One school in three is religiously based, with some 22% under the auspices of the Church of England and 10% controlled by Catholicism.

It’s even worse than that – aren’t all state schools technically required to include some daily act of collective worship of “broadly Christian character”?

Faith schools are by definition exclusive and devisive.

Strangely parents seem willing to adopt contrary measures to get their children into these establishments, despite their espousing values the parents patently don’t.

IMO any debate about the role of faith schools in Britain needs to take account of this as a basic starting point:

“The Vatican should apologise for failing to co-operate with an inquiry into sex abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland, a Dublin bishop has said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8382999.stm

As a committed liberal left, non-Evangelical, non-creationist-believing, socialist Christian, I couldn’t agree more! Disestablishmentarianism is the only rational way forward – and that goes for separation of church and state in more than just education. But that’s another story…

“Agnostic and even atheist parents often sit through sermons on Sunday mornings for weeks on end, just to get Johnny and Jocasta into what are often seen the least worst option”

So goes the urban myth. But how often does this actually happen?

#4

What Dave says about no political party with a chance of winning an election would propose disestablishmentarianism is right, though. Realistically the pressure is going to have to come from Christians, and it probably also requires that a) nonconformist churches continue growing while CofE churches decline, and b) Christians in those nonconformist churches need to return to traditional nonconformist values, teach them explicitly and agitate for them, rather than slipping into an indistinctive one-nation Christianity.

(Oh, and I’m happy to own each one of those labels you used except liberal, and non-evangelical.)

An alternative way of looking at this is why should any organisation which wishes to fund a school not be allowed to do so (after all, why burdern the tax payer with more costs, when said tax payer is a long way from covering all our present costs).

But, and this is the key point, ensure that all Schools, regardless of denomination give children a good education – the ability to question and challenge rather than just learn particular facts and ’skills’ (non-contextualised in the main) would be key. Above all, do not allow indoctrination – allow inspectors to check at any time, without warning. And ensure that schools do not discriminate in their employment – so there should be a mixed group of staff, not all Catholic or Methodist or Satanist or whatever (yes to any right wing bigots around – I failed to mention the M word, other than the dreaded Methodists).

On the bright side, a child of a friend recently started Catholic School at the age of 4 – now aged 5 she apparently has not only decided Jesus does not exist, but also the Tooth Fairy and is doubtful of Santa. So faith schools ain’t all bad.

Presumably Marxist School, though well intentioned, when put into practice would result in detentions been given for no reason and competetive sports prioritised above all learning?

Surely the point is not who is funding a school but what the conditions are of that funding?

I would argue that anyone should be free to fund a state school, be that a religious, political, business or any other organisation if that is what they wish to do. However, that funding should not be based on any conditions about who can attend, what their beliefs are or how they express them.

I honestly don’t think it matters a jot who provides the funding as long as they do not ensist on manipulating the curiculum or its entrance criteria.

Like Jeni I too am a committed liberal left, non-Evangelical, non-creationist-believing, socialist Christian.

An alternative way of looking at this is why should any organisation which wishes to fund a school not be allowed to do so (after all, why burdern the tax payer with more costs, when said tax payer is a long way from covering all our present costs).

Err, you know most faith schools in the UK are state funded, right…?

#8

I’m not sure how possible it is to have funding without influence. (And what John B says is certainly true, anyhow.)

Of course, I’m sure few here would have any objection to any religious organisation giving to schools as Jesus suggested in Matthew 6. Privately, with no strings attached, and in secret so that absolutely no-one knows where it’s come from, including the recipients. A brown paper envelope should suffice.

That way there will be no improper influence, and the givers will be rewarded by their Mother in heaven too!

‘What’s more, they are popular. Agnostic and even atheist parents often sit through sermons on Sunday mornings for weeks on end’,

Perhaps because Faith schools outperform state schools at every age (at least according to this report).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/3852653/Faith-school-pupils-outperforming-others-at-every-age.html

Incidentally, few sphere’s of human activity reveal the true nature of peoples motives than when it comes to getting their kid into the ‘best’ school.

