Faith in education

In the 'green room' at GMTV the other day, I had an interesting chat with Nadia Eweida over the controversy of religious dress for women. Nadia is the woman suing British Airways after she went on upaid leave when the company refused her permission to wear her white gold cross outside her uniform. I have heard it said, in the context of the debates over this and the Muslim veil, that this is a free country and we can all wear what we want. In fact, this is not true. This is not really a free country at all in respect of what we can and cannot wear. Virgin and BMI have similar rules about jewellery to BA. Even the BBC newsreader Fiona Bruce removed her cross after a debate at the top levels of the corporation over whether it would offend other religions. It can surely only be a matter of months before we see a newsreader in burqa and niqab. Meanwhile, a 14-yr-old schoolgirl in Manchester was arrested and carted off to police cells on suspicion of racism after she was put with a group of fellow pupils who didn't speak English for a "discussion" project. Her "crime" was to ask her teacher if she could be moved to another table where she could understand what was going on.

In spite of the chorus of protest in her defence, my view is that Nadia is on slightly tricky ground. The BA dress code seems quite clear, and based on other criteria besides religious ones. In the unlikely event that BA resort to the Bible to defend themselves, Nadia doesn't have much recourse there either. St Paul's first letter to Timothy 2:9 says: "I desire that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair or gold or pearls." There is little else in the Christian scriptures relating to dress for women, and even this passage refers specifically to worship. As Nadia herself told me, the Muslim scriptures are quite different. Proscriptions about women covering themselves appear in the Koran, but the rationales behind these are to be found in the hadith. Nadia, who has a lot of Muslim women in her family, gave me an interesting, graphic and even jacobean outline of what she described as the "real" reasons for the veiling of Muslim women. At first sceptical, I looked it up and found this.

But it is not just a question of Nadia swopping her white gold cross for a silver one. Or of BA resorting to scripture to defend what is essentially a ruling made out of purely secular considerations.

The rise of Islamophobic hysteria at so many levels of our society is leading to a dangerous readiness to take offence at the slightest perceived insult to our own Judeo-Christian heritage, as well as terrifying resort by increasing numbers of young Muslims to symbols of fundamentalism. Something needs to stop this before we find ourselves in Northern Ireland-style sectarian conflict, if we are not there already. It is quite right that a woman should be sacked for refusing to remove a niqab when teaching a classroom of children and the sooner she is forced to face reality about the practical obligations of her vocation, the better. It is quite another to ban all Muslim women from wearing the veil in public. The Government should be wary of going down the road already trod by a number of European states.

Similarly with faith schools. The move to require faith schools to take 25 per cent of pupils of other faiths or none seems unlikely to work, even though, where deemed appropriate, schools such as Orthodox Jewish schools will be able to opt out. But it seems more likely that it will just create further sectarian angst. Already, the Board of Deputies and the Catholic Church have voiced opposition.

One thing that is often forgotten in the faith schools debate is that not all of them are good schools. It is assumed by too many in this debate that faith schools invariably get good results. In fact, quite a few, including the comprehensive linked to my own church, are worryingly under-achieving. Many of the one in six secondaries that are failing are faith schools. (No-one will be forced to attend a faith school against their wishes, or should I say their parents' wishes, but I cannot imagine any non-Muslim actually wanting to send their child to, for example, the Islamic Academy in Leicester, where girls wear full religious dress, and which is due to switch to the state sector soon.) However, most faith schools are excellent and in strong demand. This might have something to do with the fact that they are faith schools. So let's take out the faith, or reduce it as much as possible. That should solve the problem of over-achievement.

And why stop with faith schools? There is a strong argument that the Government should tackle the monetarist creed currently being taught throughout large parts of the private sector, from where young capitalist clones emerge year after year, devout worshippers of the great god money. As any first-time house buyer will tell you, this style of education is a cause of almost as much sectarian division as faith schooling.

Perhaps one answer should be to nationalise all the public schools and privatise the faith schools.

