Faith schools

[Dave B]

Is this a good idea? In the UK we tend to think of faith based schools as pushing Islam, but remember that there are plenty of Christan and Roman Catholic schools too. Do they have any part in society, or should kids be taught about all religions and left to make up their own minds?

Does dividing kids up according to their faith (or in reality the faith of their parents) cause more problems than it solves, as they don't get a chance to mix with kids of other religions?

For my part, my junior school had strong ties with the local church. We were taught, in no uncertain terms, that there was a God, he created the universe, he created man, he gave up his only son, and that when we die we all go to heaven or hell.

Other religions were wrong - pure and simple.

We all said prayers, we all sang hymns. Too young to question what we were being taught, we all went along with it. Only as I grew older did I start to question what I was being told, and realise that there were other views.

I believe that children should be taught that some people believe XYZ, some believe ABC, some belive nothing at all; then allowed to make up their own minds. I cannot see how faith schools could possibly play any part in this.

[BDunnell]

I agree with you, Dave. As an atheist, I would hate to see their further expansion.

Furthermore, I believe it's time to do away with the requirement for a 'daily act of collective worship' in every school.

[LotusElise]

Most schools no longer bother anyway - assembly is a time for giving out school news and announcements.
I went to a church primary school, although we were allowed to learn about other religions and it was not suggested to us that they were wrong. There were a couple of kids from other faiths there who used to sit out the more religious assemblies, with the vicar present.

[Garry Walker]

Faith schools should be banned, no more religious nonsense should be fed to kids who might be gullible enough to fall for such stupidity due to their young age.

[Flat.tyres]

It's funny hearing the "pub talk" about Muslim Schools and how they shouldn't be allowed when we've been indoctrinating our children for Centerys with religious nonsense.

[Sleeper]

I'm very much against faith schools, of any faith. Kids should be taught about all the major religions as well as the principles of Agnostis and Athiests and be allowed to make up their own mind, something that just isnt possible/likely in a faith school.

[CarlMetro]

I don't think religion should be taught at school full stop. If you want to teach your child about religion then do it at home or at church. When I was at school we had the option of either Religious Education or English Literature, somehow Romeo and Julliette always appealed more to most of my classmates than Jesus.

[BDunnell]

I don't think religion should be taught at school full stop. If you want to teach your child about religion then do it at home or at church. When I was at school we had the option of either Religious Education or English Literature, somehow Romeo and Julliette always appealed more to most of my classmates than Jesus.

I would tend to agree with this. Certainly, I was deeply unenthusiastic about doing RE, not because I wanted to be ignorant of other faiths, but because I knew that I could be doing something better.

[jim mcglinchey]

Where do you lot think we get our moral imperatives from? Do you think we made them up? In our society they came from the teachings of Christ and they are amongst the most important things that children need to be taught, hence religious education in school complete with its old fashioned values.

PDMU is a trendy option but I prefer the tried and tested way.

[BDunnell]

Where do you lot think we get our moral imperatives from? Do you think we made them up? In our society they came from the teachings of Christ and they are amongst the most important things that children need to be taught, hence religious education in school complete with its old fashioned values.

PDMU is a trendy option but I prefer the tried and tested way.

I prefer children to be taught concrete facts.

[LotusElise]

You can teach children good morals without involving religion. Many people manage.

[LeonBrooke]

You can teach children good morals without involving religion. Many people manage.

I agree. However many people don't accept this at all. My mum sometimes comes into this category, which is a source of great frustration for me.

I would consider sending my kids to Catholic schools, but that's purely because they tend to have better academic records than general schools, and don't have very strong religious themes (here at least).

I also see that banning religious schools would be a very good way to alienate a large portion of the population.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I went to a Catholic 6th form college but I'm not a Catholic. The college also had many students from other religions such as Hindu's and Muslims. We had to to Religious Education but it was different to RE at High School. Instead of copying stuff out of a text book we discussed moral and political issues related to religion. For example, wearing religious symbols. Being able to discuss issues like this with people from different backgrounds has made me much more accepting of others.

