Contempt?
I have perfectly rational and Logical reasons for what I beleive, and yet I uspect you’d say I cant possibley and fall back on some idiotic claim that tis “Faith, not reason” and insist I define Faith the eay you do as belif without evidence.
But the bottom line remains, I am deeply offended by you calling other peoples beliefs, and not just my own, Gobbldygoop just because you personally disagree, I am offended that you think Religious Education is an Oxymoron, and I am offended that you think that Faith Schools should be closed because they don’t agree WITH your personal beliefs.
The Rash and arrogant nature of modern day Atheism is becoming all too apparent and I for one am growing tired of being called an irrational and illogical person based upon beliefs said Atheists and Agnoastics refuse to even read up on, and am not willing to allow your to claim that Reason and Religion are incompatible, or that your supposedly non-religious Philosophy is somehow more Rational when its clearly based upon Philosophical assumptions that cant themselves be demonstrated.
Do you really think you come off as Enlightened when you hurl childish and Prejudiced insults like this?
There are probably more campaigners for the “state” and “CofE” species of school in the HofL, so an unholy alliance between those two
would have the required effect!
If CofE Bishops find their flocks are getting converted to Islam and Catholicism by OTHER faith schools they are certainly going to campaign against them aren’t they?!
What we pour into children’s minds may not be what they retain. They are usually more flexible, informed and savvy than to just swallow all the pablum fed to them by any school.
Personally, I attended a Roman-Catholic convent school at the top of my road, even though I was not Roman Catholic. The non-RCs took a different religion course to the Catholics and everyone got along together very nicely (except for the bullying element, present in most schools sadly).
I have retained a tolerance for other people’s religions and an interest in them ever since.
People form their personalities from many different influences, but I’d rather have an individual recognise another dimension to life than the work-’til-you-drop tendency of the capitalist countries. I’d rather that people were fearful of post-death disgrace than felt morally free to fleece their fellows.
Religion and religious schools should be left alone. We need a society full of tolerance, understanding and rejecting of bigotry.
So much of common-importance in Mandy Potter’s submission.
I wish to return to it later, to firm-up every line except (Mandy) your penultimate sentence.
“Religion and religious schools should be left alone”:
that one will have to be laddered; explained in cooler detail, please; because few areas of Life should be ‘left alone’ ?
(jsdm1952M2806).
Gareth, it ix unlikely that students in a Muslim Faith School will be anythign but Muslim already. One of the other problems to Baroness Murphy’s objection is that the Schools Proslutise. Unless you buy into the Gibberish Spewed by Richard Dawkins, the truth is that the Children likely already come out of the Background the School is build around, and thus are simply being Reinforced in the Culture they where born into.
The accusation of Proslytising is also blunted by the fact that most Churhces these days are far mroe tolerant of other aiths existign while sayign they beleive them to be wrong than is given credit for. I’ve known people who swapped Religions and not been issued death threats or shunned by while communities, and it seems in todays world the Churches would see the unlikely occurance of a Christian Child becoming a Muslim in a Muslim Faith School to be really not worth rocking the boat over. After all, a Muslim student in a CofE School may decide to be Christian. I’m fairly certain that the Church knows that these sorts of things would happen if the Students are of a Mixed Background and aren’t too troubled by the Prospect.
Of coruse, we are told that Proslytising a Religion is a bad thing. No one really explaisn why this is bad other than that the Relgiion is then furthered. Meanwhile Proslytisign for Modern, Secular Values is seen as OK, we just don’t call it Prosluytising, we call it learning to get a Grip on Logic and Reason and learning o think for oneself.
Of course, of the Child doesn’t quiet adopt the Secular Values of the fully Religion Free State Run School, he will be seen as a Closed Minded fool who simply never learned how to use Reason and never got a Grip on Logic.
We all know that only those who come to the Correct Conclusion are shown to be Free and Independent not thinkers who test ideas and use Reason and have a Grip on Logic. Anyone who doesn’t conform tot he States Ideals is simply not Logical or Rational and should keep his view’s to himself.
