To think schools shouldn't teach religion as absolute fact?

[PoesyCherish]

DSD is 6 and is learning about Christianity in school. They're teaching her Jesus is the Son of God rather than "some people believe he is". Everything about the religion is taught as fact. They've also failed to mention anything about any other religion.

AIBU to think they shouldn't be teaching it as absolute fact? How are children supposed to be understanding and tolerant of other people's beliefs if they're taught one world view as fact?

Pengggwn I am off for the night as well.

But you keep ignoring the cost to society to enable you to privilege your children. Its impossible for every area to have a selective school that caters for every faith and ability that a parent might want.

So when you demand your faith has a privileged education over ever other child not of that religion then you are walking across and breaking the backs of everyone else. Do you not care?

Walkingdeadfangirl

Now 'eh, as they say - I just said I was shattered! No need for the parting insulting comments when we can pick this up in the morning!

Keep faith out of schools. Teach faiths as part of RE but no more.

Schools should be a place of learning and discovery of facts not fiction.

If you are that scared of non faith schools you clearly don’t think your religion stands up to a child’s scrutiny. Brain wash them at home. Let them breathe at school

Boom/Walking:

I am going to wrap up my posts on this now, because this isn't supposed to be a debate about the existence of faith schools. Rather, it is a debate about whether, having sent your child to one, you can expect it to change around you.

But to answer some of your points:

1. Boom: I don't see it as a "legal exception" for me or for Catholics. The same law applies to you as applies to me. We both have the right to send our children to educational institutions that reflect our beliefs. If you and your family are Jedi knights, and you can find a group of Jedi knights in possession of a school and providing an acceptable standard of education, legally, the government would have to give those people the funding to educate your child. And yes, they would be able to put in place selection criteria to ensure that their educational offering prioritised the families in their faith. But if they own the school and buildings, they are not robbing anyone. They are simply making use of the same funding that would go with each child to a non-Jedi school.

Walking: It is impossible? Well, perhaps that is true. But this system that (may allow - I still have to apply) me to privilege my children by educating them in their faith is available to you too. Whatever faith you are, you can set up schools, have them inspected, offer selection on the basis of that faith. It is not my fault that the faith I happen to hold is older and has more money than the Jedi knights. The law itself does not privilege me over anybody else.

I think you are missing the point that discriminating on the basis of religion is illegal when employing people or providing services. But a legal exception is made for schools.

Your idea that you don’t have a legal exception allowing you to discriminate would be like saying - don’t worry about the law that gives us free reign to be racist when it suits us. If you want you can set up a racist school too, so it’s fine.

I want the support of my government to educate my child in her faith, as I believe I am entitled to do.

No, you are not entitled to that. You are more likely to have the opportunity to do so if you are Catholic or CofE, but you are not entitled to the state supporting you in teaching your child your faith. Frankly, raising your child in your faith is your choice. That’s something you need to take responsibility for, not expect the state to provide at the expense of others.

You are privileged to be the recipient of positive discrimination for your particular faith by the state. If you lived in the wrong place, or were the wrong religion, you wouldn’t get that. If you were atheist you would find there is (in law) no secular education in England, and no opportunity to start new secular schools.

I am not going to apologise for that, it is totally fair enough.

‘Fairness’ is an interesting word to use when you’re talking about religious discrimination against five year olds.

BoomBoomsCousin

But that legal exception is made for schools so everyone can have the same right, Boom. It isn't a 'privilege' specifically for Catholics.

You are privileged to be the recipient of positive discrimination for your particular faith by the state.

Nope. People of any faith can set up a school, have it inspected and provide more places for children of their faith. It is not discrimination, because you could do the same thing if you wished.

That’s something you need to take responsibility for, not expect the state to provide at the expense of others.

How is it at the expense of others? Education of Catholic children takes place on sites owned by the Church, and is funded to the same level as non-Catholic children. What you want is to be able to treat those schools like they are the property of the State - they are not.

I went to a school that taught Christianity as fact. We would learn about Jesus, go to chapel and do the nativity play every year. I never believed in God or Jesus but it did me no harm what so ever. I loved my primary school and going to church was nice, being part of the community etc.

How is it at the expense of others? Education of Catholic children takes place on sites owned by the Church, and is funded to the same level as non-Catholic children.

