Shocked by negative feelings towards faith schools

[BellaLasagne]

Hi,

We've just applied to send our ds to a very popular and oversubscribed CofE secondary school. As we're out of the catchment area we've had to apply for a Church place and have had our commitment and activity within the Church scrutinised and reported on by our parish priest.

While, on the whole, I generally think it's rediculous that anyone has to go through this to get a school place, I'm getting concerned about the amount of 'anti faith school' comments that exist not only on this website but in the media in general.

Is my ds going to be 'victimised' by others in the future for what we are doing, because we believe that we're doing the best for him.

Just need some reassurance I think.....

Thanks, BL

I have no problem with state funded faith schools as long as there are non-faith schools to counterbalance it where you can only apply for one or the other.
I.e. all children have the same number of schools to choose from.

I also live in Hertfordshire where they are ending funding transport to faith schools.

I was amazed this actually went on. The local oversubscribed Catholic secondary school has a catchment area of over 30 miles.
I object to funding public transport for pupils from another county to go to a state school that is closed to my family.

The church should provide the subsidy not the LEA.

Some friends are in the situation where if they don't get their first choice of secondary school their child will end up at the 'catch-all' school whereas their friends' child will be able to go to the Catholic school if she doesn't get in to her first choice.

Haven't read thread but I object to faith schools taking state funding too.

Have just read that back and it sounds a load of rubbish! Sorry!

I know what I mean.

I'm with the hamster.
To me it's basically wrong to have important state funded resources who disciriminate on the basis of religion. (or race as some do as well).

Note that the tests used for relgious school entry are typically that the parents are "good christians" as well.

Ironically this is against the teachings of the Christian churches as well, and is more to do with the desire of churchmmen to have more power than faith.
As a Christian, one is supposed to bring the word of God to those who have not heard or accepted it.
That means you should be actively trying to get non-Christian kids into your school so you can show them God's way.

Thus it's not about faith, but maintaining the power of organised religious bodies.

we want to keep heathens who proport to be well educated but dont read the original question to offer any kind of SUPPORT but rather soapbox and grandstand (like you DC) out.

you kid wont get any comments.

if you do dinner parties with guardianistas it may come up.

but not until after you have discussed nigella and the cannes film festival

I'm against discrimination on the grounds of faith, colour, sex, eye colour and sexual preference. Therefore faith schools are as much an issue for me as schools for the blue-eyed or the ginger-haired.

I'm doubly against them when they are state funded in anyway shape or form. The UK separated state and religion for a reason. If someone wants to ensure their child only meets children of the same religion in the main then I think they are perfectly entitled to pay for that themselves.

To be fair, Britain does not have separation of church and state. Quite the opposite.

For centures up until Elizabeth I, various factions of Christianity murdered each other in horrible numbers.
The actions of her and her father Henry were in effect to both nationalise and liberalise religion, though neither would have called it that.
Thus we still have senior clerics in the house of lords, the Queen is both head of the church and defender of the faith.
Look at British military unforms.
The pattern of button is intentionally based upo the crosses crusaders wore.
The law on blasphemy was never repealed and Blair tried to get that extended to support other forms of superstition.
We still have official clerics in the army, and by law the state owned BBC must promote superstition. They even have a department for it, whicch with no apparent irony they alos include the word "ethics".

By law all schools are supposed to have a daily act of mass religious hysteria, and although allowances are made for different relgions, schools aren't allowed to skip it on the gorunds that it's nonsense.

The state also grants legal immunity to senior church figures who have actively assisted in violent crime as well as the rape of children.

ta daaaaaaa

dc predictable as ever.

yes but we don't vote for politicians based on their beliefs either, nor are we a religious state a la Qatar/UAE/Saudi which is what I meant but phrased badly.

You & I may not vote based upon relgious belifs, but many do. Hard to see why politicians make so much noise about their apparent beliefs otherwise.

We're not as bad as Qatar or Saudi, but it's hard to feel smug about being better than some state in the middle east.

Rather than try to separate superstition from the state, we seem to be sliding into appeasement of violent thugs.
It can get very bad very quickly.
The other religions are hungry for the legal immuties and cash given to the two big Christian sects. Why should a Moslem cleric be punished for a crime that a Christian Bishop can go on TV and chat about openly ?

