Please consider donating to this worthy cause (http://www.justgiving.com/nofaithschools)

Help the British Humanist Association (BHA) in its effort to phase out state funded 'faith' schools and reform our education system by ensuring we can employ our dedicated campaigns officer against faith schools for another year.

The BHA campaigns for inclusive schools with no religious admissions policies, balanced teaching about different beliefs and values, and no compulsory 'collective worship'. The BHA also campaigns to combat the growing threat to education from creationism and pseudoscience, as well as for wider improvements to values and moral education across the school curriculum and supports improved Sex and Relationships Education, Citizenship Education and inclusion of Philosophy.

Our campaigner will make sure that the voice of UK citizens who oppose faith schools is represented in the most powerful way. To do this our campaigner helps to stimulate and organise local campaigns against new faith schools and lobby government and parliament to reform the laws that allow state funded schools to discriminate on religious grounds, that requires they provide collective worship and to teach unbalanced curricula of religious education.

Over the last year we have managed to get the government to agree to teach evolution in primary school science lessons in England for the first time, as well as support successful legal action against discriminatory admissions policies and support successful local campaigns against the expansion in the provision of faith schools, such as in Swanage, Dorset.

To achieve our objectives requires long term dedication and with your support we can continue our campaigning activities, so please give generously to this work.

All money donated beyond our target will be spent on BHA education campaigns.


http://www.justgiving.com/nofaithschools

so much for diversity hey?

the govt shouldn't be funding faith schools period.

i agree. including C of E schools.

nonsense has no place in schools, and I would like to see this campaign go further. They should be fighting against ridiculous things like Brain Gym etc. as well as religion.

They should seriously consider banning Christian immigrants to the country (Africans, Filipinos etc) and get rid of the demand for 'faith' schools (they are setting this country back 900 years). Existing religious schools should be replaced by schools run by the BHA and the Atheist movement. We need action NOW

Yes banning religious freedoms and teaching has been such a success in facist and communist states, lets introduce it to the UK!

I don't think anyone is against religious teachings, just any state funded ones.

Yes banning religious freedoms and teaching has been such a success in facist and communist states, lets introduce it to the UK!


No one said ban religion, nor did anyone state the ban of faith schools, we said government funding to such places.

Learn to read.

Learn to read.

And read to learn. :yes:



That wasn't directed at you btw. :)

And I agree, state funded faith schools are doing more harm than good in society. I believe that faith schools should be allowed though, as everyone has the choice as to how they want their children raised but the state should be committed to providing one, standard form of education that is secular.

Its choice isnt it, my kids can have the choice of a 22 state funded high schools, 2 CofE, 5 catholic and 15 secular.

No one said ban religion, nor did anyone state the ban of faith schools, we said government funding to such places.

Learn to read.

But aren't faith based schools voluntary funded by approx 20 to 25%? So in effect the government are not funding the teaching of a particular faith - they are simply paying for the non faith based component such as Maths, English, Science, PE etc.

Are the BHA planning to pay the 25% shortfall which must equate to a few billion quid?

^^

If parents want to send their children to faith schools then they can pay for it. The taxpayer should have no contribution whatsoever.

Why are there no jedi faith schools? Blatant discrimination.

^^

Indeed, a case for the Equality Commission if ever I saw one.

^^

If parents want to send their children to faith schools then they can pay for it. The taxpayer should have no contribution whatsoever.

So you're happy to pay more taxes to fund the additional 25%? Can't see this being at the top of any Government's priority list given the cost will be billions and we currently have spiralling national debt.

I do however understand that you have a particular problem in Northern Ireland given the bigoted nature of the people over there so maybe an exceptional approach is required. However for mainland UK banning faith schools is more likely to stir up division where no problem currently exists.

i agree. including C of E schools.

Absolutely. Religion of any type should not play a part in our eduction system.

and it's only religious schools that stop kids going to those schools because their parents are the wrong religion. why should your kids not be able to go to your local state run school because you aren't catholic, CoE or anything like that? it's obscene and as tony mentions, a front to diversity.

it's obscene and as tony mentions, a front to diversity.

An affront, surely?

When we are young we are idealistic.

If I have one regret it is in sending my kids to a non faith school. I was swept away from being sensible by a load of idealistic PC crap.

I am not pleased to have atheism rammed down their throats. I would have liked them to learn about possibilities, widen their minds, learn values and o think about humanity and develop compassion and love and understanding towards diversity of people. Not the selfish atheist anti crap.

We should be educating children much more widely and less restrictively and with a greater time for considering 'what if' because only by believing in more than we can see and feel we open the doorway fir new discoveries and scientific breakthroughs and greater human understanding and compassion.

So I vote we keep faith schools to maintain choice, freedom of thought and to promote open minds.

I never remember being forced to be atheist when I went to school. In fact we spent loads of time learning about various religions.

When we are young we are idealistic.

If I have one regret it is in sending my kids to a non faith school. I was swept away from being sensible by a load of idealistic PC crap.

I am not pleased to have atheism rammed down their throats.

How, in your view, was atheism rammed down their throats?

Or indeed why does atheist=selfish?

False reasoning, really.

At a stretch you might claim that because Christianity encourages people to be caring and generous, atheism leads to people who are more selfish than they would have been if they were Christian. But that doesn't take into account the people who were caring and generous anyway - there are plenty of benevolent atheists in the world, just as there are some pretty nasty self-serving Christians.

Remember, atheism is purely a philosophical position regarding deities and not a religion, movement or lifestyle.

I do however understand that you have a particular problem in Northern Ireland given the bigoted nature of the people over there so maybe an exceptional approach is required. However for mainland UK banning faith schools is more likely to stir up division where no problem currently exists.

Actually.....a MAJORITY of NI people are not bigoted, you confuse the actions of a minority as those of all that live here. I invite you to educate yourself further before attempting to comment on the situation.
We also have non-denominational grammar and secondary schools, the former are some of the best in the UK and have allowed Northern Ireland to have 'the' highest standards of academic excellence than anywhere else in the UK.

We also have integrated schools that are non-religious in any form.

Despite our history, our schools remained a bastion of security and excellence as well as pride.



I'm also against any public funding to faith schools because I'm a strong advocate of a secular state as well as being an atheist.

An affront, surely?

definitely a front charlie, a drawn battle line between two sides (this is one error i WILL get away with).

When we are young we are idealistic.

If I have one regret it is in sending my kids to a non faith school. I was swept away from being sensible by a load of idealistic PC crap.

I am not pleased to have atheism rammed down their throats. I would have liked them to learn about possibilities, widen their minds, learn values and o think about humanity and develop compassion and love and understanding towards diversity of people. Not the selfish atheist anti crap.
Where do I start....for one thing, Atheism isn't a religion, it isn't one specific set of values or beliefs, atheism (in its most basic form) is simply a word to describe people who don't believe in one of the many religions/voodoos/magic/Santa Claus that are present in human society.

So saying atheism was rammed down your kids throats is just ignorant. Ok, if there was a certain teacher that purposefully sat your kids down and forcibly shouted at them that there was no God and 'rammed' it down their throats, I could understand what you're saying, and if so he/she was very wrong to do that, that's a tactic that is best left to the professionals (i.e religious people ;) ).

