Paula1 wrote:

Paul1 wrote:I have to agree with the Irish man in that programme. Who has the right to tell parents how their children should be educated?

Just because you're a parent doesn't automatically mean you'll do the right thing

And more importantly parents don't own children.religious parents are deluded and should have no choice to delude their children and expose their fragile brains to the bigotry of stupid religious indoctrinations.

I'm sure it's been said but when Dawkins asked that RC school guy (not sure of his position) "Do you think religion is divisive?" The guy says "Religion? Divisive?" Dawkins responds "You live in Ulster and you don't think religion is divisive?"

Either the guy is a complete numpty, in serious denial or just a fuckwit, maybe all 3.

The 'science' teacher, well, just disgraceful and I'm glad that I've always supplemented my own children's education with a good measure of quality top up. 60 students, all came to the conclusion that humans were just zapped into existence by Allah. Well, given the piss poor standard of alternative teaching, it's no surprise these kids were lost to superstition. If any, ill educated twat comes up to me and says "duh do you think we came from monkeys then?" I think I'm going to slap them.

A shocking exposé but I couldn't help think that Richard came unstuck a few times when challenged, almost as if he didn't have a good reason/alternative as to why he was proposing the scrapping of faith schools. Something about Richards delivery on these subjects often leaves me thinking I wish he were a bit more animated and passionate about it. In many of these confrontations (in other programmes), he seems to just swallow the crap these people spew and not come back with what you are shouting at the screen is the obvious, intelligent response. For example when the head teacher said that there should be choice and why should everyone do what he (Dawkins) wanted, intsead of confronting the guy, we cut away to shots from the marching season and Dawkins saying "when you see what choice does, is that really a good thing?" He should be pitching these touchy subjects to those who count.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhbSVZ-XK9k[/youtube]

In the beginning, is that the same schmuck who Dawkins had to ask 10x in a television show about the penalty for apostasy, and he barely wanted to admit it?

Well, the only positive information in this was that a lot of pupils in faith schools are children of parents who are not particularly religious, and only pretend to have faith to give their child a good education. And that the 2/3 of those school that are said to have better scores are probably full of non-believers. So the claims of theists that faith schools have better pupils and better education is wrong.

Good documentary. I wish he was more brutal when handing down the message against faith schools though. The religious schools got off softly, but it was still a pretty decent film.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Good documentary. I wish he was more brutal when handing down the message against faith schools though. The religious schools got off softly, but it was still a pretty decent film.

I think the guy just can't win no matter how he handles interviews on these programmes. If he's too soft we atheists wish he'd given them some, if he's too brutal he gets accused of being too shrill/strident/fundamental

I know I took part in the threads here and on RDF about how we felt about Richard's tactics in dealing with theists and there was a real mix even among atheists about the right way to handle himself

He has the reputation now for being a rabid atheist, he really can't win

Yea, i guess we shouldn't expect much aggression (if i can call it that) from his public documentaries anymore, he has to go out of his way to sound fair and can never win. But i guess thats why his books/texts seem so much better because he can call it like it is.

Paula1 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Good documentary. I wish he was more brutal when handing down the message against faith schools though. The religious schools got off softly, but it was still a pretty decent film.

I think the guy just can't win no matter how he handles interviews on these programmes. If he's too soft we atheists wish he'd given them some, if he's too brutal he gets accused of being too shrill/strident/fundamental

I know I took part in the threads here and on RDF about how we felt about Richard's tactics in dealing with theists and there was a real mix even among atheists about the right way to handle himself

He has the reputation now for being a rabid atheist, he really can't win

I totally agree with this, Paula, i.e. that he can't win. I'm one who has never denied that he's got up my nose, but I did watch the programme and found it quite reasonable. I was very pleased to see that he never actually came out and accused a parent of abusing their child for sending them to a faith school or for bringing them up in a religion. I'm sure some people would have liked to see that, but I find that kind of approach totally unproductive and more likely to provoke outrage and anger than to get anyone to think twice. Whereas I think many more people are likely to listen to his more temperate comments.

Nora_Leonard wrote:

Paula1 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Good documentary. I wish he was more brutal when handing down the message against faith schools though. The religious schools got off softly, but it was still a pretty decent film.

