Superstitious crap-peddling in non-church school, how to deal with it?

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

DS (6, in Year 1) came home from school today talking about what he's going to give up for Lent. I asked him if he understood why he was supposed to be giving up things for Lent (of course he had no idea) and made sure he knew that he didn't have to and I would be doing no such thing, and we had a little talk about superstitions.
I am seriously pissed off with this and want to speak to the school about it. We live in a very multicultural area and I want to know A) if all the 6 year old Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and whatever else are trotting home stuffed with this crap and if not, how can I get DS exempt from it? Just because we are English does not mean we are CofE, I am a hardline atheist and DS dad and I have been raising him with as little superstition as possible.
I do not think it's appropriate for a group of culturally-mixed 6 year olds to be fed this sort of bullshit (which is going to be beyond most of them anyway) - I have no problem with DC being taught about the various mythology brands but the actual practicing of this nonsense should not be suggested to them at school.

I'm not being patronising, this was interesting until you came along and got all shirty again.

I hate this tone, it's so unnecessary. Might pop back later.

Of course it it is in the power of people to change it! We are a democracy-if there was mass outrage people would take to the streets in their thousands!

I think that you are making the mistake UnQuietDad in thinking that because you are in the majority on this thread you represent a majority. The same people keep posting -most couldn't give a xxxx!

It really doesn't bother me. The real outrage-as someone said earlier-is that people can't get a place at a faith school. People go to church in their droves in certain areas to get a place!

There is a lot that could be improved in our schools and the fact that they are broadly Christian is way, way down the list.

I'm not disputing parental involvement, just asking how learners are affected if schools can't admit on the basis of faith. Those well supported learners still go somewhere and still learn. The system isn't measured by how many really good schools there are in comparison with other schools, but by how learners do.

The basic principle of what schools provide should be that it is allocated on the basis of learners' needs and abilities. This is accepted by the way schools can't pick parents, nor establish criteria for parents which directly discriminate except in terms of faith.

There's no mass outrage because people are sensible enough to know that inequities won't be changed by closing this anomalous exception down-they are produced by parental ability to help being unevenly geographically distributed and correlated to house prices. The VA school near me would continue to be exceptional because it would still draw 75-80% of its intake form the richest areas of a plush town, even if it were admitting on distance alone.

But that doesn't make it right, or not worth being very pissed off about.

The point being that what might be said about 'organised settled parents' could also be made in favour of, say, allowing schools to keep waiting lists, which would undoubtedly make those schools better.

But we don't allow that because it is manifestly wrong to allow a child of the same ability living next to a school not to get in because one further away had parents who moved to the area earlier and smarmed the Head a little.

But for religion, all bets are off.

There's also a hideously odd logic here. Faith schools are supposedly needed because they give something not given by other schools that parents can't supply. They are good because of what parents supply. So why can't parents supply the 'faith' by themselves?

Adela I can't do justice to your long posts here but this is what I think.

It's the concentration of parental support that does the most good. There's just no way to select at primary, except by paying, and obviously there's still quite the demand for it. This is the only way to achieve it. So the most driven and focussed parents will do what they can, and being driven and focussed, that continues into the school year. Also obviously (I think) those parents of faith who have the social conscience and the commitment and the altruism will just do it anyway, not out of ambition.

Faith schools offer the opportunity for selection, as well as faith education, and there'd have to be huge outrage, and significant demand, for it to change. I think you'd get just as much outrage if you decided to take the opportunity away though.

I have been asked to fill in a few questionaires lately about concerns, and seen the feedback ,and faith schools, or the Christian nature of schools hasn't featured-people have many other concerns first.
We can all recognise outrage-people don't put up with things-and if there are enough things change-even in places like Egypt. Most people are not bothered-some people think it is a good thing.Most posters on MN aren't even bothered enough to comment on the thread!

"just asking how learners are affected if schools can't admit on the basis of faith."

gah

My first point was supposed to address this: ie if you don't have the concentration of parental support, which is what selection allows, the support would be diluted across schools as less effective. Selection by faith is the only kind of selection. It's almost better than selection by income (as in independent edu) because it really does reflect effort, commitment, hard work etc etc, hopefully qualities likely to be passed on to the children. Just raising the bar of the whole class.

sorry the gah was for me not you as I didn't answer it properly first time

Most MNers probably won't even open this particular thread because of its title, so its not going to be representative.

When there are threads specifically adressing the issue, the overwhelming responses tend to be:
Non-faith state schools should be properly secular (no acts of worship)
Pupils should be taught about religions.

And then no particular consensus on faith schools except perhaps, if we were designing an education system today it wouldn't be like this.

