“3. Initially parents make the choice of identity for their children, but as children grow older, they should progressively gain freedom to make their own choices.”

This is simply a fact of life, it is not something that needs to be the concern of any school or government institution. Kids grow up, they leave home, they make their own religious choices. The wording of this point concerns me because it sounds like the school or state will progressively have more control over making sure this happens. That would entail an unwarranted intrusion of the state into family life.

Maybe it just needs rewording, but more likely dropping as a point, since it is in large measure a fact of life. To codify it is to give power to government and its agents to make sure it happens at a rate they decide. Adulthood is good for me, and we already have right to freedom of religion so no more regulations needed methinks.

http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk/

My point is about civil rights and is a departure from the usual arguments over faith schools that you have given the usual responses to. (Er, which prime minister has hidden his faith? And name me one person who intimidated them.)

Do you support the civil rights of pupils and parents of freedom of religious conscience, or do you seek to justify discrimination on grounds of religion?

I think you are missing a key fact. The Church Schools are not state schools – they are maintained schools. The Schools belong to the Church but are supported by the state.

The reason for this is that we (the Church) started work on providing a school for every child in 1811. Whereas the state did nothing until 1877 – because they wanted people kept ignorant lest they got too big for their boots. We (the church) paid for these schools and they remain popular with parents who want more of them.

The census showed 72% of the UK population to claim Christian faith. In this context it is not surprising that church schools are oversubscribed. The problem is most accute at secondary level where only about 5-7% of capacity is in church schools. It is the lack of places that causes the need for rationing and for admission criteria to do this.

There is no evidence that Church Schools in England or Wales are causing any of the problems of intolerance alluded to above.

The people who most often complain about the church schools are not those against them on moral grounds but people who having applied to a church school couldn’t get a place. The answer to their problem is build more places, therby eliminating so called selection.

We have in this country today a vocal and aggressive minority of atheists (the census showed no belief / atheism around 15/16%)who seek to make all schools humanist / atheist. This intolerant minority actually want to ram their religious views down the throats of us in the 76% majority who do have faith.

This intimidation is so extreme that even the primeminister feels he has to hide his faith. The comments above simply confirm that atheists hold the least tolerant religious views around.

Parents should decide this matter. This is the current case, except that they cannot usually choose a faith school at secondary level because there are hardly any of them. Freedom, Equality, Community – I do not think the evidence is there to justify restricting people’s freedom to choose the type of schools they can have in order to protect the community. The arguments you have mustered here seem to be you don’t want faith schools because you don’t have faith. That is not a Liberal argument.

Unless you can produce overwhelming evidence that faith schools by their nature cause serious harm to Freedom, Equality, Community then you don’t have cause. Selection does not give you that evidence as it is a function of demand exceeding supply and not faith.

Another point is to ask where the line is drawn on allowing parents to bring their children up in their own way. People for example, would not accept schools with a racial or political agenda, so why a religious one. What religions are acceptable to school children as well. Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all accepted, but what about other religions. A scientology school perhaps, or maybe a church dedicated to the flying spaghetti monster and the pastafarian religion. Schools are no place for bias or agenda, they are for educating children with facts, and at the same time aiming to promote inquisitiveness.

It is not a lie to state that you have a background in a religion of which you are a non-practioner in order to comply with entry requirements, nor is it unfair to have clearly stated entry requirements which are equally available for all to meet.

What if you are an atheist living in an area with only 3 state funded schools, a CoE, a Catholic and a Jewish school. Each state their entry requirements as being a “demonstrable member of the faith”. No chance there of getting your kids into any school without lying or forcing those schools to cater to unwanted students by government fiat. Make no mistake about it, if faith schools could get away with it (legally and in public opinion), they’d only have places for kids of their own religion.

If I as an atheist went to a Catholic School and said my kids meet the entry requirements because I’ve been baptised catholic, most of my family is catholic, and I even recently went to church for my cousin’s confirmation recently. I have the background, but as an atheist I’m obviously a non-practitioner. I’d consider myself a liar. Factually it’s all true, but it’s a misrepresentation, a deliberate distortion. Maybe as an atheist I have a different interpretation to the 9th commandment than a religious person has.

