Extreme Religion

Schools that are state funded MUST become non-denominational. It is quite wrong in principle that the state should be funding schools that push one faith. The religion curriculum for schools is quite clear that discussion of ALL religions should take place; but this laudable principle goes down the pan if one religion is being promulgated in assemblies and other activities.

If people with a faith want their children to go to a school relevant to that faith then they will have to pay for it. There is no reason why I, or any other agnostic (or indeed atheist, or person of another faith) should be paying via our taxes for children to be indoctrinated in one faith.

How might our Christian members on here feel if the state insisted that a school which one of their GC attended should become a Hindu school?

Parents of a particular religion have the right to choose an education with that bias - they do not have the right to foist it on others, or to ask others to pay for it.

I am very respectful of other's faiths and this is not a dig at religion in general.

feetlebaum post thurs 16.01pm
Most ordinary christians do not go around complaining about what the Bible contains. Christians spend quite a lot of time during their lifetimes reading it, talking about it and learning about it.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that the Bible is in keeping with itself ifyswim, and very little has been added or subtracted from what should be in there.
Also, I always say that the BIble is God inspired, and he is not going to let it be too wrong.

So if we have a faith we must pay ?

but you see- if we don't have faith we have to a/ pay for those who do (even if they are the minority) and at the same time have our kids/grandkids 'indoctrinated' - in our local State School?

Why not have schools for all, irrespective of etnicity, 'class', income, faith or not- and then those who do have faith have their own after school or Sunday activities- catechism, Bible or Koran study, whatever they want- in their own private life- and yes, paid for by their Church via their contributions (as it is here where I live and most European countries actually).

And truly, the House of Lords needs to be reformed too- there is absolutely no reasons why the CofE should still be so highly represented in Government. Either all faith are proportionally or none. Henry VIII's legacy, because he wanted to get rid of his first wife and fancied another, and wanted to appropriate the riches and lands of the Catholic Church to give to his mates in exchange for 'loyality' (he was truly NOT a REformer at heart, was he?) should not longer have such a strong mark on British Society in the 21st Century, surely.

I now have just a glimpse if what Muslims must feel when their faith is attacked

Do we get shot of the queen?

If you have a faith you must pay to have your children educated in a school that is based on that faith; it is not right to expect parents to have no choice - if their local state school is a muslim academy school for instance, what are they to do if they do not want their children educated in that faith?

It is just the same for agnostic parents who want their children to go to a non-aligned school, but find that their local state school is C of E. What are they to do? Drive miles to find a school that is non-aligned?

All state-funded schools should be non-aligned. Education in a particular faith should a private family matter. Parents are free to educate their children in their own faith and to take them to the church/mosque/temple as they wish. They have every right to do that - but they do not have the right to dictate that all children in a locality should receive an education in that faith.

If parents with a particular faith are not happy with a non-aligned school, then they are free to set up or send them to a faith school that is not state-funded.

I am governor at a non-aligned school and occasionally fundamentalist Christian parents want to press their religion onto the curriculum. They get short shrift from me. They have a right to their religion, but no right to foist it on children who are not their own.

Sorry, clicked too soon. I know you don't mean to offend

No-one is suggesting we get shot of the queen (although republicans can argue a strong case for this). What we need is a monarch who is detached from an official religious role and who is not defender of the faith, but defender of the right of people to have their own faith.

Maybe agnostic parents feel under attack when they cannot find a state-funded school near them that does not promulgate one particular faith.

Annie - no-one is attacking any faith, but simply saying that it is not a state matter, but a private one.

I feel faiths are under attack sorry . So where do you want the next coronation service ?

If the next coronation is a service - a religious service - then it will be in a place of worship where the king/queen being crowned can authentically affirm his/her dedication to their country before the God that they believe will help them. I they are members of the C of E then it will be under the auspices of the Archbp of Cant. If they are RC, it will be by the senior RC clergy.

If they are Muslim (it could happen!) it will be by an ayatollah. If they are agnostic or atheist, I am sure that a suitably solemn swearing-in can be written.

None of this has anything to do with faith schools. Education in schools which serve the general population should not be angled toward any one denomination, but toward educating pupils as people. All genuine shades of faith should be explained, and emphasis put on respect for them all, and for those who have worked out their ethical code of conduct without reference to supernatural inspiration.

Faith is a thing to be taught outside organised general education. Paying or not is irrelevant - if teachers believe that it is worth teaching, they will teach it. Teaching a faith to those who cannot afford to pay is a calling that many have responded to in the past.

Doesn't Jesus teach us to love our neighbour, and by the parable of the Samaritan in Luke 10, imply that everyone is our neighbour?

As far as religion in schools goes, my grandson, who is 11, has been to visit a synagogue and other places of worship as part of the school syllabus but that has told him nothing about what other religions believe. I think religious teaching should be kept out of schools, but that we should teach morality - I have heard of something called 'The Virtues Project' which I think some schools in Cornwall have used. It teaches children values like truthfulness, compassion, etc. which are at the heart of all religions as far as I know. This would be more useful for children than knowing what a menorah is (not that I object to that).

