The slow, whiny death of British Christianity

[macgamer]

Excellent, so the BBC is not above the law? Neither is the catholic church I assume?

No it is not exempt.

Specifically the criticism section pertaining to the secrecy.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/intervie ... a-delicta/

Then there is the lengthy NYTimes article collating some of the evidence against Ratty personally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world ... .html?_r=1

The NY Times hardly a dispassionate source, you are probably more impartial.

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resourc ... 62_en.html

1) As is clear from Crimen sollicitationis 1-2, the jurisdiction of the then Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (SSCSO, the name of the present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF until 1965), only covered solicitation in the context of confession/internal forum, and not other delicts. That is why there are relatively few cases handled at the SSCSO and CDF until the whole system was overhauled.

2) The jurisdiction of the SSCSO/CDF was not immediate. The first instance or immediate jurisdiction remained in the diocese. The SSCSO would only have called a case to Rome if their were some compelling reason, for example, depending on whether the Holy Office even knew about it, or if the diocese couldn’t deal with it. The dioceses had immediate jurisdiction.

As regards the Kiesle case, which the AP / NYT don't seem to mention whether it involved the crime of solicitation during confession, for which is had competence. All others were the responsibility of the local ordinary i.e. the priest's Bishop. Kiesle was reported to the civil authorities who prosecuted him. Kiesle was subsequently removed from active ministry. As for the requests of Kiesle and his bishop for dispensation from the clerical state, such a process involves a different dicastery (Congregation for the Clergy). Also the crimes took place before Joseph Ratzinger was appointed as Prefect of the CDF.
I suggest you read this analysis of the AP / NY Times reports:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/ap-throw ... alifornia/

Indeed I do and I respect them too much to respect their beliefs. I do not hold back for fear of offending because if someone was offended that I dare to criticise their almighty church for raping children then they probably aren't worth having as a friend.

I am not offended by the criticism, I feel that its was handled terribly too. What offends me is the calumnies you put forth against the Pope.

[macgamer]

Wonderful, so you would support a government bill to remove state funding for all faith schools?

I certainly have fewer objections now. If faith schools could maintain charitable status, I would probably support it yes.

It's not as simple as that. Admission to faith schools is controlled by the school governors. Of course they select for the faith but why wouldn't they also select for ability and background given the pressure on schools to perform well?

Don't forget that the LEAs have the majority say on such boards. Actually it wasn't until Tony Blair that state funded schools were allow to select by ability for certain subjects, e.g. it was a school that decided to specialise in science say.

[Haunted]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/intervie ... a-delicta/

Essentially: Child rape happened sure, but we've changed! Injected with a lot of speculation and red herrings.
E.g. (bold mine)
".... the "Crimen sollicitationis" of 1922. But wasn’t that from 1962? No the the first edition was from 1922."
I suppose the fact that the Crimen Sollicitationis was in effect up until 2001 (when it was replaced by SACRAMENTORUM SANCTITATIS TUTELA) isn't worth mentioning? This change of procedure would also have nothing to do with the crimen document being exposed to the general public either?

The author of the post also loves to use selective bold, watch this.
"A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts".
Which parts de he bold?
""A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy", notice the missing caveat. He still admits the holy see imposed secrecy but is trying to argue it was to protect the victim (clue: you protect the victims by calling the police and cooperating in their investigations)

It would be comical were the subject matter not so horrifying.

The NY Times hardly a dispassionate source, you are probably more impartial.

Possibly a valid point but not one that discharges you from addressing their article.

1) As is clear from Crimen sollicitationis 1-2, the jurisdiction of the then Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (SSCSO, the name of the present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF until 1965), only covered solicitation in the context of confession/internal forum, and not other delicts. That is why there are relatively few cases handled at the SSCSO and CDF until the whole system was overhauled.

Not just confessional. Read paragraphs 71-74

2) The jurisdiction of the SSCSO/CDF was not immediate. The first instance or immediate jurisdiction remained in the diocese. The SSCSO would only have called a case to Rome if their were some compelling reason, for example, depending on whether the Holy Office even knew about it, or if the diocese couldn’t deal with it. The dioceses had immediate jurisdiction.

From paragraph 74
"...they must always communicate a sentence rendered, or an administrative decision in those cases which are more grave, to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office"
The Holy See was responsible for the 'grave' sexual crimes. Granted, I am working under the assumption that child rape is 'grave' but feel free to argue that point.

