AIBU to mind what my neighbour just said to me

[lisson]

She just called it "racism" that my Y6 child will get into the better local (faith) school whereas her son won't. Her son will most likely go to the good (but not outstanding) local non-denomination comprehensive.

We are both white British (so same race afaik) but I go to a catholic church with my children sometimes and she's either CofE or nothing (I'm not sure and I don't care). The best local secondary is catholic and its heavily over subscribed.

I already knew it was a touchy subject with her (because she lectured me about it a long time ago and didn't speak to me for six months), so i always avoid talking to her about it. However, she saw me this morning and brought the subject up. Alarm bells started ringing in my head but she wouldn't let it go until she'd told me what she thought of the "racism".

I think she left quite annoyed because I pointed out that her son currently goes to a CofE primary and it gives preference in its admissions to CofE church attendees.

I get it that she'd like to send her son to the better school, but if she cares that much, then she has had several years to either convert (many do) or move somewhere that she likes the school choices better. I've certainly had to jump through hoops to get into this school, which is heavily subsidised by the diocese. I thought it best not to say that though!

Generally, she comes across as sane and well-balanced but on this subject she's very wrong to have a go at me about it.

Tell that to the Shiites and the Sunnis.

But she's correct that it's grossly unfair that state schools, for which we all pay taxes, are allowed to discriminate on who they let in depending in which deity they happen to believe (or pretend to believe) is the correct one

This

We should not have publicly-funded faith schools. Simple as that.

Lisson that is not legally correct.

sorry.. what's not legally correct?

..that religious discrimination only applies to entirely separate religions. An employer who refused to employ a Catholic because they were Catholic, for example, would fall foul of equality legislation even if he/she were also from a Christian denomination.

I think I've attracted all the people who want to change the world with this thread.

In my view, it is what it is and we all have to get on with it. If the world could be changed, then I'd have my own list of wrongs that should be righted. Some of the things I would change to make fairer for myself and my family, would have others in uproar, proving that you can't have everything.

I guess one of the things in the world that we have to put up with is that some people (including my neighbour) have difficulty not personalising a system that they do not like. They feel they have to blame someone, and preferably someone they know and can speak to about it. That's what i encountered today and I suppose that I just have to live with it.

Except I haven't changed my mind from my OP: I still think she was very wrong to have a go at me. So, we'll just have to agree to differ.

I agree that she was wrong to have a go at you.
But your comment about not being able to change the world is one of the most passive and depressing things I've read for some time.

OP, no one has said that your neighbour was right to have a go at you.

And how bizarre that you think people should just shrug off the things they they think are wrong with the world and just accept them as "the way things are". If everyone thought that way, women would still be possessions, slavery would be alive and well and homosexuality would be illegal.

It doesn't sound to me like you have ever bothered to examine your own privilege.

examine my own privlege? thats a new one on me. What precisely does it mean?

examine my own privlege? thats a new one on me
Quite!

I am curious as to how it is actually legal to discriminate for school admissions on the grounds of religion. How is this even possible today? Surely it is no different to not employing someone on the basis of their religion. Especially for an essential and public service such as education. And especially when it is regarding children who can't be said to have chosen their religion, so it is discrimination on the basis of a choice made by their parent. Weird.

Your idea that because the RC church and the CofE are both sects of Christianity, it is impossible for one to discriminate against another is historically... interesting.

Quite apart from the fact that these schools also discriminate against Jewish kids, Muslim kids, Sikh kids, kids of no faith. Just as eg Jewish schools discriminate against Christian kids as well as all other faiths, and none.

Your neighbour isn't wrong to be angry, but she was wrong to take it out on you.

You get that you are objectively lucky to have more schools to choose between simply based on which God you choose to pray to in your private life, and under which rules?

I think I've attracted all the people who want to change the world with this thread. As opposed to people who think discrimination on the grounds of religion is A-Okay?

I'm happy to try to change the world to give children an education based on access by all, rather than advantage based on whether a child's parents are happy to lie and say they believe in transubstantiation.

We looked into a local parish school for our DD as it's quite close and fairly good. When I enquired, they clearly stated that their priority order for admissions was 1. Any child baptised in Catholic faith (she's not), 2. any child baptised into any other Christian denomination (she's not), 3. children of parents with Christian background (yes, my Dad's Family are Catholic but he left the church) then 4. children of non-Christian background. Basically she told us our chances were pretty low so we enrolled her into local state primary which we were also happy with.

There are lots of kids of different races at that school but most are Catholic.

