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?

lemonaid's point was (I think) that the fact that hospitals were set up by religious organisations should be as irrelevant as the fact that some schools were. The NHS is funded through tax and available to all, regardless of a patient's religious affiliation - you don't get your beliefs checked on the door of A&E.

you don't get education for your kids thereneither

which is my point

I want my children brought up in faith

I don't want my leg sewed up in it

Education, health, public transport, bin collection... all paid for by taxes, all should be available to all without prejudice. They do different things, but governments always love to lump them together - especially "schools'n'hospitals".

It's a perfectly valid point to say "you don't get refused entry to a hospital on grounds of an unproveable belief, so why be refused entry to a school?"

I have not, you may notice, bogged off. Insults are the sound of an argument toppling.

You don't understand how anyone can have a religious faith. I think we get that. You have made your point. But continually comparing religious faith to supporting a football team, believing in the literal truth of fairytales etc. does not further your argument.

The question raised by the OP was whether you would go to church to get your child into a church school. I suspect you would be in the 'no' camp. You raised a fairly interesting point about why faith schools are often seen as 'good' schools, but have been very dismissive of any suggestions that have been made. Or just ignored them. I feel now that you are using this thread to repeat the same old 'I'm not an atheist I'm an *independent thinker' argument. I've read it. I get it.

I don't quite get your point...

Mine is that, really, who historicaly set what up (especially at a time when virtually everyone was a Christian and churchgoer because that was how things were) isn't a good argument for how things ought to be now.

And that, at a time when we can spend however-much-it-is on Trident and a Trident replacement, there is no financial reason why the buildings/land/other financial contribution from the churches couldn't be met by the state, if the political will were there (which it isn't, of course).

So when you put forward a point about the background to setting up of church schools it's a good point that UD needs to respond to, but if I argue that the same principle could be applied to anything other than schools I get a ? Probably it would work for off-licences and offshore shipping, yes (not that I know huge amounts about either) -- if you're going to start deciding access to public services on the basis of religious affiliation there's no logical reason to stop at any specific predetermined point. You feel it's reasonable to apply it to schools but not to hospitals of off-licences or offshore shipping. I don't think it's reasonable to apply it to any of them. I can't see any compelling reason why your position is any more logically consistent than mine.

It's not fair to say I've been dismissive of the suggestions why faith schools are "better" - I just don't think any of them are convincing.

The only reason I keep on doing the same old same old comparisons is because I keep getting the same old "rebuttals" - twas ever so, sadly. And I thought it was quite interesting to make comparisons with schoo,s run by political parties and football teams - nobody's really given me a convincing answer as to why that would be any different.

And it's true, I don't really define myself as an "atheist", any more than someone who doesn't believe in Thor in the 21st century would feel the need to.

UQ, I think you've made your views loud and clear.

But what I don't understand is why are you so bothered by it? Do you feel you are subsidising (via your tax) something which you don't agree with? Is it as simple as that?

Is it something else?

Genuine question btw, I really don't understand.

I suspect Capuccino means that other public services do not play a significant role in the upbringing of our children. And therefore there would be no benefit in a faith-based health service provider in the same way as there would be (for those to whom faith was important) in a faith-based school.

I want my children brought up in faith
I don't want my leg sewed up in it

So is the argument for state-funded church schools that you want it (which this seems to imply) or that if faith schools did not exist a lot of schools would not exist at all? You were complaining that no one was engaging with the "historical background" point, but then when we do you say that it's irrelevant (which I tend to agree with, actually, and am glad to hear you say the same). Or is historical background relevant for stuff you want but not for stuff you don't?

I want many things for my children, but I don't expect them all to be provided within the state education system.

And there we go again...

I forgot to include Thor in your list of favorites.

Good question, Mercy.
I should say what it's not - bitterness or envy or jealousy, or anything like that. My children are in the catchment for a very good school and I'm very happy with it.

I suppose the reasons why I am bothered by it are the same as those put forward by others on here. That the idea of a "faith" is alien to many, many people, so why should the minority who claim to "believe" something control such a large part of the state school sector, preventing people from having places simply because they don't share the same "beliefs".

And that it is just so often accepted - oh, it's "faith", we should respect it and not challenge it, blah-dee-blah. No, we shouldn't. We should put it to the test, like any other theory, and see how it stands up.

But I risk repeating myself. And boring people. So I don't think I'll hang around in this argument much longer.

Surely I don't need to explain why I keep mentioning Thor?

Sorry if that's boring. Please substitute Freya, Zeus or Ra if you're bothered.

I would have thought that for an active Christian a church-affiliated hospital with a lovely nurturing atmosphere that had roots in the church community and where the staff had a prayerful approach to their work and their patients might be quite nice, actually. Perhaps even more so than schools -- after all, if you do want your children brought up in faith you could easily make provision for instruction in your own time through your own church if they were at a non-church school, while sewing up legs generally can't be tackled by the priest on a Saturday morning so your options are more limited.

You might not understand why some people have a religious faith, but surely you understand that some people do have such a faith. And that for many it underpins everything that they do. And therefore how they would like their children to be educated. ANd that that is wildly different from supporting a football team.

I am not one of those people. As I said, I choose not to send my child to a faith school. And I am in fact an awfully bad catholic. But I can see that while I don't feel like that, others do. And that a faith school and a football team school would indeed be very different.

