To be sick of people slating Faith schools

[Jenga123]

Don't get me wrong I understand why some people may be against them but the negativity I've come across recently is, quite frankly ridiculous. I've been told by friends of friends, family etc that they pay for my dd's to attend their catholic primary and secondary schools and that tax payers that are paying towards these schools should not have to do so if their children can't attend these schools. Well let me just say the average amount of income tax each individual pays, that actually goes towards the upkeep of schools is minuscule, so they aren't in fact paying for them. Myself and the other parents of my dd's schools pay a considerable sum each year to the upkeep of the school and the school contributes 10% towards the costs of running their school and repairs etc.

I also come across animosity at the fact my children are getting a good education and people putting that down to them simply being baptised. But my point is if they feel that their own children are missing out by going to a less desirable school then I'm sure they could have them baptised therefor giving them a higher chance of securing a place at a faith school, and whilst I'm not advocating people pretending to be of the faith, I'm simply saying there are options.

As for my dd's schools like I said they are Catholic and are obviously places were parents of the same faith opt to send their children as they want them to be educated within that faith, and I can't see any problem with this to be honest so why am I hearing nothing but negativity from people?

Fair enough strawberry - just think it is especially hard on those families who live next to, opposite, or in same road as faith school and their child still doesn't get in - because proximity to school just isn't in the criteria (except sometimes in an all other faith criteria being equal way, or as a last category which is often never reached in practice)

Juggling. I agree. I think faith criteria should be entirely abolished.

Well the second part of that goes beyond what I said strawberry

• I think having a small local catchment area in addition to other considerations would at least be a start

It's an frustrating discussion isn't it when the OPs simply fail to see their privilege.

My DD was explicitly barred from applying from 5 of the 6 local schools (in a highly populated part of inner London) simply because her parents don't have faith. Our options were cross our fingers and hope she got into the one remaining non-faith school or prepare to bus her across boroughs.

Try doing the old switcheroo. Would you be as adamant about your right to a school place if the criteria were race rather than religion? Imagine the same scenario..There's only one school that accepts non-white children in the local area. Have a problem with that? Well why didn't you have a white child instead of a black one? Should she pretend to be white? It makes no difference that your taxes pay for the bulk of white schools, if you insist in living in a white area when you are black then you just have to accept bussing your child a long way away to get a half decent education. Nothing wrong with that is there?

BigDorrit - I suspected as much, though I'm not a great historian. Basically the church was an unelected organisation which collected local 'taxes' from the parishioners. So public money really.

And yes, there was no doubt lots of emotional blackmail about rewards in heaven / rotting in hell to help fill the coffers.

- I think having a small local catchment area in addition to other considerations would at least be a start

How small, though? Who decides?

"The wealth of the church came through extorting money from it's parishioners (i.e. everyone in the local village) on pain of excommunication, not just of the person who wouldn't cough up, but of their entire family, who would then be left to starve. Some buildings were alternatively conned out of the wealthy with promises of wonderful treats in the afterlife."

Just to be clear, tithes were abolished in 1836. Also do not forget that tithes were the principal source of funds for poor relief (what we would call benefits). By 1836, however, all poor relief had been abolished and replaced by the workhouse - a piece of legislative reform inspired by proteges of the atheist philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

The collection plate isn't the same as tithes. That's a ridiculous hyperbole.

What goes in the collection plate a) helps maintain the building b) pays clergy stipend c) supports the work of the church d) goes to charity. Just so you know.

No BigDorrit. I'm suggesting that the principles of the Poor Law Reform Act 1834 which abolished all poor relief and replaced it with the workhouse, flowed directly from his Utilitarian philosophy.

I would never claim that the church is or has been, perfect. But I like a bit of historical accuracy.

Well Jassy they could offer a certain number of places to local children under purely proximity criteria - the exact size of the catchment area would fluctuate from year to year as it commonly does with other school admission processes.

Or people of faith could accept the fact that it is absolutely OK for their children to be in a non faith environment for 6 hours a day and they have another 18 hours a day to do all the stuff their faith requires them to do?

But who decides what's a reasonable number?

This already happens in a lot of schools. There are two issues - first, the 'distance' quota is in reality mostly taken up by siblings of faith kids, and second, because places are scarce, house prices in the 'relatively sure' catchment are driven up.

So not only does it not solve the problem that faith admissions discriminate against poor kids, it can actually exacerbate it.

What goes in the collection plate a) helps maintain the building b) pays clergy stipend c) supports the work of the church d) goes to charity. Just so you know.

Where does the money come from that supports faith schools? I'm guessing it's from the church's capital wealth which has been accrued over many decades from public contributions.

Apart from that large proportion of it that was taken away during the reformation and given by Henry VIII to his courtiers, or used to finance his own military adventures and household expenses?

Indeed Bertrand - I think there's a good argument for teaching and instruction in a faith, rather than about faiths, to take place within the family's faith community.

I think in the US all schools are secular and nothing specifically religious can be taught in schools (though I guess they still have some kind of RE?)
From what I've heard this leads to it's own special quirks and madness with a big focus on creationism as an alternative to evolution on the grounds that both are valid theories for the beginnings of life - so falling within the science ed part of the curriculum!

Niminy - the loss of English Catholic abbeys, cathedrals etc would have been a drop in the ocean to the RC church. Since Henry VII purloined some of the wealth, the Anglicans have had 4.5 centuries to build on their own substantial wealth.

VIII !

I've noticed that Christians aren't quite so keen on it when it comes to the possible existence of Jesus...

If he didn't exist why did no-one dispute the gospels at the time they were written? Why do the four gospels, written by different people for different audiences, tell essentially the same story, yet with enough differences to suggest the authors did not collaborate?

Tin, there's a lot written on this subject - I find this article quite interesting on the case for doubt.

Thanks Jassy but the link doesn't work.