UK faith schools teaching women must obey men
Scroll to see replies
Faith schools aren't the problem, it's the people who run some of them. I went to a Catholic school with really good leadership. We were taught plenty of science and the theory of evolution and natural selection, and in our RE lessons we compared scientific theories with religious theories. The problem is that some of these schools are run by leaders who would rather heavily indoctrinate students with religion than ensure the students have a good education and they should be sacked and replaced.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
This is moronic speculation? None of that was experienced at my old school? You're making fanciful exaggerations to pamper your own ignorance.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
If you're talking abut religion in general, then yeah its problematic. And if you're talking about the manner in which it's presented in some schools, that is problematic too. Just because you didn't experience it, doesn't mean it's untrue.
"Blah blah ignorance blah blah."
the church should be separate from the state
when are we going to get this issue right? how many more generations will it take?
when are we going to get this issue right? how many more generations will it take?
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Maybe try reading the post I said that on, sunshine, instead of making a straw man to try and suit your own view?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
The post I replied to appeared more general, hence my rather more general response, as opposed to specifically being about your school. And it's not a strawman you absolute mouth-breather.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Reaver Daniels
The problem was with the person's brash generalisation. I tried to make them see logic by refining and showing them that you can't say that, and now you've taken a similar road to them, which doesn't really do you any justice.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Except I haven't made any generalisations, I've simply said that religion itself is problematic, and it is, because it is the source of the issue.
It's written in black and white, a mass of contradictions, lies, and intellectual dishonesty. I would call that problematic. It's not a generalisation, it's a fact.
Original post by Ravenous
Disgusting.
And just goes to show again that we shouldn't allow just anyone to be a parent.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Religion isn't problematic (although an agnostic myself) it is rather certain individuals that practice it that present a problem.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
How many more times do you want to mention that you are agnostic trying to suggest you are not biased or thus your view should be given more weight?
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Agnostic here. I attended a private faith school to the age of 16 that received no tax payer money.The school taught some controversial religious dogma, but indoctrination is an over exaggeration at best. We had atheists, different branches of Christianity, agnostics, conservatives, liberals, feminists etc etc and open debate was allowed and encouraged. I think that laws need to be put in place to stop religion being taught in science, but I'd say your claims are a tad harsh. I'd also say that my school prepared me well for AS Levels.Posted from TSR Mobile
And again...what a surprise.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Reaver Daniels
You seem to be under the illusion that children are hammered with religious dogma and not allowed to challenge anything?
Perhaps this is true for some, but it wasn't true in mine. See my above posts on the topic for more details.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Perhaps this is true for some, but it wasn't true in mine. See my above posts on the topic for more details.
Posted from TSR Mobile
"Challenge", right?
Children should not be taught religion at all. Not even parents should brainwash them into this.
Would solve so many problems in this world.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
You seem to be attacking some narrow minded religious people by being narrow minded yourself?
Faiths schools should be allowed, but reform needs to be done to the curriculum so as to not mix religion with science. Nevertheless scrapping schools of faith would be an authoritarian restriction on people's rights to religion.
I went to a private faith school and we were openly allowed to challenge the material taught and were encouraged to debate. We had agnostics, atheists, Christians etc etc.
Nobody was forced to be religious, and it has prepared myself and many others for further education, so I don't really see what your issue is?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Faiths schools should be allowed, but reform needs to be done to the curriculum so as to not mix religion with science. Nevertheless scrapping schools of faith would be an authoritarian restriction on people's rights to religion.
I went to a private faith school and we were openly allowed to challenge the material taught and were encouraged to debate. We had agnostics, atheists, Christians etc etc.
Nobody was forced to be religious, and it has prepared myself and many others for further education, so I don't really see what your issue is?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why?
A school is for education. As I said above I don't even think religion should be indoctrinated into children at all, if one thinks it should, it should definitely not be at school. It must be made very clear that these things are just a belief and are separate.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
This is moronic speculation? None of that was experienced at my old school? You're making fanciful exaggerations to pamper your own ignorance.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
What were your parents like?
Anyway, imagine a scenario where there is no internet, you can't travel as much as today. Then imagine you are at a school where "God is great", and gays just happen to be not. And you go home and that message is reinforced again.
In such a situation, yes, you would be naive to say people will still develop critical thinking and challenge teachers.