As regards the Kiesle case....I suggest you read this analysis of the AP / NY Times reports:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/ap-throw ... alifornia/

This guy again, who picks nits but doesn't actually address the serious matter at the heart of it. He complains of cliches in an article discussing a child rapist? All he's done is highlight the parts where the documents note that there were plans to remove Kiesle but then they didn't do anything about it whilst he continued on his merry way. The fact that they thought about removing him is meant to make everything ok? The 'smoking gun' is that they knew he was a problem and didn't do anything (i.e. call the police) about it for years. Ratty thinking about removing him is not an aquittal, if anything it is more of an indictment.

What offends me is the calumnies you put forth against the Pope.

You are implying I am making this up to damage his reputation to possibly further my own anti-catholic agenda? It would so much easier if that were the case.
Fortunately (in a manner of speaking), I don't need to invent anything for such an agenda, the evidence, the investigative reports and the speaking up of the victims and even the Cardinals is doing a marvellous job of pushing such an agenda without the need for fabrications.

[Haunted]

I certainly have fewer objections now. If faith schools could maintain charitable status, I would probably support it yes.

Well I am glad we can finally agree on something. I feel it also worth mentioning that if churches can maintain charitable status then I would not be in favour of removing their tax exempt status.

Don't forget that the LEAs have the majority say on such boards. Actually it wasn't until Tony Blair that state funded schools were allow to select by ability for certain subjects, e.g. it was a school that decided to specialise in science say.

Oh absolutely the problem was exasperated under Tony Blair. Probably one of the few Prime Ministers who said he believed in god and actually meant it.

[wild_quinine]

You see Hennessy is trying to make a pragmatic assessment of the value of Catholic Schools based not on their doctrine, but on their success as schools.

No, he made a point of mentioning that the catholicness didn't rub off on him and presented this as a good thing. I agree, this is a good thing, but that doesn't make the school itself good, merely inept at doing a bad thing.

I think this is a confusion.

The underlying and shared assumption is clearly that Catholic indoctrination itself is bad. (There may be people who disagree with this statement. Probably most of them are Catholics. But Hennessy and yourself don't think that.)

The point that I read Hennessy making is that the badness of Catholic indoctrination is, in his experience, mitigated by the fact that Catholic schools are bad at indoctrinating it. This itself is not a net good, clearly.

But it is weighed up against the generally superior academic performance of faith schools, and Hennessy is simply saying that it's a trade off that might be worth it, in his opinion. And of course the implication is that if they were better at the indoctrination part, then that trade off might not be worth it.

You can disagree with his opinion, of course, and you can disagree with the fact that faith schools usually perform better, especially if you can prove it*, but I don't think you should pretend that anyone is saying that badly done indoctrination has some kind of intrinsic value.

It's not just a semantic thing. The opinion you're attributing is nonsense. That something bad done worse is somehow worth the price of admission? I mean, nobody could realistically hold such a view. Other than, possibly, for a spot of light schadenfreude.

But the opinion Hennessy presents is actually quite sensible and practical. It's an answer to the question 'How much bullshit are you willing to put up with, to get the positive benefit that you were seeking?' (And don't pretend that isn't a type of compromise you would make, if you've ever watched a TV show with commericial breaks in it.)

Now I don't necessarily agree that I would send my kids to a Catholic school, even if they had the best grades in the country and all the pupils were secular humanists with a copy of the God Delusion on backorder at Waterstones. Why? Because I just don't like the idea of it.** But I'm not going to pretend that makes me more rational than anyone who does send their kids there, or that my iron-rod principles render me in any way more pragmatic.

I can see that you feel that any religious indoctrination is too much for you, no matter how inneffective or mild. I'm not calling you on that. That's OK. It's your decision how to feel. I might reasonably ask whether you think it's just religion we shouldn't compromise on, or if it's politics, too - especially since you brought politics into the equation. But an opinion's all your own, enjoy it.

What you shouldn't do is present someone who has considered the options, taken into account their own priorities, assessed the impact of the good and the bad things for themselves, and somehow come to a differing conclusion as some kind of religious apologist.

That shit is for extremists and fanatics.

However we are not arguing to bring such places into existence. They exist already. Hennessy's point is about whether or not it is pragmatic to dismantle them, given that they tend to perform well by some measures.