Anyway, that's irrelevant because I highly doubt that was the case. What you're most likely refering to is science. Now I know it's wrong to try to expand children's minds to the vastness and complexity of the earth and the universe, its timeline spanning back billions of years, how creatures evolved over huge lengths of time and how we know this through research, hard work and intelligence...etc etc, I know all that is wrong as we should be telling them that the world and presumably universe is 6000 years old ( :lol::lol::lol: ), that it's ok to kill people who work on Sundays or believe in a different God (yes this is written in the Bible), that the earth is flat, and all those wonderful things...and indeed we should spend huge chunks of time telling them of the large array of religions each of which has 0 facts and 0 evidence.

We humans have a pretty short life cycle in the grand scheme of things, and only so much time to educate the minds of the young before they grow old and don't require it. So given the choice between spending that valuable time teaching kids about theories like the Big Bang, facts like evolution, planet formations, black holes, how rocks are laid down over billions of years (etc etc etc) and other such knowledge that has been deducted by very clever people over the course of human history, with eperimentation, creativity, curiosity and wisdom....or about the views of the people who have no evidence whatsoever, where magic men in the sky demand the people on one planet among the trillions in the universe worship and bow down to them or risk being sent to a firey eternity, even if they led a good life...hmmm that's a tough choice....(you'll notuce I'm centering on Christianity, because it's most familar to us here, but suffice to say this can apply to all religions.)



I would go on to argue the insulting and riddiculous notion you suggested there that compassion and love and understanding are religious traits and not shared by atheists, but I won't, because I do not have the time...I will just say though, that the good life I try to lead, with love and compassion, is because I think it is the right thing to do, not because I am trying to buy my way into heaven and not because I am afraid of ending up in a nasty afterlife...

We should be educating children much more widely and less restrictively and with a greater time for considering 'what if' because only by believing in more than we can see and feel we open the doorway fir new discoveries and scientific breakthroughs and greater human understanding and compassion.
...yes....religion is the key to being open minded, not restricting everyone to one belief...and opening the door to scientific breathrough....

I do agree that we should have brief teachings about religion in our schools...say 1 hour a week, just to give kids an overview of all the different names and whatnot, because unfortunately religion is a big part of human life on this planet at the moment, so letting kids grow up thinking that everyone in the world believes in reason and logic and evidence would just be idiotic.

So I vote we keep faith schools to maintain choice, freedom of thought and to promote open minds.
I don't need to say anything here, except to let the irony of that statement about faith schools promoting open minds and freedom of choice reverberate around the thread.

As I said, there is a place for religion in schools, but it should be kept to specific religious classes in small infrequent time frames, and have no bearing on any class outside of them.

Fantastic post Jack, coherently and eloquently put.


I'm in total agreement!!

I support Molly who's obviously a bit older than some of the other posters on this thread with children of his own, so has a bit more life experience and perspective where this matter is concerned.

To me the way atheism is now being pushed seems symptomatic of the whole PC/individualistic agenda in this country. They talk about encouraging diversity, yet at the same time attempt to brainwash everybody into being the same. Isn't diversity supposed to be about us all tolerating and accepting people of different faiths and belief systems?

It makes me laugh the way atheism is promoted in a way that seems every bit as dogmatic and controlling as the major religions - the parallels I drew earlier with communist/fascist states are valid as they also seek to eliminate religion in the same way to gain power and absolute control over their populations.

On a practical basis, faith based schools are generally oversubscribed in a local area as they achieve higher attainment levels than non faith based schools - personally I think the moral framework they put in place is an important factor for this - can any of the advocates for atheism offer their explanation as to why attainment levels are higher?

Finally from a personal perspective I attended a faith based school and feel that I received a very good rounded education - we were taught the full curriculum, so we learnt fully about genetics, evolution, darwinism, sex education, abortion etc. Subsequently I went on to study the biological sciences/medicine at university and my understanding of these key biological principles was identical to those educated in a secular environment - I now work in the industry of drug discovery!

I support Molly who's obviously a bit older than some of the other posters on this thread with children of his own, so has a bit more life experience and perspective where this matter is concerned.

I'm sure she'll be happy to hear that. :)

To me the way atheism is now being pushed seems symptomatic of the whole PC/individualistic agenda in this country. They talk about encouraging diversity, yet at the same time attempt to brainwash everybody into being the same. Isn't diversity supposed to be about us all tolerating and accepting people of different faiths and belief systems?

It makes me laugh the way atheism is promoted in a way that seems every bit as dogmatic and controlling as the major religions

Again, can you give any examples of how atheism is being foisted on the masses by this sinister-sounding "they"? Our points of view must be pretty different, as I look around and see I'm in a country with a religious song as its national anthem, an established national church, daily acts of worship at school, faith schools etc. I came to be an atheist through my own thought processes (having gone to an overtly Christian school), and I don't remember anybody encouraging me to do so in the way that my Christian peers and I used to try and convert people when I was younger.

Isn't diversity supposed to be about us all tolerating and accepting people of different faiths and belief systems?

don't spout crap about tolerating other belief systems. there is no toleration of belief systems... there is fact, and faith. one is proven by science, the other is something people believe only because it was in some book two thousand years ago and has no scientific basis and almost no historical basis. how can i tolerate the belief of someone who wants to teach kids the earth is flat when we KNOW the earth is round.

I don't advocate the banning of Faith Schools, that's blatant discrimination against Christianity. However this is only as long as the students are taught PROPER SCIENCE, which, as a state funded school, they are. Science and Religion can live alongside each other, even if myself and the majority of this forum are Atheists.

how is it discrimination when 1) we don't have atheist schools and 2) faith schools stop people of the type they don't approve of from going.

Theirs vastly more secular than faith schools Gothic. Yes faith schools select and this gives them an edge, arguably their selecting the parents more than the pupils.

don't spout crap about tolerating other belief systems. there is no toleration of belief systems...

My parents believe in a deity I don't, and I tolerate that belief.

I largely agree with Jack Rabbit Slim.

As for Molly's comments on atheism, it goes to show that no amount of life experience can compensate for utter ignorance on a subject.

is anyone old enough/ young enough to remember taking part in 'religious education' lessons. or as it was renamed 'religious and [something] education'?

please tell me there are other forumers who got sent to the corridor on a regular basis?

basically it was a lesson in bending over to the religious, valuing their beliefs and praising their culture. and sitting around in a circle and talking about 'just wars'.

Yes I remember RE well. I always got near the top of the class when it came to tests or quizes, particularly the Old Testament. I remember enjoying being brainwashed as long as there were some nice illustrations of Moses parting the sea, Jesus feeding the thousands and other nice little stories like that!

i liked it when we got to discuss the horrors of stoning, other than that it was a pretty dull read. have to say i didn't manage to read it til the end. i much prefer the film version.

is anyone old enough/ young enough to remember taking part in 'religious education' lessons. or as it was renamed 'religious and [something] education'?

please tell me there are other forumers who got sent to the corridor on a regular basis?
Ah those were the days, they were effectively a free period, only one girl from what I remember was really into the whole thing, the rest scribbled a few notes and chatted, and in terms of homework priority, this was always the last one....if it didn't get done...meh!

As I grew older though I resented the whole thing, having to say the Lord's Prayer, being made to take a class about religions when I was so much more invested in my other subjects which I wanted to spend more time on.

