Would you/have you started going to church to get child into a good church school?!

[Bomper]

My ds should pass his 11+, but I am not 100% confident he will. The comprehensive schools in my area are pretty awful, except one, which is a C of E school. Lots of parents have now started to go to church in order to be able to apply, and I am being urged to do the same. Most of me thinks - 'this is my childs future, I will do whatever it takes', but a small part feels guilty. WWYD?

Well for a start I'm not Catholic so I won't be writing my priest or Bishop but I think its pretty stupid to think that Catholics condone child abuse.

If the schooling was entirely paid for by the State then I could see where you are coming from but faith schools are supplemented by whichever church or mosque that they are attatched to.Should I feel like I have the right to enter someone's council home? My taxes paid for it? Of course not because its their home. Just because taxes helped pay for something does not automatically give people rights to it. Theses schools are trying to deprive anyone of anything. They are trying to provide a religious education for their children. You would be the one to deprive them of that. You can hardly critise the schools in NI, they are the best in the UK.

You are the one who has made bigoted and racist comments here. Don't you think claiming that a group of people are iggnorant and stupid is a bit bigoted.

The contribution made by the religion is very small, and in return they get a truly huge tax subsidy.
You are in NI, so I'm surprised you undermine your own argument by mentioning council houses. You know that carious gangs of Christians have used their control over council housing for a vicious form of ethnic cleansing. You know this, and since I've mentioned my background you know I know this.

I can't see how you call schools that breed intense violent bigotry as "the best" anywhere. The vast majority of NIers have been educated there, and your behaviour as a region has been contemptible in the extreme.

I never claimed that NIers were stupid.
Dangerously mad yes. Violent in large groups, yes. Murderers and torturers of children , yes.
Stupid no.
To do this shit and get away with it requires a feral cunning. Not sure I call it intelligence, but it allows you people to behave worse than anyone else in these islands.
Who, precisley do you think attack your neighbours for living in the "wrong street".
Huge gangs of Moslems shipped in by the Brits ?

Given that my family come form there it does not give me any pleasure to say this, it shmes me that we evolved from you lot.

I have only livede here for 6 years and actually I don't know what you mean about the council houses.

The schools here get the better results on a regular basis. There are people here who are bigoted, of course there are. I have encountered them. I just fired my house keeper of three years last week because she made a bigoted comment in my home. I hate bigotry, but it is unfair to tar the majority of the people here with the bigoted brush because it just isn't so. There are evil people out there who claim to be Christians just as there are evil people who aren't religious at all.

I'm surprised that you don't know that local councils in NI have routinely allocated council housing on ethnic and religious grounds.

I don't accept the "evil people who claim to be Christians" spin. It's an easy excuse for those who can't be bothered to think or explain why the support torture and murder.

For a start, the Christian definition of "evil" is doing something that you know to be wrong. If you genuinely believe it right, then it is right. (except for a few exceptions like taking the pill or damaging church property which are absolute sins, murder and the rape of children aren't absolute sins,)

The Christians who do these despicable acts believe that what they are doing is right.
They honour those who have done really ghastly things.
Go look up the like of the Christian Saint Thomas More.
A nastier scumbag has rarely walked the Earth. He got his jollies by torturing people who dared to possess a bible in English. He was so good at it that King Henry promoted him.
This is not the case of a sinner who changed his ways, he met his death content that he done his duty.
Wasn't evil.
Just very very bad, but a good Christian to his dying breath.
The parallel with Gerry Adams is notable. Both used torture to further the aims of the Catholic church, and both have been honoured for it.
Given that he was canonised in 1935 by the Pope in full knowledge of his deeds and has been adopted by many Christians outside the authority of Rome, tells you a lot about everyone concerned.

I think the majority of sane people know the diffrence between right and wrong. You bring up the likes of Gerry Adams, I would also include Paisley, these are really bad men and have done awful things and I have no idea why they both aren't behind bars. As I said I get that there are bad people here. Most Christians just aren't like that and you know it.

I'm not sure they do, am from your posts I am quite clear that you do not.
I've met extremist politicians, and I'm as sure as I can be that they believe they are doing "right". They see being in a minority as a challenge. Many, quite contrary to what others think see themselves as the victims.

Where do you think you get the right to dicate the opinions of your staff ?
Sacking someone because you don't like what they say is exactly plumb in the middle of the "my rights not yours" attitude of bulk Christianity.

What possible power to enact any bigotry do you think a housekeeper has in your home. Might she clean the cooker in some evil way ?
Did you catch her writing racist graffitti on your wall ?
Grow up, and try to escape the mental disability imposed upon your by your superstitions.

She was no threat to you, and you got your jollies by feeling smug in your power over a weak person who earns very little.

You are only up for "free speech" when people agree with you. A more Christian viewpoint is hard to define.
Would you have given her job back if she'd been "offended" ? Superstitious people see this as some trump card for excusing bad behaviour.

I would have argued with her, attemmpted to change her mind, and not "respected her faith" one little bit.
But sacking her was the act of a bully.

That's why I fear the rise of superstition in political life. People like you, who only want rights for "good people". A set that gets ever smaller, witrh ever steeper punishments for "evil" people outside.

I'd have argued with her

Its my home and I have a little one that I don't want hearing those sorts of things!!!!

Lets see she got a warning after she said used the word nigger in my home on a couple of occasions and after saying some very derogatory things about Catholics I just had enough. I was her employer and it was my home and I think I have the right not to listen to that sort of thing in it.

Indeed it's your home.
I own a couple of companies they're "mine" as well. How about I sack Christians to show how big I am ?
You up for that ?

You are falling into stereotype so nicely, that I would like to assure others this is not a put up job.
Bulk Christians are all up for "what's mine is private," and "what's yours is up for legal scrutiny and punishment". Hence the fuss over Christians using the fact that "their" schools and "their" agencies use state funds to discriminate against gays, Moslems, Jews, atheists, and of course since you are in NI the "wrong sort of Christian".

Don't confuse my view with being a fan of such language.
My kids here all sorts of bad words. If any of my household staff used that in front of my kids, my kids would be told, quite pointedly in front of the errant staff that this person worked for daddy, doing a menial job for less in a month than their laptop,and this is the behaviour of lesser people. And yes that's why daddy pays for you to learn karate and how to shoot.

Let me get this straight you feel that I was wrong in firing my housekeeper for using racist and bigoted comments in my home? You can't be serious? Is he alone in thinking I was in the wrong?

Most Christians lead good lives and have done much good on the planet as have most of those in the major religions. People find it hard to live without religion and it they don't have a onventional one they come up with someone else even if it's just alternative medicine or something.

If you look at the good that has come from Christianity it far outweighs the bad, on a daily day to day basis all ov erht world Christians mostly silent because they don't show off about it and good Muslims, Jews and others probably do a lot more for others than your average aetheist.

Sure Xenia, and Reggie Kray was good to his dear old mum. Nazi Germany was the largest Christian country in Europe, Italy at the same point in time was rather Catholic or did you not notice ?
The violence in NI is fuelled by Christians of various flavours, and forgive me I really don't recall any followers of Richard Dawkins following the Irish Christian practice of using electric drills on the bodies of children. Care to correct me on that ?

Alternative medicine like homoeopathy, healing crystals etc is not a religion, it is an artefact of ignorance, gullibility and wishful thinking. I see how you can easily confuse that with religion though.

As for Christian good outdoing the harm, explain to me what Christianity has done to outweigh the holocaust. This act was carried out almost exclusively by hundreds of thousands of Christians. After much diligent research an evangelical acquaintance of mine has managed to find one Moslem implicated in it. He seemed quite proud of this proof that it wasn't all Chrisitans...

As for people needing a religion, I'm not sure quite how you came to that conclusion. Billions of people manage to get thorough each day with no religious activity at all.

You are aware, aren't you that there are people in Asia ? Lots of them ? Many have no religion at all ?

Actually I've found that if you want to find someone who believes in absolutely anything, they will almost certainly also consider themselves 'spiritual' and religious. Thor, fairies, astrology, the world being churned into being in a giant butterchurn...it's all one to them.

I found this rather surprising, tbh.

Lol at Richard Dawkins having followers. And you guys claim you aren't organised.

Their religion didn't make them let the holocaust happen and more than the hutis killing the tutsis or whatever it was was a religion massacre or any more than the 10m or whatever it is female babies and unborn children killed in India and China. If however you look at the charitable work people do either just in helping their neighbours in parishes all round teh UK or the work of the churches in the relief of poverty world wide the benefits are much much greater than the various times when religion has been misused. On reason we live in a stable democracy with in general good laws is they are based on religious law, christianity etc.

DC if I wanted to I could point out that Stalin, Pol Pot and Mae Zedong ( I could probably name more if I stopped to think but they are the ones we have been writing about today at school) were all driven by their athiesm to commit atroctities and who knows they might have wanted to spend their £15.99 on the new Dawkins book and therefore be classed as a follower.

But I wouldn;t because it would be daft and I would not want to gerneralise from a few sadistic charactars to say that atheism should be banned or is wholly bad. Infact despite not agreeing wholly with Dawkins I do have a lot of time for Dawkins and do agree with some of the points in his book and think it should be comulsory reading for people with faith.

All belief systems are made up of people who will represent the good and bad of society.

As for NI well I am not proud to admit that my father was invloved in the atrocities on the side of the IRA and alhtough he was a baptised a catholic and claimed to be acting for his faith he was a thoroughly evil man who had no faith and was carrying out the attrocities he did because he was a sick sadisctic mentally ill man who liked to claim he was a hero fighting for his faith, but we his family with our quiet respectful faith knew the truth and would never condone his actions.

Hitler seemed to change his mind with with the wind as far as his faith went, or perhaps like many politician after him he told people what they wanted to hearand made useful alliances.

Hitler was baptised a Catholic and did rely on (I think) the Christian democrats to get into power but then turned on them.

he later rejected his catholicism and claimed to be a pagan but then on aother occassion claimed to be carrying out Gods will when killing the jews.

I won't deny that religion fuelled the holocaust and that their has been anti semitism fuelled in particulay by Matthews Gospel. But there were also lots of Christians who quietly helped the Jews and many more who did the wrong thing not motivated by faith but by fear. Still wrong though I agree.

Infact DC Hitker made many comments about Christianity that sound very much like the ones you make DC, but I would not say thatyou are both equally evil because you agree on a few matters of doctrine.

Hitler not Hitker

On a slight tangent I am glad that Dawkins and Peter Kay have kissed and made up!

UQD and DC, there's no sinister reason why I've not answered your responses to my post about offensiveness - only that I work long hours & last night was out at a meeting - at church, as it happens! I think you've misconstrued what I said for the following reasons: I DON'T think religion should be shielded from criticism and I get extremely angry with religious bigots myself. I feel that sections of the church get obsessed with issues like homosexuality whilst ignoring world poverty, domestic violence, exploitation etc, BUT this is NOT what I and the Christians (and non-Christians) I know feel are important issues. I am not racist, I believe that gay people should have the same rights as straight people (and have many gay friends of whom one couple has a baby), and I strongly oppose people who exploit others, be it in the name of religion or anything else. There are lots of people with whom I might disagree, but I think it's entirely healthy to debate issues - as long as it's done in a constructive way, with each person respecting the views of the other. My dh is an atheist, but he is always tolerant of my beliefs - as I am of his - & we agree on fundamentals. The sort of offensive remarks made by UQD was in particular the one about Communion wine & also sky-gods or some such terminology, & DC's assertion that she doesn't treat people with faith any differently from "anyone else who talks crap" is another example of what I regard as offensive and arrogant: how does she know that she's right?? I've read my original post again & I'm totally puzzled about the assertion that I'm making "veiled threats of violence", & haven't a clue what she's talking about.