John b,

‘Err, you know most faith schools in the UK are state funded, right…?’

Yes. But the key word is most. And they are not generally funded from start up.

‘we have not yet witnessed the arrival of anywhere that could be branded Hizb ut Tahrir Junior High, or Scientology Secondary Modern’

No point is opening such schools unless parents are willing to send their kids there.
Perhaps some parent’s are so disillusioned with the local comp that even scientology would be an improvement?

@11

Completely true. Although it’s worth remembering that studies have shown that this is pretty much entirely down to the fact that their selection criteria allow them to choose ‘desirable’ children of middle class parents, rather than any ‘religious ethos’ or ‘community spirit’ derived from religion.

“Unfortunately, if you permit one religion to run schools, the only logical course is to let everyone else in on the act”

Only if you can’t distinguish between moderates and zealots. We should not be afraid to tell the latter to sod off. If they’re offended, tough luck. If they scream racism, ignore them.

Speaking from personal experience the C of E Schools I went to were perfectly harmless. We were not told to hate other religions (and in fact I recall being told the difference between Christianity and Judaism in a fair and balanced way). None of my friends who emerged from these schools turned into religious zealots. In fact half of them are probably atheist. My friends from Roman Catholic Schools also turned out perfectly well-adjusted.

[14] so class trumps religious fidelity – you may well be right?

There’s certainly something cut throat about school selection procedures but only for ‘good’ schools?

Since when was marxism considered a religion? Marx was certainly against religion and would have supported the content of the op. If you are going to argue against faith schools it might be a good idea to compare like with like.

#5 All the bloody time in Kingston. People here keep telling me I’m stupid not to do it.

We’ve just submitted our application form, but as an atheist there’s no piece of paper anyone can give me (unlike any church-goer, believer or not) that can give my daughter preference over anyone else for any school. Selection is discrimination. For example, St. Luke’s, a popular local CofE school and over-subscribed last year 3-1, is over-looked by council flats from which it draws nearly no pupils. Yet they get funded out of the council education budget just like anyone else.

It is utterly abhorrent to me that 230 years after the Enlightenment we still allow this to happen. If you are a believer you should indoctrinate your own children and leave everyone else alone.

Local MPs and Councillors, mostly Lib Dem, will privately bemoan this blatant discrimination in favour of middle-class children, but will publicly say nothing for the reasons detailed above by the OP.

State-funded education should be the leveller that breaks down class boundaries and plutocratic advantage, instead we are allowing it to reinforce division along class, religious and (because these things are inevitably connected) racial lines.

The only real choice is whether to hide your private beliefs and fall to your knees in church, or to stand up and walk an extra mile twice every school day for the next 7 years, next to roads clogged by school-run traffic, while the posh kids have their views of your children reinforced by their perception of exclusivity.

It’s a bad, bad business that is in need of serious reform.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8381090.stm

Study claims faith schools good at promoting community cohesion (albeit it was a C of E funded study).

I have often got the impression that some of the hostility to faith schools is based on a kneejerk or ideological anti-religious viewpoint, which is a pity because it makes rational debate over faith schools tricky.

#19

I’ll say that for what it’s worth, the faith-based secondary school (Quaker) that my little brother went to was much better at promoting community cohesion than the secular independent school I was sent to. (I think that probably says more about private schooling than it does about religious schooling, though.) However, if I have kids they’ll be going to neither, they’ll be going to their local comprehensive. Not just on faith principles (which would exclude religious schools); not just on socialist principles (which would exclude private schools), but because I think that’s what’s best for kids, too.

What’s to stop a bunch of North London Trot parents scraping two million quid together and sponsoring a secondary school with, as the jargon has it, a distinctive ethos?

And what’s to stop Peter Stringfellow sponsoring an all-girls ‘performing arts Academy’?