Just because we are darned lucky we now have the internet and social media and smartphones, to counteract the indoctrination at school, doesn't mean we should allow these schools to exist.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Oh sure, because the Soviet Union was a brilliant example of a nation of intellectual atheists that were paragons of virtue. Your authoritarian attitude makes me laugh.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Oh you totally fail to see the point. And that is hilarious. And that shows that maybe your school didn't develop your ability to (critically) think as much as you think and pretend it does.
The Soviet Union was just as much a propaganda machine indoctrinating its children as a religion is. The fact you are trying to make out because the official stance was against religion, that it was the essence of "atheism", is complete and utter bs.
It's basically Godwin's law, "Hitler was atheist so atheists are bad", just replaced Hitler with Stalin.
This post of yours has proven my point above about you spamming "I am agnostic" as if that lends any credit to your arguments. You have no ability to see how arguments connect, to logically reason, and all you are writing is based on (poor) personal opinions.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Your authoritarianism persists yet further, allowing parents the right to choose how their children are educated is a civil liberty and not up to the state to decide.
Whilst I agree that reform needs to made, as I've stated above copious times, removing religion from schools is a restriction of the right to practice religion and thus should not be allowed as it restricts freedom.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Whilst I agree that reform needs to made, as I've stated above copious times, removing religion from schools is a restriction of the right to practice religion and thus should not be allowed as it restricts freedom.
Posted from TSR Mobile
In the name of tolerance we must not tolerate intolerance - religion has no place in the education system.
And I am actually not authoritarian at all. The civil liberty should be UPON THE CHILD. Not the parents. You small-minded little person. Don't talk about things you have no idea of.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
My parents were actually fairly liberal with their social attitudes. Both conservatives politically and economically, but liberal socially.
Yes, but the world you describe does not exist anymore. I could suggest a scenario to you, we could both acknowledge it, but once we move back to reality your scenario is obsolete.
You also remove the part where students are allowed to challenge these views in school by assuming that social media is the only factor resulting in this. What about inbuilt morality? What about common sense? You can easily go 'well we only have your testimony on this and don't know about other faith schools for certain'. In which case I would say yes, but go and find out instead of speculating, as that holds no weight at all.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes, but the world you describe does not exist anymore. I could suggest a scenario to you, we could both acknowledge it, but once we move back to reality your scenario is obsolete.
You also remove the part where students are allowed to challenge these views in school by assuming that social media is the only factor resulting in this. What about inbuilt morality? What about common sense? You can easily go 'well we only have your testimony on this and don't know about other faith schools for certain'. In which case I would say yes, but go and find out instead of speculating, as that holds no weight at all.
Posted from TSR Mobile
So what if it doesn't exist anymore? What about those kids that don't have liberal parents like you, that don't get to have smartphones til they are much older, who don't get to use the internet?
And stop propagating that notion that others are ignorant and you know it all. No one gives a **** that you are agnostic. You have seen just one faith school. You don't know it all. In fact, plenty of people here have pointed out stark contrasts to your experience.
Kids need to be protected, even from their parents, which means faith schools have no place in our world. RE can be done in school, but the entire premise of the school should not be faith. Or we might then start having political schools, say funded by Tories or UKIP or your favorite example, Soviet Russia. Religion is in no way special and should not receive special treatment.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Your ad hominem attack shows your lack of ability to make coherent responses and shows that you were essentially waiting for a moment to jump in with those remarks, which actually made me chuckle.
Your point about Godwin's law is similar to my point about faith schools. "this faith school is bad so all faith schools are bad". Your logic falls flat on its face.
My point about the Soviet Union was used as an extreme example to mirror your own. You suggest that religion should be removed from schooling, which is extreme. My Soviet Union remark was used to flag up the obscenity of your own comment, which you clearly are blind to see due to your own apparent hatred for any element of religion being taught alongside education.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Your point about Godwin's law is similar to my point about faith schools. "this faith school is bad so all faith schools are bad". Your logic falls flat on its face.
My point about the Soviet Union was used as an extreme example to mirror your own. You suggest that religion should be removed from schooling, which is extreme. My Soviet Union remark was used to flag up the obscenity of your own comment, which you clearly are blind to see due to your own apparent hatred for any element of religion being taught alongside education.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Ad hominem?
