Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on September 15, 2004, 06:21:43 pm
-
Church examining schools decision (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3657972.stm)
In essence, the Scottish Catholic Church is complaining about a Catholic school sharing a campus with a secular one... i.e. there's no change to the curriculum of either, only that the children from both will be able to mix.
I think this an absolute disgrace, to be honest... I've seen first hand that religious schools cause bigotry / sectarianism, for a start- I'd prefer a completely secular education system, but one that allows interaction is definately an improvement.
Another thing is that it's simply illogical.... there is no reason why children from a Catholic & secular school should not mix in the playground, and I can't envisage a situation where that could cause harm
(actually, there are a number of 'shared' schools already, where the Catholic church insists that the teachers from the Catholic school should have a seperate staff room, or at least a divider between them, i.e. so there's 2 staff teapots, fridges, etc. Fortunately the teachers are sensible enough to ignore this and mix as they should).
-
what is it like your day off or something? This is your n'th thread today.
as for the church, eh, let them have it their way. As long as their pay for it. I think kids will have enough common sense to ignore such rigid and unnecessary rules
-
Rediculous...oh no, they will be corrupted from outside influence on the playground when they don't already get enough of that from TV, radio, and the internet.
Really now...have a Catholic School thats fine...its your freedom to practice religion but stop complaining about everyone else eh?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
what is it like your day off or something? This is your n'th thread today.
as for the church, eh, let them have it their way. As long as their pay for it. I think kids will have enough common sense to ignore such rigid and unnecessary rules
IIRC Catholic schools are funded by the state (i.e. so as not to bias against a religion), hence why the government has a say. I think the existence of Catholic schools is a result of the heavy immigration into Scotland during the potatoe famine in particular, but I'm not sure what the current reason is beyond tradition.
I can't see why the children couldn't, for example, go to a 'normal' school and simply have extra classes pertaining to their religion. Of course, IIRC, Catholic schools don't have a cross denominational RE (Religious Education*) class either, so I'm not sure if it's a policy of indoctrination.
*i.e. a year-long unexamined class covering the beliefs of all the major religions... somewhat maligned, but quite useful in terms of the increasing diversity of cultures in the UK. Explanation just in case other countries have a similar idea by a different name, or a different idea by the same name.
-
Nothing like that in the US. That class would be the target of every trial lawyer in the country. The closest I've had is a short unit at the beginning of World History in 9th grade.
-
We studied world culture in 6th grade, and our teacher did lots and lots of world religion in addition to the normal cirriculum. The kids found it very interesting, although in 6th grade they weren't absorbing much...
-
A short definition of the denomenational schools: ****ing useless.
Carry on citizens.
-
Originally posted by vyper
A short definition of the denomenational schools: ****ing useless.
Carry on citizens.
Yeah, vyper, religiously affiliated schools are completely useless. I guess my 12 years of Catholic grade/high school mean nothing then. Nor do my score of 1600 on the SAT or full tuition college scholarship, both of which are due largely in part to the quality education I received over those 12 years. Yeah, I guess it was all a waste :rolleyes: .
As for the Scotland situation, why should they be forced to share campuses? How are you supposed to provide an alternative to public education if you're right next to the public school? The Scottish government seems a little heavy-handed, if you ask me.
-
I am sure it's a good school. My worry with any of these things is the amount of bias that's spoon-fed to the kids.
Humanity will never truly evolve until all religion is disposed of. It is a fraud of the largest magnitude imaginable....
-
I think it's ridiculous enough that a government is paying for a school that teaches religion, and now they're demanding that the religious schools don't share campuses? Crazy.
-
Yeah, vyper, religiously affiliated schools are completely useless. I guess my 12 years of Catholic grade/high school mean nothing then. Nor do my score of 1600 on the SAT or full tuition college scholarship, both of which are due largely in part to the quality education I received over those 12 years
Getting that good of a score on the SAT means nothing when it comes to quality of education. I've heard of a homeless kid in California who got a 1500 or so.
