I would rather kids hear the gospel and choose to ignore it than them not hearing it at all.
The question is not about hearing anything. They will hear about the Gospels in RE and will make their informed decisions.
The question is about enforced worship. Worship as I understand it is about committment not just knowledge and committment should not imposed by Education Acts. Edit or by anything else.
Perhaps they just want what they think is best for their kids. Why should they have to pretend Faith to get that? People do pretend faith to get admission, you must know that.
It is an indefensible situation that State funded services are allocated on the basis of belief.
You don't have to pretend to have faith. For primary you have to show that your child is Christened, that's it.
For Secondary you have to show proof of Christening and the rest of the sacraments that happen during primary.
I've just moved my son's school mid term and told the new Catholic school verbally but didn't have to show documentation as they had a vacancy and I've got an honest face. So no you don't have to pretend faith.
Catholics like nothing better than to get a lapsed one back into the fold.
Perhaps they just want what they think is best for their kids. Why should they have to pretend Faith to get that? People do pretend faith to get admission, you must know that.
It is an indefensible situation that State funded services are allocated on the basis of belief.
You don't have to pretend to have the faith. I've just got my lad into a fantastic Catholic secondary school and have told them he hasn't been inside a church for about 5 years and has forgotten all of the prayers.
You don't have to pretend to have the faith. I've just got my lad into a fantastic Catholic secondary school and have told them he hasn't been inside a church for about 5 years and has forgotten all of the prayers.
Then I am happy that you have found the school you want. It appears however that you where a part of a lucky minority if your previous list of criteria for admission to Faith Schools was correct.
So they weren't thinking for themselves before when, according to earlier posters they rejected religion in spite of enforced assemblies?
Perhaps you are right, they were just following the secularists like sheep.
Of course they clearly were, and well done to them. However, some children are not so proficient at thinking objectively, especially those who come from a family where such free-thought is lacking.
I do not believe that in an institution where young children are under the command of teachers as a complete authority, and done so with taxpayer's money, that this position is abused by indoctrinating them with a specific religious faith.
I still don't get why it's aproblem for people with no faith that faith schools ask for some "proof" of adherence to that faith.
If I had no faith the last place I'd send my kids would be to a faith school. regardless of results. It just wouldn't occur to me.
Would you be quite happy for there to be State funded Faith Hospitals admission to which required proof of adherence to the Faith as well as illness?
Would you also be quite happy for this adherence to faith test to apply to admission to State funded Libraries, swimming pools, Universities?
The objection to this unique, unwarranted and discriminatory use of public funds is really not that difficult to understand.
I think this is a really good idea. I really don't think anyone should be forced to learn religion in a setting like that - religion belongs in RE.
I started off in a Catholic Primary school, luckily for me my parents got me out there as fast as possible. The school I ended up in had a religious type assembly once a week (and that was more than enough as far as we students were concerned). The rest of the week we had assemblies where we sung songs from Disney films and musicals and were read stories like Aesops Tales. We'd have storytellers come in and the local police/fire brigade/ambulance service would come in and talk to us once a month. I think the closest we got to religion in those assemblies was singing songs from Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat.
We'd have to do actions to the songs and the teachers encouraged audience participation in the stories. It woke us up in the morning, and got us all energised for the day,
Most of our school dozed/chatted through the religious assemblies, but we were all wide awake and you could hear a pin drop in the other ones. Except when we were singing, when you could hear us all the way down the road.
The question is not about hearing anything. They will hear about the Gospels in RE and will make their informed decisions.
The question is about enforced worship. Worship as I understand it is about committment not just knowledge and committment should not imposed by Education Acts. Edit or by anything else.
Yes, you are probably right. but you will not hear the gospel in school
Would you be quite happy for there to be State funded Faith Hospitals admission to which required proof of adherence to the Faith as well as illness?
Would you also be quite happy for this adherence to faith test to apply to admission to State funded Libraries, swimming pools, Universities?
The objection to this unique, unwarranted and discriminatory use of public funds is really not that difficult to understand.
I'm no expert on this so correct me if I'm wrong but if it's state funded it means it comes out of the pot we all pay our taxes into. If there are enough Catholics/Muslims etc paying into it then I don't see it as discriminatory simply working as it's supposed to. We all pay in and we all benefit from the choices available. I might have got this wrong so forgive me.
I'm no expert on this so correct me if I'm wrong but if it's state funded it means it comes out of the pot we all pay our taxes into. If there are enough Catholics/Muslims etc paying into it then I don't see it as discriminatory simply working as it's supposed to. We all pay in and we all benefit from the choices available. I might have got this wrong so forgive me.
Then why is this form of separate provision not applied to all other State services?
More importantly do you really want separate education for all religions? That is is not just the logical conclusion of these policies but the awful reality we are blindly moving towards.