Faiths are not under attack, and to believe that they are verges on paranoia. Many saints were canonised because their faith was under attack - it was because they were faced with violence, not just faced with the prospect of doing their own teaching of their faith to the next generation through their own initiative, instead of relying on state control and subsidy.

But you are saying you wouldn't want your child taught by a Christian - not surprised after learning what was said to the five year old - yet I must accept my child being taught by an atheist who may tell them their faith is no different to believing in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy ?

Many village schools were started by the church so let's not dismiss Christianity as all bad , and please don't say the church started schools to convert the children, they started village schools because there were no schools

I am not dismissing Christianity - or Buddhism - or Islam - or humanism.........

I want my GC taught by someone who does not tell children which faith (or non-faith) is right; but tells them about all faiths and their important place in the history of the world and different cultures.

I am happy for children to be taught by a Christian, or a Buddhist or a Muslim or a humanist......as long as none of them tell a child that theirs is the only valid religion, or seek to press this religion over any other.

No-one is dismissing Christianity as "all bad" - or even remotely suggesting this.

The role of a teacher and a school is not to promote religion. It is to give children a broad education.

In a way, I think that your stance Annie is a great deal less inclusive and tolerant than mine, as you clearly do not think a child should be taught by an atheist, whereas I am quite happy to see a child taught by someone who has a faith. As long as that teacher is professional in their approach and does not use their privileged position as a teacher to promulgate their personal views.

Whosoever is teaching children should keep their religious beliefs to themselves, be they Christians, Muslims, Jewish, aethiest or whatever.

Anya I agree

I think all schools should be secular.

Luckygirl. Can I ask, when you chose a christian school for your child, as they got a scholarship there, did you have any problems with that school from that particular aspect?

But even if they're not rose teachers have no right to impose their religion on young minds.

"you are saying you wouldn't want your child taught by a Christian" That is not what I said at all, or implied. A Christian would should have good ethics so would teach his/her subject well and honestly - but so should anyone else with good ethics.

"yet I must accept my child being taught by an atheist who may tell them their faith is no different to believing in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy?" No more likely than that the Christian would tell the child of an atheist that he will go to hell. Atheists have ethics too, difficult as you find that to believe, and telling children things that are likle to upset them is unethical. There is no need to mention faith at all when teaching languages or geography, except perhaps that in Geography the fact that the inhabitants of a given country mostly belong to one faith or other could be relevant. The teaching of the facts of what people of each faith or lack of faith believe can be done without there being a formal link between the school and one of those faiths. Sunday school, parental guidance,, the example of church/chapel/synagogue/ mosque/ community leaders and heroes teach specifics.

"the church . . . . . started village schools because there were no schools" but there are schools now. The church was being philanthropic in teachiong children the three Rs and something about the world. At the same time they taught their own faith.

Turn it around. Would you like to have your children taught by someone who professes a strong faith completely alien to your own and closely tied to the state, who links morality and ethics to that faith, or would you rather they were taught all the non-religious subjects in a weekday school and your own faith in the evenings and weekends and by joining you at your own place of worship?

soon - what makes you think I chose a Christian school for my child? - or that she got a scholarship? Where did that idea come from??!!

You said so on here? If you didnt, feel free to tell me that I got that wrong.

@Soontobe -- "I think it is fairly safe to assume that the Bible is in keeping with itself ifyswim, and very little has been added or subtracted from what should be in there."

Why on earth would you think that? I think it much safer to assume, based on everything we know, the exact opposite.

Because the Bible knits together.
There would be Christians jumping up and down about bits/chunks that dont fit. And the majority of the millions of us that are christians, are not.

I did not CHOOSE a Christian school for any of my children. I had no choice - it was the only state school available. That is my point!

As a state school, the idea of a scholarship is irrelevant.

The fact that we had to settle for this school is fundamentally wrong. If that school had been muslim or buddhist we would equally have had no choice.

One of the children went to a non-aligned secondary school; but the transport problems getting her there were very difficult indeed. Parents should not be put in the position where their children either have to go to a faith-based school whose beliefs they do not share) or have to travel long distances. These are STATE schools.

Believing that schools should not be faith-based (any faith) is not an attack on religion. I know many people who subscribe to a faith who share that belief and feel that schools should be non-aligned.

Was going to reply- but Elegran has said it much better than I would.

Of course I wouldn't mind my children or granchildren being taught by a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Humanist or an atheist. I would expect any teacher to be fully professional and keep their belief out of teaching- whatever they believe.

BTW I have huge respect for people who have a faith, and we are very lucky that we have friends and family that belong to so many denominations, many Christian ones, but also several other faiths. We work all the time with our local Protestant Church running social activities for the elderly and youngsters in the region- and we lend part of our property to the Church for catechism, choir, luncheons for the elderly, Bible studies and more- free of charge and helping with serving, cleaning, helping, etc, etc. So anyone who says I am anti-religion got it all wrong. I am not- at all- and have huge respect for their faith. Perhaps a lot more respect than those who are happy to use the Church for ceremonies, maraiges, baptisms, funerals, etc- with their fingers crossed behind their back- and those who 'use' CofE schools for umpteen other reasons than a 'faith'.