[donKey jote]

Where do you lot think we get our moral imperatives from? Do you think we made them up? In our society they came from the teachings of Christ

In my society we get them from our parents and the rest of our society, whether we believe in Christ or not :)

Current thinking would have it that moral imperatives are hardwired into our brains, based on the fact that all societies have common moral imperatives regardless of their gods (or lack of), and that we all tend to have the same "gut reaction" to many moral questions regardless of how we (try to) explain them afterwards.
Yes I recently read Marc Hauser's "Moral Minds" :p :

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Rollo]

Is the rationale between a private school run by a religious institution different than say another indpendant school? The difference is a case of ideologies influenced by that religion. In broad terms is it any different to either Harrow or Eton where the idelogical bent is based on class and money which in practice is just like a religion?

The way I see it there are two arguments:
1. People have the right to spend their own money as they see fit. If that includes schooling their children at "faith school" then so be it.

2. Independant Schooling perpetuates class divides. Their existance in the first place is an anathema to a cohesive society. Personally I think that all education should be free of charge to the end user.

I say shut down Harrow, Eton, et al immediately. If you can think of a justifiable reason why the Great Public (cough cough cough) Schools should continue to exist, then that's pretty well much the same reason to justify "faith schools"

[tinchote]

I don't really know what's the system in UK, so maybe I'm missing a point.

In a free society, parents should not be told how to teach their kids. So if I want to send my girls to a Catholic school (as I do), why shouldn't I? At least here, you can choose whether your school tax is collected for the public or the Catholic school.

As for those who say that religion is nonsense, we'll talk about that in a few decades ;)

[Alexamateo]

At least here, you can choose whether your school tax is collected for the public or the Catholic school.



I wish we had that here in the US, or at least where I live.

[leopard]

Religions teach good morals, I didn't see any problem putting religions as subject of school.

I think each parents want their children have the same religion with them as the kids are fully under coverage and responsibility of the parents and therefore they introduce the kids basic knowledge of their religion. And being subjected at schools usually help parents in order to the children learn more about the religion.

[leopard]

Once they grew up they may have more freedom on preferences, but usually parents would be happier if they don't deviate elsewhere from what they have taught.

I think doctrine said others are wrong, are very personal conjugation, very much depend on who taught the religion and how do we absorb it. We can't generalize a quality cluster of grapes from a small part deformity, imo.

[Daniel]

Religions teach good morals, I didn't see any problem putting religions as subject of school.

I think each parents want their children have the same religion with them as the kids are fully under coverage and responsibility of the parents and therefore they introduce the kids basic knowledge of their religion. And being subjected at schools usually help parents in order to the children learn more about the religion.
That's why two people from my school were involved in two different rape cases while at school.

[leopard]

That's why two people from my school were involved in two different rape cases while at school.
It can't be categorized as raping if she enjoyed it..

[Dave B]

It can't be categorized as raping if she enjoyed it..
I sincerely hope that was a misguided attempt at humour otherwise you're going straight on my ignore list. :s

[leopard]

I sincerely hope that was a misguided attempt at humour otherwise you're going straight on my ignore list. :s
I forgot to put this smile :)

That's true anyway, being reported that a girl's parent turned down a number of money and ask the hinger amount from the boy's parent to solve out such problem. The money isn't prepared to go higher, they decide to take this problem to the police and revealed that it can't be categorized as rapping for which finally the boy was sentenced Free.

[Daniel]

It's still not funny.

I'll not go into details but one girl was intellectually disabled and the other was held down by a group of boys and you know the rest.

We have certain standards here and you just ignored them.

[leopard]

I think would better believe you :)

[BDunnell]

Is the rationale between a private school run by a religious institution different than say another indpendant school? The difference is a case of ideologies influenced by that religion. In broad terms is it any different to either Harrow or Eton where the idelogical bent is based on class and money which in practice is just like a religion?

The way I see it there are two arguments:
1. People have the right to spend their own money as they see fit. If that includes schooling their children at "faith school" then so be it.

2. Independant Schooling perpetuates class divides. Their existance in the first place is an anathema to a cohesive society. Personally I think that all education should be free of charge to the end user.

I say shut down Harrow, Eton, et al immediately. If you can think of a justifiable reason why the Great Public (cough cough cough) Schools should continue to exist, then that's pretty well much the same reason to justify "faith schools"

I believe too that public/private schools are divisive, but I don't feel that their existence is directly comparable to that of faith schools. It's the way in which religion, by definition, pervades faith schools in terms of teaching and the life of the school without any choice that I object to.