I'm no expert on this so correct me if I'm wrong but if it's state funded it means it comes out of the pot we all pay our taxes into. If there are enough Catholics/Muslims etc paying into it then I don't see it as discriminatory simply working as it's supposed to. We all pay in and we all benefit from the choices available. I might have got this wrong so forgive me.
Somewhere around one in three State Schools are already Faith Schools and the number is set to rise.
No where near a third of the population are themselves active worshipers. Regular attenedance at all CofE and RC Church worship is currently about 6% and certainly no higher than 10% but almost all of those faith schools are one or the other at present.
No even by your analysis, these religions get far more educational provision than their congregation pay for.
Aw, pity that. Some gorgeous hymns out there that kids won't get to enjoy. Songs like Hark the Herald Angels Sing and Come All Ye Faithful really capture the Christmas spirit - especially the harmonies - they're really uplifting songs.
That said, I'm not at all religious and have a particular antipathy towards Islam, in which I can find nothing positive.
Aw, pity that. Some gorgeous hymns out there that kids won't get to enjoy. Songs like Hark the Herald Angels Sing and Come All Ye Faithful really capture the Christmas spirit - especially the harmonies - they're really uplifting songs.
I totally agree and that's why there is no problem for atheists to worry about
I fear there is a great deal for all of us to worry about. Schooling in this country is becoming increasingly divided on religious lines, and if that where not enough by consequence racial ones.
We are creating division that our children will inherit.
No-they are prioritizing a foreign religion ahead of that endorsed by the Church of England. If I had kids at that school, I'd pull them out and refuse to allow them to go back until this ridiculous decision was overturned.
Wait, Islam is a foreign religion yet Christianity isn't?
Christianity has been established in the UK longer than Islam has, but it is no less a foreign religion. In fact both Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic and thus sibling religions.
No matter. I'm not religious, i have no attraction to that creation, and trait, of human nature (as i see it), but i have no wish to persecute those whom are religious. I don't wish to be persecuted as an atheist, so i don't persecute, quite simple really.
I know there are those who say persecution has never been carried out in the name of atheism, but that's quite untrue. It's analogous to persecution carried out by the religious, and indeed the source of both can be found not in belief or lack thereof, but the inherent capacity for violence that is sadly human. It's another tribalistic, us versus them, fight, and while you may agree with one particular viewpoint you can step away from that unpleasant aspect of it. I don't like Islam, but i'll defend Muslims persecuted en masse, i've done, and do, the same for Christians, Jews and adherents of other religions. The bottom line for me is that persecution is wrong.
Age, by the way, has nothing to do with it. The two most prominent atheists in the UK are hardly youthful, and there are plenty of rabid elderly atheists across the Soviet Union. It's less to do with age and maturity than it is to do with personality, the biology and environment that forged it.
I do believe in seperation of Church and State. Pro R.E in schools, you can't wipe out the role of religion in history, and with the present being the product of all that has gone before, it is interesting to study the various belief systems worldwide and gain a greater understanding of how various cultures were shaped. It's a useful class.
Why do you choose to characterise those who reject religion as sheep?
I agree, it came over as offensive and was not meant to be so. Laziness on my part, I apologize.
I merely meant that as the majority of a child's peers are probably taught to laugh at religion and believers at home, any child with a different viewpoint will probably follow the crowd (it's hard not to, even for an adult) and reject it.
It's no more thinking for yourself than children who accept religion because they have a school assembly a few times a week.
I fear there is a great deal for all of us to worry about. Schooling in this country is becoming increasingly divided on religious lines, and if that where not enough by consequence racial ones.
We are creating division that our children will inherit.
It wouldn't be very popular with certain sections of the community.
I wouldn't mind schools that were totally neutral. No mention of religion but no mention of atheism either.
Comments
The question is not about hearing anything. They will hear about the Gospels in RE and will make their informed decisions.
The question is about enforced worship. Worship as I understand it is about committment not just knowledge and committment should not imposed by Education Acts. Edit or by anything else.
You don't have to pretend to have faith. For primary you have to show that your child is Christened, that's it.
For Secondary you have to show proof of Christening and the rest of the sacraments that happen during primary.
I've just moved my son's school mid term and told the new Catholic school verbally but didn't have to show documentation as they had a vacancy and I've got an honest face. So no you don't have to pretend faith.
Catholics like nothing better than to get a lapsed one back into the fold.
You don't have to pretend to have the faith. I've just got my lad into a fantastic Catholic secondary school and have told them he hasn't been inside a church for about 5 years and has forgotten all of the prayers.
Then I am happy that you have found the school you want. It appears however that you where a part of a lucky minority if your previous list of criteria for admission to Faith Schools was correct.
A step towards allowing our the country's children to think for themselves.
If I had no faith the last place I'd send my kids would be to a faith school. regardless of results. It just wouldn't occur to me.
So they weren't thinking for themselves before when, according to earlier posters they rejected religion in spite of enforced assemblies?
