To think faith schools are great and it’s only the admission cheats that make them unfair?

[Wondermule]

My second controversial post in a few days. I don’t need a hard hat at this point, I need a bunker and full ghillie suit. But here goes.

Inspired by a thread, where a poster happily shared that they lied about going to church to get their kids into a Catholic school, before denouncing the admission system as deeply unfair...

I would like to put to the good people of mumsnet that actually, admission by religion is a really good idea. And it is only the people that cheat the admission system that keep it unfair for others.

Religion is a great criteria for school admissions. It doesn’t indicate intelligence; it isn’t an indicator of wealth; it would keep sibling groups together; and the ethos and PSHE would be generally in keeping with the parents’ beliefs.

The reason why faith schools are ‘better’ are because of non-religious people with intelligent kids cheating the system to get their kids a place. This then perpetuates the cycle - the kids perform well, the school becomes more desirable, so more people cheat to get their kids in.

So aside from depriving genuine applicants of school places, they are contributing to a system that they denounce as unfair. Whereas if they stopped playing the system, schools would actually be more mixed in terms of demographics, more equal, and there wouldn’t a stampede for just a few of them.

Phew! Thoughts please?!

Secular liberalism is the only acceptable face for quite a few I think..
I think many don’t mix with genuinely religious people and there is mistrust, suspicion and quite a bit of condescension.

@Lockandtees

I still disagree that an in depth knowledge of Christianity is necessary to understand any science based subjects *@Ihatefish*. Just because some historical scientists were Christian it doesn’t mean we have to understand Christianity to understand them.

And where does Darwin fit into your narrative? Where do all of the worlds great current scientists of varied faiths and ethnicities fit in? It’s almost as though you’re claiming all science for Christianity.

Well I suppose if you want to be very narrow minded I can see how you could maintain that siloed way of thinking.

To understand the present or future of anything you have to understand it’s past. If you are teaching scientific method to someone surely it’s important in its critical analysis to see where it came from. Where it came from is not just from people who happened to have one faith it is about people whos life and society revolves around their faith. It shaped their thoughts and methods. The kind of false divisions we have between different areas of study would have been seen as completely nonsensical until modern times. I guess it’s the difference between the science student regurgitating or understanding. You might not need knowledge of the history of scientific knowledge to set fire to your tie with a Bunsen burner age 14 but to become a truest great scientist keen to advance science it would more than definitely help. Remember where science is now in 100 or 200 years it will probably be unrecognisable-they will probably laugh at our primitive techniques., today will be just another small paragraph in their current scientific perspective -will the lack of religious underpinning in today’s science be seen as completely irrelevant to the future scientists.

I think you are confusing knowledge of “facts” with understanding. But to develop the latter you undoubtedly need the former.

I don’t just think Christianity is the one true religion by the way (see my previous post) I just think it is the right religious framework to understand many fundamental concepts within Europe (again see my previous posts).

The Arabian contribution to the sciences from the Magi and astronomers from places like Baghdad is unquestionable. But I guess that’s just as invalid in your eyes. But anyone who understands religion will understand it doesn’t matter generally from a matter of ethics which religion it is. it’s just an important cultural necessity to understand a society to understand its primary religion. It is not a value judgement.

I really wish you could open your eyes beyond stem. If that is all education is you are championing the impoverishment of humanity.

The rational needs the energy of the creative and the guiding hand of morality.

Where Does Darwin fit in? Well the Victorian period really (assuming we are going for Charles). I am assuming you are using Darwin as an extremely inaccurate synonym for evolution (Common mistake in the pantheon of science).

Well, let’s take Christianity. Genesis 2 which is the much older text/oral tradition is about Adam and Eve is very much about the development of consciousness and shown in an evolutionary manner. Genesis 1 is actually fairly accurate when looked at chronology obviously it’s not in real time, but then no one ever professed It was an episode of 24! The Old Testament is very much a collection of myths from various cultures that largely seek to explain worldly phenomena in the context of the knowledge available at the time. But of course Christianity is mainly about the New Testament and the covenant. If you want to go further and look at Gnostic Christianity the New Testament god is a different one to the old.

So as well as being a Victorian I would say Darwin largely fitted in with the narrative of the Old Testament. Obviously it as the Darwin who coined this phrase but surely “survival of the fittest” has never been displayed in such a dramatic way as The Flood. In fact I’m starting to think it’s almost plagerism😂😂😂.

Is this thread still going???

LOL at the idea you need an in-depth study of Christianity to 'underpin' any subject at school. I have DC at Uni studying science subjects and they were kept out of RE at school. 🙄 Oh dear how did they ever manage?