[BDunnell]

Once they grew up they may have more freedom on preferences, but usually parents would be happier if they don't deviate elsewhere from what they have taught.

If I was a parent, I would be happier knowing that my child was being taught to think for him/herself about such matters, rather than turning into a blind believer.

[LotusElise]

It can't be categorized as raping if she enjoyed it..

One more misogynist comment like that and I'm reporting you. What does that have to do with faith schools anyway?

[LeonBrooke]

One more misogynist comment like that and I'm reporting you.

I already did.

[gadjo_dilo]

Although I don't know the real meaning of a faith school cos we don't have such things I find interesting your points of view.

Faith has deep roots in man's mind from ancient times. Religiosity represents an ultimate structure of conscience and I don't think that attending a school would make much difference. It's part of us and even the disappearance of religions doesn't necessarily mean the disappearance of the religiosity. I belong to a nation who managed to keep its christian othodox faith despite being dominated for ages by other catholic or islamic nations. More than that, during 1945-1989 any religious issue was banned from schools and religion was riculized. However we're still a fathful orthodox nation, very tolerant with other religions maybe because at the end of the day most religions precheas the same moral values. These days religion is optionally studied in schools and we have endless debates about the presence of icons in schools just because a few fools consider them discriminatory.
Religious faith and democracy can't be mixed and I disagree with the idea we should grow up, take a solid documantation and then choose the religion that matches best our personalties. Personally, I feel that sharing the same faith with my family and nation is the only thing that keep us together and help us to surpass the hard moments. Hard to believe and also hillarious that we'll ever have a christian family with an islamic son and a jewish daughter and with buddhist nephews, etc. And just imagine how sad it will be without a family Christmas. :laugh:

[Malbec]

Faith schools should be banned, no more religious nonsense should be fed to kids who might be gullible enough to fall for such stupidity due to their young age.

Are you not trying to push your atheistic beliefs onto those who are religious? That isn't any different from a religious person pushing their beliefs onto a person of another faith.

People should have the freedom to educate their children as they see fit and therefore faith based schools should be allowed if there is enough demand, and currently it certainly looks like there is.

[BDunnell]

Are you not trying to push your atheistic beliefs onto those who are religious? That isn't any different from a religious person pushing their beliefs onto a person of another faith.

In my opinion, not giving children any religious teaching isn't forcing atheism upon them — it just means they aren't getting any religious teaching. I'd describe a child as a 'blank canvas' in this respect. They're not atheists before they are taught about religion; surely people only become atheists if they know about religion and decide it's a load of rubbish?

[Malbec]

In my opinion, not giving children any religious teaching isn't forcing atheism upon them — it just means they aren't getting any religious teaching. I'd describe a child as a 'blank canvas' in this respect. They're not atheists before they are taught about religion; surely people only become atheists if they know about religion and decide it's a load of rubbish?

But there are plenty of religious parents who feel that a religious education is something they wish their children to receive and therefore would want to send their children to such a school.

Atheists have the choice (and a rather broader one) of sending their children to a school that reflects their religious beliefs (ie secular) so why should those who are religious be denied the same choice?

Religion is one amongst a whole raft of different areas where many sets of parents differ with others as to how their children should be brought up. Where do you draw the line in restricting the freedom of parents to bring their children up and educate them in the way they want?

[BDunnell]

But there are plenty of religious parents who feel that a religious education is something their children wish to receive and therefore would want to send their children to such a school.

What's wrong with the religious education provided at 'normal' schools? Not good enough for them? Worried, are they, that their kids might pick up an alternative viewpoint?


Atheists have the choice (and a rather broader one) of sending their children to a school that reflects their religious beliefs (ie secular) so why should those who are religious be denied the same choice?


I don't believe that most state schools can be classed as secular. All state schools 'must provide daily collective worship for all registered pupils' that is 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character'.


Religion is one amongst a whole raft of different areas where many sets of parents differ with others as to how their children should be brought up. Where do you draw the line in restricting the freedom of parents to bring their children up and educate them in the way they want?

At religion.

