Shock News to Lawmaker: Public Money for Religious Schools Not Greatest Idea EVAR

[Lemur]

Facepalm territory here. So apparently Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's school reform bill includes direct subsidies for religious schools, which sounds like a bad idea on about thirty levels. But one of the local reps discovered that -- shock! -- when you fund religious schools, you don't get to pick the religion (http://livingstonparishnews.com/mobile/news/article_6c2da5fe-c1e5-11e1-ae3b-0019bb2963f4.html). Who knew?

Based on this and other recent flights of supreme idiocy from elected officials, I would like to propose term limits for all elected offices, followed by mandatory death camps.

Rep. Valarie Hodges, R-Watson, says she had no idea that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s overhaul of the state’s educational system might mean taxpayer support of Muslim schools.

“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” the District 64 Representative said Monday.

“I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges said.

Hodges mistakenly assumed that “religious” meant “Christian.” [...]

“Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion,” Hodges said. “We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.”

[rvg]

Based on this and other recent flights of supreme idiocy from elected officials, I would like to propose term limits for all elected offices, followed by mandatory death camps.

Sold!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Facepalm territory here. So apparently Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's school reform bill includes direct subsidies for religious schools, which sounds like a bad idea on about thirty levels.

So this includes vouchers students can use at religious schools, which doesn't seem completely direct. Also, could you name some of those thirty levels of badness?

CR

[InsaneApache]

Where to start.

[Centurion1]

How about with the fact that private catholic schools are often superior to their public schools in the area? As in one school parents are scared to send their kids too and another where they can feel comfortable. Religion often has very little too do with going to a Catholic high school. My school had muslims jews, protestants. It was more about people not wanting to send their kids to sub par ghetto public schools in the area than it was about Catholicism.

I mean this woman is an imbecile but Lemur is as he always does creating two distinct camps for his position and attempting to make an individual seem like an idiot for not being on his side.

[Lemur]

Also, could you name some of those thirty levels of badness?

Where to start.
Indeed, killing fish in a barrel with a 12-gauge seems sporting by comparison. You could choose a number of angles, and get at least 30 from each. Let's start with this one:

Recognized religions in the U.S.A. that would be eligible for public funding:


Moonies (Unification Church)
Scientologists
Westboro Baptist Church
Raelists
Order of the Solar Temple
Branch Davidians
Missouri Synod Lutherans
Church of All Worlds
Church of Euthanasia
World Church of the Creator
Nation of Yahweh
Nuwaubianism
The Church of Ed Wood
Christian Identity
Greater Ministries International


And so on and so forth. Google 'em as you please, these are legit religions in the USA, and all or most would be eligible for public funding. There's a good reason the Founding Fathers didn't try to impose a state church; they had a fresh, bloody memory of the Wars of Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) in Europe. (My personal favorite, the Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War), killed approximately 1/3rd of all living people in the areas we now call Germany.)

-edit-


I mean this woman is an imbecile but Lemur is [...] attempting to make an individual seem like an idiot for not being on his side.
Self-contradicting sentence is self-contradicting.


How about with the fact that private catholic schools are often superior to their public schools in the area? As in one school parents are scared to send their kids too and another where they can feel comfortable.
So the issue becomes: how to structure the law so that good parochial schools are encouraged, while we avoid giving public money to the Scientologists? Not an easy bit of lawmaking, and not one that Governor Jindal appears to have solved. See Hooahguy's recent experience at a Yeshiva for what bad parochial schooling can look like.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well that's a fair number of good reasons not to support poorly written laws giving vouchers to all religious schools.


So the issue becomes: how to structure the law so that good parochial schools are encouraged, while we avoid giving public money to the Scientologists? Not an easy bit of lawmaking, and not one that Governor Jindal appears to have solved. See Hooahguy's recent experience at a Yeshiva for what bad parochial schooling can look like.

Are we sure this isn't the case? What this women seems to be complaining about is that Muslim schools could get money, and they might be good parochial schools.

CR

[HoreTore]

Government funding of religious schools is a bad idea.

Wanting to limit that funding to just your own religion is a candidate for the worst idea ever.

How is that anything other than pure racism, bigotry and chauvinism?

[Centurion1]

Indeed, killing fish in a barrel with a 12-gauge seems sporting by comparison. You could choose a number of angles, and get at least 30 from each. Let's start with this one:

Recognized religions in the U.S.A. that would be eligible for public funding:


Moonies (Unification Church)
Scientologists
Westboro Baptist Church
Raelists
Order of the Solar Temple
Branch Davidians
Missouri Synod Lutherans
Church of All Worlds
Church of Euthanasia
World Church of the Creator
Nation of Yahweh
Nuwaubianism
The Church of Ed Wood
Christian Identity
Greater Ministries International


And so on and so forth. Google 'em as you please, these are legit religions in the USA, and all or most would be eligible for public funding. There's a good reason the Founding Fathers didn't try to impose a state church; they had a fresh, bloody memory of the Wars of Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) in Europe. (My personal favorite, the Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War), killed approximately 1/3rd of all living people in the areas we now call Germany.)

-edit-


Self-contradicting sentence is self-contradicting.


So the issue becomes: how to structure the law so that good parochial schools are encouraged, while we avoid giving public money to the Scientologists? Not an easy bit of lawmaking, and not one that Governor Jindal appears to have solved. See Hooahguy's recent experience at a Yeshiva for what bad parochial schooling can look like.

I concur with your sentiment im really playing devils advocate here. However, I dont think a voucher for some people to send their kids to private school would necessarily be a bad thing I just dont know how to go about being selective. I would say most cartholic high schools (only high schools) are typically pretty damn good but that could just be my areas representation (DC, maryland) as I get super established schools like gonzaga and dematha.

Self-contradicting sentence is self-contradicting.

^ semi colon and but

[Centurion1]

Government funding of religious schools is a bad idea.

Wanting to limit that funding to just your own religion is a candidate for the worst idea ever.

How is that anything other than pure racism, bigotry and chauvinism?

Jesus man do you just pull words out of your rectum that are antagonistic?

It IS bigoted and probably chauvinistic as well. It is not racist. People throw around racism far too often.

[Lemur]

It IS bigoted and probably chauvinistic as well.
Actually, the lawmaker is stupid first and foremost. All else is a secondary effect.

How someone who claims to love this country can wade into the state/religion issue without understanding the history, the reasoning, the context of the Founders ... bah. It's like people who fly the American flag and don't know how to do it correctly; they're trying to be patriotic, and they're just being disrespectful.

So whatever else this woman is, it's all a side-effect of willful ignorance and painful stupidity.

[Centurion1]

Actually, the lawmaker is stupid first and foremost. All else is a secondary effect.

How someone who claims to love this country can wade into the state/religion issue without understanding the history, the reasoning, the context of the Founders ... bah. It's like people who fly the American flag and don't know how to do it correctly; they're trying to be patriotic, and they're just being disrespectful.

So whatever else this woman is, it's all a side-effect of willful ignorance and painful stupidity.

Worst part is she probably doesnt even believe the nonsense herself shes just trying to rile up her intellectually lacking base.

[HoreTore]

Jesus man do you just pull words out of your rectum that are antagonistic?

It IS bigoted and probably chauvinistic as well. It is not racist. People throw around racism far too often.

I define racism as negative prejudices and practices aimed at others because of their origin, religion(or lack of) or sexual identity. The similarities between hatred towards each of the groups are great enough that I feel perfectly comfortable lumping them all together. Thus, racism.

Though I wouldn't rule out "classical racism" in this case either, I don't see it as unlikely that some of them just don't want to give it to muslims because they're brown.

[HoreTore]

Actually, the lawmaker is stupid first and foremost. All else is a secondary effect.

How someone who claims to love this country can wade into the state/religion issue without understanding the history, the reasoning, the context of the Founders ... bah. It's like people who fly the American flag and don't know how to do it correctly; they're trying to be patriotic, and they're just being disrespectful.

So whatever else this woman is, it's all a side-effect of willful ignorance and painful stupidity.

I agree completely with this.

[Kadagar_AV]

I define racism as negative prejudices and practices aimed at others because of their origin, religion(or lack of) or sexual identity. The similarities between hatred towards each of the groups are great enough that I feel perfectly comfortable lumping them all together. Thus, racism.

Though I wouldn't rule out "classical racism" in this case either, I don't see it as unlikely that some of them just don't want to give it to muslims because they're brown.

You can't make up definitions of your own and expect people to get you.

I also fail to see what's racist about it... And I agree that the word racism gets thrown around wayyyy to easily these days.

[CBR]

Recognized religions in the U.S.A. that would be eligible for public funding:

*snip*

Where is the Church of Founding Fathers ? Or does that go under idolatry?

[HoreTore]

You can't make up definitions of your own and expect people to get you.

I also fail to see what's racist about it... And I agree that the word racism gets thrown around wayyyy to easily these days.

I am quite far from being alone in using this definition.


Where is the Church of Founding Fathers ? Or does that go under idolatry?

I lol'ed. Hard.

[Kadagar_AV]

I am quite far from being alone in using this definition.





You are not alone being wrong then, what do you expect? A cookie?

[HoreTore]

You are not alone being wrong then, what do you expect? A cookie?

Marvellous intellect.

Words do not have an "inner meaning", words have the meaning people give it. If you wish to limit "racism" to just nazi/kkk-style racism, be my guest.

I see little reason for such a seperation, and so don't subscribe to it. The feelings and motivations are exactly the same, and so I use the same term.

And with all that said, I also believe there's a large presence of kkk-style racism at play here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I define racism as negative prejudices and practices aimed at others because of their origin, religion(or lack of) or sexual identity. The similarities between hatred towards each of the groups are great enough that I feel perfectly comfortable lumping them all together. Thus, racism.

Though I wouldn't rule out "classical racism" in this case either, I don't see it as unlikely that some of them just don't want to give it to muslims because they're brown.

That's a stupid definition - not least because those three prejudices don't operate in the same way.

[Major Robert Dump]

I have a shirt that says "infidel" on it.

A dumb hippie girl called me a racist.

She was using Hore Tores rationale.

[HoreTore]

I have a shirt that says "infidel" on it.

A dumb hippie girl called me a racist.

She was using Hore Tores rationale.

I sure wouldn't have called you that, so...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Public money to fund private schools? No thanks. Instead of giving parents vouchers, the state could do something, you know, useful: invest the money in its public schools to raise the standards.

[Lemur]

Instead of giving parents vouchers, the state could do something, you know, useful: invest the money in its public schools to raise the standards.
Unfortunately, throwing money at the schools doesn't seem to fix things in and of itself. Some sort of deeper reform is needed. (Note that the overall performance of charter and parochial schools is not a whole lot better. We need to crib ideas from Finland (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html). And parents need to get off their fat posteriors and get involved with their kids' education.)

[Centurion1]

I define racism as negative prejudices and practices aimed at others because of their origin, religion(or lack of) or sexual identity. The similarities between hatred towards each of the groups are great enough that I feel perfectly comfortable lumping them all together. Thus, racism.