As to the other points, I responded appropriately to the substance and content of what you wrote. If you meant to say something else, then please correct what you’ve said.

Or put another way, those words have no useful meaning. So why are they in the dictionary I wonder? This sort of relativistic hogwash is going to do precisely nothing to lead us out of the abyss.

It is not a lie to state that you have a background in a religion of which you are a non-practioner in order to comply with entry requirements, nor is it unfair to have clearly stated entry requirements which are equally available for all to meet.

Your other points of discussion I shall politely ignore as I don’t think you accurately read what was written in the lines you quoted.

I’m not dogmatically pro or anti faith schools, but, as a rule, I’m not convinced that anybody learns anything by the consumption of facts alone – that’s not school-teaching, that’s a factory for creating workers and drones.

I agree that teaching requires more than facts. Enthusiasm for the subject is very important. Just how much enthusiasm will a religious teacher bring to a religion she doesn’t believe in? Just how much enthusiams can you generate for Religion A if your surrounded all day on all sides by Religion B? If you need enthusiasm then secular schools can invite in local priests/followers to talk (enthusiastically) about their faith, but do that for all faiths, again providing a balanced view.

It is just absolute codswallop to suggest that religions are anywhere near dominant powers in society, but they have their place, so we should let them keep it and ensure they don’t overreach it.

Religion is an extremely powerful and dominant power in society. 23 Complaints is all it took for an essentially harmless advert to be banned. Any time anyone talks about morality or ethics the government races cap in hand to the religious as though they have some monopoly on moral authority. Then we can start on all the laws that remain because of religion (like mandatory worship and prayer in school), special tax exemptions, laws, protection (we only just managed to get rid of that thoroughly illiberal and pro-religion blasphemy law; there are many more like it that favour religion over non-religious. Not to mention a state funded and supported church with religious leaders being granted uncontested seats in our upper house. The amount of power religion has in our society is massive. The only people that don’t realise this are the ones who aren’t discriminated against.

The parents I know who want their children to be educated in religious environments don’t do so to reinforce any ideology or belief (some are as anti-religion as the worst militant atheists), they do so out of their firm conviction that it is in the best interests of their child. This can take many forms – which are all valid (if contentious) in their own particular circumstances.

They want to send their kids to what they think is the best school, which I can understand. To do this they have to lie, because they know that their target school is allowed to religiously discriminate against them. It’s also starting to emerge that the only reason religious schools appear so much better is because they practice discrimination, and not just religious. Do you honestly think that if there were a secular school with the same quality of education and without the need for parents to lie, they’d not be rushing to get their kids into it? When it comes down to it, the parents hope that whatever indoctrination their kids receive either won’t be too bad or can be undone at home.

I’d also find it slightly funny, were it not serious, that there is no consideration here of what indoctrination state schools indulge in.

It’s not funny and we should be fighting any form of indoctrination, be it pro-religion, pro-communism, pro-labour, pro-racism, pro-homophobia, pro-whatever. This thread is about religion though. And let’s not get deluded by false liberalism that suggests it’s ok to have one form of indoctrination because there are also all these others out there.

People learn from example and through practice, by finding out what works and what doesn’t. By being emphatic in an aim not to mislead a child in their education, you consequently lead them nowhere.

It is just absolute codswallop to suggest that religions are anywhere near dominant powers in society, but they have their place, so we should let them keep it and ensure they don’t overreach it.

The parents I know who want their children to be educated in religious environments don’t do so to reinforce any ideology or belief (some are as anti-religion as the worst militant atheists), they do so out of their firm conviction that it is in the best interests of their child. This can take many forms – which are all valid (if contentious) in their own particular circumstances.

I’d also find it slightly funny, were it not serious, that there is no consideration here of what indoctrination state schools indulge in.

Would someone pro-faith-school please explain to me how your children would be disadvantaged by going to a school that teaches all religions (and none) equally, fairly and unbiasedly? You can’t. The only people disadvantaged are the parents, who are unable to reinforce their own ideologies. The kids gain all the advantages in a secular school.