Actually, the real answer is to bring back the grammars. The fact of the matter is, a previous Labour government destroyed the only hope outside of a faith school of anyone from a poor background in vast swathes of the country from getting a decent education. I understand all the arguments against, but surely that is a better alternative than the present process of selection by the church back door, where religion is the new 11-plus.

Meanwhile, I hope all contributors to this blog will take time to add an entry to the One Day in History project. I've just done mine. Writing it and writing this blog today made me understand at a new level just how much of our lives revolve around education. That's why, whether we approve of them or not, these debates over the role of faith schools, of private v public schools, of selection or nonselection, are so important. In the end it is good education, not bans on veils and crosses, that will bring about the understanding we all need to live peaceably, side-by-side in society.

Comments

[Keith Downer]

"So clearly, religion is not a deciding factor in being able to provide a quality academic environment".

Once again, J Pearce, you have got it absolutely right! There are obviously schools in the State system that succeed, almost certainly because individual teachers and administrators in those schools apply themselves to overcoming factors such as under-funding, lack of support from parents, disciplinary issues, the avalanche of directives from central and local policy makers etc. In a sense, they replicate the same approach as faith schools but without the faith.
If this were true throughout the State system, the general success of faith schools would be seen as just one small part of the effective provision of a quality education for all our children in this country. But, sadly, this approach - which is more likely to be found operating in a faith school - is not replicated throughout the system. A 'failing' school is almost certainly badly organised, lacking in motivation and commitment from both staff and pupils, ineffective disciplinary procedures etc.

Why "should children be denied a quality education at their local school based purely on religious belief?"

Clearly, if parents wish to place their child in a faith school but are not willing or unable to support the ethos of that school, there is a problem.
Such parental attitudes can be a problem in any school - and not just about religion. There were many times when my children were being educated in the State system that I found myself attending parents evenings, wishing I was somewhere else; I had a real problem with that whole procedure but it was obviously important. Many parents simply do not turn up and I can understand any school enforcing attendance by parents, for the good of the children and of the school.
So, in a school where the system, the teaching and the administration is organised around a Christian ethos, is it possible to provide a "quality education" to a child whose parents do not support and will not contribute to that approach, especially without impacting the education of the other children? I seriously doubt it.
The real solution is not for faith schools to be seen as the major opportunity for children to receive a good education; it is not for parents to move home just so they can obtain a place for their children in succeeding schools; there should be no 'failing' schools, no schools which parents are reluctant to send their children to. If you have no religious belief, you should be able to send your child to any non-faith school near you, confident that their education will be of the highest standard. If you want a Christian education for your child because of your religious beliefs, then you will choose a Christian school with the same confidence.

[J Pearce]

Keith, to borrow a phrase, we're obviously in agreement on the end, the problem is the means.

You say that we should aim to raise the standards of all schools to those set by religious schools. But there is general acceptance that any number of non-religious schools also excel. So clearly, religion is not a deciding factor in being able to provide a quality academic environment.

Therefore, whither faith schools?

And I still haven't seen any attempt to justify what I believe is the main injustice in all of this - why should children be denied a quality education at their local school based purely on religious belief? We wouldn't dream of introducing entrance criteria to a school based on skin colour - why is acceptable to base it on religious denomination?

If anyone has the courage to answer that, I'd like to see it.

[Keith Downer]

"So, funding and support is skewed in favour of faith schools after all, Keith! Thanks for pointing it out."

Alistair, my contribution in support of J Pearce somehow leads you to the conclusion it supports a view that faith schools benefit disproportionably to those in the state system? How on earth do you arrive at that analysis?
I would have thought it was clear that the point being made was to leave faith schools alone but to use them as a benchmark to which those State schools which are underperforming and being shunned by parents, could aspire, with their existing funding being put to better use than it is at present.
As for insulting "the many non-denominational schools that perform just as well as faith ones", I have made it clear in previous comments that for the purposes of this debate, I am talking in generalisations and accept that there will always be exceptions - in fact, I could probably name a few myself.
The same applies to "So - where is this magic ethos?". Not all faith schools succeed, not all State schools fail but for the purposes of this debate, and allowing that it would be inappropriate (if not impossible) to include a list of all schools here, characterised by their performance, just to satisfy your pickiness, I think I'll stick with generalisations in the hope that other contributors will be more understanding and forgiving.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I am very concerned to hear that someone on this blog has been accusing poor J. Pearce of being '"anti-semitic"'. I really do feel that Ruth should re-read all the postings on this subject and have words with the offender immediately.