Though I wouldn't rule out "classical racism" in this case either, I don't see it as unlikely that some of them just don't want to give it to muslims because they're brown.

...... Who or what do you think you are? The living incarnation of the merriam webster dictionary? This is so wrong I can't even believe your serious right now.

[Kadagar_AV]

...... Who or what do you think you are? The living incarnation of the merriam webster dictionary? This is so wrong I can't even believe your serious right now.

Don't be a racist, telling him he's wrong like that...

[HoreTore]

Unfortunately, throwing money at the schools doesn't seem to fix things in and of itself. Some sort of deeper reform is needed. (Note that the overall performance of charter and parochial schools is not a whole lot better. We need to crib ideas from Finland (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html). And parents need to get off their fat posteriors and get involved with their kids' education.)

What the article described is basically my own workday here in Norway.

Wanna know which country the ideas behind it came from, Lemur?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't be a racist, telling him he's wrong like that...

I would just thank the post but...

BURN!


What the article described is basically my own workday here in Norway.

Wanna know which country the ideas behind it came from, Lemur?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Sweden?

Most good ideas in the last 50 years seem to have come from Sweden.

[HoreTore]

The answer is the same as for most other good things in the world.




The United States of America.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like the idea of vouchers and dramatically different sources of education with similar base standards. Fund the catholic schools, the madrassas etc, but make sure that they use standardized testing for the core subjects and take away their accredidation if they blow it.

[Greyblades]

The answer is the same as for most other good things in the world.




The United States of America.


Hrm. I contend the very idea that the originator of The Jersey Shore deserves praise for good ideas.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't see what the big deal is since Obama is a muslim and he turned out okay

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't believe in school "diversity".

EVERY single child within the nation should be entitled to an equal and top notch education through state schools.

This state school should respect and incorporate minorities enough so they do NOT have to start up some school of their own.

ONLY deviation to that rule, that is ok in my book, is elite schools for highly performing children (but not below the age of 13-15), as well, of course, special schools for children with special educational needs. Those schools are of course age independent.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Unfortunately, throwing money at the schools doesn't seem to fix things in and of itself. Some sort of deeper reform is needed. (Note that the overall performance of charter and parochial schools is not a whole lot better. We need to crib ideas from Finland (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html). And parents need to get off their fat posteriors and get involved with their kids' education.)

Throwing money at it is a fair description. Private or remedial tutoring is not free, small schools don't come cheap, and quality teachers who have proper education themselves will demand proper wages, working conditions and benefits. If the Finns adopt a whatever it takes approach that extends to footing the bill afterwards.

It is quite clear that when it comes to education the US is simply not willing to pay for "first rate" results, let alone top dollar.

That is quite apart from the byzantine legislation, politicking and other insanity which occasionally makes the headlines. Probably doesn't help your chances at fixing things, but in order to remove that you would need a willingness to throw whatever it takes (money) at it in the first place. (A lot of the mess has to do with the insane idea that teachers/schools get paid according to the performance of their class, which is asking for experienced and capable staff to quit the profession or for under performing schools to sink still further relative to their peers.)

[Lemur]

I don't see what the big deal is since Obama is a muslim and he turned out okay
So wait, this was you?
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/2939476582_7b1cf99e83.jpg


It is quite clear that when it comes to education the US is simply not willing to pay for "first rate" results, let alone top dollar.
I'm not saying the problems with our schools have nothing to do with money, but rather that money is only part of the problem. We have structural issues in how we regulate them, how we reward them (as you point out), how teachers are managed, how textbooks are allocated ... the list goes on. Money is needed, clearly, but money alone will not turn our schools into Scandanavian STEM labs.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are right. I assume you did this purely for the hyperbole, but even so I'd like to point out:

Money is needed, clearly, but money alone will not turn our schools into Scandanavian STEM labs.

... that is precisely the wrong goal to have. If you're just measuring how much STEM you can get out of a school or class you're bound to wreck education in other ways.

[Kadagar_AV]

Again: There should be 3 types of schools.

* Schools for children with special educational needs (on one end of the bell curve).
* Schools.
* Schools for children with special educational needs (on the other end of the bell curve).

They should all be state funded. If a rich mum and dad is unhappy with it they should pay more tax to make education better.

Does anyone oppose?

[HoreTore]

Again: There should be 3 types of schools.

* Schools for children with special educational needs (on one end of the bell curve).
* Schools.
* Schools for children with special educational needs (on the other end of the bell curve).

They should all be state funded. If a rich mum and dad is unhappy with it they should pay more tax to make education better.

Does anyone oppose?

I do.

John Hattie proves in his metastudy Visible Learning that separating pupils like this does NOT have an effect on learning.

As it has no effect, there is no point in making such a program, it would be a complete waste of time.

I do agree with the rest of what you said though(this post and the other).

Another point of relevance to this thread in Hattie's study, is that having up-to-date textbooks doesn't have any effect on education either.

And Lemur: what works great in Finland originated in US academia. What thw US obviously needs to do is let their academics run the show. Then you won't just catch up, you're likely to lead the race, seeing as you are the ones with the brilliant minds.

[Kadagar_AV]

I do.

John Hattie proves in his metastudy Visible Learning that seperating oupils like this does NOT have an effect on learning.

As it has no effect, there is no point in making such a program, it would be a complete waste of time.

I do agree with the rest of what you said though(this post and the other).

Another point of relevance to this thread in Hattie's study, is that having up-to-date textbooks doesn't have any effect on education either.

You seriously think lumping a blind kid, a genius, a deaf kid and a retard together in a class will strengthen them all to their full potential?

[HoreTore]

You seriously think lumping a blind kid, a genius, a deaf kid and a retard together in a class will strengthen them all to their full potential?

What I may or may not think is irrelevant.

Science proves that it does.

Edit: and damn you, you quoted my post before I fixed the spelling errors :smash:

[Centurion1]

What I may or may not think is irrelevant.

Science proves that it does.

Edit: and damn you, you quoted my post before I fixed the spelling errors :smash:

No it doesnt it slows down the genius, confuses the retard, and the blind has no idea whats going on. Science does not support that or every single weatern european country on earth wouldnt have gymnasium type systems or honors classes.

I'm amazed by the amount of bull you have managed to pull out of your *** in this thread.

[Kadagar_AV]

What I may or may not think is irrelevant.

Science proves that it does.

Edit: and damn you, you quoted my post before I fixed the spelling errors :smash:

Know what, I do agree.

However, you'd need THE teacher to make it work.

I don't oppose you'r position because I think it is faulty in a perfect world, I think you are bang on target. As you should know I teach myself, and I have little or no problem overcoming the obstacles set in my classroom role.

The problem I have is that I look at the teacher's out in schools, and to be realistic, the majority of them have absolutely NO chance to make it work. Maybe YOU can. Maybe I can. But the ordinary 9-5 teacher?

The teachers energy/education/ability is the reason we need to separate kids, not the kids.

[HoreTore]

Know what, I do agree.

However, you'd need THE teacher to make it work.

I don't oppose you'r position because I think it is faulty in a perfect world, I think you are bang on target. As you should know I teach myself, and I have little or no problem overcoming the obstacles set in my classroom role.

The problem I have is that I look at the teacher's out in schools, and to be realistic, the majority of them have absolutely NO chance to make it work. Maybe YOU can. Maybe I can. But the ordinary 9-5 teacher?

The teachers energy/education/ability is the reason we need to separate kids, not the kids.

Indeed, and that is a position supported by science, as Hattie lists teacher-student relationship as 2. and microteaching as 3. on his list of what furthers learning.

I'd still say that the "full classroom model" is the way forward though. But obviously I am strongly in favour of upping the number of teachers, both "normal" and those with special education.

Edit: and it muet also be said that Hattie could only check for things that can be measured, so he only analyzed academic achievements. He could not check for the other tasks the school is given, such as the formation of kids into adults ready for the world. And in that regard, I believe the "full classroom model" is very valuable.

Edit2: but of course, what results one wishes from this formation is of course highly political, so any and all positions here are of course equally valid and depended on ones own position.

[Kadagar_AV]

We agree to disagree then.

The full classroom model has been and is being tested in Sweden, and know what, we have absolutely rubbish results.


Do you honestly think that we, out in the schools, have teachers up to the task required? I very much don't.

[HoreTore]

We agree to disagree then.

The full classroom model has been and is being tested in Sweden, and know what, we have absolutely rubbish results.


Do you honestly think that we, out in the schools, have teachers up to the task required? I very much don't.

I was not aware that Sweden has practiced differentiated schools?

Anyway, heavy intervention for pupils with learning disabilities is also on Hattie's top list. Though there is also a point in having them in their "ordinary class". So, what I think works best is extra care in the classroom with a special needs teacher in addition to the regular teacher to follow up those who need it, some hours one-on-one with the teacher and some hours in smaller groups on the same level.

A "regular" teacher cannot provide the different education someone with a learning disability needs. We just don't have the knowledge on how to do it. I certainly don't. So, what's needed is a cadre of teachers trained in special education in addition to regular teachers.


Btw, disregard the ranking in my earlier post. I just remembered that was from a lecture from Ingrid Bergkastet about Hattie's study, where she had picked out ten or so points from the hundreds of points Hattie has. They are still at the top though.

[Major Robert Dump]

So wait, this was you?
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/2939476582_7b1cf99e83.jpg


I'm not saying the problems with our schools have nothing to do with money, but rather that money is only part of the problem. We have structural issues in how we regulate them, how we reward them (as you point out), how teachers are managed, how textbooks are allocated ... the list goes on. Money is needed, clearly, but money alone will not turn our schools into Scandanavian STEM labs.

That is awesome. Totally my kind of picket sign. But I am more handsome than that

[HoreTore]

Kadagar_AV take a lookie here:

http://growthmindseteaz.org/files/Visible_Learning_by_J_Hattie_draft_summary.doc

Scroll down to "Ability grouping". I have some things to ponder now...

[Kadagar_AV]

Ability Grouping for Gifted Students (d = 0.30 rank 87/138 P99)
This is different from high ability groups and involves specific curricula aimed at challenging students at the appropriate level. This means there is more likelihood of success in engagement and learning.


<- from you'r own source. Is that what you meant?

I did my C-study in pedagogics on (intellectually) "gifted children".

From all I read up on then, it corresponds to the quote above from your source.



EDIT: For HoreTore, rest don't bother:

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_skola_f%C3%B6r_alla

Ja, den svenska skolmodellen inriktar sig på att få in ALLA elever i ett och samma klassrum. Personligen tycker jag det är åt helvete...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Again: There should be 3 types of schools.

* Schools for children with special educational needs (on one end of the bell curve).
* Schools.
* Schools for children with special educational needs (on the other end of the bell curve).

They should all be state funded. If a rich mum and dad is unhappy with it they should pay more tax to make education better.

Does anyone oppose?