I remember distinctly one time, I had been finishing a project in metal works class, it was something I had been working on for a number of months, I liked the teacher, he was helping me put the finishing touches on it as the class ended, a few others were doing the same, consequently we ran over time and ended up being about 5 minuets late for the next class which happened to be religious education (can't remember whether it was called religious education, or life studies or something...but it was essentially the same thing), and as soona s me and the few otehrs from that metal class walked in the teacher looked at us as if we'd set fire to her dog, then started laying into us after an explanation of why we were late. I remember explaing that we had been finishing off our projects with the metal work teacher and it ran longer then we expected, but she came up with this speach about how we were on her time now and expected us to be here on time, and I just felt like shouting at her " I DON'T GIVE A SHIT YOU OLD BAT, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS STUPID POINTLESS CLASS WHERE WE LEARN ABOUT WHICH PEOPLE BELIEVE IN WHICH HOCUS POCUS BULLSHIT RELIGION, NO-ONE LISTENS TO YOU AND WE ALL JUST WAIT FOR THE BELL TO RING SO WE CAN GET OUT, I COULD BE SPENDING THIS TIME WORKING ON SOMETHING I CARE ABOUT AND THAT I NEED TO CATCH UP ON! AHHHHHHHHHHH!"

...but I didn't, I think I just mumbled 'whatever' and sat down. B*tch! I hope she gets atatcked by wild beavers!

or her dog sits too close to the fire! :lol:

...or she puts her beaver too close to the fire...

or her dog is doing her beaver when he catches fire.

maybe all that actually happened and that why she's that way?

Again, can you give any examples of how atheism is being foisted on the masses by this sinister-sounding "they"?

"They" for the main part seems to consist of those that lean to the far left in their politics, a lot of the Guardianistas or liberal elite for example where atheism seems fashionable - its a broad church however (...excuse the pun!) and also seems to include a disenfranchised section of the church itself, parts of the gay community along with a sprinkling of wannabe facists and wanabee communists.

As for examples - Sunday trading, faith based schools, possibly abortion and gay adoption spring to mind.

don't spout crap about tolerating other belief systems. there is no toleration of belief systems... there is fact, and faith. one is proven by science, the other is something people believe only because it was in some book two thousand years ago and has no scientific basis and almost no historical basis. how can i tolerate the belief of someone who wants to teach kids the earth is flat when we KNOW the earth is round.

So you place all of your faith in science? Exactly the same principle as people who follow religion really, but you just prefer to follow a different text book! :)

As a scientist myself, I'd say people are just as easily fooled by science as they are religion. A lot of what people describe as "scientific fact" is in reality just a general concensus of opinion within the scientific community often corrupted by the same petty politics, massaging of egos and undue financial gain you would find behind any large organisation. The pharmaceutical industry in which I work are masters at exploiting peoples total acceptance of science - can't complain as it pays the bills, but I've seen first hand some pretty crap dubious data on products that reach the market and then make billions upon the basis of being marketed on "scientific fact".

"They" for the main part seems to consist of those that lean to the far left in their politics, a lot of the Guardianistas or liberal elite for example where atheism seems fashionable - its a broad church however (...excuse the pun!) and also seems to include a disenfranchised section of the church itself, parts of the gay community along with a sprinkling of wannabe facists and wanabee communists.

As for examples - Sunday trading, faith based schools, possibly abortion and gay adoption spring to mind.


But these are all just the usual shibboleths. You still don't explain how atheism is being 'forced' on anyone. At school we spent loads of time learning about religions. Maybe too much time. and anyway, what would be wrong about teaching issues like gay adoption or abortion? they all seem perfectly pertinent topics - certainly as much as religion. To me it sounds like you're the one who deciding what and what shouldn't be taught - based on what you agree with, whilst accusing others of the exact same thing.

This is all just obfuscation, no average state school will ask about the child's religious affiliations, faith schools will.

You've misinterpreted my post - the above are possible examples of "atheism being foisted upon society" through relatively recent legislation, not what should or shouldn't be taught in schools.

Faith based schools from my experience do teach about all of the above.

i don't see how that is atheism being forced on anyone. No one has been forced to do things if they morally object to them.

Try telling that to your boss if you work in a supermarket and don't fancy working a Sunday?

there is an opt-out in the 1994 sunday trading act for workers who wish to respect the sabbath

there does seem to be a misunderstanding that faith schools are full of seething hate and bigotry. If you think about it, what is the fundamental message of the new testament (as far as Christian schools go anyway)



I went to a 'faith' school.... never tort me nuttink about jebuz.. ah tell yuh!

I went to a c of e school for a while, apart from morning prayer at assembly and the odd trip to the church there wasn't much to tell.

However, it is undeniable that the newer faith schools are way more heavy, to the extent of actually avoiding parts of he curriculum or covering them only briefly, like evolution.

In Britain? I've never heard of that...really.

yep, remember this?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-blairs-link-to-schools-that-take-the-creation-literally-732032.html

So you place all of your faith in science? Exactly the same principle as people who follow religion really, but you just prefer to follow a different text book! :)
Except for just one tiny miniscule difference: one of those two text books contains information of facts and educated theories, based on generations of hard work and discovery, written by clever people with inquisitive minds who put their knowledge in the book for the simple reason of informing others of their discoveries and ideas; whereas the other book contains a story backed up by nothing, by no-one, containing no facts (beond the normal), with no evidence or basis of truth, and this 'information' is put into the book for the simple reason of convincing/scaring people that they will go to hell if they don't adhere to it ...

...sound about right to you?

I'd rather place my...'faith'...in the teachings of people who have a strong basis for their knowledge and a desire to always question that which is unknown, even if the answer they come up with can't be prooved, because at least I can see the work that has gone into it. Rather then the teachings of people who give you all the answers, few of which are accurate, most of which have been proved wrong by science, and the rest have no basis whatsoever in facts or wisdom...and of course expect you to believe in these answers or suffer a horrible fate.

Except for just one tiny miniscule difference: one of those two text books contains information of facts and educated theories, based on generations of hard work and discovery, written by clever people with inquisitive minds who put their knowledge in the book for the simple reason of informing others of their discoveries and ideas; whereas the other book contains a story backed up by nothing, by no-one, containing no facts (beond the normal), with no evidence or basis of truth, and this 'information' is put nto the book for the book to cinvince people that they will go to hell if they don't adhere to it ...

...sound about right to you?

I'd rather place my...'faith'...in the teachings of people who have a strong basis for their knowledge and a desire to always question that which is unknown, even if the answer they come up with can't be prooved, because at least I can see the work that has gone int it. Rather then the teachings of people who give you all the answers, few of which are accurate, most of which have been proved wrong by science, and the rest have no basis whatsoever in facts or wisdom.

Always great to see contributions from erudite forumers here :cheers:

Anyway, where do you stand on the jedi question?

Anyway, where do you stand on the jedi question?
Incest aside, they're a decent bunch of blokes, a bit heavy on the green make-up at times, but at least we have video evidence of their existance, unlike the Bible!

yep, remember this?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-blairs-link-to-schools-that-take-the-creation-literally-732032.html

that is shocking, but it is hardly a mass movement.

