A Message from the new headmaster of St James

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
TB

Postby TB » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:51 am

Hi Dan, thanks for your response. I re-read my post and realised that I had assumed but not expressed myself clearly, however I think you have also misread my comment. You said
TB, you are deeply misguided if you think that 'religion' is a truth seeking system. What an incredible blanket of a statement.

This should have read as "The STATED intention of religion is to offer the truth" Your later comment
In my opinion most religions seek to promote their own versions of 'truth' to control followers
in fact supports my view. My poorly worded statement did not imply either, that religions ARE truthful or successful in offering the truth, merely that they did seek/offer it as a mission. In some cases they might actually be seeking other things, like money, or sex, however their public mission statement remains pretty constant.

The above should not be read that I am either for or against religion as a concept or any particular religion itself. My interest is around their role in society and what it tells us about human nature.

I strongly agree with your point that these organisations offer power to those with hungry egos, however this I believe to be fairly common to all organisations. Power seeking is a defining force in biology to which humans and all our social edifices are subject to, SES not excepted.

I would further add that religion differs from science in its defined truth seeking. Science is more focused on the 'how', religion on the 'why'. Our exchange of opinions also highlights ineffective communication as being a major barrier to understanding, so thankyou for your criticism.

Please support your comment
parents should do everything they can to protect their children from fundamentalist belief systems, whatever the parent may believe themselves.
How do you define 'fundamentalist belief systems'? Are you restricting this to religion/cult or would the same apply to the world of fashion, business, education etc who, I believe, have fundamental beliefs.

You also imply that parents are responsible for guiding their children in these things. How do you support this view? Please do not interpret my questions as michievous or critical of your view, I am simply trying to understand if your views are intuitive or reasoned. The debate rages between parents versus society/school etc roles in guiding children, St James/SES being one such battlefield. I have my own intense prejudice against social structures and their moulding of individual natures and am possibly unable to set it aside, yet my intent is to gain better understanding of the process and how it affects people.

dan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:39 pm

TB

Postby dan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:19 am

Please support your comment Quote:
parents should do everything they can to protect their children from fundamentalist belief systems, whatever the parent may believe themselves.

How do you define 'fundamentalist belief systems'? Are you restricting this to religion/cult or would the same apply to the world of fashion, business, education etc who, I believe, have fundamental beliefs.



I would still disagree with your premise TB that the 'stated intentions of religions are to offer truth'. You are closer I think when you say that they tend to offer answers to 'why' questions. For example the Roman Catholicism (RC) has for centuries offered the framework of heaven - hell and damnation for controlling the masses politically and morally. The terrifying (to me) concept of suffering for all eternity for the sins of a life time has been promoted by RC but universal 'truth' has no relevance to RC and many other religions.

In (my) perfect world parents, educators and society would offer young people full access to, and choice of, a range of belief systems from atheism to zen budhism. But in reality established religions cannot accept that any other religion is correct. The self-righteousness of many religions (including the SES) appalls me.

'Fundamentalist belief system' can apply to anything but I was writing about religion. A definition of a fundamentalism in religion is 'literal acceptance of the scriptures', where followers unthinkingly accept what religious leaders tell them. Examples of this are currently causing much trouble around the world.

This is why it's really important not to ram belief systems into childrens minds. An attempt to instil strange beliefs was made to children at St Vedast, I was one. Religion and schools should be kept apart or if religion is discussed it should be done so in the same way as drugs and sex - with health warnings.
Dan

TB

Postby TB » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:39 pm

Hi Dan
I would still disagree with your premise TB that the 'stated intentions of religions are to offer truth'. You are closer I think when you say that they tend to offer answers to 'why' questions. For example the Roman Catholicism (RC) has for centuries offered the framework of heaven - hell and damnation for controlling the masses politically and morally. The terrifying (to me) concept of suffering for all eternity for the sins of a life time has been promoted by RC but universal 'truth' has no relevance to RC and many other religions

I am still struggling with this one so I will define more clearly how I am using the word 'truth'. I prefer to use 'objectve reality', the way things are. In this sense a religion like RC defines that heaven, hell etc are 'real' and their stated and primary intention is to define that world to prospective followers, as well as how one must behave to choose the correct path (an important point I missed earlier). This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the truth of their reality, just to say they have this as a stated objective. And they explain why this reality of heaven and hell exist, its reason to be. This entire concept exists to provide us with a meaning in life - why do we live? It would be pointless but interesting if a system existed that proposed a model for reality with the proviso that it was incorrect and not real at all - in fact a total con. This would defeat the whole purpose of any deception. This does not stop many groups who knowingly offer deception in the guise of truth as well as those who genuinely believe they do offer the truth.

