Faith Schools

[oldbadger]

Cool! The only thing is with point 2. They shouldn't be discriminatory at all - my problem isnt necessarily with how faith schools teach, but the fact that they give preferential admissions to people of a certain faith.

OK
In the case of the compulsory places offered to other faiths, like the Buddhist girl, this particular school has been Catholic for hundreds of years, and so gentle diplomacy might be good.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not sure if you've seen the National Secular Societies' 'No More Faith Schools' campaign and associated literature?

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the equality act is applied equally. However, faith schools are allowed to teach in accordance with their faith as long as they aren't insighting hatred. For example - most catholic schools teach that (I'm paraphrasing here but its there for all to see in their policies) homosexuality in and of itself isn't sinful. The bible only says that committing homosexual acts is sinful - so you can be gay, as long as you avoid actually being gay.

They teach these kids that they have to maintain lifelong celibacy if theyre gay, or go to hell. This is harmful enough but, even worse, it opens the door for unethical theraputic treatments such as gay conversion therapy.

All of this is happening in most faith schools, despite the Equality Act. And instead of cracking down on the issue, the government is opening more of these establishments and trying to allow 100% admissions discrimination (there's a 50% cap, currently).

Here's a link to the NMFS page...

No More Faith Schools

and a link to the article which contains a link to the a report which summarises this stuff...

Most faith schools distorting sex education, NSS study finds

The problem I have in this country is because nobody really cares about the church, they can fly under the radar and it's difficult to garner any sort of public support for campaigns like the NSS one.

Faith and religious schools do have a place, Dan, but teaching against LGBT sexualities is unlawful now. It is unlawful!
And so any parent can make a case.

No faith schools are fine, as long as they don't teach hatred or enmity against religions.

What we need is empathy and understanding, and socialising of all the variety of faiths, beliefs, lack of beliefs, the lot.

What we need to abolish is extremely, any extremism.

 

[David1967]

In the UK, even private schools are required to deliver the standard lesson plans to all children.

That includes 'teach at home' kids and private schools.

In the past some private schools have been so removed from the standard curriculum that children have grown up estranged and unsocialised with all around them. They then complain that folks don't empathise with them.

We're trying to sort that out now.

In the U.S. there is standards as well regarding such things as math, history, etc. Just the added emphasis on their particular religion. Personally, I have seen both up and downsides over here. Kids with well educated, intelligent parents tend to do well with homeschool. Kids with backward idiot parents end up ,,well you know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

During the gas crisis of the early 70ś we were bombarded by scientists telling us that the oil supply would be totally depleted in ten years. That was 50 years ago.

I doubt any scientist actually told you this. Maybe you're talking about a reporter's condensed version of a university PR person's version of the actual scientific study?

Conventional, easy-to-access oil pretty much did run out. What saved our oil supply is finding oil in remote or hard-to-access areas, plus technological innovations like horizontal directional drilling and oil sands extraction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The establishment clause of the First Amendment of The Constitution, along with the Treaty of Tripoli.

And yet you still have paid chaplains, tax breaks for religious organizations, and taxpayer money flowing directly to religious institutions (e.g. vouchers to religious private schools).

I don't see how any country where the government has staff positions for religious ministers whose job it is to minister to other government employees can be said to really have church-state separation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Faith and religious schools do have a place, Dan,

And that place is in the church on Sunday, or in the synagogue on Saturday, or in the mosque on Friday (after school or on lunch).

 

[Father Heathen]

And yet you still have paid chaplains, tax breaks for religious organizations, and taxpayer money flowing directly to religious institutions (e.g. vouchers to religious private schools).

I don't see how any country where the government has staff positions for religious ministers whose job it is to minister to other government employees can be said to really have church-state separation.

We're a secular country. We're just really bad at it.

 

[shmogie]

I doubt any scientist actually told you this. Maybe you're talking about a reporter's condensed version of a university PR person's version of the actual scientific study?

Conventional, easy-to-access oil pretty much did run out. What saved our oil supply is finding oil in remote or hard-to-access areas, plus technological innovations like horizontal directional drilling and oil sands extraction.

Please, prominent geologists were on TV, the radio, etc. discussing their doomsday scenario. At about the same time another scientific doomsday was being promulgated, led by Dr. Paul Erlich and many other scientists who bought in to his charts, and mathematics.

In fact, his theory was the impetus for the modern prepper phenomena.

He proposed, based upon all kinds of things he considered evidence, that overpopulation would outstrip food production, and by 2000 society would break down in first world countries, after having already broken down in the second and third worlds. Starvation and food riots would be common, old diseases would come back from the massive death toll, bodies lying in the streets, etc., etc a real zombie meltdown. I don think it happened.

 

[shmogie]

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Seems like you don't know your bible...

And don't give me that crap about interpreting it out of context. That is a word for word quote and there is simply no context in which it could mean anything else than what it says, which is that gay people should be put to death.