I really don’t think this is any Different from Proslytising, but hey, I’m an Irrational Religious Person, so saying I can use Logic is also an Oxymoron. Just ask Baroness Murphy.
Zarove, All religions believe they are the only true faith, there wouldn’t be much point in them otherwise. Either they are true or they are not true. If Christians are right, Judaism and Islam are wrong. If Hinduism is right then Buddhism is wrong. If Jehovah’s witnesses are right then Christian Scientists are wrong and so on. I am very happy for people to believe what they want: that the earth is flat (it may turn out to be but I think it unlikely), that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, that there is a personal God who sees every sparrow fall, but again I think it unlikely. I am completely tolerant of those who believe in an Almighty, indeed I recognise they can’t help it; faith is an inbuilt feeling that is easy to gain and difficult to lose. I also realise that the bad things about religion are not the fault of religion itself, which merely reflects the aspirations and dreams of humankind. It is people who create divisions and differences but sadly they often focus around a particular belief. There is ample evidence (most recently from the report on the northern city riots) and from Northern Ireland that separate schools lead to a failure of mutual understanding about the other community. They are indeed divisive
You misunderstand me if you think I don’t want parents to be free to teach children their own religious beliefs. I am more than happy for them to do so, just let’s keep it out of education. There’s more than enough time after school and at weekends for children to absorb the religious beliefs of their families.
And I was once a Sunday school teacher with primary school children. I enjoyed it a great deal, the great Christian stories are indeed wonderful. But I’m afraid hurling insults at my rationality won’t make your faith any more comprehensible to me. Tell me how do you create an inclusive society where all religions have equal weight? Just give me a clue how that would work. We talk about tolerance but the very fact of personal belief is to state a disbelief in others’ faiths. And I don’t claim to be atheist; I merely say ‘the evidence to date suggests otherwise but evidence may come along which changes my mind’. Religious beliefs are hypotheses; they provide fascinating insights into the yearnings of the human imagination and the cultures which developed them. My agnosticism offends you; but it’s simply the problem that we all think we are right and the other chap wrong. Aren’t we allowed to say so?
The vast majority of faiths and non-faith beliefs share a core of moral values about the way we should deal with our fellow men. I am sure it would be possible to tease out those universally shared values to underpin our educational system. Now don’t you think we could move closer to an understanding along that route?
I am Dyslexic. I usually clean up my posts before makign them, but I want to point out that I am DYslexic. I left this one unaltered. I realise that this may lead to you concluing I am an idiot, typing too fast in anger, or what have you. I have a Reason for this though. I had to learn how to read, and learned late. I coidl speak earlier thankost Girls, and am male, however, word were difficult for me to form. One of the Ealriest books I coudl read was the Bible, and I was explicitly exposed to Relgiious Education although I attended a Public School. The Relgiiosu Eduxaiton was actulaly superior, and heled me win my Dyslexia, as did a woman who specialised in helping. I’ve seen Relgiious and State Schols hanlde peopel liek me, and guess who has the best Success Rate?
I am a Libertarian, and a Monarchist. I beleive int he Old Addage that the King shoudl have the Poser ovf GOvernance, but not the ability to use it Aerbitrarily. I beleive all persons shoudl have the right ovdr that which is theirs to dispose of it as they see fit. You ask of Equality, and ask how I woudl acheive this. I woudlnt try. I’d simply give popel the Right over their own lies to make their own Choices, withthe Recognition that they have Rights to make their own Choices with Regards to their own belongings rather I agreed or not. Equality is thus not my real end, but rather Liberty.
Read Carefully to the end of this lomng article. I say some rather bitign ghings,but I remain Calm. I am, however, sick of “Agnostics” like your pratlign on about how there is no evidence for God and actign as if you really woudl change your beelifs if there were but at preasent ther eisnt any. We both know this isnt true, it sjust aprt of the Mythos of modern-day Ahtiesm, that yu have yourself embraced.