Was it pragmatic or not to dismantle slave labour given that they tended to perform well by some measures? I've heard that the GDP of the UK decreased 10% in the year that slavery was abolished, was it therefore a bad thing to abolish it?

Well, now you're off the rails. You're deliberately confusing a financial choice with a moral one, as if to exemplify your own stark sense of principle. It's nice that you are principled. But the fact that not everyone in the world shares your particular and exacting set of principles makes the world a worse place for precisely one person.

That person needs to make like a croupier, and deal.

I simply don't care how impractical it would be to dismantle faith schools

Yes, I get that. You hate organised religion so hard that you'd see your children go to Stupidsville Comprehensive rather than have them sit through the vaguely-enforced evening mass at Supersmart High. Good stuff. I might even be in your demographic.

But in the real world these are individual choices, and if Hennessy wants to send his spawn to a Catholic school for the grades rather than the prayer-meetings, and can show that he's put some thought into why, then I think that's a respectable decision.

Again, it wouldn't be mine. But, I'm irrationally predjudiced like that.

(and how hard can it be to simply place a placard at the entrance "under new management"?)

That depends entirely on the answer to the question of why faith schools allegedly perform so well. It might be very, very hard to do so. And certainly, if we're talking about pre-existing schools, then that kind of re-organisation is more disruptive than changing the sign.

* I have no figures, myself. It's a widely held belief. Therefore it could be bollocks. If it is true, then it is clearly worth investigating why it is true.
** Also, Dawkins is a twat.

[RedCelt69]

** Also, Dawkins is a twat.

Slightly off-topic (welcome to Thread-Creep) but please elaborate. You're not the first atheist/agnostic/areligious (whichever you are) I've heard make a comment like that and I'd love to hear the reasoning.

[Humphrey]

I see some cranky NU atheist has got to the wikipedia article on 'Faith schools'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_school

Many people are critical of faith schools as they state that they teach intolerance, religious belief is linked to low IQ[2] and religious people are more likely to commit a prisonable crime

[Senethro]

Don't faith schools have superior performance due to being selective of their intake? They're a "polite" refuge for middle class parents where they can be assured of sufficient oik screening.

[Anon.]

It really depends on the extent to which the corruption goes, whether the upper eschelons 'presided' over institutionalised paedophilia.

So you the onus is on you to demonstrate to me that the Pope at any point during his career acted in such manner. Given how badly Church PR is run and the poor organisation of the Pope's visit, I doubt the Vatican knows much about anything that happens outside the Holy See sometimes.

Isn't that like saying that though Marie Antoinette may not ever actually have said "let them eat cake", she was totally ignorant of the state of the French people and so can't be blamed for living in luxury while the populace starved? The point is she should have known, and so should the Pope.

[Haunted]

I think this is a confusion.

Now there's an understatement.
Without wishing to speak on Henessy behalf again, I believe he mentioned that faith schools were "by and large good schools".
I have no beef with this statement. Faith schools do indeed appear to deliver higher grades on avergae when compared to non-faith schools. But of course in the original article I posted (and which I can only assume you read when you decided to comment on this thread) addresses this issue and suggests all is not as it seems.
Though Johann in his infinite wisdom has decided not to post any explicit links to his source (Civitas) I have done some googling and found some of their studies revealing strange goings on at faith schools.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/MusicChes ... erSins.pdf
Particularly
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs14.pdf
Which has been hailed as demolishing the myth that faith schools are centres of excellence.

The underlying and shared assumption is clearly that Catholic indoctrination itself is bad...blah blah condescending shit about subjectivity and choice

At what point did I imply I would like to ban people from religiously educating their children? Get a clue.

Well, now you're off the rails. You're deliberately confusing a financial choice with a moral one, as if to exemplify your own stark sense of principle.

Well I'll try and simplify it a bit more.
Slavery = immoral (bear with me), and removal of slavery = expensive.
Therefore there is a financial penalty for making the moral choice (probably the main reason why it took so long to abolish).
Now
Faith schools = immoral (my argument) and it would be expensive to dismantle them would it not?
Therefore, for the purposes of analogy, the example of slavery works to illustrate the issue. Yes, it may cost time and money to dismantle faith schools but ultimately the choice must be based on morality and not economics. If such choices were made purely on the basis of economics we would all be slave owners.