You don´t know the Bible. You are quoting from the law given to the Jews 4,000 years ago. This was the first covenant.

The second covenant, given by Jesus replaces the law of the first covenant, eliminates it, it is fulfilled.

The second covenant, is fully established and explained in the New Testament, it applies to Christians.

What you quoted has never applied to Christians and was replaced 2,000 years ago.

Perhaps a beginners Bible study would help you. As it is, your lack of even rudimentary understanding makes your arguments very weak.

 

[shmogie]

Sounds like need to look up what "secular" means.



Yep, I was right... you indeed do need to look up what "secular" means.
Sounds like you think that in a secular country, all religion is outlawed or something....

No, a secular country means the majority of the people are secularists, non believers.

What you are trying so poorly to say is that the legal system of the country is ambivalent to religion , that there is no state religion, and religious doctrines and practices cannot be incorporated into government operation, see the First Amendment.

 

[shmogie]

That's called a dress code and it has nothing to do with discrimination....

Or do you honestly not see the difference between:
1. not allowing a man without a tie in a restaurant
2. not allowing a black man in a restaurant



ow boy

When 2 people apply for a job and one is better qualified and hired, then this isn't discrimination against the other.

If 2 people apply for a job and the lesser qualified is hired because the other one is gay, then that is discrimination.





All this is irrelevant to what the actual topic being discussed. That topic being: what happens (and not) in faith schools.



No. It is with schools in our society that teach and prep a generation of kids that will become working members of the same society that we all live in.




No.
I want fellow citizens to live according to the standards of the society that we share.
And that is a secular society with respect for human rights where things like humanity, solidarity etc are cherished values.


Most of them didn't have the religious beliefs that you seem to think they had

The Faiths of the Founding Fathers - Wikipedia

I think you ought to look at the word discriminate. Like so many words today it now only rings one bell in the mind of many.

To discriminate means to make a choice based on certain criteria. That criteria might be good, or bad, but it is applied and a choice made.

In America, the right of association allows people not in a business life, not in government life, but in private life to associate with whomever they choose, for whatever reason. The government cannot intrude into or alter this right.

A blue eyed persons club can exist, and they can block membership of someone with any other eye color.

MENSA can block membership of non geniuses

Churches can block official membership of homosexuals

 

[shmogie]

I am simply not.

Karen Pence Is Teaching at Christian School That Bars L.G.B.T. Students and Teachers

To give you just one example. In that school, gay students aren't even allowed. How's that for discrimination...



I don't care what the bible says in your opinion. It's not the subject. The subject is, what happens in faith schools. And in quite a few faith schools, there most definatly is discrimination and even hate speech towards gays. Or even just only people of other faiths - or no faiths.



Horrible, isn't it?
Not that this matters to the actual points being discussed off course.



Meanwhile, none of this is addressing the points that are actually being talked about.



It means what it means. Like adding the word "godless" in front of the word "scientist". Or by referring to biologists as "darwinists" or better yet "godless darwinists".

When we are talking about schools that teach biblical creationism, they necessarily have to include distrust of science in some way or form, since they need to "teach" those kids that more then half of scientific theories are just wrong. Pretty much most of what is dealing with biology, genetics, geology, physics, chemistry,... has to be wrong for biblical creationism to be right.

Are you now also going to deny that there are "faith shools" in the US that actively do this?



Sure. But high school students aren't scientists. Scientists develop theories using the scientific method. Students in high school then learn about the findings of those scientists. High school students are not in a position to properly evaluate accuracy of scientific theories. That's for when they graduate at a university in those specific fields and perhaps get a phd or so.

That doesn't mean they can't ask questions. That just means that they lack the expertise to evaluate such theories. That's in fact why they are in school: to gain such expertise.

The idea that advanced scientific theories are to be evaluated and "critically looked" at in a high school class room, is simply beyond banana's.....



Science is demonstrably the best method currently at our disposal to get accurate answers to questions about reality and the nature of reality.



So?
I don't know what you are talking about, but I'll run with it.
So, do scientists still believe this? NO? So they don't publish it any more? Right.
See, that's the thing about science.... it deals with the information at out disposal and goes for the best explanation. If tomorrow a better explanation surfaces, then it will replace the old explanations.

Meanwhile, religions like christianity pretty much still claims the same thing as 2000 years ago, no matter how many times it already has been refuted, shown inconsistent, etc...

At best, it "reinterpretes" passages - but only after science demonstrate how the previous interpretation was banana's. And usually a couple decades after, because religious authorities usually have to be dragged along while kicking and screaming.



But there is much wrong with dogmatic rejections because bronze age myths are favoured.

So, Karen Pence works at a private school that does not allow homosexual teachers or students, why does that bother you ? Since the school has the Constitutional right to do so, why do you think it is any of your business ?

You don´t like it as measured by your own moral code and sense of right and wrong.

There are many things I don´t like by my own moral code as well, like abortions after the first trimester, or democrats blocking every bill to protect the living newborn from botched abortions from infanticide. I despise it, but itś the law.