[Malbec]

Given that faith based schools allow people of other faiths into their ranks it isn't a case about not allowing differing viewpoints. Also, given the national curriculum that each school must adhere to to receive state funding a degree of teaching about other religions is compulsory at any school. I also think its been a long time since state school education has been Christian in character.

Having said that I fully understand why some people want their children to go to a school where the values of a particular religion are instilled into the children. It isn't as if those same values aren't going to be instilled at home is it, especially since these schools operate on an opt-in rather than an opt-out basis.

It seems that some people are for denying these people choice in this area. Whats wrong with religious people asking that some of their tax money goes to educating their children in a way they want them to be educated?

[Flat.tyres]

What is the purpose of schools you might ask.

Is it to provide a standard, defined and accountable education or is it to install a moral code and religious belief.

I think schools should teach the basic subjects of education such as English, Maths, Science, Art etc and leave theological choice to the individual.

A "Faith" school is not necessary for parental choice and can be devisive. If a parents wants to bring up a child to follow a particular faith, then that is a personal, parental choice. There are churches, organisations, clubs and activities that will provide this already. As for morality, I don't need to follow a religion or indoctrinate my children into a faith school to install a sense of right and wrong. As a parent, that is not only my choice but my obligation.

[BDunnell]

A "Faith" school is not necessary for parental choice

Very well put.

I should also add that I am against the current policy of giving schools specialist status in other subjects, too.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Religion is a touchy subject in my family.

I get the impression that my parents don't approve that we held a naming ceremony for our daughter instead of the traditional Christening.

[BTCC Fan#1]

The primary school I went to wasn't affiliated to any church or religion, yet I distinctly remember during the first few years the Headteacher reading bible extracts and stories to small groups, we also sang hymns and prayed in assembly. What was interesting was how this changed during my last few years there, dedicated 'RE' lessons were bought in and for the first time we learnt about alternative religions, the praying, hymns, and bible stories had also completely disappeared by the time I left.

Like many others here I don't think theres any way i'd send my child to a faith school, i'm not a religious person at all and would be quite uncomfortable at the thought of my child being taught to believe that one religion is the be-all and end-all. The school should provide the facts and then leave it up to the child so they can make up their own minds.

[Malbec]

As for morality, I don't need to follow a religion or indoctrinate my children into a faith school to install a sense of right and wrong. As a parent, that is not only my choice but my obligation.

Precisely. You are exercising your choice to send your child to a school that you feel comfortable with. I therefore see no problem with the religious exercising their right to send their children to the type of school they feel comfortable with too. There are clearly quite a few people who want to send their children to such schools since there's quite a bit of lobbying to increase their numbers. Last I heard tax pounds raised from the religious are worth the same as that from atheists and agnostics so the government has a duty to look after their concerns as well.

I don't see this constant need to 'ban' things just because some people don't see the point in them. Others do see merit in such schools. Its called freedom of choice.

[BDunnell]

Precisely. You are exercising your choice to send your child to a school that you feel comfortable with. I therefore see no problem with the religious exercising their right to send their children to the type of school they feel comfortable with too. There are clearly quite a few people who want to send their children to such schools since there's quite a bit of lobbying to increase their numbers. Last I heard tax pounds raised from the religious are worth the same as that from atheists and agnostics so the government has a duty to look after their concerns as well.

I don't see this constant need to 'ban' things just because some people don't see the point in them. Others do see merit in such schools. Its called freedom of choice.

I believe this is rather different from wanting to ban hoodies/fox hunting/handguns etc. There is far too much choice in society nowadays, and I don't think that discouraging the opening of new faith schools would be an undue restriction on personal freedoms.

[Malbec]

There is far too much choice in society nowadays, and I don't think that discouraging the opening of new faith schools would be an undue restriction on personal freedoms.

Far too much choice? What is wrong with having freedom of choice? What is the rationale for restricting freedom of choice if there is no harm caused?

And what would the exact rationale be behind preventing new faith schools from being built?

From what I gather the demand for places in faith based schools has shot up partly because those schools tend to perform academically better than others. Perhaps an examination of why that is the case is necessary too.

I don't see "I don't like religion" as being an adequate basis to ban these schools.