Everyone knows that in the UK it is a worse crime/sin to be accused of being "anti-semitic" than to actually be "anti-semitic", and I am quite sure that J. Pearce would be the first to say that some of his/her best friends are Jewish.

[Jill]

Oh dear, Alistair, is that the best you can come up with? One measly failing school?

Nought out of ten. You really must try harder.

[alistair mcbay]

"The answer is not to drag faith schools down to the level of those in the State system".

So, funding and support is skewed in favour of faith schols after all, Keith! Thanks for pointing it out.

And how insulting your post is to the many non-denominational schools that perform just as well as faith ones that do not apply selection criteria the way faith schools do. Don’t worry, I’m not going to do a G on you.

Here is what happened at the Catholic school in Halifax I reported on earlier in the thread. This is proof enough that faith alone is not in any way, shape or form the magic dust that makes a good school.

"A Halifax Catholic school has been placed in special measures after a damning Ofsted report.
Inspectors branded St Catherine's Catholic High School in Holmfield "inadequate" for failing to give pupils an acceptable standard of education.
It is only the second secondary school in Calderdale to be branded as failing since The Ridings 10 years ago.
The Government education watchdogs' report criticises some teachers for failing to "engage, challenge or inspire" pupils, which has resulted in poor student progress.
Management was blasted for failing to tackle poor pupil achievement and provide clear direction. Inspectors were critical of school governors for their lack of challenge and the curriculum was labelled inadequate for failing to meet "the diverse needs of many pupils for courses beyond the boundaries of traditional school subjects."
Falling attendance rates were also flagged up as an issue for concern by inspector Sara Morrissey when she visited the school last month.
In her report, she states: "Lessons are dominated too often by teacher talk, with few opportunities for pupils to take responsibility for their learning.
"Pupils spend too much time on dull, undemanding tasks that do not engage, challenge or inspire."

So - where is this magis ethos? What has happened to the exclusive hold faith schools allegedly have on being well-organised and well-run, with teachers who are well-trained and highly motivated?

[Keith Downer]

"Good education should be available to all".

Absolutely; totally agree, J Pearce! Those responsible for State education in this country should take the example of the success of Christian schools and apply the approach and methods that they adopt into every school in the land.
There is absolutely no reason why every single child in the UK should not have a first class education because to fail children is unforgivable.
The answer is not to drag faith schools down to the level of those in the State system by withdrawing support and funding but to ensure that the money provided for all schools is used effectively, that schools are well-organised and well-run, that teachers are well-trained and highly motivated, that teachers and staff are supported by reintroducing acceptable standards of behaviour back into the classroom and that those parents and pupils who refuse to adhere to same standards as those who attend succeeding faith schools are dealt with severely.

[alistair mcbay]

Keith, Alan, Jill

I have just written a reply but realised on doing so we are in fact going round in circles and covering old ground!

To conclude for the weekend - I need only say "I disagree!"

Have a good weekend - a better one, Im sure, than Ted Haggard is going to have.

[J Pearce]

"Most people, actually, I would suspect, don’t give a toss about religion. They are happy to be labelled Christians with a small ‘c’ because they like to have the church there as a backup in case of need."

Possibly very true, Jill. However, this doesn't stop it being inherently wrong that children are excluded from a good education because their parents decided not to be hypocrits about their lack of religious belief.

Good education should be available to all. Why is it that the children of devout Christian/Muslim/Jewish parents deserve a better education than the majority of children in this country? Why should the religious benefit at the expense of the rest of society, with the taxpayer funding it to boot?

