AIBU to think we need more ^inclusive^ education?

[LoveFoolMe]

AIBU to think we need more inclusive education? If children in a multicultural society such as the UK are educated together surely this promotes more tolerance and better mutual understanding.

So these proposals worry me:

Call to end limit on religious free schools

Considering how divisive and rigid religious attitudes can be, I think it's time to bring children from faith schools into mainstream schools and to encourage these children to mix with more diverse cultures.

Secular schools can still provide fact-based religious education in the classroom and would probably teach their students about a greater range of religions than a faith school would. Parents could, of course, provide a more personal approach to religion for their children outside of school hours if they wanted to.

Let's not further segregate our children by religion.

AIBU to think that reducing (rather than increasing) the number of faith schools in the UK would be far better for our children and far better for our society?

These are complex issues which is why it is important that our children learn about philosophy and ethics at school and about the different faiths and what is important to them.

who disagrees with that?

It isn't helpful to treat Christians as if we are all fundamentalist nutjobs who treat the Bible as if it is some sort of rule book.

What then is the bible? More importantly, why should any of us consider it a book of any superior authority?

and therein lies the problem. There is no reason we should.

It isn't helpful to treat Christians as if we are all fundamentalist nutjobs who treat the Bible as if it is some sort of rule book.

What then is the bible?

Everyone will say different things of course, but here's my 2 pence worth...

It's certainly not just rules. It's history, poetry, parables and relationships. It teaches us life lessons by showing us how others have lived. It's a collection of 66 books written over about 1600 years, describing many people's relationship with God over that time. The promise to the Israelites of a Messiah is realised in the life of Jesus, who died for the forgiveness of our sins.

The ten commandments as given to Moses take up only a small section of the Bible. But the people of the time elaborated on these to make hundreds of ceremonial rules. They thought that as long as they obeyed these, they were living holy lives, but Jesus did not agree. He placed more importance on what was in a person's heart, where faith alone allows someone to be saved by God's grace.

Jesus didn't follow some of the old rules such as not healing on the sabbath. And without going into lengthy detail, Christians are not bound by all the detailed laws set out in the Old Testament.

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

(that last paragraph was a Bible quote).

The trouble with the bible isn't really the bible itself (a book of often unrelated and inconsistent stories, with varying opinions on what's divinely inspired and what's not) -it's how 'holy' people have interpreted it and often used it as a means of social control. For some it's a rule book (the bible says). For some it's something gentler.

he life of Jesus, who died for the forgiveness of our sins.

You start your post saying that the bible was written by man about what they thought about God, affirming it is a collection of manmade thoughts, but then assert that it claims Jesus died for our sins. Wouldn't that just be what men thought about Jesus.

You can't try to clean up the horrible parts of the bible by citing mans fallibility and propensity to misinterpret but then take the NT as 'gospel', no pun intended.

Why was God able to communicate a clearer message by the time of the NT, but was happy for humans to misrepresent him as a bloodthirsty baby killer in the OT. I've said it before but if someone released a biography of my life, which included false accounts of me ordering people to kill a child from each family in France because I didn't like their president, I would be taking then to court regardless of how many other depictions there were of me lovingly cradling lambs and skipping through flowery meadows.

"And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’"

Which means that supporting an exclusionary school admissions criteron based on faith is directly going against the teachings of Jesus.

You can't try to clean up the horrible parts of the bible by citing mans fallibility and propensity to misinterpret but then take the NT as 'gospel', no pun intended.

Why was God able to communicate a clearer message by the time of the NT

I'm not a fundamentalist who takes the Bible literally. I wouldn't take small parts of the NT literally and out of context. But looking at the overall picture, the NT was when Jesus arrived to show us where we were going wrong.

A governor's point of view link here

It's the governors, not the church, who set the admissions criteria.

There's some interesting information here by the Fair Admissions Campaign

In the 21st century how does everyone not find it perverted that churches want to run establishments with young vulnerable children in them. Its just wrong.

where we were going wrong

But he believed in the OT too, he took that and the creation story literally. He didn't have a problem with his father ordering the stabbing of babies to punish the pharaoh. He didn't refute the OT depictions of God. He didn't say they needed to be taken in context. if you feel the OT was allegorical without God saying so then how can you take the NT literally? It's only been as humanity has developed that Christians have needed to allegorise the OT. My thinking is that the NT was produced too 'clean up' Yahweh because the depictions of his barbarism was so horrendous even by the 1st century. Or maybe you think god has just changed and now wouldn't kill people's children to punish someone else? Or maybe he would? Either way, you can't have it both ways.

But he believed in the OT too, he took that and the creation story literally. He didn't have a problem with his father ordering the stabbing of babies to punish the pharaoh. He didn't refute the OT depictions of God. He didn't say they needed to be taken in context.

Jesus came to fulfil the prophecy of a Messiah as given in the Old Testament, and the laws such as the 10 commandments. But he did refute the incorrect interpretation of the old laws.