Whether the RC offers one of the above or if this has relevance in terms of their status to universal truth (something that is beyond my intellect) I do not know.
In (my) perfect world parents, educators and society would offer young people full access to, and choice of, a range of belief systems from atheism to zen budhism

This is a noble concept and one becoming increasingly prevalent today in the Western world as disillusionment grows with previously stable standards of behaviour and belief. The offer of choice to children seems to create enormous uncertainty as they search for something they can rely upon. Studies show that the greatest challenge to youth is uncertainty and inconsistency. Even consistent brutal behaviour achieved a better outcome that one that varied between kind and brutal. If you have travelled in the developing world in poverty and famine stricken areas you notice how content children can be with remarkably little. Life itself is cheap, they accept and do not agonise upon things that would be considered unacceptable in the developed world. When food and shelter are top of mind just to live, they appear to spend little time debating why they do live. Western offers of assistance, though well meant, have changed expectations and because they cannot offer everything many are left hanging between the promise of a better world and a very different reality. A heart transplant is a wonderful thing to offer a sick African child however, it comes at enormous cost, and when the excitement dies and the recipient returns to live amongst the starving masses and dies due to poor sanitation, one has to ask who was the real benefactor.

dan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:39 pm

Postby dan » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:27 pm

This is a noble concept and one becoming increasingly prevalent today in the Western world as disillusionment grows with previously stable standards of behaviour and belief. The offer of choice to children seems to create enormous uncertainty as they search for something they can rely upon.


TB, I don't think the 'noble' concept of informed choice of religion/belief system for children is the product of 'disillusionment'. I would argue it is the product of increasing enlightenment. If children have their basic needs taken care of; parental love, food, mental stimulation, security ...etc - then I don't really think they worry too much about belief systems. In what sense can a child 'rely' on religion.

Wouldn't a child respect an adult in the long run if the parent said "I dont know where we come from but some people believe this/that ......Darwinists have proved we were monkeys ..." ?

When all societies stop forcing their young to accept religious/cult ideology and start to educate more about humanity in all its variations as well as the wonders of the environment then I think the world will be a better place!
Dan

leonm

Postby leonm » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:06 pm

TB wrote:This is a noble concept and one becoming increasingly prevalent today in the Western world as disillusionment grows with previously stable standards of behaviour and belief.



60 million + people were killed in wars this century, what 'previously stable standards of behaviour' are you refering to? The ones that told the poor to accept their place at the bottom, or maybe the ones that taught that brown skins are inferior to whites?

TB wrote:Even consistent brutal behaviour achieved a better outcome that one that varied between kind and brutal. If you have travelled in the developing world in poverty and famine stricken areas you notice how content children can be with remarkably little. Life itself is cheap, they accept and do not agonise upon things that would be considered unacceptable in the developed world.


So the west should stop all aid whatsoever? This would be 'consistently brutal' would it not? And by your argument better than one that 'varies between kind and brutal'. Great compasionate views you expound. Visit a few childrens aids hospitals in africa, and then tell me how content the kids are with what they have. You also seem to have a very naive view of how the aid system works, it generally benefits the doner more than the recipient.

The statement about brutality giving 'better' (define 'better') results than one that varies is just not worth taking seriously. What 'studies' are you refering to?

Any human being in a hostile environment naturally thinks only of survival. This is true for whatever race, creed, poor or rich.
So what exactly is your point?

Regarding your silly example of the heart transplant, the benefactor is the person who made and sold the medical technology to the company who carried it out. Ie a western one.

TB

Postby TB » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:03 am

Hi leonm,

I sense from your post that you are shooting me, as the messenger and making assumptions as to what I agree or promote as the way things should be. I will answer your specific comments, however please reread my earlier post. You might find a significant difference between that which I observe and that which I endorse.

