Faith schools

[Hendrik]

Eh? Religion is somehow more moral than atheism (or just ignoring religion)? OK, let's think of the implications here:

Religions are by definition anti-democratic. Like that fact, loathe that fact, or bury your head in the holy sand, it's true. Before explaining about how it isn't true, and you will, please provide me the name of one democratic religion.

Many would argue that God's dictatorship is benign, and that we shouldn't worry about it, he's our friend etc etc. Interesting point: the North Korean regime says exactly the same about Kim Jong Il, and like religious Westerners, they swallow it!

As has been previously stated, all manner of horrible things are done in the name of religion. Think now, most religions started as progressive movements. Movements which basically said (in a long-winded and preposterous way) "be nice to each other!". What are religions now (monotheistic at least)? Largely right-wing, reactionary, instituitions which stand in the way of progress. Think of our national religion, the CofE is essentially Tory Party at prayer.

How is brainwashing young children into religion a good or moral thing? Even thinking about it from the Christian point of view: What Would Jesus Do? Well, I sincerely doubt he would advocate setting up rival state-funded faith schools, whose prime objective is to brainwash kids, win over as many people as possible, and thus compete with other such faith schools set up to do exactly the same thing.
It's madness. Jesus wasn't mad, and if he was, should we set up little Jesus schools? Sorry, getting side-tracked and philosophical...

What has religion done for man recently, heck in the last 1000 years? Hmmm.... legitimise slavery, legitimise the oppression of women, legitimise the oppression of other religions, support feudalism and then capitalism (and on occasions Fascism; Catholicism/Mussolini etc), stand in the way of women controlling their own bodies, stand in the way of contraception and the fight against STDs, stop people from eating what they want, legitimise/orchestrate the persecution of homosexuals, one particular religion is rife with paedophilia....................................................

The ban on religious symbolism in French schools is irrelevant. It's wrong, yes, but irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with keeping religion the hell away from power (which is why it is wrong, IMHO). It's a freedom of speach thing.

[Euterpe13]

No only am I against any state funding of any faith-oriented education, but I firmly believe that the only functional government is a truly secular one - religion , whether you are christian, jewish, buddist or tree-worshipper, is and should be a private matter, IMHO, and has no place is judicial, political, financial or educational spheres.

This can go too far. France has a strictly non-religious schooling system. Crosses, head scarves and all other religious indicvators are strictly prohibited and, if carried out, then the penalties can be harsh.

At the same time it is illegal for any religeous organisation to exist in France without government consent - no schols (Douai is French but had to move to England), no seminaries (France imports its imams from one of the most anti-west schools in Saudo Arabia), almost no monasteries (most have goine to Spain) ......

There are organisations with social / health aims which are de facto religeous but cannot state that as fact.

Does it help? I have seen one French priest - and a dozen English catholic priests in my area which needs 50 more.

Not a clear picture of France at all ( I lived in the Marseilles area for 23 years and both my children had their primary education there, so I do know what I am talking about ). Religious symbolism is illegal in state schools, and has been since the Revolution. However, there is everywhere a choice of religious, independant private schools for parents who desire this - but they are not subsidised by the the State, and no-one expects them to be so. They do, however, have a charter from the State which recognises them as educational establishments.

There is even in Marseilles a private catholic school which subscribes to the reactionary doctrines of Pope Leon XIII, who recruit unmolested amongst the catholic community of Marseilles with no problems at all.

As long as french parents are prepared to pay for private education ( and it's nowhere near as expensive as in the UK ), they can choose to send their children to religious schools.

My own both spent their primary years in said schools because a) level of education was better and b) I was in those day still a practising christian.

Lastly, let me say that I fully agree with Hendrik's position.

[DavebytheSea]

What has religion done for man recently, heck in the last 1000 years? .

Hendrik I think you are talking about organised religion ("the Church") which must never be confused with true religion or worship. The church, as we know it, is by its very nature bound to be sinful and corrupt - we are after all human beings and the church has undoubtedly attracted more than its fair share of wicked and power-hungry men. I may not like that, but it is, alas, true. Nor am I surprised at it, for I believe evil will always direct its energy to destroying everything that has a nominally good purpose.

But to imply that religion has done nothing for mankind in the last 1000 years I know to be a patently false assertion. You may not yet know this for yourself, Hendrik, but for countless human beings over the ages (including myself and many others I know) Christianity gives a real purpose and meaning to our lives - it is the very bedrock of our existence. It does not necessarily make us good people, ceertainly not better than anyone else, but it does give us focus. In my case, it has helped with putting to rest a deep bitterness against some who have hurt me in the past - the demons (the bitterness not the people! lol) are still there, but I have been given the strength to manage them.

