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?

People have been saying this for more than 30 years, when I first started using a computer keyboard. Even then people noted I hit the keys quite hard. I'm now quite a fast typist, but even in middle age I've no symptoms of RSI.

overthehill - DominiConnor is a bloke.

I still don't see how my joke about communion was that offensive. If you think that's offensive you must have led a sheltered life.#

And yes, I plead guilty to using the term "sky-gods". I'd like three other considerations of "imaginary friend", "fictional deity" and "Invisible Pink Unicorn" to be taken into consideration.

I've never quite understood why the Christian God is classed as a "Sky God". He's clearly an abusive father figure.

I thought UQD's joke was spot-on in the context of the OP: communicants who, new to particpation in religion until the admissions round loomed, become a little confused about the etiquette...

And I'm not always a fan of UQD's jokes!

Haven't read the whole thread (don't have all day!), but am quite shocked by some of the things I've read and am, for the first time on Mumsnet, offended by some of the comments, mostly from DominiConnor.

DC - I'm a N Irish Christian, not from a 'denomination' though. I'm not Catholic, but I find it strange that you would dismiss all of Catholicism because of the actions of a minority of Catholics.

I'm also a teacher, so know a fair bit about the education system here. While I'd be the first to lament the part that religion has played in the troubles, you have displayed quite a lot of ignorance, not only about historical issues, but also about the current situation. Your comments seems vitriolic and full of sweeping generalisations.

Apologies if I missed out an explanation of your stance, as I said I haven't read the whole thread. What happened to you to make you so bitter about N Ireland and religion? Come and visit my school, meet kids who are sadly sometimes bigoted, but who also sit next to pupils from 'the other side'. I agree that in N Ireland church schools have been divisive, in an already divided society, but to extrapolate a viewpoint from this to schools on the mainland isn't really logical.

Popcorn anyone?

I wondered if DominiConnor was a man. anyway, i'm definately going to read this thread soon. My kids are at a Catholic Primary and we're practicing catholics, so I'm sure it will make for interesting reading.

A lot has been done about child abuse but that doesn't sell newspapers. Most priest, scout masters, school teachers don't abuse children. Most abuse is sadly done by a relative but wherever it occurs the churches (except those cults which are into adult/child sex) do seek to stamp it out.

Er, except they didn't. They took priests who were known abusers and quietly moved them to other locations, where they carried on. All over the world!

Dc to name but a few religious people who have done good in the world and have stood up to be counted,

Dietrech Bonhoffer, Oscar Romero, Benigno Beltran, Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez, Jackie Pullinger, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Ama Adhe, Bill Phipps, Father Camilo Torres Restrepo,

sorry clicked post half eay through my post but I was getting bored! Apologies for the leftwing Christian bias but that is my subject specialism and interest.

I and most other RC I know do not excuse what has happened with priests who abuse children or the way the church has tried to cover this up. THe most shocking example I know of is Brendan? Smyth in Ireland who had been comitting his crimes for about 50years and the evidence suggests that his order knew about this and did nothing.

But we have not sat back and ignored what has happened as DC has implied. Many Roman Catholics have put pressure on the church too act and we have made sure that this issue is given media atteantion as sadly this is often needed to pressure authorities into doing something.

I am not naive and I do not think that my church is perfect but I do think it achieves more good than bad whether it be a public grand gesture by figures such as those on my post below or private smaller gestures or acts that make our world a better place to live. There are times when I get so angry with my church that I want to leave but I know that I can and do make the most change from within.

Duh - I've not scrutinised the whole thread in the greatest detail so didn't realise the Communion wine comment was a joke , but I can see the funny side to it now - & I do object to people who feign religion to get their children into a particular school as I think it's hypocritical. And I had wondered whether DC was a man, but just assumed otherwise since the vast majority of posters are women. So sorry about making assumptions.

However, I've realised that it's pointless to try & argue for the reasonable voice of Christianity because whatever I or anyone else says, DC in particular won't listen of miscontrues my words as he has his axe to grind and can't seem to accept or tolerate anyone else's point of view.

It's true that there have been & still are some priests who are child abusers, also scout leaders, school teachers & others in positions of authority. Well, like him and any other decent human being, I totally abhor that as it's a complete betrayal of trust and power. The church has a few people like that within its ranks as it's an organisation made up of imperfect human beings, but in former times certain parts of the church in particular did not want to believe such things could happen & so colluded with them which, as you say, is totally unacceptable - or, dare I use the word - evil. I like to think that that attitude has gone as churches have had to face up to such matters, & quite rightly they now have very strict child protection policies. The church DC describes sounds like that of the Middle Ages, & surely even he must admit that attitudes have changed somewhat since then...