Its your Relgiion, but it is not a Fact.
Baroness Murphey, you prove my point. You really have never studied Religion, at all, and are simply parrotign the useless sterotypes of the Atheistic Religion you adhere to.
Have you ever sat down to read C.S. Lewis? He commented that to be a CHristian doesn’t mean you think all other Religions are completley false, the only thing required is to beleive the parts of those Religions hich contradict Christianity are wrong. Therefore, a Christain can see truth in both Islam and Judaism, and in fact can see Truth in Hinduism, or Buddhism. its not a clear-cut “We are right and everyone else is wrong” sort of thing at all, and claimign this, especially in light of your dubious use of Northern Ireland as an example of Religiosu DIvisiveness, really shows how limited you are in approachign his topic.
In fact, your being as Brash and Arrogant as any Richard Dawkisn Fan with comparing beleiv ein a personal God with Faeires at the bottom of Gardens. DO you even realise just how insultign your beign? How intolerant? I realise that to you you arte a superior mind to me. Your an Agnostic and thius not religious. You beleive in Science and need evidnece whereas I walk in Faith. You also reserve for yourself and your confedrates the right to define Faith for me as beleif without evidence, and then sttae that a personal Gods existance is unlikely just like Faeries at the bottom of Gardens. You don’t sound superior by this sort of talk though, you sound xismissive and cruel. Itds not like you have bothered to read anythign by a Serious Philosopher or Theologian on the topic of Gods existance, because had you, you’d realise that such comparrisons are not only insultign but grossly mistaken. There actually is evidence for Gods existance, and those who beelive in God shoudln’t be put int he same caregoty as those who beelive in Faeries, or those who beleive the Earth is flat. Such talk only reveals a Huberis which makes everythign you say come off as nothign mroe than you attmepting to impose a personal ideological beleif onto everyone in the name of your own superiority.
You don’t think that this, more than actual disagreement in Relgiiosu beleif, is a problem though.
In fact, lets discuss Northern ireland. Its part of your case agaisnt Faith Schools, isnt it? That peopel who attend a Faith School will be set at Varience with others of different Faiths. Have we learned nothign from Northern Ireland? Well, the problem with Ulster is that the actual conflict was not over Theological DIsagreements at all, but over Cultural identity and Political allegieince. You do know that the Primary cause of the Troubles was that Ulster wanted to Maintain British Soverignty, right? The last I checked, the topic of British Soverignty is not a Principle of Protestant or Catholic heology. But you completley ignroe the Political aspect of the Troubles in order to claim this as a Relgiiosu war and then syntheticlaly apply this to Faith Schools. Thats why I think your arguments are fundamentally Dishonest. Christains don’t typically kill others because of disagreements, and I think you’ll find that even though there is a lot of Fear in society generated by Islam, most actual Muslims, even those hwo attend Islamic Faith Schools, don’t go about killing peopel either.
Living in the US, I don’t think you are really honest about hte Divisivenes sof Faith Shcools either. You use Northern ireland as your sole example, but does the same Divisiveness acutlaly happen elsewhere? Do we see the same pattern in Texas? Mor eimprotantly, do we see the same pattern in Scotland? How about Wales? England? Of coruse not, and thats the real problem with your argument. Peopel who attend Church of England Schools tend not to form misconceptiosn about other groups and tend to be Tolerant of other beleifs, and these are the specific schools you have targeted. Usign the claim that they are divisive is simply ludecrous as you have no actual, Practical evidence of this beign the case, and in Northern ireland far more is invovled than simply the existance of Faith Schools, that incluides Cultural and Political differences which makes the discussion extremely Partisain.