Yes, I get that. You hate organised religion so hard that you'd see your children go to Stupidsville Comprehensive rather than have them sit through the vaguely-enforced evening mass at Supersmart High. Good stuff. I might even be in your demographic.

If I am off the rails then you have not only left the track but are careening dangerously out of control towards to edge of useless caricature canyon.

If you are trying to imply that there really is something magical about the 'faith' (which ever it may be) that is taught in faith schools that actually makes children do better in exams then waste no more time and make the argument. Otherwise, agree with me that the faith part either adds nothing or is a possible source of harm.

[Haunted]

Rather coincidentally, channel4 are airing a documentary on faith schools on Wednesday night
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/fait ... /episode-1

[malcolm166]

totally irrelevant intervention and not to sound like a royalist but the quote of " Marie Antoinette may not ever actually have said "let them eat cake", has been relentlessly misinterpreted for close on two centuries now.

She was told that the stock of bread for the poor had run out and her reply was indeed "let them eat cake".... as in go break into the warehouses where the "cake" - the posh folk's food - is stored - and distribute that to them now if there is no bread.

Not an expression of disdain - not the equivalent of "let them eat fresh air" or boil their boots - but an actual response to go find sources of any kind for them to stop them starving. It wasn't an ignorant view on her part that they were bound to have cake of their own - didn't everybody?? - but an effort to alleviate a pressing problem that she was seriously concerned about........as in "let them have our cake"

[wild_quinine]

Faith schools do indeed appear to deliver higher grades on avergae when compared to non-faith schools. But of course in the original article I posted (and which I can only assume you read when you decided to comment on this thread) addresses this issue and suggests all is not as it seems.

Yes, I did miss that in the article you linked. As I say, I don't have a dog in that particular hunt, but if it's NOT true that faith schools provide superior results, then that would probably make a big difference to Hennessy's conclusion. But the argument he presents, as I said, is a pragmatic one, and it seems like a reasonable way to assess things to me.

The underlying and shared assumption is clearly that Catholic indoctrination itself is bad...blah blah condescending shit about subjectivity and choice

At what point did I imply I would like to ban people from religiously educating their children? Get a clue.

That bit you truncated to 'blah blah condescending shit about subjectivity and choice' was the bit in which I explained where I thought you were misunderstanding the argument.

I'm sorry if it seemed condescending. I was explaining it to you for the second time, and wanted to be as sure as possible that I'd made a thorough job of it. I won't try to explain it again, because that really would be condescending. I think you've taken from it as much as you want to take.

That said, for the life of me I can't see where I've suggested that you would like to ban people from religiously educating their children. Where did that come from?

for the purposes of analogy, the example of slavery works to illustrate the issue. Yes, it may cost time and money to dismantle faith schools but ultimately the choice must be based on morality and not economics. If such choices were made purely on the basis of economics we would all be slave owners.

Wait... so you are suggesting that we ban people from religiously educating their children, in the same post as you have a go at me for suggesting that's your viewpoint, even though I didn't suggest that until this very sentence?

And you have a problem with faith?

If I am off the rails then you have not only left the track but are careening dangerously out of control towards to edge of useless caricature canyon.

Apologies for the distraction. I do like flippant and absurdly illustrative combinations of words. I also appreciate the subtle, and I think intentional, irony of your retort.

If you are trying to imply that there really is something magical about the 'faith' (which ever it may be) that is taught in faith schools that actually makes children do better in exams then waste no more time and make the argument. Otherwise, agree with me that the faith part either adds nothing or is a possible source of harm.

It isn't that simple, of course. It wouldn't have to be something 'magical' about faith which explained a phenomenon in which children did better in exams at faith schools. It could be that the cause is that faith schools select their pupils for ability, which I think is what the report you link to is providing evidence for? It could also have been some cause or correlation that we did not yet understand. The world is full of moral do-gooders dismantling things they do not understand, for their pet causes. It's not always wrong, but it needs caution.

** Also, Dawkins is a twat.

Slightly off-topic (welcome to Thread-Creep) but please elaborate. You're not the first atheist/agnostic/areligious (whichever you are) I've heard make a comment like that and I'd love to hear the reasoning.

My faith is not currently up for discussion. Certain as I am of some things, I am paralysed by my lack of faith in people.

