It is true that some faith schools manage to add a little more educational value to their intake - due mainly to a lack of distractions, and especially, in some cases, the opposite sex.
A couple more GCSEs is useless if we end up living in a divided country with barbed wire down the middle of the street.
Please do not confuse the good old, moderate, C of E with the hard-indoctrinating, mind-narrowing variety now coming to the fore.
We saw what happened in Northern Ireland - and that was just Catholics versus Scots-style Presbyterians. Do we really think the situation would have been so bad for so long if they had all gone to the same state school instead of being lectured insidiously by black-robed priests and ministers about how they were better than each other?
Education means teaching facts, not faith - Churches do that. I speak as a moderate Christian.
Agreed PresenterOne and as a proud atheist, I wish more people of faith such as your good self would stand up for more secularism in this country, particularly with regards to education.
I wish more people of faith would stand up and denounce faith, religion and stone age belief systems personally. When you start a school based on the idea that a being exists and that you must have faith in him you are off to a bad start. Faith is belief without reason or evidence and that is no basis on which to found an educational establishment.
Faith is a private delusion to which our children should not be subjected by the state. We should not fund such schools. They are divisive, they teach nonsense and they are fundamentally opposed to giving children a good education.
If people wish to follow a religion that's up to them but to describe children as Muslim or Christian children and to raise them as such is child abuse. We would not seek to have a Tory school, where all children were taught a fictionalised version of reality in which the Conservative party was the paramount source of all wisdom and good moral conduct and that they should, when grown, vote Tory or else be cast down as sinners.
Equally then jonevans you would not get married in church, have your children baptised or consider a church burial?
Of course I wouldn't. The only times I'm seen in churches are when I'm looking at the architecture (amazing what you can do with slave labour and the proceeds of centuries of tithes) or to attend someone else's funeral or wedding.
Baptising your childen is the height of arrogance. How dare anyone claim that their child becomes a christian by having water splashed on it's head? What choice has it made? How can an infant possibly have decided to be a christian or a muslim?
We saw what happened in Northern Ireland - and that was just Catholics versus Scots-style Presbyterians. Do we really think the situation would have been so bad for so long if they had all gone to the same state school instead of being lectured insidiously by black-robed priests and ministers about how they were better than each other?
You've been there obviously .... or are acquainted with people who have lived there .... or know people in the education system there.
Quote:
I speak as a moderate Christian.
mmmm ... not exactly moderate. But hey I'm happy to learn - please elucidate what non-moderate would be.
As some of my friends went to uni there and stayed (which makes me a regular visitor) I may just have a little better knowledge and / or persepctive than you.
Disagree ? The Cleveland child abuse story was worldwide news. Its quite a leap to accuse all Cleveland-ers of same !
There may well be anglican and a couple of presbyterian churches over there the vast majority of faith schools just happen to belong to the Catholic Church.
Not only that, but what maketh a headline and what maketh normal every day life are two entirely different things.
Just because a child hasn't decided to become Christian or Muslim doesn't mean they can't be - I didn't decide to be British when I was younger but that doesn't mean I wasn't!
- Javid (whose Church of England lower school was *amazing* compared to all the secular alternatives, even though I didn't have a choice on that matter either)
Just because a child hasn't decided to become Christian or Muslim doesn't mean they can't be
No of course it doesn't, everybody should be free to choose which religion, if any, they align themselves with. But putting them into a school which promotes one religion above all others from an early, impressionable age denies them that choice, which is why religious schools and any other form of religious indoctrination of young people should be illegal.
We wouldn't allow a school to actively promote Marxism or Facism, so why do we tolerate schools whose aim is to instill in their pupils the questionable values of Islam or Catholicism or any other faith?
Oh, and jonevans - I couldn't help noticing that you believe faith to be without reason or evidence. Are you a fan of Richard Dawkins, by any chance?
