Faith schools

[Richard Ruck]

There's been a fair amount of discussion recently about Faith Schools and the government's handling of the issue.

As a person of no particular faith, and as one who has decided to opt out of helping to re-populate the planet, I am curious to know what others think about this.

Is it right for the state (i.e. Joe Public) to continue to fund schools which attempt to promote a particular religious viewpoint, or should such matters remain the concern of individual families?

Should families who do not adhere to any particular faith have the right to send their children to schools which are not obliged (at least in theory) to provide a daily act of worship?

Are Faith schools schools divisive?

Should state-funded education be completely secular, as happens in certain other countries? My gut feeling is that this should be the case, with children having to learn about different religions and faiths, but leaving any active participation to take place outside the jurisdiction of the school.

This, though, leads to other issues such as the possible disestablishment of the Anglican Church, etc.

P.S. - apologies for not adding a Fiona Bruce option, although I did spot her wearing a small pentagram while presenting the news.........

[ben ashton]

Having clicked 'no', have actually decided yes, as long as awareness of other religions is taught. Which it generally is. The current 'debate' is just government interference and media bollox. Which though entertaining is also pointless.

[Hendrik]

no, and no. i would have clicked both 'no's but couldn't.

CH wasn't even a faith school per se, and even CH did not teach anything of other faiths. it may have on paper but it really didn't. This, I believe, is the RS departments jurisdiction. my teachers were: squits - mrs mitra, 3rd form - mrs higgins, LE - mr mitra (ok, a tiny bit on judaism), UF - mrs higgins, GE - mrs higgins.

why should public taxes be spent on promoting paranormal ideologies? should we fund scientology too? where does the madness end? we're not even funding proper nice religions like buddhism, no it's just the burn-in-hell ones like catholicism etc.

not only should religion and state be kept separate, but religion and children should also be kept separate. marxism is the closest thing i have to a faith (if you can call it close), but do you hear me crying out for the government to fund marxist schools? no!
give their tiny minds a chance to develop without prejudice, you still have decades afterwards to see who can pollute people's minds the most.

only when we have the three R's sorted, and everyone gets fed, homed, clothed and medically treated as they should, when we are paying the UN recommended aid levels (a whopping 0.7% GNP) should we even consider throwing money at cults. accepted or otherwise.

faith schools? jesus would be turning in his cave...

[Hannoir]

I am a firm believer that the state and religion should be kept seperate. Although, if faith schools are to be kept, then they should take children from all faiths.

One faith being taught and being the norm in a school will create misunderstanding and intolerance (cant believe you didnt have proper RE at CH!), no faiths being taught will result in the same. Since we live in such a diverse society, it would only be right to teach kids about all religions from the start. I object to my taxes (well, when I pay them) teaching kids only reafirming one point. How are we going to have an open and tolerant society if we don't teach everything?

The school I worked at in my GAP year (in New York) had a really cool year long world religions course, which was mandatory for graduation. All students visited a place of worship from all the major religions and had to do follow up work for it, and it was also followed by a fun thing e.g. a meal related to that ethnicity. Apart from that the school was "secular". Not a bad thing by any means.

[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.

As an aspostate atheist, I am horrified by the emotional, physical and psychological pain that man inflicts on man ( and a fortiori on children) under the aegis of religion. Believe what you like, but keep it to yourself.- your freedom ends where mine begins, and vice versa.

( I will now get off my soapbox and have a little lie down )

[Mid A 15]

Yes, yes, yes.

This has only become an issue at all because of the reluctance of one particular faith to fully assimilate into mainstream society.

However political correctness prohibits us from addressing the problems and issues with that faith, instead we have proposals to dismantle what has worked well in the UK for many, many years.

I don't like the EU yet in a democratic society I have to accept that some of my taxes go towards funding it. Equally atheists should accept that some of their taxes will fund faith schools even if they don't like it.

Society is becoming increasingly immoral (and I don't just mean sexual morality). I wouldn't go as far as to say you HAVE to be religious to have moral standards however if you are religious then you SHOULD have moral standards if you are living your religion properly.

Improved moral standards can only enhance the well being of our society in my opinion and these are inculcated in faith schools.

[ben ashton]

state and religion should be seperate, yes. which means the government can fund faith schools just as they fund state schools (which are more expensive as they don't receive other sources of funding eg. via a church); as long as there's no favouritism towards one religion, and the schools teach awareness and tolerance etc.

[Hannoir]

I don't think it is the responsibility of the state to teach kids morality. Thats up to the parents. And if the parents don't do it? Tough.