Gooseberrybushes, just because someone goes to church is no guarantee whatsoever that the person has 'some sort of social conscience, commitment to altruism and improvement and so on'. They might be Standing Up For Traditional Values, they might be genuinely scared of the sky fairy's wrath if they don't go to church, they might go because they live in an area where not going makes you stand out and be treated with suspicion, they might attend because they were brought up to do so and have never questioned why they continue to go even when it bores them shitless. Or they might be fucking nuts.

OH and BTW I am not a parent who objects to superstiton schools because DS wouldn't be admitted. I refused to apply to the church school near us and deliberately selected a community school because I didn't want him having his head filled up with single-denominantional brand crap.

Your comment earlier on was very bigoted SGB. I don't know if that's an isolated comment, but judging by the tone of a lot of your posts on this, I think you're ignorant and prejudiced.

That's all really.

In case that's deleted.

Your comment earlier on was very bigoted.

This one: "The people who make the biggest fuss about wanting legal protection for their superstitions ie blasphemy laws, are usually the ones who are up to no good (like abusing women and children or fiddling their taxes) and want to silece their critics."

So, basically, I could respond cogently to what you say, though it's a bit of a mess, but I don't want to engage with someone quite as bigoted as you.

Gooseberrybushes, are you unaware of the fact that crooks and child abusers have tried to hide behind demands for 'respect for their faith' when people challenge them? All the abrahamic religions and probably most of the rest are inherently woman-hating and their proponents often demand the right to continue mistreating women (and children) on the grounds of superstition Which Must Not Be Questioned.

gooseberrybushes: I actually find the implication that as an "atheist" (I actually don't like the term, as to me it somehow implies that there is something for me not to beleive in ) I won't "have the social conscience and the commitment and the altruism [to] do it anyway, not out of ambition."

It is possible to pass on good values to children and be an involved parent without having any belief in "God".

41 million christians in this country (E and W) at the last census, that is 71% of the population. 15% of no religion and 4% religion not stated.

15% of the population visited a church service in 2007, that is 8500 (people by the population count of 2001)

Imput into a childs junior school education doesn't equate with the figures above - do they?

I'm an atheist too, but I can't help but agree with other posts that you're overreacting a bit. You definitely need to find out what was said, and what the intention of it was. If they have the whole class giving something up for Lent and building a project around it, for example, I'd say that's unacceptable.

"Gooseberrybushes, are you unaware of the fact that crooks and child abusers have tried to hide behind demands for 'respect for their faith' when people challenge them? All the abrahamic religions and probably most of the rest are inherently woman-hating and their proponents often demand the right to continue mistreating women (and children) on the grounds of superstition Which Must Not Be Questioned."

So anyone who is a Christian is tarred with the same brush? That's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists and all Catholics are child molestors. Some people who claim to be religious are bad, just as some people who claim to be atheists. Using a faith as a cover up to justify appalling behavious is wrong, I agree, but you shouldn't assume that everyone does it.

Something went askew with your numbers, Ivy, but if the point was that the huge discrepancy between census 'christians' and actual active Christians is at least in part due to the childhood warm wash of school assemblies, I tend to think that may have some truth to it. Hard to prove.

What any individual means by ticking 'Christian' is hugely variable - from 'born again' to 'habitual churchgoer' to 'well, I was christened' to 'I believe in God, I'm a good person' to a 'cultural christian' who hasn't really thought much about it.

SGB's debates tend to cover the same ground, but usually in the religion topic. This is in primary education, so I guess there are some people new to her ideas and approach. She's a bit heavy handed (imo), but that's her MN 'style' and it is as valid as anyone else's.

Don't argue! You won't change her mind or behaviour (or that of her cronies) and it's just fodder for them.

Bunbaker: No I am not saying that all religious people are crooks and child abusers, but that those who are, very often are the people who get the arsiest about 'respecting' ie not questioning their cults' status. Respecting people's right to believe whatever crap they choose is fair enough: up to them unless and until they start behaving in an anti-social manner ie inflicting their superstitious practices on other people. Being expected to take the actual bullshit itself seriously is not fair enough.

These threads pain me, like banging your head on a brick wall.

I couldn't pass it by without commenting with regard in particular the sweeping generalization by Gooseberry- 'Firstly, parents who genuinely are Christians and attend church must generally have some sort of social conscience, commitment to altruism and improvement and so on'

My children attend a C of E primary school (no other choice around here), and I am on the PTA. We are quite a large group for such a small school, and very active and involved. We were gossiping about discussing the religious content at school at our last meeting, and it turns out not a single one of the PTA mums believes in any type of god. Fancy that.

Just saying.