Why should religion have any influence on our lives?

[Michael B]

End of.

Except what you miss all through all of your reply, is that the only "End of" there is is that the demand of the secularists to ban state-funded faith schools is contrary to the wishes of people (we tax payers) who both fund and choose the schools. In the UK we have democracy and choice, and I celebrate the freedom we have. You want to suppress that freedom, whereas I can happily celebrate the freedom we have. The schools parents want attract pupils and the government money follows that - it's simple and popular (apart from for those who want strong central state control of schooling).

Now I'm older, and our children have been through schooling (and it was brilliant, we were really thrilled with all the schools, and the vast majority of the teachers), and so I don't have so much of a dog in this race any more. I really appreciated the choices we had, and what I want for the next generation of young parents coming through is that same freedom of choice that we had. If they (and that includes you) all choose non-faith schools, then so-be-it: I would not begrudge them the choice we had as parents just because they make different choices, and I am happy to pay for the type of schools they want for their children. But, while I have any say, then I will continue to support local freedom and choice in education, so that people, in their own communities, can make their own choices in what is one of the most important things for anyone - the upbringing and education of their children. I want parents to continue to be able to choose for themselves (or indeed the children could choose, once they have sufficient maturity), not to have secularists think that they can choose so much better for other people's children. So, I respect your right to make choices for your children (more than respect it - I very much want you to have that choice), but when you want to stick your nose into the choices others of us make then I will gently tweak your nose and tell you that I'm quite able to make my own choices, but thank you for your concern anyway.

Things can always be better, but I am generally really proud of the education system we have in the UK, and that includes the pluralistic aspect to it; we have a diversity and freedom of education that matches the diversity and freedom of our society, and I'm proud of that as a Brit.

End of

[FatAndFaithless]

That's where the US and The UK seem to differ, in law at least. Over here the government can't use public money to endorse any religion (or religion over irreligion), so publicly-funded Catholic Schools or Muslim Schools would be a no-go. There's nothing stopping them from using that would-be tax money to start their own schools, which they do (and in some places they get local gov't benefits which are very iffy and being challenged currently). The gist being, the religion of the many cannot use the force of government to override the irreligion (or different religion) of the few, at least when it comes to public money.

[Mudhammam]

That's where the US and The UK seem to differ, in law at least.

In a strange turn of events, thank goodness many of our Christians believe religious freedom only applies to their faith because I suspect they would NEVER go for tax-payer funded Madrasas and therefore, we can keep tax-payer funded public education and religious quackery separate.

[Michael B]

That's where the US and The UK seem to differ, in law at least. Over here the government can't use public money to endorse any religion (or religion over irreligion), so publicly-funded Catholic Schools or Muslim Schools would be a no-go. There's nothing stopping them from using that would-be tax money to start their own schools, which they do (and in some places they get local gov't benefits which are very iffy and being challenged currently). The gist being, the religion of the many cannot use the force of government to override the irreligion (or different religion) of the few, at least when it comes to public money.

If the government were saying "these are the schools that you must have" I could see the issue with 'endorsement' (that, to me, is was Fidel wants). But in the UK it's the parents that choose, so the endorsement, if there is any, comes from the parents and not the government. The government channels money to where parents choose. Each pupil comes, effectively, with a bag of tax-payers money - the more pupils a school attracts the more public money it gets (and as it grows it can apply for capital funding for more buildings, or it can take over a failing school).

What we do have for state-funded schools, and I very much support, is a core curriculum that all schools must teach. So whether it is a Catholic, Anglican, Muslim or non-faith school there is a standard body of teaching that all pupils receive.That core includes a good solid foundation in science, maths and English, all up to the age of 16. All, for example, will be taught the theory of evolution in science classes. The freedom schools have exists around that core of teaching. There's always debate about the extent and content of the core curriculum, but it is very widely supported as a central principle of our state education.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

End of.

Except what you miss all through all of your reply, is that the only "End of" there is is that the demand of the secularists to ban state-funded faith schools is contrary to the wishes of people (we tax payers) who both fund and choose the schools. In the UK we have democracy and choice, and I celebrate the freedom we have. You want to suppress that freedom, whereas I can happily celebrate the freedom we have. The schools parents want attract pupils and the government money follows that - it's simple and popular (apart from for those who want strong central state control of schooling).