(the answer, I suspect, goes along the lines of "I believe in God, therefore I am superior. Sod the rest")

Environmentalism will eventually put paid to all this. There will come a point in the near future where it will become socially unacceptable to ferry children stupid distances in SUV's, just so they can get the privilege of attending an elitist faith school. Then we'll be back to square one - the majority of children will have to attend the school in their geographical locale and parental "choice" will come a poor second to saving the planet. Then the Government might actually get round to addressing the failures within the education system. God might make better schools, be he won't reverse climate change.

Dr. Lancaster said:
"I agree that Jewish schools give a partial education, but which do not?"

Which is what I have been saying all along. But apparently, when I said it, I was being "anti-semitic". Hm.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I agree that Jewish schools give a partial education, but which do not? However, Jewish schools in the diaspora also commit to their country and do not see incompatabilities between a Jewish education and 'British' values, for instance.

If there is a clash, according to Jewish teaching the values of the land you live in are supposed to come first.

I do not see what is wrong with that

[Jill]

Sheesh, Alistair, I have to hand it to you – you really are the King of Cool, unblushingly accusing Christians of ‘religious oppression’ and ‘bullying’. Did you not read my last post, about the Church of England (not secularists, note) being the first to educate the poor with 17,000 schools before the state was shamed into stepping in? Now you want us booted out. Who is the bully here? If you asked the man on the Clapham Omnibus if he was worried about ‘religious oppression’ in Church of England Schools, what do you think his reply would be?

The membership of the National Secular Society is of obvious interest. Would it be hundreds of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? Tens? Nothing like the 41 million who have declared themselves to be Christians, that’s for sure. Like you, I don’t believe for a minute that all these people are practising Christians. As for weddings, as a former church chorister I can vouch for the fact that whereas once our Saturday afternoons were pretty busy, in recent years, since it became legal to marry in other venues, demand has dwindled. This doesn’t mean people have ‘flatly rejected religion’, as you assert. It means that they want to get married somewhere posh. (It seems to me that as marriages get shorter, the amount of money people spend on their wedding day gets larger, but that is by-the-by.) Most people, actually, I would suspect, don’t give a toss about religion. They are happy to be labelled Christians with a small ‘c’ because they like to have the church there as a backup in case of need. It has been said that there are no atheists in foxholes. I think many people feel that while they cannot be bothered to go to church, apart from perhaps the odd carol service, they want this comfort blanket. I think they would be horrified about religious education being removed completely from the school curriculum, if it was made clear to them that this would very likely spell the end of the Church of England.

What you are trying to do, Alistair, is rob people of their heritage. For many children this is the only chance they will get to learn about it. They are free to reject it, but it should be taught, and I think most of us would go along with that. We have a bigger battle to fight, and that is Islam. Secularism will never stop Islam.

PS I have been to a humanist funeral – at least it was described as humanist – but on reflection it was probably pagan, with lots of running around barefoot, waving of arms and talk of the wind and the sea, and afterwards they all went out to hug a tree. It was dreadful, and acutely embarrassing. I couldn’t get out quickly enough. Give me ‘I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord’ any day of the week. It has been said (G K Chesterton again, I think) that when a man stops believing in God, he won’t believe in nothing, he’ll believe in anything. Christianity is safer.

Keith - hear, hear! Especially your last two paragraphs.

[Keith Downer]

"Devotion to human interests; system concerned with human (not divine or supernatural) matters, or with the human race (not the individual), or with man as a responsible and progressive intellectual being; doctrine emphasizing importance of common human needs and abstention from profitless theorizing" (the Concise Oxford Dictionary).