It's a nice idea in theory, and we had something like that over here until they started "mainstreaming" and closing Grammers.

The demand for Private education never went away, and Private schools outperformed Grammars on average.

I visited Winchester College earlier this year, it is a private school and one the best (of any) schools in the country - being there it is easy to see why. You can't replicate 800 years of history, compartmentalise it and produce it en masse via the State.

It's a simple fact, government cannot provide top level education, excellent yes, exemplary, no.

Would that it were otherwise.

[HoreTore]

Ability Grouping for Gifted Students (d = 0.30 rank 87/138 P99)
This is different from high ability groups and involves specific curricula aimed at challenging students at the appropriate level. This means there is more likelihood of success in engagement and learning.


<- from you'r own source. Is that what you meant?

I did my C-study in pedagogics on (intellectually) "gifted children".

From all I read up on then, it corresponds to the quote above from your source.

That too, but the parts above it was what I meant. The heading is simply "Ability grouping". The one you found is a sub-category on the one I meant.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's a nice idea in theory, and we had something like that over here until they started "mainstreaming" and closing Grammers.

The demand for Private education never went away, and Private schools outperformed Grammars on average.

I visited Winchester College earlier this year, it is a private school and one the best (of any) schools in the country - being there it is easy to see why. You can't replicate 800 years of history, compartmentalise it and produce it en masse via the State.

It's a simple fact, government cannot provide top level education, excellent yes, exemplary, no.

Would that it were otherwise.

That's why we need other schools than the mainstream for children with special pedagogical needs, in this case, gifted students.

[Kadagar_AV]

HoreTore, I am not clear on what you mean now... Clarify please? I have read the bits above my quote.

Oh, and please note my edit some posts up about the Swedish school :beam:

[HoreTore]

Ability Grouping #(d= 0.12 rank 121/138)
The meta-analysis studies have summarised more than 300 studies, covering a wide variety of schooling cultures and experiences across all age ranges. The outcomes can be broadly grouped into achievement effects and equity effects. The latter address the question of whether the gains or losses from ability grouping are uniformly distributed across various sub-groups (eg minority vs majority groups or different socio-economic backgrounds). The results show that ability grouping has minimal effects on learning outcomes and profound negative equity effects. The overall effects on Maths and reading were similarly low (reading d = 0.00, maths d = 0.02), the effects on self-concept were close to zero, and effects on attitudes to subject matter slightly higher (d = 0.10). The overall effects for high ability groups were d = 0.14, middle ability d = -0.03 and low ability d = 0.09.
In a study of 25 Junior and Senior High Schools, Oakes et al (2005) found that in most cases ability grouping fails to foster the outcomes schools value. She found that ability grouping fosters friendship networks linked to students’ group membership, and these peer groups may contribute to polarized attitudes among high school students, with higher ability students becoming more enthusiastic and lower ability students more alienated. Oakes et al also commented that ability grouping limits “students’ schooling opportunities, achievements and life-chances. Students not in the higher tracks (ability groups) have fewer intellectual challenges, less engaging and supportive classrooms and fewer well-trained teachers”. In the UK league tables and targets for GCSE scores, based on C grades or above, would be likely to disadvantage lower ability groups.
Hattie concludes that if more lower ability classes were more stimulating, challenging and taught by well trained teachers with high expectations, there may be gains for these students; there are not. As usual the quality of teaching and the nature of student interactions are the key issues.
Carol Dweck comes to much the same conclusion, emphasising the importance of building students’ belief in their ability to improve their intelligence and performance at any stage. Being stuck in a low ability group with no prospect of promotion can only have the reverse effect (see Jo Boaler c/f).
Refer to earlier section on Motivation (P4-5 of summary)
#


That was the section I meant.

Anyway. I've read the corresponding sections in Visible Learning now, and I can't seem to wrap my head around it. I started thinking that one appraoch would be most bemeficial, then moments later I thought "well that can't work, how about...". And then I've been going around in circles coming up with new appraoches before debunking them moments later.

Gah!!

Oh well, it's not my job to be thinking about this kind of stuff, fortunately, as this is an administrative job and has to be dealt with at a higher level.

Thankfully, only a couple of things in that section is in the "zone of desired effects"(effect above 0.4), so they're not among those with the highest effect. There's a ton of other stuff more important for me to focus on...

What's most interesting to me though, is that in the kind of grouping done in the US, everyone suffers, but the middle group suffers most...

As for the swedish school, I thought it was organized that way for far longer than just the last decades.... Anyway, as a socialist, I am of course obligated to say that the biggest mistake in the swedish school was encouraging private schools in the 90's ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's why we need other schools than the mainstream for children with special pedagogical needs, in this case, gifted students.

That's what a Grammar School is, Grammars take a percentage of the most gifted each year (i.e. you can't "beat" the 11+ test because if lots of people do well the boundary just moves up).

You pretty much have to score in the 99th percentile to get into a Grammar today because there are so few places, but private (what we call Public) schools still do better.

[Kadagar_AV]

PVC, don't get me wrong and do absolutely not take this personally, but my respect for the English school system is non-existant.

I've been in English schools, and I was absolutely flabbergasted.

It's a disastrous mix of long left traditions and modern hippie-isms without any sort of over all structure. The right hand has no idea of what the left hand does, and they both conspire against a third hand they believe exist.

The ONLY thing that saves England is that your teacher education is kick ***, meaning you actually have VERY good teachers from an international viewpoint. If you only had some kind of structure and thought in the process at large you could be on the absolute top on an international level.

As it is now, you have some good schools with outstanding results, but the majority is most def under achieving...


HoreTore, Again:
* Schools for children with special educational needs (on one end of the bell curve).
* Schools.
* Schools for children with special educational needs (on the other end of the bell curve).

Why don't you agree?



Oh, and I am against private schools... As I said, all schools should be state owned, and give an equal education independent of parents background. If a family is rich and want to invest extra in their children they can hire a private tutor for home work, or extra classes off of school hours.

[HoreTore]

Mostly because I can't agree with myself right now.


But a small question nonetheless: when I first saw your first post, my impression was that you wanted a division like 25% to the first school, 50% for the middle school and 25% for the last school. I realize now that this may not have been what you had in mind. Correct?

[Kadagar_AV]

Mostly because I can't agree with myself right now.


But a small question nonetheless: when I first saw your first post, my impression was that you wanted a division like 25% to the first school, 50% for the middle school and 25% for the last school. I realize now that this may not have been what you had in mind. Correct?

Correct.

I have only a vague grasp of the low ability side of the bell curve, but when it comes to gifted students I talk about special pedagogical needs, not being somewhat smarter than the rest.

2/96/2 <- is a vague description of what I aim at.

[HoreTore]

Correct.

I have only a vague grasp of the low ability side of the bell curve, but when it comes to gifted students I talk about special pedagogical needs, not being somewhat smarter than the rest.

2/96/2 <- is a vague description of what I aim at.

Ah.

Well, then I am certainly no longer opposed. However, as I said, I can't seem to agree with myself on this issue, so...

But wouldn't this be mostly a city-phenomenon? There's a lot of sparsely populsted areas in Sweden too,, how would this work there? 2 hour bus ride for the kids, or what? Not that I care overly much for people who decide to live in the middle of nowhere, but still...

[Kadagar_AV]

It would of course be problematic in the smaller communities, yes. But no solution works everywhere.

[Greyblades]

PVC, don't get me wrong and do absolutely not take this personally, but my respect for the English school system is non-existant.

I've been in English schools, and I was absolutely flabbergasted.

It's a disastrous mix of long left traditions and modern hippie-isms without any sort of over all structure. The right hand has no idea of what the left hand does, and they both conspire against a third hand they believe exist.

The ONLY thing that saves England is that your teacher education is kick ***, meaning you actually have VERY good teachers from an international viewpoint. If you only had some kind of structure and thought in the process at large you could be on the absolute top on an international level.

As it is now, you have some good schools with outstanding results, but the majority is most def under achieving...

Tell me about it. Though alot of the students are hinderances, in and of themselves, through lack of motivation and/or general asshattery.

[Centurion1]

Ah.

Well, then I am certainly no longer opposed. However, as I said, I can't seem to agree with myself on this issue, so...

But wouldn't this be mostly a city-phenomenon? There's a lot of sparsely populsted areas in Sweden too,, how would this work there? 2 hour bus ride for the kids, or what? Not that I care overly much for people who decide to live in the middle of nowhere, but still...

This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. You do realize its not possible for the entire world to live in cities right?

[Kadagar_AV]

This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. You do realize its not possible for the entire world to live in cities right?

Ah, I wouldn't read too much into that... I am pretty damn sure he said it in good humors.

Step down you young American you :sweatdrop:

[Centurion1]

Ah, I wouldn't read too much into that... I am pretty damn sure he said it in good humors.

Step down you young American you :sweatdrop:

The man makes up definitions of words and accepts us to already know them..... I would not be surprised.

[Kadagar_AV]

The man makes up definitions of words and accepts us to already know them..... I would not be surprised.

He is a socialistic fool indeed. But do bear in mind that he is a VERY cute socialistic fool and probably an awesome teacher :2thumbsup:

[Centurion1]

He is a socialistic fool indeed. But do bear in mind that he is a VERY cute socialistic fool and probably an awesome teacher :2thumbsup:

Meh I'd stick it in

[Kadagar_AV]

EDIT: better not go there...

[Centurion1]

EDIT: better not go there...

I loled when I read the edit.

[Kadagar_AV]

See?

NOW you start to get me...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am sad that this took 60 posts before it got to anal sex.

[HoreTore]

The man makes up definitions of words and accepts us to already know them..... I would not be surprised.

Where did I expect you to know my definitions? I did explain the use, did I not?

What is X and what is not X in social science is of course dependent on ones own perspective, so uses and definitons will vary from person to person.

As for people living in the middle of nowhere; sure, some might have to live there, but why would I have to care about them? Freedom of choice, man, noone forced them to live there.

[Fragony]

Where did I expect you to know my definitions? I did explain the use, did I not?

What is X and what is not X in social science is of course dependent on ones own perspective, so uses and definitons will vary from person to person.

As for people living in the middle of nowhere; sure, some might have to live there, but why would I have to care about them? Freedom of choice, man, noone forced them to live there.

No one is forcing you to eat the products of the countryside, but you will die of hunger if you don't

[HoreTore]

Also, I've had a good nights sleep to think about Kadagars suggestion.

And I've come to realize that the main worry I had about the "top school" was that I had no idea what to fill it with. But then again... I'm don't have the education for that, so I think I should live it to others.

As for the "bottom school", I have more knowledge of what to fill it with. There are a few such schools in existance already, and they do seem to work fine. However, it is extremely impportant that pupils are not "confined" to that school. It should be more of an "in and out"-thing. For example, a kid could be transfered to one in the 6th grade, go two years there, and then get transfered back to a regular school in the 8th grade.

What Hattie notes about social interactions is my main worry though, so I'm not "sold" yet.