And, back to the original topic: my dd will go to a C of E school that has up to 25% Foundation places (for children of any faith - not just C of E & not just Christian) & the rest Community places ie open to all-comers. If the Foundation places are not all taken up, then they are available for any others wanting them. As someone said earlier, the church set up the schools in the first place (this one in the 16th century), and so it seems reasonable that they should have some control over admissions. The thing that attracted us - and dd in particular - was not that it had a strict uniform or good results (other non-church schools have much better results and, to my mind, ridiculously strict uniform rules), but the feel of the place, which was that it seemed caring & that every child seemed to matter to them as an individual. My dd has received a personal letter of welcome fom the head, which I don't think happens in most secular schools.

I?m confused about a lot of what I am reading here. Isn?t organised religion outdated if people are able to pick and choose the parts of the doctrine that they want to believe are true? How does that work? Is religion like a smorgasbord off which you can pick and choose which bits fit most comfortably with your life?

If so (and that?s what I am frequently hearing) how could it be possible for a faith school to be teaching the exact definition of Christianity that you have chosen for yourself? Why do you need the faith school? What happens if that school starts to teach that homosexuality is a sin in its sex ed. Class? Do you pull your child out?

If you pick and choose the parts of the religion which seem to make sense to you (and ignore the thousands of religious scholars who have translated and defined what the bible says) how is it right that laws of this country can be made on the basis of what the scriptures say if those following the religion don?t adhere to what the scriptures say?

It?s surely no different for parents to start attending church as charitable, homophobic, agnostics than it is for people to call themselves Christians when they only support the parts of the religion they choose to support. ??

Could someone please explain to me again why it is right that people of faith have first dibs on church schools just because they were built by the churches 100s of years ago? I still do not understand.

Weren?t the schools set up by the church to educate (and make Christians out of) the poor? Doesn?t it follow that the church schools should retain this function and educate the poor? They were never set up to serve committed Christians.

Wrt ? Christians being involved in charity work, there are plenty of people in this country who don?t belong to an organised religion, who give their time and money to charitable causes. I like to think that if organised religion was abolished, the same people would involve themselves in charity work but maybe not., maybe their motivation for doing good is their religion. But worryingly, if religious doctrine motivates people to do good things then it follows that religious doctrine can motivate people to do bad things.

Overthehill, I hear the "I'm so upset with the rape/violence/fraud/bigotry of my church, reall upset, honest" bleat a lot from Christians.
Yet I see absolutely no mass action. None.
No church coiuld afford to ignore it's flock.
But let's be realistic, you hate this stuff the way you hate a bad character in a soap opera. It's an abstraction, you don't want to rock the boat with your mates. So what if a few kids get raped ?
You do nothing. Almost none of you do anything.
If I was a member of an organisation whose senior staff had organised the rape of kids like both the CoE and Catholics I would not be talking politely to their local rep. If he was not left shaking by the experience I would feel a failure.
If donations dried up, the church would drop it's bigotry and assitance to rapist just like that.
We both know this.
Do we see a catastropic drop in donations to bishops who openly admit helping rapists ?
No.
Do you even ask where the money goes ?
Did they tell you that their insurers are refusing to pay up for the sheer load of abuse cases ?
You have gay friends.
Hoop de hoo.

You are simply wrong that most schools were started by churches. Most were built by the state.
Also you really need to read some books, or even just walk down a few streets.
Look at the churches, thousands of them.
Big expensive buildings. Some took literally centuries of labour to build.
Where do you think they got the money ?
They skimmed it off funds collected for education and the relief of poverty.
The current charity laws were set up specifically because the the main Christian churches had stolen so much money.
It was a big scandal.
Since bulk Christians have had these fradulent sources of revenue taken away from them the building of churches has almost ended, and salaries of priests which at one time compared very well to bankers have decayed.

Bloody Hell, this thread. And I've only had a quick look at the last few posts. Would probably make interesting reading if I had the time.

DominiConnor, you're in danger of getting RSI