Cant get DC into a faith school

[angelfireabbey]

I know this is possibly the wrong place because it seems the whole of MN is atheist or totally secular. However, there is a lot of discussion by MNers here about getting intofaith schools ( often without any faith because they are good schools).

I am a little bit fed up with it. I take my faith seriously. I take my DC to church and we believe. I wanted my DC to have a faith education. There are only two faith schools where I live. They are oversubscribed by parents who seem to have suddenly aquired a need to attend church to get a vicars signiture.

I had my pastors signiture but we didnt get a place. So instead my DC is stuck in a state school where the teachers and other children laugh and say that they have " imaginary friends" ( or simply they are nutters!) and that they believe in fairly stories etc. Sound familiar MN parents? ( I bet you wouldnt say it if someone were of say Jewish or Muslim faith though would you?). It is offensive you know.

They have an atheist teacher who clearly knows next to nothing about Christianity.

I would settle for any faith school although there are no others ( of any faith ) within 40 miles of us.

So how do I get into one? I have asked my church community. I know they are doing their best and we are praying hard but I am sure some savvy non religious types must know more here. So I am asking.
I see thread on thread where parents are scamming the system.So how does a genuine person get in?

Thanks.

vdb only one in six? As a Dutch person, I suspect some of them were fibbing about their beliefs.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had his doubts too and his predecessor acknowledges that, as a country, we've moved on.

I think what he said is an honest statement that many Christians would echo. I sometimes feel that atheists when arguing with Christians especially on MN, make out we are a brainwashed bunch of idiots who have blindly accepted some dogma our parents and school instilled in us without questioning any of it. The Christians I know have come from a great variety of backgrounds including atheist,nominal christian and other faiths altogether, and obviously those who have had a Christian upbringing. But I know that for the vast majority it has been a thought through decision and that most of them have had moments where they have wondered whether they have got it wrong. The great thing is, in the words of the archbishop, that.....

‘It is not about feelings, it is about the fact that God is faithful and the extraordinary thing about being a Christian is that God is faithful when we are not.”

I am thankful for the archbishops honesty, but sad when his comments are used to make out he is not a believer.
I would also hope that atheists have moments when they wonder whether they might have got things wrong and re-evaluate the 'evidence' occasionally.

Surely there is no "evidence" to re-evaluate, though, vdb?

Belief is just belief, it's not based on evidence.

"I would also hope that atheists have moments when they wonder whether they might have got things wrong and re-evaluate the 'evidence' occasionally."

Of course I will- when there is any evidence to reevaluate.

The only "evidence" I accept is peer reviewed.

None of the religions have managed to invent a supreme being who is very good at that.

That's sort of the point of the scientic approach many atheists take. Which theory best fits the evidence? As new evidence emerges, does that theirs continue to work, or is a rethink needed?

There was an interesting discussion on another thread that crystallised it for me. A Christian (who was a biblical literalist, so not representative) was arguing from the viewpoint that the evidence needed to be understood only in a way that fit the theory (in her case, a literal reading of the post-Reformation Protestant bible). For me, that's the wrong way around and I approach it the other way - here is the evidence. What theory best fits it? As new evidence comes to light, does that theory still work?

But I'm having a vicar round tomorrow night. Maybe she'll have something new for me.

I know this is a very old argument,but some things are understood because we can see and feel the effect they have on the world. Such as wind. The Holy Spirit is described as a wind and actually if you talk to people whose lives have been turned around in seconds by God,it is really hard to argue with.I know that sceptics will always have alternative explanations for everything but it really is very hard to explain away. Here are a couple of testimonys but there are so so many more.In fact every believer has a story but some are more dramatic because the change has been more obvious. I just find stories like these unexplainable if God does not exist. Someone like Nicky Cruz would have needed years of therapy to recover from his childhood in human terms and the english professor was reading the Bible to prove what a waste of space it was. How do you explain these changes in human terms? Particularly regarding people like these two who were anti God and not looking for Him?

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html?start=1

vdb, it's a little patronising to suggest that people who don't believe in god or gods have never spoken to anyone who does about their faith - and may not have their own background in faith - that they have considered as part of their evaluation of all the availalbe evidence.

Religion can provide an attractive fulfilment for some of our basic psychological needs - and we won't always be aware of those needs. That it's an attractive response to some of the things our brain is looking for doesn't make any religion either true or untrue - it's simply an explanation for why people, particularly those who are troubled, are drawn to religion just as they are similarly drawn to other forms of spirituality or quite significant lifestyle changes after a trauma.

