why are 'faith schools' legal?

Given that over a third of the Brit population have no religious belief at all (at least according to a Readers Digest Poll I read in the dentist waiting room), how come about a third of Brit state funded schools can legally refuse to accept the children of non-believers? Why isn't this banned by the european human rights act? Children of religious people have a much greater choice of state schools than the non-religious - surely this is state discrimination on the grounds of religion and should be illegal? Effectively most religious schools are selective pseudo-grammar ones.

At the very least, a third of state schools should be allowed to reject pupils on the grounds that their parents were once seen praying or attending a mosque! At least then it'd be an even playing field (though a very divided one, but thats a whole other issue). Another third would have to only accept those who nominally believe in God but only go to Church for weddings and funerals.

I think my views on this have been made abundantly clear on numerous ocassions.

in sort.... Why should you go to school to pray, you don;t go to church to think.

nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

religion is bollocks,there should be no faith schools simple as, really. and please dont whine on about freedom of choice ect,so you want people to have the freedom to belive and die for a lie. At the end of the bible it says "world without end" ,id like to see some daft twat waving his bible at the sun in defiance when it goes nova,explain that away.

I can't speak for England but the state funded Catholic schools in Scotland couldn't and wouldn't refuse any pupils on the grounds of their religon. However.....you need to declare yourself to be a Catholic if you want to teach in one!

My old school (state funded Catholic) is now full of all races and religions just cos it's recognised as being a good school with good facilities. Back in my day though it was 100% white.

Taking my rational hat off I f**kin loved the "us and them" divide when I was a kid! Still wouldnae want my kids mixing with Proddys.

mike powell wrote: religion is bollocks,there should be no faith schools simple as, really. and please dont whine on about freedom of choice ect,so you want people to have the freedom to belive and die for a lie. At the end of the bible it says "world without end" ,id like to see some daft twat waving his bible at the sun in defiance when it goes nova,explain that away.

Point of scientific order, as a perfectly normal class G3 star (main sequence currently), our sun will not go nova, but just puff up all fat into a red giant, vapourising the 3 inner planets and fucking mars over a treat too, then collapse to a brown dwarf.

Point taken though. These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

El Jarvo wrote: I thought the Cafflick 'faith' schools were still 'legal' so that all the racist Prodestant whitefolk could send their kids somewhere to stop 'em mixing with Asian kids at the CofE schools.

Or have I missed something?!

Totally different laws governing Education provision In Scotland from the rest of the UK. All I know is that there's tonne's of Asians at my old school and the one my wee sisters all went to. Bottom line is you don't have to be a Catholic to attend a Catholic school but you can't opt out of the two hours a week of Catholic RE. Plus, as I mentioned, you need to be a Catholic to teach in one.

These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion. I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator? Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start? Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

So, what version requires a greater leap of faith since you have to believe someone else's testimony?

fishguy190 wrote:

These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion.

I think the science people are doing everything they can to prevent religion being taught as science. That's not even close to the same thing as "doing everything they can to stop religion."

I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

I have no problem with spirituality either; organized religion is a different matter.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator?

For a biologist, you don't seem to have a grasp on the scientific argument. I would argue that the scientific response is that there's no empirical evidence to support the supreme creator explanation. That's not the same thing as saying there is no supreme creator; it just means that belief in a supreme creator is a matter of faith, not of empirical evidence. From a scientific perspective, one can't teach "faith" as a scientific explanation for how the universe was created.

Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Fuckwits who don't get that faith is just that-- faith. It's not based on empirical evidence. If it was, one wouldn't need faith. The metafuckwits go one further: They discount any empirical evidence which contradicts religious explanations which they interpret literally as a matter of faith.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start?[.

They also argue that life didn't evolve, that it was created in 6 days 5 or 6 thousand years ago. Of course when we're talking about "religious people," we need to specify that we're talking about fundamentalist "christians," rather than followers of another belief system.

Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

Not quite what scientists argue. They explain what happened during the "big bang" and its aftermath, without bringing a supreme creator into the discussion, either for or against the proposition, because once again, they deal in empirical evidence, not faith. And yes, they do point to tons of empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution.

So, what version requires a greater leap of faith since you have to believe someone else's testimony?

As a scientist, you surely must know that one of the most basic requirements of science is that theories must be capable of being tested. No theory requires a "leap of faith." Religion, on the other hand, can't be tested, and thus, requires a leap of faith. The answer to your question, then, is religion requires a leap of faith, science doesn't.

^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed. I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action. I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty. And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health. Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well). Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read. But that doesn't discount his science for me.

fishguy190 wrote:

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion. I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator? Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start? Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

Clearly you are an intelligent person.

I'm disappointed you place these earth shattering beliefs into convenient little boxes, such as 'Creator'.

