Religious schools discriminating against atheists

[MNersanonymous]

Dh and I are just having a discussion about this. The best state schools in our area are all religious and we, as atheists, feel discriminated against.

Could we take action against our local council under the religious discrimination legislation?!

Just curious really.

The reasons some have put forward for faith schools being better schools have been knocked down. So what does make faith schools better? I asked ages ago and no one answered! Genuinely interested in what you think makes faith schools better.

onebat are you being a debate dilletante

onebat- In terms of my own experience I must disagree. There are quite a few non religious places and people are very poor, generationally.

stuffit, sorry, which reasons? the self-selectiveness? That was in the news only very recently, as Slur says.

so my answer to the question of why (some) faith schools perform well is:
firstly, churchgoers tend not to have very severe and generational social problems.
secondly, that church schools have recently been found to frequently favour the middle class.

Why am I dilettante?

Mrs R "There are quite a few non religious places and people are very poor, generationally." I'm a bit confused MrsR, sorry, probably me.

Harpsi,
"practising discrimination " ?
But that works both ways. Maybe the truth is that catholics/coe are also being discriminated against.
We are supposed to live in a society that allows for all races, religions, nationalities etc, right ?

Madamez, that is well offensive to anyone who has religious beliefs.

onebat:"when one isn't of a particular religion, but pays for that religion's schools, it is rather galling"

and as I said before, why are you having a go at catholic schools, or Coe schools.
What about the fact that we :

"Taxpayers money is spent on Mosques and synagogues aswell, you know"
as I posted earlier, but that everyone has ignored that comment.

Sorry one bat I wrote that in a rush.
What I wanted to point out was that there are local families with generational social and financial problems in lots of areas where religious schools thrive and also that many religious schools take a certain amount of children with non-religious/other religious beliefs.
Basically, I disagreed with your argument

We are supposed to live in a society that allows for all races, religions, nationalities etc, right ?

yes oblomov, all religions are very welcome to come to state school for a non-religious education, and they may practise their faith out of school hours.

Tolerance does not mean that we are required to pay for them to indoctrinate children. If they want to do that, they can pay for it themselves.

do you mean that the families with social problems attend those thriving church schools MrsR?

I don't think the statistics back that up - ie. state schools have a far greater proportion of 'needy' pupils - but I would have to check.

I wonder why they are 'the best state schools' as OP put it.

A school does not make a child amazing and intelligent and a big success in life. They support the child's developmnet, but the parents and home is what it's all about.

Religions have the right by law to have their own schools by law for as long as they want that to be the case. These schools aim to build on and continue the faith and ethos present in the childs home. I have no idea why someone who does not have this faith and ethos in their home would want their child to attend a religious school. I certainly wouldn't

"Taxpayers money is spent on Mosques and synagogues aswell, you know"

Oblomov, you are being disingenuous again. Yes, there is a small amount of state subsidy available in very specific circumstances for places of prayer, but these are usually connected with outreach to ethnic minorities. ie, the motive is social, not religious.

And I could, in theory, attend such a mosque or synagogue, should I desire to do so, whereas my child cannot attend religious school blah blah.

"firstly, churchgoers tend not to have very severe and generational social problems.
secondly, that church schools have recently been found to frequently favour the middle class."

[hmmm] Round my way the only differentiator is the faith - which covers all walks of life - poor and rich, generational social problems and those in poverty. Are you saying therefore that people who live out a faith have a more defined moral code?

I was on a great thread about The Uk being a christian country. I still think it is considered to be.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk?topicid=1372&threadid=451394#9130775
Thus I don't have a problem with faith schools being part of our life in the UK.
I used to teach in a school in Egypt and I like the fact that it is considered to be a muslim country.

The one in my area was the one I had in mind, yes onebat.
It is probably unusual in that church schools do generally have a wealthier intake and I see them infiltrating the local church now that it has done so well

onebat, but you wouldn't want your child to go there anyway.
You only resent the fact that it is the best.

"Are you saying therefore that people who live out a faith have a more defined moral code?"

Good grief no, PotPourri. I am suggesting that church schools sometimes perform better because their selection criteria tends to limit the number of severely-disadvantaged children on their roll.

no, oblomov I resent the fact that I PAY FOR IT.

Potpourri - I have no "faith", but am culturally a Christian. I like a lot of what the Christian church does and what it teaches. I also think that Christianity is such a huge element in our cultural history that I would be happy for it to be given emphasis in any school to which I sent my child.

What I don't like is the fact that church schools are able to select by their own criteria simply because they are church schools.

I'll say it again, round my way the faith is the criteria, and I can assure you that "severely-disadvantaged children" who meet that criteria are included and attend in the same way as the middle classes that you refer to.

I think the issue you must be refering to is where people decide that a 'good' school is the be all and end all, attend church a couple of times and put their child's name down to go to that school. It's dishonest, and quite frankly incomprehensible to me - why you would want your child attending e.g. a catholic school, when you are not a catholic, I just don't get it!

actually Oblomov, that's not true.

What I really resent is that, in a world of appalling and bloody religious division, four year olds are divided from their compatriots on the basis of which God, if any, the parents of each worships.

onebat:
"churchgoers tend not to have very severe and generational social problems".

So they are more..... 'sorted', 'stable', focused on supporting their childrens needs - those kind of things ????

So we would all like the other parents in our childrens class to be like that, right ?

I'd quite like it is ds went to the mumsnet school - atleast the parents care there

We can't punish them for the fact that , they they take a real interest in their chiolds schooling.

But the church school's demographic is SELF-SELECTING, Pot Pourri.

I'm sure you would be very welcoming. But the fact is that SEVERELY DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN TEND NOT TO ATTEND CHURCH, so by default will not meet your bloomin criteria.

Sheesh.

Imagine the scraps at the governors' meetings!

onebatmother, I think you are wrong on this.
All types od people attend church, including the severely disadvantaged

Oblomov: "So they are more..... 'sorted', 'stable', focused on supporting their childrens needs - those kind of things ????

So we would all like the other parents in our childrens class to be like that, right ?"

yes I would. But not at the expense of the children of parents who for whatever reason, are not 'sorted'.

What is your point though? I mention the social demographic of church-going simply to give one reason why church schools sometimes perform well in comparison to other local schools..