The Dawkins thing, though. Mostly, for me, it's the 160 page crescendo of superlative shit-talking* that marks the first half of The God Delusion, and the resultingly limp dissapointment when his case is finally brought. As far as I can tell, his grand explanation of the improbability of God turns out to be, and I realise that I may be oversimplifying things very slightly: "Science has explained a lot of things, there is every reason to assume that it will one day explain everything else".

And he's all 'Case closed, am I right or what?'

Forgetting for just one moment the sheer velocity of this broadside of irony, it's just not a big enough conclusion to cover the flourish he presents it with.

That's the thing I get from him. He's just not saying enough, or well enough, that the payoff is worth the cover charge. Every time I see him smile as he answers a question, my head is filled with images of him throwing out jazz hands and mouthing 'Ta-da!'



*EDIT (note for clarity): shit-talking as in a flurry of grandiose statements, used to build up expectations, NOT to infer that he's substantially incorrect throughout.

[RedCelt69]

My faith is not currently up for discussion. Certain as I am of some things, I am paralysed by my lack of faith in people.

Now, that's an interesting reply. I'm pencilling in "deism" for you, in the meantime... until you decide that your faith is up for discussion.

The Dawkins thing, though. Mostly, for me, it's the 160 page crescendo of superlative shit-talking* that marks the first half of The God Delusion, and the resultingly limp dissapointment when his case is finally brought. As far as I can tell, his grand explanation of the improbability of God turns out to be, and I realise that I may be oversimplifying things very slightly: "Science has explained a lot of things, there is every reason to assume that it will one day explain everything else".

And he's all 'Case closed, am I right or what?'

I'm not a fan of The God Delusion. It was the first time I'd read a Dawkins book without learning something. Well... learning something interesting.

I'm already well-versed in the anti-religion stance. Dawkins didn't present anything new. Which made me wonder who the book was written for. Those who agree with his premises would (like me) be sold short. Those that disagree with his premises weren't given any/enough material to radically alter their existing belief system.

Some have called him an anti-religious rottweiler. He came across as more of a poodle. I (and many people I know) could have made a stronger case for rejecting religion.

Regardless of that one book's shortfalls, I keep in mind the reason why he's ended up in such a position. Blame America. Nowhere else in the Western World is evolution so radically rejected. He's been attacked from all fronts from the cookiest of the cooky. And, in America, that isn't a small population. Evolution is attacked. The basic tenets of evolutionary mechanisms are attacked and, by extension, Dawkins is attacked.

He's ended up in a scientifically indignant state of "fuck you" to the many detractors of evolution. Although, The God Delusion wasn't the best of comebacks.

Despite that, he's also the guy who wrote the one book I ever encountered that actually changed how I look at the world. And for that simple fact, I'll defend the guy against his detractors... and challenge their reasoning.

[Haunted]

That bit you truncated to 'blah blah condescending shit about subjectivity and choice' was the bit in which I explained where I thought you were misunderstanding the argument.

You are almost deliberately trying to muddy the waters with paragraphs and paragraphs about completely unrelated issues. I get what you are trying to imply and (unless it still isn't clear ) I have rejected your interpretation and tried to explain my position to you. I am arguing against the PRINCIPLE of faith schools, not the impracticality of making them secular (which you have still to demonstrate would require more effort than placing a new sign out front).

That said, for the life of me I can't see where I've suggested that you would like to ban people from religiously educating their children. Where did that come from?

That's my fault then, apologies.

Wait... so you are suggesting that we ban people from religiously educating their children, in the same post as you have a go at me for suggesting that's your viewpoint, even though I didn't suggest that until this very sentence?

For this paragraph to function one must use the relationship that FaithSchools = religious education. But since we're not morons there's no need to point out how absurd that is.

And you have a problem with faith?

Faith SCHOOLS (emphasis mine, just in case).

It isn't that simple, of course.

So why are you arguing as if it is. Your whole argument has been "don't dismantle faith schools, they simply work".
It's still uncertain if you are going to pull out any magical or supernatural explanations for the apparent benefit of a faith school over a secular school. Some reassurance would be nice.

It wouldn't have to be something 'magical' about faith which explained a phenomenon in which children did better in exams at faith schools.

This still isn't ruling out magic.

It could also have been some cause or correlation that we did not yet understand.

Presumably not magic though? Any possible examples off the top of your head?