60 million + people were killed in wars this century, what 'previously stable standards of behaviour' are you refering to? The ones that told the poor to accept their place at the bottom, or maybe the ones that taught that brown skins are inferior to whites?
Depending upon time frames and the level, I would say that both of these demonstrate a behaviour that had some stability. War has been an accepted form of behaviour to settle conflict at a national, tribal, faction etc level for as long as recorded history. The fact that one can still get men to enlist in high numbers with little effort to kill or be killed shows that this form of behaviour is well understood and indeed pursued by significant numbers of soldiers, political leaders etc. However the choice of war as an example was yours, not mine. I was thinking more of religion that gave roles to people using often arbritrary distinctions. You have mentioned color as one of these, sex is another, class etc.

While we decry many of these today, in the past they allowed people to set expectations of what they could expect from life. We can be sure that some standards that we value highly and do not question today will be found to be barbaric and wrong in the future. Its just an observation that people need assurance as to what they can rely upon. In many instances people accept their lot with equanimity when others with different expectations are frustrated simply because they have been educated to expect more.

So the west should stop all aid whatsoever? This would be 'consistently brutal' would it not? And by your argument better than one that 'varies between kind and brutal'.

You are putting words in my mouth with this one. I have not stated which type of system I favoured. If my opinion on this has any value in the discussion, it is that a consistently nurturing and supportive environment is preferred. But I was not offering my, and in my opinion, useless moral judgement of this, just trying to report on my observations.
a very naive view of how the aid system works, it generally benefits the doner more than the recipient.

Once again you are speaking on my behalf. You are probably correct about my ignorance of western aids system, my knowledge of it involves some formal study of welfare economics when I was young and impressionable, what I gather from the media/internet etc, and close interaction with a number of aid workers in East Africa, yet I am not a recognised authority on this, nor did I claim to be. I do agree that in many cases the donor country seems to create more issues that it solves. I do have first hand veiwing on this among East African countries and anecdotal around, West and Southern African states.
The statement about brutality giving 'better' (define 'better') results than one that varies is just not worth taking seriously. What 'studies' are you refering to?

I will take this one on the chin. A subjective word like 'better' was probably not a good word to use here, however the context is more around consistency of treatment, as opposed to alternating kindness and brutality. In fact the studies covered work done where children were ignored, versus those who had harsh treatment or kind. Those children that were ignored 'failed to thrive' more than the other 2 groups. Not too sure where the detail of the study is, as its a while since I read it. I am afraid I used my fallible common sense to present my opinion on inconsistent treatement creating issues, this did not come from any studies that I can recall - sorry about that slip.
Any human being in a hostile environment naturally thinks only of survival. This is true for whatever race, creed, poor or rich.
So what exactly is your point?

I agree with you - I do not think my previous post said otherwise. And what is my point? I am not sure since I did not make any points about humans seeking some control over their destiny.
Regarding your silly example of the heart transplant, the benefactor is the person who made and sold the medical technology to the company who carried it out. Ie a western one

You might be correct here, however it was more the mind set that thought this type of operation was possible when it was carried out. My point with this was to demonstrate one of the issues when a benefactor assumes they know what is required to 'fix' a problem. Africa might have needed food more than they needed heart transplants. By the same token antibiotics allowed control over the diseases that kept population numbers in check, this created the next problem of food to feed the extra mouths, so famine followed. Note I am not morally judging this either, just making observations.

I might note that I obviously got up your nose with my post, yet I tried to make as few moral judgements as possible and stick to what I have observed and experienced, and make logical deductions thereof. I thought it was moral judgements that upset people, not discussing arguable and measurable facts. I am learning more about human nature every day. When I return to my planet can I make judgements too?

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:31 pm

TB wrote:I might note that I obviously got up your nose with my post, yet I tried to make as few moral judgements as possible and stick to what I have observed and experienced, and make logical deductions thereof. I thought it was moral judgements that upset people, not discussing arguable and measurable facts. I am learning more about human nature every day. When I return to my planet can I make judgements too?

But is it not fair to say TB, that as a consequence of upbringing, education, social-conditioning etc, most of our observations will inevitably be influenced by our moral judgments, and vice-versa, both either consciously or sub-consciously? Indeed, being truly 100% impartial on a subject like this would be a nigh-on impossible task? I hope you're not employing this tack as a get-out clause for concealing what you really think. :wink:

TB

Postby TB » Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:30 am

Hi Matthew, thankyou for your response.
But is it not fair to say TB, that as a consequence of upbringing, education, social-conditioning etc, most of our observations will inevitably be influenced by our moral judgments, and vice-versa, both either consciously or sub-consciously?