They learnt Art & Music at school, no mention or need for religion.
They learnt History at school, 'I think' no mention of religion.
They learnt Math (including Pythagoras & Newton) at school, no mention or need for religion.
They went to Bletchley Park for a visit, no mention or need for religion.
They learnt Physics, Biology, Chemistry, no mention or need for religion.
They didn't learn Psychology, (it wasn't taught) so no need for religion.
They learnt Latin so there was mention of Roman Gods. 🤣

I could go on but I cant think of one thing that they learnt at school that needed religion. You want to learn about 'Christianity' in depth then its available at University.

By contrast my DC still have to debunk creationism & explain evolution to other students who had an in depth study of religion at school.

That’s ridiculous, I’m sorry.
Evolution is taught.
Your children sound wonderfully superior.

@Blackberrycream

That’s ridiculous, I’m sorry. Evolution is taught. Your children sound wonderfully superior.

I NEVER said evolution wasn't taught, try and actually read something before you comment on it.

@newstart1337

LOL at the idea you need an in-depth study of Christianity to 'underpin' any subject at school. I have DC at Uni studying science subjects and they were kept out of RE at school. 🙄 Oh dear how did they ever manage?

They learnt Art & Music at school, no mention or need for religion.
They learnt History at school, 'I think' no mention of religion.
They learnt Math (including Pythagoras & Newton) at school, no mention or need for religion.
They went to Bletchley Park for a visit, no mention or need for religion.
They learnt Physics, Biology, Chemistry, no mention or need for religion.
They didn't learn Psychology, (it wasn't taught) so no need for religion.
They learnt Latin so there was mention of Roman Gods. 🤣

I could go on but I cant think of one thing that they learnt at school that needed religion. You want to learn about 'Christianity' in depth then its available at University.

By contrast my DC still have to debunk creationism & explain evolution to other students who had an in depth study of religion at school.

Well I suspect (know)your child hasn’t got a full understanding and appreciation of those subjects.

Those who studied religion at school and having to have their creationalism debunked and evolution explained -well they obviously don’t understand religion very well.

Also the theory of evolution is still, well evolving but good on your child for putting these people right with their own definitive view on life that if at some point will be seen as such primitive understanding in its own right. Unless of course you think we have reached the zenith of understanding, in which case your child might as well save the university fees I guess.

Well done though for excluding your child from part of the curriculum so that you can enforce your own belief system on them (looking forward to the sadly predictable and BS response how it was their choice).

My Catholic DD goes to a Catholic school and its a fantastic school. I don’t understand wanting to send your child to a school where you don’t agree with the beliefs? I wouldn’t send DD to a Muslim school.

@newstart1337
You implied that there are students from religious schools who don’t understand evolutionary theory.
It sounds like you dc are the ones who need educating. Many well known contemporary and historical scientists have a religious faith. Darwin himself did not see his views as incompatible.

@newstart1337
It sounds like they may have an inherited chip on their shoulder. Good job there..

@Buccanarab

I think Superintendent Chalmers said it best.

"A prayer! A prayer in a public school! God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion!"

Exactly that.

Faith schools should not be allowed, let alone state funded

[quote Blackberrycream]@newstart1337
You implied that there are students from religious schools who don’t understand evolutionary theory.
It sounds like you dc are the ones who need educating. Many well known contemporary and historical scientists have a religious faith. Darwin himself did not see his views as incompatible.[/quote]
People like newstart are blinded by their deification of science, excluding everything apart from their chosen god, ridiculing others out of insecurity of their own beliefs, indoctrination of their young from an early age, refusing to let their children participate in anything which offers an alternative belief system to their own. Never failing to ignore the irony. Fanaticism never dies it just changes it’s robes (or lab coat).

@Ihatefish
That’s the thing I find quite strange. Their is such a lack of tolerance.

There. Aargh

I suspect (know) your child hasn’t got a full understanding and appreciation of those subjects From someone who thinks the (fairly accurate) Bible Genesis should be taught as an explanation for the "development of consciousness", I would suggest your academic knowledge is fairly limited, possibly because you have an in depth knowledge of religion.

so that you can enforce your own belief system on them Fortunately I dont have a 'belief system', to force upon my children, not something that can be said of others ...

I don’t understand wanting to send your child to a school where you don’t agree with the beliefs? I dont understand why anyone would send their child to school to learn 'beliefs', I want everyone to learn knowledge and truths.

You implied that there are students from religious schools who don’t understand evolutionary theory. Pretty much because they disagree with it. Usually because their religious beliefs are reinforced by the schools in-depth religious teachings.