You do realize accusing someone of that and saying they have no arguments left, is the exact same thing.
I could call you a million different names and still have the right logical reasoning. I might just have a short temper for ill fools.
I always laugh when people cry ad hominem on here.
And attack?
Lol.
If you feel attacked by that I ask you why you wrote this: "Your authoritarian attitude makes me laugh." You were the first one to use "ad hominem" here, maybe you are the one who now knows he has no more arguments left
And ok then, still doesn't mean you were right to use that Soviet example. Because it backfired, it's just another example that ideology should not be taught in school. And that is what religion is - an ideology. It is nothing special just because it is labelled "religion". You still fail to see that and keep more and more forcefully trying to bring your point across. Just sit back and admit you are wrong. It's not hard and will build your character.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Haha, I can see you're getting quite angry. Maybe try to calm down. 
You're essentially suggesting we deal with intolerance by not tolerating religion in education, which is a really good point, buddy. Oh sure, a 7 year old is perfectly capable of making a logical well informed decision. You need to think about your responses before putting them up there, as I'm starting to doubt your rationale let alone your critical analysis.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You're essentially suggesting we deal with intolerance by not tolerating religion in education, which is a really good point, buddy. Oh sure, a 7 year old is perfectly capable of making a logical well informed decision. You need to think about your responses before putting them up there, as I'm starting to doubt your rationale let alone your critical analysis.
Posted from TSR Mobile
As I said in my last post - you are starting to realize you are losing the argument so you make ad hominem accusations, you become more forceful, you project onto me, thinking that because I capitalized and bolded a part for emphasis that I am getting angry.
Stop projecting dude, it's not healthy. Learn to accept who you are and deal with your issues.
And if you accuse someone else of ad hominem, be sure not to do it yourself
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Maybe try reading the post I said that on, sunshine, instead of making a straw man to try and suit your own view?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
You accused me of ad hominen.
Here you accuse this user of straw man.
While yourself using ad hominem.
You also accused me of getting angry. Yet you are the one passive aggressively attacking another user not even part of our debate.
I rest my case.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Even my peers that had very staunchly conservative parents turned out fine, and as neither of us have any objective evidence on the matter, my testimony and your speculation is about all we can go on between us?
Speculating that all faith schools indoctrinate children is an ignorant view, and one that should be treated as such? I don't appear to remember stating that 'I know it all'. Nice straw man there. Yes, I know others have pointed out contrasts, and that is why I've continually repeated that I can only speak on behalf of my own school? You're fighting an argument that only exists in your head? I'm merely positing that you can't tar all faith schools with the same brush as that's lunacy.
As for your last paragraph that's merely your opinion. I also fail to fathom how you can logically draw that conclusion? Children need to be protected from their parents therefor faith schools shouldn't exist? I am further doubting your ability to make coherent points? Making stark generalisations about faith schools is as idiotic as a racist giving his reason for disliking a race due to the fact that one man of that race hit him once? So I should have been 'protected' from my parents and sent to a state school where I may have been bullied and had all self confidence knocked out of me? Hmm... notice how I said 'may' as opposed to would, because unlike you I abstain from making generalisations that all people who go through state all state schools get the same treatment.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Speculating that all faith schools indoctrinate children is an ignorant view, and one that should be treated as such? I don't appear to remember stating that 'I know it all'. Nice straw man there. Yes, I know others have pointed out contrasts, and that is why I've continually repeated that I can only speak on behalf of my own school? You're fighting an argument that only exists in your head? I'm merely positing that you can't tar all faith schools with the same brush as that's lunacy.
As for your last paragraph that's merely your opinion. I also fail to fathom how you can logically draw that conclusion? Children need to be protected from their parents therefor faith schools shouldn't exist? I am further doubting your ability to make coherent points? Making stark generalisations about faith schools is as idiotic as a racist giving his reason for disliking a race due to the fact that one man of that race hit him once? So I should have been 'protected' from my parents and sent to a state school where I may have been bullied and had all self confidence knocked out of me? Hmm... notice how I said 'may' as opposed to would, because unlike you I abstain from making generalisations that all people who go through state all state schools get the same treatment.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Oh Lawd have mercy upon this soul.