I actually made my case clear on the issue ages ago. I do not believe that the State should fund religious schools. I do not believe that they should be banned though. I do not go along withg the notion that the state is the best provider of education and should be the only one allowed to do so.


People should be free to send their kids to what ever school that they like.. or none at all, maybe?

I'll expand on my post.

I do not think STATE funded schools should have any religious bias. That does not equate to the banning of religion, communism, fascism, the curtailing of your freedoms or any other crap. The school that a child goes to is, on the whole not a matter of choice in most cases, and in any case where a school can be chosen, the child i would bet almost nevervever ever gets to choose. It would in fact result in the improving of freedoms.

As for RE lessons, I think they should continue to be taught, but compulsorilylily for 2 or three years. Why? Religion isnt going anywhere, so children should be taught about all the major religions, and minor ones too.

that is shocking, but it is hardly a mass movement.



There are a large number of faith schools in England and the number is growing. Numbers of faith schools in the UK:


Primary schools - 6,384

Secondary schools - 589

Of these, 4,716 are Church of England, 2,108 Roman Catholic, 32 Jewish, four Muslim, two Sikh, one Hindu (under construction) one Greek Orthodox and one Seventh Day Adventist.

There are also around 700 unregulated madrassas.

Of the total of state funded faith schools 43% are voluntary controlled schools, in which the buildings and land are owned by a charitable foundation, but all of the staff and finance is provided by the LA. There the normal the curriculum is followed with commonly agreed RE.

57% are voluntary aided schools and foundation schools. In the former the government provides most of the funding but the charitable organization contributes to some of this cost and usually appoints the school governors. The latter is completely run by the charitable organization but still gets most of their funding from the state. Both are free to teach their own religion.

and that is the problem. The line between state funded schools and private schools is blurred. At least 85% (soon to be 90%) of the funding comes from the state. Yet private organizations can have complete control in return for providing relatively little assistance.

Take sex ed, another topic that highly salient in this debate. It is not actually mandatory to teach about sex as separate subject beyond the rudiments covered in biology... at the moment. This will soon change however and to appease faith schools the government has included a clause that permits any religious school to teach their own sexual morality a long side the lesson. That's not even ignoring it, that means teaching certain codes of conduct if they so wish.

I actually made my case clear on the issue ages ago. I do not believe that the State should fund religious schools. I do not believe that they should be banned though. I do not go along withg the notion that the state is the best provider of education and should be the only one allowed to do so.

People should be free to send their kids to what ever school that they like.. or none at all, maybe?

I wouldn't either. If a bunch of private individuals really want to do it their own way and are willing to pay for it there's not much you can do. But anyhow banning all faith schools of any kind would be illegal under ....

duh duh duh... you guessed it



The European Charter of Human Rights!

parts of the gay community

Can't exactly blame them, when the churches take bullshit and hypocrisy to extraordinary levels.

Except for just one tiny miniscule difference: one of those two text books contains information of facts and educated theories, based on generations of hard work and discovery, written by clever people with inquisitive minds who put their knowledge in the book for the simple reason of informing others of their discoveries and ideas; whereas the other book contains a story backed up by nothing, by no-one, containing no facts (beond the normal), with no evidence or basis of truth, and this 'information' is put into the book for the simple reason of convincing/scaring people that they will go to hell if they don't adhere to it ...

...sound about right to you?

Not really - I'm a scientist myself and unfortunately the rather naive utopian view of science which you hold is fairly far removed from the truth. Modern science like so much else in this world revolves around money, power and influence - from experience if you wave a large enough research grant in front of most eminent professors then they can generally come up with whatever theory suits your cause!

Although I was educated at a faith based school I'm not a particularly religious person - I pick and choose the aspects I agree with as well as those based on science. As others have said most faith based schools provide a pretty rounded and balanced education without trying to indoctrinate.

If I had children would I choose to send them to a faith based school?...probably yes. I think in an age of rampant capitalism, individualism and social decay, faith based schools do provide a counter balance and moral framework for children. This is important for kids and reflects in higher attainment levels - unlike grammar schools most don't select on the basis of ability and nobody so far has been able to offer another credible explanation why they achieve higher than ordinary state schools.

As for the financial argument, being part voluntary funded the Government is getting a great deal with a more highly educated workforce for approx 75% of the cost of a state school - from an economic point of view it makes great sense - in fact shouldn't we think about converting all those low achieving state schools!:)

unlike grammar schools most don't select on the basis of ability and nobody so far has been able to offer another credible explanation why they achieve higher than ordinary state schools.

Maybe because they are already well educated and middle class parents are pretending to be religious and getting their kids in?


I would also rather schools select on ability, we do it in NI and the results speak for themselves.

Maybe because they are already well educated and middle class parents are pretending to be religious and getting their kids in?

But it also holds true for some of the most deprived areas of the UK where there is no middle class and a lot of the children admitted are from non religious backgrounds or alternative religions to that being taught by the school.

I would also rather schools select on ability, we do it in NI and the results speak for themselves.

Somewhat perversely I don't agree with grammar, private or single sex schools - I think it benefits kids to mix with children of all abilities and social backgrounds, otherwise they live in a bubble and don't develop the social skills they need when confronted by this later in life.

Somewhat perversely I don't agree with grammar, private or single sex schools - I think it benefits kids to mix with children of all abilities and social backgrounds, otherwise they live in a bubble and don't develop the social skills they need when confronted by this later in life.

Yeah....that's the thing.

In Northern Ireland we have a higher % of children from lower socio-economic backgrounds attending grammar schools and our universities than anywhere else in the UK.
Children from poorer families also achieve higher academic success than other parts of the UK.

It's not perfect, no system is, but for generations our system has actually benefited children here. There is also a greater emphasis from parents on their children to do well in education as well as a culture of respecting education, hence I had friends at school that were from poorer households and are now at universities like LSE, Oxford, St. Andrews, Trinity Dublin and Cambridge. The same is true across NI

Queens University in Belfast has one of the highest intakes of poorer students than any elite UK university.

If I had children would I choose to send them to a faith based school?...probably yes. I think in an age of rampant capitalism, individualism and social decay, faith based schools do provide a counter balance and moral framework for children. This is important for kids and reflects in higher attainment levels - unlike grammar schools most don't select on the basis of ability and nobody so far has been able to offer another credible explanation why they achieve higher than ordinary state schools.

Of course they are not supposed to select on the basis of ability, but they do.

A recent study by the Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies, a think-tank, found that religious primary schools take fewer children from low-income families than nearby local-authority schools. And the London School of Economics discovered this year that religious schools give lower priority to children in care than their secular counterparts do. Though they achieve better results than ordinary state schools [...], critics claim they do so through selecting by stealth.

-the economist

Abuses included schools asking parents to commit to making financial contributions as a condition of admission, asking about the marital, occupational or financial status of parents, and ignoring the priority for admission that schools are legally obliged to give to looked after children

-the guardian

This is no surprise at all. While over 20% of pupils take free school meals in community schools, only 12.2% do so in CofE schools. Similarly, the number of children with Special Educational Needs with statements is well over 2% in community schools it is only 1.5% in Faith schools".

-national secular society

The recent LSE study referred to found that:

* Faith primary schools could offer a very small advantage over secular schools in terms of age-11 test scores in maths and English. Attending the average faith school rather than the average secular school could move a pupil around one percentile further up the test-based pupil rankings.

