to be annoyed that church is so boring and missing an opportunity to teach something inspiring

[somethingmustchange]

We rarely go except on visits to MIL. Each time the service is read from exactly the same booklet, the sermon teaches nothing and is just boring reciting of the bible, the hymns are dire and sung terribly by everyone including choir. I always leave feeling depressed and cross that the vicar doesn't try to inspire a new generation or give feelings of hope, happiness, community etc. Then the church goers (all 70 plus apart from maybe 2) have coffee and judge other people that are their supposed friends. How are churches supposed to have a future if they carry on like this?

Eltonjohnsyrup

But faith schools don't give parents a choice. Correction, they give parents of faith a choice, while restricting choice for others.

In my town there are 4 primary schools, one is CofE and one is RC. They restrict entry based in part on religious criteria. They are predominantly state funded with some subsidy from their respective churches.

Basically it means that the children of Christian parents in my town have a choice of at least 3 schools (if not 4 depending on how strict they want to be) whereas all the rest get a choice of two. Do I pay less tax? Do the religious pay more?

Some people are in even more dire circumstances, particularly in small towns where the choice is even more restricted.

The point is that state funded schools are an obvious injustice and a clear example of a lack of state and religious separation.

The argument against private faith schools is different, but still strong. Even if a church is prepared to fund a school 100%, it's still not acceptable for private institutions to teach children according to their own criteria. I don't want to play a Google game on here, but it wouldn't be hard to link you to numerous examples of faith based schools in the UK teaching some pretty 'problematic' stuff to say the least. Richard Dawkins actually did a good expose of a few (Christian and Muslim) schools a few years ago. The things he found being taught were at best worrying (creationism as an 'alternative' to evolution), all the way up to some pretty extreme material.

You want to increase your choice by restricting the choice of others.

Personally I disagree. Particularly because as someone said earlier in the thread religious schools are often the only way for working class children to get a decent education if they can't afford the house prices of a good catchment.

And you do have a choice. You could pretend for a few years until they were safely in secondary school. You choose not to. That's up to you.

"You want to increase your choice by restricting the choice of others"

This is a typical Christian Privilege view. How about all state schools staying completely out of the worship business, and allowing parents to choose to take their kids to church if they so desire.

The fact that non-church schools are still required by law to have a broadly Christian worship is a disgrace.

"And you do have a choice. You could pretend for a few years"

Really? You consider that a fair choice?

Good grief.

Basically it means that the children of Christian parents in my town have a choice of at least 3 schools (if not 4 depending on how strict they want to be) whereas all the rest get a choice of two. Do I pay less tax? Do the religious pay more?

But your children can only attend one school at a time surely. Why do you want so many options? Many, many people actively want a faith school so your town is providing them with that option. Faith schools are oversubscribed for a reason. Parents consider hem to be better schools. Who are you to deny people that option?

Your tax logic is ridiculous. We can't all eat equal value for money from our tax contributions. I put in far, far more than I take out. Your pay taxes, your children get a school place. What's your problem? The faith school didn't appeal to you because you don't want your children to attend a faith school so why do you care that others can go there? It just smacks of sheer jealousy and resentment that a school built on religious values is popular and you, as a. atheist, are riddled with anger that this is the case so want to remove that option from everyone.

The more parents send their children to the faith schools in your town the greater chance your own children have of attending the non-denom school that you value more - so it's a win win.

You could pretend for a few years until they were safely in secondary school. You choose not to. That's up to you.

Fucks sake.

The fact that non-church schools are still required by law to have a broadly Christian worship is a disgrace.

That should be abolished agreed.

Really? You consider that a fair choice?

Well why not? Plenty of people do it. Get up early on Sundays and say what you think is some meaningless gobbledygook.

Not my problem if you don't want to do it. That's your choice. Just like it's other parents choice to educate their children in a particular way.

That's good then

Or are you saying that you won't say that meaningless gobbledygook because your principles, ethics and morals direct you too? But if other parents religious, ethical and moral systems direct them to educate their children in a certain way they can't? So what you're asking for is your system to be prioritised.

I wonder why atheists haven't set up an atheist free school if there is such demand?

This is a typical Christian Privilege view. How about all state schools staying completely out of the worship business, and allowing parents to choose to take their kids to church if they so desire.

Because faith schools are popular. Sometimes atheists have a hard time understanding why. If they weren't popular, they'd be standing empty. But you want to remove something popular because you don't agree with it? That's pretty bigoted of you. How about you use the school that you value (the non-faith one) and let others make their own decision.

Wow, what a wonderful "choice"

It's hard to believe you can say that with a straight face (straight fingers?). It really shows your Christian privilege though, and I can't believe that you aren't embarrassed to say that.