Edit: and now just a couple of minutes after writing that, I already disagree with it.... gah!

[HoreTore]

No one is forcing you to eat the products of the countryside, but you will die of hunger if you don't

The best land for agriculture lies around the major cities.

[Fragony]

The best land for agriculture lies around the major cities.

Maybe 300 years ago when transport was a tad harder and cities didn't have populations of millions

[HoreTore]

Maybe 300 years ago when transport was a tad harder and cities didn't have populations of millions

The cities we have today lie in the same place as they did 300 years ago, so the situation is the same.

I lived on Hoelstad farm a few years ago, which lies in Ås about 20 minutes southeast of Oslo. That farm produced nearly 5 times as much wheat per acre than my fathers farm does, which lies about 30km outside Kongsberg(ie middle of nowhere).

Which is why it's so important for us to build higher buildings instead of building new houses on the farm land around the cities.

[CBR]

Yes, Norwegian farms need to be close to the cities because, if they are too far away, the mountain trolls might raid the big juicy subsidy convoys.

[Fragony]

The cities we have today lie in the same place as they did 300 years ago, so the situation is the same.

I lived on Hoelstad farm a few years ago, which lies in Ås about 20 minutes southeast of Oslo. That farm produced nearly 5 times as much wheat per acre than my fathers farm does, which lies about 30km outside Kongsberg(ie middle of nowhere).

Which is why it's so important for us to build higher buildings instead of building new houses on the farm land around the cities.

Wouldn't the grain/corn required to bake bread for let's say 5 million people in high buildings still need people living in remote area's. You are talking nonsense mia muca. People in remote area's also have kids and kids need school, a bus to take them there is a perfect solution

[HoreTore]

Wouldn't the grain/corn required to bake bread for let's say 5 million people in high buildings still need people living in remote area's. You are talking nonsense mia muca. People in remote area's also have kids and kids need school, a bus to take them there is a perfect solution

Have I ever said otherwise?

What I've said is two things:
1. I don't really care about people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, it's their own choice to do so.
2. The best farmland is located close to the cities.

Edit: I just had a thought, is all this in solidarity with all the dutchies who now populate the Norwegian backwaters, frags?

[Fragony]

Have I ever said otherwise?

What I've said is two things:
1. I don't really care about people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, it's their own choice to do so.
2. The best farmland is located close to the cities.

Edit: I just had a thought, is all this in solidarity with all the dutchies who now populate the Norwegian backwaters, frags?

Didn't even know they are there, but if they are they are there for profit, it's in our genes. Ok they should organise it in some way and I doubt they haven't. But in vast area's surrounding major city's (you don't have them) you just need a lot of space. You are bound to have people in remote area's.

Efficiency mia muca, one bus can take 30 kids to school at least

[HoreTore]

Didn't even know they are there, but if they are they are there for profit, it's in our genes. Ok they should organise it in some way and I doubt they haven't. But in vast area's surrounding major city's (you don't have them) you just need a lot of space. You are bound to have people in remote area's.

Efficiency mia muca, one bus can take 30 kids to school at least

Again, what are you arguing against?

Not much profit for the dutch here though. They do it to escape the citylife... Romantic dreams about the countryside, etc etc.

The dutch who lives close to my fathers farm sells some jam, but there's not much money in that. More of a hobby.

[Kralizec]

Over here in Dutchland there are lots of shrinking villages, especially in the north and northeast part of the country. Villages with a population of 200 or less and declining still. And when the government announces that it wants to close the local grade school because it's too expensive to operate a school for less than 30 (!) students, the remainder of the population objects. Keep in mind that in the Netherlands you'll be hard pressed to find a small village that's not within a 10 km radius of a bigger town with multiple schools.

Meh.

[Fragony]

Over here in Dutchland there are lots of shrinking villages, especially in the north and northeast part of the country. Villages with a population of 200 or less and declining still. And when the government announces that it wants to close the local grade school because it's too expensive to operate a school for less than 30 (!) students, the remainder of the population objects. Keep in mind that in the Netherlands you'll be hard pressed to find a small village that's not within a 10 km radius of a bigger town with multiple schools.

Meh.

Wrong place to start when cutting budget

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well yes, but the first place the central government looks to cut the budget is municipal ones. They reckon no elections were ever lost over tightening municipal budgets still further. Instead of sacrificing their holy cows such as certain tax deductions.

[Fragony]

Well yes, but the first place the central government looks to cut the budget is municipal ones. They reckon no elections were ever lost over tightening municipal budgets still further. Instead of sacrificing their holy cows such as certain tax deductions.

It are budgets that are needed because some like to feel good about themselves, buy it yourself if you want a loyal Indian servant I heard they are the best. A full immigration stop for at least 4 year is enough, and cutting back the money we give to NGO's saves a lot as well. And tax the Roral family like everybody else, having no deathfine like us is unacceptable as well as being excempt from a whole lot more shady constructions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, don't get me wrong and do absolutely not take this personally, but my respect for the English school system is non-existant.

I've been in English schools, and I was absolutely flabbergasted.

It's a disastrous mix of long left traditions and modern hippie-isms without any sort of over all structure. The right hand has no idea of what the left hand does, and they both conspire against a third hand they believe exist.

The ONLY thing that saves England is that your teacher education is kick ***, meaning you actually have VERY good teachers from an international viewpoint. If you only had some kind of structure and thought in the process at large you could be on the absolute top on an international level.

As it is now, you have some good schools with outstanding results, but the majority is most def under achieving...


HoreTore, Again:
* Schools for children with special educational needs (on one end of the bell curve).
* Schools.
* Schools for children with special educational needs (on the other end of the bell curve).

Why don't you agree?



Oh, and I am against private schools... As I said, all schools should be state owned, and give an equal education independent of parents background. If a family is rich and want to invest extra in their children they can hire a private tutor for home work, or extra classes off of school hours.

I'd say your view of our State system is fairly accurate - I would add the moronic desire to be "top" of the league table and the moronic organisation of exam boads (why do we need more than one Physics A-Level, and who on Earth decided "Science" should be lumped together in two seperate GCSE's instead of broken into diciplines?).

None of this effects the Private Schools, who benefit from our teacher training and access to top-level academics with PhD's.

However, I was talking about 50+ years ago, before it went down the tubes. The fact is, even then the State system was behind the Private Schools. Grammars were created to close the gap, and were highly selective, but the feee-paying schools still achived better results.

In an ideal world, I would agree with you but so long as State education lags behind Private we should not attack Private schools, we should facilitate them providing scholarships etc. by not persecuting them.

Closing the current, historical, Private schools will just lower the standard overall and in a decade or two demand will cause the opening of new ones, but intead of being institutions of learning hundreds of years old they will be corporate exam-passing machines.

This goes for religious schools too which (in Engalnd and the US) consistantly outperform standard state provision, regardless of whether people pay fees or no.

[Kralizec]

I define racism as negative prejudices and practices aimed at others because of their origin, religion(or lack of) or sexual identity. The similarities between hatred towards each of the groups are great enough that I feel perfectly comfortable lumping them all together. Thus, racism.

Though I wouldn't rule out "classical racism" in this case either, I don't see it as unlikely that some of them just don't want to give it to muslims because they're brown.


That's a stupid definition - not least because those three prejudices don't operate in the same way.

I wouldn't use HoreTore's definition of racism myself, but I'm surprised to see you disagreeing with him. A couple of months ago you were equating cultural prejudices with racism.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140221-The-Counter-Jihad-goes-full-fascist-like-we-didn-t-know-that-before&highlight=racial

[PanzerJaeger]

So the issue becomes: how to structure the law so that good parochial schools are encouraged, while we avoid giving public money to the Scientologists? Not an easy bit of lawmaking, and not one that Governor Jindal appears to have solved.

Vouchers are a good short term fix for the current education problem. Properly structured vouchers help parents who actually care about their children's education, while keeping the parents who do not (and their children) from wrecking the private schools. Those parents won't bother with vouchers unless they cover 100% of the cost. There are a lot of parents who are willing to endure a financial burden to get their kids the best education possible, and vouchers can help push them over the feasibility line. In my own experience in parochial schooling, the parents who had to sacrifice to send their children to private schools were far more involved in their childrens' education, which in turn led to better dedication and performance from the children.

I do not particularly care about the possibility of scientologists or any other obscure group getting public money in this way. If the local madrassa offers the best education in a particular community, parents will be drawn to it. If it is radicalizing kids, it won't be a major draw and will likely end up on a government list sooner rather than later.

[Kralizec]

It are budgets that are needed because some like to feel good about themselves, buy it yourself if you want a loyal Indian servant I heard they are the best. A full immigration stop for at least 4 year is enough, and cutting back the money we give to NGO's saves a lot as well. And tax the Roral family like everybody else, having no deathfine like us is unacceptable as well as being excempt from a whole lot more shady constructions

Wether there are other good options for budget cuts isn't the point. If I understand the policy correctly, a school here will be closed if it has less than 23 pupils for three consecutive years. 23! I don't think I've ever been in a class that was smaller than that.

If people insist on living in barely populated villages, fine. Just don't expect the same kind of public services you would get in a reasonably sized town. Operating an independant school for a handful of kids, when there are multiple other schools in neighbouring towns, is a waste of money. It's not like we're living in a desolate wasteland where you could walk for days without encountering a living soul, like Norway ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wouldn't use HoreTore's definition of racism myself, but I'm surprised to see you disagreeing with him. A couple of months ago you were equating cultural prejudices with racism.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140221-The-Counter-Jihad-goes-full-fascist-like-we-didn-t-know-that-before&highlight=racial

Nice try, but no cookie - I was talking about Germans looking down on Mediteranians, and there being a racial element to that prejudice. I.e., the undercurrent in the German rhetoric was that this was what you should expect from Dagos, as opposed to good hard-working Protestant Germans, the "real" Europeans.

So, in fact I was making the opposite point to HoreTore - namely that the Germans decrying the Mediteranians were doing so from a suspiciously racist perch, rather than a purely cultural one.

Kudos for remembering what I posted, though.

Nice to know I'm read.

[HoreTore]

Wether there are other good options for budget cuts isn't the point. If I understand the policy correctly, a school here will be closed if it has less than 23 pupils for three consecutive years. 23! I don't think I've ever been in a class that was smaller than that.

If people insist on living in barely populated villages, fine. Just don't expect the same kind of public services you would get in a reasonably sized town. Operating an independant school for a handful of kids, when there are multiple other schools in neighbouring towns, is a waste of money. It's not like we're living in a desolate wasteland where you could walk for days without encountering a living soul, like Norway ~;)

Even our schools aren't that small.

I went to a tiny school for a couple of years - it had 110 kids or so.

So small schools are actually detrimental to their kids education. They should be demanding their schools to be shut down, not the other way around.

[Kralizec]

That doesn't even make any sense. There are almost as many Catholics in Germany as there are protestants. There is the whole myth of the "protestant work ethic" but it falls flat for that reason alone.