Why do we need to have a 'Creator'? Is it some basic form of education for us to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, and that a form/lifeform has to be the author of things?

What pisses me off about belief systems is there is always some 'HIGHER BEING'.. blah blah... Since the dawn of time, belief systems have evolved to stop us all topping ourselves, whilst shovelling shit for a lifetime. 'Dont worry son, all that shit-shovelling/bagel making/suicide bombing will earn you a place in heaven or wherever.

Bollocks.

Whats wrong with just being? Why cant we just have been an accident of nature?

Apart from high quality moral guidance on 'how to be a good human', i.e. dont kill anyone, I cant see the point in faith.

fishguy190 wrote: ^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed. I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action. I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty. And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health. Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well). Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read. But that doesn't discount his science for me.

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

fishguy190 wrote: ^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Biology isn't just a messy jumble of phenomena that contradict the theories. If there are exceptions, they'll refine the rule, or point the way to a new theoretical understanding of phenomena.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed.

That's the thing about science. It's tests must be replicable. If the test can't be replicated, the theory hasn't been tested. You or I or Joe Schmoe down the street can all test the theory for ourselves. We don't need to rely on somebody else's word. Of course, the reality is that some tests require more specialized knowledge and more specialized equipment than other tests. But there's no test in science that can't be replicated by another "scientist."

I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action.

Nor has anybody else.

I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty.

But if you really wanted to, you could test that theory yourself, if you took it upon yourself to gain the knowledge necessary to test and interpret.

And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong

That's the whole point, though, isn't it. Scientific explanation is not only capable of being tested, it must be capable of being tested. And as a general proposition, hypotheses are proven wrong far more often than theories, which tend to be modified rather than discarded.

and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

Except the theory of evolution is capable of being tested. Matters of faith are not capable of being tested.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version.

Your point is wrong. There is nothing in science that requires your faith; everything in religion does require your faith.

I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

Empirical evidence isn't "so-called." It's either empirical, or it isn't.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health.

Yes, results can be manipulated. That's not science, that's policy.

Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

You can test for the hypothesis that a tree comes from a seed that came from a parent tree. If the hypothesis can be proved, the tree can be taken as evidence that seeds produce trees.

You can't test for the hypothesis that a tree was created by a supreme being. There is no test for the existence of supreme being, so the tree can't be taken as empirical evidence of a supreme being. It's a matter of faith, not of science, that a supreme being created trees.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well).

No, it doesn't go for science. Religion and science are two very different fields. It is inappropriate to teach religion as science when it is not science. To state that simple fact-- that religion is not science, and should not be taught as science-- is not "forcing others to see their version."

Now, when the day comes that scientists get up in the pulpit and preach the theory of evolution at Sunday services-- the equivalent of what religious fundamentalists are attempting to do in the science classroom-- you'll have a point. Until then, you're dead wrong.

Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

Of course there's room for coexistence in life. But there's no room for religion as a theoretical explanation of phenomena under the guise of science.

What I find telling is that people who claim to have faith in a supreme being devote their entire energies to proving the existence of that supreme being and to proving that their literal interpretation of their scripture is literally true (and thus, science is "wrong."). I find that telling because if these people actually had any faith, they wouldn't need to prove anything, now, would they?

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read.

Based on your previous comments confusing science and religion, I'm skeptical about this claim. I'll have to-- ahem-- test this one for myself.

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

Dang.. I hate agreeing with Comrade. But I do, on this one.

fishguy190 wrote: Science and religion can coexist

The scientific explanation for creation is "the big bang" theory. The Judaeo-Christian explanation is that God said "Let there be light."

Those two accounts are entirely compatible with each other, and it's not unreasonable to accept both accounts.

However, the "big bang" theory is capable of being tested; the Judaeo-Christian explanation is not capable of being tested, and so if one is to believe the Judaeo-Christian explanation, it must be accepted as a matter of faith.

If a scientist states the obvious-- that the Judaeo-Christian explanation can't be tested, and therefore shouldn't be taught as science-- that's not an attack on religion.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Dang.. I hate agreeing with Comrade. But I do, on this one.

Oh come on, you agree with me on almost everything. Almost.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Dang.. I hate agreeing with Comrade. But I do, on this one.

Oh come on, you agree with me on almost everything. Almost.

Well lets just let that one flare up again, when it does..

Anyways, I personally think 'Godsquad' shouldn't come into chatrooms. Stick with the evidence, IMHO. The great thing about scientific theories is that they can be challenged and changed, reinterpreted, re-evaluated from new evidence.

Religious mumbo jumbo can only be re-interpreted, because evidence has always been on the 'thin' side.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed.