I am unsure of what your statement means. Are you saying that these nurture factors affect our observations, or are you saying they define our moral judgement, or are you saying that our moral judgements are independent of nurture factors?
Indeed, being truly 100% impartial on a subject like this would be a nigh-on impossible task?
Do you think your statement above is 100% impartial and accurate? If so or if not, we have a logical contradiction on our hands and the semantic bog beckons, however I will not stop and play games with this.

I would rather say that the ability to free ourselves of subjectivity due to our environment and see things objectively is a real challenge, in part because subjectivity is self concealing and appears in the guise of objectivity. However, as you say what we are judging sensitive issues. We do not have real issues with agreement on subjects where there are litle or no politics involved. Most people might agree with me if I make the comment that men are generally (not always, but usually) taller than women. If I presented the facts around this, people intuitively know there no be minimal political fallout from this, examine the facts and likely agree without too much anguish. If however, I stated that men were more intelligent than women, I would get slaughtered before we could examine the facts. This would not mean that the facts were incorrect, simply that the political cost is too high to risk the facts overturning the status quo. This is a simplistic example and the real world is riddled with interdependencies in many areas (do not infer my personal views on gender intelligence from this example). The issues of power and status in society are too strongly rooted to allow an objective assessment.
I suspect that a stated precondition of a moral judgement is that the facts do support it, otherwise it could not exist. However this is often not the case and moral judgements are usually dictated by power drivers, sometimes before the facts were even known. (Darwin and Galileo know about this one).

Even if we suppose that getting 100% is tough shall we do nothing at all and let politics rule or shall we work to get as close as reality as possible?

I hope you're not employing this tack as a get-out clause for concealing what you really think.
I have a moral judgement for most things and an opinion on everything. I do sometimes give my personal prejudices on topics, however I think there is more value in reasoned discussion. I have no difficulty in revealing my thoughts (just read some of my other posts), but I am really trying to get thoughts from others and challenge them to support their stances on things. This seems to irritate some (as do my opinions), but even this teaches me something new about myself and others.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:02 am

The children who were ignored who failed to thrive.

I think here you might be thinking of fairly well documented case of Romanian orphans. I don't know if they "failed to thrive" so much in a physical sense, but they certainly had HUGE social type problems as they grew. Even kids adopted out to loving homes never recovered - seems there is something vital in brain development that babies NEED cuddles from day 1.

And just for another aside - your example about saying "men are smarter than women" (and I know you were just using it as an example for your argument). Thing is, girls have always generally done "better" in primary education, but boys do "better" in high school. Schools here for many years have been addressing issues in girls education and now we have the situation that girls surpass boys in the school leaving exams - which of course has led people to say there is a "crisis" in boys education. People are now looking at what factors may be affecting boys education.

TB

Postby TB » Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:14 am

Hi Dan, thanks for your response
If children have their basic needs taken care of; parental love, food, mental stimulation, security ...etc - then I don't really think they worry too much about belief systems. In what sense can a child 'rely' on religion.
I am not sure how broadly you are defining belief systems, if it is just focused on a being spiritually greater than themselves. The traditional Maslow hierarchy of needs shows that as base needs like food, shelter etc are addressed, higher level needs receive attention. For a child that has the basics plus recognition, love etc, it appears they often look for meaning in their lives. I accept that for some people, wearing the latest fashion in shoes might be sufficient, but for others they turn to religion, science etc to satisfy this.
Wouldn't a child respect an adult in the long run if the parent said "I dont know where we come from but some people believe this/that ......Darwinists have proved we were monkeys

This is how I approach it with my kids, and it is something I do not do easily, mostly because I have so few answers for them. I think that how well this travels will depend upon the shape of society in 10 years time. As the saying goes - "Man who lives with cannibals, better look like vegetable. Better still, think like vegetable too", meaning I suppose that we follow the norms of society (or that of the subgroups within and against the establishment) regardless of what they happen to be. If this is the case, it could be argued that we are better off being blind to it as well.
When all societies stop forcing their young to accept religious/cult ideology and start to educate more about humanity in all its variations as well as the wonders of the environment then I think the world will be a better place!

Perhaps we should take a step back and see how society enforces all beliefs upon individuals, religion being one prominent example, but I suspect it says more about the nature of human society than any specific group like a church, or spiritual worship itself. I have no issue with the moral standards of behaviour taught by most religions "Do unto others..."etc. I do take issue with the requirement for blind acceptance. Yet I see this pressure in most social groups, though it varies in degree and type. So where is the issue, how we form cooperative groups or what we worship?

