[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sexism-and-the-state-of-israel-6287448.html#disqus_threadThis article on that subject includes the impact on education.[/url

Speaking of which:

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/pope-benedict-xvi-gay-marriage_n_1194515.html?&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009Tossbag.[/url

I can get my head around not liking LGBT people.

I can get my head around people believing, because of their religious beliefs, that any 'alternative' sexuality is immoral.

I can get my head around people believing that gay marriage is not a good or desirable thing.

I might not agree with them, but I can get my head around it.

But such statements simply leave one flabbergasted as to their complete divorce from any logic.

However, as only a slight aside, given this thread, what are nearly 180 diplomats doing being addressed by the pope? Why? Do vast numbers of diplomats go to be addressed by the heads of any other religious group?

If ever you wanted an illustration of the sway that religion holds over our lives, this is it. And yes, I do know that the Vatican is a state and the pope its head. In which case, I'd ask how many times anyone thinks the head of, say, Switzerland sits down to address 180 diplomats on the biggest threats facing humanity?

For balance, I note that the page Rock God linked to does, further down, have a picture gallery of progressive religious leaders spanning a wider religious spectrum than some might expect.

Good for them. But one wonders whether – and to what extent – they will prevail against what seems to be rising fundamentalisms.

You'd think he'd be all for it, after all they're hardly likely to breed more poofs & lezzas are they?

~s~

Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago. As for secularists (and I assume from your agreement with their position you are one yourself), defensive behaviour is usually displayed as a consequence of feeling threatened. Why do secularists feel threatened by religious belief?


This paragraph is very confused. On the one hand you are against selection on a faith basis (while ignoring the fact that not all faith schools select on a faith basis) and yet you state a belief that selection on a faith basis does not improve academic achievement. So what is your problem then?

However, the fact still remains that faith based schools (and again, I can only speak of the Christian faith) generally enable their children to achieve to a higher standard than non-faith based schools (although obviously there are outstanding non-faith based schools also and plenty of them).


All schools have a great deal of freedom in the curricula they teach. Far more freedom than many would have you believe. The National Curriculum was never intended as a proscriptive document. It was a guide and a guide only. That schools often teach it to the letter is a reflection of many things. However, all a school needs to do is convince OFSTED that the curriculum they choose to use meets the standard and legal requirements set down for the National Curriculum and they are free to teach to that curriculum. As for academies, it was my understanding that they will operate to the same policy but it is their ethos and source of control (ie outside of the Local Authority) which are the essential differences. However, I will check on that.


As I said earlier, all schools have to discriminate. The last government brought in the lottery system. Do you agree with that as a means of discrimination? It seems idiotic to me.


They don't require a reference from a clergyman to show that they can teach children effectively. A clergy reference has nothing to do with their teaching ability but only as confirmation of the faith disclosures in their application statement, just as a reference from a previous employer is - in part at least - confirmation that you actually worked there in the capacity you claim. Not all faith schools request references from clergy, not by a long chalk, as I said earlier. The ones I applied to didn't. They just requested sympathy with the ethos of the school which, as I also said earlier, is a prerequisite of any school, faith-based or not.

Incidentally, did you know that it is a parent's legal entitlement to withdraw their child from any religious education at school and that it is a legal right for a teacher to withdraw from teaching religious education? I exercised that right once when on teaching practice in a Catholic school. They had a half hour instruction session each morning and because I am not a Catholic of any description I did not consider myself fit to teach their version of the Christian faith and so I invoked my legal right to withdraw.


Interesting. I need to find a reference to it but at the last poll taken of people's faith orientation, I think about five years ago, approximately 70% claimed to be Christian. Polls are polls but they give an indication if not a definitive description.




Oh yes, you definitely feel threatened!


You have not got a clue what you are talking about. Science is taught as science; religious education as religious education. The two never meet except in broad discussions, usually within citizenship sessions.


So long as their standard of education was high, they learned about other faiths and (in the case of your Scientology example) children weren't put at risk, I wouldn't care. Children are fascinated by learning and they will discuss all sorts of things and think about all sorts of things. Lots of those things they will reject as they grow older but some they will retain. That applies to all areas of learning, and not just faith.


How many attend once a week, twice a month, three times a month? How many are C & E Christians? How many are agnostic? How many would want to marry in a church or be buried with a vicar at the helm? You'll be surprised just how many people profess a faith of some kind but do not necessarily go on missionary duty. I would suggest that actually secularists are a smaller minority than faith based people because anecdotally anyway most people simply don't know.


I could ask you the same question. Should your secularism influence the majority? Should any perceived minority influence the majority? It happens in all sorts of ways and sometimes yes, it is funded by the tax payer. I could make a list of the things I resent my taxes funding, as could everybody on here. That argument doesn't wash. At the end of the day, if faith based schools are more successful academically then they should be encouraged, not hounded out by threatened minorities. Most parents want their children to be well educated and they will sort out all the rest at home. That's the job of the parent.

