Faith schools

[Fisher_Gate]

The school next door to my bro and his wife's place is CofE but they're hoping to send their daughter there anyway because a) it's next door and b) it's a good school. I thought you had to prove church attendence and stuff, but maybe that's just catholic schools?

The point is that its mainly related to demand. Where demand for a church school is very high, they can insist on the 'faith' conditions. Where it's low, they can't afford to pick and choose. However it does also depend on the number of zealots on the governing body.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Not if it's your local school, only if you're exercising your "right to choose" (don't get me started )

There is no 'right to choose' in relation to state school admissions. Only the right to assert a preference.

 

[AnnaKarpik]

Lets not forget the guilt, self-denial and anti-rational thinking, they're a part of Catholocism too.....

Self-denial, within reason, is not a bad thing, whatever your reasons for embracing it.

As for guilt; guilt is something that non-Catholics assume I feel when I don't. Maybe I tend to feel responsible where others might think themselves blameless but I think that stems from an all-encompassing view of the world that I belong to; I certainly don't hate myself because I can't vote poverty out of existence, I don't suffer a microsecond of remorse because I had an abortion, I don't agonise over an unorthodox sex-life.

Anti-rational thinking I covered in a previous post.

Pretty much everyone on these boards are products of a post-enlightenment era; we are all able to scrutinise and judge the beliefs and norms handed down to us, we are taught and encouraged to do so. Were faith schools to be encouraged in this country that preferred a pre-enlightenment approach to any aspect of the curriculum I would fight it tooth and claw.

 

[skippinder]

I'm confused...

This thread is all a little bit too much for me...

But I'd like to say I'd like to see more multi-faith schools. I know it's aimed for.

I am of no particular faith but had experience of going to a school that was run by a ('re-discovered' - not wishing to offend anyone) christian who didn't recognise the fact that 35-40% of her school of girls were from an asian (of all faiths) background & she seemed to feel that the odd lesson (once a year!) about those faiths, was enough to instill respect between the different faiths/communities.

Obviously, this wasn't enough & we attempted it ourselves in the only way teen-girls know, bullying, name-calling, mis-understandings, extracting the urine but i guess some of us tried to understand each other in a more intelligent way.

This experience, makes me empathise with people who hold the belief that prayer/religious faith as an all encompassing part of life would find a 'single faith school' option attractive.

For me, the best thing would have been to have a religious education teacher who also felt unsure of &/or open to all faiths. Which maybe would have opened doors to new ideas instead of the rather ridiculous lessons of bible passages & singing hymns (to guitar strumming - no really!) which held no relevance to any of our lives.

Which, i guess, can only be achieved in a multi-faith/secular school. This would be my only option for any child I had that responsibility for.

The similarities are more important than the differences.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

For me, the best thing would have been to have a religious education teacher who also felt unsure of &/or open to all faiths. Which maybe would have opened doors to new ideas instead of the rather ridiculous lessons of bible passages & singing hymns (to guitar strumming - no really!) which held no relevance to any of our lives.

Which, i guess, can only be achieved in a multi-faith/secular school. This would be my only option for any child I had that responsibility for.

The similarities are more important than the differences.

Except that doesnt happen in so called 'secular' schools
The broadly christian bit is interpreted as much or as little as the head wants/believes( so no way of knowing what your child is taught either way) and practically no religious education of any description other than bible stories and as you say piano plinking and guitar strumming to seemingly meaningless christian songs is taught in these so called 'secular' schools.( becuase many many children wont have any other point of reference for religion other than what they hear in school.)

Religious education of any sort of informative or comparative context/content was non existent in the three non faith schools my children attended.
Secular schools???They dont exist in the UK state sector. Its a complete myth

 

[In Bloom]

Self-denial, within reason, is not a bad thing, whatever your reasons for embracing it.

I mean self-denial as in concealing who you really are, e.g. pretending that you are straight when you are not and forcing yourself into a life of celibacy because of it.