Amen!

Do we fund Islam, Scientology, Wiccan, Quackerism, Buddhism, Creationists, Devil Worshipers, Human-Sacrifice-Sun-Worshipers? How do we decided? Do we restrict some but not others and what criteria do we use to restrict them? We can fund all of them, in which case we’ll get some we object to, or we fund none of them, in which case we’ll get none we object to. Or we selectively decide which to fund and get called illiberal and create community strife and unrest because we’ve “labeled” one or more religions as “bad” and are “discriminating” against them.

What’s happening with respect to power politics is that the dominant powers, the religious, want to continue being able to indoctrinate their kids. They are realising that they cannot just get away with this as easily as before, so they trot out a superficially liberal policy that allows everyone to indoctrinate their kids, but ensures that they can make sure their kids go to the indoctrination centre of their choice. As long as they can indoctrinate their kids in the way they want, they don’t care what others do with their kids. The reason religious people oppose secular schools is because they don’t want to lose their privileged position of being able to indoctrinate their kids. All religions are happy with this, because they can all indoctrinate to their heart’s content. The people that lose out are those opposed to indoctrination, the religions/cults/ideologies singled out as “not worthy” and of course the kids who are merely the pawns in what is essentially a bloodless religious war for the dominance of an ideology.

You’d think that all those “militant atheists” that are apparently dominating the opposition to faith-schooling would love the idea of indoctrination centres where they could ensure that kids learn the “truth” instead of “the lies of religion”. What’s really happening is that while those atheists are never shy of demonstrating their dislike of religion they are not calling for atheist schools, but for secular schools; secular schools that should teach about religion. Those atheist are saying, hey, give us a fair chance, we know our view is the best, and all we need is a fair chance. Surely a fair chance is all any religion should need, since if it’s obviously true and right, then what more but a fair hearing is required for people to realise that?

Would someone pro-faith-school please explain to me how your children would be disadvantaged by going to a school that teaches all religions (and none) equally, fairly and unbiasedly? You can’t. The only people disadvantaged are the parents, who are unable to reinforce their own ideologies. The kids gain all the advantages in a secular school.

The trouble with this appeal to the “right of a child not to be misled” is that believers make exactly the same appeal. It is not for the state to settle this question.

That is exactly my point. The state should teach children that “Religion A believes this, because of this, Religion B believes this, because of this. Non-Religion believe this, because of this”. You’re not misleading the child at all, which is the best possible approach. No-one of Religion A can say their child is being misled if he is taught exactly what people of Religion A believe. If Religion A is so obviously true as you believe it to be, then surely your child, given an unbiased view of it will make that same decision? The problem is that religious people know their religion is no more true than any other and hence want their view given preeminence to ensure their child picks it; they know the only way to win is to stack the deck and rig the dice, hence they oppose any semblance of a level playing field.

In faith schools you can also say “Religion A believes this, because of this, Religion B believes this, because of this. Non-Religion believe this, because of this”, but given it’s said in a school of Religion A, by teachers that are all of Religion A, with symbols, prayers, references and examples based on Religion A every day, the child is clearly and inevitably being led to believe that Religion A is better/more-correct etc, and hence every single person who isn’t of Religion A can claim (validly) that the child is being misled.

Sure. So the state shouldn’t be teaching children that if they disobey the Church they will go to hell and burn for eternity.

Joe Otten wrote: “Is Scientology nastier than Quakerism? Yes.”

Is Islam nastier than scientology? Yes.

Wake up people, there is simple power/identity politics going on here – new schools for us and our friends, you scum get lost.

Martin: The trouble with this appeal to the “right of a child not to be misled” is that believers make exactly the same appeal. It is not for the state to settle this question.

Sesenco: Yes, there is some unjustified whining about human rights from those in privileged positions. And this is a great reason to do what I’ve done and demand equal rights for non-christians. That’s all I’m asking for, and it is a demand against which they are defenceless. On the other hand their defences against Boyce et al’s demand that we treat them how they are treating us, are good enough to hold for a long time yet.