Common sense www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961

Common sense www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961

So why do the bishops cling on to their seats in the House of Lords and will continue to do so?

Quote ="Big Graeme"Common sense www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961'" I find it quite amusing that humanists are running so scared of creationism. Reading the arguments from creationists and humanists is like reading of two equally scared sub-communities acting in the same way but with differing tenets of faith. I'd like one of those scientists to teach evolution to a group of Year 1 children. See how far they get with that! Especially when they then try to teach about apes. That could be an interesting unit to observe!

Quote ="Big Graeme"Common sense www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961'" I find it quite amusing that humanists are running so scared of creationism. Reading the arguments from creationists and humanists is like reading of two equally scared sub-communities acting in the same way but with differing tenets of faith. I'd like one of those scientists to teach evolution to a group of Year 1 children. See how far they get with that! Especially when they then try to teach about apes. That could be an interesting unit to observe!

They did?

Care to point to any credible reference that backs that assertion up?

Also, how the hell can a lottery system be discriminatory? The mere fact that the pupil roll is recruited on an anonymous basis would suggest otherwise.

Scared? No more like pointing and laughing



You are free to believe in your sky pixie all you want, just don't brainwash kids using taxpayers money.

You've got it all back assward if you think that evangelicalism is new! How do you think African and Caribbean churches formed their beliefs in the first place? Did they spirit them out of the air? Or do they exist as a consequence of the British missionaries who went out to African and Caribbean countries in the wake of the empire?

I suggest you need to read up on your history. Evangelical Christianity has been around for a long time. It took hold once the Bible had been translated into English and could be printed at a price that people could afford. They no longer had to rely upon the interpretation of the priest or monk to follow the Christian life but instead could look to 'God's Word' or the Evangel, ie the Gospel (good news). Evangelicalism is simply a word to describe people who follow the teaching of the Bible, although it can be applied to anyone who follows a doctrine (set of beliefs). The scientists referred to in the article cited above could be equally described as evangelicals, just of another doctrine.

Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?

Why not let kids learn to read, write and "do sums" and other fun activities? There's plenty of time, once the become more cognisant to introduce the options. But for some unfathomable reason, the religious nutjobs want that indoctrination to begin as soon as possible.

[size=200WHY?[/size

:2x4dqk8w
Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.

:2x4dqk8w
From [i:2x4dqk8wdictionary.com[/i:2x4dqk8w for your edification Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

How on earth did you get a license to teach anyone, let alone vulnerable children?

I asked you for evidence of the "last government" introducing a lotter system for school allocations. All you managed to do was repeat what you had originally said. OK I'll do the job for you: Brighton & Hove Council briefly introduced a lottery system. Right, have we got that? One council, out of the many in the UK. One council, not a government.

I also asked how a lottery could ever be describes as discriminatory and all you managed to do was provide me with a dictionary definition of discrimination.

I would be seriously worried if any child of mine attended any school you were a part of.

Quote ="cod'ead"Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?'" Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.

Quote ="cod'ead"Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?'" Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.

Not only that but they graded me as good. Shocking, isn't it?


You should be. I might teach them to discriminate between the contexts in which words are used and their various meanings in order that they can apply them appropriately. That would result in them being better educated than you.

Quote ="SaintsFan"Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.'" You might want to read this: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Sch ... DG_4016369 No lottery. Never has been. The majority of state schools have no say whatsoever in which pupils are admitted.

Quote ="SaintsFan"Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.'" You might want to read this: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Sch ... DG_4016369 No lottery. Never has been. The majority of state schools have no say whatsoever in which pupils are admitted.

How would the teaching of creationism measure up to the "Scientific Enquiry" criteria of the curriculum when the whole principle is based on an unquestioning belief system requiring no proof other than one text book?

You really have quite a low opinion of children considering your profession. Or maybe you have a low opinion of yourself and your fellow teachers?

Both my kids knew about evolution when they were that age. It wasn't even difficult to explain. You only need the general principle and then fill in the details later - rather like the way the rest of the Science curriculum works in fact.

Quote ="SaintsFan"Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.'" But you are entirely happy continuing telling them a fairy story and teaching them to sing "The lord god made them all"?

Quote ="SaintsFan"Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.'" But you are entirely happy continuing telling them a fairy story and teaching them to sing "The lord god made them all"?

It wouldn't.

I have no idea where the assumption has come from that I want creationism taught in schools? I don't. But being a teacher and knowing how science is built layer upon layer throughout the Key Stages (and step by step within those layers), I would find it interesting to see just how the scientists in the article propose to teach evolution given the myriad subjects that IMO are more important to reinforce at that stage in a child's learning.