* Any benefit of attending a primary faith school is linked to the more autonomous admission and governance arrangements that characterised 'Voluntary Aided' schools during the period covered by our data. Pupils in religiously affiliated schools where admissions were under the control of the Local Education Authority ('Voluntary Controlled' schools) do not progress faster than pupils in Secular primary schools.

* All of the apparent advantage of faith school education - particularly for Church of England schools - could be explained by unobserved differences between pupils who apply and are admitted to faith schools and those who do not: Pupils who do not attend a faith primary school up to age-11 but attend a faith secondary school thereafter perform just as well at age 11 as students who attended a faith primary school but then attend a secular secondary school.

LSE study (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2006/FaithPrimarySchools.aspx)



As for the financial argument, being part voluntary funded the Government is getting a great deal with a more highly educated workforce for approx 75% of the cost of a state school - from an economic point of view it makes great sense - in fact shouldn't we think about converting all those low achieving state schools!:)

90% of the cost. And apart from the fact that tax payers money is being spent to advocate view points they do not hold, what will be the damage to society from faith schools that actively propagate sectarianism and insularity? Children need to understand that their experiences at home and family need to be separated from those of the outside world. Otherwise realising that not everyone shares a common viewpoint is going to be a real handicap.

Yep, its the secondary schools deciding whether to take kids based on the parents that produces the better results. Smarter, better off, better behaved parents reflect on their childrens performance.

And apart from the fact that tax payers money is being spent to advocate view points they do not hold, what will be the damage to society from faith schools that actively propagate sectarianism and insularity? Children need to understand that their experiences at home and family need to be separated from those of the outside world. Otherwise realising that not everyone shares a common viewpoint is going to be a real handicap.

+1.

Yet another area where religion gets its grubby little fingers into our lives :ohno:

One thing the nazis got right was taking the Jesus out of xmas.

One thing the nazis got right was taking the Jesus out of xmas.

:applause:

There's an easy way to settle this - prohibit entry into university for people who have attended religulous schools. I think you'd quickly find people running away from the belief in god :lol:

The Government should then move in and fund BHA/NSS schools and divert funds for schools under the Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (http://www.richarddawkinsfoundation.org)

Quite funny some of the posts above as they show how well I defined "they" on one of my earlier posts - we have the "Guardianistas" quoting from their very own daily bible of propaganda and the "wanabee fascists" extolling the virtues of the Nazi party - strange mix wouldn't you say! :lol::lol::lol:

As for some of the above research I'd take it with a healthy pinch of salt - as I'm heavily involved at the coal face of an industry that makes many billions of pounds from funding and influencing academia, I'm well aware of how you can make most sets of data fit a particular pre-determined agenda by employing a highly creative statistician! The fact it is regurgitated by the Guardian adds to my scepticism.

From firsthand experience and speaking to a number of teachers from catholic schools, if the parents are practicing Roman Catholics and are resident within the associated parish for that particular school they generally receive a place for their child. I'm willing to accept that for schools that are heavily oversubscribed some form of corruption of the system will naturally creep in, but that in itself is a product of faith schools being a more popular choice for parents over state schools.

As for the Richard Dawkins Foundation, if he wishes to spread the gospel of his own religion/cult, rather than trying to inflict it on the whole of society as you would see in a fascist or communist controlled state, why doesn't he take advantage of the free democratic society of the UK and set up his own faith based school?

That way he can put his money where his mouth is and provide the 10% or whatever percentage is required to fund a voluntary aided school ...providing the PayPal account balance on his website is sufficient! :lol::lol::lol: He would then be free to indoctrinate his own band of disciples and the whole world could judge the success or failure of his experiment. Would local parents be fighting each other and trying to prove they were more of a non believer than their neighbour to gain entry for their beloved son or daughter - I'm not convinced they would?

is anyone old enough/ young enough to remember taking part in 'religious education' lessons. or as it was renamed 'religious and [something] education'?
Has it been taken off the national curriculum or something? I was under the impression that everyone here would have done it.

R.E. was boring overall, but some of it did concentrate on purely moral arguments rather than religious ones. So it did have some uses.

And yes, state schools should teach moral values but omit unfounded claims about religion - educate children with the known facts first, then let them decide whether or not to believe in a certain religion.

As for some of the above research I'd take it with a healthy pinch of salt - as I'm heavily involved at the coal face of an industry that makes many billions of pounds from funding and influencing academia, I'm well aware of how you can make most sets of data fit a particular pre-determined agenda by employing a highly creative statistician!

You work in the drug industry, one that is seemingly structured to exploit and breed greed. I'm not surprised you have that impression, however not all statistics are manipulated in the ways that the pharmaceutical industry engages in.

Has it been taken off the national curriculum or something? I was under the impression that everyone here would have done it.

R.E. was boring overall, but some of it did concentrate on purely moral arguments rather than religious ones. So it did have some uses.

And yes, state schools should teach moral values but omit unfounded claims about religion - educate children with the known facts first, then let them decide whether or not to believe in a certain religion.

Religious Studies GCSE was compulsory at my school, and of course they cherry-picked the bits they wanted so it was effectively Christian Studies. Any moral arguments were always from the Bible's point of view. So in a perverse kind of way I'm proud I only got a C.

Religious Studies GCSE was compulsory at my school,

That wasn't the case here, you had to attend the classes, but they weren't exactly RE classes, more like a free period for chat and other things like social debates and shit. Kinda interesting actually.

The exam itself was not compulsory.

who cares

everyone learns basic RE in school, its not forced down ur neck and u learn about different religions and other stuff like not having sexual reletions before your married n' shit.

imo its important people have a basic understanding of religion because it makes people more tolerant.

I used to love RE at school. I guess it helped coming from a religious background but it opened my eyes to the rest of the world for the first time and I found it all very interesting learning about other people's ways of life. It was a proper education lesson unlike PE and maths. :blahblah:

I used to love RE at school. I guess it helped coming from a religious background but it opened my eyes to the rest of the world for the first time and I found it all very interesting learning about other people's ways of life. It was a proper education lesson unlike PE and maths. :blahblah:

Wish I'd had that kind of syllabus. The only time we ever discussed other religions was in an extra-curricular hour with the headmaster where he explained to us all why all the other religions were wrong and ours was the only one that was right.

Wish I'd had that kind of syllabus. The only time we ever discussed other religions was in an extra-curricular hour with the headmaster where he explained to us all why all the other religions were wrong and ours was the only one that was right.

Well, this was in the 90s rather than the 80s in your case, I'm guessing. :D So things had probably progressed a bit by the time I was at secondary school. But it was a Christian nation so I guess RE was naturally going to be biased in decades gone by.

Ah, but I went to a particularly Christian school - we had a chapel service six days a week, Christian Union on Wednesday night, prayer meetings before breakfast, Bible Study in the evenings, you name it. It took a year at university to knock it all out of me.

^^

That sounds utterly horrendous.