Obviously there are cultural stereotypes about southern Europe. Some of them have a kernel of truth in it, even if not for all countries. I.E. southern European countries tend to be more clientalist than northern European ones.

If there's an attitude of superiority in Germany, it's because of the fact that the structural reforms which are taking place in souther Europe right now (pensions, labour law and whatnot) have been implemented by Germany years ago. Because they foresaw back then that those reforms were necessary to keep the welfare state sustainable. A relative of mine complained recently that German civil servants were given a large raise this year - ignoring the fact that it was the first raise in years.

None of that went down easy in the past decade, but Germany did it anyway, and they now feel vindicated. It's an undeniable fact that Germany outperforms the vast majority of countries in Europe, all the while supporting a still relatively underdeveloped east-Germany. (which, incidentally, is the only reason why they ever broke the deficit & debt criteria in the first place)

The German way of running a budget is superior, plain and simple. Admittedly, it's not all black and white: Spain actually was fiscally prudent most of the time but got "ambushed" by a declining housing market. Italy's finances weren't atrocious, but their problem was that they didn't make an effort to reduce their sovereign debt in the good years, which came back to bite them in the ass when GDP growth rates plumeted. Greece's finances were atrocious, even worse than anyone ever suspected let alone knew. The latter is now receiving aid, chiefly from Germany, and yet complaining that it doesn't come with strings attached.

Agree or disagree with the analysis; but conflating any of this with racism - or "merely" suggesting that there is a racial element to it - is insidious.

[HoreTore]

Is there anything left in the world that hasn't been discussed in this thread now?

[Centurion1]

Is there anything left in the world that hasn't been discussed in this thread now?

hitler.

Edit: Dammit

[ajaxfetish]

I wouldn't use HoreTore's definition of racism myself, but I'm surprised to see you disagreeing with him. A couple of months ago you were equating cultural prejudices with racism.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140221-The-Counter-Jihad-goes-full-fascist-like-we-didn-t-know-that-before&highlight=racial

Personally, I found HoreTore's definition of racism, encompassing discrimination based on religion or sexuality, quite strange. I could certainly see an aspect of racism in, say, discrimination against Muslims, insofar as Muslims are equated with Arabs, or more generally, non-white folk. But the idea of the religious discrimination itself, independent of any racial dimension, qualifying as racism certainly clashes with my sense of the word's meaning. I checked the OED's entry for racism, and this is what they've got:


The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities.
Interestingly, while the OED's editors haven't yet picked up on any significant use of the term racism to denote religion or sexuality-based discrimination per se, they have got evidence for the term being applied more loosely to nationalities. So if PVC was in fact using the term to refer to discrimination on account of someone being from Greece, it still seems more in line with established usage of the term than HoreTore's definition. Not to say that there aren't plenty of similarities worth acknowledging between racial, religious, or sexual discrimination, but for me at least, racism can only refer to the first.

Ajax

[Fragony]

Wether there are other good options for budget cuts isn't the point. If I understand the policy correctly, a school here will be closed if it has less than 23 pupils for three consecutive years. 23! I don't think I've ever been in a class that was smaller than that.

If people insist on living in barely populated villages, fine. Just don't expect the same kind of public services you would get in a reasonably sized town. Operating an independant school for a handful of kids, when there are multiple other schools in neighbouring towns, is a waste of money. It's not like we're living in a desolate wasteland where you could walk for days without encountering a living soul, like Norway ~;)

That is why a bus like they do in the US is a good idea. Only takes a bus and fuel. For the younger children doing it locally isn't hard, need room, tables, chairs, teacher

Edit Horetore's definition of a racist: everybody who I am not 100% sure of he isn't

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That doesn't even make any sense. There are almost as many Catholics in Germany as there are protestants. There is the whole myth of the "protestant work ethic" but it falls flat for that reason alone.

Obviously there are cultural stereotypes about southern Europe. Some of them have a kernel of truth in it, even if not for all countries. I.E. southern European countries tend to be more clientalist than northern European ones.

If there's an attitude of superiority in Germany, it's because of the fact that the structural reforms which are taking place in souther Europe right now (pensions, labour law and whatnot) have been implemented by Germany years ago. Because they foresaw back then that those reforms were necessary to keep the welfare state sustainable. A relative of mine complained recently that German civil servants were given a large raise this year - ignoring the fact that it was the first raise in years.

None of that went down easy in the past decade, but Germany did it anyway, and they now feel vindicated. It's an undeniable fact that Germany outperforms the vast majority of countries in Europe, all the while supporting a still relatively underdeveloped east-Germany. (which, incidentally, is the only reason why they ever broke the deficit & debt criteria in the first place)

The German way of running a budget is superior, plain and simple. Admittedly, it's not all black and white: Spain actually was fiscally prudent most of the time but got "ambushed" by a declining housing market. Italy's finances weren't atrocious, but their problem was that they didn't make an effort to reduce their sovereign debt in the good years, which came back to bite them in the ass when GDP growth rates plumeted. Greece's finances were atrocious, even worse than anyone ever suspected let alone knew. The latter is now receiving aid, chiefly from Germany, and yet complaining that it doesn't come with strings attached.

Agree or disagree with the analysis; but conflating any of this with racism - or "merely" suggesting that there is a racial element to it - is insidious.

If Greeks are seen as fundamentally seperate to Germans (and they are) then any prejudicial statement is racist, just like prejudicial statements about the slovenly, stupid, Irish from the British (there are thousands of jokes) are essentially racist. To suggest that because Germans and Greeks are both "white" there is no "racism" is innacurate, it means you've absorbed the American tendancy to view the world as a Black/White racial dictimony.

Certain things said about the Greeks, that they don't pay taxces (most in the lower and middle class certainly do), that they don't work (they have an average 40 hour working week) or that they retire early (many actually continue working up to 70 without complaint, even if they draw a pension) are just not true, they are simple prejudicial.

[Fragony]

If Greeks are seen as fundamentally seperate to Germans (and they are) then any prejudicial statement is racist, just like prejudicial statements about the slovenly, stupid, Irish from the British (there are thousands of jokes) are essentially racist. To suggest that because Germans and Greeks are both "white" there is no "racism" is innacurate, it means you've absorbed the American tendancy to view the world as a Black/White racial dictimony.

Certain things said about the Greeks, that they don't pay taxces (most in the lower and middle class certainly do), that they don't work (they have an average 40 hour working week) or that they retire early (many actually continue working up to 70 without complaint, even if they draw a pension) are just not true, they are simple prejudicial.

Prejudice, not racism. What you say about the Greeks is true by the way. It's insulting to call them lazy. It's just bull.

[Greyblades]

To suggest that because Germans and Greeks are both "white" there is no "racism" is innacurate
We probably need a seperate word for cultural bigotry.

[HoreTore]

Personally, I found HoreTore's definition of racism, encompassing discrimination based on religion or sexuality, quite strange. I could certainly see an aspect of racism in, say, discrimination against Muslims, insofar as Muslims are equated with Arabs, or more generally, non-white folk. But the idea of the religious discrimination itself, independent of any racial dimension, qualifying as racism certainly clashes with my sense of the word's meaning.

Ajax

I didn't say I gave an exhaustive definition, did I?

If a protestant hates catholics, I would not call that racism. But that kind of religious hatred wasn't the one described in the OP's article, was it? Nah... The article described a native hating a smelly foreign and brown religion.

As for sexual identity, that would only apply for institutional racism, as that's the only place the hate mirrors that of hate towards jews, etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We probably need a seperate word for cultural bigotry.

Why?

Greeks and Germans are only marginally closer "racially" than Greeks and North Africans, or North Africans and Sub-Saharans.

If you can be racist because you prejudice a particular skin colour, why not a particular hair or eye colour?

In point of fact, Germans and Greeks do not, on average, have the same skin tone anyway.

Before "Black" meant "Sub-Saharan" you had terms like "Black Irish" and "Black Welsh" - even today there is a Slavic population in Russia the other Russians refer to as "black".

[gaelic cowboy]

Before "Black" meant "Sub-Saharan" you had terms like "Black Irish" and "Black Welsh" - even today there is a Slavic population in Russia the other Russians refer to as "black".


When the head hunters went way out west (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/when-the-head-hunters-went-way-out-west-3103134.html)

By Majella O'Sullivan
Wednesday May 09 2012

HE is considered one of our most important writers, but in a picture taken nearly 120 years ago, it was the size of his head that captured the photographer's attention.

Tomas O Criomhthain wrote 'An tOileanach' ('The Islandman'), his autobiography about growing up in the Blasket Islands.

But he was also one of the subjects captured by Dr Charles R Browne for his study on the ethnicity of the people of the west coast of Ireland in the late 19th century.

At a time when race issues were in vogue, Dr Browne, who was attached to the Anatomy Department of Trinity College Dublin, was part of a study that was trying to search for an Africanoid Celtic race.

They set about measuring the heads and examining the physical features of the people of the west to establish where they were in the 'Index of Nigrescence'.

This was designed to quantify how close people were to "being negro".

Between 1891 and 1900 Dr Browne, who was from Co Tipperary but of Anglo Irish descent, travelled the west coast and the islands to study "isolated tribes".

His study is illustrated by 62 photographs that are on display as part of 'The Irish Headhunter' exhibition in the Blasket Island Centre in Dun Chaoin, Co Kerry.

Exhibition

At the end of June the exhibition will move to the Aran Islands and Connemara, before it finishes up at the National Museum in Castlebar, Co Mayo.

"Browne wrote detailed ethnological reports of all these places, comparing the people of the islands to those living on the mainland," said Daithi de Mordha, one of the curators of the exhibition.

"Unfortunately, we don't have the report he did on the Blasket Islands and west Kerry but what we do have is a record of the west coast taken 120 years ago that is unparalleled."

Dr Browne measured the heads of his subjects using an instrument called Flower's Craniometer, often without their consent.

The photographs of Tomas O Criomhthain and two others show their front and side profile, almost like a modern-day police mug shot.

The photographs were taken on the Blasket Islands in 1897 when O Criomhthain was in his 40s.

Dr Browne also made detailed observations of the people.

Of the people of the Aran Islands he wrote: "The range and distinctiveness of the vision is astonishing . . . and we are told by Dr Kean that on a clear day, any of the men whose eyesight is average can, with a naked eye, make out a small sailing boat at Black Head, 20 miles away."

Of the population of Mullet in Co Mayo he observes: "The people on the whole are good-looking, especially when young; many of the girls and young women are very handsome, but they appear to age rapidly and early become wrinkled."

Other observations are less flattering like this one made on 'dietetic diseases' on Inishbofin: "There can be no doubt that the use, or abuse, of tea must bear a certain amount of the blame. The most common forms of complaint are flatulence and constipation."

While in the 20th century we were obsessed with the north/south divide, these pictures show the east/west divide, Mr de Mordha added.