The number of schools provided for Moslems as a % of them that observe their religion is vastly lower than for any other group.
Indeed we have the bizarre sitation that nearly all the parents of children attending christian schools will not be on church on any given sunday.

Thus "fairness" says we ought to proviude for them.
Also Sikhs and Hindus ?

Christians have used their influence on local councils to stop developments they don't like. How long bewfore we see the same from well organised Moslems.

There are glittering prizes for religions in our state, but too little to stop them.

Oh f*ck I hate when I find myself in postion to (partially) support the words of DC.

"The UK separated state and religion for a reason. "

Which UK do you live in?

If you don't allow kids to gt into schools on grounds other than their proximity to the school (religeon, intelligence, musical gift, whatever) then you will have good school where there are big houses. So, good education for the rich, and crap education for the poor. Is that what we want? An increasing gap between the upper and lower classes? That's not what I want.

teachers have been found to molest children. on that basis we should ban schools.
and
erm
parents. uncles, cousins, some older brothers.

i wouldner if the op actually got any help from this thread.

Both our local village schools are faith schools - so we had Hobson's choice. Dd is becoming very devout! thankfully it amuses rather than irritates me, but I do find the 3 line whip to turn up to church services out of school hours, in uniform, quite tedious

DC, you started out by ointing out that we have no separation of church and state, but then went on to say that in fairness we should provide schools for other faiths (which you very rudely refer to as superstitions once again). Which is it? Are you in acceptance or denial of the fact that we do have a state religeon?

he just wants everyone to have the same rights.

except christians - specifically catholics.

Sorry uwila, dodn't make myself clear.
The "logic" of fairness says that if we give stuff to one relgious group, we ought to give it to all of them. This gives an incentive for the leaders of a group to lobby politically more, and to threaten violence. Sometimes this is overt, more often "ooh nice society you've got her mate, shame if some hard lads were to break it. Not me you understand, but if you don't give us stuff I won't be able to hold them back".

Custardo, I want evryone, including Catholics to have the same rights. Equality under the law is important for a cvilised society.

My position is that no state can support any religious group without at the same time causing serious harm to others. Thus I am against state funded religious schools because they discrimiate on the grounds of religion.
I would be equally opposed to schools for white kids only.
Why is that different ?
Parental choice ?
A lot of parents would like schools where only their race attended, why wouldn't you let them choose ?

I am also opposed to the state granting legal immuntiy from serious crimes, merely because the criminal happens to be a senior relgious figure.

Apologists for paedophile cults say this is equivalent to saying "all men are rapists" which I feel says more about them than me.

If we take equivalent sized organisations such as McDonalds which has roughly the same number of employees there is no evidence of McD's senior executives planning to help pasedophiles rape children. Same goes for any non-religious organisation that I can think of.
If McD's said in their annual report "we think we've identified 8,000 children our staff have raped, but our Chief Executive who was responsible for trying to stop it says sorry", I doubt if people would be saying that saying bad things about McDonalds was "offensive" or saying "all men are rapists".

If the CEO of McD's in the UK openly admitted that he'd covered up the actions of rapists who then went on to rape agian, the police would be at his door very quickly.
The Christian response is to say "shit happens", and "don't offend me by saying this".
I am intrigued that Christians are vocal in their "offence" over mentiong the bad acts their organisations commit.,
Perhaps a Christian could point me at a link where large numbers of Christians were "offended" when their own leaders admitted to conspiracy to rape children ?

I don't defend paedophile - Christian, atheist, or otherwise. I actually support a system which is tough on criminals. If a vicar molests a young boy (or girl) I think he should be publicly humiliated and have his willy cut off. This is a completely different subject.

Back to the separation of church and state (or rather the absence of it), I don't agree that the UK is fundamentally flawed by not separating the two. Why is it okay to have Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. states, but not Christian ones? Oh it worng here in the UK because we are excluding the others, it is equated to being racist. But, in the Middle East are we petitionaling for Anglican education. No, of course not. It is their country and they can choose the religeon they like. And,likewise, I like that this is a Christian country and I don't understand why that should be regarded as a bad thing.

