Greenock Celtic

[Wee Dublin End]

If catholics continue to have seperate education then I think it's only fair that a Buddhist school be provided for my children if and when they reach school-age. My wife and I pay the same taxes as catholics and should have the same provisions.

[xj2006]

That's pretty much what I thought.

 

loveless,

 

who the heck is in your profile pic?

 

looks a bit like that loser from the apprentice last year??

[Loveless]

No. I am against the above being practiced on the watch of what should be an equitable state.

 

I reluctantly accept that some parents may wish to demonstrate their creator's fervent love for their child by instructing them that anything short of belief in a personal saviour whose supernatural essence is a matter of historical contention will result in their being cast into an eternal lake of fire... but can we keep it out of the state schools? Maybe?

 

Interesting, you're previous post didn't suggest you were against if for economic reasons - the previous poster did.

 

You seem to be more against the "segregation" of children on principal, which is fair enough.

 

Surely then you must feel that segregating children based on their parent's income is just as bad as separating them on the basis of their parent's religion (or lack of)?

 

As I've mentioned before the notion that children are turned against their friends at 5 because of religious schools is absurd (although I'm not saying you personally mentioned this). Even if the whole concept of religion had never existed, there is no way my parents would have sent me to my local primary school, they would have sent me to Ardgowan on a placing request because it was a far better school - is this just as bad?

[Loveless]

If catholics continue to have seperate education then I think it's only fair that a Buddhist school be provided for my children if and when they reach school-age. My wife and I pay the same taxes as catholics and should have the same provisions.

 

Actually I agree with you, you pay taxes, and you live in this country, why not.

[Loveless]

loveless,

 

who the heck is in your profile pic?

 

looks a bit like that loser from the apprentice last year??

 

It is - Raef, can't remember his second name. He was in celebrity Come Dine with Me recently as well. He did worse in that than he did in The Apprentice.

[MrsTON]

It is - Raef, can't remember his second name. He was in celebrity Come Dine with Me recently as well. He did worse in that than he did in The Apprentice.

Raef Bjayou, he is a smarmy toss-pot.

[TRVMP]

Interesting, you're previous post didn't suggest you were against if for economic reasons - the previous poster did.

 

You seem to be more against the "segregation" of children on principal, which is fair enough.

 

Surely then you must feel that segregating children based on their parent's income is just as bad as separating them on the basis of their parent's religion (or lack of)?

 

As I've mentioned before the notion that children are turned against their friends at 5 because of religious schools is absurd (although I'm not saying you personally mentioned this). Even if the whole concept of religion had never existed, there is no way my parents would have sent me to my local primary school, they would have sent me to Ardgowan on a placing request because it was a far better school - is this just as bad?

 

Well, the economy is a factor, I admit that much. As WDE requests his children be taught (for example) rebirth, this would presumably come at quite a price. I, meanwhile, am an adherent of Pastafarianism, and would obviously like my children to be raised in the ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can't all have our way without it coming at great expense.

 

The economic segregation argument is a pretty good one, but I respond in this way: ultimately the state cannot, unless the child is in danger, trump the wishes of the parent in the private sphere. Should the state run secular schools, those who wish to provide their children with religious schooling should have primacy over the state in this instance - but do it themselves. The parents having primacy over the state is, then, the lesser evil. That's it.

 

Your last example is not just as bad, because for me the segregation argument isn't the be-all end-all. As you imply, people just love splitting themselves up into little camps and the removal of religion in schools ain't gonna change that. (Just look at the USA for an example - they have fully secular schooling but it's hardly a let's-all-join-hands-and-sing-kumbayah utopia, is it?) The reason it isn't as bad is that where a child is schooled on a secular basis won't define either their identity or their thought process to the extent that indoctrination into a certain religion will. I am far more concerned with a child being labled a "Christian" or a "Muslim" or a "Buddhist" when they are far, far, far too young to even understand what these mean, let alone realise the enormity of a lifetime spent pleasing an imaginary space fairy or whatever. As the parents' wishes must be above those of the government of the day I can't prevent it from happening in every case (and nor would I, in fact) but on the state's watch, on the taxpayer's dollar, and in a level society, schools should be secular so as to avoid the perpetuation of these labels in an educational context.

[TRVMP]

Actually I agree with you, you pay taxes, and you live in this country, why not.

 

Nobody agrees with this if it is taken to its logical conclusion. Not a single person. You're paying lip-service to an idea to which you do not agree.