Can anyone explain how you could conceivably change anything by posting on a thread like this?
I am not reading any more... I had to suffer my neighbour yesterday and thats enough.
i asked your views and have got the gist. Thanks

My cousin has recently married her wife. She chose to do this. In fact part of the wedding ceremony involved the words "entering into this union willingly".

I have just chosen to take maternity leave for a child I chose to conceive.

Are you comfortable with me and my cousin being discriminated against because of these choices.

I have just chosen to take maternity leave for a child I chose to conceive.

What's that word for someone who thinks everything they do is amazing and groundbreaking? You do know that you are on mumsnet, don't you? The clue is in the name.

OP, to examine your privilege means to consider the ways in which the skin colour, the socio-economic status, the religion and the gender you were born with (and which, therefore, were a result of karmic chance and nothing you actually "earned") give you advantages over others. And to then consider how these advantages are actually intrinsically unfair.

A very basic definition of privilege, as told by David Gaider on the internet is, "Privilege is when you think something is not a problem because it's not a problem to you personally."

As others and myself have said, your neighbour was wrong to have a go at you because you didn't create the system. But your attitude of refusing to acknowledge that religious discrimination in schools is grossly unfair and blasé attitude to improving the world speaks volumes about how you have never bothered to take even a small peek outside your own privileged blinkered world. Which makes you seen either supremely arrogant or somewhat hard of thinking.

I don't think the C of E primary school is particularly relevant. In very many places (eg where we live) a C of E primary school is the only local state option and does not make admissions decisions on the basis of religion. We're atheists, have never pretending to be anything else, and send our children to the local C of E school as there aren't any other options apart from private. I'd prefer it not to be C of E, but I can't change that. And I don't think it should in any way invalidate my view that state schools should NOT be selecting on the basis of religion - Catholic, C of E or anything else.

I know you say your local C of E school does make decisions on the basis of denomination, but that certainly doesn't imply she used that route - it usually only applies outside catchment.

Like everyone else, I can see why your friend is annoyed but she shouldn't take it out on you. And obviously it's not racist.

Your neighbour shouldn't have taken it out on you but it's easy to just say I think it's fine as it is when you're benefiting from the discrimination.

And it is discrimination - selecting kids for school based on which particular church, temple, forest glade etc their parents chose to go and stand in and worship the God they believe exists is discrimination in my mind and particularly when it is then state funded.

But hey, it can't be changed before your child gets to go to the better local state school next year so that's ok I guess.

OP you have spectacularly missed Mumoftwoyoungkids point.

"We should not have publicly funded faith schools."

I don't think we can afford to do otherwise.

Faith schools are often more than subsidised by the religion they represent. The Church owns the land and buildings in many cases - certainly with VA schools, which are the ones that tend to have these admission policies.

Will we buy the schools from the Churches or set up alternative ones? Either way, that's a lot of money we're talking about.

Churches generally own the land for VA schools (sometimes leased to the school though, so not a grand gesture), but capital investment has been largely made by the State for the last 70+ years, with current church capital investment almost minimal, and often coming from the pockets of the parents rather than the church as whole. And with the new Free Schools the state is now giving land to faith organizations in order for them to start up schools (which the state will then pay for). In return Churches get a huge gift of largess with which to boost their congregations as well the right to ignore anti-discrimination legislation (making the church more attractive to teachers and teaching a more attractive profession to their faithful) and have a captive audience to evangelize to.

While the history of education in this country owes a lot to churches, the current state of faith schools is not a huge subsidy of state education by religion.

At secondary level, for C of E schools, there is a choice of relying on the parent's religious practices OR the child's. Also, you don't have to state that you believe, the parent or the child just has to attend church occasionally. Still wrong to make school access subject to that though, and in practice it means that middle class children get the places, as their parents are the ones who will go that far.
It is horrendous that people are suggesting that parents should "convert" or force their child to "convert" in order to get into a school. A religion which knowingly encourages that should be ashamed of itself. If people want their children to receive a religious education, then they should set up weekend schools for Christian children. These already exist for some other faiths. Keep religion out of state school. I'd love to see how many children would go to a weekend school to learn religion - that would separate the wheat from the chaff.

Still wrong to make school access subject to that though, and in practice it means that middle class children get the places, as their parents are the ones who will go that far

Not all parents - midle class or not - are prepared to be disingenuous about their faith or lack of. Basically to lie.

I work with someone who would not pretend that she is a church goer, nor go to church every now & again just to get into the very good CofE publicly-funded nearest her home. She has to take her daughter to one a lot further away & too far for a 7 year old to walk every day.

I applaud her honesty, but she shouldn't have had to make that decision. Or to have had to lie about the family's faith practices in order to get into the school. THat's what's wrong.