Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

I can see where you are coming from, but the alternative is that we walk on egg shells. At the moment we are worried about upsetting religious people by criticising their beliefs. If we make comments about Islam for instance we risk violent reactions. We are far too careful. I am a firm believer that ALL subjects are fair game for humour however dark or unpleasant. There are few things less important than upsetting people. People who believe in silly things and want to propagate those beliefs deserve to have fun poked at them even if only to show up the absdurdity of it all. Just listen to Lenny Bruce.

why should religion be a "silly thing" just because it does not fit your own (non)beliefs? ..... freedom of speech also includes freedom to worship as one wishes and being ridiculed for so doing is a sign of gross intolerance on your part ..... on the other hand, generalised satire and criticism are certainly acceptable, so long as it is aimed with a genuine point and not just gratuitous abuse

Well, why should the state subsidise those who believe in extra terrrstial beings without proof and want to educate their children in the same beliefs? I am happy for them to be deluded if they so wish. But why do we treat their organisations as special and give them money to continue their indoctrination of the next generation?

It is also so middle ages!

now you're not only getting very silly indeed but getting far away from the original question about freedom of speech

Well, why should the state subsidise those who believe in extra terrrstial beings without proof and want to educate their children in the same beliefs?

No.

They should send their offspring to Eton, which I "believe" is subsidised by peculiar "tax" allowances.

But I prefer them not to be deluded anymore than they are now!
----------

That really is nothing to do with the argument. The allowance that Eaton gets is one of charitable status, which I agree should be stopped for all schools. I am concerned about grant maintained schools. I am not opposed to faith schools for people who are prepared to pay the full price of the cost of the school. I just don't want the rest of us who don't believe in extra terrestrials to contribute to them.

people who talk that much about nothing not surprisingly make not much enough money to let it go..:)
anyway terrorists - death penalty.I would apply Hammurabi's code.

Hays - the charity commission is very strict in ensuring that the rules are properly followed to allow the continuation of charitable status ...... i think, but am not 100% certain, that even "faith schools" have to allow admission to at least a reasonable % of "others"

fwiw, the school i attended was originally founded "for the sons of clergy", and though we all had to attend chapel (big deal!), anglicanism was certainly not forced upon us and there was assuredly a good selection of other races and creeds and no doubt many of the others came from agnostic/atheist families

there is also a very tenable argument that a child is better brought up with a certain set of "religious rules" (= moral values) than none at all ..... my own children were not brought up as jewish, though it is a matter of fact that they are .... with hindsight, i think they would have benefited from learning about their cultural heritage which de facto, would have included a certain amount religious instruction in its broadest sense

Catholic schools only have to let in other pupils if they have spare places. I tried at one point get one of my sons into the Jesuit college that I went to. They wanted baptism certs and a letter from my parish priest. I said that we did not go to church and I was refused. I asked about non Catholics attending and was told that there were no spare places for them.

the rules may well have changed, but having done some quick research, it does look very woolly ..... of course the other argument is "would i want any child of mine educated under a restrictive regime?" ..... for me, a definite no, as i would want my child to have a fully rounded education, though that brings into play all sorts of other criteria as well

It is not that I want faith schools to let in non faith pupils. I want no faith schools unless people pay total cost privately. Why is our tax revenue used to indoctrinate children? There are still faith schools that teach creationism and that natural selection is incorrect. They also teach that the world is about 25,000 years old.

i would be very sad to learn if our state schools had no religious instruction (teaching a moral code) of any kind ..... if tax-payer-funded state schools do, then there is no reason why the schools which are predominantly of another faith should not also have tax breaks (= charitable status), provided other crtiteria are also met

============

you say "There are still faith schools that teach creationism and that natural selection is incorrect. They also teach that the world is about 25,000 years old."

i ask, "In UK? If so, please specify"

There was a programming on TV last year where there were interviews in schools. The teachers and head teachers were asked to justify their stance. They just said it was their right to teach that.