The world is full of moral do-gooders dismantling things they do not understand, for their pet causes. It's not always wrong, but it needs caution.

And the world is equally full of appeasers and conservatives who cannot bear the effort of changing an outdated system that may be harmful /equallyuselessthingtosay. Stop making caricatures and either make some arguments in favour of religious indoctrination or agree that there is something immoral about taxpayer funded religious indoctrination.

[wild_quinine]

I get what you are trying to imply and unless it still isn't clear ) I have rejected your interpretation and tried to explain my position to you. I am arguing against the PRINCIPLE of faith schools, not the impracticality of making them secular

Yes. But as I pointed out, for some people the principle is not an issue, or at least not a moral absolute. That you do not find it sound, does not affect the validity of Hennessy's argument. That's the whole point I'm making. I'm not saying that you must agree with his conclusion. As I've said, I do not.

For this paragraph to function one must use the relationship that FaithSchools = religious education. But since we're not morons there's no need to point out how absurd that is.

I see. You said 'the example of slavery works to illustrate the issue.... it may cost time and money to dismantle faith schools but ultimately the choice must be based on morality and not economics.'

I took this to mean that you believe religious indoctrination to be an absolute moral wrong. Like slavery.

But I can see now that you might just have meant that, whilst religious education itself is discretionary, it is morally wrong for tax money to be used for it. I think there are bigger tax issues at stake than this but, I am also very much in favour of that kind of separation.

Your whole argument has been "don't dismantle faith schools, they simply work".

No. Clearly not.

It has been 'It is risky to dismantle faith schools without knowing *why* they appear to work better'.

It wouldn't have to be something 'magical' about faith which explained a phenomenon in which children did better in exams at faith schools.

This still isn't ruling out magic.

That is not my responsibility. I am not a witch hunter.

The aim of empiricism is not to destroy things which appear to be magical, but to expand our understanding until everything that was magical is subsumed into mere fact. I'm not going to rule out magic by fiat.

(And there's a very good reason why not, even if there is no such thing as magic. Can you figure out what it is?)

It could also have been some cause or correlation that we did not yet understand.

Presumably not magic though? Any possible examples off the top of your head?

Well, yeah. I mean, just loads. One thing I've never been accused of is a lack of imagination. But that's kind of beside the point. It's not enough to assume that there are no other explanations for something simply because you can't think of any.

Here's a quick throwaway list of possibilities, just to prove how easily they come. Heh. Some are more outlandish than others:

It could be that faith school teachers are more committed, because they believe they are doing 'God's work'.

It could be that faith school teachers are more committed because they're getting paid better.

It could be that faith schools allow less room for interpretation in class, which is worse for critical thinking but quite possibly better for exam reults.

It could be that the contrast between religious doctrine and factual content provides a kind of intellectual contrast, which enables pupils to better discern facts, and teaches them how to disregard fluff.

It could be that students routinely let their minds wander during the regular daily religious sessions, and such daydreaming periods are used by the brain to categorise and store information more usefully.

It could be that the students do pay attention to the religious bits, and that there are positive mental benefits to religious practice, in the same way that there are positive physical benefits to yoga (to wit, the mysticism is all bollocks, but stretching is really rather good for you.)

It could be that students are selected by faith schools, based on qualities likely to correlate with academic performance.

It could be that the parents who want to send their children to a religious school are less laissez faire in the upbringing of their children, and that they are used to a disciplined learning environment in the home.

It could be that there is a correlation between religious belief and academic achievement caused by some external factor(s), such as class, wealth, parental expectation, parental support, competition, etc.

It could be... well, crikey. anything.

I mean, don't feel compelled to dispute all or any of these. And don't dare accuse me of believing any of them. I'd need evidence for that, and some of these are pretty fantastical.

All I'm saying is that if School X is measurably better than other schools, and there is evidence to suggest that this correlates with it having quality y, then you might assume that it's *possible* that removing quality y will also remove the difference.

Sure, correlation is not causation. It might make no difference at all. But you're taking a bit of a risk unless you can explain what the correlation was, to begin with.

If quality y is so distasteful that is should be removed at any cost, then by all means, you can say that. But that's really brought us full circle. Because different people feel differently about how distasteful quality y actually is.

And the world is equally full of appeasers and conservatives who cannot bear the effort of changing an outdated system that may be harmful /equallyuselessthingtosay.