That's the thing about science. It's tests must be replicable. If the test can't be replicated, the theory hasn't been tested. You or I or Joe Schmoe down the street can all test the theory for ourselves. We don't need to rely on somebody else's word. Of course, the reality is that some tests require more specialized knowledge and more specialized equipment than other tests. But there's no test in science that can't be replicated by another "scientist."

I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action.

Nor has anybody else.

Contradicted yourself just a bit haven't ya???

And by the way, theories can be tested in labs, in completely controled enviroments, and proven true.....but in real world terms they fail.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

Because you read into what you wanted and missed my complete point in the past.

Your idea that if someone agrees with conservative thought has to believe in every far right wing idea is crazy. You talked a long time ago about how you don't see things as black/white, but yet you'll only see things in right/left???? Contradicting a bit, aren't ya?

And if I am completely off point, and this is about my "complete lack of understanding of science" than show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere. Which you still haven't done since our last discussion.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed.

That's the thing about science. It's tests must be replicable. If the test can't be replicated, the theory hasn't been tested. You or I or Joe Schmoe down the street can all test the theory for ourselves. We don't need to rely on somebody else's word. Of course, the reality is that some tests require more specialized knowledge and more specialized equipment than other tests. But there's no test in science that can't be replicated by another "scientist."

I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action.

Nor has anybody else.

Contradicted yourself just a bit haven't ya???

No....

And by the way, theories can be tested in labs, in completely controled enviroments, and proven true.....but in real world terms they fail.

Sigh....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

Because you read into what you wanted and missed my complete point in the past.

Missed your point? Your explanation of ecology was just plain wrong. Your confusing global warming and ozone loss was just plain wrong. What point did I miss?

Your idea that if someone agrees with conservative thought has to believe in every far right wing idea is crazy. You talked a long time ago about how you don't see things as black/white, but yet you'll only see things in right/left???? Contradicting a bit, aren't ya?

Right? left? We're talking science here...

And if I am completely off point, and this is about my "complete lack of understanding of science" than show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere. Which you still haven't done since our last discussion.

Your confusing global warming and ozone loss speaks volumes about your complete lack of understanding of science. Whether or not a cfc molecule has been found in the upper atmosphere doesn't change that.

And I have no idea whether or not a cfc molecule has been found. That changes nothing...

EdelBrock wrote: ...show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere...

Without wishing to spend hours researching this, I think the answer is here:

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented by Thomas Midgeley in the 1920's. They were used in air conditioning/cooling units, as aerosol spray propellants prior to the 1980s, and in the cleaning processes of delicate electronic equipment. They also occur as by-products of some chemical processes. No significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds — their presence in the atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture. As mentioned in the ozone cycle overview above, when such ozone-depleting chemicals reach the stratosphere, they are dissociated by ultraviolet light to release chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms act as a catalyst, and can break down many thousands of ozone molecules before being removed from the stratosphere. Given the longevity of CFC molecules, recovery times are measured in decades. It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules during that time.

CFC molecules aren't found in the stratosphere, because UV light breaks the molecules down into their constituent elements, including chlorine atoms. It's the chlorine atoms, and not CFC molecules themselves, that break down the ozone molecules into their constituent elements.

EdelBrock wrote:

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

well, here it's a better quality of education at Catholic Schools (parochial and private) and private jewish schools than there is in most Public Schools. They are also safer, and people tend to send their kids there to get them away from the bullshit of the neighborhood public schools.

Might be a NorthEast thing since everyone here is Catholic or Jewish and it doesn't seem like the rest of the country has much of either...but the schools are full of non religious people of all races.

It's part of the Catholic Mission in education to be non discriminatory with regards to who's enrolled. I mean they've got to take religion classes (which hello, you're going to one of their schools and no one is making you go there--so there's no real problem with that), but they don't have to go through sacraments if they don't want to. They used to make everyone go to Mass on holy obligation days but when you're a kid that's awesome because it means no class. I don't think they do that anymore tho.

Religous schools here aren't publically funded though.
Well, there's a magic amount of funding that falls between "not discriminating against a religion" and "not endorsing a religion" as laid out in the first amendement. All that really applies to though is bussing and i think hiring school nurses. Private and Parochial School kids are bussed on public school buses because their parents pay for it in school taxes.

What isn't necessarily fair is in PA at least, people who send their kids to non-public school still have to pay school taxes to support other people's children in public school--which I think is similar to what you all are talking about only reversed. Anyway, i think the bussing probably makes up for it. Also, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it because we are trying to run a society here, and pulling out your money because you don't want to participate ain't cool.

NOOLigan wrote: nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

I don't know which way round you are arguing here!

But the term 'customer' hardly applies when you are talking about state funded schools, surely? My point is just that the state provides greater choice of schools for the religious than the non-religious. I know someone who's wife has suddenly rediscovered her Catholicism and started attending mass just in order to get their child into the local 'good' state school, which only accepts Catholics. That's an option that's not open to the completely non-religious. Ergo, its religious discrimination by the state.

fishguy190 wrote:

These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion. I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator? Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start? Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

So, what version requires a greater leap of faith since you have to believe someone else's testimony?

