The EU debate - Part III

Anyway **** that bollox. The reason I've bothered to come on this **** thread is to talk about grammar schools.

It's so frustrating watching the news and seeing the central argument by politicians and news reporters being completely missed! Back in the day, grammar schools' aims was to pluck the most able from deprived backgrounds and give them a fair crack at an education reserved usually for public schools.

Grammar schools DON'T do this anymore. If you are a child from a deprived background today you have pretty much **** all chance of getting into grammar school. Because middle-claas and upper class families have realised it's cheaper to pay £3000 per year for 3 years tutoring their child from age 7/8 to pass a grammar school entry test at age 10, than it is to pay £10k a year for 5 years (from age 11-15) sending them to public school!

Grammar schools are crammed with children who weren't necessarily gifted, but instead have parents who could afford to tutor them from age 7 to 10, to get them through the entry test.

Secondly, the grammar schools of the past were institutions with high standards of teaching. Now they are anything but!! The reason they top the tables now is that they cherry pick the children of the rich who tutored their children and will continue to do so to help them succeed. When you have children working at that level, with middle-class parents willing to put in the ground work to finance it, ifcourse their results will be high.

So the idea that allowing secondary schools in deprived areas to become grammar schools is somehow going to affect social mobility is complete bollox. Because changing the name above the school gates to "grammar schools" isnt going to miraculously change the teaching and learning inside, but ONLY the ability of the children entering them. And that won't include the deprived children that live there!

All the rest of the bollox being reported about May's plans is a complete side issue. The central point is completely being missed... and that is the entry system into grammar schools is completely flawed, to work against the very children it was designed for. Until THAT gets addressed, it's stupid to consider increasing grammar schools.

 

Really? Cos I think I just did.
Is this another one of those, "I am offended" type posts?

 

If that makes you feel better.
As for being ignorant, I have read both the bible (Both testaments) and the Quran, from front to back.

 

I get worked up over plenty.
Religion is something I feel very passionate about.
I sincerely believe we cannot progress to the next step of human civilisation until it is abolished.

Do not make the mistake of thinking I have any hatred toward people who are religious. I want to see the destruction of their entire set of beliefs, but I dont mean to hate on them, as weird as that sounds.
I am very tolerant of peoples religious wishes, but if I am asked my opinion on something I give it, no punches pulled. Same as with everything I say, if it offends you, that is your fault, not mine. There is no hate here, just my honest opinion on the subject discussed.

 

That's the kind of thing I'd expect UIR or Matth to come out with. Just because you've read it doesnt mean you understand the faith behind it. Like I said, you have a sterile view of religion. You could read a thousand religious books and you'd still have a limited one-dimensional view of it.

All of your posts suggest you totally don't get the primary and overarching motivation behind someone's faith. Why? Because you can't relate to it. I can understand that and accept it. But when you try to impose your limted view of religion on what motivates others behind their faith, you come across as ignorant and conceited. I'm sure we've been here before so I'll leave it there.

Edit: Nowt to do with being offended. You say what you say, I say what I say. What's to get offended about.

 

I never try to impose anything on anyone.
I come across as ignorant because I want to see something abolished that you care a great deal for. Thats all.

 

Not at all. Plenty of people want religion abolished. It will never happen so what do I care. I'm simply commenting on what you believe motivates others behind their faith, which is where your ignorance lies. I've not criticised you at all about wanting religion abolished, nor mentioned it.

 

It's already happening mate.
A slow process to be sure, thats taking hundreds of years, buts its happening.
Look at the statistics, the amount of Anglicans in the UK has halved in the last 30 years. Go back even further to the days when the Pope was arguably the most powerful man on the planet, it's happening, whether people like it or not.
As to my belief on what motivates others behind their faith. What it is then? Other than a search for answers, or a search for comfort.
Maybe help me understand by explaining what explains your motivation?

 

Generalisation alert - it's not meant as a sweeping statement but It'd take too long to do it right.

I've generally found that it's the strongly religious that have the most limited view.

Non-believers, and in particular atheists tend to have considered a variety of beliefs and religions before deciding that none work for them Most strongly religious people dismiss other religion except their own, without looking at the others at all.

 

So my brother is very religious, as was my grandmother.
What grates me most is the hypocrisy I see in some people.
The Old testament prohibits the eating of Pork, Shrimp and all other shellfish and some poultry. Yet I see many Christians eating these substances in abundance.
I see people critical of abortion on religious grounds......the old testament also sanctions abortion. (Yes, read numbers 5:27).

So my brother tries to explain to me that its not to be taken literally, so......what is it then? whats its purpose? If it is not the word of God, and is written by men and is not to be taken literally, then what elevates the bible from any other work of fiction, like say, 50 Shades of Grey.
To pick and choose the morals displayed in the bible based on your own moral code and dismissing those that clash with your own inner code just seems like a giant cop out.
Again, these are just my own views Treb, I am not trying to impose them on anyone.

 

It is written for its time and should be seen in context as historical text.
It doesn't mean people can't see value in it.

I am not religious and do not believe in the things that religious people do. As long as their belief does not involve telling others that they claim some level of superiority over non believers then they can believe what they like as far as Im concerned.

 

Well to true believers, it does.
We do not believe in God, so we are all going to hell.

 

Belief is a highly personal thing.

Personally, I'm not a believer, and I don't wan't those who are preaching at me.

However, I have to say that if I were a believer, I'd also object to others inferring I'm an idiot or deluded because of my beliefs.

Live and let live - within reason!...

 

Sounds good to me. Heaven sounds like a bloody awful place to end up. To many do gooders.

 

The bible is a work of fiction and should be treated as such.

 

Of course it is. So are Aesops fables but they still have moral value.

 

Maybe..... but who should teach you morals?

 

John Terry.

 

Or Ryan Giggs

 

Captain,leader,legend.