Perhaps you are right, they were just following the secularists like sheep.
Of course they clearly were, and well done to them. However, some children are not so proficient at thinking objectively, especially those who come from a family where such free-thought is lacking.
I do not believe that in an institution where young children are under the command of teachers as a complete authority, and done so with taxpayer's money, that this position is abused by indoctrinating them with a specific religious faith.
Would you be quite happy for there to be State funded Faith Hospitals admission to which required proof of adherence to the Faith as well as illness?
Would you also be quite happy for this adherence to faith test to apply to admission to State funded Libraries, swimming pools, Universities?
The objection to this unique, unwarranted and discriminatory use of public funds is really not that difficult to understand.
Why do you choose to characterise those who reject religion as sheep?
I started off in a Catholic Primary school, luckily for me my parents got me out there as fast as possible. The school I ended up in had a religious type assembly once a week (and that was more than enough as far as we students were concerned). The rest of the week we had assemblies where we sung songs from Disney films and musicals and were read stories like Aesops Tales. We'd have storytellers come in and the local police/fire brigade/ambulance service would come in and talk to us once a month. I think the closest we got to religion in those assemblies was singing songs from Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat.
We'd have to do actions to the songs and the teachers encouraged audience participation in the stories. It woke us up in the morning, and got us all energised for the day,
Most of our school dozed/chatted through the religious assemblies, but we were all wide awake and you could hear a pin drop in the other ones. Except when we were singing, when you could hear us all the way down the road.
Yes, you are probably right. but you will not hear the gospel in school
Does the RE curriculum avoid mentioning the NT then?
Theres a time and a place. School isn't it.
I'm no expert on this so correct me if I'm wrong but if it's state funded it means it comes out of the pot we all pay our taxes into. If there are enough Catholics/Muslims etc paying into it then I don't see it as discriminatory simply working as it's supposed to. We all pay in and we all benefit from the choices available. I might have got this wrong so forgive me.
Then why is this form of separate provision not applied to all other State services?
More importantly do you really want separate education for all religions? That is is not just the logical conclusion of these policies but the awful reality we are blindly moving towards.
Somewhere around one in three State Schools are already Faith Schools and the number is set to rise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562653/Number-of-faith-schools-set-to-rise-dramatically.html
No where near a third of the population are themselves active worshipers. Regular attenedance at all CofE and RC Church worship is currently about 6% and certainly no higher than 10% but almost all of those faith schools are one or the other at present.
No even by your analysis, these religions get far more educational provision than their congregation pay for.
That said, I'm not at all religious and have a particular antipathy towards Islam, in which I can find nothing positive.
I totally agree and that's why there is no problem for atheists to worry about
and have excellent lyrics
Ah so you have grasped the point that sermons are different from education. The former has its place in a House of Worship the later in a School.
I fear there is a great deal for all of us to worry about. Schooling in this country is becoming increasingly divided on religious lines, and if that where not enough by consequence racial ones.
We are creating division that our children will inherit.
Wait, Islam is a foreign religion yet Christianity isn't?
Christianity has been established in the UK longer than Islam has, but it is no less a foreign religion. In fact both Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic and thus sibling religions.
No matter. I'm not religious, i have no attraction to that creation, and trait, of human nature (as i see it), but i have no wish to persecute those whom are religious. I don't wish to be persecuted as an atheist, so i don't persecute, quite simple really.
I know there are those who say persecution has never been carried out in the name of atheism, but that's quite untrue. It's analogous to persecution carried out by the religious, and indeed the source of both can be found not in belief or lack thereof, but the inherent capacity for violence that is sadly human. It's another tribalistic, us versus them, fight, and while you may agree with one particular viewpoint you can step away from that unpleasant aspect of it. I don't like Islam, but i'll defend Muslims persecuted en masse, i've done, and do, the same for Christians, Jews and adherents of other religions. The bottom line for me is that persecution is wrong.
Age, by the way, has nothing to do with it. The two most prominent atheists in the UK are hardly youthful, and there are plenty of rabid elderly atheists across the Soviet Union. It's less to do with age and maturity than it is to do with personality, the biology and environment that forged it.
I do believe in seperation of Church and State. Pro R.E in schools, you can't wipe out the role of religion in history, and with the present being the product of all that has gone before, it is interesting to study the various belief systems worldwide and gain a greater understanding of how various cultures were shaped. It's a useful class.
I agree, it came over as offensive and was not meant to be so. Laziness on my part, I apologize.
I merely meant that as the majority of a child's peers are probably taught to laugh at religion and believers at home, any child with a different viewpoint will probably follow the crowd (it's hard not to, even for an adult) and reject it.
It's no more thinking for yourself than children who accept religion because they have a school assembly a few times a week.
It wouldn't be very popular with certain sections of the community.
I wouldn't mind schools that were totally neutral. No mention of religion but no mention of atheism either.