However, he also notes that while Dr Browne's study may have begun as a cold, clinical scientific one, this changed over time.

"I think his opinion softened as he went along and he talks about them in more human terms," the curator said.

- Majella O'Sullivan

Charles R. Browne, The Irish Headhunter: (http://www.curator.ie/category/journalism/)

As usual this mostly ties back to attempts to explain away imperialism in the 19th century

[HoreTore]

Culture is the new race.

It's not fashionable to say people from other parts of the world have different biological things going for them, so people have fiund it easier to bash foreigners by calling it culture.

Still good ol' fashioned racism no matter what one calls it.

[HoreTore]

Except that as far as culture is concerned, there are situations where two cultures objectively oppose eachother. This isn't the case with genetics and good old racism.

No, but when culture is linked to genetics (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.no/2012/06/is-there-genetic-component-to-culture.html), one discovers that it's just a cover groups like EDL use to avoid race.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Culture is the new race.

It's not fashionable to say people from other parts of the world have different biological things going for them, so people have fiund it easier to bash foreigners by calling it culture.

Still good ol' fashioned racism no matter what one calls it.

No, culture is the old race - or rather "culture" is the attempt to deny "race".

If you have an eye you can pick out the heritage of a person in their face, you can see the Welsh in me from the shape of my eyes, my general colouring and the shade of my skin, the Scandinavian comes out in the cheeks, forehead and the shape of the skull. The Anglo Saxon is the the nose.

Some heritages are even easier to spot, a Jewish nose is a dead giveaway that you have Semitic ancestors, no matter your blonde hair and blue eyes. The amount of racial loading in noses is why people have rhinoplasty.

Go read a Roman historian talking about the Celts the other side of the Alps with their red hair and pale hairy chests.

All you need for racism is recognisable physical difference, you have that between Germans and Greeks, and that means you can have racism between Germans and Greeks.

[Kralizec]

Why?

Greeks and Germans are only marginally closer "racially" than Greeks and North Africans, or North Africans and Sub-Saharans.

If you can be racist because you prejudice a particular skin colour, why not a particular hair or eye colour?

In point of fact, Germans and Greeks do not, on average, have the same skin tone anyway.

Before "Black" meant "Sub-Saharan" you had terms like "Black Irish" and "Black Welsh" - even today there is a Slavic population in Russia the other Russians refer to as "black".

Phenotypical differences in hair and eye colour are of course not, objectively speaking, of a different catagory than phenotypical differences in skin colour. Which is to say, associating any of them with behaviour or intelligence is equally stupid.

As Rory put it in another thread, the only way the racism card would stick would be if you argued that the reactions would be the same if it were the Danes instead of the Greeks. You're basically implying that because there are cultural prejudices against the Greeks and they look differently, there must be some sort of connection. You've not actually put forward anything that proves it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phenotypical differences in hair and eye colour are of course not, objectively speaking, of a different catagory than phenotypical differences in skin colour. Which is to say, associating any of them with behaviour or intelligence is equally stupid.

As Rory put it in another thread, the only way the racism card would stick would be if you argued that the reactions would be the same if it were the Danes instead of the Greeks. You're basically implying that because there are cultural prejudices against the Greeks and they look differently, there must be some sort of connection. You've not actually put forward anything that proves it.

I'm not seeking to "prove" it, I'm saying it stinks. The slurs against the Greeks paint them as essentially corrupt, not culturally so.

You get racism within Scandinavia, or rather you certainly used to.

As I noted, you get racism between the English, Welsh and Irish - the various sides point to what they consider the negative traits of the other "race" and claim these are innate. There are places I can go in Wales where I will be marked, not for my English accent, but for my English blood, and all the Sins of everyone from Longshanks to Cromwell will be heaped upon me.

[Greyblades]

Why?

Because racist means to the majority of english speakers as a predjudice against visual and minor biological differences in other people. It doesnt mean a predjudice because they are part of another culture group and people using the word as such due to lack of alternative term is causing confusion.


Greeks and Germans are only marginally closer "racially" than Greeks and North Africans, or North Africans and Sub-Saharans.So?

If you can be racist because you prejudice a particular skin colour, why not a particular hair or eye colour?
Did I say you can't?

In point of fact, Germans and Greeks do not, on average, have the same skin tone anyway.I'm confused, are the majority of people who are prejudiced against the greeks predjudiced for thier skin colour or their culture?

Before "Black" meant "Sub-Saharan" you had terms like "Black Irish" and "Black Welsh" - even today there is a Slavic population in Russia the other Russians refer to as "black".

...Are we talking about the same thing here? I dont see the connection. I'm saying I'm seeing alot of orgrahs are throwing around the word "racism", even when the subject is predjudice is against culture. I think it's because we dont have a word for negative cultural bias and constantly saying cultural bias is awkward so we need one. What are you talking about?

[Kralizec]

I'm not seeking to "prove" it, I'm saying it stinks. The slurs against the Greeks paint them as essentially corrupt, not culturally so.

You get racism within Scandinavia, or rather you certainly used to.

As I noted, you get racism between the English, Welsh and Irish - the various sides point to what they consider the negative traits of the other "race" and claim these are innate. There are places I can go in Wales where I will be marked, not for my English accent, but for my English blood, and all the Sins of everyone from Longshanks to Cromwell will be heaped upon me.

So Britain is populated by petty, inbred racists who look down on anyone who's not from their shire. Awesome, I'll take your word for it, but what does that have to do with Greece or northern Europe?

Accusing someone, nevermind whole countries, of being racist is incredibly offensive - yet you're doing so and frankly admit that you're not interested in proving your baseless accusations. Goodbye, sir.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because racist means to the majority of english speakers as a predjudice against visual and minor biological differences in other people. It doesnt mean a predjudice because they are part of another culture group and people using the word as such due to lack of alternative term is causing confusion.

So?

Did I say you can't?
I'm confused, are the majority of people who are prejudiced against the greeks predjudiced for thier skin colour or their culture?


...Are we talking about the same thing here? I dont see the connection. I'm saying I'm seeing alot of orgrahs are throwing around the word "racism", even when the subject is predjudice is against culture. I think it's because we dont have a word for negative cultural bias and constantly saying cultural bias is awkward so we need one. What are you talking about?

The point is - "Cultural Bias" is a way of saying "we're not racist but "

Today it's very popular to look as "Racism" as a function of skin-based prejudice, but as much as the 18th/19th century concieved of a "Negroid" race they also concieved the "Anglo-Saxon", "Gallic", "Hispanic", "Italic", "Germanic" and "Norse" races.


So Britain is populated by petty, inbred racists who look down on anyone who's not from their shire. Awesome, I'll take your word for it, but what does that have to do with Greece or northern Europe?

Accusing someone, nevermind whole countries, of being racist is incredibly offensive - yet you're doing so and frankly admit that you're not interested in proving your baseless accusations. Goodbye, sir.

Whole countries?

No, certainly not - certain people within a country? Most definately.

I am struck by the fact that, on me telling you there are racists in Wales [I]you assume I mean the whole country, and you then conflate that with the whole of the British Isles as being inbred.

What about all the talk of "Anglo-Saxon" bankers from the French and Germans? How is there not a racial element in that rhetoric coming from mainland Europe? It's not like all American bankers are Anglo-Saxon, nor are British ones. In fact, a lot of them are (shock horror) Jews.

Refering to all British and American bankers as "Anglo-Saxon" is a way of racialising a group. The snide insinuation that the Greeks will never change, without harsh Germanic chastisement and punishment, is the same thing. Why else punish a whole people for the sins of their politicians?

[Montmorency]

racialising a group.

Basically, you believe that any reference to a "national character" is racist.

That's not so bad, it's simply re-introducing possible racial categories because you're just such a goddamn reactionary. :tongue:

Let's not press to hard, however - else the hipsters shall soon be decrying 'racist hate speech' on the Internet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Basically, you believe that any reference to a "national character" is racist.

That's not so bad, it's simply re-introducing possible racial categories because you're just such a goddamn reactionary. :tongue:

Let's not press to hard, however - else the hipsters shall soon be decrying 'racist hate speech' on the Internet.

Consider, such racial catagories were common currency until the 50's or 60's. Since then most of Northern Europe has experienced:

A. Mass immigration of non-Europeans

and

B. A generally good economic outlook where most people could expect their children to be better off than they were.

Compare the rhetoric now coming from mainland Europe about "Anglo-Saxon bankers" with what was said about "Jewish bankers" in the 30's, then consider that many of those banks are the same ones as then, and that many of the financiers and managers are the sons or grandsons of the man being slandered then.

Inter-European racism never went away, it's just been taking a nap.

[Greyblades]

The point is - "Cultural Bias" is a way of saying "we're not racist but [insert slur about people from another country]"
OK then I revise my original sentance: We probably need a seperate word for a cultural version of racism.

Today it's very popular to look as "Racism" as a function of skin-based prejudice, but as much as the 18th/19th century concieved of a "Negroid" race they also concieved the "Anglo-Saxon", "Gallic", "Hispanic", "Italic", "Germanic" and "Norse" races.

...And? People now use it as a catch all term for prejudice against people of a different skin colour, I think we need a seperate word for predjudice for being a part of a different culture group.

[Montmorency]

Compare the rhetoric now coming from mainland Europe about "Anglo-Saxon bankers" with what was said about "Jewish bankers" in the 30's, then consider that many of those banks are the same ones as then, and that many of the financiers and managers are the sons or grandsons of the man being slandered then.

The point being that attribution of a particular culture to a wider group than to which it actually pertains, on the basis of stereotypes of nationality, ethnicity, broadly conceived external physical traits, etc. can be reflective of racism. It's not really cause to define every instance of cultural criticism as racism, or else we might as well just refer to everything as 'generic bias' - inclusive of every prejudice you can think of, and more. There would be no debate as to what counts and what doesn't, right? Anyway, as an stensibly all-loving Christian you shouldn't really be practicing it. You do not love all things equally. Your love is merely a more insidious generic bias. Repent! Amend!

:yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The point being that attribution of a particular culture to a wider group than to which it actually pertains, on the basis of stereotypes of nationality, ethnicity, broadly conceived external physical traits, etc. can be reflective of racism. It's not really cause to define every instance of cultural criticism as racism, or else we might as well just refer to everything as 'generic bias' - inclusive of every prejudice you can think of, and more. There would be no debate as to what counts and what doesn't, right? Anyway, as an stensibly all-loving Christian you shouldn't really be practicing it. You do not love all things equally. Your love is merely a more insidious generic bias. Repent! Amend!

:yes:

Well, as an all-loving Christian, I do try not to be prejudiced at all.

I'm far from perfect, though.

[Fragony]

The point being that attribution of a particular culture to a wider group than to which it actually pertains, on the basis of stereotypes of nationality, ethnicity, broadly conceived external physical traits, etc. can be reflective of racism. It's not really cause to define every instance of cultural criticism as racism, or else we might as well just refer to everything as 'generic bias' - inclusive of every prejudice you can think of, and more. There would be no debate as to what counts and what doesn't, right? Anyway, as an stensibly all-loving Christian you shouldn't really be practicing it. You do not love all things equally. Your love is merely a more insidious generic bias. Repent! Amend!