Quite funny some of the posts above as they show how well I defined "they" on one of my earlier posts - we have the "Guardianistas" quoting from their very own daily bible of propaganda and the "wanabee fascists" extolling the virtues of the Nazi party - strange mix wouldn't you say! :lol::lol::lol:

As for some of the above research I'd take it with a healthy pinch of salt - as I'm heavily involved at the coal face of an industry that makes many billions of pounds from funding and influencing academia, I'm well aware of how you can make most sets of data fit a particular pre-determined agenda by employing a highly creative statistician! The fact it is regurgitated by the Guardian adds to my scepticism.


Does all this apply to The Economist and the London School of Economics too?

Essentially what you posted was just ridicule and some flimsy appeal to authority.

Hardly convincing.

Yet at the time it all seemed perfectly normal. :ohno:

Yet at the time it all seemed perfectly normal. :ohno:


I had it at primary school. I went to a catholic primarily school. Utterly shocking when I look back. Personally I'd ban all RE in primary schools and make RE a choice in secondary/grammar.

The parents are also partly to blame, brainwashing their kids.

The M1 gets worse the closer you get to NI. Been damaged by loyalist bangers.


In NI the catholic grammar schools are at the top of all league tables. they are the best schools to go.

In NI the catholic grammar schools are at the top of all league tables. they are the best schools to go.

That's not correct, the non-denominational grammars such as Campbell, Inst and BRA as well as some others top the result tables, we don't have league tables in NI. There are Catholic grammars present, but they don't top or dominate the top.

Don't post bullshit, can smell it from miles off.

That's not correct, the non-denominational grammars such as Campbell, Inst and BRA as well as some others top the result tables, we don't have league tables in NI. There are Catholic grammars present, but they don't top or dominate the top.

Don't post bullshit, can smell it from miles off.

they do. have a look in the belfast telegraph when they release information for schools in ni. catholic grammar schools generally get better results than any other type of school in NI which proves your talking shit to prove your point that religion sucks.

I had it at primary school. I went to a catholic primarily school. Utterly shocking when I look back. Personally I'd ban all RE in primary schools and make RE a choice in secondary/grammar.

I wouldn't ban it - I'd just prefer it to be a dispassionate analysis of religion (these people believe this, and because of their religious beliefs do this and can't eat this etc. etc.) rather than "We must/can't do this because Jesus said so in the Bible!!!1!" as it was at my school.

uniguy is talking shit about religion to prove a point once again -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/parentpower/search.php?t=region&region=Northern+Ireland&school_type=state_secondary&gender=&x=97&y=9

they do. have a look in the belfast telegraph when they release information for schools in ni. catholic grammar schools generally get better results than any other type of school in NI which proves your talking shit to prove your point that religion sucks.

Religion is a pile of shit, sorry if your mind has been brainwashed by your catholic education and as such leaves you somewhat unenlightened and moronic.

You're free to believe in the magic man in the sky of course, I wouldn't take that freedom from anyone.

TOP 10

Lumen Christi College
St Mary's Grammar School
Methodist College Belfast
Sullivan Upper School
Ballyclare High School
Strathearn School Belfast
Banbridge Academy Banbridge
The Royal School, Dungannon
Portadown College
Collegiate Grammar School


Only two are Catholic, the rest of the top 10 are dominated by non-denominational grammars, the catholics also admit non-catholic children :)

Religion is a pile of shit, sorry if your mind has been brainwashed by your catholic education and as such leaves you somewhat unenlightened and moronic.

You're free to believe in the magic man in the sky of course, I would take that freedom from anyone.

haha. i dont give a shit about religion either and most people I know who went to a catholic or protestant school hate it too.

i dont think we should be worried about religious schools in their current format over here. nobodys being taught to hate each other. what would be more worrying if born again christians tired to start schools. i normally ignore religious people because they are harmless but when i see born agains on the streets protesting or complaining it drives me mad.

these dicks were calling for irish people to be killed and burning tricolours outside the city hall because of gay marriage or something. they have a website but it doesn't deserve the click throughs....

Does all this apply to The Economist and the London School of Economics too?

Essentially what you posted was just ridicule and some flimsy appeal to authority.

Hardly convincing.

Yes, I'm pretty cynical of most academic research, particularly in a highly charged debate such as faith schools where most people producing these reports have an agenda one way or the other - someone generally sponsors these reports and even the so called bigger and more respected institutions can deliver one to your particular specifications - only difference being it normally makes a bigger dent in your project budget! :)

The faith schools are also pretty adept at putting out their own propaganda - a quick Google search and I've found some good old fashioned outrage from the Daily Mail, not to mention a whole reading list if you have a spare couple of months free - i'm sure there is plenty more out there on Google once you've read all that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-557655/Stalin-proud-grotesque-attack-faith-schools.html

http://acefellowship.wordpress.com/parental-choice-10/the-researched-case-for-catholic-schools/

Personally I prefer firsthand experience, rather than basing my views upon the academic reports of others - I came from a relatively impoverished background, attended a bog standard faith based school and received an excellent balanced standard of education that gained me entry to one of the UKs top ranking universities. I don't feel I was heavily indoctrinated but exposed to all sides of the debate and taught to show tolerance for the views of others - subsequently I think faith based schools do a pretty good job.

Personally I prefer firsthand experience, rather than basing my views upon the academic reports of others

wow - won't this get humanity far.

sorry if this is off topic, but there is a difference between healthy skepticism of research that is justified by a questionable quantity of sources available and flaws in the design of the study, and willful ignorance because of bias. as a scientist i suppose you would know this already, though it's a principle you're seemingly ignoring.

We need a secular alternative to religion - some sort of philosophical/ethical training that can be provided to school students.

I don't feel I was heavily indoctrinated but exposed to all sides of the debate and taught to show tolerance for the views of others - subsequently I think faith based schools do a pretty good job.

I doubt you were exposed to ALL sides of the debate. Were you taught about jedi? Most probably, someone decided to restrict the sides of the 'debate' in order to favour one or more religions that are based on established myths, above ideas that are based on myths and lies that differ from the aforementioned simply by being less established.

We need a secular alternative to religion - some sort of philosophical/ethical training that can be provided to school students.

+1.

Herein lies the problem. Most mainstream religions seem tohave sprung up from the need to set down the laws that are needed for a civilisation to flourish. Adherence to those laws was typically enforced by threat of horrific punishments and death on earth, combined with horrific punishments and death meted out for eternity by an invisible greater being. By emasculating these barbarian commandments we leave a vacuum, wherein the weak minded and strongly selfish behave with relative impunity in ways that are not for the good of our civilisation. This vacuum has been filled for the most part by the rule of law, but there is a case to be made that little moral guidance is now provided.

So you place all of your faith in science? Exactly the same principle as people who follow religion really, but you just prefer to follow a different text book!

science = fact.
bible = fiction.
lord of the rings = fiction.
alice in wonderland = fiction.

reality vs fantasy. i choose reality.

I haven't seen the lad yet say religion is more valid than science, he has just explained how science isn't all about objective research and no politicking.

I haven't seen the lad yet say religion is more valid than science, he has just explained how science isn't all about objective research and no politicking.

Real science is all about objective research.

science = fact.
bible = fiction.
lord of the rings = fiction.
alice in wonderland = fiction.




science = present fact.