As for democracy - from the greek meaning the government or power of the people - it is, by its very definition, of material rather than spiritual substance. God is neither tyrant nor democrat because these have no meaning outside physical earthly existence. "God is spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world".

[midget]

Thank you,David. Even for those of us who have lapsed from organised religion we still know that He is there,keeping an eye on us.

[J.R.]

.......... and our Charlie, (he of the large ears, future King and talker to plants), wants to be known as 'Defender of ALL Faiths' !

That should prove a touch interesting if he ever gets the throne !

[Scone Lover]

Hendrik, I think you have some issues you need to look at, you seem very angry about everything. I am not attacking you but wow, your posts are very angry sometimes.

[Richard Ruck]

Well, the votes so far seem to tell us that a decent percentage of people would be in favour of the separation of Church and State, i.e. the disestablishment of the Church of England, ergo the monarch would no longer be head of the Church, an heir to the throne would be allowed to marry a Catholic, etc.

How would practising Anglicans feel about this?

My feeling is that the two entities could exist quite happily once separated, and in fact might even be stronger for it. But then I'm not a churchgoer, and I have, in recent years, come round to the feeling that the monarchy is now an anachronism which exists to feed the pages of newspapers and magazines, no matter what good deeds various members of the family might get up to in order to justify their positions. I really find that the forelock-tugging and toadying which still goes on is quite odd.

Sorry, I'm digressing.......

[jhopgood]

.......... and our Charlie, (he of the large ears, future King and talker to plants), wants to be known as 'Defender of ALL Faiths' !

That should prove a touch interesting if he ever gets the throne !

I was under the impression that Henry VIII was given the title Fidei Defensor? after writing some treatise concerning the church. I have no idea whether it called itself the Catholic Church then.
Despite going off and doing his own thing, he hung on to the title.
I can't see how Charlie can contemplate changing that, surely only the Catholic Church can do that, since they gave it to him.
But then, maybe he is as confused as I am.
BTW, when you meet Charlie, despite the fact that he is obviously going through the motions, he is quite good at it and gives the impression of being a nice, if bored, person.
Is it true that should he warm the throne, he wants to be called George VII, presumably because George III chatted to trees, and it runs in the family?

[sejintenej]

.......... and our Charlie, (he of the large ears, future King and talker to plants), wants to be known as 'Defender of ALL Faiths' !

That should prove a touch interesting if he ever gets the throne !

I was under the impression that Henry VIII was given the title Fidei Defensor? after writing some treatise concerning the church. I have no idea whether it called itself the Catholic Church then.
Despite going off and doing his own thing, he hung on to the title.
I can't see how Charlie can contemplate changing that, surely only the Catholic Church can do that, since they gave it to him.

As I read it the title was given to Henry Tudor as a reward for his written arguments - not as head of the UK (as it was then). Ergo, it was given to the individual and therefore cannot be handed down to his successors.

The fact that subsequent sovereigns chose to use the title reflects their intentions in respect of the church they supported; not any support from the Holy See.

Charles has chosen to be called Defender of Faiths - that is his prerogative and a statement of his intentions. Whether the hangers-on at Buck House will allow him to actively persue that aim is quite a different matter.

We have a strange anomoly in the UK (though I haven't checked these facts for about 6 years). Religious organisations are required under UK law to register themselves; it is a fairly simple procedure which requires the depositing of a copy of their fundamental texts, something about their beleifs and organisation. Failure to register means that the offending chiurch simply does not legally exist. A registered church can then register as a charity which has tax considerations.
AIUI the RC church considers itself governed by what it considers Gods laws and not by earthly law. It has not registered and therefore it does not legally exist in the UK; can Charles be a Defender of a faith which does not exist? (it is Parliament which changes the law - not Charles

Next, to conduct a wedding the official has to be personally registered - again a relatively easy procedure for a respectable person. Most (if not all) Protestant ministers register themselves but I am told that the RC church does not see it that way. A few RC priests do register themselves (it is a personal matter) but most don't and therefore cannot conduct legal weddings. ie. a wedding by a RC priest may well not be a legal wedding in the UK (they normally get a registered person to come into the vestry and conduct a "legal" wedding after the church service)

If the RC church does not exist then how can it own its cathedrals and churches? In fact it doesn't own them; they are owned by separate charities registered under the Charities laws.