Richard:

I have often got the impression that some of the hostility to faith schools is based on a kneejerk or ideological anti-religious viewpoint, which is a pity because it makes rational debate over faith schools tricky.

I suspect it’s more about objections to using ‘faith’ as a back-door means of selective education.

[20] – Maybe you live near a good comp?
Maybe your other half will be as sanguine as you, although not all are?
But certain schools make life absolutely miserable for motivated children simply because the number of kids from problem families exceeds the level of resources available to educators to deal with them.

According to this report;
Children are now arriving at school socially undeveloped, increasingly unable to dress themselves, unable to use the toilet properly and unused to eating at a table. Instead of taking responsibility themselves, too many parents expect teachers to control their children’s behaviour and wellbeing.
Bousted (general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers) cites one mother who blamed staff when her 14-year-old daughter became pregnant and another when she discovered that her 16-year-old son was smoking cannabis’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/apr/05/schools-behaviour-teachers-parents

I thank my Catholic school education for the facts that (a) I have utter contempt for all superstition and (b) I can always recant on my deathbed just in case I’m wrong.

a&e nurse – I wouldn’t choose to have kids with someone who wasn’t prepared to give them a state education. Would I be above moving to an area with a good comp? I don’t know. I might move out of an area with a comp where bullying was endemic, but I wouldn’t try to find a school which was more middle-class than the one that was nearest. In the area where I live, I’m actually most impressed by the state comp that has one of the worst reputations (largely because of prejudice about the area it’s located in) out of all the schools here. Maybe I would therefore move into a “worse” area!

Couldn’t you read selection as contributing to the problems you identify? And as for drugs, aren’t kids at private schools more likely to do drugs than those at state schools?

[24] ‘I wouldn’t choose to have kids with someone who wasn’t prepared to give them a state education’ – ahh, love is not so straight forward I’m afraid.

Recreational drug use is less of a problem in mind (although dope probably reduces motivation), no, it’s the belittling and intimidation that makes life hell for some bright kids.

Bad things can arise in any school, of course but generally speaking these problems are more commonplace in schools that often have a certain kind of reputation to begin with.

Study claims faith schools good at promoting community cohesion

Authors of study gave the West of Scotland a miss then?

I have often got the impression that some of the hostility to faith schools is based on a kneejerk or ideological anti-religious viewpoint

What if it’s based on actual experience of teaching in ‘faith schools’? I’ve often got the impression that people writing about faith schools and re-cycling the usual guff about ‘ethos’ and ‘cohesion’ have, for the most part, had them described to them.

Those faith schools in Ireland worked out just fine.

No loony middle aged men who beat and sexually exploited the children in their care…. no siree.

But of course the Catholic church has always cared more for the fetes than the child.

It’s a bit of a pickle, innit? Dave Osler proposes that almost anyone with basic funds could establish a secondary school that would attract government sustenance, the majority of posters have said that faith schools are a bad thing, and even Sally makes a good point about the ability of Catholic schools to run decent fetes.

But we are generally clueless about how to go forward. Zero positive suggestions (”close them down” does not count as positive), and none from me either.

My only serious contribution is that faith schools are (largely) successful because they have succeeded in attracting active parents. When faith schools fail to attract active parents (note Shuggy’s comment), they fail in the same way as non-faith schools. Parents and teachers create great schools, not the clergy.

Would a Rosa Luxemburg Academy be a success? Probably if every London Trot sent their kids there, or to its splinter school, or… We might create a few great capitalists too; if you can sell a copy of Socialist Worker, you can sell anything.

#28

Stopping the pieces of paper that prove you’ve been to church for at least 2 years would be one positive step. It’s open to abuse and openly abusive. It gives a power to the clergy that they should not have in a 21st century democracy.

Or failing that let the humanist association and other non-believing or agnostic groups give out pieces of paper of equal validity to allow preferential treatment for entry to non-faith schools (because there are good ones, contrary to popular belief).

Ultimately, of course, it would be the most benefit to society to tell parents that if they don’t like secular state education, they can go and pay for any alternatives themselves. Like in France.