Scientific opinion can change when something new is discovered or a new experiment is carried out - it evolves, unlike religion, which prefers not to take steps forward in the modern world.


bible = exaggeration

I'm sure there was someone called Jesus who turned up at a party with a loaf of bread and fed a few people... but not thousands. I'm sure there was a heavy rainy season and Noah put his dog and his horse on a boat... but not two of every animal. Would you put pubic lice on your boat?


lord of the rings = fact.

I'm pretty sure that film actually happened. I read it somewhere.


alice in wonderland = fiction

If something happened in a dream is it fact or fiction? It's a bit like Salad Fingers or that awful "BADGER BADGER BADGER" video on youtube - great to watch when you're stoned but utterly useless otherwise.

science = present fact.

Scientific opinion can change when something new is discovered or a new experiment is carried out - it evolves, unlike religion, which prefers not to take steps forward in the modern world.


bible = exaggeration

I'm sure there was someone called Jesus who turned up at a party with a loaf of bread and fed a few people... but not thousands. I'm sure there was a heavy rainy season and Noah put his dog and his horse on a boat... but not two of every animal. Would you put pubic lice on your boat?


lord of the rings = fact.

I'm pretty sure that film actually happened. I read it somewhere.


alice in wonderland = fiction

If something happened in a dream is it fact or fiction? It's a bit like Salad Fingers or that awful "BADGER BADGER BADGER" video on youtube - great to watch when you're stoned but utterly useless otherwise.

A post that is both erudite and comedy genius :okay: I salute you!

Noah put his dog and his horse on a boat... but not two of every animal. Would you put pubic lice on your boat?

I know right....supposedly Noah saved all those animals, including the ones we have only discovered in the past couple of decades and the ones we have no fucking clue about yet. Not to mention the billions and billions of various bacteria. Amazing man that Noah.

Oh don't take it so literally. I find it hard to believe that some numpty invented all of these stories from scratch - they must have spawned from somewhere, and were wildly exaggerated to make people actually give a damn about them. Would you care if some guy put his dog and his horse in a boat after a mild downpour? Of course you wouldn't! Huge boat! Two of every animal! Floods covering the entire world! Now there's a story.

And that's not accounting for Chinese-whispers before stories like Noah actually made it to the Bible or any other religious text

^^

Problem is, some people actually believe the Noah story :ohno:

They should be removed from the gene pool.

Ironically like a lot of early bible stories theirs some historical truth that gets blown out of proportion. There was a massive flood in the middle east at around that time, people did build boats to try and escape it. But the idea of an ark with two of every animal is pure storytelling.

There was a massive flood in the middle east at around that time

Something to do with a island volcanic eruption in the eastern Mediterranean....I think

It's a great story to tell children, as they're among the few people who believe you!

I went to a Church of England Primary School and loved these religious stories, but as my mother had studied theology at university, she soon put me off the idea of religion by about year 5/year 6. I remember getting detentions for refusing to shut my eyes or put my hands together during prayer. I remember saying something like "I shall close my eyes, I shall clasp my hands, but I shall not participate in the prayer" (although far less pompous). Forced prayer is a paradox!

In Secondary School there were a few students who weren't allowed in Religious Studies classes due to their parents' wishes. Make of that what you will! By college it was vary rare to know a Christian (a proper Christian) and I've experienced teasing of Christians at university, especially in pubs/bars. "Really? You actually believe all that!" is not uncommon to be heard in the SU bar.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of religion, I love the art, the architecture... It has inspired people to do some incredible things... but religion has had it's day. I don't see how it can progress society - I see it more as the foot in the mud, the burden of backwards thinking that slows down the advancement of modern society.

Parents will always push their children into religion, let's all understand that. There is nothing we can do to stop the fear-mongering and duping of children into religion at an early age - it's when children are the most vulnerable. The thing we can do, however, is to just mix as many different children up in the same room as we can. 10 children who 100% believe in 10 different religions must soon realise that at least 9 of them are wrong! Faith schools bring nothing but a sigh of relief to religious leaders as they see their bizarre beliefs passed down to the next generation.

science = fact.

Yes a true believer! We love people like you where I work -they don't question any of our evidence and we sell plenty of tablets!;)

In 1957 Thalidomide was a safe and effective treatment for treating pregnant mothers with morning sickness - a scientific "fact"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-557655/Stalin-proud-grotesque-attack-faith-schools.html

http://acefellowship.wordpress.com/parental-choice-10/the-researched-case-for-catholic-schools/


Most of those studies focus on American Catholic schooling, which tends to be completely private, unlike here in the UK where faith schooling has become a way to introduce greater governing autonomy in the state sector. But despite that the problem most of the studies have is that the strategies they use to separate out the causal effect of faith schools from selection and other exogenous factors are not credible. Many disregard the effect a religious background has on academic attainment and the fact that demographic proximity to certain schools are often biased due to families moving near to get access those very schools.

Two excellent papers that highlight this fact are available below.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~jga22/website/research_papers/altonji_elder_taber_catholic_schools_jpe_final_te21.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/d6/ee.pdf

Additionally, there has been a great deal of research on the problem of covert selection and it is undeniable that it is far more common in schools with autonomous decision boards. No one said that many places where gauche enough to actually take cash payments (but that thing about those payments only being for religious activities doesn't wash - it's payment for position all but in name). However, it is a fact that despite numerous changes to the code of conduct for schools foundation and voluntary aided schools are far more likely to select on the basis of various surreptitious criteria. Whilst it is forbidden to select on ability many schools make 'aptitude' into account, in the form of other extra curricular activities such as playing an instrument. it is well known that children who have been encouraged to play instruments from an early age tend to be higher achievers and more academically motivated. Other factors involved, like past attendance and special needs requirements.

A study on secondary school selection from 2862 institutions by A.West and A Hind:

http://www.risetrust.org.uk/admissions.pdf

Type of school....Percentage selecting by ability/aptitude


Foundation.........................11.2
Voluntary-aided...................6.5
Community..........................0.3
Voluntary controlled..............0.0
All schools...........................2.5


Type of school........% schools with SEN as criterion N
Community............................48
Voluntary controlled................44
Voluntary-aided......................11
Foundation............................20
Total....................................39


Far fewer faith schools have any requirement to accept children with special educational need.

Not all faith schools participate in this activity, indeed the majority do not. But when the difference between them and secular schools is on the whole about one percentile point (equv of one extra term per child) it is a big issue.

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence comes in the the recent LSE study, based on the figures supplied by the National Pupil Database and Pupil Level Annual Schools Census, making it the most comprehensive study yet. Students who went to voluntary controlled schools showed no superiority in results. Students who went on to secular secondary schools after attending faith primary schools and vice versa showed no difference to those who hadn't from similar social backgrounds.

http://cee.lse.ac.uk/cee%20dps/ceedp72.pdf

To be honest there's no point just accusing everything you don't agree with of having vested interests. It doesn't prove anything. None of these studies claimed that authors of those they were critiquing were untrustworthy, but simply incorrect.

To be honest there's no point just accusing everything you don't agree with of having vested interests. It doesn't prove anything. None of these studies claimed that authors of those they were critiquing were untrustworthy, but simply incorrect.

I haven't accused everything I don't agree with of having vested interests, I've also accused everything I do agree with of having vested interests!! Academia unfortunately is like that, these people own houses, run cars, take holidays like the rest of us and this all has to be paid for by somebody somewhere - they are selling a service.