Isn't it about time people recognised the right of those with religious beliefs to bring up their children as they wish as long as it is within the legal confines set by the government? Atheism and agnosticism are as much religious beliefs as Christianity, Islam or Judaism. For atheists to argue that the religious have not got equal right to choose the type of education they wish for is simple intolerance, just as it would be for, say, a Christian government to oppose the establishment of Jewish schools. There is a demand for this kind of education that is not yet met by supply. What exactly is wrong with meeting that demand?

[tinchote]

Worried, are they, that their kids might pick up an alternative viewpoint?



Of course! In exactly the same way as most sensible parents wouldn't send their kids to a place where they teach to rob and to lie and to bully.

You think it's nonsense, yet millions and millions of person have a different view than yours. What makes you be so sure that you are on the "right side"? ;)

Every (sensible) parent chooses a school based on the assumption that the school will teach "good things" to the kids. What "good things" mean differs from person to person. That's why there are different kinds of schools. What's wrong with that?

[BDunnell]

Far too much choice? What is wrong with having freedom of choice? What is the rationale for restricting freedom of choice if there is no harm caused?

I certainly feel that we have too much choice every day of our lives. For example, I do not want to have to shop around for a deal on my water supply, or electricity, or gas. As far as I'm concerned, we have to make so many other choices anyway without having to bother about basic services that I could do without a choice, because I don't feel that the service provided by one supplier is any better than any other.

I think that this is true, in a slightly different way, of schools. There is largely no need to take one's child out of the basic state system, and if I was a parent, there is no way I would do so for any reason. The standard state system was perfectly OK for me and many others, and I feel that it ought to be for everyone, except in extreme circumstances. There is a great deal of snobbishness connected with choosing to remove one's child from this system.


Isn't it about time people recognised the right of those with religious beliefs to bring up their children as they wish as long as it is within the legal confines set by the government? Atheism and agnosticism are as much religious beliefs as Christianity, Islam or Judaism. For atheists to argue that the religious have not got equal right to choose the type of education they wish for is simple intolerance, just as it would be for, say, a Christian government to oppose the establishment of Jewish schools. There is a demand for this kind of education that is not yet met by supply. What exactly is wrong with meeting that demand?

What, then, are atheists and agnostics to do, then? As I have said, there are no truly secular state-run schools in the UK. The fairest way is to make the entire state school system properly secular. I also believe it is rather intolerant and blinkered of those who choose to send their children to a faith school, for it suggests that nothing else can meet their child's needs than such a school, which, in reality, simply isn't the case.

[BDunnell]

Of course! In exactly the same way as most sensible parents wouldn't send their kids to a place where they teach to rob and to lie and to bully.

I believe that schools should offer a balanced viewpoint on religion if it is to be taught at all, and I do not believe that faith schools, by their very nature, are capable of doing so.


You think it's nonsense, yet millions and millions of person have a different view than yours. What makes you be so sure that you are on the "right side"? ;)

Yes, I do believe religion to be founded in nonsense, but I would never seek to stop anyone from believing in it. I do, however, have serious misgivings about, effectively, forcing beliefs down the throats of children from an early age.


Every (sensible) parent chooses a school based on the assumption that the school will teach "good things" to the kids. What "good things" mean differs from person to person. That's why there are different kinds of schools. What's wrong with that?

Because I believe that the basic state system offers a perfectly good, balanced mixture as it is. To split it up into numerous different types of establishment as the British government has, whether these be faith schools, city academies, specialist schools or whatever has created a fragmented system which actually restricts choice in one way, because you may live in an area where what had been two comprehensives have suddenly become a school with specialist status in languages and a faith school, neither of which meet your needs.

More division in terms of ability is a good thing at school, in my view, but dividing the system between different types of school seems unnecessary.

[Malbec]

I certainly feel that we have too much choice every day of our lives. For example, I do not want to have to shop around for a deal on my water supply, or electricity, or gas. As far as I'm concerned, we have to make so many other choices anyway without having to bother about basic services that I could do without a choice, because I don't feel that the service provided by one supplier is any better than any other.

I think that this is true, in a slightly different way, of schools. There is largely no need to take one's child out of the basic state system, and if I was a parent, there is no way I would do so for any reason. The standard state system was perfectly OK for me and many others, and I feel that it ought to be for everyone, except in extreme circumstances. There is a great deal of snobbishness connected with choosing to remove one's child from this system.

