Do Christians on here feel that state Church schools should be scrapped?

[nolongeraworriedmummy]

Ok this is a thread about a thread really but I just wondered what Christians thought, to me being a Christian is about living everyday as a Christian but have just read a post on another thread that says if I want Christian ethos and morals for my child I should give them a bible at night and take them to church on Sunday and they shouldnt be allowed to have daily prayers and religious assemblies as there is no place in school for that basically,

What do you think?

UQD - what would you do about individual teachers who are not "neutral" about religion, but are fervently against it? There may not be a mainstream secularist "agenda", but there are certainly individuals with a very anti-religion agenda, which they are very happy to propagate within school lessons. Surely if we are to be neutral about religion then both sides of the issue would have to agree to keep away from the subject. For instance, English teachers covering Shakespeare or Dickens should not be allowed to sneer at the characters for their "imaginary friends"?

Well, there are also individuals with a very fervently pro-religion agenda which they are very happy to propagate within school lessons. Can one police one and not the other?

I don't think anybody genuinely believes the characters in the novels of Dickens to be real, or invites anyone to offer up "worship" to them. It's a comparison which doesn't work.

justabout, I am struggling to get your point here. One can study George Herbert at a "critical distance" from his belief - I remember reading poems like "The Collar" for A-Level and being able to appreciate the passion without sharing it.

There is more to atheism than "sneering at imaginary friends". I mean, yes, in the heat off debate, if, like me, you think it is all essentially made-up, you may find yourself saying that at some point.

But I don't think being an atheist in the classroom is "pushing atheism" any more than it's "pushing atheism" to suggest gently that Ra, Isis and Osiris were products of the culture which surrounded them when studying Egyptology. That doesn't devalue the myths - if anything it is a testament to the brilliant power of the human mind that it can invent such things.

The oly alternative to having an Atheist in the classroom is to only have religious peple- no better surely?

It's far better to see it not as a matter f personal belief than of teaching ability. A good teacher can deliver his or her subject well and without bias whatever their personal choices, a bad teacher may not.

This is the only option in a multi faith world where a teahcer should be calld to teach Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Pganism etc etc- and you can't be all those (Or rather I do know someone from Uni who managed to be converted to each one in turn but he was wierd- and currently doing his PGCE. Eeeek. I think he settled on Messianic Judaism eventually- )

One thing that is often missed in these little debates is that the National Curriculum requires provision for spiritual and moral education across the curriculum, not just in specific lessons.

As a Science teacher, I have to look for opportunities for spiritual education (OK, I don't have to because I am in the independent sector but it is still good practice and has always been recognised).

(not specifically about church aided schools, but something required in all schools)

I don't mean that the characters are real, but that the characters may express religious faith, and the teacher might ridicule that. I meant that would be likely in Shakespeare and Dickens more than perhaps in a modern novel, because it was more the expected belief at the time.

I'd rather not have state faith schools, but I don't think that you can have genuine neutrality in every classroom on this issue, because individuals are often not neutral.

What I think is more important is that the system overall is neutral and does not push one world view at the expense of others - I don't have a problem with individual teachers having views, or discussing them to some extent when it's relevant to the topic or to issues the children have raised, whether that is to be positive about people's religious beliefs or to be negative about the effects that such belief can have. I think my own education benefitted from having a range of teachers with different views, which opened my eyes to opinions I had maybe not met at home.

I see no reason to discuss Christian mythology in terms which are any different from those in which I'd discuss Norse, Egyptian or Greek mythology. Anything else is special pleading.

There is certainly no need to say "Now the made-up idea that George Herbert is discussing here is Resurrection, which is a myth of course."
That would be a distraction from the lesson anyway.

But I don't want to hear "All masses exert a gravitational attraction and many people believe god made it so" because that is irrelevent to the lesson and a distraction too.

I don't ridicule religion or even deny it except when discussing religion itself directly in situations like this. I am very polite and will bow my head while others pray out of respect to them not to their god.

I think there's a difference between what a school can be, and what individual teachers can be. I believe that state schools should all be neutral about religion, and the system overall should be neutral about religion - as I said earlier, I would not have any state faith schools at all.

But I don't think it's reasonable to expect every individual teacher to be scrupulously neutral about religion, and more than they are about politics or any other subject. They should teach their subject according to the curriculum, but if questions and issues arise then I don't see any problem with them expressing their views. It would be different if they brought their views up themselves in lots of lessons, as that would be them imposing their views on the children, but if they believe something, or believe that it's nonsense, then it's fair enough that they should say so.

If teachers aren't that influential then lets sack em all now. I should hope they are having a profound effect on their pupils.

I know what you meant really, but what I fear is little onagerette coming home and saying "daddy, did you know that god only took 7 days to make the world" when I sent her to school for an education. I could have given her a subscription to the news of the world if I just wanted her head filled with invented stories.
Fine if she knows they are invented or at least that they are unproven and considered by many to be invented. But kids will say "It must be true. Miss said so!"

"To state it is a myth is to declare that it isn't true. It's an expression of personal belief just as much as Jesus Saves. So I'd be annoyed with a teacher who said because that IMHO is aggressive atheism not good classroom practice."

justabout, is it "aggressive atheism" to say that the Greek myths are myths? Or Egyptian mythology? I don't think it is. So why special pleading for Christian mythology? You can say some people believe it and it can still be mythology.

Onager that will happen at some point! And please dont get angry- ime the children often completely misinterpreted something quite banal LOL- its what children do

Oh I agree. There's a whole load of threads in AIBU that start "My DC came home and said..."
You definitely want corroborating evidence before shooting the teacher.

Pedant alert--actually to call something a myth doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. It can mean that a layer of the more-than-ordinary has attached itself to something that really happened.

So, the 'Myth of the Blitz' doesn't imply that the Blitz didn't happen (obviously it did). It implies that perhaps we attribute deeds and emotions to the way people responded to the Blitz (all pulling together, all being brave, etc).

Sorry about that. Please carry on. Pedant alert over.

I subscribe to AMIS' point of view- schools should be faith neutral, but teachers cannot be- of course they cannot- one cannot alter who one is, though of course one may need to tone down one's proselytising!

There are always going to be teachers of English for example who ridicule PE and Games, or of Chemistry who ridicule French... that is just who they are, and it is useful for young people to be introduced to differing opinion, particularly at a time in their life when they are trying to establish and clarify what it is they believe in (in any area, not just religion) rather than what their parents/carers have instilled in them.

The problem comes with smaller children- the ones who do come home from school stating what 'Mrs Fitch' has told them as the absolute truth... even if she had said honey is made of bees, honest Mum!

Thanks, JAOS!

Sorry Squeakypop (I have been away) Re; "unchurched", I hate the word because it is invariably applied to children, and to me it implies that there is something "lacking"

Unclean
Unkempt
Unkind
Unchurched IYSWIM

FWIW I am Catholic and not very amused at your comments re infiltrating private Catholic schools either, if I was paying for my kids to be "indoctrinated" I'd expect them to be indoctrinated properly

Our kids started off at the local state primary, we actively chose not to send them to a faith school because I do feel that this can lead to discrimination and I would prefer them to mix with people of all faiths and none. However things didn't work out (because of a bullying issue, faith was never an issue) and we did move them to the local Catholic school. They have been very happy there but I do feel that they are limited socially.

Communicant member of C of E here. Yes, they should be scrapped, because a multitude of dodgy psychological and educational practices are covered up in the name of religion in faith schools.