HHB, I don't consider that Christianity should be about Christians choosing which bits of the doctrine fit with their lives; rather, I see the Word of God as a living message written down at a certain point in history, which has to be reinterpreted for the times in which we live. So, for instance, Paul condones slavery, which we obviously wouldn't, & in the same way his views about sexuality, headship etc have to be read very carefully in the context in which they were written in order to see what they mean for us in a totally different context. The Bible is a collection of books written by different people over many hundreds of years, & there are many parts that contradict each other, partly because ideas change. Fundamentalists tend to take the Bible literally - as though the hand of God was literally holding the pen - & would condemn the idea of viewing it in context and reinterpreting it for our times.
My view is that it informs the choices we make & the lives we lead (eg in my case, I try & live simply, have compassion, don't earn mega-bucks in high finance but work as a social worker etc. - but please, DC, I'm just trying to state some facts, not boast, & I also recognise that lots of non-Christians live far more altruistic lives than I do. (Just for the record, in case you think I'm trying to sound holier-than-thou, I do have a sense of humour, like a drink & a good meal & lose my temper fairly frequently with my children, dh etc.)

Incidentally, who says God's a man??? The doddery old chap in the sky with pink skin, white hair & a long beard is an extremely misleading Victorian Sunday School image, as are Christmas cards of Mary with fair hair, long eyelashes & blue eyes: she was dark, Jewish & possibly only about 14 when she had Jesus. He was born into poverty in an occupied country, and his message was so subversive that he was put to death when still a young man. NOT the gentle Jesus meek and mild of popular culture...

I think the bit about choosing which bits of doctrine to follow was following up something I said in an earlier post and it is something I stand by.

Unless you are a fundamentalist I think all religious people do to a certain extent pick and choose doctrine to believe in or live up to. So for example as a Roman Catholic I agree with the church teaching on abortion but can see that the same teaching might not be appropriate for a young girl. I follow church teaching on contraception but not sex outide marriage as I acnnot live up to that. As a divorced woman I clearly have not lived up to church teaching on marriage although I very much wanted to. There is some "pick and mix" going on here but I still consider myself a Roman Catholic.

Why Invisible Pink Unicorn, UQD? Am I missing something here too?? Dare I say it, but you campaign against religion with a fervour reminiscent of those fundamentalists (and the rest) that you set out to condemn. Oh and DC, what were the veiled threats I was apparently issuing in my original post?? I'm still none the wiser.

overthehill - I'm showing my net-age. Invisible Pink Unicorn was something people referred to on the old alt.atheism discussion boards in the days of Usenet (frequented by the religious and the non-religious in equal measure). It's an example of an "unproveable thing". Atheists sometimes used it to illustrate how God seems to someone who isn't religious - it's there, but you can't see it, it's there because I say so, it's pink because I say so, I know it's a unicorn because I've seen it and experienced it, yes, I know it's invisible but just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist... etc.

I am not any sort of "fundamentalist" and, if I were the type to get offended, could be so at this comparison. For the record, I only join in conversations (both real and virtual) about religion when someone else starts them off. So it is with this one, about the morality of lying to get into church schools - difficult to state your position really without saying whether you "believe" and then why/why not, and then you are challenged, need to defend, etc. etc. That's one difference between me and a fundamentalist.

I don't go round trying to "convert" people to atheism, if such a thing were possible. (I don't consider any -ism to be the opposite of religion, anyway.) The only reason I appear to be banging on a bit is because the same old tired non-arguments get put up time after time. So that's another difference.

And the final - most "fundamental" difference - is that, like Richard Dawkins, I'd change my opinion if evidence were to be produced in favour of God's/gods' existence. Just as I'd be forced to change my opinion on the laws of gravity if things started floating upwards, or on the theory of molecular structure if (under properly observed conditions) people started being able to push solid wood through solid metal. That kind of thing.

Hope that clarifies my position.

"I think the bit about choosing which bits of doctrine to follow was following up something I said in an earlier post and it is something I stand by.