And I've also heard of someone who went to *gasp* a public school and got $24,000 in scholarships over one summer.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Yeah, vyper, religiously affiliated schools are completely useless. I guess my 12 years of Catholic grade/high school mean nothing then. Nor do my score of 1600 on the SAT or full tuition college scholarship, both of which are due largely in part to the quality education I received over those 12 years. Yeah, I guess it was all a waste :rolleyes: .
As for the Scotland situation, why should they be forced to share campuses? How are you supposed to provide an alternative to public education if you're right next to the public school? The Scottish government seems a little heavy-handed, if you ask me.
1/ I can't comment on Catholic schooling, being a secular bloke mysefl (albeit I do know there is less cross-denominational RE), but there is no quantative difference in terms of the quality of education between them and secular.
What vyper is probably referring to, is the sectarianism that results from this seperation, and also that there is no logical reason why there has to be a Catholic school, rather than simply a modification to the secular curriculum which allows differences in the focus religious teaching (which may already exist, I remember a couple of pupils being allowed to skip RE at my school as they were Jehovas Witnesses and their parents had religious objections).
2/ The primary reason for shared campuses is for funding reasons. It also has a role in helping reduce sectarism (I should point out that there is a degree Catholic/Protestant tension in Scotland, as anyone who has seen the Old Firm or even Hearts vs Hibs will know).
Now, a change to shared campus will not in any way affect the content, responsibility or quality of Catholic education - the only change is that there may be mixing of Catholic and secular pupils at, for example, lunchtime breaks (as was pointed out on Scottish TV by a lawyer, this means that the Scottish legislation allowing seperate religious education is not broken, and thus that the Catholic churches case will almost certainly fail).
-
In other words, the church is terrified the children will grow up actually trusting each other and not thinking of each other as alien beings, nor will they grow up listening properly to thier parents when they talk about "those tims" or "those proddies".
It's the old story - the powers that be are terrified the people unite.
-
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was tooting my own horn there; I just took offense at the feelings of some that religious schools are unnecessary. Personally, I feel that religiously-affiliated schools are very necessary. They provide important, quality alternatives to public schools in failing districts, a role which explains my support for school tuition vouchers for private/parochial schools. They provide a place for those of religious faith to daily express their personal values without fear of repercussions. They provide environments for learning about one's faith, without having to deal with questions of constitutionality.
One thing they do not do is instill in their pupils a sense that "other" students are "inferior." During my 12 years of schooling, I never once received that impression, and many of my friends go/have gone to public schools. To me, that distinction is nonexistent. Other kids were not "aliens;" they just didn't go to our school. I do know, however, from what I've heard about our public school system (which is supposed to be one of the best in the state, at least on paper), I'm glad I went to parochial school; I haven't had to deal with a lot of crap that seems more prevalent at public schools.
What I do find strange is that religious schools in Scotland are publicly funded. Add to that the fact that they're now forcing them to combine campuses, and I think the whole situation is very strange. Religious schools are supposed to be alternatives to state-funded education, not different iterations of it. I'm not objecting to the fact that the children from different schools will be mingling; far from it, I think that is a very good thing. What I am objecting to is the Scottish government's interference in the business of religiously-affiliated schools; it takes away the authority of the dioceses that are running the schools. Obviously, things are different in Scotland; this would obviously never happen in the United States.
Clave, quit the flame-bait and take your Marxism somewhere else...
-
See, this is why I intend to wipe the Catholic scourge from the face of the Earth in a wave of self-righteous fire.
-
[q]dioceses that are running the schools[/q]
Because no one elected them.
[q] this would obviously never happen in the United States.[/q]
Unless Bush enforces prayer or something one day...
[q]See, this is why I intend to wipe the Catholic scourge from the face of the Earth in a wave of self-righteous fire.[/q]
Can I help with the fire-starting? ;7
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was tooting my own horn there; I just took offense at the feelings of some that religious schools are unnecessary. Personally, I feel that religiously-affiliated schools are very necessary. They provide important, quality alternatives to public schools in failing districts, a role which explains my support for school tuition vouchers for private/parochial schools. They provide a place for those of religious faith to daily express their personal values without fear of repercussions. They provide environments for learning about one's faith, without having to deal with questions of constitutionality.