I could spend months dissecting and investigating all of the above - quite frankly I'm not a statistician, don't have the time or the inclination - however just a quick google search and i've found the following;

Looking more closely at RISE (Research and Information on State Education) who have co-authored the report with the 'highly respected' London School of Economics, well who are this mysterious RISE?...well here they are!

http://www.risetrust.org.uk/trustees.html

Now lets look a bit closer at some of the trustees...Margaret Tulloch looks interesting "national executive of the Campaign for State Education for 16 years, much of it as a spokesperson"...wonder what they do?..well low and behold "CASE believes that, in the pluralistic society that is modern Britain, public education should be secular in character."...now there's a suprise!:)

http://www.campaignforstateeducation.org.uk/page9.html

Many disregard the effect a religious background has on academic attainment...

So you agree that religious background has an effect on academic attainment? So do I, hence why I agree with faith schools.

science = fact.

Science is more like an intellectual discipline which strives to make discoveries by using facts and evidence to develop falsifiable hypotheses. Or something.

Yes a true believer! We love people like you where I work -they don't question any of our evidence and we sell plenty of tablets!;)

Far better than a guy with a beard sitting under a tree who sprinkles holy water and feeds you a strange concoction of tree bark and mercury.

Science is more like an intellectual discipline which strives to make discoveries by using facts and evidence to develop falsifiable hypotheses. Or something.

people seem confused on here of the difference between a theory, and a law.

a fact is a statement that can be both checked AND confirmed. thalidomide was clearly neither. correct me if i am wrong but there were no drug tests for pregnancy until after thalidomide and because of it, so the scientific fact is, and always has been, that it was bad for foetuses. it was simply never checked but had they done so in 1958 they would have checked AND confirmed it was dangerous instead of not bothering at all.

I'm sure there was someone called Jesus who turned up at a party with a loaf of bread and fed a few people... but not thousands. I'm sure there was a heavy rainy season and Noah put his dog and his horse on a boat... but not two of every animal. Would you put pubic lice on your boat?

evidence? there's more evidence to suggest that robin hood existed than jesus.

Real science is all about objective research.

Yes, but what he has been writing is that quite a lot of scientific investigation is not as objective as many seem to think it is. I have seen no evidence that he has stated this as part of a platform to dismiss science and put religion in it's place. Have you seen any evidence that he is trying to do this?

people seem confused on here of the difference between a theory, and a law.

a fact is a statement that can be both checked AND confirmed. thalidomide was clearly neither. correct me if i am wrong but there were no drug tests for pregnancy until after thalidomide and because of it, so the scientific fact is, and always has been, that it was bad for foetuses. it was simply never checked but had they done so in 1958 they would have checked AND confirmed it was dangerous instead of not bothering at all.

I see where you're coming from, although I wish I hadn't chosen Thalidomide as an example as you're correct, it was the reason for a massive increase in animal testing and hence there are more conspiracy theories around the original tests than 9/11 or who killed JFK! Tests were not as regulated at the time, but some say animal testing for teratogenesis was conducted in pregnant rats others say it wasn't - either way as the condition doesn't present in rats it still wouldn't have been spotted (...current regulations now require a test in 2 different species). Irrespective, at that point in time the scientific community did feel they had enough evidence and understanding to deem it safe - only through new discovery did that opinion change.

Perhaps a better example is global warming - many scientists say it's already happened and can prove it, plenty of others say its complete nonsense - is global warming by your definition now a "scientific fact"?

gawd, don't get them started on global warming. Having slagged off your mild defence of religiosity you will find the wildest religious intolerence come down on your head! :lol:

Why are we even arguing over this? Religious people don't even attempt to provide proof, so there's no comparison between a holy book and, say, global warming.

Faith by its very definition requires belief without evidence.

Faith by its very definition requires belief without evidence.


Indeed, which would be fine if religious organisations refrained from trying to discredit fact with elements from their faith and inhibit progress.

But they can't fucking help themselves, they love interferring too much. Thankfully they have and continue to be put in their place.

Perhaps a better example is global warming - many scientists say it's already happened and can prove it, plenty of others say its complete nonsense - is global warming by your definition now a "scientific fact"?

no, it's a theory, a hypothesis, a scenario, and the body of scientific evidence says it is happening, but it is not yet provable.

durkheim did a great chapter on what a thing is. people should read it.

While on the issue of parents forcing their kids to be religious.


http://www.humanism.org.uk/_uploads/imgpool/3mx12m_w565.jpg

Humanist poster stirs up religious storm

The war of words between atheists and religious believers has entered a new chapter with the launch of Northern Ireland’s first ever humanist advertising campaign.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) yesterday unveiled a billboard with the slogan “Please Don't Label Me. Let Me Grow Up And Choose For Myself” on one Belfast’s busiest routes.

It’s a follow-up to its atheist buses campaign that ran earlier this year in parts of the UK.

The giant poster, at the junction of Great Victoria Street and Bruce Street, shows a photograph of a young girl against the backdrop of “shadowy” descriptions such as Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh.

Organisers said the descriptions were mixed in with other labels that people would “never apply” to young children like Marxist, anarchist, socialist, libertarian or humanist. They argue that children should be given the freedom to decide for themselves which, if any, ideology they follow.

However, religious leaders across Northern Ireland have hit out at the BHA, accusing the organisation of arrogance and hypocrisy.

Reverend David McIlveen from the Free Presbyterian Church said: “It is none of their business how people bring up their children. It is the height of arrogance that the BHA would even assume to tell people not to instruct their children in the religion.

“I would totally reject the advertisement. It is reprehensible and so typical of the hypocrisy of the British Humanist Association today. They have a defeatist attitude and are just trying to draw attention to themselves. I think it is totally arrogant, presumptuous and sparks of total hypocrisy. I believe this doesn’t deserve a counter campaign. I will be expressing my public position on it in my own church on Sunday. I will be saying that this advert is another attack on the Biblical position of the family and will be totally rejecting it.

“It is a wasted campaign that will have no impact on family life in Northern Ireland.”

Father-of-four Sheikh Anwar Mady from the Belfast Islamic Centre added: “We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth. The role of the family is to teach the traditions of the faith. But that faith is implanted at birth.”

The BHA said the billboards were being unveiled to coincide with Universal Children's Day on Friday.

Atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins, BHA vice president, said: “Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a “Marxist child”, an “anarchist child” or a “post-modernist child”.

“Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents. We need to encourage people to think carefully before labelling any child too young to know their own opinions and our adverts will help to do that.”

Dean of Belfast Dr Houston McElvey said the humanist poster would have little impact on Christian believers.

“I am glad to live in a society where people have the right to express their point of view on a God in which I believe doesn’t need defending,” he said.

Fr Gary Donegan, from Holy Cross in north Belfast, said he hoped the campaign would open up debate on religious issues.

“One positive thing that could come from this is if it opens a debate on faith. I am not offended by it, but perhaps the money used for it could have been channelled better into a humanitarian cause.”

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/humanist-poster-stirs-up-religious-storm-14566599.html#ixzz0XMNSfCU2

Father-of-four Sheikh Anwar Mady from the Belfast Islamic Centre added: “We believe that every child is born as a Muslim.

If I was born a Muslim, does that make me an apostate, and isn't the penalty death?