Yes/no poll on religion in state schools.

[seeker]

Do you think state schools should be secular, but with RE lessons giving information about all the main world religions as part of the curriculum?

I still don't understand - and haven't had it adequately explained - how not having faith schools would actually inconvenience anyone. People who wanted to carry on their faith would do it outside school.

There's nothing to stop them going to church 3 or 4 times a week if they want, and having a household run on strictly Christian lines.

Quite why school also needs to be run this was is utterly beyond me. You wouldn't expect it of any other state-run public service into which you pay your taxes - you don't feel the need to "choose" a faith dustman, or a faith bus service, or a faith hospital, or a faith roadmender.

"Taking part in a daily act of collective worship, broadly Christian in nature", as required by law is not debating nor discussing Christianity.

No, so this should of course also occur in schools.

Anyhow prettybird, it's not the attendance that is required by law, only the provision. Parents can withdraw their child from this if they wish.

UQD - brilliantt!

DP - I wish you would explain how being brought up by two homosexual men is somehow different and also worse than being brought up by one widowed/divorced father. It would seem to me that having one person who loves you is great, having two people is really great (and easier on the people doing the bringing up).

I have absulutely no objection to children having religious education (or, as it called in Scotland "Religious and moral education) in school, where they discuss, debate and challenge thier education. I don't even object to the majoirty of that education beinng boradly Christian in nature - given that (in theory at least) the majority of people in the UK oare nominally Christian.

Withdrawing children from assmeblies is not fair on them or on the school as a) the school has to privide activities for them while this is happening and b) they are then being singled out - which is something that IME, chiledren hate.

Fortunately, at ds' school, they do break the law. But that just proves the law is an ass - not something I really want my ds to be learning!

I dont think faith schools should be abolished just because some people dont agree with them. That would just be another step on the political correctness gone mad ladder.

Most people who use faith schools are not religious nutters, and most people dont believe everything that the church tells them. They take aspects of what they have been told and fit it into their lives. For instance, just because a person believes in heaven doesnt mean they believe in Adam and Eve.

For most people I think it has more to do about how they were brought up and the values they were given growing up. People believe that a school which has a religious ethos promoting those values can help to nurture their children in a way which they want.

Christian religion actually does affect other government activities. Bank holidays, for instance, should they become secular so they are at random times of the year and not at Christmas or Easter. Should Christmas lights in town centres be stopped as they cost the tax payer money.

I'm not arguing that faith schools should be abolished (although I personally don't agree with them: here in the West of Scoltand I beleive that the parallel Catholic schooling system has contrbuted to scourge of sectarianism that we suffer from) but I do object to all state schools being required to have religious assmeblies in which the pupils have to take part.

dp has not answered my question:

would you rather a child remained in care (with all the negative outcomes that leads to) rather then be adopted by a loving homosexual couple?

Easter is the only holiday which is at a random time of year, thanks to it being tied to the Christian calendar. Totally mucks up the school terms some years. Both christmas and easter have mixed heritage - I can live with a mix of christian and pre-christian traditions a couple of times a year. Christmas is near the winter solstice, would be better if 'easter' was tied to spring equinox than whatever weird formula it is now.

Anyhow, thats not the sort of thing UQD was talking about - the analogy is with the idea of a 'faith' hospital where admission would be determined by religion and there would be prayers in the morning instead of part of the doctor's round.

grimma- but all hospitals have chapels and resident chaplins for the use of patients.
Paid for by the taxpayer. Religious rituals are often performed at the bedside.

when I said should bank holidays be at random times, I meant should they be attached to no particular reason and be maybe one every two months, as this would be more secular.

The point was that Uqd was talking about public spending. Well children are entitled to an education regardless and as faith schools are subsidised by the church and just as many schools would be needed if secular education was brought in for all, that would mean for more of the tax payers money going on education. As for Christmas lights, well they are to all intent and purpous, a gimick.

Absolutely. There is a hospital chaplain that you can consult IF YOU WISH! The whole point of this thread is that it is impossible to take a full and active part in the life of an English state school without also taking part in Christian worship.

They don't say to you "If you don't say a quick prayer we won't take your appendix out"!