I do think this is a pretty important debate, though. Especially for the left (who can be characterised by their concern for equality of opportunity). I’m surprised there aren’t more comments.

Charlieman

(28):
> My only serious contribution is that faith schools are (largely) successful because they have succeeded in attracting active parents.

Refreshing to hear faith being given a fair ride here on LC – all to often the mantra is ‘all organised religion is bad’.

The fact that so many CoE and Catholic schools are able to attract active parents, is a testament to those two flavours of Christianity.

There are many CoE primary schools with their own websites, which allow one to take a view from the outside so to speak.

A quick google for ‘islamic primary schools’ also gave a few Muslim schools.
eg http://www.olivetreeprimary.co.uk

Even some state-funded schools run by Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather worryingly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6427369/Islamists-who-want-to-destroy-the-state-get-100000-funding.html

This school made me gulp:

Is the school mixed?

What age groups do you cater for? Al-Noor is mixed school teaching children between the ages of 4- 11 years old Insha Allah. Children are taught about the etiquette of segregation and how to interact with children of a different gender.

http://www.al-noor.co.uk/faq.shtm

I’m rather concerned now – both of the schools I looked at don’t teach music with their children.

Al Noor says
“As an Islamically faith-based school we carefully check all subjects by the guidelines of the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is for this reason that we do not promote learning through music. ”

And then it goes on to say:
“Do your children draw pictures of living animals? We endeavour to avoid this. Where it is unavoidable we try to use ’stick-images’ or delete facial features on images. “

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/03/expect-even-more-%E2%80%98faith%E2%80%99-schools-if-the-tories-come-to-power/

I don’t see any problem with Marxist schools. It is a baseless faith like any other:)

35
I disagree, the base is still as important as ever.

What Shuggy said back at #26.

Go for a tour of Glasgow and see the legacy of state-funded, faith-based education.

Ho hum.

Interesting.

I adopt the default standpoint that any article Dave Osler writes is likely to be ill – informed and very poorly argued, regardless of subject matter.

Now, in this case he’s chosen a subject which interests me greatly. I consider it self – evident that religion (of all varieties) is nothing more than a structured set of superstitions claiming validity on the basis of a set of (usually ancient) texts which, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, are claimed to be divinely written or inspired. It should be blatantly obvious that putting organisations which promote such doctrines, or “faiths” as they prefer to be known these days, as the most important things in the universe in charge of schools is a barking mad idea. You’d think it would be possible for someone with Dave’s left – wing credentials to make short work of this topic. Apparently not. Apparently the removal of religion from schools is “just not politically do-able.” Really? In a Western European Democracy in the early 21st century? Why’s that then, Dave? Also, “If Muslims don’t get exactly the same deal as the CoE, they will accuse the authorities of racism,” Will they? Is there a Muslim race, then? The reason “faith” schools are popular is that they appear to outperform mainstream state schools. Maybe someone, somewhere should look into why that might be, eh? Do you think it’s possible that the rise in popularity of “faith schools” has a lot to do with the (perceived?) generally poor standard of education and pastoral care in mainstream state schools?

The things that really amuse me about articles on here which touch on religion are:

a. The fact that so many spineless, new labour so – called left – wingers get themselves into such a mess when they try to figure out what exactly is the current orthodoxy on religion.

b. The religious apologists who take the opportunity to work in a half – baked, logic free defense of their own pet superstitions at the expense of others. The prime example being Just Visiting, for example:

“Refreshing to hear faith being given a fair ride here on LC ” – now you don’t actually mean “faith”, do you? What you really mean is your own version of it.

And we don’t have to wait long for some evidence:

“This school made me gulp:” – A JV comment on the Al – Noor school.

“I’m rather concerned now – both of the schools I looked at don’t teach music with their children.” He’s also concerned that they don’t draw pictures of people or animals at the Al – Noor school. Well Mr Visiting, that would be because their “faith” (at least their interpretation of the books on which their “faith” is based) doesn’t allow it. You seem to have a bit of a problem with this. Could that be because your enthusiasm for “faith – based” schools actually only extends to christian controlled schools?

