Sikh School To Be Built In Slough, England.

[Busyman]

i see no problem with government grants if the state requirements are met.

I too believe that state run schools should be free from specific religious theory teaching, however i see no problem with the state paying for the compulsory education curriculum in such schools.

Well that's a contradiction.

The state, in the Sikh case, are primarily funding a building which will have

specific religious theory teaching

.

[hobbes]

The State does not need private interest money to fund schools. This would be a sell out of the interests of our chiildren to whichever group supports it, if they are given control over the curriculum over and above the state requirement.

For some bizarre reason religious groups are given the ability to do this.

Microsoft may contribute money and computers to a school, but they cannot control what is taught. Why can the Catholic church?

Corporate schools would be a more logical assistant to support public education as they have tons of money, but I have yet to see Kentucky Fried Chicken Highschool, but Catholic highschools are a dime a dozen.

Why is that?

[vidcc]

In the Sikh school case.....90% funded.

The point is if the Sikh's want a school, they should totally build it. Not use other taxpayer money to teach religion which they are undeniably doing. Separate church and state...right? This is clear sell out.

Please find anything that would suggest that britain has seperation of church and state in anything other than the fact that they are not as devout as the US..... that aside....and i repeat...the state does not fun the religious side...just the national curriculum...so there you have your seperation

Good point about Microsoft but then again, computer education was always there. Someone else pays for it in MS' case. Computers are part of school. If Microsoft wanted to fund the whole school facility, I say let him go......but he has no say in the curriculum. Allowing MS a say is bending over to special interests for cash.

The Sikh idealogy, in this case, is the special interset.

then parents can send their children to a 100% state run school.... nobody is forced to go to that school...they are however forced to comply with national education requirements.


I am an athiest... i have stated this many times...i believe in seperation of church and state, but i don't see a conflict in the state paying for the things the state makes compulsory

[vidcc]

Well that's a contradiction.

The state, in the Sikh case, are primarily funding a building which will have.

The school has to abide by the states compulsory education standards....that is what the state pays for......NOT THE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS TEACHING

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

If there are 10 religions or cultures in a town, and each want the State to pay 90% for the construction of their exclusive school, is that saving money?

No, it is providing a superfluous number of schools to suit private interest, financed by the common taxpayer who already has an acceptable school.

When we look at the Sikh example, it is no big deal, but when extrapolate the concept of the law, it makes for tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.

[vidcc]

The State does not need private interest money to fund schools. This would be a sell out of the interests of our chiildren to whichever group supports it, if they are given control over the curriculum over and above the state requirement.
Why would they gain control over the curriculum if they donate money?...there are laws that stop this happening. Many businesses sponser my childrens schools for various activities, they get a tax break in return and some "good will" advertisment, they DO NOT get to change the curriculum

For some bizarre reason religious groups are given the ability to do this.

religious groups cannot change the compulsory curriculum...they can however add "extras". If they do not teach the compulsory curriculum they would not recieve state funding, and parents would be at risk of prosecution for not achieving state requirements of education (depending on where one is of course)

Microsoft may contribute money and computers to a school, but they cannot control what is taught. Why can the Catholic church?
repeat: religious groups cannot change the compulsory curriculum

Corporate schools would be a more logical assistant to support public education as they have tons of money, but I have yet to see Kentucky Fried Chicken Highschool, but Catholic highschools are a dime a dozen.

Why is that?

could it be demand and supply ?

[vidcc]

Vidcc,

If there are 10 religions or cultures in a town, and each want the State to pay 90% for the construction of their exclusive school, is that saving money?

No, it is providing a superfluous number of schools to suit private interest, financed by the common taxpayer who already has an acceptable school.

When we look at the Sikh example, it is no big deal, but when extrapolate the concept of the law, it makes for tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.

For goodness sake. there has to be an element of practicality. How many times do i have to say that there has to be justification to put public money into any project. There is a system in place to make assesments. there is not a system that makes it a requirement to pay for every whim and there is not a blank cheque book.

[Busyman]

The school has to abide by the states compulsory education standards....that is what the state pays for......NOT THE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS TEACHING

If the state pays 90% they are paying for what is taught in the school. PERIOD.

GOT IT?

You harp on this, "Well they are paying for this part but not that part."
Imagine where there are numerous Sikh schools ubiquitous in one geographic region. Since they satisfy the state education requirements, no harm no foul right?

You can't be serious. With you being an atheist, I am thoroughly surprised.

[vidcc]

If the state pays 90% they are paying for what is taught in the school. PERIOD.

GOT IT?

You harp on this, "Well they are paying for this part but not that part."
Imagine where there are numerous Sikh schools ubiquitous in one geographic region. Since they satisfy the state education requirements, no harm no foul right?

You can't be serious. With you being an atheist, I am thoroughly surprised.

There would have to be a need for a new school in the area.... if the community is so largely sikh, catholic or whatever that a specific school IS JUSTIFIED then the state (in britain) will provide a grant to it's citizens for the building.... Britain is VERY different from the USA in that it will provide money where justification is shown.
Here faith based programs recieve government money do they not?

Back to the british school, they would have gone through the required process and a decision would have been made on merit. Once built the state will not pay for the running of specific religious education......

GOT IT ?

[Busyman]

There would have to be a need for a new school in the area.... if the community is so largely sikh, catholic or whatever that a specific school IS JUSTIFIED then the state (in britain) will provide a grant to it's citizens for the building.... Britain is VERY different from the USA in that it will provide money where justification is shown.
Oh so the US doesn't and the UK does? Idiotic blanket statement. It sounds like Britain will fund teaching of religion to save government money.....a whole 10%.

Here faith based programs recieve government money do they not?

...and that sucks too. This is government sponsored teaching religion.

Back to the british school, they would have gone through the required process and a decision would have been made on merit. Once built the state will not pay for the running of specific religious education......

Never questioned it. I can teach my own kids if I go through the required process. I would teach them in my house. Maybe the state can pay 90% of my mortgage.