But you're holding up the fact that people want faith schools for the wrong reason(s). As I've stated, and can evidence if I have enough time, people want faith schools for their grades. Faith schools have succeeded in skewing the funding structures of local authorities away from schools where the majoirty attend to where the minorty attend.

We sent my younger brother to a catholic primary school because it was the best primary school in our area bar some private ones, not because we wanted him to be a little Catholic.

It is the very antithesis of democracy because the education system is unfair in the UK to the extent that people have to actively lie and be disingenuous about their children's beliefs and affairs just to get them a better chance of getting a better education.

This is madness! How can you say this is a good system? I reiterate again & again - If these resources were channelled towards non-denominational secular schools then you would see an overall trend of better educational attainment than you do now.

Let me be clear; what we have isn't democracy. It's favouring a minority of the people by channelling vast sums of money to something at the expense of the majority. It's not equal and it's not fair. In faith schools the only people who can attend who aren't of that religion are those captured through a quota or when places aren't full already of children whose families have indoctrinated them into that religion.

This is the antithesis of 'fair' and 'plural'. It's state sponsored segregation.

Now I'm older, and our children have been through schooling (and it was brilliant, we were really thrilled with all the schools, and the vast majority of the teachers), and so I don't have so much of a dog in this race any more. I really appreciated the choices we had, and what I want for the next generation of young parents coming through is that same freedom of choice that we had. If they (and that includes you) all choose non-faith schools, then so-be-it: I would not begrudge them the choice we had as parents just because they make different choices, and I am happy to pay for the type of schools they want for their children. But, while I have any say, then I will continue to support local freedom and choice in education, so that people, in their own communities, can make their own choices in what is one of the most important things for anyone - the upbringing and education of their children. I want parents to continue to be able to choose for themselves (or indeed the children could choose, once they have sufficient maturity), not to have secularists think that they can choose so much better for other people's children. So, I respect your right to make choices for your children (more than respect it - I very much want you to have that choice), but when you want to stick your nose into the choices others of us make then I will gently tweak your nose and tell you that I'm quite able to make my own choices, but thank you for your concern anyway.

Except now you're equating choice to the status quo. This is unfair.

In the system I am advocating people would still have the choice to set up and fund faith schools, but they would do it from their own religious structures and organisations; their own pocket. Public tax is not your own pocket. It's the pocket of the nation that you contribute relatively small amounts to (vis your total earnings).

I wholeheartedly support freedom of choice, but not when that choice creates such an unequal divide in education policy and, more importantly, education attainment by framing an argument in terms of religious adherence when it's patently more about parents struggling to get better education for their children.

Things can always be better, but I am generally really proud of the education system we have in the UK, and that includes the pluralistic aspect to it; we have a diversity and freedom of education that matches the diversity and freedom of our society, and I'm proud of that as a Brit.

End of

RE: Bold - no, we don't. Far from it. We have continually falling educational standards as compared to the rest of the developed nations in all major academic subjects and a youth unemployment stat which is one of the highest in Europe.

We have a University system where the best University's (Oxbridge, UCL, Durham, Bristol etc) have a disproportionate number of public school children relative to those who attend 'bog standard' comps (and I know as I bloody attended one of them). We have a faith school system that is disproportionately funded relative to their non-denominational counterparts in similar locations. And now we have free schools where anyone and everyone whose got enough cash and support can set up a school and have it. Do I need to reference Birmingham for the utter mess this can lead to when a school's governing body is subverted by [religious or political] extremists within the community that set it up?

I want an answer as to how many Muslims attended your children's faith school and how many of them weren't the legally enforced quota?

[Mudhammam]

The government simply channel money to where parents chose.

Seems to me like a poor use of resources. I'm absolutely for children learning about religions, that is a variety of different ones, but I suspect you wouldn't get much useful education about Hinduism or Islam in a Catholic school.

All, for example, will be taught the theory of evolution in science classes.

Yeah, that would never fly with our Evangelical Christians in the States.

[FatAndFaithless]

That's where the US and The UK seem to differ, in law at least. Over here the government can't use public money to endorse any religion (or religion over irreligion), so publicly-funded Catholic Schools or Muslim Schools would be a no-go. There's nothing stopping them from using that would-be tax money to start their own schools, which they do (and in some places they get local gov't benefits which are very iffy and being challenged currently). The gist being, the religion of the many cannot use the force of government to override the irreligion (or different religion) of the few, at least when it comes to public money.