 

There is no way you would really back any of the following scenarios:

 

1) A taxpayer-funded school, primary and secondary, for my children alone, as my belief is that my family is the sole enlightened family on earth. We know the nature of God: he lives in an empty Coke bottle on my windowsill, and we worship him by pelting the bottle with chewing gum. We also hate Jews. The school is, of course, open to everyone (as it would be if it were state-run) but at the same time everyone in it must learn under a curriculum that makes allowance for the fact that everyone is going to hell except me, my family, the Coke bottle and its contents (internal and gummy external.)

 

2) A public school for Scientologists.

 

3) A public school for Esoteric Hitlerism.

 

You will get some people agreeing with 2. You won't find anyone who agrees with 3? Why? Because not all beliefs are created equal. Not all worldviews are equally valid. Not all things ultimately come down to a thin smile and a "matter of opinion." People always draw the line somewhere, and for me it is, when it comes to matters of faith, both fairest and also most likely most correct to draw it right at the beginning.

[TaunTon]

Actually I agree with you, you pay taxes, and you live in this country, why not.

 

How about because its daft.

 

If folk are so desperate to have their children brought up in a faith then I suggest the home and the church/chapel/mosque/temple etc are the places to go. Continuing to fund waste cannot be justified.

[TRVMP]

How about because its daft.

 

It isn't daft, but Pastafarianism is.

 

Why?

 

It just is.

[Loveless]

Well, the economy is a factor, I admit that much. As WDE requests his children be taught (for example) rebirth, this would presumably come at quite a price. I, meanwhile, am an adherent of Pastafarianism, and would obviously like my children to be raised in the ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can't all have our way without it coming at great expense.

 

The economic segregation argument is a pretty good one, but I respond in this way: ultimately the state cannot, unless the child is in danger, trump the wishes of the parent in the private sphere. Should the state run secular schools, those who wish to provide their children with religious schooling should have primacy over the state in this instance - but do it themselves. The parents having primacy over the state is, then, the lesser evil. That's it.

 

Your last example is not just as bad, because for me the segregation argument isn't the be-all end-all. As you imply, people just love splitting themselves up into little camps and the removal of religion in schools ain't gonna change that. (Just look at the USA for an example - they have fully secular schooling but it's hardly a let's-all-join-hands-and-sing-kumbayah utopia, is it?) The reason it isn't as bad is that where a child is schooled on a secular basis won't define either their identity or their thought process to the extent that indoctrination into a certain religion will. I am far more concerned with a child being labled a "Christian" or a "Muslim" or a "Buddhist" when they are far, far, far too young to even understand what these mean, let alone realise the enormity of a lifetime spent pleasing an imaginary space fairy or whatever. As the parents' wishes must be above those of the government of the day I can't prevent it from happening in every case (and nor would I, in fact) but on the state's watch, on the taxpayer's dollar, and in a level society, schools should be secular so as to avoid the perpetuation of these labels in an educational context.

 

I understand what you're saying, but as far as I can see, the differences between Catholic schools and non-catholic schools in Scotland anyway are major as far as ethos goes (in the eyes of Catholics that is) but pretty minor economically. The only way I can think that my school would have been different to yours structurally would have been the tiny, underused chapel. A couple of periods of R.E. a week isn't an economic strain, and it certainly isn't a burden on the curriculum.

 

The whole "duplication" argument always seems pointless to me also (again, not yours) - it's not as if by removing Catholic schools, the children who attend them will simply disappear - they'll still need schools and as far as I can tell the price of a school isn't changed by whether it is religious or not.

 

I know what you mean about children being labelled - but it will always happen and not just with religion. It's only natural that parents will want to teach children what they think is right -whether or not you or I agree with it.

 

[Wee Dublin End]

How about because its daft.

 

If folk are so desperate to have their children brought up in a faith then I suggest the home and the church/chapel/mosque/temple etc are the places to go. Continuing to fund waste cannot be justified.

 

 

But fair's fair. If Cafflicks have their own school then Buddhists should too, and I'll be writing to my MSP about it, whoever that is.

[Loveless]

How about because its daft.

 

If folk are so desperate to have their children brought up in a faith then I suggest the home and the church/chapel/mosque/temple etc are the places to go. Continuing to fund waste cannot be justified.

 

Look if I contribute towards the tax system which I do, I want a say on how my children are educated.