Mr F

> Now, in this case he’s chosen a subject which interests me greatly.

Is that religion or education ?

> The religious apologists who take the opportunity to work in a half – baked, logic free defense of their own pet superstitions at the expense of others. The prime example being Just Visiting, for example:
>> “Refreshing to hear faith being given a fair ride here on LC ”
> now you don’t actually mean “faith”, do you? What you really mean is your own version of it.

Not true.
The contrast I was expressing was with the blanket and illogical ‘all organised religions are equally bad’ view that several folks here such as Sunny repeat, but then fail to substantiate.

And we don’t have to wait long for some evidence:

>“I’m rather concerned now – both of the schools I looked at don’t teach music with their children.”

I was expressing my view. Is all.

> He’s also concerned that they don’t draw pictures of people or animals at the Al – Noor school.

Just my view.

> Well Mr Visiting, that would be because their “faith” (at least their interpretation of the books on which their “faith” is based) doesn’t allow it. You seem to have a bit of a problem with this. Could that be because your enthusiasm for “faith – based” schools actually only extends to christian controlled schools?

I have no personal experiece of faith based schools christian or otherwise – others here have expressed their first hand experiences.

No, my concerns are the obvious ones really.
If you want them spelt out:
Drawing: kids drawing animals and people – that’s surely the majority of what kids wat to draw – and how will the artists of the future get a chance if they can’t start at primary?
Music – likewise – sounds like the creative arts are being squashed – is that good for children with gifts in that area? Or for balanced, playful learning.

And here on LC where another thread yesterday talked about ensuring that feminists are inclusive towards transgender feminists…this school’s approach would likely be queried by many folks here: “Children are taught about the etiquette of segregation and how to interact with children of a different gender”.

But maybe I’m alone here with questions in this regards.

@39 Just Visiting, you old mentalist, I wondered how long it would take you to respond.

I know you were “just expressing your view.” Why not be honest about it? Your view is not that “faith” schools are a good idea, it’s that christian schools are a good idea.

Why, on a thread about “faith” based schools, and having already implied that you are in favour of a “faith – based” approach have you chosen only to criticise a muslim school? What is it about not teaching music or the drawing of animals/people that concerns you so much? Since music isn’t a compulsory national curriculum subject and since a large number, probably the majority, of state secondary schools have little or no music teaching facility why do you claim to find the idea that a muslim school isn’t teaching it so shocking?

“The contrast I was expressing was with the blanket and illogical ‘all organised religions are equally bad’ view that several folks here such as Sunny repeat, but then fail to substantiate” They pretty much do substantiate it. You ignore evidence and NEVER EVER present any yourself, when challenged.

Mr F

> I know you were “just expressing your view.” Why not be honest about it? Your view is not that “faith” schools are a good idea, it’s that christian schools are a good idea.

Let’s not start a guessing game – it’s much easier if you respnd to what people write, not to what you guess their views are.

> Why, on a thread about “faith” based schools, and having already implied that you are in favour of a “faith – based” approach have you chosen only to criticise a muslim school?

Well, other people in this thread have given their views of christian schools based on their own experience – I had nothing to add to that.

And mr criticism was pretty muted – all I did was quote what Muslim schools say on their websites.

>What is it about not teaching music or the drawing of animals/people that concerns you so much?

Err, already answered this – be interesting to hear your views on what I said.

> Since music isn’t a compulsory national curriculum subject

Really?
Why does the NC talk about a ‘Statutory programme of study’ then, eg:

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/subjects/music/index.aspx

> and since a large number, probably the majority, of state secondary schools have little or no music teaching facility

1) irrelevant – I was talking about primary not secondary
2) evidence please

>>“The contrast I was expressing was with the blanket and illogical ‘all organised religions are equally bad’ view that several folks here such as Sunny repeat, but then fail to substantiate”
>They pretty much do substantiate it.