"I wonder why atheists haven't set up an atheist free school if there is such demand?"

Because they would still be required by law to hold Christian worship...

"Because faith schools are popular. Sometimes atheists have a hard time understanding why"

No, atheists don't have a problem understanding why. It's because their selection criteria mean that they have a better demographic and therefore get better results. It's Christians that have a hard time understanding that it is literally nothing to do with the "faith" aspect.

Eltonjohnsyrup

You literally just said you want to see a separation of church and state, and now you are saying you are ok with using state funds to finance a faith based education for certain children.

Faith based education has no place in any state funded schools. (In any schools at all in my opinion but that is a different argument)

Please feel free to teach your children any old nonsense you wish in your home in your own time, but keep it out of the school system.

Your perception that removing faith schools is somehow 'restricting' your choice goes to show how ingrained religious privilidge actually is. You completely ignored my point about how faith schools significantly restrict children's school choices who are not religious by actually banning them from attending and instead focused on the perceived restriction of not having a school teach your child the required level of religious indoctrination.

I do understand that when you have held a position of privilidge for so long, being brought to the same level as everyone else can feel like discrimination.

And I genuinely cannot believe that your suggested work-around to solve my problems is to just lie about my religious belief for a few years. Surprisingly I'm not ok with that, but you as a person of faith are?

Free schools can apply for an exemption under religious designation. So apply as an atheist school under that designation.

Particularly because as someone said earlier in the thread religious schools are often the only way for working class children to get a decent education if they can't afford the house prices of a good catchment.

That should make you bloody angry, not lead you to encourage more of the same by telling people to pretend to believe.

Can you explain what you mean by a "better demographic".

Can you also explain how you know it's "literally nothing to do with the faith aspect"?

Beyond those points, I still cannot work out why it upsets you so much that your children don't have access to a school that you wouldn't want them to attend anyway.

Surprisingly I'm not ok with that, but you as a person of faith are?

I know people probably do it. I can't tell who is sincere or not.

To be honest, I'm of the opinion that if someone needs to do that and is prepared to do that in the best interests of their child it is not my business to question it.

faith schools significantly restrict children's school choices who are not religious by actually banning them from attending

How can you get so worked up about being "banned" from attending a school that you don't want your children to attend anyway?!!

You want to increase your choice by restricting the choice of others. Making it even would be fairer surely.

You could pretend for a few years until they were safely in secondary school That's an awful idea, it's not pretending, it's an out and out lie. Filling in a form to say you go to church, or go to church and show your face a few times, I couldn't do it. The CofE primary school my son went to, luckily didn't require this. The school was a two minute walk from our house.

I still cannot work out why it upsets you so much that your children don't have access to a school that you wouldn't want them to attend anyway. There's no other choice that's why.

Because faith schools are popular. Sometimes atheists have a hard time understanding why. If they weren't popular, they'd be standing empty. But you want to remove something popular because you don't agree with it? That's pretty bigoted of you. How about you use the school that you value (the non-faith one) and let others make their own decision.

Are you under the impression that we all have a choice not to use CofE schools? Because if so, you are totally wrong. The non CofE primaries in my area are by far the most oversubscribed. Many, many children of atheist families get allocated places at the CofE schools. There is no option but to take them up. The LEA will not say "oh, you are atheist and object to your child attending a church school- not a problem, we will insist one of the hugely oversubscribed non church schools give you all places then". Church schools are not standing empty, but not because every single child attending is from a religious family who strongly supports church schools and wants their child to have a Christian education- it's often because it's that school or no school.

When we first moved to our current city in 2011, DS1 should have gone straight into Y1. No school could offer him a place. He was out of education for over half a term. When we did finally get offered a place for him it was at a CofE school some miles away. He was on the waiting list for schools closer to home the entire time he was there. That school was our only option.

Better demographic normally means people who can be arsed to get out of bed every Sunday for the good of their child's future. Which is also likely to be people who are engaged with their children's learning, put a priority on it and encourage success.

My son's school is in a very working class area, no wealthy people there. About 30% refugee and a high proportion of FSMs. It feeds into an outstanding school. Otherwise the vast majority of those kids would be going to a failing academy.

It's really the only option w/c children around here have of an education. It happens to be his and his father's religion so we are very lucky. But if someone wants to pretend for a few years I can't tell who is serious and who isn't and neither can the Church. At least it still means w/c kids have chance to go to a school which filters in those who have the encouragement to get a good education.

It prioritised SN children without religion though, and there are quite a few Muslims who would prefer Catholic to secular schools too.

Better demographic normally means people who can be arsed to get out of bed every Sunday for the good of their child's future. Which is also likely to be people who are engaged with their children's learning, put a priority on it and encourage success. You're just being silly now.

*Are you sure you aren't just pretending.