As for guilt; guilt is something that non-Catholics assume I feel when I don't. Maybe I tend to feel responsible where others might think themselves blameless but I think that stems from an all-encompassing view of the world that I belong to; I certainly don't hate myself because I can't vote poverty out of existence, I don't suffer a microsecond of remorse because I had an abortion, I don't agonise over an unorthodox sex-life.

I never said you, personally, feel anything, but I know enough to know that guilt (for perfectly normal, human feelings and urges of all things) plays a strong part in orthodox Catholocism.

Anti-rational thinking I covered in a previous post.

Where? Don't you think that being discouraged from thinking critically about certain subjects (the Bible, the existence of God and all that bollocks) might be damaging to a childs education?

 

[skippinder]

Except that doesnt happen in so called 'secular' schools
The broadly christian bit is interpreted as much or as little as the head wants/believes( so no way of knowing what your child is taught either way) and practically no religious education of any description other than bible stories and as you say piano plinking and guitar strumming to seemingly meaningless christian songs is taught in these so called 'secular' schools.( becuase many many children wont have any other point of reference for religion other than what they hear in school.)

Religious education of any sort of informative or comparative context/content was non existent in the three non faith schools my children attended.
Secular schools???They dont exist in the UK state sector. Its a complete myth

I agree that most kids have no other point of reference. Which is why I think maybe multi-faith rather that singular faith school are the way forward.

Likewise, I had a little other points of reference outside school, my parents aimed to lead me to appreciate the similarities (as well as hypocrisies) of all organised religions, due to being from a multi-faith parental background.

I had experience of the catholic faith from other family members & c. of e. from school - which it all gets very muddled in a general understanding of christianity now, but, maybe that's a good thing.

I don't profess to be any expert, just interested.

 

[Gmart]

There are a few issues clashing here. Firstly, whether or not a faith should be taught as truth to an innocent open child. Secondly, whether a parent or guardian has the right to put their child through this and whether we (representing society) are happy with this input into our community. Thirdly there is the general sweep it under the carpet hotch potch of the current situation. OFSTED evidently go round all schools, but the National Curriculum is generally ignored by many, probably partly because it seems to be written in the same religious language. The French have tried to take all religion out of schools, but i reckon this is wishful thinking and eventually the individual right to wear what one wants will prevail, in contrast to inciting religious hatred etc which the French were trying to address. All of this would be a whole lot clearer if we had a constitution to discuss (one of only three countries in the world without) so that we could put a duty onto the schools to brainwash in a less narrow way at the least. We are letting down generation after generation, and the education system is already 2 tier, one for the rich and one for the poor with little equality of opportunity, leading to division from the beginning.
Do we have the right to brainwash our kids? Do they have the right to get a more secular form of brainwashing? Faith by definition should not be taught as truth. But maybe the alternative is fear, and maybe that is worse?
It's difficult bringing up kids, and i can understand why it must be tempting to just go down the road of religion rather than address the issues within a loving family. Why think for yourself if you can find some book, or better other people to think for you?

 

[hibee]

I'm less concerned about "brainwashing" kids because the secular influences in society are far greater than what you hear in school.

What I find astonishing is that people can demand the right to ossify relious devisions in this way on the basis of "choice".

It is generally accepted by society that one's right to "choice" over using drugs, owning a gun or whatever can be curtailed if the overall effect on society is negative.

Yet although we know full well that "choice" in education leads to social division, a two-tier structure and an inferior schooling for working class kids, it is actively pursued by a government seeking middle class votes.

As an old social democrat once said, freedom for the pike is death to the minnows...

 

[888]

Religious education should be illegal - it's mental child molestation.

Anyway what choice do the children have in it? Why should they be forced into the same beliefs as their parents?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well in some ways nearly all children are by virtue of being brought up within the family.

