Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B395 - Faith Schools Bill (Second Reading)

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    B395 - Prohibition of Publicly Funded Faith Schools Bill, TSR Socialist
    Preamble
    This Bill seeks to further the separation between the church and the state to the educational system. While we do aspire to have a system in which all faiths are honoured and respected, we believe it imperative to the multicultural society we strive to become that schools should open to all: that they must be able to incorporate students of any background or belief, and provide an environment in which such diversity can thrive. That being said, we question whether faith schools are not more divisive than diverse, and declare on these grounds that schools should not be subject to religious influence.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1. The immediate reversion of current, and cancellation of future planned publicly funded Faith Schools

    (1) All publicly funded educational institutions will hereafter be prohibited from practicing differential admissions on the basis of the religion of the student in question.

    (2) For the purposes of the Act:-
    A publicly funded educational institution is any school that is funded by the state and for which no fees are charged for students in compulsory and further education

    (3) The Local Education Authority [LEA] will assess the syllabus and teaching methods of educational institutions to ensure that there is no overt propounding of any religious doctrine in the said institutions.

    (4) The teaching of Religious Studies will remain an essential aspect of compulsory education.

    2. Commencement, short title and extent
    (1) This Bill may be cited as the Faith Schools Act 2011
    (2) This Bill shall extend to England; and
    (3) This Bill shall come into force at the start of the 2012 Academic Year following Royal Assent
    (4) This Act shall be passed to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly.
    (5) Subject to changes made and affirmative votes in the relevant jurisdictions, this Act extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    • 79 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I will still vote aye....
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    Of course. :yy:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How am I still an MP? I never do anything in this chamber.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'd still like clarification on what "over propounding of any religious institution" consists of. A Christian youth group run by students at this point would come under that term applied in a literal sense. I'm still inclined to say that something like a school or house gathering once a week or so that can be opted out of should be permissible whilst involving the singing of hymns or suchlike as well.

    But still, aye in principle.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, faith schools should continue to exist. The state should provide education which is acceptable to parents and faith schools are very popular.

    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I will still vote aye....
    You can wave farewell to most of your party's MPs from central Scotland in that case.
    • 79 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, faith schools should continue to exist. The state should provide education which is acceptable to parents and faith schools are very popular.



    You can wave farewell to most of your party's MPs from central Scotland in that case.
    I don't think we have many on here as it goes but they are welcome to leave if they wish :awesome:
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This doesn't seem any different from the first reading so my points from that discussion still stand.
    1) This is anti-multi-culturalism
    2) This is illiberal
    3) This will hurt the poor
    4) This will make life difficult for children

    There are probably other reasons I've missed but since I doubt anyone is going to engage seriously with any of the four mentioned I see no reason to think of more.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    How am I still an MP? I never do anything in this chamber.
    You're not. :erm:
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    How am I still an MP? I never do anything in this chamber.
    You aren't and haven't been for quite a while now.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    For public funded schools... Aye.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, faith schools should continue to exist. The state should provide education which is acceptable to parents and faith schools are very popular.



    You can wave farewell to most of your party's MPs from central Scotland in that case.
    They're only popular if they happen to give the best education in the area, not because those who attend are religious. Around here you get a lot of people going to church towards the end of primary school just to get into the C of E secondary school, then after that they'll never set foot in a church again. The school could function just as well without the 'faith'.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    I'd still like clarification on what "over propounding of any religious institution" consists of. A Christian youth group run by students at this point would come under that term applied in a literal sense. I'm still inclined to say that something like a school or house gathering once a week or so that can be opted out of should be permissible whilst involving the singing of hymns or suchlike as well.

    But still, aye in principle.
    That quote doesn't appear in the bill
    Are you referring to the following:
    The Local Education Authority [LEA] will assess the syllabus and teaching methods of educational institutions to ensure that there is no overt propounding of any religious doctrine in the said institutions.

