| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
 Posted: May 27 2011 at 12:19 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
If an atheist charity institution supported schools, they would probably teach there is no God or at least they would simply ignore religion.
Please, don't tell me they wouldn't do that.
Iván. |
They wouldn't ... because that's not what Atheism is about.
Hint: You can re-arrange the highlighted words to get closer to the definition of Atheism.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - May 27 2011 at 12:19
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 12:22 |
Yes T, at least Dawkins is planning to start one: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/483402-updated-richard-dawkins-atheist-free-school-articlesThey will teach " about the gods of ancient Greece and Norse legend, and would treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than a basis for morality." In other words...No religion, and it's his right. Iván
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 12:26 |
The T wrote:
I don't think it's up to the government to provide education (which also has a high indoctrination content, anyway). If the church (in this case) is the only provider of education in that zone, sadly until competition arrives they will have the chance to teach their own truth... Of course if they don't want their newly educated people to severely lag behind and in turn give the church a bad name they will prefer not to teach them that Adam and Eve really existed... |
1.- It's the first obligation of the Governments to educate their children and adults.
2.- I have been told since grade school (I studied in Saint Mary Catholic School), that the book of Genesis is mainly an allegory that has not to be understood as a history book, we've been taught evolution, without any problem.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 12:30 |
The T wrote:
By the way are there any atheist charities that do what Ivan just talked about? |
I don't think so - there are plenty of secular or non-religious charities providing free education though.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 12:35 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
The T wrote:
There has to be a way to link this thread to libertarianism, just because it's what we do... Okay found it!
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
It would be more honest to simply keep those activities separated:
1. Help
2. Heal
3. Educate
4. Indoctrinate
1, 2 and 3 can - and should - be provided independently of 4. |
No it doesn't have to. If the provider of a service (education in this case) decides to teach their own version of history and related, they are entitled to. If you don't like it, you are free to choose another provider.
I knew it could be done!  |
ThaT presupposes another provider exists in that locality, which isn't very likely in most cases. |
Well, if another free option doesn't exist, it's not the provider's responsibility.
The Church is doing FOR FREE what the Governments should do, they are allowed to teach their vision of the truth. |
In some cases the Governments are not providing education because the missionaries got there first and established a school. They are not going to duplicate what already exists, especially when what is there already is being provided FOR FREE (do we really need that capitalised?). There are of course other scenarios that would create the same situation.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
If an atheist charity institution supported schools, they would probably teach there is no God or at least they would simply ignore religion.
Please, don't tell me they wouldn't do that.
Iván. |
They would provide whatever the national curriculum required. If that included a programme of religious studies, then they would provide it or a non-religious moral teaching equivalent if it wasn't a curriculum subject. What they would not do is provide Religious Instruction.
|
|
What?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:02 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
I don't think it's up to the government to provide education (which also has a high indoctrination content, anyway). If the church (in this case) is the only provider of education in that zone, sadly until competition arrives they will have the chance to teach their own truth... Of course if they don't want their newly educated people to severely lag behind and in turn give the church a bad name they will prefer not to teach them that Adam and Eve really existed... |
1.- It's the first obligation of the Governments to educate their children and adults.
2.- I have been told since grade school (I studied in Saint Mary Catholic School), that the book of Genesis is mainly an allegory that has not to be understood as a history book, we've been taught evolution, without any problem.
Iván
|
1. I don't see why.
2. Good for you in this case.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:03 |
Dean wrote:
In some cases the Governments are not providing education because the missionaries got there first and established a school. They are not going to duplicate what already exists, especially when what is there already is being provided FOR FREE (do we really need that capitalised?). There are of course other scenarios that would create the same situation. |
Well dEan, that's not the point, the reasons why the governments don't eduvcate their people is not important, if they allow somebody else to do it...Then they need to accept their conditions.
If they don't like that conditions, well they can find another provider or start investing in education.
Dean wrote:
]
They would provide whatever the national curriculum required. If that included a programme of religious studies, then they would provide it or a non-religious moral teaching equivalent if it wasn't a curriculum subject. What they would not do is provide Religious Instruction.
|
Please don't guess DEAN, and BTW, that's not what Dawkins says about his future "Atheist Free School"::
| The author of The God Delusion, who has previously described religious education provided by faith schools as a form of child abuse, said he would want pupils to be taught to be skeptical and to appreciate the value of evidence rather than receive “indoctrination” about atheism. He also said that his “free-thinking school” would provide lessons about the gods of ancient Greece and Norse legend, and would treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than a basis for morality
|
He clearly states that religious education is child abuse and he will teach the Bible only as literature.
Obviously he refuses to teach religion, and it's OK, he puts his money and if some parents want this kibnd of education for their children it's perfect for me.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:26 |
The T wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
1.- It's the first obligation of the Governments to educate their children and adults.
2.- I have been told since grade school (I studied in Saint Mary Catholic School), that the book of Genesis is mainly an allegory that has not to be understood as a history book, we've been taught evolution, without any problem.