The true humanist, like yourself Alistair, is to be respected - and then put in a glass case for exhibition in the Natural History Museum with all the other rare and extinct animals.
It is good to have faith in your fellow Man, something that as a Christian, I strive for every day and it is true to say that there are a vast number of people deserving of that faith in the UK. But it is also unfortunately true that there are a vast number of people to whom "devotion to human interests" and concern with the human race are about as alien as supporting Chelsea.
If you are approaching this discussion as a theoretical exercise in reorientation of human priorities and developing selflessness traits in the human character, then I guess "humanism" is as good a place to start as any. But in the real world, it is the equivalent of Jose Mourinho asking his players at Stamford Bridge to turn out on Saturday just "for the good of the Game".
As a young man, I was an idealist; you might even have found a humanist hiding in my conversation at the time. I even admit to certain Socialist tendencies in my youth but once Maggie Thatcher turned our society into a "dog-eat-dog" free-for-all, I realised that as a society, we don't have it within ourselves to be - what you would define as - pure humanist. We can't even rely now upon someone to come to our aid if we are mugged in the street, in broad daylight!
Once you acknowledge this reality - unless you lose faith completely in the human race and jump off a cliff - you have to ask yourself, if pure humanist characteristics are practically non-existent, what motivates people to create and maintain some form of community?
If the Chelsea manager is unable to get a performance out of his team by appealing to their better instincts, what does he do? Pay them vast amounts of money, you might say but, as any football supporter knows, that isn't enough! Mourinho has to build team spirit, motivate his players towards common objectives and instil in them a pride and passion to reach those goals. And society is no different.
That is why, Alistair, where faith schools and the State school system are concerned, we can draw parallels. You refuse to recognise and acknowledge it but the reason a faith school is generally a guarantee of a good education is because, like Chelsea, they have an ethos, they are motivated and they have the pride and passion to organise and enforce effective methods of education.
As many of my friends and acquaintances who were teachers for considerable lengths of time will readily tell you, this is now the complete opposite of many of the schools in the State system, particularly those located in inner-city areas.
The Christian faith teaches you that as human beings, we do not have all the answers or the capacity to reach inside ourselves for some elusive, non-spiritual altruistic motivation that you, as a humanist, believe exists as a fundemental characteristic of our being. We are flawed, weak and full of self-interest.
What the example of Christian schools teaches us is that the elements of their success, the spirit, motivation, pride and passion is based in a Christian ethos that was once the underlying force of our society, a unifying force from which we have become detached and are now suffering the consequences.

[J Pearce]

"I think we all deserve to know the answers to this question, before you carry on with your unpleasant assertions, which I note you have not made against other minority ethnic groups or religions."

Dr. Lancaster, I think we are getting a severe amount of wires crossed here. To briefly summarise whats gone before:

I have been arguing that faith schools provide a "partial" academic environment, deliberately and subliminally. You argued that wasn't the case for Jewish schools. I countered that by saying that Jewsih schools are likely to be as inherently partial as any other "single ethos" school, by their very nature. These were not meant as specific attacks on Jews and I said as much in a previous post.

For the record, you can replace the word "Jewish" in what I posted with the words "Muslim" or "Christian" or "Scientologist", for all I care! I am not attempting to spotlight Jews in particular, I merely used them as an example in a reply to you, as you happened to make a specific point about them.

I would address some of your other points you've made, but to be honest, this discussion is going somewhere I never intended and I feel like I'm banging my head against the proverbial wall. I'm sorry if you've misinterpreted what I have said, but I don't see the point in pursuing this dialogue, as it’s a "lose-lose" one for me, regardless of what I say.

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair said (yet again) "I understand that – you enjoy an enormous benefit at all our expense". Ho hum. A quarter of state schools in England belong to the Church of England. 72% of the population declares itself to be Christian, and we pay our taxes like anyone else. In a democratic society that entitles us to have some say in the education of our children? I would say 72% of the schools - but Alistair is an ideologue, not a democrat.

[Kate]

Tim - 31st October: Apologies, I have been somewhat pushed for time - missed your response.

"For this reason (among many others) I believe that we need a system which separates religious fervour from religious education in order to unite the fragmented society that we are rapidly becoming."

I agree, but, the debate has been 'high-jacked'. Traditional faith schools have never presented a 'problem' in British society. However, the 'catch-all' strategy has succeeded in shifting focus away from Muslim madrasses and enabled a hypocritical avoidance.

Islam is THE problem. The persistence of establishment figures in operating through a perverted form of Said's 'orientalism' in dealing with Muslims, is the problem.

