To think it is time to secularise all state-funded education?

[fideline]

Just that really.

Is anyone here afraid? No, though not.

I do object to the fact that worship in schools normalises the idea that belief in the supernatural is somehow a Good Thing. That there is any necessity for a creator god. That it privileges one religion over other religions and philosophies. That it can be divisive (for the children who are withdrawn - who are more likely to have parents who are of some particular religion such as JWs, not atheists incidentally....maybe they do have something to fear from exposing their children to other ideas?)

kim If they won't sing yours and insist on the original, they should at least for balance also sing All Things Dull and Ugly.

Sniggers at Kim

Excellent Kim

All we need is some secular prayers, some secular hymns (not 'One Love' or 'Imagine') but proper simplistic, repetetive songs about the wonderful world according to Charles Darwin and a reference to the 'greater good/spirit' and we can dispense with religion altogether in schools.

Amen Kim

And what are the Christian values people are afraid will be foisted on their child?

Well they might learn to completely disregard facts and coast through life believing nonsense like "all Christians are good". It worked on you, pixiepotter

I am really curious now about what kind of lectern-thumping rhetoric about the insidious threat from 'atheist-secularist values' (?!? ) is doing the rounds in some Christian circles

fideline - yes - wonder what they're afraid of? Being afraid of having values foisted on them like fairness, rationality, compassionate ethics ...

What's the financial arrangement between schools and churches? Does either benefit more than the other? Do catholics benefit more than CofE?

It's the colossal but casual arrogance of the Christian position that bugs me. "It's only a bit of praying, for goodness sake. What are you afraid of? And you can always withdraw your child anyway- why would a child possibly mind being hooked out halfway through assembly? You can't feel very strongly about it if you're not prepared to do that"

Well they might learn to completely disregard facts and coast through life believing nonsense like "all Christians are good". It worked on you, pixiepotter

you are naive or ill-informed if you think that is what Christians believe. Catholics generally believe that they are far from good.

naive or ill-informed not really. I've just read more Christian posts than you have and was paying attention. You might like to read what I was replying to.

It's curious how on these threads defenders of faith schools always present it as 'why shouldn't I be able to choose to raise my child in my faith', rather than the more honest: "It's fab for me that I get to have a choice of schools, and I'm going to defend that even at the expense of your child having any choice whatsoever".

I took flight out to the suburbs because our two local primary schools - both great schools - were both hugely over-subscribed faith schools. Having paid tax for nearly 30 years, my child had no access to local schools.

That same borough boasted 5 secondary schools, of which FOUR were faith schools with faith-based selection criteria.

Nobody has yet been able to persuade me that state funding should be used to privilege one group of children in this way.

What gets me spitting, though, is those faith schools whose selection criteria place, say, LAC children way down the priority list behind children of faith. They are absolutely putting the interests of the faith institution above those of children in need. Which isn't exactly what Jesus advocated, is it?

Well said Devora.

In response to an earlier comment, I'm one of the people who used the word hobby to describe the lifestyle choice of being religious. It was not intended to sneer, just to highlight that it is a choice you make to be religious. I'm sure that there are many people who believe in astrology and make it the centre of their lives — doesn't mean they get to build a school, have the state pay for almost all of it, and then only let you in if you are the child of Sagittarians, because only Saggitarians display appropriate levels of compassion and respect.

The only way to do this is to disestablish the Church. At the moment we have a state religion with the Head of State as the head of the Church, and Bishops sitting in the House of Lords.

Donki, I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

There is no constitutional reason why state schooling (any of it) has to be religious.

I'm an advocate of worship being something for the home/church and school being for learning. That includes learning about others beliefs - I think that could form part of Social studies in high school, (History/Georgraphy and Modern Studies) rather than having a topic of it's own.

Then there would be no need to opt children out (my back up position wopuld be an opt-in scheme instead)

I guess the situation in Scotland is a bit different. There may or may not be a handful of schools at most that receive funding as a specific religously targetted school. personally I am not aware of any. So, private education aside, you basically go to your local catchment school which is council funded and whilst the religion that has to be included is broadly Christian, tehre is no funding from specif religous organisations and there is no choosing pupils based on religion.

Then we have Catholic schools.

personally I think the whole notion of these schools (again entirely funded by the council) is outdated and breeds Sectarianism. You can apply to a catholic school as a catholic and will get a space. You can apply as a non-catholic and take your chances but to be fair, going to one as an athiest, you would have a hard time objecting to the religious element though you can withdraw just the same as you would for any other school. Interestingly, Catholic schools tend to attract religious people of all faiths more than non-demoninational schools do.

However, every child will have access to a local non-denominational school and additionally most will also have the option of a Catholic school. I say most as if you are in a rural area, there may not be access to a specific Catholic school just from a numbers point of view, so there is more choice in cities - particularly across the central belt.

You can also apply to any school you want with no guarantee of a space and it being your own responsibility to transport your child there but you are entitled to a space at your local school.

Yes - of course we should get rid of the automatic places for CofE bishops in the HoL (there could still be bishops there, and other faith leaders, appointed or hopefully one day elected on the same basis as the other 'great and good' there).

But this has absolutely no bearing on whether there should be state-funded faith schools - many aren't CofE.
Also note that the Queen is not head of the Church of Scotland, yet they still have state funded RC schools.

So it's baffling how anyone could try to make a connection from the issue of schools to whether there is an established church or not.

What I don't understand is if so many people want secular schools why nobody has started a chain of free secular schools.

The RC primary school I went to was formed about a hundred years ago in a parish where most of the Irish Catholics were very poor and pretty well disenfranchised. Lots were barely literate but valued education highly. They managed to get a school built.

And yet a whole lot of MNers, literate, articulate, well-connected, haven't tried? Why leave it to Toby Young? You have every right to set up your own schools and I am sure they would be very popular and successful.

Abra1d - I explained this upthread. We don't want a smattering of 'secularist' schools - yet more division. And it would be unlikely to be a workable solution outside of metropolitan areas. Is that so hard to understand?

(Not to mention, not everyone thinks 'free schools' are a good idea. I for one reckon it's a deeply flawed concept and would not want to participate in the establishment of yet more)

Just get rid of the anachronistic 'collective worship' law for a start, and voila, secular schools. That could be done very easily - the joint proposal I mentioned upthread by the Church of Scotland and Scottish Humanists could be adopted. Why would anyone (who didn't have a pro-religious agenda) possibly object to this?

A headteacher did try to secularise his school in 2007 - it was blocked.

'Dr Paul Kelley, head of Monkseaton High School in Tyneside - the first to join the government's flagship 'trust school' scheme - wanted to challenge the legal requirement in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature. There are only a handful of exceptions at faith schools where the daily worship can be based on a different religion.

He also wanted to change the way that religious education was taught, introducing tuition about a number of world views, some that involved faith and some that did not. He intended to follow a 'third way' that neither banished religion from the classroom completely nor had children attending daily worship.

'We wanted a fundamental change in the relationship with the school and the established religion of the country,' said Kelley, talking about the proposals he put forward towards the end of Tony Blair's premiership. 'They accepted it would be popular but said it was politically impossible.'

One senior figure at the then Department for Education and Skills, told Kelley that bishops in the House of Lords and ministers would block the plans. Religion, they added, was 'technically embedded' in many aspects of education'

Ah, Errol is a step ahead of me.

Abra1d, given that most of us are arguing against discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs (or lack of) , what makes you think that more discrimination and segregation is the answer?

Getting rid of the requirements for daily worship is part of the solution, but there is no need for state funded faith schools at all . There's nothing special about religion.