Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To get my 3 year old baptised in an attempt to get into a Catholic school

622 replies

nestisflown · 01/10/2019 19:07

AIBU on two levels:

  1. to want to baptise my 3 year old and start attending local mass weekly in order to get into one of the best schools in the area (and our closest school, although the next closest secular school is also an excellent one). Is this morally dubious? Or do lots of parents do the same?
  1. to think that my transparent plan will work and help my child get a place even though we'll have been attending mass for less than a year by the time applications are made...and the applications want proof of "sustained weekly attendance". It doesnt define sustained though

My reasons for wanting my child to go to Catholic school are: (1.) It is a great school academically; (2) it's our closest school; (3) it's the only good faith school close to us (there's a CofE school but it's doesn't perform well academically), and as a non-Catholic but practising Christian, I'd quite like to see faith incorporated into my child's school day...even in a different denomination.

Has anyone done this? Has anyone succeeded?

OP posts:
seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:37

LaurieMarlow

Based on your overly definitive and closed-minded attitude to my faith.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 16:40

Please: those ripping into me for calling a her a hypocrite - how ISN’T that hypocrisy?

It is hypocrisy. But so is all the following (already stated upthread)

The hypocrisy of those the system favours taking the moral highground over those who don't without acknowledging their privilege.

The hypocrisy of the many parishes who turn a blind eye to this kind of attendance because they're delighted to get numbers up.

The hypocrisy of practicising catholics, giving out about posters like the OP not having catholic 'beliefs' when they privately disagree with aspects of catholic teaching.

The hypocrisy of the government in facilitating church influence in education for an easy life.

Calling out the OP's hypocrisy without acknowledging the wider, hypocritical context of the entire situation is unfair.

Mangoandbroccoli · 02/10/2019 16:40

@seaweedandmarchingbands:
@JassyRadlett perfectly articulates my shared response to what you said re what you perceive to be self-interest.

Of course you're free to feel disgusted by and therefore not share someone's view, what I and others are suggesting is that calling them a bigot or repulsive for disagreeing with you isn't really a healthy way to approach a debate.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 16:42

Based on your overly definitive and closed-minded attitude to my faith

Can you be more specific?

All I recall is pointing out the advantages your faith gives you in the school system and asking you to acknowledge them, which you never did.

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:43

LaurieMarlow

I didn’t say there weren’t other aspects of that system I had a problem with. I would like faith-based education to be widely available. That doesn’t mean I can’t comment on the thing the OP actually asked everyone about, and tell her what I think about it. Which I did. Nor does it mean I can’t express my view of those who elevate their secularism above my faith to the extent that it amounts to denigrating my beliefs. Which I did.

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:45

LaurieMarlow

Sure. You refuse to acknowledge that, to a person of faith, the education of their child within that faith (a principle protected by the ECHR) might be a ‘need’ rather than a selfish desire. You discuss religion as if it is something I can shed like clothes. It isn’t.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 16:46

I didn’t say there weren’t other aspects of that system I had a problem with

I don't recall you acknowledging that at all (correct me if I'm wrong)

Though you called the OP a liar and a hypocrite many, many times on this thread.

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:47

LaurieMarlow

Well, I did. And she plainly is.

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:48

LaurieMarlow

And what’s more, she admits she is! How can you be laying into me for calling her a liar when every post she has written is a smug vindication of her ‘right’ to tell lies? She literally says it about fifteen times.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 16:48

Sure. You refuse to acknowledge that, to a person of faith, the education of their child within that faith (a principle protected by the ECHR) might be a ‘need’ rather than a desire

My position is fact though (I've taken out the emotive word).

It's a desire, not a need. Show me where this is enshrined as 'need' in any kind of law?

Stating that fact absolutely, categorically does not make me a bigot.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 16:49

And what’s more, she admits she is!

And fair play to her for being open and upfront, which is more than I can say for any of the other parties engaging in rampant hypocrisy on this issue.

JassyRadlett · 02/10/2019 16:53

You’re fine to think what you want to think. But if you claim you ‘have expressed an opinion without name-calling’ at the same time as calling people names, you shouldn’t be surprised if people point out that you’re not being entirely truthful.

