Would you/have you started going to church to get child into a good church school?!

Good idea

Oh, let's all go out for a pint.

"I think the bit about choosing which bits of doctrine to follow was following up something I said in an earlier post and it is something I stand by.

Unless you are a fundamentalist I think all religious people do to a certain extent pick and choose doctrine to believe in or live up to. So for example as a Roman Catholic I agree with the church teaching on abortion but can see that the same teaching might not be appropriate for a young girl. I follow church teaching on contraception but not sex outide marriage as I acnnot live up to that. As a divorced woman I clearly have not lived up to church teaching on marriage although I very much wanted to. There is some "pick and mix" going on here but I still consider myself a Roman Catholic."

That's fine, for you, but what about people who have no religion. Why should the church's viewpoint be taken seriously when laws are being made and/or revised when most of the members of the religion do not believe every part of the doctrine? Doesn't this show that religion should be soemthing people engage in privately?

Also, if people of faith believe a variety of things, who are you (or Overthehill) to say that parents of no faith cannot send their children to faith schools. It could be that they follow more of the rules of Christianity than a Christian person - all that separates them is a belief in a god.

What exactly is a religious person getting from a faith school? It seems to me all they get is to share a space with other people who believe in a supernatural being.

overthehill - I'm showing my net-age. Invisible Pink Unicorn was something people referred to on the old alt.atheism discussion boards in the days of Usenet (frequented by the religious and the non-religious in equal measure). It's an example of an "unproveable thing". Atheists sometimes used it to illustrate how God seems to someone who isn't religious - it's there, but you can't see it, it's there because I say so, it's pink because I say so, I know it's a unicorn because I've seen it and experienced it, yes, I know it's invisible but just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist... etc.

I am not any sort of "fundamentalist" and, if I were the type to get offended, could be so at this comparison. For the record, I only join in conversations (both real and virtual) about religion when someone else starts them off. So it is with this one, about the morality of lying to get into church schools - difficult to state your position really without saying whether you "believe" and then why/why not, and then you are challenged, need to defend, etc. etc. That's one difference between me and a fundamentalist.

I don't go round trying to "convert" people to atheism, if such a thing were possible. (I don't consider any -ism to be the opposite of religion, anyway.) The only reason I appear to be banging on a bit is because the same old tired non-arguments get put up time after time. So that's another difference.

And the final - most "fundamental" difference - is that, like Richard Dawkins, I'd change my opinion if evidence were to be produced in favour of God's/gods' existence. Just as I'd be forced to change my opinion on the laws of gravity if things started floating upwards, or on the theory of molecular structure if (under properly observed conditions) people started being able to push solid wood through solid metal. That kind of thing.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Why Invisible Pink Unicorn, UQD? Am I missing something here too?? Dare I say it, but you campaign against religion with a fervour reminiscent of those fundamentalists (and the rest) that you set out to condemn. Oh and DC, what were the veiled threats I was apparently issuing in my original post?? I'm still none the wiser.

I think the bit about choosing which bits of doctrine to follow was following up something I said in an earlier post and it is something I stand by.

Unless you are a fundamentalist I think all religious people do to a certain extent pick and choose doctrine to believe in or live up to. So for example as a Roman Catholic I agree with the church teaching on abortion but can see that the same teaching might not be appropriate for a young girl. I follow church teaching on contraception but not sex outide marriage as I acnnot live up to that. As a divorced woman I clearly have not lived up to church teaching on marriage although I very much wanted to. There is some "pick and mix" going on here but I still consider myself a Roman Catholic.

Duh - I've not scrutinised the whole thread in the greatest detail so didn't realise the Communion wine comment was a joke , but I can see the funny side to it now - & I do object to people who feign religion to get their children into a particular school as I think it's hypocritical. And I had wondered whether DC was a man, but just assumed otherwise since the vast majority of posters are women. So sorry about making assumptions.

However, I've realised that it's pointless to try & argue for the reasonable voice of Christianity because whatever I or anyone else says, DC in particular won't listen of miscontrues my words as he has his axe to grind and can't seem to accept or tolerate anyone else's point of view.

It's true that there have been & still are some priests who are child abusers, also scout leaders, school teachers & others in positions of authority. Well, like him and any other decent human being, I totally abhor that as it's a complete betrayal of trust and power. The church has a few people like that within its ranks as it's an organisation made up of imperfect human beings, but in former times certain parts of the church in particular did not want to believe such things could happen & so colluded with them which, as you say, is totally unacceptable - or, dare I use the word - evil. I like to think that that attitude has gone as churches have had to face up to such matters, & quite rightly they now have very strict child protection policies. The church DC describes sounds like that of the Middle Ages, & surely even he must admit that attitudes have changed somewhat since then...