One thing they do not do is instill in their pupils a sense that "other" students are "inferior." During my 12 years of schooling, I never once received that impression, and many of my friends go/have gone to public schools. To me, that distinction is nonexistent. Other kids were not "aliens;" they just didn't go to our school. I do know, however, from what I've heard about our public school system (which is supposed to be one of the best in the state, at least on paper), I'm glad I went to parochial school; I haven't had to deal with a lot of crap that seems more prevalent at public schools.
What I do find strange is that religious schools in Scotland are publicly funded. Add to that the fact that they're now forcing them to combine campuses, and I think the whole situation is very strange. Religious schools are supposed to be alternatives to state-funded education, not different iterations of it. I'm not objecting to the fact that the children from different schools will be mingling; far from it, I think that is a very good thing. What I am objecting to is the Scottish government's interference in the business of religiously-affiliated schools; it takes away the authority of the dioceses that are running the schools. Obviously, things are different in Scotland; this would obviously never happen in the United States.
Firstly, AFAIK the situation is that the state provides funding for Catholic schools and that the church is responsible for actually administering them. As far as I'm concerned, it's necessary for governmental control over denominational schools to ensure adequate standards and coverage.
Incidentally, I'd argue that it's far better to improve public schools than rely on private or denominational schools to provide a quality alternative. But that's a different situation over here, I'd gather, i don't think Scotland has many schools which would be classed as failing per se, largely because we're a smaller country. Plus not all Catholic schools are better in educational terms (based upon the annual league tables, some are better, some are worse. where I come from, the Catholic secondary school actually has a much lower average than the non-denominational one i went to)
The situation in Scotland RE: religious schools, and specifically Catholic schools is very different to what I'd imagine your experience would be. What i should emphasise is that, in my personal experience, Catholic schools - specifically the existance of an 'exclusive' set of schools - do breed resentment and, at worst, sectarianism. I speicfically remember going to a library on a sort of joint outing (i.e. which Catholic school pupils also were going along to), and basically having to endure a long series of taunts from certain individuals from said school who were trying to start a fight.
This is likely not a problem in the US simply because everyone is in some form an immigrant.... i.e. the original resentment (and presumably the reasoning for seperate Schooling) in Scotland can be placed upon the Catholic Irish who emigrated to avoid the potato famine, into what was a massively Protestant country. Unfortunately, the taint of sectarianism is a inherent part of much of Scottish society nowadays, and it's often through misunderstanding or division. What's worse is that it's often not about belief...it's about people pigeonholing themselves into a certain faction because their family is, not because they feel strongly for that religion. And, of course, some of it is just down to football.
From my perspective, I have never seen a benefit for the seperate school.... given that religious education can be exempted on parental wishes, and that it's not difficult to provide a seperate faith based education as an adjunct to 'normal' schooling, I can;t see any purpose in the current system. And, as i said earlier, all i can see is a negative impact*.
*note; this is not to imply that the sectarian problems of Scotland can be blamed as simply on one side or cause, so don;t think I'm saying that removing Catholic schools would solve anything, just that it might help in resolving differences.
EDIT; incidentally, I never saw any sectarian (or indeed religious) tension, etc at my former school. In fact, I'd venture that the majority of my friends are actually Catholic (of those whose religions I know, of course), so certainly there's been nothing in my state education to foster anything. That said, I'm not a person who's easily prejudiced, anyways.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Can I help with the fire-starting? ;7
If you see any Bishops, Priests or other paedophiles heading my way, attack them with a giant pentagram. That'd be a great help.
-
The joys of living in a 99.9% roman catholic country where Moral (so they say) and Religious Education is optional in every public school. :rolleyes:
-
That's probably why your country gets its ass consistently kicked by every other nation in the world.
"Hwe pray to de Holy Father, spare us from hthis faate!"
