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.

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”

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.

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?

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?

“> 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.

> 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”.

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.

> 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.

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?

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

Ho hum.

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. “

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

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

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.