Is Scientology nastier than Quakerism? Yes.

Where kids with engaged parents have supportive environments to encourage free-thinking, those without avoid difficult answers in the vain hope they might find some security.

How else do you explain the drift and disenchantment that leads to a lack of qualifications? Are some kids just thick?

My point of disagreement is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, as all kids are different, have different needs and respond in different ways – so we should investigate and use the full variety of methods available.

I accept many difficulties arise from trying to match the child to the right school (not least issues of choice and advice), but liberalising the education market inevitably places demands on consumers to select their prefered provider.

I’m just highly sceptical of what monopolies achieve (especially state run ones), however well-meant they are.

Rather than admit that they want the state to pay for the indoctrination of children, the religionists talk disingenuously about human rights and whine about persecution.

Then we have the appeasers, who talk feebly about being “liberal” and showing “respect” to people of “faith” (though not Scientologists).

The key issues are surely these:

(1) Should the state be funding the indoctrination of children with religion (though not Scientology)?

(2) Should the state be facilitating the segregation of children on the basis of their parents’ beliefs?

My point about Scientology isn’t facetious. Religionists and materialists are very adept at colluding to freeze out common foes. The main victim of this collusion is, of course, the New Age Movement, at whom it is perfectly acceptable and politically correct to sneer.

Scientology has been characterised as a nasty cult (ever since Lord Denning lambasted them in 1970). But are they any nastier, are they any more cultistic, than established, “respectable” religions?

Your statement appears self-contradictary: if we want kids to make up their own minds, how can they do so without dissenting from any authorative views they recieve?

Not in the slightest. The kids shouldn’t have to dissent at all.

To make up your mind about something, you find out all the views, examine all the facts and then make your determination as to the best conclusions. This is what happens in secular schools.

In faith schools you are told that something is a certain way, your mind is already made up for you. Oh and some other people believe some other stuff as well. In a faith school the only option is to dissent and rebel. You either accept the status quo or you turn your back on it.

In a secular school there is no status quo, there’s nothing to rebel against, there’s nothing to turn your back on. Instead you can more forwards towards your own best conclusion as to the validity of whatever views are presented.

In a secular school you present the kids with a wide open field and they can decide to stand wherever they want to. In a faith school you have that same field, but you erect a big wall around your section of the field and stick all the kids in it. (or if you’re not of that school’s faith, on the outside of it). Everyday they add to that wall, increasing it’s height. For the kids to go stand in a different part of the field they first need to climb over the wall you’ve erected.

The so-called “good” faith-schools build a wall that is much lower and easier to climb over than the “bad” faith-schools, but that wall is there all the same.

Why would anyone, other an someone intent on ensuring their kids never stray to another ideology, i.e. to trap them, want such a wall?

I really don’t like the negative connotations of stripping away things which one or another segment of society don’t like, as it fails to address any real questions of actual content.

Faith in schools and faith-based schools are fine in my book, provided that they can come up with an acceptable context for lessons (though this thread shows how difficult it can be to reach agreement) – especially as each of us should be able to distinguish those from the ‘faith schools’ in which knowledge is passed on by assertion of the “trust me, I’m a priest” kind.

MartinSGill – Your statement appears self-contradictary: if we want kids to make up their own minds, how can they do so without dissenting from any authorative views they recieve?

The scandal of league tables is how it has opened up the controversy over whether it is better to just replicate what you have been told (in a vague hope that some of it will sink in), or whether more value is gained by making mistakes on your own terms and using these as examples to learn from.

In one of my schools we had a teacher who encouraged plagiarism and learning by rote, but she was kicked out when this was discovered, even though some parents pointed out their kids exam marks would suffer.

The utopian ideal of an unbiased teacher just creates an intellectual vacuum where facts are forcefed without empowering young minds to grow their understanding or find methods, means or sources of application.

I guess that the dividing lines are defined by whether it is better to advocate revolution, reform or the status quo.

Well, exactly. They can send their kids to Sunday school.