*Spanish Navy obliterates Portugal*
"Bugger."
-
You what Ghostavo? :wtf:
-
So when did this ilusionary thing you say happened? :rolleyes:
Go get yourself a nice kicking in the arse by a scizo french girl. :p
-
Here we go...
-
Firstly: Schizo
Secondly: French?
Thirdly: Name me one successful venture Portugal has ever undertaken, aside from breaking from Spain.
-
We had the biggest, most powerful empire in the world by far in the 15th century. We mantained the longest lived colonial empire in the world. We explored the world... etc... etc... etc...
Yeah... little stuff... :p
-
And we had the biggest. Suck on that son.
-
You empire got it's ass kicked, the colonies all fell to superior foes and the world had already been explored.
-
So was yours... and to inferior foes might I say...
And our later colonies were granted independence in 1974 after a certain revolution. Brazil was grated theirs by a Portuguese king, etc...
-
Not really, bar America, it was the democratic systems we built and the same ideas we instilled in the populations of those colonies that helped them break away. It was a natural evolution, if somewhat expedited by the Yanks doing everything during and post ww2 to weaken our hold on it.
-
Yup.
Britain realised the colonies were more trouble then they were worth and let them go, they weren't conquered.
And we still control a ****load of territory.
-
Tell me a portuguese colony that was conquered.
-
Portuguese colonies started to be attacked by Spain's opponents. Still, Portugal maintained an independent law, currency and government. The third Spanish king, Philip III tried to make Portugal a Spanish province. Because of this, in December 1, 1640, a native king, John IV, was acclaimed, and a Restoration war against Spain was made. Other new empires had emerged and started to assaulted all the Portuguese Empire; Portugal regained some, but much was lost especially in Asia.
The population massively immigrated to Brazil. In 1709, King John V prohibited emigration, since Portugal had lost a very sizable amount of population. Lisbon was destroyed in 1755 earthquake. From 1801, the country was occupied during the Napoleonic Wars, and lost Olivença (part of the national territory) to Spain (ally of France). Shortly after, the Kingdom of Brazil proclaimed its independence in 1822.
-
Setekh! LMAO!
-
Oh. Dear. God.
-
Never noticed that.
Also: Bwuahahahahahahahahah
-
So that's what's at 10,000... Hrmmm
-
IIRC, there's only 1 more above this.
-
At what count?
-
We got asia you got US :p
So what's above Setekh :nervous:
*fears for the future*
-
Originally posted by Rictor
what is it like your day off or something? This is your n'th thread today.
[color=66ff00]None of which are spam.
I'd call that impressive. :nod:
[/color]
-
Presumably they're just pissed that they have to share their space with another school and are looking for (invalid) excuses not to have to do it.
My friend tells me some Catholic schools are state-funded, and some are privately owned and funded. If they're the latter they'd have good cause for being pissed off at the state for plonking their own rubbish schools next to them.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Presumably they're just pissed that they have to share their space with another school and are looking for (invalid) excuses not to have to do it.
My friend tells me some Catholic schools are state-funded, and some are privately owned and funded. If they're the latter they'd have good cause for being pissed off at the state for plonking their own rubbish schools next to them.
Well, this is a case of new schools IIRC, so it wouldn't affect the non-state ones, same as for a non-denominational* private school. It is, admittedly, partly to cut costs so they can afford to build these schools.
*typing that word is tiring my fingers, BTW :D
-
Originally posted by vyper
Not really, bar America, it was the democratic systems we built and the same ideas we instilled in the populations of those colonies that helped them break away. It was a natural evolution, if somewhat expedited by the Yanks doing everything during and post ww2 to weaken our hold on it.
And now the US has a fairly large colonial empire right now, compared to anyone else that is.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
And now the US has a fairly large colonial empire right now, compared to anyone else that is.
The US has bases, not colonies - how many countries are actually controlled by the US, bar Iraq and (arguably) Afghanistan?
The US doesn't export its citizens as the UK did, i.e. it can't be a true colonial power because no-one is willing to leave and live in/administer said colonies.