No no no DC. There is a huge difference between the UK and religious states. So on the one hand we have religious states of various types which dictate the details of the everyday lives of its citizens; what they wear, where they go, with whom they go, the opportunities available to them etc etc...

...and then on the other hand we have the UK where people of virtually every faith, belief, supserstition, lifestyle, scientific persuasion etc etc live happily in tolerant co-existence, agreeing to disagree. Isn't that exactly what British religion has been about since Elizabeth I? (puritans notwithstanding). We are not a theocracy and are proud not to be.

That's the difference. If you believe what you read in the papers about the financial state of the CofE the 'privieleges' of being the so-called state religion are pretty poor really. It will probably reach the point when disestablishment becomes a theoretical issue and nothing more. Esp. when Charles takes the throne. It's the Queen's strong christian faith that keeps the current position of the CofE where it is.

As for paedophile priests...yes it breaks the heart. I have known one, well, and it broke mine, and it damaged our community deeply. Not to mention the lives of the children involved. The catholic church has been appalling at answering for its crimes. But that is changing.

Ramble ramble ramble...

BTW DC has it not yet struck you that people will always believe in God, the supernatural, the greater being, etc etc? It's in our blood. Call it superstition, call it hysteria, distance yourself with semantics but it is a deep part of humanity and we are less than human if we deny it.

"We're not as bad as Qatar or Saudi, but it's hard to feel smug about being better than some state in the middle east."

DC you really are stunningly ignorant sometimes.

I don't know Saudi but - not as bad as qatar with their family friendly policies, controlled rent rises, healthcare that beats the NHS cold, education and an investment in it that is beyond exemplary, the commitment to charitable acts, the road building and infrastructure programme, the 33% GDP year on year, where women are able to work, drive just like in the UK, where a work/life balance is not only seen as desirable but achievable? Where the telecomms infrastructure outstrips most of the civilised West, where the sporting facilities are second to none? Jeez, its almost like... like.... hackney. Oh no wait, nothing like.

And, really you mustn't undersell yourself, I seriously doubt you ever find it hard to feel smug.

Roslea has a valid point, indeed I get the impression that anthropologists have come to that consensus. We may have evolved some sort of religious process in our brains.
One test for whether a group of hominids were "human" seems to be that they do stuff with bodies, not just leave them to rot.

Certainly it fits the facts.

We're on firmer ground in knowing that we also evolved a desire to eat as much fat, sugar and salt as we can get access to.

Evolution is entirely backward looking. Natural behaviour does not meen good behaviour.

Yes, Qatar is less bad than the average Moslem state. if you are a citizen and keep your head down. Make the mistake of being the wrong sort of Moslem, or speaking your mind and it gets real bad real quick.

DC religious behaviour (in its myriad expressions) is not the same thing as good behaviour. Yes obviously there is a strong moral element to most religions but fundamentally religion is about a desire to make sense of the world and of our lives, and to connect with something greater than ourselves. As I said, those are basic human needs. Not many of the founding fathers of christianity were what you might call 'good people'.

I don't buy into this science / religion dichotmy either. I can melt looking at a newborn baby as a perfect creation of God whlist simultaneously marvel at the feats of biology that enabled the baby to be conveived, to develop in the womb and be born. (Sorry, that was a bit off the point!)

I'm negative towards them because my children are excluded from them.

I'm also negative towards Eton,Harrow etc.

That's the problem, isn't it, Caligula? It's the success of faith schools that makes them such a hot topic. If they were rubbish no-one would be bothered!

DC - another thing! (I'm at home today, tidying up and thinking deep thoughts! ) The religious gene / complusion / however you see it - seems to get stronger under pressure or when challenged. Hence why agnostics pray in life-threatening or tragic circumstances. Or China 1949 onwards. Banning or suppressing religion is the fastest way to see it spread like wildfire. Or the UK this last year - Dawkins may have encouraged a fair number of atheists to come out, but he's equally got many vague believers to nail their colous to the mat an defend whatever faith they do have. THe Sunday Times' response to him has been a case in point. As for me I love a good religious ding-dong as it remiinds me of all the reasons why I believe.

Sorry - even furthter off the point but interesting!