HHB, I don't consider that Christianity should be about Christians choosing which bits of the doctrine fit with their lives; rather, I see the Word of God as a living message written down at a certain point in history, which has to be reinterpreted for the times in which we live. So, for instance, Paul condones slavery, which we obviously wouldn't, & in the same way his views about sexuality, headship etc have to be read very carefully in the context in which they were written in order to see what they mean for us in a totally different context. The Bible is a collection of books written by different people over many hundreds of years, & there are many parts that contradict each other, partly because ideas change. Fundamentalists tend to take the Bible literally - as though the hand of God was literally holding the pen - & would condemn the idea of viewing it in context and reinterpreting it for our times.
My view is that it informs the choices we make & the lives we lead (eg in my case, I try & live simply, have compassion, don't earn mega-bucks in high finance but work as a social worker etc. - but please, DC, I'm just trying to state some facts, not boast, & I also recognise that lots of non-Christians live far more altruistic lives than I do. (Just for the record, in case you think I'm trying to sound holier-than-thou, I do have a sense of humour, like a drink & a good meal & lose my temper fairly frequently with my children, dh etc.)

Incidentally, who says God's a man??? The doddery old chap in the sky with pink skin, white hair & a long beard is an extremely misleading Victorian Sunday School image, as are Christmas cards of Mary with fair hair, long eyelashes & blue eyes: she was dark, Jewish & possibly only about 14 when she had Jesus. He was born into poverty in an occupied country, and his message was so subversive that he was put to death when still a young man. NOT the gentle Jesus meek and mild of popular culture...

I and most other RC I know do not excuse what has happened with priests who abuse children or the way the church has tried to cover this up. THe most shocking example I know of is Brendan? Smyth in Ireland who had been comitting his crimes for about 50years and the evidence suggests that his order knew about this and did nothing.

But we have not sat back and ignored what has happened as DC has implied. Many Roman Catholics have put pressure on the church too act and we have made sure that this issue is given media atteantion as sadly this is often needed to pressure authorities into doing something.

I am not naive and I do not think that my church is perfect but I do think it achieves more good than bad whether it be a public grand gesture by figures such as those on my post below or private smaller gestures or acts that make our world a better place to live. There are times when I get so angry with my church that I want to leave but I know that I can and do make the most change from within.

sorry clicked post half eay through my post but I was getting bored! Apologies for the leftwing Christian bias but that is my subject specialism and interest.

Dc to name but a few religious people who have done good in the world and have stood up to be counted,

Dietrech Bonhoffer, Oscar Romero, Benigno Beltran, Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez, Jackie Pullinger, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Ama Adhe, Bill Phipps, Father Camilo Torres Restrepo,

Er, except they didn't. They took priests who were known abusers and quietly moved them to other locations, where they carried on. All over the world!

A lot has been done about child abuse but that doesn't sell newspapers. Most priest, scout masters, school teachers don't abuse children. Most abuse is sadly done by a relative but wherever it occurs the churches (except those cults which are into adult/child sex) do seek to stamp it out.

Popcorn anyone?

I wondered if DominiConnor was a man. anyway, i'm definately going to read this thread soon. My kids are at a Catholic Primary and we're practicing catholics, so I'm sure it will make for interesting reading.

Haven't read the whole thread (don't have all day!), but am quite shocked by some of the things I've read and am, for the first time on Mumsnet, offended by some of the comments, mostly from DominiConnor.

DC - I'm a N Irish Christian, not from a 'denomination' though. I'm not Catholic, but I find it strange that you would dismiss all of Catholicism because of the actions of a minority of Catholics.

I'm also a teacher, so know a fair bit about the education system here. While I'd be the first to lament the part that religion has played in the troubles, you have displayed quite a lot of ignorance, not only about historical issues, but also about the current situation. Your comments seems vitriolic and full of sweeping generalisations.

Apologies if I missed out an explanation of your stance, as I said I haven't read the whole thread. What happened to you to make you so bitter about N Ireland and religion? Come and visit my school, meet kids who are sadly sometimes bigoted, but who also sit next to pupils from 'the other side'. I agree that in N Ireland church schools have been divisive, in an already divided society, but to extrapolate a viewpoint from this to schools on the mainland isn't really logical.

I thought UQD's joke was spot-on in the context of the OP: communicants who, new to particpation in religion until the admissions round loomed, become a little confused about the etiquette...

And I'm not always a fan of UQD's jokes!

I've never quite understood why the Christian God is classed as a "Sky God". He's clearly an abusive father figure.

overthehill - DominiConnor is a bloke.

I still don't see how my joke about communion was that offensive. If you think that's offensive you must have led a sheltered life.#

And yes, I plead guilty to using the term "sky-gods". I'd like three other considerations of "imaginary friend", "fictional deity" and "Invisible Pink Unicorn" to be taken into consideration.

People have been saying this for more than 30 years, when I first started using a computer keyboard. Even then people noted I hit the keys quite hard. I'm now quite a fast typist, but even in middle age I've no symptoms of RSI.

Bloody Hell, this thread. And I've only had a quick look at the last few posts. Would probably make interesting reading if I had the time.