 

[AnnaKarpik]

I mean self-denial as in concealing who you really are, e.g. pretending that you are straight when you are not and forcing yourself into a life of celibacy because of it.

But you don't have to do that. There must be as many unorthodox Catholics as there are hellfire and damnation ones and there are certainly no public excommunications or other official dismissal from the church for people judged wanting by the, shall we say, traditionalists. Some, perhaps many, feel squeezed out because there are too many points of disagreement but that is a common occurrence the moment beliefs are formally written down whether it is a religious movement or a political one.

...I know enough to know that guilt (for perfectly normal, human feelings and urges of all things) plays a strong part in orthodox Catholocism.

And I know enough to know that people grow up, think for themselves and go their own way. Even Catholics. You might end a Catholic education with a more finely-honed conscience than others (I don't believe that myself) but that's the only reason I can think of for any extra burden of guilt that Catholics are supposed to be lugging around.

Don't you think that being discouraged from thinking critically about certain subjects (the Bible, the existence of God and all that bollocks) might be damaging to a childs education?

Critical thinking such as you describe is emphatically not discouraged. Reaching the wrong conclusions, yes, you need to be diplomatic, more 'I don't understand' than 'Bollocks!' Our school imported Jesuits to chat to us about the more challenging aspects of Catholic belief (ie miracles and such) and believe me, you don't get far in a discussion with a Jesuit if your thinking is at all vague. We never managed to schock them either

 

[In Bloom]

But you don't have to do that. There must be as many unorthodox Catholics as there are hellfire and damnation ones and there are certainly no public excommunications or other official dismissal from the church for people judged wanting by the, shall we say, traditionalists. Some, perhaps many, feel squeezed out because there are too many points of disagreement but that is a common occurrence the moment beliefs are formally written down whether it is a religious movement or a political one.

There was me thinking that the Pope, a conservative Catholic at the head of the church's hierarchy, might have some influence over individuals lower down (such as the clergy involved in running a faith school). Silly me.

Critical thinking such as you describe is emphatically not discouraged. Reaching the wrong conclusions, yes, you need to be diplomatic, more 'I don't understand' than 'Bollocks!' Our school imported Jesuits to chat to us about the more challenging aspects of Catholic belief (ie miracles and such) and believe me, you don't get far in a discussion with a Jesuit if your thinking is at all vague. We never managed to schock them either

'I don't understand' implies that what is being said is true and the person who doesn't agree is just too thick. Critical thinking has to include a willingness to call somebody on talking bollocks. And I've read the Catholic church's idea of irrefutable proof of the existence of God (the five something or other, I can't remember the name), anybody with a mental capacity greater than a soapdish could refute them with the slightest effort.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And I know enough to know that people grow up, think for themselves and go their own way. Even Catholics. You might end a Catholic education with a more finely-honed conscience than others (I don't believe that myself) but that's the only reason I can think of for any extra burden of guilt that Catholics are supposed to be lugging around.

Oooh, this won't do at all. It has a great deal more to do with the very great emphasis put on the conception of "sin" and the way in which Catholicism links you with the Virgin Mary and all sorts of other figures who you are personally letting down every time you lapse.

 

[fatscaleyback]

Oooh, this won't do at all. It has a great deal more to do with the very great emphasis put on the conception of "sin" and the way in which Catholicism links you with the Virgin Mary and all sorts of other figures who you are personally letting down every time you lapse.

testing testing

1 2 3

ryryryryryryryrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy


tiat tiat tna tna ryryryry

 

[bluestreak]

testing testing

1 2 3

ryryryryryryryrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy


tiat tiat tna tna ryryryry

not a bad second post either. not sure if it's better than the first but, let's see what number three brings.

 

[editor]

testing testing

1 2 3

ryryryryryryryrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy


tiat tiat tna tna ryryryry

Do we need this kind of idiotic gibberish clogging up the boards?

Hell, no!

 

[bluestreak]

well, he lasted longer than i expected.