Church schools should stop discriminating against teachers and pupils, say church leaders

[edam]

This news story is interesting. New group of church leaders and 'secular figures' campaigning to stop religious schools discriminating against non-religious families and staff, or those from the 'wrong' denomination.

(I have looked to see if there's a thread on this already but couldn't find one.)

Threadwworm, you do make (the first good) point about there being a rationale for religious beliefs being potentially relevant if there are associated social benefits or broader cultural benefits.

That being said, in this case, the social benefits are limited to a very specific group (followers of that particular religion) and are very clearly not conveyed on society as a whole. In fact, it arguably negatively affects society as a whole by encouraging divisions in society and excluding large swathes of children not of that religion from potential schools. I'd also say that in the context of religion, we need to be very careful in justifying its role in the 'public square' on the basis of it conveying benefits to society. Not only does this open up a potentially huge gamut of possible religious interference in public life, not only does it ensure that it trumps any other belief systems which also convey benefits on society, but it fundamentally undermines the precept of a secular society which believes in the separation of church and state.

And daftpunk, your response to my last post clearly shows you're only paying lip service to the debate and couldn't care less about the rights or wrongs provided your kids get the education you think they're entitled to.

In my wealthy commuter town there are three secondary schools. One is a "Christian-ethos" school and you basically need a positive reference from a local vicar or to live within about 50 metres of the school to get a place. My DS2 went to a Cof E primary school (selected because it most closely resembled his old, small village school and it was also the closest primary to us). Apart from a few children who went on to independent schools, all the children from the primary went to the Christian ethos school. DS2 now goes to an independent boys' school but had he wanted to continue with his pals he would not have got in as we do not meet the church attendance criteria nor do we live within 50m of the school.

DS2 quite of his own accord decided to get confirmed a Christian by the Bishop earlier this year. I would not want him to go to the Christian ethos school under any circumstances but it seems unfair and unchristian that had he wanted to go he would not have been able because his mother is a non-believer.

Interestingly, the faith school drop their church attendance criteria for entry into the sixth 0form and recruit on the basis of GCSE results. ha ha.

I am not having a problem at all. My dd goes to a fantastic school which is not affiliated to any religion which suits me and her down to the ground! They still have a carol service in a local church etc so she gets to experience a little bit of religion which I think is great. But religion is not insidious in the school

It is the principle of it that gets me

By the way I at your presposterous suggestion that I have the option to become a catholic. How hypocritical would that be??? I can't become a catholic because I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD! Fairly simple really...

cestlavie I agree with the last para of that post

It smacks of "I'm on the bus, ding ding"

That's a striking additional point, Swedes. It does seem monumentally unjust that if a child is old enough to be confirmed it is nonetheless his parents' faith and not his own that determines admission.

Threadworm don't you understand the criteria for all other forms of access is NEED. And in fact it is ILLEGAL to discriminate against people on the grounds of their beliefs.
I beleive religion is stupid and wicked (as well, obviously, as witless superstition). It fosters homophobia, cruelty, sexism, prejudice and divides society. I obviously wouldn't want my children to go to a school where those values are paramount, but I don't think they should be excluded from over a third of state schools because of my beliefs. I think all schools should be secular. Religion has nothing to do with learning, and in many ways is diametrically opposed to it.

And despite my belief that religion is inherently bad, I would STILL not exclude the children of the religious from ANY state schools, which I think puts me morally ahead of the faith schools lobby!

cd...lol..so everyone that becomes a catholic is a hypocrite? i know loads of people that have become catholic, they take it 100% seriously..why couldn't you be one of those? i don't know you well enough do i, so it wasn't a preposterous suggestion.

to suggest that my religion is like something out of the wizard of oz is preposterous!

There is still some state support for higher education? Does anyone need a maths degree? No. Would they be excluded from state support for a maths degree if they knew little about maths and denied the mathematicians' belief that maths was important, beautiful, etc? Yes.

And as for the claim that religion supports homophobia, cruelty, sexism, and murdering fluffy chicks, well, some religious people do, some religious beliefs do. But not religion as such.

great post btw harleyd

dp you said

but cd...you have the option of becoming a catholic if you want

You were talking about me
I don't have that option as I don't believe!

Or did you mean one has the option of becoming a catholic?

cd; i was talking to you....how do you know you wouldn't end up believing once you started the process. it's not that easy to become a catholic, you have to have meetings with the parish priest etc.etc..usually people make comments such as your's out of ignorance, but i'm honestly not offended by any of the comments iv'e had thrown at me on this thread..i take it all on the chin (heard it all before)

Ah yes I see. How silly. People get so angry about religion. Anyone would think you'd nailed their kitten to a cross or something.

(I felt your response was exemplary.)

Bugger - wrong thread.

Most grammar schools are state funded but how many taxpaying parents have the opportunity to send their children to one, if it is on their door step? Mnetters always make a fuss about faith schools but are surprisingly mute about grammar schools? What about the tax benefits that independent schools derive courtesy of the tax payer but again, how many of those same taxpayers have access to them?

I just don't understand why people who deride another's faith would want to have their child taught in a school that upholds such beliefs?

Also, not all church schools admit exclusively church kids. Our C of E school takes 30% of it's pupils on the basis of how close they live to the school. So I don't think it's fair to say that it is discriminatory.

Since when does the freedom of religeon not include one rtight to practice a chosen religeon. It doesn't men you can not practice a religeon at all. It means you can practice the one you choose.

So, your local C of E school is 30% fairer than some, Athene. That's good. If it were to allow equal access to all local children then we would be getting somewhere.

This debate is not really about schools. It is about the separation of church and state, which is a much broader topic than just faith schools.

Until you can establish that the church is separate from the state this whole discrimiation argument has no credibility.

AN: freedom of religion certainly means you should be free to practice your religion. That's why there are churches, church groups, Sunday schools etc. Freedom of religion should not require that schools practice discrimination on the basis of your religion unless, of course, a fundamental part of your religion required that you be taught in an exclusively religious school. And your school is still discriminatory, simply less so than others.

Spokette: Grammar schools may have selection criteria, however, the key point is that everyone is eligible. They do not say to X% of the population you cannot even apply. And equally importantly, their selection criteria reflect accepted precepts in society. Discrimination on the basis of religion certainly does not.

In fact I make them not out of ignorance but from experience. I was brought up in the catholic church. Nuff said (unless you want me to be specific about my feelings about them which I fear may offend you)

Also I have a ppt to do for a meeting tomorrow and it would take me all day...

Athene yes you are right
interesting article here along those lines

(note to self - don't agree with Athene you know she is the enemy)

AN: whilst the UK does not have a written separation of church and state, unlike the US which has enshrined this constitutionally, this is simply because we have no written constitution. On the other hand, the last 200 years post the Enlightment (including case law, treaties and largely anything you care to name) have made it pretty clear that the two are separate.

Oh, I don't think you'll get a concensus on that clain, cestlavie. I think the Church of England is wel and truly woven into the threads of parliament.

Interesting article, CD (even if it is in pinko Guardian) but I don't think Milliband will be the end of church and state as one, even if he personally is an atheist.

As an American, I can support the idea of the separation of church and state. But, as an Anglican, I also quite like the church and school together building a single community for my children to be raised in. And I don't see what's wrong with that.

If I could afford to have my kids educated privately, I would. But, I can't so that isn't one of the options on the table for me, just as converting to Catholicism isn't really an option for CD given her staunch opposition to the church.

Back off vampire. I have garlic (and a cross).