 

If I send my children to a Catholic school I am paying for their education, and you will be paying for your children's education in their non-Catholic school, I don't see the problem here.

[TRVMP]

I understand what you're saying, but as far as I can see, the differences between Catholic schools and non-catholic schools in Scotland anyway are major as far as ethos goes (in the eyes of Catholics that is) but pretty minor economically. The only way I can think that my school would have been different to yours structurally would have been the tiny, underused chapel. A couple of periods of R.E. a week isn't an economic strain, and it certainly isn't a burden on the curriculum.

 

The whole "duplication" argument always seems pointless to me also (again, not yours) - it's not as if by removing Catholic schools, the children who attend them will simply disappear - they'll still need schools and as far as I can tell the price of a school isn't changed by whether it is religious or not.

 

I know what you mean about children being labelled - but it will always happen and not just with religion. It's only natural that parents will want to teach children what they think is right -whether or not you or I agree with it.

 

I am not talking about Catholic and non-Catholic schools. I am talking about religious interference in state schooling, regardless of its provenance.

 

It is amazing how often this discussion comes down to "well, they're not REALLY doing any harm, so why not let the ministers in?" This is a dreadful argument because to poison childrens' mind with lies* is harm.

 

edit: I know the schools weren't very different. That was my whole point. I went to a school that should have had 'PRODDY SCHOOL' above the door. I already mentioned that. I don't think RCC schools are a unique evil, and I don't think that mine was, either.

 

Look if I contribute towards the tax system which I do, I want a say on how my children are educated.

 

If I send my children to a Catholic school I am paying for their education, and you will be paying for your children's education in their non-Catholic school, I don't see the problem here.

 

The parents in examples 1, 2 and 3 in my earlier post want it to. This is the issue.

 

*people don't like the word lies. I can think of no other way to describe the Abrahamic creation story. It is demonstrably false yet it is still taught. I can think of no other way to describe the way the synoptic Gospels are taught - these are taught mainly through lying by omission. As soon as religion starts playing fair it can be taken out of the liars' camp in which it currently resides.

[Rhubarb Mess]

When you start paying my taxes for me, then you can tell me how I educate my children.

 

As I've said before, If I live in Inverclyde when I have children the only school I would send them to at the minute would be St. Columbas Kilmacolm.

 

Are you against private schooling as well?

 

 

What the f*** has indoctrinating kids got to do with education? And I probably already do pay your takes.

 

I would send my son to any decent school with the stipulation that if they even try to 'express' religious views upon him they will most definitely have a court case coming.

 

Not against private schooling as such, they seem not to be as divisive as mainstream schools but when pupils are prevented from admission to these schools on the grounds of geographical background and place among society the I would happily see them burn down.

 

BTW, If you live in Inverclyde you will have to stay in the 'correct' part of Inverclyde in order to send kids to St.Columbas, Kilmalcolm.

 

I will repeat again there is only one major religion preventing all our kids attending the same education in this country and no matter how much people try to defend it they haven't a leg to stand on. Other nations are at first shocked then dismayed at the culture in this country which is out of date by over a century.

[TaunTon]

Look if I contribute towards the tax system which I do, I want a say on how my children are educated.

 

If I send my children to a Catholic school I am paying for their education, and you will be paying for your children's education in their non-Catholic school, I don't see the problem here.

 

You don't see a problem when we have 2 schools to support instead of one? Think about how much money is wasted duplicating the same services across schools. Think how much better the education system could be if money was invested in educating children rather than maintaining the current system.

 

Religion of whatever denomination is a matter for parents and churches, not for educators.

[Loveless]

Raef Bjayou, he is a smarmy toss-pot.

 

Actually I thought he was one of the only decent constestants on the apprentice. He acted and dressed like a gentleman throughout - probably means he wasn't best for the job then!

[Rhubarb Mess]

There is only one bigoted schooling system in this country.

[TRVMP]

I will repeat again there is only one major religion preventing all our kids attending the same education in this country and no matter how much people try to defend it they haven't a leg to stand on. Other nations are at first shocked then dismayed at the culture in this country which is out of date by over a century.

 

Having gone to a school that was not run under the aegis of this one major religion, but rather another, I will have to disagree based on my own experiences.

 

In any case the historical causes are pretty clear to see (although you are absolutely right that they are now outdated.)

[TRVMP]

There is only one bigoted schooling system in this country.

 

Yep. The state school system.