Iván
|
1. I don't see why |
Because who else will do it? The United nations and the Constitutions of every country I know guarantee the right of every person to a free education
| CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Article 281. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular: (a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all; (b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need; (c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means; (d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children; (e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates. |
. 203 Countries have signed this treaty and are forced to provide free education.
The T wrote:
2. Good for you in this case. |
This is taught in every Catholic School, since the Vatican II Council, if some schools infringe this, they are in fault. Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 27 2011 at 13:28
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:47 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
]
They would provide whatever the national curriculum required. If that included a programme of religious studies, then they would provide it or a non-religious moral teaching equivalent if it wasn't a curriculum subject. What they would not do is provide Religious Instruction.
|
Please don't guess DEAN, and BTW, that's not what Dawkins says about his future "Atheist Free School"::
| The author of The God Delusion, who has previously described religious education provided by faith schools as a form of child abuse, said he would want pupils to be taught to be skeptical and to appreciate the value of evidence rather than receive “indoctrination” about atheism.
He also said that his “free-thinking school” would provide lessons about the gods of ancient Greece and Norse legend, and would treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than a basis for morality
|
He clearly states that religious education is child abuse and he will teach the Bible only as literature.
Obviously he refuses to teach religion, and it's OK, he puts his money and if some parents want this kibnd of education for their children it's perfect for me.
|
Religious Education or Religious Instruction are two different things in the UK - under the National Curriculum schools have to provide a course of Religious Education that parents have the right to withdraw pupils from this if they wish. Schools do not have to provide Religious Instruction. Schools like Dawkin was discussing are not possible under the current system - "free schools" are only a government proposal at present.
|
|
What?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:52 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
1.- It's the first obligation of the Governments to educate their children and adults.
2.- I have been told since grade school (I studied in Saint Mary Catholic School), that the book of Genesis is mainly an allegory that has not to be understood as a history book, we've been taught evolution, without any problem.
Iván
|
1. I don't see why |
Because who else will do it? Well in third world countries with little in the way of capital for a private education industry to emerge I guess there's very little other option than the capital-rich government. But I insist that would only apply to an emerging region where no capital accumulation has allowed private education to become a viable alternative. Of course sometimes it is in the interest of governments not to allow this.
The United nations and the Constitutions of every country I know guarantee the right of every person to a free education
| CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Article 281. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular: (a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all; (b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need; (c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means; (d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children; (e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates. |
. 203 Countries have signed this treaty and are forced to provide free education.As always Ivan you are answering a why question with a reference to a treaty or a law. I'm not saying that laws and treaties don't say this, I'm asking why it should be done. That things ARE in one way doesn't mean that's how they SHOULD be. Anyway, for a "right" to education to exist, somebody else has to be providing it.
The T wrote:
2. Good for you in this case. |
This is taught in every Catholic School, since the Vatican II Council, if some schools infringe this, they are in fault. Iván
|
That's quite good and I have no problems with it. As you probably notice, I'm actually defending the right of your church to educate and even to teach their own values.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:09 |
Dean wrote:
Religious Education or Religious Instruction are two different things in the UK - under the National Curriculum schools have to provide a course of Religious Education that parents have the right to withdraw pupils from this if they wish. Schools do not have to provide Religious Instruction. Schools like Dawkin was discussing are not possible under the current system - "free schools" are only a government proposal at present. |
It's irrelevant ift he Government allow it or not, Dawkins has stated the condition under which he will create a free school with his money or donations he gets.
And that's the point, if the Governments not willing to accept his conditions, well,. he will take his money to other places.
And even when I don't agree with his proposal, he es entitled to make it, and if the laws admit it and some fathers are willing to register in Dawkins school, good for them.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:19 |
The T wrote:
As always Ivan you are answering a why question with a reference to a treaty or a law. I'm not saying that laws and treaties don't say this, I'm asking why it should be done. That things ARE in one way doesn't mean that's how they SHOULD be. Anyway, for a "right" to education to exist, somebody else has to be providing it. |
T, very few people will invest a dime in education, if they don't have profit, and even if they did, will never be enough to cover all students, so the Government HAS to provide it. The only alternative are religious schools, that give free and private education but only if they are allowed to teach their truth, but even this is not enough, there will always be a portion that has to be covered by the Government. The obligation of a government is to provide education, to those kids tat don't have other posibilities..
| Well in third world countries with little in the way of capital for a private education industry to emerge I guess there's very little other option than the capital-rich government. But I insist that would only apply to an emerging region where no capital accumulation has allowed private education to become a viable alternative. Of course sometimes it is in the interest of governments not to allow this. |
Here in Perú (Third world country), private education is a big business, at least 30 private universities have emerged, some really expensive, others reasonable and some free (For example, my school supports a free school in a poverty zone with the money they earned). But there's always public universities like San Marcos, and believe me, the Government only gives money, because the indoctrination is oriented towards extreme Marxism, being that the law guarantees free curriculum. But again, this is not enough and only the Government can provide the missing 30 or 40%. Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 27 2011 at 14:24
|
|
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:26 |
I just got in touch with the big man. He's on an insane drinking binge at the moment and he forgot to destroy the planet. Noah is on standby. he is trying to locate a Komodo Dragon pair.So don't worry.