TB

Postby TB » Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:02 pm

Hi A different guest, thanks for shedding light on the Romanian studies.

Thing is, girls have always generally done "better" in primary education, but boys do "better" in high school. Schools here for many years have been addressing issues in girls education and now we have the situation that girls surpass boys in the school leaving exams - which of course has led people to say there is a "crisis" in boys education. People are now looking at what factors may be affecting boys education.

We seem to be focussed on equality at any cost. The drive to see equal results for boys and girls in school, men and women in business. Why do you think this is?
The use of school results as a measure of success in later life is questionable. I get the impression that girls have more academic success than they are able to achieve in the workplace as women and this is often put down to discrimination against women in the workplace, the glass ceiling as well as difficult choices between children vs careers. Debates over inferior or superior capability do not appear very politically palatable.

I wonder how people would take it if studies showed that girls are just inherently smarter than boys given the subjects usually presented. (I am not making an argument either for or against). I simply think that the political pressure to preserve the appearance of equality is stronger than our need for the truth.

Parent

St. James

Postby Parent » Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:30 pm

I am a parent with kids at St. James. Should I be worried? All of this concerns me deeply.

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Postby adrasteia » Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:34 pm

I would advise finding out more about anything that has worried you, an interveiw with the headteacher for example. Then decide whether you think it is something to be worried about.

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Re: St. James

Postby Daffy » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:16 pm

Parent wrote:I am a parent with kids at St. James. Should I be worried? All of this concerns me deeply.


Personally I could never send my kids to St James simply because I don't agree with force-feeding children with religion or cultism, and it holds too many unhappy memories for me.

I suspect the physical abuses that I and many others suffered over the years have ceased. This would not be so much because the teachers and governors no longer believe in corporal punishment, but because such conduct is now illegal and would result in significant jail sentences. So without knowing much about the current regime, I wouldn't be pulling your kids out of school because of physical abuses that were discontinued some time ago.

You should nevertheless ask some searching questions of the head teacher(s) about the philosophy behind the school. St James is run as an offshoot of the School of Economic Science. This is regarded by many as a cult, though not at all in the same class as Hare Krishna or Scientology. Its beliefs are a mix of mainstream religions such as Christianity and Hinduism, with significant influence from some Indian mystic that the school's chief visits from time to time.

You should also be concerned about any teachers, still at the school, who were very much guilty of physical and other abuses. Take David Lacey, for instance - in my time at St James he was a true psychopath, someone with an inability to distinguish right from wrong. His nasty, vindictive, petty and violent behaviour towards many pupils was legendary. Yet he is still at St James, apparently.

So to answer your question in a nutshell, you shouldn't be worried, but you should be concerned. You should ask to see the head teachers as soon as possible and ask them to explain the belief system on which the school is based. First, however, you should do some more reading on this forum to make sure you are prepared to ask the right questions.

Most importantly, and this is obvious, find out whether your children are happy there. I don't just mean ask them once - discuss their education with them in depth and see what they really think of it. Give your kids the credit of having an opinion of their own - something many of us were never afforded by our school or our parents.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:04 pm

...and make sure they have a healthy dose of popular music, just so they don't go around with the idea that the only good music in this world was written by Mozart or Vivaldi. [see the Musak thread http://www.whyaretheydead.net:/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=119&sid=481590709fd52ab04a9ecdce94985f48 ]

I obviously say this in jest, but as parents we spend an awful lot of time thinking about our kids' education, decisions are rarely clear-cut and often a compromise is reached where we feel that we have made the best choice in the given circumstances. Of course there will be times when we have to question that descision - not to be taken lightly as moving schools can really upset the equilibrium.

So, wherever we send our kids, we all have to attempt to fill in the gaps that we feel the educational establishment has left. Understandable as no school provides the complete education despite what they may claim, but you certainly don't want to be contradicting too much of what they preach otherwise you may wonder why you are paying for the priviledge.

For my part, I would never consider sending my kids there for much the same reasons as Daffy, and because I could NEVER entrust my kids to the same people who causd so much of my childhood grief.

Oh, and despite what I was told I have never had cause to use sanskrit in my adult life....or ancient greek for that matter.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests