Any agnostics/atheists send their child(ren) to a faith school? How do you handle the inevitable discrepencies between home/school beliefs?

[frenchtoast]

Like this: DS (4) at 4am this morning: "Mum, do you know why a robin's tummy is red? To remind us of Jesus' blood." Mum: "Ah, right, yes that's what some people believe. And other people believe different things. What do you think?"

DS goes to this school because it is a good school, we like their flexible attendance philosophy for reception, it's small, it's two minutes' walk away (and the only school within walking distance) and he knows almost all the children - so given that nothing's ideal, a pretty good option.

And because it's a Church-aided rather than full-on faith school, I didn't think it would be too full-on, Christianity-wise; I was told that many faiths would be learned about. But clearly one is taught as THE faith.

I want DS to know about all these beliefs and make up his own mind about what he believes: he doesn't have to believe the same as me or school. But I'm a bit uncomfortable about four-year-olds being taught that a robin's tummy is red to remind us of Jesus' blood.

Any reflections? TIA.

no the whole point SGB is that good kind people - no matter what they believe are courtious of others belief systems. you are just rude

UQD, i see your point and i agre with it - which is why SL couldn't possibly win with the science argument - i agree totally that science cannot prove or disprove there is a god.

As neither of us will move from our standpoint on the specific argument of whether god exists, to debate it would be futile.

Of course science cannot prove that there is no god.

However, the basic difference between scientific theories and religious or faith beliefs, is that in science, a theory is offered, and people try and find counter-examples, or ways in which the theory is weak, fallible, or incomplete. Much of the business of being a scientist is testing theories, critically, and trying to improve on them, or disprove them.

In contrast, in all the major religions, the believer is supposed to accept what's taught, not challenge. It's an opposite way of thinking about the world.

In my opinion, there are many scientific discoveries in the last few centuries which strongly suggest, to me, that the bible and other religious books were wrong and highly fallible. To the extent that they cannot be trusted, at all, as a basis for any sort of belief, given what we now know about the world in general.

And, especially for me, a knowledge of linguistics and translation, and the difficulties, or impossibility, of accurately understanding the exact detail of a text written in a different language in a different time in a different culture, makes it impossible, for me, to be able to take anything in the bible as necessarily correct or valid.
(my phd was primarily about translation and understanding across languages and cultures, and comparative linguistics, so this issue is very important for me).

That is why many atheists say that yes there is a huge difference in a religious belief or a scientific belief. Even though some scientists, or atheists, can seem to be "just" being as dogmatic in their own way as people with a strong religious belief. The scientific, rational, atheist position is looking at what evidence and knowledge we do have, in the current world, not 2000 years ago, and using that to build a "best fit" hypothesis of how the world is. And if you do that, it's rather hard to also adhere to standard Christianity.

But religion and science are asking/answering different questions, so they're not competing alternatives in that sense.

Science asks: How does the world work? How does life come about?
Religion asks: What is the purpose and meaning of life?

Obviously there may sometimes be some overlap between these questions, particularly in the past when there was insufficient scientific understanding to answer basic questions about how the world works. And even now there seem to be fundamentalist religious types who are determined to make their religion answer questions that properly belong to science.

But it is perfectly possible for the two world-views to co-exist. The Catholic church has no problem with evolution as a scientific explanation for how living creatures came to be. But evolution doesn't provide us with answers to questions about the purpose of our lives, or how we should live them.

haven't read the whole thread. but isn't it human nature to make shit up to make life a bit easier. whether it is jesus's blood, an evolutionary blip, i do think you are all getting over excited.

when your children read peter rabbit do you burn the books infront of their wee innocent eyes and shout at them 'of course fecking rabbits don't wear waistcoats and have lettuce related adventures - they are vermin here come see some pictures of real rabbits dying of mixamytosis'.

chill out.

To me those two separate questions, for science and religion, are actually highly interrelated.

Most mainstream religion does expect followers to adhere, at least to some degree, to a set of doctrines, and/or a written text, which was set down many centuries ago. If things we know, or think likely, from modern scientific enquiry, suggest that these doctrines and texts shouldn't be taken seriously, then than does impact on whether we are going to use them as a basis for our morality or understanding about the world.

If they were just nice (or not so nice) moral tales which we could dip in and out of as we felt like, and if all religion were actually presented to children like that, then that wouldn't upset the atheists much, I suspect, when their children were being read these stories. Just as not many people object to Aesop's fables being read to their children. It's the fact that many people do take these texts far more seriously than that, and children pick up on this, that is a problem for some of us.

I agree with you, frogs, in my opinion it possible for the two world-views to co-exist and those are my beliefs. I also respect those beliefs of UD and Fennel who make excellent and compelling arguments for theirs.

What I cannot respect - and what I in fact find deeply offensive - are the views of the likes of solidgoldbrass who shows extraordinary contempt for anyone with faith. I understand (I think) sgb's arguments as to why she does not believe in God and those are perfectly clear.

What I simply cannot understand is why every word, phrase and sentence appears to be crafted with the intent to offend. Custardo has tried in a consistently measured way to point out the lack of courtesy involved with no effect.

Does sgb behave in this way in RL? I have no idea. I do know that I have never come across such offensive crap in RL and cannot believe that anyone would behave in such a way.

Custy: so is everyone who claims any kind of 'faith' be treated with equal courtesy on a public debating forum, whether that faith is in one or more of the major myth systems, in little green men on mars, in pixies in the woods, or that the Greek, ROman or Norse pantheon are every bit as real and valid as the Islamic, Christian, Hindu and Jewish fictional superbeings?
The rational point of view is: why should be take some superstitions more seriously than others? Most have their merits as myth and learning about them from a cultural/historical viewpoint is no bad thing. But being asked to take any of them as facts s a step too far. We don;t care if you do believe there is a poltergeist living in your kitchen sink and that's why so much crockery gets broken. We would care if you are beating up your DC for denying the existence of the poltergiest, or running into other people's houses to smash their crockery in order to demonstrate the thing's existence.

I can't speak for Custy but for myself, I do try to treat everyone with faith/beliefs/viewpoints with courtesy.

I wouldn't dream of asking anyone to take my views as facts. And like you I don't care if someone believes in the poltergeist. And like you I would care if someone was being beat up/smashing crockery about it.

And of course everyone is entitled to their opinions and different beliefs and to oppose those offered by others. And it is fine to say: well I believe that is rubbish.

What I am saying is that there is simply no need to be so deliberately offensive about it. To you it is a load of bollocks but to someone else it is an incredibly personal, spiritual issue that is the core of their belief system which you are shitting all over. There is absolutely no need for this casual use of the "superstition", "irrational loon", "imaginery friend" type language in making your point.

The atheist problem with the argument that religious belief is "an incredibly personal, spiritual issue that is the core of their belief", is that this is being presented to our children, in mainstream schools (whether they are officially religious or not) across the UK. That's what started this thread.

If it's a personal spiritual issue, core-of-being, fine. Keep it that way. And keep it out of schools.

Having this taught and presented as normal, mainstream, and important, to children in their everyday schools, is exactly what is setting it up for the vitriol and criticism.

Christianity was an incredibly personal spiritual belief that was the core of my being too, at one point. Which is one reason I don't want my children having it as that from the start. If they feel like that as teenagers or adults I'll have some respect for their views, just as I would if they formed what I considered dubious relationships.

But I found it traumatic dumping something that had been at the core of my being, because I'd been taught it as the truth from childhood by people I respected. That's why I want my children to not be sucked in at this young age, even if they could extricate themselves later on. I want them to start off with a clear view of the world, and decide on their belief system when they know the options, not be taught what it should be before they can see the alternatives.

So agree with Fennel on this. If it's such a personal, intimate, core-belief thing, that's fine - but then why on earth is it being spouted as fact by the very same people who are supposed to be teaching children real facts, like why things float and how to do an experiment with a control and how to do historical research? They are taught to back up their points with evidence and observe experiments and record their results and all that (at least I bloody well hope they still are). But "God loves you" - you just have to believe that because it says so in this 2,000 year-old book.

Sorry, I fear I went off on a tangent of my own. In terms of the last posts by Fennel and Snowleopard, I understand your arguments completely.

The point I was trying to make - not related to the OP but to some of posts on this thread - was in relation to the way in which those arguments are expressed by some posters and how unnecessary (and counterproductive) it is to be deliberately offensive about faith.

Message withdrawn

I disagree, Pruners. It is possible to have a discussion like this one and remain courteous. A number of the posters on this thread have demonstrated that.

The way in which others (on MN but never in my RL experience) refer to faith or the faithful are unnecessarily inflammatory.

And what I find so frustrating about threads like this is that they invariably blur the issues ...

In my opinion there is absolutely no point in people (in this context at least - quite interesting in others!) debating different belief systems because you are unlikely to convert the others but there is a very worthwhile discussion to be had on, say, faith schools where - with good reasoned arguments such as those like you and Fennel and UQD have provided - you may well find that you could convert the opinions of others. Quite a lot of the faithful don't agree with state funded faith schools.

But it always ends up in this truly offensive mudslinging which is totally unnecessary and usually ends up (with me at least) thinking that perhaps there is a case for faith schools because there is so much extraordinary intolerance out there!

Completely agree Fennel, Snowleopard and UQD.

On the science and religion thing merrily co-existing thing I thing the point is that there are many, many occasions where they actively conflict e.g.

reproductive biology vs the immaculate conception

Evolution vs God created the world in 7 days.

But 5 candles, most mainstream christians don't believe that the world was created in 7 days, they're happy to regard that as a metaphor. And surely the point about the Virgin Birth is that it contradicts normal biology? Though I think again some mainstream christians would be happy to regard that as at least partly metaphorical as well.

So if these things are not considered any more real by Christians than I view fairies why is it still the basis for selecting and excluding children and why do these ideas along with Noah's ark and all the rest of it presented to children as fact??

Message withdrawn

"If it's a personal spiritual issue, core-of-being, fine. Keep it that way. And keep it out of schools. " Fennel

i absolutely agree.religeon shouldn't be in schools. I wish where there is a choice that people would take their non dom kids out of the religous schools and have the courage of their convictions, however as i have said previously, people falsify addresses, baptise children lie and cheat their way into faith schools becuase often times they have better results ( not becuase jesus favours the faithful!) i suspect this is becuase of greater parental involvement. I maintain that were those parents through whatever measure involved in their local non dom schools that maybe - maybe things would improve at those schools, but its a risk no one is willing to take en masse with their childrens education.

so yes i agree no religeon in schools. this like so many other subjects taught in school ( force fed mass parentsing by govt proxy...another issue )should be taught by parents.

good kind people - no matter what they believe are courtious of others belief systems. some on this thread are just rude regarding a personal spiritual issue, core-of-being to many people. This -i think is my main point of debate..thus far!

I think that would be fair enough if there was a priority system for children from atheist or agnostic families at the non-church schools. But there isn't, and as all schools are funded from the same tax payers pot, many people feel that they should not be excluded from any of them. Plus the fact that some of us have actively chosen not to send their children to church schools, and then still get the religious stuff. Let alone those who do not have the choice. It is very annoying, especially as the number of church going families continues to drop, and more church schools are still being built (and yes I know the government likes the because of the extra financial contribution, but it still should not be happening).

I agree about the rudeness, but I think that is a personal style issue, and not wholly about the discussion in hand.

Pruners is right, as a non-religious person one should be able to go through life not allowing "daft stuff other people believe" to influence one's own life. Usually this works, just by ignoring it. And then you get the faith school thing. And you can't ignore it any more.

Who was it said "One cannot argue someone out of a position they have not argued themselves into in the first place?" Pretty much sums up all the atheist vs. bleever arguments I have read on Tinternet.

I agree that it's not good that some parents lie or start church going etc to get their kids into a good church school when they're not religious but the OP is talking about sending her kids to the school nearest her which is also the only school within walking distance (and proximity is still an important entry requirement for faith schools). While I personally would not send my children to a faith school I have total sympathy with parents who want to send their kids to their nearest school (which just happens to be a faith school).

Have read bit of this thread, but not all, but why can't you just ignore most of it? Most of us brought up in the 60s and 70s went to C of E schools, I would imagine, like me.

And I am still a raging atheist. I certainly don't want to be horrid to anyone who 'believes', my best friend does, but we just agree to disagree.

I want to ignore it, and then I am drawn to Theo Hobson in the Grauniad like a moth to a flame and want to punch the smug fatuous bugger. It always happens.

Will have to look up Theo Hobson in the Grauniad. Will report back as to whether am still able to ignore.

Think possibly am much older than most mnetters and therefore can't be arsed to care so much.

In the whole scheme of things, going to a C of E school isn't going to turn your child into a raving christian. Believe me.