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

[nestisflown]

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?

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.

That is not what the ECHR says. Truthfulness is important to respectful debate.

What my child needs is for me to define, not you.

When you are asking taxpayers to fund it, it is legitimate for others to have an interest in it.

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

I’ll take that as a ‘no, I’m comfortable in my privilege and its negative effect on others and cannot be bothered to write to my MP/encourage my church to campaign for change/lift a finger to dislodge myself from that position of privilege’.

I know a lot of people of faith who are privileged by the system who think they shouldn’t be and who do try to effect change. A less hypocritical stance.

LaurieMarlow

With respect to MN, their opinion and mine don’t have to coincide. And yes, I know that will probably be deleted as well. My opinion isn’t something I have to run by you or anybody else.

With respect to MN, their opinion and mine don’t have to coincide.

Fine. But I don’t appreciate being called nasty names by you or anyone, just to be clear.

LaurieMarlow

Nor do I. But ‘cunt’ is a nasty name. A bigot is a real thing.

Why are you taking people's opinions as a personal attack on you @seaweedandmarchingband

A bigot is a real thing.

It’s a nasty name if unfounded, which it was.

Actually ‘cunt’ is a real thing too

rainydays5

Erm... I don’t understand. Why shouldn’t I interpret people’s opinions any way I choose? What protects their opinions from being taken as offensive?

A bigot is a real thing.

So is a cunt.

Calling someone a bigot to try to insult them shut down debate is name-calling, something you claim you do not do.

Or are you saying you meant it was a compliment?

LaurieMarlow

I am not going to continue to say why I think it was well-founded, because I will just rack up deletion messages. I accept you didn’t like it.

I’ve never understood why pretending to believe in supernatural beings and transubstantiation is judged more harshly than actually believing in those things.

JassyRadlett

It’s not name-calling. It is a description of how their words represent their attitude, to me, when I read those words. No intention to shut anyone down. Just my view of what was said.

because I will just rack up deletion messages

And what does that tell you

I’ve never understood why pretending to believe in supernatural beings and transubstantiation is judged more harshly than actually believing in those things

LaurieMarlow

That the moderator doesn’t think your words demonstrated bigotry?

But if you look at your last post, you might see why I do.

What protects their opinions from being taken as offensive?

It’s quite interesting that you perceive the personal opinions of others as All About You.

I’ve also found it interesting that any time you’ve been presented with facts or logic on this thread you have generally retreated to either insult, denigration or misrepresentation.

I have engaged because I found your stance on the OP’s idea to be either fundamentally hypocritical or fundamentally ignorant and I wanted to discover which.!

Your demand that people not only respect your right to religious belief but that they respect the beliefs themselves and that they should not be open to question in their integration with state-funded services is going to make any conversations on this issue very difficult for you, I fear.

But if you look at your last post, you might see why I do.

Are you going to call the poster that I was responding to a bigot too?

Or is the nasty name calling just for me?

You are too late. Most faith schools require you to have been a regular member of the congregation for 2 years before school admission.

It’s not name-calling. It is a description of how their words represent their attitude, to me, when I read those words. No intention to shut anyone down. Just my view of what was said.

It is the definition of name-calling. If I want to describe someone’s behaviour or attitudes, I describe their behaviour and attitudes. I do not call them an insulting name.

And if I slip and I do, because I’m human, I have the decency to own up to it.

@Cutesbabasmummy - with respect, have you read the last 20 pages of this thread? We've moved on from the simple practicalities ...

I’d quite like to join in but i’m not sure what’s going on. But I’m on whichever side is saying that there is no place in state funded education for religion, it is ludicrously unfair that people of faith have a choice 30% more schools than people without faith, that successful faith schools are only successful because of backdoor selection, and there is no such thing as a secular school
In the U.K. Does that cover it? Oh, and LawrieMarlow is not a bigot.

Anyway. It’s all gone a bit Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Supreme Court here.

Anyone up for a reasoned discussion on why social and religious segregation of children may or may not be desirable for social cohesion, or whether it’s overall better for state schools to reflect their communities? Or even what the ECHR actually says?

Also @seaweedandmarchingbands
said several pages ago she was leaving because we're all so horrible and yet she's stayed in order to be further outraged. Seems a bit masochistic to me.

One of the things I like about and people like Lawrie who are part of it is that I’m pretty sure that in about half the threads where I encounter Lawrie we disagree, often quite fundamentally, but the debate remains reasoned and respectful (if sometimes heated) and it’s not carried into other threads. No halos, no horns, just discussion.

And her username is excellent (though I’m Team Nick).