Well, I know which version is more _interesting_, and gives us more opportunity to use our 'God given' rational minds. Either 'er..God made it like that...that's it' or the huge intellectual enterprise that is modern biology, with all its practical applications.

404 error wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

I don't know which way round you are arguing here!

But the term 'customer' hardly applies when you are talking about state funded schools, surely? My point is just that the state provides greater choice of schools for the religious than the non-religious. I know someone who's wife has suddenly rediscovered her Catholicism and started attending mass just in order to get their child into the local 'good' state school, which only accepts Catholics. That's an option that's not open to the completely non-religious. Ergo, its religious discrimination by the state.

ahm yes. i believe that private schools should be private thus get no funding from the state. same thing happens here. i think the the argument goes something like imagine the increased pressure of the public schools if private thus faith schools didn't exist. i do have a slight probem is supporting them through my tax dollars.

i do believe in freedom of choice. if the state system is so bad, then do something about that.

EdelBrock wrote:

fishguy190 wrote: ^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed. I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action. I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty. And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health. Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well). Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read. But that doesn't discount his science for me.

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

Because the religious schools are often the 'good' schools, or, in a few areas, the ONLY schools. Those schools are allowed to give precedence to kids whose parents are religious, while non-religious schools can't give preference to those whose parents aren't. The religious schools tend to be the 'good' ones precisely _because_ they are selective.

There's also the fact that they are divisive.

frankly i'm amazed at what this thread has become. people are free to believe and do what they like as long as they don't force their beliefs on me.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: ...show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere...

Without wishing to spend hours researching this, I think the answer is here:

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented by Thomas Midgeley in the 1920's. They were used in air conditioning/cooling units, as aerosol spray propellants prior to the 1980s, and in the cleaning processes of delicate electronic equipment. They also occur as by-products of some chemical processes. No significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds — their presence in the atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture. As mentioned in the ozone cycle overview above, when such ozone-depleting chemicals reach the stratosphere, they are dissociated by ultraviolet light to release chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms act as a catalyst, and can break down many thousands of ozone molecules before being removed from the stratosphere. Given the longevity of CFC molecules, recovery times are measured in decades. It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules during that time.

CFC molecules aren't found in the stratosphere, because UV light breaks the molecules down into their constituent elements, including chlorine atoms. It's the chlorine atoms, and not CFC molecules themselves, that break down the ozone molecules into their constituent elements.

Your speaking lab science, and this is a leap of faith believing that this is happening in real world terms.

I already stated this about chlorine atoms are being the reason for ozone depletion, which also comes from ocean salt spray and volcanos. Also not noted in wikipedia is that there is a bacteria that has been found that decomposes the CFC molecule, which wasn't considered in the initial lab experiments.

Again, I'm fine with precautionary measures of getting rid of CFCs, but that everyone talks about it as if it were fact is what is disturbing.

C-Ro wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

well, here it's a better quality of education at Catholic Schools (parochial and private) and private jewish schools than there is in most Public Schools. They are also safer, and people tend to send their kids there to get them away from the bullshit of the neighborhood public schools.

Might be a NorthEast thing since everyone here is Catholic or Jewish and it doesn't seem like the rest of the country has much of either...but the schools are full of non religious people of all races.

It's part of the Catholic Mission in education to be non discriminatory with regards to who's enrolled. I mean they've got to take religion classes (which hello, you're going to one of their schools and no one is making you go there--so there's no real problem with that), but they don't have to go through sacraments if they don't want to. They used to make everyone go to Mass on holy obligation days but when you're a kid that's awesome because it means no class. I don't think they do that anymore tho.

Religous schools here aren't publically funded though.
Well, there's a magic amount of funding that falls between "not discriminating against a religion" and "not endorsing a religion" as laid out in the first amendement. All that really applies to though is bussing and i think hiring school nurses. Private and Parochial School kids are bussed on public school buses because their parents pay for it in school taxes.

What isn't necessarily fair is in PA at least, people who send their kids to non-public school still have to pay school taxes to support other people's children in public school--which I think is similar to what you all are talking about only reversed. Anyway, i think the bussing probably makes up for it. Also, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it because we are trying to run a society here, and pulling out your money because you don't want to participate ain't cool.

Here Bush tried to institute the voucher system to remedy this problem, if I'm not mistaken. Seemed on the surface to be a good idea, but then I'm not well versed in the idea.

Is it that the religious schools get better education or is it that it is a private school? Mainly the rich can attend, and so they are willing to pay for better education....you get what you pay for?