Here are some articles about it. The Guardian one is from last November.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/30/free-schools-creationism

The second is last summer

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/deborah-ross-so-you-think-teaching-creationism-in-school-is-farfetched-7956891.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8931518/Islam-Charles-Darwin-and-the-denial-of-science.html


At University College London we have numbers of Islamic students, almost all dedicated, hard-working and able. Some, unfortunately, refuse to accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds, as do some of their Christian fellows; and just a couple of years ago a Turkish anti-evolution speaker (a Dr Babuna, as I remember) was invited on to campus to give an account of why The Origin is wrong. He was the scion of an extraordinary – and very rich – anti-evolution organisation based in his native land that has sent out thousands of lavishly illustrated creationist books and has linked Darwinism to Nazism and worse.

Much of their propaganda has been lifted from Christian fundamentalism and there is a certain irony in where it has ended up. I have had plenty of verbal complaints from undergraduates of both persuasions that I am demeaning religion, while others ask that they be excused lectures on my subject, or simply fail to turn up.

In schools things are worse: some kids will walk out rather than listen. Their teachers can be just as bad. The most virulent attack I have had in recent years came from a physics teacher in a respected north London state school, who – to the embarrassment of his colleagues – barracked my talk on evolutionary biology with repeated statements that Darwinism contradicted the laws of thermodynamics. I was forced, uncharacteristically, to be rude.

Anyone, of course, is free to believe whatever they wish. But why train to become a biologist, or a doctor, when you deny the very foundations of your subject? For a biology student to refuse to accept the fact of evolution is equivalent to choosing to do a degree in English without believing in grammar, or in physics with a rooted objection to gravity: it makes no sense at all. The same is true for doctors. How can you put a body right with no idea as to why it is liable to go wrong?

I have tried asking students at quite what point they find my lectures unacceptable: is it the laws of inheritance, mutation, the genes that protect against malaria or cancer, the global shifts in human skin colour, Neanderthal DNA, or the inherited differences between apes and men? Each point is, they say, very interesting – but when I point out that they have just accepted the whole truth of Darwin’s theory they deny that frightful thought. Some take instant umbrage, although a few, thank goodness, do leave the room with a pensive look.

post 25438
picks up on just one school (grindon hall) and raises the very valid question as to whether or not gov't funding should be withdrawn in the light of that school's apparent refusal to accept drawinism


post 25439
does not seem to mention any particluar school at all - or did i miss something?


post 25440
is about a lecturer at ucl who complains bitterly that certain students refuse point blank to accept evolution and further that "The most virulent attack I have had in recent years came from a physics teacher in a respected north London state school" .... so that article can scarcely be said to support your argument!

There are lots of examples and easy to find

http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/p/creationism-in-schools-isnt-science.html

This April (2011), all Year 11 children in a state funded school were brought together and had a visitor introduced to them as a scientist. He then spent the next one and a half hours presenting these sixteen year olds with a series of well polished Young Earth Creationist claims, described as scientific theory.

The visitor was Philip Bell, a full time Evangelical preacher from Creation Ministries International (CMI) who presents creationist views as scientific facts and denies evolution. He states on his website that his preferred method of evangelising is infiltrating at a grassroots level as he feels this has more successful conversions.

 CMI described the school visit on their web site as ‘ministry to school children’.

The parents knew nothing of this until after the event, when one, who happens to be a trained Geologist, and thus qualified to evaluate what had been said, wrote to the school to complain. 



The Chair of Governors replied that this was all part of the Religious Education (RE)curriculum and that she should not worry because they also invited a speaker ‘to present the case for evolutionism’ so that both sides were heard, both ‘scientists’ were given equal time and both talks were presented to the children as ‘a belief’.



These recent events at St Peter's Church of England School, Exeter, show creationists are now openly using RE classes and the school timetable to advance their claim to be offering a valid scientific alternative to established knowledge, even within the State school system.

The school is adamant it has done nothing wrong despite presenting creationism on equal terms with modern science to sixteen year olds. 



In a recent statement, the Department for Education has stated that secretary of state for education, Michael Gove is ‘crystal clear’ that creationism has no scientific validity and should not be taught as science. Yet here we have a school presenting Creationism as a valid scientific position, and justifying this by reference to Religious Education.

you haven't advanced your original case one millimetre, so suggest your learn how to present an argument better and concisely and with luck, accurately

Dad's Army star Bill Pertwee who played warden Hodges dies in his sleep, age 86

'Put that light out!'



JUST THREE SURVIVING DAD'S ARMY CAST MEMBERS LEFT

Are you one of them?

8-