CamClegg have kept to their election threats and propose to 'free' schools from state control and rapidly expand the number of faith schools.

I wonder if there will be restrictions on where the money comes from to stop radical foreign investors with lots of oil money building religiously and socially conservative and divisive schools, that are then funded by the taxpayer.

We already have a few schools round here that have had to close due to lack of numbers, if religious pupils are pulled out I guess that will force more to shut and the non-religious pupils will be required to attend religious schools.

clegg you tosser, cameron, well he's a cunt anyway.

What twats those two turned out to be...

I mean, Cameron - that I expected (he's a twat anyways), but Clegg - isn't he an Atheist?

And there's nothing we can do about it.

Wiðercora wrote:And there's nothing we can do about it.

You need to vote Con, Lib, Lab, er...

Meep!
This is one case where that trusty old stand-by "Egg, egg, egg!" isn't going to get me very far, isn't it?
Be afraid.

Ugh. The cunts.

I wish those morons realise that the real reasons why faith schools do better then secular schools is because they have more funding then secular schools along with that secular schools will accept anyone including troublemakers while faith schools don't.
The only way I can see us countering it will be if atheist and secular organisations buy schools and rebrand them as atheist and secular schools but the only way that can happen is if Atheism will become a religion (which we do not want) and the only way that can happen will be if the term religion changes. Even if Atheist organisations can do that however religion is the biggest industry in the world with enough money to get rid of the world's problems a million times over so there is no way secular groups can compete with the religion industry.
I found out last week that my old school (which is secular) may be shutting in about 4 years time, I wouldn't be surprised that a religious organisation will buy it and rebrand it as a faith school so there will be two faith schools in my area.
Even though Clegg is an Atheist it still doesn't stop him from being religions lapdog not to mention that he said he may convert to religion later on in life which really doesn't look good for us. That means every time there is a politician that is Atheist then they must promise they may become born again morons later on in life. Maybe there should be a Secular party or an Atheist party to combat the religious influence in politics cause it looks like the National Secular Society isn't having much effect now as it once did.

Have you got a link to where he says that? I know they are going to let new state schools be started by various groups but so far they haven't said that this can include faith groups. I wouldn't be surprised to see Cameron do that but I'd like to see if he's said it explicitly.

Religious schools, the ultimate brainwashing/recruitment ground for religion. Get ready for attacks on non-believers along with increased attacks on people who are gay and people who are bi, nasty clashes between religions, contraceptives being burned, natural history museums being closed down and a shit load of nasty things to happen in the UK when more faith schools are being built. Maybe I'm being a little paranoid cause of the hot weather.

dalv8409 wrote:Maybe I'm being a little paranoid cause of the hot weather.

Yes, you seem to have faith schools confused with seminaries and cult programming centres.

With Tory and Labour being enthusiastic supporters of faith schools, those of us against them were always going to be pissing in the wind, however we did manage to extract some concessions from our coalition partners, insofar as faith schools are going to have to be a lot more inclusive with their admissions policies.

And of course, there is nothing stopping anyone from setting up specifically atheistic schools...

Callan wrote:Meep!
This is one case where that trusty old stand-by "Egg, egg, egg!" isn't going to get me very far, isn't it?
Be afraid.

Betterwatchout saying "Meep," there.

I know what I mean when I say "meep" -- whaddyou mean saying "meep" there?

http://wbztv.com/local/meep.banned.danv ... 07139.html

... or could this just be a nefarious variation on ... [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e2kaQqxmQ0[/youtube]

/derail

Time for a noisy demo, could we even get enough people to turn up?

Evan Harris is gone, my most LibDem anti-abortion, pro-faith school Catholic Sarah Teather is still around.

If there are religious schools that don't discriminate against other religions, non religions and gays, and if they do teach contraception properly, how do we argue against them?

I'm convinced that religious schools are bad, but what to tell an interested friend who isn't a political atheist?

The government also said it would await the outcome of an independent review into tuition fees led by Lord Browne, the former head of BP.
The Lib Dems – which oppose a rise in fees – will be allowed to abstain from any Commons vote on the issue.

Hang on; if they oppose the rise, why can't they vote against the rise rather than abstain? Seems to me like the LibDems are coming very close to prostituting their principles in order to have a limited influence on some things (where there is already close agreement) & get their grubby paws on power.

chairman bill wrote:

The government also said it would await the outcome of an independent review into tuition fees led by Lord Browne, the former head of BP.
The Lib Dems – which oppose a rise in fees – will be allowed to abstain from any Commons vote on the issue.

Hang on; if they oppose the rise, why can't they vote against the rise rather than abstain? Seems to me like the LibDems are coming very close to prostituting their principles in order to have a limited influence on some things (where there is already close agreement) & get their grubby paws on power.

Only "coming very close"?

ED209 wrote:... Only "coming very close"?

Fair one.

chairman bill wrote:Hang on; if they oppose the rise, why can't they vote against the rise rather than abstain? Seems to me like the LibDems are coming very close to prostituting their principles in order to have a limited influence on some things (where there is already close agreement) & get their grubby paws on power.

It's called compromise. It's something adults do.

Strontium Dog wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Hang on; if they oppose the rise, why can't they vote against the rise rather than abstain? Seems to me like the LibDems are coming very close to prostituting their principles in order to have a limited influence on some things (where there is already close agreement) & get their grubby paws on power.

It's called compromise. It's something adults do.

Indeed.

And I agree with SD that we shouldn't be mistaking faith schools with madrassas. I oppose faith schools in principle, but I went to one myself (C of E primary) and it didn't do me any harm; in fact I look back on the time I spent there as the best years of my life.

It is Tony Blair creationist academies we really need to be concerned about.