I think the guy just can't win no matter how he handles interviews on these programmes. If he's too soft we atheists wish he'd given them some, if he's too brutal he gets accused of being too shrill/strident/fundamental

I know I took part in the threads here and on RDF about how we felt about Richard's tactics in dealing with theists and there was a real mix even among atheists about the right way to handle himself

He has the reputation now for being a rabid atheist, he really can't win

I totally agree with this, Paula, i.e. that he can't win. I'm one who has never denied that he's got up my nose, but I did watch the programme and found it quite reasonable. I was very pleased to see that he never actually came out and accused a parent of abusing their child for sending them to a faith school or for bringing them up in a religion. I'm sure some people would have liked to see that, but I find that kind of approach totally unproductive and more likely to provoke outrage and anger than to get anyone to think twice. Whereas I think many more people are likely to listen to his more temperate comments.

I believe he has now rescinded his claim that children of theists are suffering abuse

A balance between strident and too soft would be ideal. We do want to see theists challenged and I think by raising the heat just a little can rattle the other side into honesty and can be very revealing

I wanted to add the interview he did with Ted Haggard here but it seems to have been blocked on Youtube by channel 4

Wow. I didn't know it was that bad in Britain. There are a few faith schools in Sweden (1%? 2% I don't know), but nothing along those lines.

Varangian wrote:Wow. I didn't know it was that bad in Britain. There are a few faith schools in Sweden (1%? 2% I don't know), but nothing along those lines.

Yeah, we get it. Sweden's great








Ireland's even worse. Almost all schools are Catholic.

Varangian wrote:Wow. I didn't know it was that bad in Britain. There are a few faith schools in Sweden (1%? 2% I don't know), but nothing along those lines.

A lot of this has to do with the history of education in the country, where many of the first schools ever started were funded by the church. So there are a lot of Church of England schools that pretty much follow the secular curriculum, and then there are the schools that were specifically established to be faith schools.

This is the info for Scotland

How many schools are there in Scotland?
Primary 2153

Secondary 376

Special 193

Total 2,722

Scotland has 389 state-funded faith schools - 385 Catholic, one Jewish and three Episcopalian. These schools play an important part in education in Scotland. We believe it's important for parents and pupils to have the choice to attend a faith school, if they want to.

I'm not sure what they mean by special schools maybe they teach special powers, woooooooo

You'd think they could come up with a better title than 'special', I hate that

Edit to add: This is from the Scottish government website

Paula1 wrote:This is the info for Scotland

How many schools are there in Scotland?
Primary 2153

Secondary 376

Special 193

Total 2,722

Scotland has 389 state-funded faith schools - 385 Catholic, one Jewish and three Episcopalian. These schools play an important part in education in Scotland. We believe it's important for parents and pupils to have the choice to attend a faith school, if they want to.

I'm not sure what they mean by special schools maybe they teach special powers, woooooooo

You'd think they could come up with a better title than 'special', I hate that

Edit to add: This is from the Scottish government website

I'm fairly certain 'special' means 'special educational needs', so schools with learning difficulties, autistic spectrum, physical disabilities that require special circumstances etc etc. At least, that's what it means in England, where schools are classified as primary, secondary and special (which can be either primary or secondary or both).

Nora_Leonard wrote:

Paula1 wrote:This is the info for Scotland

How many schools are there in Scotland?
Primary 2153

Secondary 376

Special 193

Total 2,722

Scotland has 389 state-funded faith schools - 385 Catholic, one Jewish and three Episcopalian. These schools play an important part in education in Scotland. We believe it's important for parents and pupils to have the choice to attend a faith school, if they want to.

I'm not sure what they mean by special schools maybe they teach special powers, woooooooo

You'd think they could come up with a better title than 'special', I hate that

Edit to add: This is from the Scottish government website

I'm fairly certain 'special' means 'special educational needs', so schools with learning difficulties, autistic spectrum, physical disabilities that require special circumstances etc etc. At least, that's what it means in England, where schools are classified as primary, secondary and special (which can be either primary or secondary or both).