And allowed to use that money to discriminate against other children.

If a child cannot go to their local school because of religious discrimination, and have to take a bus or drive to a further away school as a result, that comes at the expense of that child’s parents. It also comes at a cost to that family’s free time and the time they have for non-school activities, including homework and family time.

If a child cannot access a reasonably local education, it comes at a cost to them in terms of how able they are to socialise with their schoolmates out of hours, but also how able they are to participate in the out-of-hours life of the school.

If a child is lied to during their education (told that a particular religion is fact), that comes at a cost to the credibility of our education system.

If (as is the case for schools that practise religious discrimination in selection), their intakes are disproportionately well-off, then children from poor and often more chaotic (so unable to meet the criteria for faith selection) homes are unable to access their local school, then they are further disadvantaged then they were to start with, at a cost to social mobility.

If faith schools cream off a large proportion of the better-off children in an area, then children statistically more likely to be challenging to the education system will disproportionately attend other schools, at a cost to those schools.

If social cohesion between faiths is undermined by religious segregation in schools, that comes at a cost to society.

What you want is to be able to treat those schools like they are the property of the State - they are not.

You would be better off not making assumptions about what others want.

JassyRadlett

I'm really sorry but I have to take issue with this. You have this backwards. It isn't "their local school". It is a school founded and built by Catholics for the education of Catholic children. It is not discrimination for it to be used, primarily, for the education of Catholic children, and actually I think there is a subtle entitlement going on here. You want to send your child to the school you want them to go to, so you are pretending some injustice is being done because a religious body wanted to educate children of their faith. There is no injustice. You just have to use the nearest school provided by your government.

And Catholic schools aren't "creaming off" children (hideous expression). They are selecting children from within their faith community, as they are entitled to do.

I am out now, because I am getting bored defending the facts to a group of people intent on distorting them.

Dont like it dont choose to educate your child as a catholic. Its not rocket science.

Also the school is obliged to teach about other religeons however tgeir main ethos will be catholic.

YANBU. In our catchment are three primaries

All are CofE.

We have to deal with my 5 year old coming home and telling us in great detail how Jesus died on the cross with nails through his hands.

Barbaric. You speak to anyone about it and they say that it’s a ‘story about love’ sorry but if it takes the torture and death of a human to define ‘love’ in your religion, you should be having a word with yourself!!

We are atheist and kindly and calmly try and fight against the ‘ramming down throats’ nature of the school.

I see the Easter story as no different to a Muslim preaching about suicide bombers. Neither should be in our schools.

I have never said it’s a privilege specifically for Catholics and I have some sympathy for Catholic state schools, given the historical CofE domination of schooling. But faith schools in general are an exception to our anti-discrimination laws.

And the idea that parents are equally well served because they could just set up a school themselves? Err, no they can’t. The state doesn’t just accept all applications and, in any case, most parents are not capable of doing so. So there is not the same access to a school that would be exclusionary for them to balance out all the schools that are exclusionary against them.

People seem to be confused. My children (and probably most of the children here) don’t go to ‘faith schools)

They go to CofE primary schools or Catholic primary schools but those are different to faith schools.

It means they’re connected to a church not that they’re faith schools. Faith schools are run independently and have funding from the church.

The state doesn’t just accept all applications and, in any case, most parents are not capable of doing so.

Sorry, so what you are saying is, because you and people in your community who are of your (hypothetical) faith can't meet the standard required to open a school, I can't send my child to the school that did? Or, if I can, you have to be able to as well (changing its character in the process)?

That is pure dog in the manger.

We are all entitled to apply for passports and leave the country. But there are some conditions, like, you have to provide evidence of your child's identity and appropriately sized photographs. Should I be banned from taking my children to Sweden because you lost your birth certificate and sent in a Polaroid?

This isn't privilege. Everyone has the same rights, some have not put themselves in a position to exercise them. I will not punish my children for that.

I see the Easter story as no different to a Muslim preaching about suicide bombers. Neither should be in our schools.

You think Jesus sacrificing himself for the forgiveness of the sins of others is the same as people blowing up other people?

Even science does not produce absolute facts, it just produces theories

I'm not sure you understand science, a scientific theory explains how something works.