And I didnt misunderstand you at all. I don’t think Religion can be kept out of education. I think that you can only change it. Thats sort of my point. The distinction you make between beign Religious like me and beign nonrelgiiosu liek you is a completley Modern, and wholly western concept that didn’t exist untilt he 18th Century, and is in fact an aritificial Dstinction. In the past, peopel didn’t understand Relgiion as an intrinsically provate beleif system, and certainly didn’t see it as anything removed formt he Real World. When the Muslims decided to set a Law that forbade Usery, it was base dont he Koran, and they made no effort to seperate “Religious Principles” from “Secular”, and when CHristains made Laws based on Biblical Principles, they also made no real Distinction, claimign it a Relgiiosu as opposed to Secular Principle. It was because they accepted the beleifs they held as True that they followed them as Truth wodul be in any other Feild.
As you define Relgiion as a SYnonym for Theism, and dont deny it, as you claim tyou arent relgiiosu only ont he Strength of your Agnostism I(Really Atheism by your claism here), then lets look at God. Even today, when peopel Pray to God, whom you liken to a Faery, the one who prays Prays to a very Real God, at least Psycologically. The same regiosn int he Brain fire up that are active when we talk to other people, as in our Friends or Family. God is not some far removed Abstraction, and contrary to an older beleif God is not some mystucal other, but simply a real, intellegent beign whim w converse with. Thats hwo the Brain see’s it.
What you want to do is to Remove all reference to God in Education, because you see References to God in Education as an Oxymoron, but this means that the education you’d instill if it where up to you woudl be implicitly if not Explicigly Atheistic. If you personally designed the Cirriculum, your own beleifs about how unlikely the existance of God is, and how it slike beoleivign the Earht is Flat and Faeries in Gardens woud show up. Your Secular not religiosu Values woudl be instilled. This really isnt the same hting as Removign Relgiion form education, its simply rebranding your Relgiion as NonReligion as an excuse to indocternate CHildren into your way of thinkign whilszt actign smug and superior about it.
On that note, The whole “Non-Faith beelifs” you talk about don’t ecist. I knwo its popular to tlak of “All faiths and none’ and you’ll say you have no Faith but, lets get real for once. You do have Faith. Everythign you beelive is Faith-Based. THe “No Faith” Mantra is absurd given that Faith is simply a COnfident beleif in somehting, and not “Beleif without evidence”. Even if it were so lmited, your claim that you go with evidence and Reason is itself not true. Its fairly obvious that you base your beelifs on Philosophical assumptiosn that by Nature can’t be tested. Look at Materialism. Does all Evidence really suggest it is true? Not really. Its a Popular Hypothesis in its own right, but Quantum Mechanics disproves it, and even before this, we had peopel Who would challenge it on other than “Faith based’ claims. Do I need to dig up the Greek POhilosophers? Even some Ahtisst Philosophwers have Challenged Materialism. Its less evidence based and more base don a Presumed startign point.
Or lets not forget hwo you claimed I rejected Science in a discussion on Sexual Prientation. I didnt. I rejected your claim that Science has proven Sexual Prientation exists and is fixed, and immutable. All I asked you to do wa spresent me some real evidence of this, that wans’t the usual Drivel one gets off the Internet liek the Hammer Studies. Instead of complyign and showign me a Mountain of Sicnetific evidence, you simply insulted me and claimed I was rejectignt he Scienetific Method.
Am I to beelive your adherance to the Sexual Oreintation beleif system is anythign but Faith Based, and rooted in an Ideological beleif system? You consider anyone who advocates anythign short of fulla nd compelte acceptance of Homosexuality as a natural, unchangable sexual oreintaiton that shoudl be repsected by all, and forced onto peopel who won’t as Homophobic and Anti-Raitonal even though you have no evidence at all that Sexual Prientation even exists. When someone suggested that a provision for COncience be made tot he SOR’s, you lasjed out and claimed hte Amendments where “SHocking”. Well, they werent. Not everyone finds Homosexuality natural and Healthy, and not everyone agrees with you. They aren’t all Homophobic Bigots either. Its not shckign that Moirality that hasbeen in place for Centuries has adherants, and peopel want to protect their rights too. You don’t, you want to Favour the rights of the Homosexual ovr and above anyone elses, all based on thebeleif that they are like a Race. You want to CLaim you go by Evidence? You dont. So dont play the card of “I am not an Ahtist, ill change my midn with evidenc ebut to date ther eis none”, its as tiresome as your claim hat my beleifs are like beleifs in Faeries.
