John Rutter on religion

Just had a thought about above post - perhaps I'm very wrong - we could end up supporting stuff like scientology etc. I was just thinking about the churches and chapels of my youth, not the scary cults of today.

Bags some rich people give and have given large amounts, yes. It's explained in the link I gave, above. The CoE has large investments.

Thanks, lily. I did go to the link. It didn,t give very much information, I thought, such as what, exactly, the investments are. But maybe I didn't look deep enough.

One part did puzzle me a bit: the claim that the CofE provides a lot of education. Aren't CofE schools largely funded by taxpayers, including non-members of the Church?

Church schools have different levels of funding and different funding arrangements, but yes, the majority funding of church schools comes from the state. But in spite of the perception that children are only allowed in if their parents go to church, many church schools have an intake that reflects the local demographic in terms of faith/non-faith, ethnic background, family income. There are many other forms of education, though, from nurseries through to adult education and training for church members and non-members. For example, I've most recently been to courses on child protection and on the position of Muslims in the local population as well as quite a few on faith-related topics.

If most of the funding comes from the state, it doesn't seem right to me that they are called church schools, even if it was the church that set them up in the first place. Nowadays it seems to me that they are state schools supported by the church rather than church schools supported by the state. Historical oddities, I suppose.

There are so many different kinds of state schools now with so many different sponsors and so many different funding arrangements, I think it hardly matters.

Thanks to lillygran and jo5 - the only 2 who have replied directly to my direct question [sushine]. The otherwise silence perhaps (?) indicates that most would not either, or would not to be put in a situation where sitting on the fence is no longer possible (as has happened here recently - really putting the cat amongst the pigeons big time).

I think it does matter who funds schools, and I think some of the current funding is undesirable, but I guess my view is of no consequence since we have a non-secular government.

jura, I would have answered but I don't use church services of any kind and haven't called myself a member of any religion for a very long time, so I thought the question didn't apply to me. I imagine that would account for the vast majority of GNers too.

I was thinking the same, Bags, and no 'cultural Christians' have replied at all either.

Thanks Bags - your position and mine, and that of 'committed' Christians is clear - no fence sitting here, or there.

granjura I didn't answer your question because I couldn't relate to it.

I never say I am a Christian.

If I did and suddenly was faced with having to pay a percentage of my income to the Church for the privilege I imagine the reason why I was saying I was religious would come into it.

petallus, I am so sorry, I never meant my 'no reply' comment to sound like a criticism. And of course you wouldn't reply if you are clearly on one side of the fence (like me) - but I am quite sure there is a significant proportion of people in the UK who are sitting on said fence, and would quite possibly come off it very promptly had they to pay quite a bit of money for the privilege.

Sometimes, it is difficult to imagine situations which seem so bizarre or extreme, as they are so different to what one is used to. As explained, the Protestant reformed Churches of Europe started with NO money at all, when they split from Rome (same for the non-conformist churches in the UK of course, many who do have a compulsory tythe) - whereas the CofE was never ever a reformed church per se - and was left with a lot of wealth by comparison.

granjura I htink I did reply to your question.

I agree with bags that some of the funding of faith schools is troublesome - I have never thought that schools should have a religious affiliation, and that this should be outlawed whether in the public or private sector. It is to do with the separation of church and state and the principle of honesty to children in their education.

Only if you think faith is false, Mishap. Lots of people think faith schools are a good thing.

Well - there must be at least a few faiths that are false - logic dictates that they can't all be true because they don't all say the same things! Or are you just talking about faith as a concept however it is directed?

What is troublesome to me is that children are not just taught ABOUT religion, as a valid subject for study; they are taught that one religion (that to which their school is affilated) is true in the same way that they are taught that 2+2=4 in their maths class. If their religious studies teachers said "This is what I and many others believe....." I would have no concern about it, but on the whole no distinction is made between facts in a science class and "facts" in religious studies.

I have respect for others' beliefs but think that they should be expressed honestly as such, particularly to children.

Would you include a study of all religions, Mishap and if you wouldn't, on what basis would you include or exclude?

Faith is what people want to believe. That's why there are so many different versions.

There is only one version of something that is true.

But ain't it amazing what people do actually believe......

Yes, I was going to qualify my statement about faith and add that it is also, quite often, what people have been told they ought to believe. Truth is irrelevant once faith gets a look in.

I think that children should learn about all the major religions of the world as the curriculum allows; and the role that religion has played in history and man's development.

The selection would depend on curriculum limitations, just like all the other subjects they learn in school - they do not cover every aspect of science, geography etc. because it would not be practical.

They should also be taught about humanism - or the fact that not being religious doe NOT mean have no morality.

I think they are taught that in good schools, jura, though the word humanism may not be used. DD's primary school had three rules: Respect yourself; Respect others; Respect your surroundings. They based ethical teaching on that without reference to religion.

The certainty that it's all true and the certainty that it isn't seems to me like two sides of the same coin.

What about us chaps who are certain about nothing petallus? I am agnostic because I can see no way whatsoever that one might know the answers to these big questions.