Evidence please.
I’ve asked Sunny a couple of times to support his claim, but he has so far never so much as responded a word.

I think most people looking around with a scientific, no prior-prejudiced approach, have realised that not all religions are the same or equally to be encouraged. Several on LC have said the same.

But Sunny and others, (and you yourself it seems, based on what you have written about religion earlier) don’t seem to agree. You want a blanket line that all are bad.

>You ignore evidence and NEVER EVER present any yourself, when challenged.

Silly to say ‘never ever’ in any sensible debate. It only requires the finding of one single example, and your statement is proven wrong.

By the way, would welcome hearing your view on the school that writes:
“Children are taught about the etiquette of segregation and how to interact with children of a different gender”.

oh sh***t, where’s the edit function when you need it… typos galore

@41 “Let’s not start a guessing game – it’s much easier if you respnd to what people write, not to what you guess their views are.” I’m not guessing. You’ve made it obvious on this thread, and actually made it explicit on others, that you consider the muslim religion to be inferior to christianity in most respects. Guessing doesn’t come into it, so stop being deliberately dishonest. You don’t support “faith” schools, you only support christian ones. If this isn’t true, then say so.

“> Why, on a thread about “faith” based schools, and having already implied that you are in favour of a “faith – based” approach have you chosen only to criticise a muslim school?

Well, other people in this thread have given their views of christian schools based on their own experience – I had nothing to add to that.”

Bringing the opinions of other people into it is irrelevant, I was exposing YOUR opinion for what it is. Once again, you don’t support “faith” based schools, you only support christian ones.

“all I did was quote what Muslim schools say on their websites.” no you didn’t. You quoted them and added your own comments, specifically “I’m rather concerned now” and “This school made me gulp” Don’t you remember what you wrote? Or are you deliberately lying?

You quote my previous post as “What is it about not teaching music or the drawing of animals/people that concerns you so much?” then respond “Err, already answered this – be interesting to hear your views on what I said.” No, you haven’t answered this, so answer it now. And answer the whole question ie why are you concerned about a muslim school not teaching music but you don’t mention the fact that it largely isn’t taught in state schools.. I’ve made my view clear, so pompous statements like yours are pretty pointless, aren’t they?

“The contrast I was expressing was with the blanket and illogical ‘all organised religions are equally bad’ view that several folks here such as Sunny repeat, but then fail to substantiate”

No you weren’t. You said in your original post on this thread “Refreshing to hear faith being given a fair ride here on LC – all to often the mantra is ‘all organised religion is bad’.

So, you started off by praising the thread for giving faith a “fair ride” (what is a “fair ride” anywyay?). You then chose to criticise one particular faith. As you do in most threads you take part in. You’ve also switched from bemoaning the unfairness of “all organised religion is bad” to “all organised religions are equally bad.” Please try and be clear about what you’re claiming other people are saying. At least then you may be able to get a clear idea of what you’re getting righteously indignant about. Anyway, this pretty much clears it up, doesn’t it? You are not, in fact, bothered by “faith” getting a hard time, just your “faith.” We can criticise islam as much as we like, that doesn’t bother you in fact you usually lead the charge. It’s criticism of christianity that gets you all hot and bothered, isn’t it? That’s the point I have been making. You are being dishonest when you claim, or imply, that you are speaking in defence of “faith” You’re only speaking favour of your own.

On the subject of “mantra” (interesting that, as christian bigot, you should choose a word rooted in the hindu and buddhist religions) we saw the return, as I knew we would, of your favourite mantra:

EVIDENCE PLEASE

I’m not sure what amuses me more about you saying this with such frequency:

a. The fact that you have no idea what actually constitutes evidence. I’ve seen you quote wikipedia as an authoritative source.
b. The fact that you obviously believe, despite the fact that you are incapable of constructing anything approaching a logical argument, that using this phrase gives you an air of intelectual credibility.
c. The fact that, when evidence is presented you either ignore it or clearly fail to understand it.
d. The fact, and yes here I am repeating my “silly” claim, that you NEVER EVER produce any. That’s probably because of point a.