If the government were saying "these are the schools that you must have" I could see the issue with 'endorsement' (that, to me, is was Fidel wants). But in the UK it's the parents that choose, so the endorsement, if there is any, comes from the parents and not the government. The government channels money to where parents choose. Each pupil comes, effectively, with a bag of tax-payers money - the more pupils a school attracts the more public money it gets (and as it grows it can apply for capital funding for more buildings, or it can take over a failing school).

What we do have for state-funded schools, and I very much support, is a core curriculum that all schools must teach. So whether it is a Catholic, Anglican, Muslim or non-faith school there is a standard body of teaching that all pupils receive.That core includes a good solid foundation in science, maths and English, all up to the age of 16. All, for example, will be taught the theory of evolution in science classes. The freedom schools have exists around that core of teaching. There's always debate about the extent and content of the core curriculum, but it is very widely supported as a central principle of our state education.

I'm not sure I'm quite clear on that. So everyone pays taxes into the gov't, and then the gov't can use that tax money to pay for faith-based schools depending on popular...vote? So if I paid tax in England as an atheist, the government could use it for a religious school because enough Christians/Muslims/Jews voted for it?

[Michael B]

I suspect you wouldn't get much useful education about Hinduism or Islam in a Catholic school.

I think you'd be surprised. Certainly the schools our children went to gave a lot of time to other faiths (and organised visits to places of worship, and had speakers from other faiths), and it's from a position of respecting faith. I think a Catholic, for example, is perhaps more likely than an atheist to respect the Hindu or Islamic faith - because they (we) 'get' faith. There's something I share with a devout Muslim that I don't, and can't, share with an atheist. And I don't need to try to find the things we (the Muslim and I) have in common; in a way I feel more connected to those trying to go as deep as they can into their own faith than with those who are looking for commonality between the faiths. We frequently meet each other by going 'down' rather than 'across' I think, if you see what I mean.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm not sure I'm quite clear on that. So everyone pays taxes into the gov't, and then the gov't can use that tax money to pay for faith-based schools depending on popular...vote? So if I paid tax in England as an atheist, the government could use it for a religious school because enough Christians/Muslims/Jews voted for it?

Yes, sort of.

There is no popular vote on schooling - Education policy is held by central government but the 'green light' to new schools is given by local authorities (In the US I guess this would be federal education policy but applied independently of federal approval by local states - with those states having to [though not always] adhere to some core aspects of the federal policy)

But as I've said, England & Wales are two nations where mainstream Abrahamic religions are falling in attendance year on year. Yet faith schools are going up and up. Why? Parents 'chose' their schools by putting their children in them, not by voting. Faith schools get better grades (on average) than standard state schools, so more parents attempt to get their children into them. the faith element is irrelevant, except a faith school has the legal right here to dictate who comes to their school and who doesn't based solely on their religious adherence (so the religious adherence of the child's parents).

Fair, right? Theoretically you could have an area with 5 faith schools and no state secular comprehensives where parents must either adopt the chosen faith or be faced with the prospect that their children can't get an education because the school can say no to their child being educated there.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm not sure I'm quite clear on that. So everyone pays taxes into the gov't, and then the gov't can use that tax money to pay for faith-based schools depending on popular...vote? So if I paid tax in England as an atheist, the government could use it for a religious school because enough Christians/Muslims/Jews voted for it?

Yes, sort of.

There is no popular vote on schooling - Education policy is held by central government but the 'green light' to new schools is given by local authorities (In the US I guess this would be federal education policy but applied independently of federal approval by local states - with those states having to [though not always] adhere to some core aspects of the federal policy)

But as I've said, England & Wales are two nations where mainstream Abrahamic religions are falling in attendance year on year. Yet faith schools are going up and up. Why? Parents 'chose' their schools by putting their children in them, not by voting. Faith schools get better grades (on average) than standard state schools, so more parents attempt to get their children into them. the faith element is irrelevant, except a faith school has the legal right here to dictate who comes to their school and who doesn't based solely on their religious adherence (so the religious adherence of the child's parents).

Fair, right?

Hrm. That does seem a bit weird to me just because that's not what I've grown up with. The rather cut-and-dry nature of the serparation between public money and faith schools in the US at least makes that aspect much more simple.