Faith is not with out reason or evidence. This is not a definition of faith given by any Christian writer or note. Faith can have many definitions; but the one you give shows a lack of knowledge of Christianity. Faith is believing despite emotions; when one's reason has already convinced, not to be swayed by one's fluctuating and volatile emotions. Faith is knowing that something cannot be proved, but looking at the available evidence and forming an opinion. Faith is trust. To some people faith may be without evidence, but that is not the traditional Christian view of faith.
Jonevans and Matt - Remember it is the 'faith' of Burmese monks that propels them to confront the 'evil' of the military junta. Soon you might be tested for such a 'faith'.
To some people faith may be without evidence, but that is not the traditional Christian view of faith.
Obviously not, but on the other hand I doubt that the traditional Christian view of "evidence" is the same as Dawkins'!
Dawkins' (and any other atheists') point is that using the rigorous scientific definition of "evidence", there is no evidence to support religious belief, and that is demonstrably correct.
Dawkins' (and any other atheists') point is that using the rigorous scientific definition of "evidence", there is no evidence to support religious belief, and that is demonstrably correct.
I'm a blank, frank atheist, and even I can't support that. Althought technically there is no evidence to support religious belief, there's no evidence to refute it either. It's all a matter of faith. Personally, I cannot find belief within me.
Quote:
Equally then jonevans you would not get married in church, have your children baptised or consider a church burial?
I didn't get married in church, none of my 4 children are baptised, and I've done the paperwork to leave my body to science (Science may contest the will*...). Your point is..?
I'd happily send my child to a faith school to get a better education, comfortable that they'll sort out their own beliefs eventually. What I CANNOT condone is the exclusion of the children of atheists from Faith Schools based on religious grounds.
Further, it is my understanding that a child of any faith cannot be refused entry to a faith school on the grounds that their faith does not match that of the school (so a Muslim child cannot be denied a place at a Roman Catholic school on those grounds), but that atheist children can be denied entry to any faith school on the grounds of "no faith".
Can someone confirm or deny that my understanding is correct?
...
*thanks to the letter-writer in The Times who supplied that gag
My point is obvious Terry, many of us use a church (marriage banns, funerals etc) but refuse to support a church by attending service, communion or donating to upkeep. Such hypocrisy I find annoying!
Hang on a mo, Scrubs. The basic charges for a registry office marriage is just over a £100 (including 'banns'), compared with the advertised basic costs from CofE of £240. I'd say that extra money would be going to supporting the church, given the relative minor differences in labour required.
Will you accuse me of hypocrisy because I regularly bung my local church a few quid but I have never attended a service there?
Couples getting married in church shouldn't be accused of hypocrisy but congratulated - surely that's the Christian way?
PS it is a legal right to get married in your parish church.
Sorry, don't understand your point. Using the rigorous scientific definition of "evidence", it is demonstrably correct to say that there is no evidence to support religious belief.
itsterry:
Quote:
there's no evidence to refute it either
No of course there isn't, but that's irrelevant. You can't justify a proposition by pointing to a lack of evidence against it! See Russell's teapot. I think both you and Simone are missing the point I made, which is about the nature of evidence.
No of course it doesn't, everybody should be free to choose which religion, if any, they align themselves with. But putting them into a school which promotes one religion above all others from an early, impressionable age denies them that choice, which is why religious schools and any other form of religious indoctrination of young people should be illegal.
People should also be able to choose which language they speak - should we then not teach people English until they're old enough to choose (somehow)?
Oh no, I see your point about the evidence - my point was that the evidence is all around us. I do agree that lack of evidence against certainly isn't evidence for. Also, I have no wish to abscribe to the "God of the gaps" theory.
I can't really argue the case as well as others might - may I recommend Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis? Also books by Alister McGrath, Russell Stannard and John Polkinghorne. I'd especially recommend the God experiment by Russell Stannard.