Jassy it is also just a little bit patronising to suggest that the reason people have faith is to fulfil basic psychological needs. What those testimonies were meant to illustrate is that whilst there are lots of ordinary people going about their lives with a quiet faith that they came to over a matter of time, there are many people who had extraordinary conversion experiences that seem to defy logic.They are not looking for God,they do not believe in him at all and yet still their lives are turned upside down by Him.
I object to Christianity being seen as some sort of 'emotional crutch'. My husband had to choose between his faith and his family.That is a pretty tough decision and you have to be pretty sure your faith is not a fairy story if choosing it means not seeing your parents again. For thousands of people across the world,becoming a Christian is punishable by imprisionment and sometimes death, and yet this does not stop them believing.How is that an 'attractive fulfilment of their basic psychological needs'

There are some interesting (and faith-neutral) studies about psychological needs and interplays with religion - worth reading and in no way patronising to suggest this as a potential explanation to your 'there is no other explanation' scenarios. Saying that something meets a psychological need doesn't mean it's not real or true - and I've had people of faith say to me that God gave us these needs, if different strengths in different people, for people to be able to find their way to him. It's a theory I don't agree with but it's a theory nonetheless.

I think it's quite useful to bear in mind the distinction between 'religion' and 'Christianity', and to bear in mind that psychological need is fairly basic to human existence rather than the derogatory 'emotional crutch' you have used. And there is plenty of evidence of peoe fulfilling those needs in a way that comes at significant cost to them in other ways.

You talk exclusively about Christianity in your post. People also turn to other faiths in the way you are describing for Christianity, with the same personal ramifications. What's your theory for why they do that, if not guided by a different deity?

I am not sure what this debate has to do with Faith School admissions though. Obviously if you have had a road to Damascus religious experience you will not stand much chance of getting your child into an oversubscribed faith school. You will not have got the baptism certificate before six months, attended the right church for however many years, been on the good side of the priest / vicar because you can be relied on to do the cleaning and flowers etc etc. In fact the road to Damascus you may have been on is the one where you realise that flexing the faith you haven't thought deeply about for several years might just get your child a place at a good school....... And given in some areas the alternative is no place in a local school who can blame people for being forced into hypocrisy.

You're right, we're down a very diverting rabbit hole.

I agree - if the state is going to allow a system that inconsistently elevates certain faiths over others and none in fulfilling a 'universal' provision of education, I think parental hypocrisy is one of the lesser evils.

Poisonwood I think the OP defected some time ago so the thread is just being used to go in whatever direction the mood takes us. For what it's worth,I do not agree with state run schools having an eligibility criteria that prioritises kids from Christian families at all. Our local c of e primary doesn't but that may be because it is voluntary controlled not 'aided'. I think if it is the local school then local kids should be equally entitled to attend,probably based on distance. As a Christian,I fail to see why any Christian school would want the school to be filled with Christian kids.
Jassy I do accept what you say as a 'potential explanation' and I think there are probably quite a few people who embrace a faith as they think it will improve their life in some way.And I accept the psychological need to feel loved and accepted and validated etc. The reality for me though is that I often think my life would be easier if I was not a Christian. Jesus Christ set very high standards of how we should love and care about others and often the least loveable people.He also taught us to forgive again and again. He wants us to live totally unselfish lives. This is a daily struggle for me.How I spend my time,how I spend my money,how I react to unkindness from others, how I raise my children.
I am trying to think of an example and I guess one that springs to mind is at school.We have a 'looked after' child at school who has massive behavioural issues,attacks kids and teachers,very verbally agressive but very vulnerable. I have to teach my kids to love and care about her and that can put them in the firing line.I don't see an alternative. I know parents who tell their kids to avoid her.I know parents who tell their kids to fight back. She seldom gets invited to parties and I know that many of the kids deliberately 'push the wrong buttons' to set her off and get her into trouble. I sometimes worry that I am setting my kids up for a life like mine where many of the friends I spend time with are extremely hard work and troubled.But as a Christian I don't see an alternative as we are told to LOVE and that has to be unconditional, even if it puts us in uncomfortable places. I am not saying that non christians do not behave like this, I have some really really lovely friends who are not Christians, but as a general rule I don't think people live with those expectations. For most people,if you took a friend out to the cinema and she physically assaulted you at the end because she thought you were deliberately coughing on her, you would end the friendship and move on.Not an option for me.Who will love and support these people if I do not?

Not that I wasn't enjoying the debate :-) it is just that matters of genuine faith and belief, and the intellectual thinking around that, seem to have so little relationship to the, frankly, tribal and prejudiced behaviour I have seen manifested in those, like op who seek the privilege of priority in Faith Schools admissions.