God no! Please don't explain again why you keep mentioning Thor.

"For some people, football is not life and death.... it's more important than that." Or whatever the quote was.

I was just trying to choose something which, to a religious person, would seem equally odd and arbitary.

Of course I understand that people have "faith". People believe all sorts of stuff. All sorts of stuff which "rational" people (sorry, whatever word I use is inadequate) see as codswallop. I could declare that there's an Invisible Pink Unicorn sitting in my back garden, but I'd like to think people wouldn't believe me without any evidence, and certainly wouldn't just accept that I could just set up a school based around this deity without someone saying, "Hmm, wait a minute..."

arbitRary. Gah, I can't type today.

lemonaid - nice yes. Essential no. It's not about religious instruction I think. It's about, well, culture I suppose. There's more to being a catholic than knowing your catechism. Anyway, I'm not the best person to answer that point. I haven't chosen a church school. I should ask my mum

Anyway, plenty of people have answered the OP (I bet she wishes she'd never asked ) and as people have said, it's hard not to keep repeating yourself. So I'll be off for now. I'm sure this will keep going for a while..........

The football quote is foolish. For many people, religion was more important than their life. For many it is their life. You appear to be really lacking in empathy, even if you are 'rational'.

Yes Pimmpom, it's St. John's.
We did due dilligence on several schools, and it came last.
By a long margin.
We quite liked Buckhurst Country Primary, friendly, and didn't have some jerk poncing his ego as headmaster.

But many faith schools were set up many years ago, when the vast majority of the population did embrace religion, so there wasn't going to be anyone to say "hmm, wait a minute".
The faith schools are built on a strong foundation of belief, and perhaps the amount of true believers has diminished, but the schools maintain their strongholds because there are so many people who are prepared to say they believe, even if they don't, just so they can get into the school.
Until there are good schools across the spectrum, there are going to be people who will go to any lengths to get into faith schools. And there won't be good schools across the spectrum until people stop going to any lengths to get into faith schools and demand that all schools are of a good standard.
It's a vicious circle.
And I do think it is a shame that these threads always seem to degenerate into accusations that those who have a religious belief are somehow simple, unhinged or delusional.

Lemonaid is simply incorrect that most hospitals were set up by the church.
Perhaps she might have read of this new fangled "National Health Service" thingy...

Though to be fair they did help set up a large % of them, together with many universties and schools.
But when charitable works were a genuine part of church activity, they took great pride in not turning people away. Schools were seen as spreading the word of God, and hospitals as ways of demonstrating the humanity of the church.

How times have changed.
Now schools are cynically used to keep the flock in line, and instead of trying to reach non-christians they lock their schools against them.
Even their role in healthcare is considerably more ambiguous. The hospice movement is Christianity at it's best. But ever since they tried to stop women being given anaesthetics during childbirth, various Christian factions have been screwing with healthcare varying from getting unmarried women locked up as mad to getting stem cell research banned in many countries.
Less superstitious people eventually overcome this, and every time they do apologists for suprestion try to spin the latest outrage as "the past".

unquietdad/ beckybrastraps.

thor was looking down on the land when he decided he would 'visit' the lovliest lady in the lovliest villiage in ALLLLL the land.

so he did.

the next day thor was looking down on the land when he decided he would 'visit' the lovliest lady in the lovliest villiage in ALLLLL the land.

so again he did

for the third day thor was looking down on the land when he decided he would 'visit' the lovliest lady in the lovliest villiage in ALLLLL the land.

he decided he would tell the young lady who he was

" I AM THOR" he pronounced
"i'm a bit thor mithelf" said the maiden.

snort.

(and god said to Moses "come forth" but Moses came first and wona prize!)

UQD - so, what ARE the convincing reasons that catholic (for the sake of argument and because there is a helpful link relating to them in this thread) schools do better than secular maintained schools?

It can't be that they 'do better' and attract huge nubers of parents trying to get in simply because they are selective on a parfticular criteria...there must be something in the effect of that criterai that contributes to the results and reputation. What do YOU thijnk it is?

(Custy - tbh I was talking mostly about primary schools - I understand that teenagers can be a completely different kettle of fish! But it is at primary level that lot of this fake church attendance seems to start)

Also yes, I think the crazed competitive parent scenario is a feature of London where school places are in short supply, and because housing is so dense, deep innner-ciyt areas are intertwangled with gentrified streets, and parents want to avoid the families who turn thier children out onto the strets at 10pm in order to accomodate punters for sex in the one-bedroom flat.

These are the families (and the one whose teenager arrrives v early for our projects becuase there is no food in his dad's flat and his Mum has locked him out, or the Mum who attacks other teenagers because she believes they have 'dissed' her daighter...and so on and so on. These are all parents i have encountered in the last few days...and i honestly doubt any of them are particpants in any religion that runs schools. Therfore their poor children attend the nearest maintained school rather than the Catholic or CoE schools, and sadly, wreak havoc and scare the bejesus out of others.

In rural areas, the issue can be quite different anyway. The ONLY school for miles around will be the local village CoE school - non selective on church attendance, everyone goes there. Whether you wnat a religious school for your child or not. Does anyone know if these schools do better than equivalent non CoE schools in the next comparable village?