The indoctrination is by definition. Just because you and your peers weren't successfully indoctrinated, doesn't not mean that is what a faith school is about.
You are such a hypocrite, accuse others of being naive while you are the one holding naive views.
I gotta stop this, this is too hilarious, you make me laugh so much.
I just saw your profile pic as well: "Keep calm cuz I'm smarter than you".
No wonder you can't admit you are wrong and no wonder you are so conceited. This is too good.(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Ad hominem arguments do tend to be what people use when they don't have any good arguments.
You dictating how schools should be run is authoritarian by definition, and if that offends you then never mind. As for it making me laugh, well you should be over the moon that you brought a smile to my face. Not really ad hominem.
Ok, let me try and explain this to you. My Soviet Union example was used to show how idiotic it was to tar all faith schools with the same brush, as the Soviet Union example, in itself, is an extreme example, so was thus a good example to use. You understand now?
Well by your logic maybe we shouldn't teach history in school, as it is essentially impossible to teach it without pushing an ideological view. For example, the current AS Level History textbook that we use for the course pushes a left wing view economic view when examining right wing presidents.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You dictating how schools should be run is authoritarian by definition, and if that offends you then never mind. As for it making me laugh, well you should be over the moon that you brought a smile to my face. Not really ad hominem.
Ok, let me try and explain this to you. My Soviet Union example was used to show how idiotic it was to tar all faith schools with the same brush, as the Soviet Union example, in itself, is an extreme example, so was thus a good example to use. You understand now?
Well by your logic maybe we shouldn't teach history in school, as it is essentially impossible to teach it without pushing an ideological view. For example, the current AS Level History textbook that we use for the course pushes a left wing view economic view when examining right wing presidents.
Posted from TSR Mobile
It doesn't matter what you wanted it to show, you were simply wrong...lol.
The Soviet schools is the perfect example of why schools should not be based around any ideology - be that Soviet or Christian or Muslim.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
This response was just filled with waffle in an attempt to get around arguing my point. Have another go, as it is evident at the moment that you don't wish to debate. I'm waiting...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Then ask someone to explain it to you, else you'll be waiting for a long time. Not my problem if you have trouble understanding something.
The only one not wanting to debate is you, because you got nothing with sense left to say.
I mean you are so full of ****ing hypocrisy it almost hurts. You come up with some waffle about me being angry for example, and in the next post you dismiss me for using "waffle".
Like my ****ing God, this is so delicious, seeing someone so arrogant self sabotaging themselves because they are intellectually inferior. Making my morning for sure.
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Equally it doesn't mean that that is what it is about?Please elaborate on my so-called naive views.*cough* ad hominem *cough*Posted from TSR Mobile
Again you keep insulting me and yet accuse me of ad hominem. Do you actually not see the irony?
And
latin word I am so clever (edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Reaver Daniels
Not really? To be wrong I would have have made the point that you were hoping I had made when you spewed out that rubbish about my critical thinking?
You also haven't dealt with my whole argument. If we abstain from teaching ideologies then history shouldn't be taught either.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You also haven't dealt with my whole argument. If we abstain from teaching ideologies then history shouldn't be taught either.
Posted from TSR Mobile
History is not an ideology...there may be different interpretations, etc. but its essence is not an ideology. It would be up to the government to create an unbiased curriculum.
And again "that rubbish" -
ad hominem Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Family restrictions
- Question for Muslim Brothers?
- Being a muslim girl (is sometimes hard)
- Muslim girl who is unsure if she wants to wear hijab
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- my friend stopped talking to me to become a strict muslim
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- Macbeth practice
- Muslim Man and causal sex?
- Anyone else struggle with which denomination church to go to?
- Question re bursary for teacher training
- Am I a bad muslim for this?
- marriage
- OCR - Religious Studies
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Girls find only 20% of guys attractive
- Single men ought to be taught about the reality of being men at a young age
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Why British Girl/ Men do not date Indian Boy/ Men and prefer Black Men/Boy?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Furniture and Product design, UAL Chelsea or London MetroplitanLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of Cambridge offer-holders thread for 2024 entryLast reply 10 minutes ago
AQA A Level Geography Paper 1 (7037/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official Politics and/or International Relations Applicants Thread 2024Last reply 13 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 16 minutes ago
Microsoft apprenticeship 2024Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 18 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1009
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