So, you will still be angry and I will too. You carry on trying to force churches who don´t want them to have homosexuals as voting members and I will carry on trying to outlaw late term abortion and the murder of newborns.

 

[Dan Mellis]

You don´t know the Bible. You are quoting from the law given to the Jews 4,000 years ago. This was the first covenant.

The second covenant, given by Jesus replaces the law of the first covenant, eliminates it, it is fulfilled.

The second covenant, is fully established and explained in the New Testament, it applies to Christians.

What you quoted has never applied to Christians and was replaced 2,000 years ago.

Perhaps a beginners Bible study would help you. As it is, your lack of even rudimentary understanding makes your arguments very weak.

How am I misunderstanding? You seem to be implying that you're free to pick and choose which parts of the old testament you go by, just because it's old testament. Regardless of that, you still put stock in a Book that just says stuff like "x thing is bad, because god".

Perhaps a beginners class in critical thinking would help you out, because your arguments are based on a 2000 year old story book, which makes your arguments very weak.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, Karen Pence works at a private school that does not allow homosexual teachers or students, why does that bother you ? Since the school has the Constitutional right to do so, why do you think it is any of your business ?

Why wouldn't it be? It's a business offering services to the public. It also operates under a government license.

It would be a different matter if Virginia had school vouchers. Where taxpayer money flows, constitutions restrictions on government flow with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, a secular country means the majority of the people are secularists, non believers.

No, that's not what it means at all.

What you are trying so poorly to say is that the legal system of the country is ambivalent to religion , that there is no state religion, and religious doctrines and practices cannot be incorporated into government operation, see the First Amendment.

Aka, secularism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you ought to look at the word discriminate. Like so many words today it now only rings one bell in the mind of many.

So answer my question...

Do you not see the difference between
- not allowing a man in a restaurant without a tie
- not allowing a man in a restaurant because he's black

To discriminate means to make a choice based on certain criteria. That criteria might be good, or bad, but it is applied and a choice made.

In America, the right of association allows people not in a business life, not in government life, but in private life to associate with whomever they choose, for whatever reason. The government cannot intrude into or alter this right.

A blue eyed persons club can exist, and they can block membership of someone with any other eye color.

MENSA can block membership of non geniuses

Churches can block official membership of homosexuals

You are all over the place, except on topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, Karen Pence works at a private school that does not allow homosexual teachers or students, why does that bother you ?

Because the kids that go to school there have anti-gay propaganda fed to them.
These kids then enter the working force and become full independent citizens and they carry around a baggae of anti-gay sentiments that they've received at that anti-social school.

I care, because I need to share a society with these people who are infused with hatred.

You don´t like it as measured by your own moral code and sense of right and wrong.

Yes, my moral compass tells me it is wrong to demonize or dehumanize people based on skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation,etc.

You don't?

There are many things I don´t like by my own moral code as well, like abortions after the first trimester, or democrats blocking every bill to protect the living newborn from botched abortions from infanticide. I despise it, but itś the law.

The topic is faith schools and what does and doesn't happen in such schools.
Are you capable of staying on topic?

You carry on trying to force churches who don´t want them to have homosexuals as voting members

The topic is schools, not churches.

and I will carry on trying to outlaw late term abortion and the murder of newborns.

The topic is schools, not abortion.​

 

[oldbadger]

In the U.S. there is standards as well regarding such things as math, history, etc. Just the added emphasis on their particular religion. Personally, I have seen both up and downsides over here. Kids with well educated, intelligent parents tend to do well with homeschool. Kids with backward idiot parents end up ,,well you know.

Over here there should not be emphasis about religions or against them.

And, Yes..... kids from bright families still get a better chance at education, and they are still getting preferential treatment over some University places.

We need to keep on, keeping on towards fairer and more balanced education.

 

[oldbadger]

You don´t know the Bible. You are quoting from the law given to the Jews 4,000 years ago. This was the first covenant.

The second covenant, given by Jesus replaces the law of the first covenant, eliminates it, it is fulfilled..

Rubbish.
Jesus wanted the return of all the laws but not the sacrificial and ceremonial ones, which left 507 still on the table.

But that was 2000 years ago and folks who cling to anti-gay laws etc today whilst ignoring laws requiring all flat roofs to have parapets or balustrades, or the poor laws, such folks are clearly cherry-picking, and leaving the important ones out!

No Christians that I know really follow what Jesus wanted 2000 years ago....... for most of them, their Messiah is Paul, and their apostle is John...... what a disgraceful pair, imo.

 

[David1967]

No Christians that I know really follow what Jesus wanted 2000 years ago....... for most of them, their Messiah is Paul,

Undeniable. Growing up in a Baptist church, I can tell you that much more emphasis was put on the words of Paul (who by the way had no intention of his letters ever being interpreted as scripture) than on the sayings of Jesus.