Edited by Vibrationbaby - May 27 2011 at 14:31
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:34 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
As always Ivan you are answering a why question with a reference to a treaty or a law. I'm not saying that laws and treaties don't say this, I'm asking why it should be done. That things ARE in one way doesn't mean that's how they SHOULD be. Anyway, for a "right" to education to exist, somebody else has to be providing it. |
T, very few people will invest a dime in education, if they don't have profit, and even if they did, will never be enough to cover all students, so the Government HAS to provide it. Which is quite false in developed countries. Private education exists and its prices would lower with less competition from government and less regulation. The government HAS to provide it, as I said, in countries where there's barely any capital accumulation (though the results are usually bad anyway).
WHAT DO YOUR CAPS MEAN IVAN? "HEY IDIOT READ THIS WITH AN EMPHASIS" OR WHAT? YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO IS SO KEEN AT USING CAPS EVERY SINGLE TIME.
The only alternative are religious schools, that give free and private education but only if they are allowed to teach their truth, but even this is not enough, there will always be a portion that has to be covered by the Government. Again, in countries with no capital yes, the church is big and rich enough to provide this service. Which is something I was defending. The obligation of a government is to provide education, to those kids tat don't have other posibilities.. There is no point in debating with you the very idea of the existence of an over-powering government so I'll say this has been usually the case. And it hasn't worked that well in many places, in others it has done better.
| Well in third world countries with little in the way of capital for a private education industry to emerge I guess there's very little other option than the capital-rich government. But I insist that would only apply to an emerging region where no capital accumulation has allowed private education to become a viable alternative. Of course sometimes it is in the interest of governments not to allow this. |
Here in Perú (Third world country), private education is a big business, at least 30 private universities have emerged, some really expensive, others reasonable and some free (For example, my school supports a free school in a poverty zone with the money they earned). But there's always public universities like San Marcos, and believe me, the Government only gives money, because the indoctrination is oriented towards extreme Marxism, being that the law guarantees free curriculum. Exactly. In Ecuador too. Public universities are breeding ground for marxism. Why? Well, marxism leads to a really powerful government. But again, this is not enough and only the Government can provide the missing 30 or 40%. As I said, in many countries, for now, that is the case. The more they develop, the more wealth and capital is generated, the stronger the move towards private education will be. And as you said, the church covers a little bit of that percentage. Iván
|
|
|
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:38 |
|
i wish George Carlin was still alive.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:53 |
The T wrote:
WHAT DO YOUR CAPS MEAN IVAN? "HEY IDIOT READ THIS WITH AN EMPHASIS" OR WHAT? YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO IS SO KEEN AT USING CAPS EVERY SINGLE TIME.
|
T, I haven't made a single CAP in my last reply to you. And when I do it, is simply placing emphasis in certain words that have an important meaning, that's why the system allows us to use capitals and bold letters.
Iván
EDIT: As a fact in none of my posts in this page, I used capitals.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 27 2011 at 14:55
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:00 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
WHAT DO YOUR CAPS MEAN IVAN? "HEY IDIOT READ THIS WITH AN EMPHASIS" OR WHAT? YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO IS SO KEEN AT USING CAPS EVERY SINGLE TIME.
|
T, I haven't made a single CAP in my last reply to you.
And when I do it, is simply placing emphasis in certain words that have an important meaning, that's why the system allows us to use capitals and bold letters.
Iván
EDIT: As a fact in none of my posts in this page, I used capitals.
|
Thanks for that. 
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:01 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Religious Education or Religious Instruction are two different things in the UK - under the National Curriculum schools have to provide a course of Religious Education that parents have the right to withdraw pupils from this if they wish. Schools do not have to provide Religious Instruction. Schools like Dawkin was discussing are not possible under the current system - "free schools" are only a government proposal at present. |
It's irrelevant ift he Government allow it or not, Dawkins has stated the condition under which he will create a free school with his money or donations he gets.
And that's the point, if the Governments not willing to accept his conditions, well,. he will take his money to other places.
And even when I don't agree with his proposal, he es entitled to make it, and if the laws admit it and some fathers are willing to register in Dawkins school, good for them.
Iván |
Ah, but that's the point- it is not a real school, nor is Dawkins actually planning to start one in reality - it was a hypothetical idea, so the correct answer to Teo's question: "By the way are there any atheist charities that do what Ivan just talked about?"
is:
"No T, at least Dawkins has discussed the idea of one, but it isn't possible under current British law"
So, my point still stands - if someone were to start an atheist "faith" school they would have to cover the National Curriculum and if that National Curriculum in that country (wherever it is) required Religious studies then they would have to provide it - and that's not a guess, that's the way it is, so whatever Dawkins says about this hypothetical not even planned and certainly not going to happen "Atheist Free School" would mean that the National Cirriculum would have to be changed first.... and in a country where there is no seperation between Church and State that is not going to happen tomorrow or even next week.
|
|
What?
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:16 |
|
I went to Catholic school and learned the nun's truth, ouch that hurt
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:21 |
So England is not just a police state but a theocratic police state? 
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Rapture Countdown ... join the after-party!