DominiConnor, you're in danger of getting RSI

Overthehill, I hear the "I'm so upset with the rape/violence/fraud/bigotry of my church, reall upset, honest" bleat a lot from Christians.
Yet I see absolutely no mass action. None.
No church coiuld afford to ignore it's flock.
But let's be realistic, you hate this stuff the way you hate a bad character in a soap opera. It's an abstraction, you don't want to rock the boat with your mates. So what if a few kids get raped ?
You do nothing. Almost none of you do anything.
If I was a member of an organisation whose senior staff had organised the rape of kids like both the CoE and Catholics I would not be talking politely to their local rep. If he was not left shaking by the experience I would feel a failure.
If donations dried up, the church would drop it's bigotry and assitance to rapist just like that.
We both know this.
Do we see a catastropic drop in donations to bishops who openly admit helping rapists ?
No.
Do you even ask where the money goes ?
Did they tell you that their insurers are refusing to pay up for the sheer load of abuse cases ?
You have gay friends.
Hoop de hoo.

You are simply wrong that most schools were started by churches. Most were built by the state.
Also you really need to read some books, or even just walk down a few streets.
Look at the churches, thousands of them.
Big expensive buildings. Some took literally centuries of labour to build.
Where do you think they got the money ?
They skimmed it off funds collected for education and the relief of poverty.
The current charity laws were set up specifically because the the main Christian churches had stolen so much money.
It was a big scandal.
Since bulk Christians have had these fradulent sources of revenue taken away from them the building of churches has almost ended, and salaries of priests which at one time compared very well to bankers have decayed.

I?m confused about a lot of what I am reading here. Isn?t organised religion outdated if people are able to pick and choose the parts of the doctrine that they want to believe are true? How does that work? Is religion like a smorgasbord off which you can pick and choose which bits fit most comfortably with your life?

If so (and that?s what I am frequently hearing) how could it be possible for a faith school to be teaching the exact definition of Christianity that you have chosen for yourself? Why do you need the faith school? What happens if that school starts to teach that homosexuality is a sin in its sex ed. Class? Do you pull your child out?

If you pick and choose the parts of the religion which seem to make sense to you (and ignore the thousands of religious scholars who have translated and defined what the bible says) how is it right that laws of this country can be made on the basis of what the scriptures say if those following the religion don?t adhere to what the scriptures say?

It?s surely no different for parents to start attending church as charitable, homophobic, agnostics than it is for people to call themselves Christians when they only support the parts of the religion they choose to support. ??

Could someone please explain to me again why it is right that people of faith have first dibs on church schools just because they were built by the churches 100s of years ago? I still do not understand.

Weren?t the schools set up by the church to educate (and make Christians out of) the poor? Doesn?t it follow that the church schools should retain this function and educate the poor? They were never set up to serve committed Christians.

Wrt ? Christians being involved in charity work, there are plenty of people in this country who don?t belong to an organised religion, who give their time and money to charitable causes. I like to think that if organised religion was abolished, the same people would involve themselves in charity work but maybe not., maybe their motivation for doing good is their religion. But worryingly, if religious doctrine motivates people to do good things then it follows that religious doctrine can motivate people to do bad things.

UQD and DC, there's no sinister reason why I've not answered your responses to my post about offensiveness - only that I work long hours & last night was out at a meeting - at church, as it happens! I think you've misconstrued what I said for the following reasons: I DON'T think religion should be shielded from criticism and I get extremely angry with religious bigots myself. I feel that sections of the church get obsessed with issues like homosexuality whilst ignoring world poverty, domestic violence, exploitation etc, BUT this is NOT what I and the Christians (and non-Christians) I know feel are important issues. I am not racist, I believe that gay people should have the same rights as straight people (and have many gay friends of whom one couple has a baby), and I strongly oppose people who exploit others, be it in the name of religion or anything else. There are lots of people with whom I might disagree, but I think it's entirely healthy to debate issues - as long as it's done in a constructive way, with each person respecting the views of the other. My dh is an atheist, but he is always tolerant of my beliefs - as I am of his - & we agree on fundamentals. The sort of offensive remarks made by UQD was in particular the one about Communion wine & also sky-gods or some such terminology, & DC's assertion that she doesn't treat people with faith any differently from "anyone else who talks crap" is another example of what I regard as offensive and arrogant: how does she know that she's right?? I've read my original post again & I'm totally puzzled about the assertion that I'm making "veiled threats of violence", & haven't a clue what she's talking about.

And, back to the original topic: my dd will go to a C of E school that has up to 25% Foundation places (for children of any faith - not just C of E & not just Christian) & the rest Community places ie open to all-comers. If the Foundation places are not all taken up, then they are available for any others wanting them. As someone said earlier, the church set up the schools in the first place (this one in the 16th century), and so it seems reasonable that they should have some control over admissions. The thing that attracted us - and dd in particular - was not that it had a strict uniform or good results (other non-church schools have much better results and, to my mind, ridiculously strict uniform rules), but the feel of the place, which was that it seemed caring & that every child seemed to matter to them as an individual. My dd has received a personal letter of welcome fom the head, which I don't think happens in most secular schools.

On a slight tangent I am glad that Dawkins and Peter Kay have kissed and made up!

Hitler not Hitker

Infact DC Hitker made many comments about Christianity that sound very much like the ones you make DC, but I would not say thatyou are both equally evil because you agree on a few matters of doctrine.