I actually find that quite an extreme point of view (regarding the first paragraph) in this day and age, simply because in my view a monopoly is not answerable to their customers in any way and also because I feel that someone who doesn't accept that freedom of choice is something that should be protected probably wouldn't understand my point on this matter. Now I accept that the various utility suppliers aren't exactly customer friendly either, but at least there is the threat that if you don't like them you will take your custom elsewhere. As you might have noticed from my posts on other topics I'm all for market forces and freedom of choice.

Regarding your second paragraph, I think the key point is thet you feel that it ought to be for everyone but education of any sort simply isn't a one-size-fits-all system. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that there are significant numbers of people who feel religion ought to be an integral part of their childrens education. When such large numbers demand such a service the government has an obligation to listen.


What, then, are atheists and agnostics to do, then? As I have said, there are no truly secular state-run schools in the UK. The fairest way is to make the entire state school system properly secular. I also believe it is rather intolerant and blinkered of those who choose to send their children to a faith school, for it suggests that nothing else can meet their child's needs than such a school, which, in reality, simply isn't the case.

I think you have a good point regarding secularising the mainstream system although that may end up polarising things with people of any religious belief wanting to send their kids to a religious school. Your last sentence is wrong btw, for the majority of those who choose to send their kids to religious schools its a preference, not a must have.

To be honest I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this issue because we have such differing views on the underlying principle of freedom of choice.

[leopard]

Religion is a norm besides law and social. While every normative violation against law are decided in the court and the verdict of which was the closest approach of justice principle in the world; norm of social was more about human relationship and its violation may result social sanctions; religion have larger coverage than both norm as it guides between right and wrong, good and bad, harm and harmless etc which also resembles norms of law and social.

Every attitude, behavior and action has their own consequence that confines us in right discipline from doing wrong and disadvantageous ourselves, others, and our environment where we do live.
Beliefs were born naturally as culture such as primitive animism and dynamism which was prompted by the fact to realize there must be great power above human ability. While the journey of history of human life going, and then emerged various religions all of which teach the right thing for its believers.

For the above reasons there isn’t mistake to adopt such norms in our life, although each religion may have their own differentiation, it shouldn’t be wrongly exploited but on the other hand it deserves respecting each other.

[gadjo_dilo]

Yes, I do believe religion to be founded in nonsense, but I would never seek to stop anyone from believing in it. I do, however, have serious misgivings about, effectively, forcing beliefs down the throats of children from an early age.


But at the end of the day either faith in gods or unfaith are still related to human will. Despite all teachings and preachings you can't become a believer if you don't want to. Or better said if you don't feel it.
And viceversa, you can't be taught to be an atheist if your conscience rejects the idea . For example I was educated in communist schools to become the perfect atheist and the builder of the multilateral developed socialist society. I studied ( and even passed exams with the best results ) lots of things that weren't true and I hated them from the bottom of my heart but I continued to keep my faith and so did all my colleagues. Has any of us a traumatic childhood? I dare to say "no!". Do we regret attending those schools or universities? Not at all because they assured a solid education ( and sadly a better education than they do nowadays ) despite some stupid compulsory objects.
As for "forcing kids... " issue, we shouldn't be such hypocrites. Most of the kids have to study in any school objects they don't like or for whom they don't have any skill or interest.

P.S. I have a feeling that we haven't to wait too long for the topic about if it's right or wrong for our parents to choose our names and why aren't we allowed to choose them by ourselves when we're grown up. :laugh:

[Flat.tyres]

Far too much choice? What is wrong with having freedom of choice? What is the rationale for restricting freedom of choice if there is no harm caused?

And what would the exact rationale be behind preventing new faith schools from being built?

From what I gather the demand for places in faith based schools has shot up partly because those schools tend to perform academically better than others. Perhaps an examination of why that is the case is necessary too.

I don't see "I don't like religion" as being an adequate basis to ban these schools.

Isn't it about time people recognised the right of those with religious beliefs to bring up their children as they wish as long as it is within the legal confines set by the government? Atheism and agnosticism are as much religious beliefs as Christianity, Islam or Judaism. For atheists to argue that the religious have not got equal right to choose the type of education they wish for is simple intolerance, just as it would be for, say, a Christian government to oppose the establishment of Jewish schools. There is a demand for this kind of education that is not yet met by supply. What exactly is wrong with meeting that demand?