Sorry Nora, I wasn't clear, too busy being facetious

I knew what they meant I just really don't like the term special school, the term special education or special needs is ok I suppose, not sure what I'd replace it with tho

Religion? wrote:I'm sure it's been said but when Dawkins asked that RC school guy (not sure of his position) "Do you think religion is divisive?" The guy says "Religion? Divisive?" Dawkins responds "You live in Ulster and you don't think religion is divisive?"

Either the guy is a complete numpty, in serious denial or just a fuckwit, maybe all 3.

Oh, you don't know the half of it. I send my children to an integrated school here in Northern Ireland. It's a wonderful school and the kids get exposure to all faiths and none through their relationships with friends, but just as importantly, and something that's rarely mentioned, is that through our children we parents also get to make friends across the divide with other parents from the opposite background.

The Catholic Church wants to maintain its grip on the education system, and the state sector (Dawkins describes them in the programme as Protestant Faith Schools, but he's actually wrong - Protestant children go there by default) is now so far removed, both culturally and in terms of ethos that it's hard to believe unless you have had the rare fortune to experience both (as I have).

It is a shocking disgrace that in a country like Northern Ireland 95% of school children are segregated along sectarian lines - it's so simple isnt it? The solution to all of our troubles and woes here is to bring us together. For too long the churchmen and religious hierarchy in schools have hidden behind the bullshit about "teaching respect for other cultures and views" when all that's really needed is to give a load of kids from both backgrounds the same classroom. The Unionist and Nationalists view each other with suspicion, which grows in to hatred and murder because they are fucking separated all of their lives, even though they may live one street apart. We are nothing special - the same thing will happen In England if there are Muslim schools and Catholic Schools and communities are segregated. Learn the fucking lesson!!!

So, what is the appetite like for integrated schools in Northern Ireland? Are they being encouraged? On the contrary - they face suspicion and irrational skepticism from all communities. Look at this letter to one of the most prominent local papers here. If you want to, you can exchange the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic" for "Black" and "White", remembering all the time that it's innocent children who are the pawns, to really get the full venomous effect:

Forced into integrated school

Published Date: 01 October 2008

SIR,

Once again the Protestant people have been forced into an integrated school.
I am on recordsaying this would happen if parents who had a say sat back and thought ‘I don’t need to vote on this issue. It will be ok.’

This has been our problem for years. We think someone else will sort it out. Well once again the people who didn’t vote let the left wing liberal do-gooders get their way.

Why not target the Catholic primary in the town? As said before we don’t want to be seen as sectarian. The Catholic parents and their elected political representatives would have fought it tooth and nail along with the parish priest and rightly so.

Ten out of ten to them, as they are prepared to stand up an fight issues like this. Unfortunately our local clergy and MOST of OUR elected representatives are weak and soft and don’t want to rock the boat.

Parents who voted in favour of it along with those who didn’t vote (they are biggest culprits) should be ashamed of themselves. We will have lost a core area for our children to find out our culture and history.

Whilst not enough of OUR history is taught in schools, this move will totally eradicate any chance of future pupils from OUR background going to this school from ever being taught about it in school.

I believe some parents have made the BRAVE step of taking their children out of the school. I applaud them for this and would encourage more parents to do the same.

Anybody from my tradition who thinks I am wrong feel free to reply to this letter through this paper.

Put your name to the article as any response with no name is a gutless action.

One final comment. People might say I have no right to pen this letter as I’m not from here. I pay taxes and have a son who will be of primary school age soon.The Model might have been an option depending on my family’s work commitments.

No chance now though.

Jim Wright,

Stranocum.

(despondent parent).

http://www.ballymoneytimes.co.uk/news/Forced-into-integrated-school.4540864.jp

Of course, one would expect such odious views to be condemned roundly by local politicians, but Mr Wright's stance was actually supported by none other than Mervyn Storey - who happened to be a Governer in the school in question, a local councillor and MLA and, wait for it...chairman of the Northern Ireland monitoring commission on education.

http://www.ballymoneytimes.co.uk/news/A-SCHOOL-DIVIDED.4521843.jp

That's what we are up against here.