The assumption that any western mind, not well-versed in Arabic studies, can grapple with mindsets firmly centred on an 'absolute' revealed 'truth': a 'truth' that dictates every aspect of Muslim life. That is the almost insurmountable problem which dare not speak its name.

There is a plethora of information available on how Muslims are trained to think; on how diametrically opposed that thinking is to western enlightenment reasoning. Why do Church leaders and government persist in avoiding the facts?

Egyptian journalist Adel Guindy published a three-part series of articles in which he sought to enlighten the Arab public about Tariq Ramadan, one of the most popular propagators of Islam in Europe.

"Doublespeak [taqiyya] is the key to understanding Tariq Ramadan." In his audio recording 'Islam and the West', Ramadan sets out his strategy: "I must speak in a way that is appropriate for the ear hearing me... yet faithful to the religious sources of authority." He advises his listeners to adopt a cautious media strategy: "We must know how to speak to those who do not share our history."

Guindy explains that lying and misleading are prominent Muslim Brotherhood characteristics, and that the principle of taqiyya (hiding one's true belief) which is common amongst the Shi'a for historical reasons, is found in all streams of Islam. "Today, this method [of doublespeak and taqiyya] is used in the heart of the Western democracies, not due to fear of exposure, but in order to continue the secret advance [towards defined goals] without worrying anyone."
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA26606

We might argue forever about the pros and cons of traditional faith schools in Britain. In the meantime, Islamic schools will continue fomenting discontent and inculcating subversion.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

In my experience, state schools of 'no particular religion' are not objective about religion, politics or anything else and I do think you have a problem, J. Pearce, because you have not been reading these postings thoroughly or you would have realised this already.

As I have tried to point out, the history of Jewish schooling, to which you were specifically drawing attention, is that many Jews felt and feel safer and more at home in these schools, because they do not feel threatened. Challenged, yes - threatened no!

Personally, I think that at secondary school level at least, many children thrive at non-denominational schools, and my husband agreed, as did our children (democracy at work in our home), so that is where they went.

I would like to ask J. Pearce a question - are you basing your statements on knowledge, eg are you a teacher and if not, what are you basing your statements on exactly? If you are a teacher, are you specifically an RS teacher and have you ever witnessed a lesson on Israel in a Jewish school?

I think we all deserve to know the answers to this question, before you carry on with your unpleasant assertions, which I note you have not made against other minority ethnic groups or religions.

I also note that you have refrained from commenting on my posts direct from Israel and on the Israeli school system.

So far, I have stated as fact that the most expensive houses I have seen in my area are owned by Arabs: Muslims, Christian and Jews and that the most lavish teacher training college I have seen in my life is the one I visited in west Galilee two days ago - it reminded me of a Cordovan palace.

I have in my life taught at Liverpool University, in what was formerly a consular building,and also in Cambridge University's School of Divinity (opened not so long ago by the Queen) and neither compare in architecture to what I experienced two days ago.

And it was built by the Israeli government for the populations of Western Galilee, which are Arab.

[alistair mcbay]

"Those who oppose Christian faith schools have to answer the question, why do so many parents who have no religious belief or affiliation, clamour to obtain a place in such schools for their offspring?
Many would answer; faced with a failing State school system and a record of outstanding achievement and success by the majority of faith schools, who could blame them? And that is the reality"

No Keith, that is the spin, and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker! As has been proven time and again, the reality is that faith of itself is no guarantee of better quality in education, or of a better quality of human being at the end of the production line. Iron out the highly selective bias of faith schools and the situation changes dramatically. Credit to the faiths' PR machines though - they have done a good job in hoodwinking people into believing this nonsense as fact.

Your whole argument in your post centres round what you have denied before, namely that you see faith schools producing all the good people and non-faith schools producing all the bad ones. If there were more faith schools, there would be fewer vandalised phone boxes.