:yes:

Sounds great, but in the end people who are progressive get really angry if you critisise religion. You will give some religions special treatment over others. Because you believe. You have faith.

[drone]

I am disturbed that Scientology is on that list, but the Church of the SubGenius is not. And since this is Louisiana, shouldn't Voodoo schools be acceptable as well?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am disturbed that Scientology is on that list, but the Church of the SubGenius is not. And since this is Louisiana, shouldn't Voodoo schools be acceptable as well?

Voodoo is just a sub-set of Roman Catholicism.

[HoreTore]

Sounds great, but in the end people who are progressive get really angry if you critisise religion. You will give some religions special treatment over others. Because you believe. You have faith.

No, getting muslims to renounce their faith is just as important as making christians renounce their faith.

Just like a christian or muslim would like to see the world converted, I suppose.

And rubbish attacks on religions are just as awful, whether its papist accusations towards catholics or taqyyia accusations towards muslims. Both represent absolute nonsense and paranoid confusions instead of reality, and at the bottom of it all it's just plain ol' racism.

[Kadagar_AV]

No, getting muslims to renounce their faith is just as important as making christians renounce their faith.

Just like a christian or muslim would like to see the world converted, I suppose.

And rubbish attacks on religions are just as awful, whether its papist accusations towards catholics or taqyyia accusations towards muslims. Both represent absolute nonsense and paranoid confusions instead of reality, and at the bottom of it all it's just plain ol' racism.

You just went there again, didn't you?

[HoreTore]

You just went there again, didn't you?

I don't see how statements like "those irish catholics can't be trusted, their allegiance is to the pope, not the nation! They must be allowed to hold important positions in society" can be anything but good ol' racism.

Same for the taqyya nonsense.

[Fragony]

No, getting muslims to renounce their faith is just as important as making christians renounce their faith.

Just like a christian or muslim would like to see the world converted, I suppose.

And rubbish attacks on religions are just as awful, whether its papist accusations towards catholics or taqyyia accusations towards muslims. Both represent absolute nonsense and paranoid confusions instead of reality, and at the bottom of it all it's just plain ol' racism.

Islam is not a race, so not absolutely adoring anything islam isn't racism.

[HoreTore]

Islam is not a race, so not absolutely adoring anything islam isn't racism.

I don't buy into the concept of race, excluding "the human race", so that's an irrelevant argument.

As races don't exist, racism has nothing to do with race. Thus, you don't get away from racism by saying x isn't race.

As for "not adoring everything Islam"... No, that's just fine, Frags. Disliking all that is Islam is completely unproblematic, feel free to do so as much as you'd like, I certainly won't oppose you.

HOWEVER

When one starts inventing stuff and attributing those inventions to Islam, it crosses a line. Like Taqyya, which is a racist make-believe. Or allegations that a Catholic obeys the pope in all things, cares nothing for the nation and thus can't hold public office. That's not a criticism, that's a racist lie.

[Fragony]

Racism is assuming races exist, doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. Make up a new word this one is taken.

[HoreTore]

Racism is assuming races exist, doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. Make up a new word this one is taken.

Ah.

So, seeing as you use an 19th century term(race), you subscribe to the 19th century idea of races(commonly referred to as 'scientific racism').

Words change their meaning over time, Frags.

[HoreTore]

By the way, have a look at UNESCO's statement on race:

"The biological fact of race and the myth of ‘race’ should be distinguished. For all practical social purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of 'race' has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years, it has taken a heavy toll in human lives, and caused untold suffering."

[Fragony]

Ah.

So, seeing as you use an 19th century term(race), you subscribe to the 19th century idea of races(commonly referred to as 'scientific racism').

Words change their meaning over time, Frags.

Yes now it means that someone thinks other races are inferior, or they just don't like other races. Not absolutely adoring anything islam doesn't qualify. The word you want is 'bigotry'

[HoreTore]

Not absolutely adoring anything islam doesn't qualify.

As I have already said frags, not liking actual concepts in Islam is perfectly fine. Making up stuff, however, is not fine.

The motivations, implications, etc are exactly the same as for example US southerners who hate black people, and so I see no reason not to lump them all together in the same term.

[Fragony]

As I have already said frags, not liking actual concepts in Islam is perfectly fine. Making up stuff, however, is not fine.

The motivations, implications, etc are exactly the same as for example US southerners who hate black people, and so I see no reason not to lump them all together in the same term.

Wikipedia can help you out, I am not making anything up

[Major Robert Dump]

I am racist against fat people

[HoreTore]

Wikipedia can help you out, I am not making anything up

Taqyya means that you're not going to hell if you hide your faith to save your own life. Ie, if someone comes to town with the intention of killing all the muslims, you won't go to hell if you say you're not a muslim.

So far, so good.

The problem arises when racists have made it out to mean that it's okay to lie in general, and moreover that it's deemed positive to lie. It becomes even worse when muslims are made out to be people who are not to be trusted, as they "lie all the time".

That's when I find racism to be a perfectly appropriate term.

[Fragony]

For radical muslims it's an excuse to lie if it helps the islam, to pretend you are more moderate then you really are. In the 'house of war', that's here, pretending is allowed.

[HoreTore]

For radical muslims it's an excuse to lie if it helps the islam, to pretend you are more moderate then you really are. In the 'house of war', that's here, pretending is allowed.

Yes, this is a perfect example of make-believe, thank you for sharing.

The same allegations have been made towards Jews and Catholics too, by the way. Probably some other groups as well that I don't know about.

[Fragony]

Yes, this is a perfect example of make-believe

Sure Horetore. Tariq Ramadan is a good example, he is known to say different things to his western worshippers than he does when among his own. You don't have to like it but it's very real.

[HoreTore]

Sure Horetore. Tariq Ramadan is a good example, he is known to say different things to his western worshippers than he does when among his own. You don't have to like it but it's very real.

Sure.

[Fragony]

Sure.

Next you are going to deny there is such a thing such as radical islam. Ah screw it, I'm done here. Yes Horetore you are right, don't spend it all on candy.

[Centurion1]

No, getting muslims to renounce their faith is just as important as making christians renounce their faith.

Just like a christian or muslim would like to see the world converted, I suppose.

And rubbish attacks on religions are just as awful, whether its papist accusations towards catholics or taqyyia accusations towards muslims. Both represent absolute nonsense and paranoid confusions instead of reality, and at the bottom of it all it's just plain ol' racism.

And this is why your a crap person. An atheist has no purpose in converting the world. They should have no desire to do so. It is different for Christians or Muslims or Hindus. They want everyone to believe what they believe for (in their eyes) the converted's sake. What are you risking if your not atheist? Nothing, so you should have no desire to make the religious revoke their faith unless your petty and want to hurt people.

[HoreTore]

And this is why your a crap person.

Thank you.


An atheist has no purpose in converting the world.

Sure I do. I see religious faith as a negative, and the loss of a negative is positive. Am I going to try to "convert" anyone? Nah. Would I rather see an atheist world than a religious would? Yup. The loss of religous faith is personal sitive for the person in question, and the wider shift in morals, values and such is a positive for all of us.

As for "what you're risking by not being atheist", the answer is of course a life bound by religion.

[Centurion1]

Your not a crap person I apologize for that you hore.

[Major Robert Dump]

So much hostility.

[Lemur]

your [...] your [...] your
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/your.jpg

[Kralizec]

An atheist has no purpose in converting the world.

Everyone's got to eat, right? We get paid on a commission basis. We're non-prophet, not non-profit.

Apply now and get a free T-shirt!

[Papewaio]

Words change meaning in a living language. What we should be careful of is diluting or obscuring meaning.

Racism is based on a belief that humans are different races ie European, Chinese, Indonesian etc

There is sexism and homophobia too. All these are forms of bigotry and if acted upon prejudice.

Now being vitriolicly anti-religion =/= being a racist. It confuses the term, doesn't readily identify the concept one is directing the hate against, takes an already fuzzy term and smears the definition further, conflates atheism with racism, and misses a crucial point that the other forms of prejudice are against what are inherent in the individual whilst religion is a choice.

After reading Lemurs Theocon, I suggest something along the lines of Theoism (which probably means something ppositive already) or Theophobia.

[HoreTore]

Now being vitriolicly anti-religion =/= being a racist.

I do believe I have defined it a lot further than that, haven't I?

The persons in the article are definitely not anti-religious in any way whatsoever.

What they are against is the smelly and brown foreign religion.

[Lemur]

What they are against is the smelly and brown foreign religion.
Then better terms would be nativist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)), know-nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing), or ignoramus (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignoramus). Idiot is always appropriate.

The problem with racism is that it has come to be seen as a sort of nuclear bomb of sin. As in, you could be doing everything right in your life, but if you are a racist you are beyond consideration in polite society. So even vaguely hinting at a movement or person being racist evokes a loud, belligerent, rapid response. Even when it's true. (Which in this case, it does not appear to be.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then better terms would be nativist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)), know-nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing), or ignoramus (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignoramus). Idiot is always appropriate.

The problem with racism is that it has come to be seen as a sort of nuclear bomb of sin. As in, you could be doing everything right in your life, but if you are a racist you are beyond consideration in polite society. So even vaguely hinting at a movement or person being racist evokes a loud, belligerent, rapid response. Even when it's true. (Which in this case, it does not appear to be.)

"Sectarianism"

A ready made word for all forms of religious strife, you'll never need another.

[HoreTore]

Then better terms would be nativist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)), know-nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing), or ignoramus (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignoramus). Idiot is always appropriate.

I don't see any of those as mutually exclusive.


The problem with racism is that it has come to be seen as a sort of nuclear bomb of sin. As in, you could be doing everything right in your life, but if you are a racist you are beyond consideration in polite society. So even vaguely hinting at a movement or person being racist evokes a loud, belligerent, rapid response. Even when it's true. (Which in this case, it does not appear to be.)

I know.

I actually respect people who say they are racists for their honesty, and wish more people would do so. I see racism as a negative, but not more so than plenty of other things I see as a negative.

And it is also perfectly possible to spew racist nonsense without being racist per se. Compare with pre-war Germany. Being a good, honest citizen back then meant being a jew-hating racist. I subscribe to Mattias Gardell's theory of a "knowledge regime", a term taken from Foucault. To quote his book "Islamofobia":


I don't think Islamofobic is something a person is. Rather, individuals can formulate, communicate, reinforce and quote Islamofobic statements and thus contribute to the exclusion of muslims(like turning down a job application), or committ other actions, including hate crime, which is motivated by Islamofobic notions. The term "knowledge regime" is borrowed from Michel Foucault and is meant to explain how these notions are produced and reproduced, what knowledge of Islam and muslims is accepted as significant and what is excluded, as well as what conditions that has to be met in order for a muslim to be allowed to speak, in the sense of being heard. [...] It is not the individuals who produce knowledge, it is rather the individuals who are produced by the knowledge which surrounds them and which will also be around after they've passed away, in a modified and restructert form.