Paula1 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Good documentary. I wish he was more brutal when handing down the message against faith schools though. The religious schools got off softly, but it was still a pretty decent film.

I think the guy just can't win no matter how he handles interviews on these programmes. If he's too soft we atheists wish he'd given them some, if he's too brutal he gets accused of being too shrill/strident/fundamental

I know I took part in the threads here and on RDF about how we felt about Richard's tactics in dealing with theists and there was a real mix even among atheists about the right way to handle himself

He has the reputation now for being a rabid atheist, he really can't win

Only time can tell if the high profile professor is winning.My personal opinion? he is and history will be kind to him.Some atheists and scores of god lovers been mislead to believe that professor dawkins is shrill,strident,fundamentalist ( not sure where is the problem with that one) or even rude.Every one who knows him should know the kind of gracious,generous gentle man that he really is.Religions are just not familiar with honest and constructive criticism, most of us in this forum know how the contemporary gods want their servants to deal with whoever challenges blasphemy.In the united states of America,president Barak Obama being a subject of racist attacks even by members of congress, but only few Americans thinks of the perpetrators as shrill,strident or even racists.Wee Jeorge bush been called bigot, a hypocrite and much more than that,his predecessor been called sex maniac,a liar and some other unpleasant names,but it never appeal to many brains that is shrill, strident or even rude.

kamel wrote:Some atheists and scores of god lovers been mislead to believe that professor dawkins is shrill,strident,fundamentalist ( not sure where is the problem with that one) ...

Shrill and strident are perfectly fine by me. Fundamentalism of any kind is atrocious (both as in being really bad, and as in commonly leading to atrocities). Thankfully, Dawkins isn't anything close to fundamentalist...he's just not spineless or conciliatory when confronted with complete bullshit.

There's a rather middle-gray, comfort-over-substance streak in modern so-called liberalism, in which people of a certain minimum level of economic comfort and political freedom have been successfully trained to mistake mealy-mouthed evasion of conflict and discomfort as a false replacement for genuine democratic interaction. Real discussion doesn't mean staying comfortable, or tiptoeing around real conflict. Real democracy doesn't mean contests of mobilization to see which faction can successfully force their view upon others.

Dawkins, whether by personality or by intent or both, seems constitutionally incapable of tolerating this ridiculous tradition of false comfort in public discourse. He seems to have slowly and grudgingly developed a switch for noticing which conversations are not likely to get anywhere, but part of his charm (at least to me) is that he seems the sort of person who couldn't come up with some slick or smooth way to smuggle his position even if he wanted to...he just relentlessly and methodically forges ahead. People can (and do) make fair arguments about the efficacy of such an approach in the context of a media-saturated first world full of jaded, impatient, and politically exhausted audiences, but at the end of the day I'd rather have the problems associated with having lots of people like Dawkins around than lots of over-safe confrontation-averse middle-of-the-road types constantly paralyzed into inaction by their futile desire to keep everything comfortable and "civil."

Macros1980 wrote:Likewise. He asked something along the lines of "Do you think parents should have the basic human right to choose the manner of their children's education?" He was trying to draw Dawkins into a "Yes" or "No" answer. When Dawkins tried to give a considered response, he was shouted down.

As he went on to point out, the rights of the parents to choose must be balanced against the rights of the children. Children have the right not to be brainwashed and indoctrinated. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is (should be) the responsibility of the government to say where parental choice ends. Obviously, parental choice does not extend to brainwashing their kids with racist or murderous ideologies. So parental choice is, demonstrably, not sacrosanct.

IMHO, no form of childhood indoctrination should be allowed in schools of any sort. End of story. Even if these schools were privately funded, I'd still have a massive problem with them.

Only just watched this and thought that overall he presented the case against faith schools well. However, I think he missed an appropriate response to the question that you mention above. I think this is the most important question, and one he should have had a proper immediate response to.

Do parents have the right to choose the manner of their children's education?

Of course parents have the right to choose the manner of their children's education. Whether it is a fee paying or a state school, whether they take sandwiches or eat in the canteen, which extra-curricular activities they do, which subjects they choose to study where there is a choice. What a parent does not have a right to do is send their children to schools that teach falsehoods as the truth.