I would not accuse any Christian of hypocrisy Tizzy, what I am saying and I have said this previously, our churches are mostly empty except for baptism, marriages and funerals. This saddens me, not in a religious sense because I have no religion, but from a passion I have for community building for which the church has a vital role.
I guess the bottom line is I want to revive the church as central to our way of life but in a role that is governed by the people not the parish priest. Pretty fundamental I know and I will probably be burned at the stake.
Consider briefly where I'm coming from Tizzy, I do not believe in central government, I believe power must be distributed locally with more involvement from the local people, kindof a Swiss plan is the nearest likeness. I shall be working hard all my life to achieve this, soon as I get my qualifications. I want young people like me to know politics, humanities and law backwards.
The system is failing in Britain and spin has been it's downfall, trust has evaporated and change is required. I will change things for my generation or I will die unfulfilled.
I think parents, and not the government, should make the main decisions about how they bring up their children. I think parents should therefore be able to choose to send their children to faith based schools in they want, and others can choose to send their children to secular schools if they want.
Quote:
But putting them into a school which promotes one religion above all others from an early, impressionable age denies them that choice, which is why religious schools and any other form of religious indoctrination of young people should be illegal.
What is indoctrination? Promoting a particular view?
I don't believe that there can be a neutral faith position. We all have a view of religion, even if that view is that God does not exist - that is a view about a religious topic. We all promote a certain view of religion.
People should be expected to tell the truth in speaking of the views of others, but we should not try and make teaching your own views illegal.
What is indoctrination? Promoting a particular view?
That is a rather naive definition. Indoctrination is much more than that - it is the systematic teaching of a person or group to accept that a doctrine is "true", or superior to an equally valid alternative, whilst discouraging them from critically examining that doctrine.
There is obvious survival value in not questioning the advice of one's elders - a child that decides to explore the veracity of the advice that it is dangerous to swim in that alligator-infested pool is much less likely to pass on his genes than one who accepts that advice uncritically.
The root of religion is the exploitation of that fact to exert power and control, and the survival of religion depends on implanting its dogma in the minds of children before they have acquired the intellectual maturity to reflect upon whether or not what they are being told to accept is of any real value.
In a historical, philosophical and anthropological context religion has a place in the education system, but the imposition upon children of one religion over all others is wrong because it denies them the opportunity to choose their own belief system.
Quote:
we should not try and make teaching your own views illegal.
It is already illegal to teach a partisan view of a political issue or system in UK schools, and there is no logical or moral case for exempting religion from the same restriction.
Indoctrination is much more than that - it is the systematic teaching of a person or group to accept that a doctrine is "true", or superior to an equally valid alternative, whilst discouraging them from critically examining that doctrine.
By your definition, if Christianity is true, then people could not be indoctrinated in it, because if Christianity is true, then there are no alternatives that are equally valid. This is what I mean by there being no neutral position. People either accept or reject the claims of a religion. If people are told that Christianity is one of many equally valid options is to say Jesus was wrong when he claimed to be the only way to God - therefore not a neutral position about Christianity.
Also, I don't know where this alleged "indoctrination" occurs. The part of Christianity to which I belong certainly did not discourage me from critically examining my doctrinal beliefs. Even though my parents taught me the Bible from a young age, I have different views to my parents on some issues.
if Christianity is true, then people could not be indoctrinated in it
It is no more "true" than Islam, Judaism or any other religion, except in the eyes of those who believe in it. I accept your assertion that there is no "neutral position", but it does not detract from my argument. All religious beliefs, including atheism, are equally "right" or "wrong", which is why it is wrong to teach children that one of them has more value than any other.
Quote:
Also, I don't know where this alleged "indoctrination" occurs.
It may only occur in a subtle form in most UK schools, but it's there nevertheless. The mere fact that a school's ethos is "Christian" or "Muslim" is sufficient.
Quote:
Even though my parents taught me the Bible from a young age, I have different views to my parents on some issues.