What abotu your beleif in Dempocracy? Its all the rage today, and everyone knows that the only Valid form of Government is that which emerges formt he Peopel, an the only Valid leaders are those who are Elected by the will fo the People. Thats why we need to Reform the Lords. But form whence fdoes this beleif come? Logic and evidence? Harldy, as when you think abotu it there are massive flaws to Democracy, and the claim that its the same as Social Freedom is simply Daft. So why do you beleive in Democracy? Faith.
You really come off as nothign BUT an insulting and arrogant Athiest who wants ot force your belif son others by pretendign there is a marked difference. But There isnt, exept yours gets ot be Taught in schools and mine doesnt.
You aren’t More rational than I am. You arent Smarter. You arent more Logical. You aren’t mroe Enlightened. You arent even more Scienctific. Your just a person. Your beleifs are as Faith Based as anyoen else and the high minded talk of evidence is meanignless as you have shown in the past that your really a Zealot who will fight full thrittle to impose your idea of how society shoudl run onto everyone else.
I’m als not hurlign insults at you, I am instead sayign that I Don’t like beign called Irrational myself. DOn’t try the standard Bully Tactic of makign me the bad guy and turngin thois around. I’ll remidn you ( As I’ve repeated, rather intentionally) here that you just compared beleif in God with beleif that the Earht is FLat and Faeries live in Gardens. You don’t think this is insultign to me?
You ask about Social Freedom and Toelrance, and here is how I see how it can be done. Its simple. Allow peopel the Liberty of their own COncience.
This means that we should allow Faith Schools. Parents should have the FUndamental Right to allow their CHildren to be Educated in an Environemnt that promotes their beleifs and Culture,a nd not forced to resort to a State Shcool which, if lead nby peopel liek you, woudl actulaly be Hostile to their beleifs.
In the same way, Social Freedom shoudl be acheived by Recognisign the Rights of people over what is theirs. If I own a Resteraunt and don’t want to Rent it to a Gay Couopel for a Celibraiton of a CIvil Partnership, why shoudl the Law force me to? WHiel you may think this makes me Homophobic, the part you ( And Lord Norton) Ignroed in my Libertarian beleifs is that I’d also allow Ministers to perform Same Sex Civil PArtnership Services if they so desired. I’d simply allow a Provision in law for Oncnecice. This means that those hwo support Homosexuality woudl be Free to, and those who find it mroally wrong woudl no be forced ot act agaist their Concience.
Faith Shcools will be the same. Parents who want their CHilren brought up in their Faith shoudl have this as an Option. If any Faith School does anyhtign untoward, such as the example you mentoned about Islamic Schools Radicalising Students,then for Social Safety that speific School can be closed down. The same woudl of coruse be true of Hindu, Jewish, or CHristin Schools. If they trach the Children tot ake up Arms and kill innocent lives, then let them be closed. But if all they do is include Prayer and the Tenets of the Faith within the context of an overall education then I see no Harm, no matter which Faith runs the School.
That first paragraph of the noble Baroness is marvellous, which includes fairies at the bottom of the garden! I hear that set of clichés so often! Who said them all together like that first?
“Meanwhile Proslytisign for Modern, Secular Values is seen as OK, we just don’t call it Prosluytising, we call it learning to get a Grip on Logic and Reason and learning o think for oneself.”
I wonder whether that means, in practice,
a-theism. Is that what they do in the State
and only state, schools?!