From www.gci.org/law/otl10 "Jesus’ ministry caused many changes in the law — changes so dramatic that laws were “set aside” or declared “obsolete” (Hebrews 7:18; 8:13). Some laws remained the same, some were changed, and others were “abolished” (Ephesians 2:15)."

how can you take the NT literally?

It's only been as humanity has developed that Christians have needed to allegorise the OT.

A lot of the OT isn't "allegory", it is history. Archaeological findings have confirmed this many times, such as there being a real flood at the time of the story of Noah's Ark.

However, I don't have a problem with thinking of some parts of the OT as allegorical. Jesus often taught in parables himself, so when he referred to some OT events he may have been quoting them as allegories.

My thinking is that the NT was produced too 'clean up' Yahweh because the depictions of his barbarism was so horrendous even by the 1st century.

The gospels were written not that long after the life of Jesus, as a historical record of events. If they had been wildly inaccurate, why isn't there a single document from that time refuting anything in them?

Or maybe you think god has just changed

It's not God who changes, it's people.

it's not God who changes

So God still thinks it's okay to kill babies to prove a point to an earthly leader? So god still thinks he was right to order the Israelites to stone the man who collected sticks on the sabbath?

But he did refute the incorrect interpretation of the old laws

Somewhere in the book of Numbers..

Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man agathering wood on the sabbath day.
33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation;
34 and they put him in 1custody abecause it had not been 2declared what should be done to him.
35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; aall the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”
36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him 1to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

AlanPacino a conservative or fundamentalist Christian would point to God being both a judge and a compassionate Father in both the Old and New testaments.

However, a liberal or progressive Christian would say that the Bible was influenced by the culture, violence and lack of scientific understanding of its time, and that while Jesus' message is worth following, no, those negative things weren't God's will.

God being both a judge and a compassionate Father*
**
That would be reasonable if God had ordered the man collecting sticks to have given up his free time to collect sticks for the elderly or something akin to community service but he ordered them to throw stones at his head. Would you have a problem with a judge passing that sentence on someone anywhere in the world?

influenced by the culture, violence and lack of scientific understanding of its time, and that while Jesus' message is worth following

Can you see the inherent flaw in the above logic. How are we to accept the gospel when we already see how the lack of understanding etc was inherent in the OT. They still had poor scientific knowledge in the NT. And the idea of blood needing to be shed was still logical to them. It seems more likely that those cultural influences shaped the Jesus story into what we have today.

Do any Christians here think it was reasonable of God to order the mans death by stoning for collecting sticks?

And I'm still waiting for ONE example of a better moral decision a Christian can make that I am unable to using my own logic and reasoning.

IMO it's a matter of emphasis. A religious community/congregation exists to support its members to make moral/ethical choices. It's a lifestyle, a 'practice' in which behaviours and choices are infused with the effects of prayers/meditation/acts of gratitude etc. (Hopefully) the main intent of its members is to be ethical/moral/good/righteous.

So it makes sense to me that someone who prays/meditates, observes rituals/disciplines, reads religious scriptures; has a religious practice at their core, would want their children to spend the time they're at school with like-minded people who share their good intentions.

So I suppose for me 'allowing' faith schools - given that children pretty much have to go to school- is about respecting people's right to practice their religion. It doesn't - in principle anyway- cost any more.

It feels like intolerance to begrudge people faith schools.

My nest door neighbours are practising Muslims. The children go to 'islamist' school after their state school - if there was a muslim school presumably that would save them a lot of inconvenience. My household is a mix of atheists and my developing Buddhism. Next door on the other side is a woman who goes to a church of Scotland. Even if there was a Buddhist school, a church of Scotland school and a muslim school I'm sure we'd continue to get along. We give each other presents, chat, share lifts..... I'm not making this up by the way! I don't think my neighbours hold 'wrong' beliefs.

roguematter, so you think it's absolutely Ok that people of faith have a choice of 33% more tax payer funded state schools than people without faith?

So in conclusion yes OP YABU. But well-intentioned. (ooh that sounds patronising - not meant to be)

x-posted sorry.

No. I think there should be the option of humanist schools. But that doesn't make faith schools in themselves wrong.

"No. I think there should be the option of humanist schools. But that doesn't make faith schools in themselves wrong."

Sorry- I don't understand.

Well, if eg you're an atheist - or an agnostic I suppose - but it's not a big part of your life in the way that religion is for someone who practises their faith then I see no problem with giving people the choice of a faith school. But if you strongly believe in humanism it seems unfair to not be allowed to set up a humanist school.

The current provision of faith schools is a historical 'thing' (sorry I can't think of a better word) as far as I can see. Churches set up schools before education was compulsory. I can see why parents who can't get their children into a 'good' school because they don't fulfil religious criteria feel aggrieved. We all (mostly) want the best for our children . But I don't see how that makes the principle of a faith school wrong. That seems to me to be a problem with the current provision of 'good' state schools.