But you are nevertheless a Christian by the sound of it. Surely you can see that if you had been brought up from that young age in a devoutly Hindu family you would now be a Hindu, not a Christian? Your Christianity is not something you were born with.
Surely you can see that if you had been brought up from that young age in a devoutly Hindu family you would now be a Hindu[quote][url]
NO! my wife was born into a muslim family with strong islamic believes.. I was born into a christian family.. she chose to change and take up the christian faith... This was before we met, so it was her and only her choice...
They say never discuss religion and politics and here we are discussing faith on a political web site!
And hasn't it got heated! With justification too. There is an awful lot of pontificating here, from what I have been reading. I can't get into quoting ALL of it, there are too many points that I either agree with or that raise my hackles to the ceiling. But just let me say: Faith is personal. It cannot be imposed. We either have it or we don't... although we can CHOOSE to ignore it too. Science is not categorically against an existance of a higher Being... the more that is probed the more science is disabled from doing so. There ARE many instances of indoctrination by fundimentalists in many of the world faiths... there are those who fall prey to this, young or more mature, there are those who choose to extricate themselves from it as their own sense of faith [or otherwise] comes into being. I went to a faith school. I am not of that faith now, but the one I have is very strong. The grounding I received was decidedly controversial in my view, but it gave me something to argue for or against!
Human development is physical, mental and spiritual. I really cannot imagine that anyone would argue against attending to a child's physical needs. Most rational adults acknowledge the importance of emotional welfare to children. The spiritual sense of being in touch with one's inner self is also vital to a healthy upbringing. You may not, as an adult agree with feeding your child the white bread your mother gave you. You formed your own views as you developed. You may not agree with instructing your child in the specific set of beliefs of your childhood, because you developed and learned from what you were taught as a child.
Let us not forget that Faith schools provide a moral code by which to set and develop our own moral standards. What the hell is so wrong with that?
21parque,
Yes of course people sometimes choose to change faiths, but that is very much the exception. Your wife's experience reinforces the point I'm making. If people didn't have their faith chosen for them by their parents and indoctrinated into them by their society and their schools, and were allowed as a matter of course to choose for themselves when they were intellectually mature enough to make an informed comparison of all the options, maybe many more would choose a different faith than that of their parents, or choose not to adhere to any faith.
Let us not forget that Faith schools provide a moral code by which to set and develop our own moral standards.
"Faith" as a whole, or any one faith in particular, do not have a monopoly on the teaching of moral standards. One of the things that I find most repulsive about religion is its claim to be the universal arbiter of morals, and its implicit assertion that "no faith" = "no morals". Some faiths would do well to take an objective look at some of the moral standards outlined in their sacred texts, and some of the grossly amoral acts which have been perpetrated in their name, before judging and directing the morals of others.
We do not need faith schools to teach morals, especially since different faiths each have a different outlook on what constitutes good and bad morals. We need society as a whole to determine and refine what constitutes an acceptable range of moral behaviour, and all schools to uphold and reinforce those standards, and to respond positively as they evolve.
And if it had never been presented to you as important, what makes you think you would bother?
I'm not for one moment suggesting that schools should present faith as trivial or unimportant, just that they should not promote one particular faith as being more important than any other, or as superior to having no religious faith at all.
Baptising your childen is the height of arrogance. How dare anyone claim that their child becomes a christian by having water splashed on it's head?
That's strange the last few dozen I've been to were ceremonies where the alleged believers were promising to being the child up according to that faith until such time as it made its own mind up
I used to be a christian but I've been cured of that now. I guess I just decided that if there was an afterlife I wasn't prepared to spend it with the narrow minded bigoted nepotistic misogynists in the congregation up the road.
I guess I just decided that if there was an afterlife I wasn't prepared to spend it with the narrow minded bigoted nepotistic misogynists in the congregation up the road.
That's one of the best descriptions of 'Hell' I've ever heard