I appreciate your point of view and agree that within the laws of the land, parents have the choice whether to send their children to a faith school or not.

Sometimes, that isn't an option. When I was growing up in Sussex, there was only one primary school within walking distance (walking distance in those days being 1.5 miles. No Chelsea tractors in my day) and that was C of E. Every morning it was prayers and for half the morning on a Wednesday, instead of learning something, we were carted off next door to the Church to sing a few boring songs and mutter some rubbish on our knees. I considered it a waste of time but my parents had no choice.

This brings me back to my original question. What is the role of education? Is it to teach pupils a cirriculum or to install a religious belief? Surely, a personal choice such as religious persuasion is not mandatory or necessary to be installed when Children should be learning an education?

I don't care if someone is agnostic, Hindu or Jedi, I think Schools are for learning the state Cirriculum and religion is periferal to this although I accept that as it stands, there is still the choice for faith schools in this country.

[slinkster]

I don't agree with faith schools. And that goes for any faith. I think they are devisive and sectarian. I have no problems whatsoever with the teaching of religions... but I think an all round good education of the tolerance of other faiths and other people is what is important and I don't know if faith schools can provide that without smacking of hypocrisy. Just my two cents.

For those saying that it's what teaches good moral values. I disagree. PARENTS are responsible for instilling good moral values in their children... it shouldn't matter what school nor what faith you're in. Fundamentally a parent teaches it's child the most important lessons and values about life and relationships as far as I'm concerned.

[Hazell B]

Like Flat Tyres, I went to a C. of E. middle school, as it was the only one in the village. Not because my parents had no choice, but because they didn't even think about it and the state just put my name down when we moved house. I could have gone to a normal place two villages over, if they'd asked.

To be honest, until this debate, I hadn't even thought of it as a faith school. It was just school and there was a prayer thing in the mornings. From my reaction, you can guess it didn't really make any difference at all to me :mark:

So, they don't all shove religion down your throat. However, if they do I can't see it being a good thing in every way. Faith's great, but you need the facts on them all to really get a feeling for what's right for you as an individual. For that reason alone, I don't like them very much.

[Malbec]

I appreciate your point of view and agree that within the laws of the land, parents have the choice whether to send their children to a faith school or not.

Sometimes, that isn't an option. When I was growing up in Sussex, there was only one primary school within walking distance (walking distance in those days being 1.5 miles. No Chelsea tractors in my day) and that was C of E. Every morning it was prayers and for half the morning on a Wednesday, instead of learning something, we were carted off next door to the Church to sing a few boring songs and mutter some rubbish on our knees. I considered it a waste of time but my parents had no choice.

This brings me back to my original question. What is the role of education? Is it to teach pupils a cirriculum or to install a religious belief? Surely, a personal choice such as religious persuasion is not mandatory or necessary to be installed when Children should be learning an education?

I don't care if someone is agnostic, Hindu or Jedi, I think Schools are for learning the state Cirriculum and religion is periferal to this although I accept that as it stands, there is still the choice for faith schools in this country.

I accept that in some rural places freedom of choice isn't possible since there will only be enough demand to justify one school, in which case in my opinion that school should reflect local wishes, ie if the majority want a religious school then it should be religious, if not then it should be non-religious. Still that is an imperfect solution as it doesn't allow the minority the freedom to choose.

In my opinion the British education system allows for religious schools to teach religion alongside mainstream subjects without untoward harm to education. Thats what the national curriculum and school inspections are all about. If the school wants to spend three days a week on prayer studies and two days a week on education thats fine, it will just have to realise that state funding will be awfully shortlived unless it adjusts in tune with the national curriculum. Faith schools are not exempt from the national curriculum and that is exactly as it should be.

The main thing I'm against in this thread is this attitude that "I don't see the point of it, therefore it should be banned" whilst ignoring that there actually are a sizeable number of people who DO see the point of it and therefore wouldn't want it to be banned. What makes those who feel that faith schools should be banned have the moral superiority? If that attitude can be applied to faith schools then it can be applied vigorously elsewhere too. Indeed many enviromental campaigners who fight for sports cars and SUVs to be banned are using exactly the same line of thought.