AFAIR the Church of Scientology was registered and at the time of all the adverse comment consideration was given by the authoritioes to cancelling their registration

[englishangel]

I don't think all Free church ministers register, especially if the church is quite small. I was married in my home church (Baptist) and we were one of only two weddings in that year so had to have a registrar sit in. the registrar doesn't actually 'conduct a ceremony' all they have to do is listen and confirm that the ceremony conducted by the minister has all the required elements in it. "any reason why these two should not be married ..." etc. The bride and groom then sign the church register and the marriage licence.

[Mid A 15]

Eh? Religion is somehow more moral than atheism (or just ignoring religion)? OK, let's think of the implications here:

Religions are by definition anti-democratic. Like that fact, loathe that fact, or bury your head in the holy sand, it's true. Before explaining about how it isn't true, and you will, please provide me the name of one democratic religion.

Many would argue that God's dictatorship is benign, and that we shouldn't worry about it, he's our friend etc etc. Interesting point: the North Korean regime says exactly the same about Kim Jong Il, and like religious Westerners, they swallow it!

As has been previously stated, all manner of horrible things are done in the name of religion. Think now, most religions started as progressive movements. Movements which basically said (in a long-winded and preposterous way) "be nice to each other!". What are religions now (monotheistic at least)? Largely right-wing, reactionary, instituitions which stand in the way of progress. Think of our national religion, the CofE is essentially Tory Party at prayer.

How is brainwashing young children into religion a good or moral thing? Even thinking about it from the Christian point of view: What Would Jesus Do? Well, I sincerely doubt he would advocate setting up rival state-funded faith schools, whose prime objective is to brainwash kids, win over as many people as possible, and thus compete with other such faith schools set up to do exactly the same thing.
It's madness. Jesus wasn't mad, and if he was, should we set up little Jesus schools? Sorry, getting side-tracked and philosophical...

What has religion done for man recently, heck in the last 1000 years? Hmmm.... legitimise slavery, legitimise the oppression of women, legitimise the oppression of other religions, support feudalism and then capitalism (and on occasions Fascism; Catholicism/Mussolini etc), stand in the way of women controlling their own bodies, stand in the way of contraception and the fight against STDs, stop people from eating what they want, legitimise/orchestrate the persecution of homosexuals, one particular religion is rife with paedophilia....................................................

The ban on religious symbolism in French schools is irrelevant. It's wrong, yes, but irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with keeping religion the hell away from power (which is why it is wrong, IMHO). It's a freedom of speach thing.

Where to start!

..."Religions are by definition anti- democratic"...... I am probably obtuse but I don't really understand the relevance of this assertion. Religion is based on faith and belief in a deity commonly referred to as God. This is certainly true of Christianity, Islam and Judaism where, in simple terms, there is consensus on God and "life rules" as set out in the 10 Commandments. The differences between these religions essentially centre around the role and status of Jesus Christ. People therefore make a CHOICE whether or not to follow God and live their lives by the 10 Commandments.

States, whether democratic or otherwise, have evolved theoretically to give some sort of cohesion and civilisation to society and the 10 Commandments have supplied the moral basis underpinning laws forbidding murder, theft and much else.

I can only assume you state religion is anti democratic because God and Satan do not contest an election every five years!

You have listed a number of things that you blame religion for. As DBTS says in his excellent post it is not RELIGION that is at fault but the interpretation of religion by evil men. You blame religion for slavery. William Wilberforce was a religious man though and instrumental in the abolition of slavery. I can only assume from the logic of your argument that you and Nick Griffin are in agreement about Islam. After all Bin Laden blew up the World Trade Centre in the name of Islam, young Muslims from Yorkshire blew up trains and buses in London in the name of Islam. Therefore all Muslims are bad and Islam is a wicked religion as Mr Griffin said. I find it surprising in the extreme if you really do agree with Nick Griffin!

Anyway back to the question at hand! My contention is that people have a right to a CHOICE as to whether or not they should send their child to faith school. Nobody is suggesting EVERY child should go to faith school but religious parents should have that right if they wish. They pay their taxes like everybody else.

One more point. As society becomes less religious and more secular arguments like this gain legitimacy as the moral basis upholding the sanctity of life becomes eroded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... bled06.xml

Do you really want to live in a society where the weak, disabled and vulnerable are disposed of for utilitarian convenience? That is what will undoubtedly happen if the sanctity of life is eroded.

Religions, for all the faults in interpretation, do at least have the sanctity of life as a major driving force and if faith schools help perpetuate belief in the sanctity of life bring it on!