Yes, that's why I have respect for pragmatism, even though I'm an idealist at heart.

Stop making caricatures and either make some arguments in favour of religious indoctrination or agree that there is something immoral about taxpayer funded religious indoctrination.

Stop painting things in black and white, and show me why it's white, or agree it's black? Really?

It's a grey, grey world out there. Sure, I am against state-funded religious indoctrination, and strongly for the separation of church and state. But I think that we need to progress at a sensible rate until this separation is as complete as it can be (without infringing on the freedom to religious practice). I do not having any driving need to see this happen all at once, if the consequences will be more severe than the continuation.

[Haunted]

Yes. But as I pointed out, for some people the principle is not an issue, or at least not a moral absolute. That you do not find it sound, does not affect the validity of Hennessy's argument. That's the whole point I'm making. I'm not saying that you must agree with his conclusion. As I've said, I do not.

Well then you've blown up this thread on a total non-issue.

For this paragraph to function one must use the relationship that FaithSchools = religious education. But since we're not morons there's no need to point out how absurd that is.

I took this to mean that you believe religious indoctrination to be an absolute moral wrong. Like slavery.

This is becoming a joke, have you read anything else I've been saying on this thread? TAX PAYER FUNDED FAITH SCHOOLS. It's not the religious indoctrination that is bad (though I do think this to be immoral, I do not think it should be outlawed) it's the part where tax payer money funds these outdated institutions. State schools should be secular. If parents want to sent their children to a faith school, send them to a private one.

But I can see now that you might just have meant that, whilst religious education itself is discretionary, it is morally wrong for tax money to be used for it.

YES!

I think there are bigger tax issues at stake than this

Perhaps, but there is also world hunger, poverty and HIV to worry about, what's your point?
(Also, 1/3 of the education budget is a fairly substantial issue)

It has been 'It is risky to dismantle faith schools without knowing *why* they appear to work better'.

Let's be clear then. I am using the word 'dismantle' rather figuratively, please don't imagine a bulldozer coming in to demolish St Franko's Catholic School for Innocent Boys brick by brick. By 'dismantle' I course mean remove that which makes it a 'faith' school. Remove religious inspectors from writing their own unique curriculum, bring these schools into line with national curriculums and remove mandatory worship.
This does not have to involve replacing teachers or management or throwing the baby out with the bath water as you are implying would happen.

Even so, it would be more of an interesting result if the removal of the supernatural parts did actually impact on academic performance (all other criteria being the same).

That is not my responsibility. I am not a witch hunter.

I can only take this as an admission that a magic option is sitting on your table.

The aim of empiricism is not to destroy things which appear to be magical, but to expand our understanding until everything that was magical is subsumed into mere fact. I'm not going to rule out magic by fiat.

Wonderful. The reason that faith schools apparently out perform secular schools could indeed by magical.
Of course we can't rule out anything without absolute knowledge of the whole system. It's possible that this whole universe was sprung into life moments ago by a pasta based lifeform, we must accept that the possibility exists yes, but it is utterly meaningless to entertain such unknowables in debate. It's a last resort of the "well science doesn't know everything you know!" school of thought.

Well, yeah. I mean, just loads. One thing I've never been accused of is a lack of imagination. But that's kind of beside the point. It's not enough to assume that there are no other explanations for something simply because you can't think of any.

The converse is equally true. From a pragmatic point of view it's probably more true to say that because there are no explanations there may not be one. The more explanations that are ruled out the chance of an explanation existing tends to zero.

Here's a quick throwaway list of possibilities

Excellent. Though I'm pretty certain teachers in faith schools receive the same state salary. If not then this is a more serious matter than I had first thought. And though most of your examples aren't exactly positive aspects of education they may indeed explain better exam results.
Of course three of your explanations touch on what has already been demonstrated: That when corrected for background and status, faith schools perform equally as well as secular schools.

then you might assume that it's *possible* that removing quality y will also remove the difference.

Just as we have to strictly admit that the great Bumba vomited up the Earth. Correlation != Causation. I'm sure you've seen the pirates vs global temperature graph?
A causative link MUST necessarily be demonstrated otherwise we could spend all year listing things that correlate with each other.

It might make no difference at all. But you're taking a bit of a risk unless you can explain what the correlation was, to begin with.