If you drop something it falls to the ground, the theory explaining this is the theory of gravity. A scientific theory is not the same as the way the word 'theory' is used as a guess or an idea in everyday English.

OP

If you look at the mission statement of RC schools quite often the education is secondary to 'Catholic ethos' or 'promotion of faith'.

The National Secular Society has a campaign, 'no more faith schools'

www.secularism.org.uk/faith-schools/

Pen

My children haven’t committed ‘sins’ that require anyone to be tortured to death for, neither have I.

You can keep your sin, your guilt, your Roman war-lord God who sacrifices his own children and spends eternity in a rage coz some chick ate an apple.

The whole thing is nothing but a woman hating, guilt infested excuse to send boys and men off to war to ‘die in glory like Jesus did’

No. Not in my house.

CantankerousCamel

Believe what you like, personally, obviously. Don't tell me the basis of my faith is the same as that of a terrorist, because that's shite and I will call you out on it.

Dear cantankerous,

‘I see the Easter story as no different to a Muslim preaching about suicide bombers. Neither should be in our schools.’

Actually part of the resistance of Muslims to Christian theology and terrorist ideology is that we celebrate Eid every year rejoicing that God doesn’t require you to sacrifice your sons. The story of Abraham and his son (from the Bible) that God swapped out Isaac/Ishmael with a ram, we use every year to remind ourselves that whatever other rules God requires of us it’s never at the expense of our children. And our puzzlement with the New Testament story: why should God sacrifice his own son when he allowed the prophet Abraham to keep his?

I'm really sorry but I have to take issue with this. You have this backwards. It isn't "their local school".

If, because of historic (not current) local demographics it is the only state-funded school within walking distance of their home, it is their local school. If, because of the past stranglehold of the Church of England, the only schools reasonably near them select by faith (and take children from some distance away), it is their local school. Either that, or they have no local school, which means that state funding for a faith school is putting them at a disadvantage because there is no state funding for a non-faith school. The state funding of a faith school comes at a cost to them.

It is a school founded and built by Catholics for the education of Catholic children. It is not discrimination for it to be used, primarily, for the education of Catholic children,

If the Catholic Church (or Church of England, or whomever else is running a faith school) were putting up the capital and administrative funding in direct proportion to the number of children to whom they were giving preferential access, then you’d have a stronger argument. In fact, all the administrative and almost all the capital funding comes from the state. State money is being used in ways that are discriminatory.

and actually I think there is a subtle entitlement going on here. You want to send your child to the school you want them to go to, so you are pretending some injustice is being done because a religious body wanted to educate children of their faith.

No. I want all children to have the same number of schools available to them, regardless of faith. I’d go further and have catchment-based lotteries to decrease discrimination by wealth.

There is no injustice.

Statistics suggest otherwise.

You just have to use the nearest school provided by your government.

My three nearest provided by my government are faith schools. The only schools I was offered by my government were faith schools. For some children, the state funding of faith schools means they only school they can access is a great distance from their homes. That has an impact on them. If the state were not engaging in the farce of educating your children in your faith because you don’t want your children to mix with children not of your faith or be exposed to equally weighted ideas, the state would be able to fund local provision.

If the state did not allow religious selection, you would have to either make the choice to live near enough to a school that matched your faith to be sure of getting in (at a cost to you), or get the same provision as anyone else.

And Catholic schools aren't "creaming off" children (hideous expression). They are selecting children from within their faith community, as they are entitled to do.

Yes. It is that current entitlement I take issue with and campaign as it is discriminatory by both religion and by class. Like it or not, the effect of religious selection is a disproportionately middle class intake. For people of faith to have preferential access to up to a third more schools - and some areas the majority of schools - is archaic and divisive.

A discriminatory works in your favour, and your children benefit from that discrimination. Good for you. Have the grace to acknowledge that it comes at a cost to others.

missfatty

From my limited experience, Islam seems on a whole a far more peaceful doctrine and the majority of issues with those who follow it are socioeconomical. Something the war monger Christians don’t have to justify their blood thirst.

pen

More death, slavery, torture and pain in rhe name of Jesus than any other religion on earth.

Your religion is geared around a Roman ideal of divide and conquer. It’s a mass terroist handbook.

Again, if you need to use the torture and death of a person to define love, you have some issues to work out.