Unless you are a fundamentalist I think all religious people do to a certain extent pick and choose doctrine to believe in or live up to. So for example as a Roman Catholic I agree with the church teaching on abortion but can see that the same teaching might not be appropriate for a young girl. I follow church teaching on contraception but not sex outide marriage as I acnnot live up to that. As a divorced woman I clearly have not lived up to church teaching on marriage although I very much wanted to. There is some "pick and mix" going on here but I still consider myself a Roman Catholic."

That's fine, for you, but what about people who have no religion. Why should the church's viewpoint be taken seriously when laws are being made and/or revised when most of the members of the religion do not believe every part of the doctrine? Doesn't this show that religion should be soemthing people engage in privately?

Also, if people of faith believe a variety of things, who are you (or Overthehill) to say that parents of no faith cannot send their children to faith schools. It could be that they follow more of the rules of Christianity than a Christian person - all that separates them is a belief in a god.

What exactly is a religious person getting from a faith school? It seems to me all they get is to share a space with other people who believe in a supernatural being.

Oh, let's all go out for a pint.

Good idea

I keep revisiting this thread as I am waiting for someone to justify why faith schools should be able to select churchgoers only (and some churchgoers are more equal than others) and yet the taxpayer is meeting the bulk of the school's running costs. I accept that not all faith schools are oversubscribed and that some serve disadvantaged communities. BUT the problem is that in some areas the best performing school is the faith school. It is disingenuous to say that this is entirely down to the faith of the parents; it might have been originally but what we have now is a vicious circle of self selection. Because the school performs well then motivated/concerned/aspirational/mc (pick whichever term applies) want their kids to have a chance to get in and will do whatever it takes. They are the parents most likely to be committed to their children's education and will therefore be highly supportive to the school and this will then contribute to further success and so it goes on...These families are then creamed off from the other 'standard comprehensives' and their performance is affected.So then, please tell me why this is fair and why the taxpayer should put up with this situation.

Once upon a time I would have qualified for our local Christian Ethos selective school who select based on the parents' religious attendance. My faith fell on hard times after giving birth to a premature baby who did not survive and it seems that my misfortune and crisis informs my older children's chances of getting into a certain school. What sort of Christianity is that?

because I am a tax payer as well and therefore have the right to educate my child, it costs the state no more to educate my child as a catholic than in a non denominational school. AS we are so supportive of our school the parents also pay a lot into the education, for example we wanted a new playground so we paid for it, we wanted a vegetable garden we are paying for the equipment and doing work for ourselves. We also get money from the church.

We laos do welcome none church going families, although to be honest we donlt get that many as the schools are so good that families who are aginst church schools just wouldn;t want to come here. We do take children in from different faiths. I just want to see children educating in an environment where they succeed and that isn't closed to people because of their income and as I have said earlier our school represents and welcomes children from all types of financial backgrounds.

If other schools in the area were better there parents would not be getting frustrated and annoyed at the the lack of choice. This is not pie in the sky and as in my area every primary is good and most are excellent so the presence of two church schools out of what I think is six is not affecting the standards of education.

As for the picking and choosing I am just being honest, I think we all agree on the major things but there are some matters of morality where even the Bible is unclear. Sometimes I do agree with the church teaching, for example about sex before marriage but due to my own human flaws I do not feel able to live up to that teaching but I can see how my life would have benefitted if I had managed to save myself for marriage.

UQD ( I think it was you) I to am willing to have my mind changed by evidence and at times I have not believed in God and to be honest as a thinking Christian I am never 100% sure.

I will admit to not having read all the God delusion but does Dawkins say what evidence he would need. I just suspect that he is waiting for evidence that he knows will not come.

Caroline1852 thatis Christianity at its worst and I would not stand for that. I myself have not gone to church for long periods due to ill health and I know that would not harm my daughters chance of getting in to school.

I was chuckling about this thread with dp last night ( who is an atheist with agnostic tendencies!) and we were laughing at the fact someone called christians mentally ill. Dp then pointed out that I am menetally ill so perhaps I should leave this thread as I am giving the enemy ammuniton!

twinset - that is a good question and I'm sure he has addressed it somewhere. He must have been asked it at some point. I don't know if it is in "The God Delusion" but I expect it is on his website somewhere.

For myself, I find this extract from the BBC's Religion & Ethics site pretty much states my position.

'We should adopt the same policy that we do with people who insist the Loch Ness Monster exists:

Start by assuming that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. Form an idea of what would constitute the Loch Ness Monster. Then see if there's anything that "proves" that particular thing exists.

The philosopher Anthony Flew who wrote an article on this said:

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.
So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition.
It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.'