And I have no problem with the law being changed to offer schools with no christian worship, I just still want a choice, and if churches can fill their schools with families who want christian worship then why should they not be allowed?

Because if my nearest school is a chirch school and I can't get into it because they ahev filled it you with church goers who live further way than me I don;t think that's any way to runan education system.

Hospital chaplains are state funded? Really? I'm quite suprised by that. I'm sure the minister of the church I used to be a member of visited for free, as was his Christian duty. NICE should have a careful look at their efficacy, I rather doubt they could be proved to be a good use of the healthcare budget.

"it is impossible to take a full and active part in the life of an English state school without also taking part in Christian worship"

... unless parents opt out from their child taking part in that tiny percentage of the school's overall activities. If people were really that bothered, or thought assemblies were really that objectionable, they would opt out, surely?

The school would need to provide something else for the child to do, but thinking of an activity lasting a few minutes isn't likely to be too difficult.

Many people do look for spiritual help in times of trouble, even if they don't usually.

Here's an article by someone who describes himself as a "non-believer", on the value of hospital chaplains.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7990099.stm

If churches want to provide chaplains, fair enough. Doesn't seem like something the taxpayer should be footing when budgets need to be cut.

If people were really that bothered, or thought assemblies were really that objectionable, they would opt out, surely?

Nope. The religious part of assemblies is objectionable, but so is excluding one's child. Have an opt-in breaktime meeting if there's demand for it rather than wasting everyone's time.

weegiemum;

would i rather a child stayed in care than being adopted by homosexuals..?

yes i would.

two men can't have children together, nor can two women....children are created by a man and a woman...that is nature....homosexuals need to realize that.

what if i was a lesbian who wanted a baby?...i get pregnant by a friend (or go to a clinic and get pregnant by god knows who)

what do i tell my child about the father..?

you were a designer baby created for me and my girl lover..don't worry about it...?

stickylittlefingers;

if you can't tell the difference between a divorced man/widower bringing up his own child...to a child placed with two gay men....i'm not sure there is anything more i can do for you.

oh..and UQD...not sure you have said anything groundbreaking re; your argument for secular schools....you just come across as slightly pompous and a bit out of touch.

dp, by that argument, I assume you also oppose all forms of IVF for heterosexual couples? 'Where did I come from?' 'Oh you were a designer baby created for me and your dad/mum'. Absolutely no difference.

of course there's a difference....if i (as a married hetrosexual woman) had fertility problems, IVF would be an option....which is why IVF was invented in the first place....i'm pretty sure it wasn't invented for homosexuals or 67 year old women.

I give up.

i think you've made the right decision AG....(the one most people make when backed into a corner).....a shame you couldn't stick around to answer this last Q;

if it's ok for homosexuals to adopt, why isn't it ok for the millions of parents who love faith schools to keep things as they are..?

a high % of parents like them...parents have the option of withdrawing children from collective worship if they want....no one is being forced.

the way things are, everyone gets a choice.....that has to be a good thing.

you want that choice taken away.

Actually, I tihnk AG has given up based on the fact that there is no point hitting her head against a birck wall, whne her points are not answered and where soomeone can quite happiky prefer a child to be brought up in care (with all the ngative outcomes that that involves) just becuae of her own prejudices. it is just so . Fortunately, there are more "Christian" attitudes around - as evidenced by people like Weegiemum, to act as a balance to such blatant bigotry.

My best friend is an active thinking catholic and I admire her broadmindedness. She doesn't choose to impose her views on others. (Indeed, she is a family planning GP trainer! )

To ensure (again) dp's questions, before bowing out of this thread (as others have done in the face of such blinkered intransigence): even though I personally don't agree with faith schools at all (even though the system in Scotland is different), I I beleive that the main thrust of this thread has been the issue that people have that all state schools (faith or not) are requiered to impose the particpation in Christianity on pupiles. nd It is not fair either schools and children to withdraw children from assemblies as they cover topics other than the act of worship.

How many times do we have to say we don't have a choice?

Nope, DP, its not the rest of us that are backed into a corner. Its you who is facing into one with blinkers on.

Leave aside faith schools for a moment - in reality nothing is likely to change there in the near future, whether we want it to or not. Can you at least see that for other state schools, removing the requirement for collective religious worship is reasonable?