[Mid A 15]

I don't think it is the responsibility of the state to teach kids morality. Thats up to the parents. And if the parents don't do it? Tough.

The State represents the parents. It is their taxes that fund it and the State compels parents to send their children to school. Surely in those circumstances schools have a duty to either reinforce what should have been taught in the home or do the teaching themselves if parents have been negligent for whatever reason.

What about the consequences of immorality e.g. crime? The State has to build more and more prisons as the number of criminals increases.

If children are taught the difference between right and wrong, i.e. morality, they are less likely to commit crime later.

One could put forward an argument that by teaching morality and standards faith schools are an efficient use of taxpayers' (State) money.

[midget]

I agree.

[englishangel]

I am a firm believer that the state and religion should be kept seperate. Although, if faith schools are to be kept, then they should take children from all faiths.

One faith being taught and being the norm in a school will create misunderstanding and intolerance (cant believe you didnt have proper RE at CH!), no faiths being taught will result in the same. Since we live in such a diverse society, it would only be right to teach kids about all religions from the start. I object to my taxes (well, when I pay them) teaching kids only reafirming one point. How are we going to have an open and tolerant society if we don't teach everything?

The school I worked at in my GAP year (in New York) had a really cool year long world religions course, which was mandatory for graduation. All students visited a place of worship from all the major religions and had to do follow up work for it, and it was also followed by a fun thing e.g. a meal related to that ethnicity. Apart from that the school was "secular". Not a bad thing by any means.

There is a strict division between the state and religion in the US. My husband and daughter have today come back from the US and every program had two political adverts.

the Republican one would say 'My Democratic opponent is an evil ******, vote for me'

The Democratic one would say ' MY Republican opponent is an evil ******, vote for me'

Surely only if there is a God is there evil.

[blondie95]

Its taken me a while to reply to this as I do not want my thought mis-understood.

I think that religion should stay separate from the state.

At Tanbridge we spent on my year 9 a month on the 'main' religions and had to do a project on them to show what we have learnt.

Although it is ever more vital that children are educated about all religions so that we can try and curb prejudice.

I think it is up to the state to consolidate in schools what parents start at home (well thats the ideal!)

Therefore I do in some part feel that faith schools have a part as long as they do not exclude other faiths.

[Euterpe13]

Surely one can be moral without being religious - I do not need a " religion" to teach me what is right and what is wrong : civic education does this.

Also, I do not agree that the State should boulster up deficient moral education in the home - there is enough social nannying going on as it is, and parents are increasing encouraged to abdicate their responsabilities into the hands of teachers/administrators/judicial officers.

Children learn by emulation and by knowing where boundaries lie - if parents are held responsable for the civic behaviour of their offspring, as they were when I was a child ( remember Truant Officers ??), they would feel a greater moral obligation to teach by example.

So I'm a grumpy reactionary victorian ole bag - sue me...

[Mid A 15]

Surely one can be moral without being religious - I do not need a " religion" to teach me what is right and what is wrong : civic education does this.

Also, I do not agree that the State should boulster up deficient moral education in the home - there is enough social nannying going on as it is, and parents are increasing encouraged to abdicate their responsabilities into the hands of teachers/administrators/judicial officers.

Children learn by emulation and by knowing where boundaries lie - if parents are held responsable for the civic behaviour of their offspring, as they were when I was a child ( remember Truant Officers ??), they would feel a greater moral obligation to teach by example.

So I'm a grumpy reactionary victorian ole bag - sue me...

Agreed. I never said you did......"Society is becoming increasingly immoral (and I don't just mean sexual morality). I wouldn't go as far as to say you HAVE to be religious to have moral standards however if you are religious then you SHOULD have moral standards if you are living your religion properly. ".....

This essentially is an issue of freedom and parental choice. The main political parties appear hell bent on reducing State Education to a uniform lowest common denominator. I do not particularly want my under age daughter to be handed condoms like sweets for example, as is increasingly happening in State Schools, without parental consent. If the Government can fund moral dilution in schools then it is only right and fair that it should fund moral enhancement too.

Grammar schools have already been abolished throughout much of the country, against parental wishes, and in areas where they remain local bureaucrats do everything in their power to make the entry process as stressful as possible for parents and pupils alike because political dogma and agendas are more important than peoples needs and welfare.

Faith Schools are next on the list because they sometimes have the courage and temerity to question the gradual moral dilution creeping like ivy throughout society. They are inconvenient so get rid of them! That seems to be the mantra.

You talk about parents abdicating responsibilities and social nannying. Well surely giving parents more choice in how their children are educated is one way of encouraging them to accept their responsibilities!?

[sejintenej]

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.