And I think my child has the right to benefit from a Catholic education.

You can think so all you like. No such right exists in either law or practice.

just as I think your child has the right to benefit from a secular education, where the benefit is defined according to YOUR judgment and religious principles.

I do not have that right (and neither do I have the ability to make it happen which is why my kids go to a faith school). It is not practical, or affordable, or desirable to segregate and educate children separately and locally based on their parents’ religious beliefs (or lack thereof),

That isn’t self-interest.

It absolutely is. You want a massively expanded and more expensive state education system so you aren’t inconvenienced. You want to continue to have selection criteria for schools despite being presented with evidence that such criteria are socially selective and disproportionately exclude disadvantaged children.

Your proposed solution would mean taxpayers are paying a huge amount more for the state to do the jobs of parents and religious institutions when it is not the core work of the education system. It would prevent children from mixing with children of different backgrounds and faiths and truly learning tolerance, understanding and respect for each other. And it would ghettoise the poorest children and those with SEN even more than now.

I have the same interest in all children being educated in the faiths of their families and cultures.

Are you doing anything to change the system? Or are you simply comfortable with your own privilege and the discrimination it causes?

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:53

LaurieMarlow

No, Laurie, even if it isn’t a legal right, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a moral right, nor does it mean it isn’t a need. What my child needs is for me to define, not you. Your whole approach screams contempt. I believe that does make you a bigot and I am not retracting my opinion.

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:54

Are you doing anything to change the system? Or are you simply comfortable with your own privilege and the discrimination it causes?

Oh stop it. What are doing to ‘change the system’? I am not going to dignify that with a reply.

StockTakeFucks · 02/10/2019 16:54

Stats for a local Catholic school. They have kids with SEN, pupil premium, from many various continents/countries and a wide socio economic range. The only one missing is gay parents,but then again there aren't any at the other 3 state schools around us.

To get my 3 year old baptised in an attempt to get into a Catholic school
seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 16:56

JassyRadlett

As for the rest of your post, you are entitled to your opinion, me to mine. You aren’t going to change my view on the moral right of parents to have support in bringing their children up in their faith, including in education. I see no further point in arguing this.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 16:56

Laurie, even if it isn’t a legal right, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a moral right

Where's my moral right to equal educational opportunities for all children?

You have no grounds to call me a bigot, as you know but you won't retract it because you like calling people nasty names on the internet. Lovely.

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 17:00

LaurieMarlow

‘Nasty names’ - I thought this was a ‘reasoned debate’. If I think your views are bigoted, I’ll say so. No nasty names. I absolutely believe children all have a moral right to an effective education. I ALSO believe I have the moral right not to be forced to send my child to a secular school or home educate them. 🤷🏻‍♀️

swingofthings · 02/10/2019 17:01

This thread makes me smile. I met parents with the same attitude than OP when our kids were in primary school. They felt entitled to their kids having the best education because they were special and were prepared to lie and pretend to care about the religious because they believed the outcome justified the mean.

When their kids got in, they took an air of superiority, they succeeded where others failed, assuming every other parents cared as much as they did for their child to go to that school.

The kids are now in their early 20s, and those who have gone to that school have by no mean shown to be more successful in their choice of future studies and career paths that the others. The kids who were both clever and ambitious have done well wherever they went. Those who were not so clever but still ambitious are also doing well in other ways. Those who were never that bothered, but went with their parents' ambitions on their behalf are the ones who have been left behind, clever or not, top school or not.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 17:02

You’ve no grounds to call me that, but you won’t retract.

‘I think you are’ isn’t sufficient. You need to specify exactly what I’ve said and why it constitutes bigotry.

It’s not me that’s undermining reasoned debate here.

seaweedandmarchingbands · 02/10/2019 17:03

LaurieMarlow

It is entirely sufficient.

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 17:04
Hmm
LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 17:07

I see MN have deleted the original post where you used the B word. Which I didn't report, but was about to. So I think their position is clear.

rainydays5 · 02/10/2019 17:07

Flip... it all got a bit mad there!

LaurieMarlow · 02/10/2019 17:08

Yes, heated!