Indeed, we're taking a risk by seeking to reduce the number of pirates. But all of this is besides my point.
In fact even if faith schools demonstrably produced better results and better educations for individuals (and indeed there is evidence that religious affiliation can bring substantial social and economic benefits to individuals) it would all be beside the main point. The ends do not justify the means. Tax payer money should not fund religious indoctrination.

If quality y is so distasteful that is should be removed at any cost, then by all means, you can say that. But that's really brought us full circle. Because different people feel differently about how distasteful quality y actually is.

You are (deliberately?) confusing faith with tax payer funded religious indoctrination yet again. Don't address what you think my personal feelings may on the matter, address what I've actually put forward. Explicitly:
That the tax payer should be forced to contribute to religious indoctrination on young minds. That faith schools, which make up a third of all schools depsite only 7% of the population attending worship, should no longer be funded by the state. That those schools should become secular and subject to OSTED regulations.

Stop painting things in black and white, and show me why it's white, or agree it's black? Really?

Somethings really are either/or. Either there is something magical and unexplainable about faith schools or there isn't. Either the state should fund unregulated religious schools for indoctrinating young children, or it shouldn't. Yes on a practical level, some faith schools might indeed be harmless CoE type establishments where not even the priests actually believe in god and individuals get a well rounded education. But the same rule that allows the existence of such a place also allows Wahhabist zealots and ultra orthodox jews to educate children on behalf of the state.

Sure, I am against state-funded religious indoctrination, and strongly for the separation of church and state.

Stop the press! That is my entire position laid out succinctly. If you want to disagree with the praciticalities of acheiving this then thats another conversation and one I'm not nearly as interested in. Indeed I made it quite clear early on that "I don't care how impractical it would be".

But I think that we need to progress at a sensible rate until this separation is as complete as it can be (without infringing on the freedom to religious practice). I do not having any driving need to see this happen all at once, if the consequences will be more severe than the continuation.

I'm sure you can take comfort that the same arguments were used by Americans seeking to avoid a conflict with slave owners. Indeed it eventually happened and the abolition of slavery in the US led to a bloody war. Perhaps you hold the position that it would've been better to just phase out slavery a bit more gradually and continue to appease slave owners so as not to rock the boat.

[Haunted]

It's almost funny just how many of your arguments you can find in this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/eth ... ions.shtml

[jollytiddlywink]

...
It really depends on the extent to which the corruption goes, whether the upper eschelons 'presided' over institutionalised paedophilia.

So you the onus is on you to demonstrate to me that the Pope at any point during his career acted in such manner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11021348

A priest sentenced for lewd contact with two boys in 1978. His diocese got round to recommending he be kicked out of the church in 1982, but this did not occur until 1987.

During that time, the current pope, then responsible for investigating matters of abuse, sent a letter to the diocese insisting on "careful review and more time" because the "good of the church" had to be considered.

[macgamer]

...
It really depends on the extent to which the corruption goes, whether the upper eschelons 'presided' over institutionalised paedophilia.

So you the onus is on you to demonstrate to me that the Pope at any point during his career acted in such manner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11021348

A priest sentenced for lewd contact with two boys in 1978. His diocese got round to recommending he be kicked out of the church in 1982, but this did not occur until 1987.

During that time, the current pope, then responsible for investigating matters of abuse, sent a letter to the diocese insisting on "careful review and more time" because the "good of the church" had to be considered.

No the CDF did not have the competency for investigating abuse, it only dealt with 'serious' cases especially with solicitation in confession. The local diocese was responsible for the investigation, which given that he was reported to the civil authorities was carried out successfully.

An application was made to his dispensation from the clerical state, however this is independent of his serving the Church in any capacity. There is not much detail in the BBC report, but there is nothing to suggest that the priest was still in active ministry, which again is up to his Bishop, since every priest may only celebrate the sacraments with the approval of his Bishop.

As to why it took so long for the application for his dismissal from the clerical state to be processed and approved. It happened during a period when there were a high number of applications. (I'd say many unsuitable men put themselves forward and didn't discern their vocation properly in seminary and then found themselves in an unwanted position so applied to leave.) The Church wanted to stem the haemorrhage of its priests. The CDF's primary purpose at that time and even now is investigating heresy in the teaching of the faith. The dismissal to the clerical state also involves the Congregation of the Clergy. Rome moves and moved too slowly.