You also claim we don't know who we are or what we believe in; 'that will be the legacy of a secular society.' But you and other believers on this blog constantly tell me that we aren't a secular society at all, we're still a Christian one, always have been and always will be! In the Scottish Parliament yesterday Cardinal O'Brien was telling MSPs we are Christian to our bones, thus offending all us pagans and heathens (and Scotland's Muslims). I can hear Alan and Jill even now screaming "72%" at the tops of their voices, so I guess the secular bit is just the 28% that isn't Christian? Is that the bit that vandalises phone boxes?

We do know what we believe in Keith - humanist principles that do not require any belief in myths and legends as evidence of omnipotent supernatural phenomena. We just don't believe in the supernatural any more. You have argued before that man is spiritual and we should all respect automatically each individual's search for spritual fulfilment. It's not a search that needs or should include perverting innocent children's minds with supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Sam Harris says in his book The End of Faith":

"Religious moderates are the bearers of a terrible dogma - they imagine the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beiefs of others. The very ideal of religious tolerance, born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe what he wants about God, is one of the principal forces driving us towards the abyss."

How right he is.

If you haven't read it by the way, it's a much, much better book than Dawkins' latest. It's been out for 2 years - it's called The End of Faith - Religion, Terror and the End of Reason.

[alistair mcbay]

"As Alan has pointed out on another thread, democracy doesn't seem to rate very highly amongst atheists bent on repressing the overwhelming majority of the population."

Misrepresentation again, Jill. I expect it now from Alan, but not from you. If we are bent on anything, it is in freeing people from religious oppression. We’re not putting any dogma into schools, we are trying to take it out. It is segregationist and divisive. But it’s fashionable for faith these days to portyray itself as a victim in all this. I understand that – you enjoy an enormous benefit at all our expense, so it’s no surprise you will squeal when it is suggested that equal treatment and equal access should triumph over religious privilege. "I'm alright, Jack, xxxx you" as I have said before.

What it is about Christians and Muslims that they can only indoctrinate their children by exclusive access to schools paid for by everyone? What is it about Britain's "model of integration" (Ruth Kelly) Hindu population that it retains and perpetuates its faith while having no single exclusive State-funded Hindu schools?

There are many good schools in the UK which are non-denominational. Is this what you mean by 'atheist' or 'secular' schools? There are many bad ones too. There are many good denominational schools. There are many bad ones too - see for example

http://www.halifaxtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=700&ArticleID=1834073

in relation to that "jewel in the crown" of education St Catherine's in Holmfield. This is the sort of school performance that usually has Lord Adonis closing it down for one of his "buy one and get one free” city academies. But will that happen? Not a snowballs'!

So a religious ethos is no guarantee of quality.

I don't know how many people belong to the NSS Jill. How big would we need to be in your estimation before we were big enough not to be bullied by the religious?

I have said before that, in relation to Scotland, 33% of the population declares itself as non-religious, according to Scottish Executive annual household survey figures. I guess in a population of just over 5m, that equates to 1.7m people approximately. They are not all members of the NSS, sadly! I do know our membership is rising, while church membership is declining - for CofS, CofE and RC. The thing that is growing faster than all of us is Islam.

Here perhaps is a more telling statistic. The number of humanist ceremonies - weddings, birth and funerals - is increasing dramatically, so much so that the humanist organisations are working flat out to train more people to be celebrants. There will be more people trained as humanist celebrants this year than men joining the RC priesthood, for example, and by a long chalk. But so far this year, the number of people tying the knot in Glasgow's churches has hit a record low.
One city priest revealed that he performed his FIRST wedding this year in July compared to 90 weddings a year when he first came to that parish 50 years ago. And a Kirk minister now has just 12 weddings a year compared with 50 back in 1972. Yes, there is more ‘living in sin’, but there are also many more weddings where people have flatly rejected religion.