As you say vdb it isn't very Christian, or at least not the Christianity I was educated about. To be honest that disconnect generally, between Christian teachings as I understand them, a message of inclusive love, and the behaviour of some "Christians", especially towards those who are different through gender, disability, sexuality, puts me off the established churches.

I would be alarmed at the idea of a parent putting their children "in the firing line" because they believe it's what a Christian should do.

If a child is physically violent and has the potential to harm other children, a mainstream school may not be the right school for her. It is the job of the adults in school, not the children, to provide the right care for this child.

By all means teach your children to be understanding of her needs, but is it really the right thing to teach them to "love and care for" a child who they may find very difficult to love and care for? It may fit with your religious beliefs, but is it the right thing for the child? It seems a very adult concept to put on young shoulders.

And actually amongst those who have genuinely though through their lack of faith I have usually found they also live by a strong, conscious, moral and ethical framework that they have also thought through, and want children to be equipped with the skills and knowledge, including of Christianity, to do so themselves. It is the unthinking and prejudiced that make the world a more difficult place especially for those who are different, whether they have faith or not, and sadly the school gate, faith or not, has been one of the most difficult environments for competitive, exclusive and unthinking behaviour I have ever encountered...........

Suburban I take your point that a child who is physically violent needs the right sort of support but that does not mean that you cannot guide your own children in their behaviour towards them. In Reception to Year 3 my DD shared a class with a child who was later diagnosed ADHD. I remember the other parents were full of theories why she was how she was, "no love at home" was one that gained currency though I saw none of that in the worried looking mother or well behaved brother. My DD took a fair bit of the consequences, coming home with a footmark on her school dress, not turning up in the playground at going home time because she had been told I wasn't coming and she was in late club. However faith or not it was clear there was a problem and so whilst I cuddled and sympathised when she was upset I still tried to communicate that there was a reason for the behaviour, and it was not fair to exclude her because of it. Perhaps easier for my DDS to understand and empathise because they themselves are Dyslexic and got their fair share of hurtful unthinking schoolground comments. Sometimes think that I made my girls targets because I taught them to look beyond people's behaviour towards them and understand it was often a sign of their own unhappiness rather than to join in the games of exclusion manipulated by the alpha girls, but I am also proud that they have grown up thoughtful and with empathy.

O I do hate the suggestion that Christians automatically have a stronger moral and ethical framework than atheists! It makes me too cross to want to continue the discussion.

Haklyt To be fair I don't think vfb is arguing that, since presumably at a CofE school some of the people excluding and behaving with a lack of empathy, are Christians. She is talking about her own faith and behaviour and I don't think many people of faith or no faith would match that standard of altruism, without seemingly any limits, or even could if they wanted to. I know that many people who do act like that, indeed are in Africa right now risking their lives combatting the Ebola outbreak, are humanitarian, rather than doing it for reasons of faith.

And I hope I have put the argument that having a strong moral framework is something that tends to arise in those who have given the matter thought, whether it is within a context of atheism or faith.

Vdb, well done for taking people under your wing, but that is a humanist (with a small 'h') response that is common to many people, religious or otherwise. It is about treating people as we would want to be treated.

Your DCs will develop skills that will be useful, valued and respected in life, as well as many caring professions. However they will be more useful if they don't form a blinkered view of them as exclusively Christian traits, or even traits that are common to the majority of Christians.

Unfortunately many parents choose VA schools with restrictive admissions precisely because they have fewer of the sort of children you describe.

Hakluyt I know we have clashed on this one before now. There is no 'automatic' about it. I quite clearly stated that I have very kind,considerate ,moral friends who are not Christians. What I am saying is that if you claim to follow Jesus and his teachings you are obligated to act in certain ways in certain situations which other people may not feel obligated to do. Obviously Christians fail to live like this on a daily basis and many people without belief live moral lives without feeling obligated by their faith,but the above exchange is an interesting one as Surburban Rhondas response would be the standard response of most parents and I don't judge her for that because I do worry about my kids.However,I think the principle about understanding that there will be a reason why the child is behaving like that and caring for them anyway whether or not you receive anything positive back from that is an important one. Unconditional love for others is something many Christians fail at and many non-Christians might be good at,but people I discuss this with from a non faith background often just do not 'get' why I would spend time with people that I find hard to 'like' . Poisonwoodlife illustrates your point perfectly Hak that it is not just Christians who would teach their children that way but you must surely admit it is somewhat 'counter cultural'?