I attended a very expensive school where rumour had it, that is was what we were being taught,(logic,reason etc) but I never found out whether it was, or not, until much too late…. and it wasn’t.
Zarove, I think we must learn to respect the other’s position. I join you in enjoying the work of CS Lewis. I grew up in a family where religious study was important, it was felt crucial to understand what other people believed, to appreciate the history of our country and others and the role of religious affiliation in our culture. And I accept that many faiths now teach tolerance of other faiths (but not all). Mandy Potter is of course correct that children use their own judgement about what they hear in school; that is a cause for optimism.
D’accord about respecting the other’s position; and non-position, or ‘agnostic’ position also ?
CS Lewis, Brenda Watson, Descartes,, Robert Graves, Dorothy Green, Lord Russell and many others have somehow been positive towards both religion and science, both evolution and creationism, both agnosticism and atheism (depending, as Dr Joad would have always said on the BBC ‘Brains Trust’, on what you mean by ‘atheism’).
Mandy Potter is correct, in more than that one matter;
but in that one matter “that children use their own judgement about what they hear in school” I have to disagree, and I fear so does the Declaration of Human Rights where it insists that the child shall conform to the religious wishes of its parents (rather than as some of us would have it ‘Resolve win-win-win with their parents any religious issue’).
Be laddered, please, noble lady, along with Mandy;
should we take it that Mandy means “children should be enabled to use their own judgement”; and that done, that they also need to be empowered to use that judgement ?
———
(jsdm1906T2906).
Baroness Murphy, after calling my beliefs and others Gobbledygoop, and comparing belief in God to belief that the Earth is Flat and Faeries live in Gardens, I certainly don’t feel you respect my beliefs. I further don’t think for a moment that your opposition to Faith Schools rests on any of the concerns you raised here about them, as you have presented no evidence to back up the claim that they cause any real Harm. For example, you think Atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jewish Children should Mingle, but overlook that this actually happens in Faith Schools, and by claiming that School is a place for Children to Grapple with Ideas and become acquainted with Logic and Reason you automatically assume that Faith Schools somehow fail to accomplish this even though hey do perform consistently well in this regard.
It is my belief that the only reason you oppose Faith Schools is because of your self described Agnostics which extends beyond merely doubting the existence of a god or gods and has embraced the general Humanistic Philosophy which has a rather negative view on Religion while, of course, not really being different from religion and copying all of the worst traits that it is se up to condemn, including an attempt to force compliance into its thinking.
I’m sorry if that offends you but, being called an irrational mind because I believe in God and being belittled is not a way to win me over and a slap on apology here won’t cut it either.
You have no evidence that Faith Schools are divisive, detrimental to society, or a Hindrance for our Collective Children to learn Logic and reason and get a grip on ideas. Your opposition seems to rest on your animosity towards the propagation of these “Irrational” beliefs, and a desire to see your own beliefs flourish further.
\
If you want me to be Optimistic, than try not to think of my beliefs as “Religion”, admit that there is evidence for Gods existence if not final proof that allows a rational Mind to believe in God, even if you personally don’t, admit that people have the right to educate their Children as hey please, and stop attacking other people or trying to live in a Pretext of your own superiority.
I would find this far better than mere apology.
Also, Baroness Murphy, when you say Many faiths now teach tolerance of others, you assume that in the past this was not so. I suggest you read History. Christians have Historically been Tolerant, and while there have always been intolerant Christians, Christianity overall was never as oppressive and cruel as the propaganda today depicts it. Buddhism has also seen a great deal of tolerance, though not all Buddhists where always tolerant.
The truth is, Tolerance for other Religions is not new. While it was never Universal or consistent in History, the idea that its only now Tolerant, no doubt you’d say due to the work of Secularism, the fact is that this has been a Historical point as well.
Intolerance and tolerance have both always existed, and always will, because they are part of the Human Condition, but to assume that the Tolerance of modern religions is a recent Phoenomenon is to ignore History.