    If so then I believe that this is quite clear to understand. We have defined what an educational institution is within the bill and the LEA wouldn't have authority over a Christian youth group anyway.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badger-man)
    That quote doesn't appear in the bill
    Are you referring to the following:
    The Local Education Authority [LEA] will assess the syllabus and teaching methods of educational institutions to ensure that there is no overt propounding of any religious doctrine in the said institutions.

    If so then I believe that this is quite clear to understand. We have defined what an educational institution is within the bill and the LEA wouldn't have authority over a Christian youth group anyway.
    My bad on the misquote, but the point is the same. I'm talking about youth groups within a school and sanctioned by it, particularly if they have teacher input (which personally I would only encourage in student organisations, religious or otherwise) helping out and providing guidance for the groups.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    My bad on the misquote, but the point is the same. I'm talking about youth groups within a school and sanctioned by it, particularly if they have teacher input (which personally I would only encourage in student organisations, religious or otherwise) helping out and providing guidance for the groups.
    Ah ok, I see your point now. I think a new section needs to be added which will exempt voluntary, after school groups from the bill.

    Thanks for that :yy:
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    My bad on the misquote, but the point is the same. I'm talking about youth groups within a school and sanctioned by it, particularly if they have teacher input (which personally I would only encourage in student organisations, religious or otherwise) helping out and providing guidance for the groups.
    (Original post by badger-man)
    Ah ok, I see your point now. I think a new section needs to be added which will exempt voluntary, after school groups from the bill.

    Thanks for that :yy:
    I see the concern, but I don't think this bill would have that kind of effect: it specifies that it is the 'syllabus and teaching methods' that will be assessed and kept secular; it's basically trying to make a provision such that the actual formal education of children doesn't involve any sort of religious indoctrination. Voluntary student groups wouldn't be affected here (compulsory religious students groups, if they exist, might be, in which case I'd still support this bill).
    • 54 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You supportuing this bill are all hypocrites. Some of you say bringing a child up within a faith is the same as child abused, you assume your own opinions and beliefs are the default position and choose to enforce them on everyone else.

    Take a good look at yourselves. You are doing exactly what it is you assume people who have faith do. You are being totally intolerant of those different to yourself. You do not care what other people want, all you are caring about is forcing everything to be the same and fit the narrow set of beliefs you yourself agree with.

    It's horrendous and extremely worrying you guys support this. If something like this were to happen in real life it's massive infringement on people rights to have faith.

    You may not have it yourself, but that does not mean it is right to try and exclude it from others people's lives to enforce your own views on all people. Faith schools are wanted by parents, including many who actually do not have faith themselves and they actually produce some excellent results. Why go against the wishes of parents and scrap them?

    Seriously people, have a rethink of just how damaging what you are doing here is. What does it say about the society you want, where if you disagree with something you change things to force them all to follow what you think is right.

    It's really very worrying.
    • 79 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    You supportuing this bill are all hypocrites. Some of you say bringing a child up within a faith is the same as child abused, you assume your own opinions and beliefs are the default position and choose to enforce them on everyone else.

    Take a good look at yourselves. You are doing exactly what it is you assume people who have faith do. You are being totally intolerant of those different to yourself. You do not care what other people want, all you are caring about is forcing everything to be the same and fit the narrow set of beliefs you yourself agree with.

    It's horrendous and extremely worrying you guys support this. If something like this were to happen in real life it's massive infringement on people rights to have faith.

    You may not have it yourself, but that does not mean it is right to try and exclude it from others people's lives to enforce your own views on all people. Faith schools are wanted by parents, including many who actually do not have faith themselves and they actually produce some excellent results. Why go against the wishes of parents and scrap them?

    Seriously people, have a rethink of just how damaging what you are doing here is. What does it say about the society you want, where if you disagree with something you change things to force them all to follow what you think is right.

    It's really very worrying.
    I refer you to my post to you in the last thread. If you interpreted it as meaning the above then you didn't understand it.

    I would respond to the things you say here but you are implacably opposed and I severely doubt you would do anything other than make similarly silly accusations back so I won't.

Updated: September 30, 2011
New on TSR

Student in a Million awards

All the results from our prize-giving night

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.