“I think most people looking around with a scientific, no prior-prejudiced approach, have realised that not all religions are the same or equally to be encouraged. Several on LC have said the same.”

You idiot. Of all the stupid things you’ve said on this site, and believe me, you’ve said a few, this is undoubtedly the stupidest. So far.

You’d welcome my view on the school’s policy on teaching islamic views of relationships between the genders, would you? Are you so intelectually challenged that you haven’t worked it out yet? Let me spell a few things out for you then:

a. There is no basis in logic or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that a god, or gods, exist(s).
b. Islam and christianity (and others, but these two are the ones we’re talking about) both claim to be the word of god and to be based on texts which were divinely inspired and/or written. There is no basis in reason for these claims and teaching them to children is pretty much the same as teaching them any other superstition or prejudice.

Does that clear it up for you? I object to teaching children religious rubbish. And that includes the rubbish you peddle.

You are a deluded religious bigot and it is a total waste of time discussing these matters with you as you simply don’t have the sense to realise just how deluded you are.

Now, give it some thought and come up with another splutteringly idiotic response riddles with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and appalling punctuation.

Have a nice day.

Liberals make me laugh…. they accept anyone as long as they are exactly like themselves.

If there are people who want to send their kids to a faith school, why can’t they?

Also, if there is one religion that is teaching their kids to blow themselves and others up, why should the rest suffer?

#44

You ask 2 questions which I will answer with 2 questions:

1. Q. Why can’t they? A. Why should the rest suffer?

2. Q. Why should the rest suffer? A. Why can’t you see the double standards in this post?

@44 Are you Just Visiting’s younger, even less intelligent, sibling?

Mr F

43 and 46.

What looks like your first outing at LC – and your agenda seems to be simply a personal attack on me – largely it seems concerning how you feel about my previous track record on LC.

And when I responded to your specific points, you reply as if you’d not read them at all!
Eg you said music is not part of the national curriculum, I quoted a NC URL that says the opposite – and yet your reply ignores it and yet still says that music is not a part of mainstream education…

This is not how to have an interesting debate.

This is a pattern I’ve seen a couple of times now on LC.
The logical conclusion is that behind the new name, is the same person.
The last time it happened, the first-time poster also seemed to take issue with me asking for evidence of the claims they make – so you do sound familiar….

So I’ve decided that whenever someone appears for the first time on LC and launches into a personal attack on me, that bears little relation to what I’d actually said, I’ll ignore them.

This approach will meet with your satisfaction, as you think that ‘it is a total waste of time discussing these matters with you as you simply don’t have the sense to realise just how deluded you are.”

I’ll happily debate anyone who has the courtesy to respond to the things I actually write, and refrains from personal attack.

Mr F

I was scratching my head trying to recall what login name you used last time….

In The Global Spread of Christianity: was it Joseph; ‘Anyone who is religious is suffering a form of psychosis’ and “I have no interest in a Jesus vs. Mohammed argument because I believe them both to be non-existent characters.”

Or Richard: “Finally, I’m no fan of islam or, as you may have gathered, religion generally but I do think that islam has the edge on christianity” and “(regards) Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy and no christian group does: this is controversial and it’s also both stupid wrong. So, here I am contradicting you.”

Or in Confessions of a left wing islamophobe was it Goedel: “I disagree with your use of the “mainstream islam advocates violence” and it’s extensions, “mainstream Islam presribes stoning for aspostates”

“This approach will meet with your satisfaction, as you think that ‘it is a total waste of time discussing these matters with you as you simply don’t have the sense to realise just how deluded you are.”

And I’m happy to stand by that opinion. Anyone who reads your posts and has the slightest trace of intelligence will agree. You, of course, will not agree because, as you have demonstrated frequently, you don’t have the slightest trace of intelligence. It’s not a personal attack. It’s a simple statement of fact.