The exact quote(my translation, beware the grammar!) deals with a specific form of racism(Islamofobia), but applies generally.

Edit: and if you check my first post, you'll see that it was the idea, not the persons themselves, I called racist ~;)

[Moros]

Everybody is racist. I am racist. You are racist, yes you are. We are all racists, whether we like it or not, whether we deny it or not. We are.
Same goes for being sexist,...

[Greyblades]

As a South african man my father once heard a story about said: "I'm not racist, I just cant stand blacks".

[Fragony]

What they are against is the smelly and brown foreign religion.

Like hinduism and budhism? Nah of course not they are less demanding. You also never hear multiculti's scream that hinduism and budhism are an enrichment to our culture. The left has lovingly adopted islam and is blind for the sharper edges because they know, for a fact, that it simply isn't true because... It just isn't true shut up. Islamphilae.

[HoreTore]

Like hinduism and budhism? Nah of course not they are less demanding. You also never hear multiculti's scream that hinduism and budhism are an enrichment to our culture. The left has lovingly adopted islam and is blind for the sharper edges because they know, for a fact, that it simply isn't true because... It just isn't true shut up. Islamphilae.

Sure.

[Fragony]

Sure.

Yep. Muslims are like pokemon to lefties, they got to defend them all.

[Moros]

As a South african man my father once heard a story about said: "I'm not racist, I just cant stand blacks".

The man's got point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everybody is racist. I am racist. You are racist, yes you are. We are all racists, whether we like it or not, whether we deny it or not. We are.
Same goes for being sexist,...

I like to think I'm more sexist than racist, and more homophobic than sexist.

Although, I don't know. I'm not really scared of Gays, I just don't agree with all their political objectives.

[Beskar]

Yep. Muslims are like pokemon to lefties, they got to defend them all.

Wouldn't it be "Catch them all" then send them out in droves to battle each other in a Thunderdome?

[ajaxfetish]

Although, I don't know. I'm not really scared of Gays, I just don't agree with all their political objectives.

Homophobia is perhaps an unfortunate term to have ended up with, since the contribution of -phobia doesn't follow the usual transparent pattern. It can mean fear of gays, but has also come to encompass loathing (not to imply that you 'hate' them, just that not really being scared of them isn't enough on its own to make the label incorrect). So it's entirely possible to qualify as homophobic without any fear at all. Blame English-speakers for the potential confusion.

Ajax

[Kralizec]

As a South african man my father once heard a story about said: "I'm not racist, I just cant stand blacks".

"I'm not a racist, and every decent black person will confirm that!"

[Greyblades]

Wouldn't it be "Catch them all" then send them out in droves to battle each other in a Thunderdome?

I Choose You; Mohammed Abdul Badi!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Homophobia is perhaps an unfortunate term to have ended up with, since the contribution of -phobia doesn't follow the usual transparent pattern. It can mean fear of gays, but has also come to encompass loathing (not to imply that you 'hate' them, just that not really being scared of them isn't enough on its own to make the label incorrect). So it's entirely possible to qualify as homophobic without any fear at all. Blame English-speakers for the potential confusion.

Ajax

I don't loathe them either, individually or as a group. I'm mostly unbothered - I got a bit narked when someone said that because the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't believe in homosexual marriage (note, that's "marriage" specifically, not "divinely sanctioned union between two people") he's a homophobe.

One get particularly confused when one wonders what all the homosexual priests he knows think about that.

I think the term "Homophobe" clealry comes from the phenomenon that Lemur has observed, the hysterical reaction to "evil queers" based on sexual self-loathing.

[Kralizec]

Sure Horetore. Tariq Ramadan is a good example, he is known to say different things to his western worshippers than he does when among his own. You don't have to like it but it's very real.

Haven't heard about that guy in a while.

The fallacy is that he's an example of something that's common in Islam. That some muslims lie about their beliefs to manipulate public perception doesn't mean that it's a common thing, let alone a doctrine in Islam.

[HoreTore]

Haven't heard about that guy in a while.

The fallacy is that he's an example of something that's common in Islam. That some muslims lie about their beliefs to manipulate public perception doesn't mean that it's a common thing, let alone a doctrine in Islam.

The fallacy is actually that fragony implies that it's something specific for muslims. Everyone in the world lies, including muslims. A public figure trying to get mass support for a controversial message more often than not speaks in one way to those who do not share his beliefs and another to the already converted. Propaganda 101.

And when one makes up a story about how it's supposedly a doctrine, divinely sanctioned and viewed positively, one leaves reality and enters a paranoid universe of islamofobia and racism.

[Fragony]

Haven't heard about that guy in a while.

The fallacy is that he's an example of something that's common in Islam. That some muslims lie about their beliefs to manipulate public perception doesn't mean that it's a common thing, let alone a doctrine in Islam.

You don't have to take my word on it

[Askthepizzaguy]

There's no justification for funding only 'christian' schools with public money, just bigotry.

I'm pretty sure the Scientology school can afford their building made out of golden bricks without a dime of taxpayer money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The catholic church has far more money.

My point, though, was that its better to give religious schools exactly zero money.

Ah, a common misconception, while the Roman Catholic Church has a large income that income has to pay for all the clergy, Nuns, Monks etc. and more importantly the buildings, some over a thousand years old, which need constant maintainance. After that you have all the various charitable organisations, homeless shelters, schools, adoptions agencies, children's homes...

The money's spread pretty thin, and per capita there's a lot less coming in than Scientology. I mean, to hear about Xenu you need to pay something like $30,000 - and that's just the upfront cost.

[Centurion1]

The catholic church has far more money.

My point, though, was that its better to give religious schools exactly zero money.

Catholic church does not have very much money. Such a common misconception... You think the church has vaults of gold doubloons or something... The nice thing about giving to the catholic church is much of it will likely go to helping out the less fortunate

[Greyblades]

Unfortunately that money also goes to keeping the paedophile's in the clergy safe, so its not all win-win.

[Moros]

Unfortunately that money also goes to keeping the paedophile's in the clergy safe, so its not all win-win.

Well that's an unneccesary remark. And I'm quite the Atheist.

[Papewaio]

Would you give money to an aid agency that dresses their management in cloth of gold out of the money you donate?

[Greyblades]

Well that's an unneccesary remark. And I'm quite the Atheist.

I was raised to believe they were the good guys in the world. What I've learned of the actions of thier higher ups says otherwise, I am very disillusioned with the vatican right now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would you give money to an aid agency that dresses their management in cloth of gold out of the money you donate?

The RC uses antiques.


I was raised to believe they were the good guys in the world. What I've learned of the actions of thier higher ups says otherwise, I am very disillusioned with the vatican right now.

Hmmmm

I reserve judgement.

[Fragony]

Well that's an unneccesary remark. And I'm quite the Atheist.

It's also quite true. Catholic church is a criminal organisation.

[rory_20_uk]

Catholic church does not have very much money. Such a common misconception... You think the church has vaults of gold doubloons or something... The nice thing about giving to the catholic church is much of it will likely go to helping out the less fortunate

And assets? Vast land ownership. And a bank. Loads of artwork. A fair amount of objects from precious metals and gemstones. Compare to the Quakers for example...

Give to Oxfam about 96% goes to the target audience. I doubt the Catholic Church manages that ratio.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

And assets? Vast land ownership. And a bank. Loads of artwork. A fair amount of objects from precious metals and gemstones. Compare to the Quakers for example...

Give to Oxfam about 96% goes to the target audience. I doubt the Catholic Church manages that ratio.

~:smoking:

If I remember correctly from like ten years ago, CAFOD is like for every £5, £4 ends up in Africa actually being used in projects.

[rory_20_uk]

If I remember correctly from like ten years ago, CAFOD is like for every £5, £4 ends up in Africa actually being used in projects.

A 20% admin margin. Not a bad cut.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

It's also quite true. Catholic church is a criminal organisation.

Yeah, see, this is where you once again start at legitimate criticism, but end up wandering off into an alternative dimension.

The Catholic Church has major problems with how they relate to sexual abuse, and some of the ways they handle it is, or at least should be, criminal. However, saying that it's a "criminal organization" is just nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And assets? Vast land ownership. And a bank. Loads of artwork. A fair amount of objects from precious metals and gemstones. Compare to the Quakers for example...

Give to Oxfam about 96% goes to the target audience. I doubt the Catholic Church manages that ratio.

~:smoking:

Assets have no value unless realised - the Roman Church holds what are essentially antiquities, like the Bitish Museum. The British Library hold vast number of extremely valuable manuscripts Tim Bolton would love to sell at Sotheby's; if he weren't a man with a concience. The point is, you can be asset rich and cash poor. Selling assets makes you poorer.


A 20% admin margin. Not a bad cut.

~:smoking:

You sure?

[Moros]

It's also quite true. Catholic church is a criminal organisation.

Of course it is. Anything with power and money. :shrug: Hello!? :rolleyes:

[Greyblades]

Huh, I'm instantly reminded of the Wu-Tang Clan for some reason.












"Sign of the times, conspiracy to overthrow the mind, behind every fortune there's a crime."

[Fragony]

Yeah, see, this is where you once again start at legitimate criticism, but end up wandering off into an alternative dimension.

The Catholic Church has major problems with how they relate to sexual abuse, and some of the ways they handle it is, or at least should be, criminal. However, saying that it's a "criminal organization" is just nonsense.

When it goes up this high it's hard to call it anything else.

[Papewaio]

Assets have no value unless realised - the Roman Church holds what are essentially antiquities, like the Bitish Museum. The British Library hold vast number of extremely valuable manuscripts Tim Bolton would love to sell at Sotheby's; if he weren't a man with a concience. The point is, you can be asset rich and cash poor. Selling assets makes you poorer.

Surely if they wished to emulate the Son of Man woodwork would have been far more fitting. Gold has so many veal like qualities...

Speaking of gold and cow meat. Until McDonalds came along RC where the worlds biggest land owners.

[Lemur]

An amusing roundup of some of the facts (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars) featured in Louisiana's new taxpayer-funded religious schools. Personal favorites:

1. Dinosaurs and humans probably hung out
3. "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."
10. Mark Twain and Emily Dickinson were a couple of hacks
12. Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."

[rvg]

An amusing roundup of some of the facts (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars) featured in Louisiana's new taxpayer-funded religious schools. Personal favorites:

1. Dinosaurs and humans probably hung out
3. "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."
10. Mark Twain and Emily Dickinson were a couple of hacks
12. Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."


Awww, you left out the best ones. I take it that the Louisiana public schools receive their funding from the John Birch Society.

#6 is a real gem...

6. The KKK was A-OK: "[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians."—United States History for Christian Schools, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001

[Fragony]

wow.