It sounds like they may have an inherited chip on their shoulder. Good job there You know what the Bible teaches about 'chips' on your shoulder.

People like newstart are blinded by their deification of science, excluding everything apart from their chosen god
As opposed to ... you know ... people who actually deify their chosen god!

Their is such a lack of tolerance Here is an idea, rather than teaching children about intolerant religions, how about we teach them actual knowledge? #bekind

I am not really convinced that @ihatefish knows much about modern science or science education. Whilst the history of science is undoubtedly interesting, you don't actually need to know it to know science. That's why quite a lot of it isn't taught within sciences.

The bits of history of science that are taught are the bits that were eureka moments or experiments that elegantly demonstrate something - like Rutherford's gold foil experiment demonstrating that atoms are most empty space.

Plenty of science is taught without the historical context and certainly without reference to religion. Much of the history of science is being led down blind alleys by weird religious beliefs. Whilst interesting, they don't build an understanding of our current understanding of the world.

Ihatefish says
The rational needs the energy of the creative and the guiding hand of morality.

Morality isn't the preserve of religion. It is quite possible to be moral without being driven by being judged by a god or following a divine text. Nor is creativity.

I loved this bit:
Most of all try understanding psychology without understanding Jung try understanding Jung without understanding Gnosticism and the outflow from the kabbalistic Christianity of the 15th-17th century.
I have a degree in Psychology and we didn't cover Jung. Probably because the modern science of Psychology is experimental and evidence based. Psychology is a subject that does take a somewhat historical approach to teaching - looking at how studies how studies have enabled theories to be refined, but that really doesn't mean starting with Gnosticism.

[quote Lockandtees]@Ihatefish the more you post the more I think you don’t understand about modern science.

Your views about morality are actually quite worrying. It suggests that you think morals are the preserve of religion. You know there are animals in the wild who are able to demonstrate morals. Look at any studies of the great apes. I’m pretty sure they haven’t been reading your bible.

And the thing with creationism is that it is still being taught in schools as more than just a nice story. And there are still schools that don’t properly teach evolution or the Big Bang theory.[/quote]
Well it didn’t take many posts from you to ascertain you don’t understand the English Language lol. I’m sure you DC “learnt” a lot in science😂. It would appear from your answers that your comprehension skills are on a pretty similar level.

For example, I’m sure that some animals do have morals, taking this even further I’m sure you do too. The fact is though many of our values and ethics today are based on Christianity, there being no objective abosute there needs to be some sort of framework.

I actually have a pretty good grasp of science esp in the area of quantum physics. I’m surprised as someone who values science so much that you don’t seem to back any of your claims about me with evidence.

The more you post, the more I suspect you have no understanding of humanity and life beyond the bare mechanics and what a poor existence that creates.

when it comes to explaining Christianity's impact on our social history

I don't want (and it's not appropriate) for my children to be brainwashed with highly distorted and biased opinions about how Christianity has impacted our 'social history'. I'll stick to them learning about religion itself, thanks

all religions largely offer the same message just with different stories and rituals

I think this is broadly the case too. And the message is overall a good one

@turquoisewaters

when it comes to explaining Christianity's impact on our social history

I don't want (and it's not appropriate) for my children to be brainwashed with highly distorted and biased opinions about how Christianity has impacted our 'social history'. I'll stick to them learning about religion itself, thanks

I’m genuinely intrigued how you think separation of these things is possible if you have any understanding of either. Can you please explain how you understand the development of the U.K., which, over the last, say, 1500 years took place within a Christian framework, without understanding the Christian framework.

If faith schools want to dictate their entrance by religious criteria then they should not be funded by the country. They are welcome to fund by fees or via their place of worship or religious group but a child not of that religion should not be at a disadvantage. Eg if there are 2 schools in an area, both. Religious, one Catholic, one cofe, both have religious criteria how is that fair!

1500 years took place within a Christian framework, without understanding the Christian framework

No, I absolutely think children need to be taught about the Christian framework

The appropriate knowledge to impart on children about religion is purely an understanding of how it has impacted social and political history.

I was replying to a suggestion that religion itself mustn't be taught at any school and that the only thing that kids should to learn is someone's likely very non-neutral ideas about how religion has impacted the world socially and politically.

rather than teaching children about intolerant religions, how about we teach them actual knowledge? #bekind

First, most religions are not intolerant

Second, what is 'actual knowledge'? Most of what children are taught is subject to debate

#bekind----> what does this mean? A lot of people don't agree with this concept either