[Keith Downer]

Those who oppose Christian faith schools have to answer the question, why do so many parents who have no religious belief or affiliation, clamour to obtain a place in such schools for their offspring?
Many would answer; faced with a failing State school system and a record of outstanding achievement and success by the majority of faith schools, who could blame them?
And that is the reality; whatever reasoning or argument is put forward to criticise or withdraw support for such schools, on one hand we have something that - to use a popular political description - is "fit for purpose" and on the other, something that isn't!
Now, in itself, that doesn't mean that everyone should rush out and buy a Bible before booking their pew for the 10 o'clock service next Sunday. But, it does suggest that there is something to be gained by analysing and evaluating the success enjoyed by Church schools with the objective of adopting changes to the State system to bring it up to scratch.
There are some who can make a very good case that many of the problems we face to day as a society - from the defacing of a telephone box to the reluctance of large numbers of people to vote in an election - can be traced to the sub-standard of the State educational system and the failure to instil any moral standards and fibre into many generations of our youngsters by parents and schools. It is important, therefore, that an answer is found as to why this is happening and to correct it.
The problem is that very likely, the success of faith schools is due to the promotion of "a religious ideology alongside a "first class" education", as J Pearce so ably puts it. The educational success is achieved because the educational process is supported by standards of behaviour, discipline and organisation that derive from the ethos of the school and which are enforced by the teaching staff and adopted by all those involved - similar to the way in which Alex Ferguson and Manchester United (boohoo!) have achieved their success within their organisation through their ethos.
In the past, we recognised ourselves as a Christian nation and because we accepted that ethos where issues such as education were concerned, if problems occurred, at least we knew where we were and what we believed in. Now, we don't know who we are or what we believe in; that will be the legacy of a secular society.

[Jill]

There does seem to be a certain amount of misunderstanding floating around about Church Schools. It should be remembered that the Church of England has been providing education for the poor for 200 years, courtesy of the National Society, which founded 17,000 schools when the government was not prepared to take on this role. A little more on the ethos of these schools can be found here, which might help explain why they are so popular.
http://www.natsoc.org.uk/schools/curriculum/

Information on the types of Church School and how they are funded can be found here: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education/schools/

Now here’s one for you, J Pearce. A while ago I needed to ‘borrow’ some Christian primary schoolchildren (it’s a long story!) and rang up the secretary of a local Independent School. ‘Well, we haven’t got any’, she told me crisply. ‘We’ve got Hindus, Muslims, Jews and a couple of Buddhists. Take your pick’. To cut a long story short, we fell into conversation, and as I knew that there was a strong Christian ethic at that particular school I wondered how they got round this. She told me that this is all made perfectly clear in the school’s prospectus, together with the fact that they have a daily act of Christian worship with hymns, prayers and Bible readings. Apart from that, and several annual Church attendances, they more or less follow the National Curriculum on religious affairs. The school is always fully subscribed, the parents involved being more than happy to accept this. So pick the bones out of that!

I disagree with you, J Pearce, that it is ‘NOT a reasonable assumption to presuppose these people all want their children to experience a religious ethos in their schools.’ I think it IS a reasonable assumption. Given that it is now known that we are a nation afraid of our own youngsters, and more parents are happy to abdicate their responsibilities as parents to teachers, this could perhaps be in the hope that a decent ethic might make them behave better!

With regard to your remark about Church attendance on Sunday mornings, well, I agree there. What with the C of E doing its best to get rid of its existing members by introducing erroneous and strange doctrines and putting off new members with soppy styles of worship including group hugs, this is hardly surprising. But that’s just me being bitter and twisted. I think one of the reasons so many people have declared themselves to be Christian is that they are alarmed by the Muslim incursion and the ‘rising tide of secularism’.

[alistair mcbay]

"The religious taxpayers of the UK are compelled by law to pay TWICE for the education of their children in their own faith schools; once for the state schools and again for the church schools.If Mr Pearce can see his way to granting the religious parents of Britain exemption from general taxation, equivalent to the cost of building and maintaining their own faith schools, then we have a solution to his rather vexing problem, don't we?"

Nonsense Mr Geoffrey Smith!

Faith school adherents pay once through the tax system for exclusivity and selectivity. Other parents pay once through the tax system, but then pick up the additional cost of faith school exclusivity through the fall-out from its highly selective admission criteria.

But there are people who do pay twice through the tax system - those who choose private schools, and those are both believing and non-believing parents. Those who choose to send their children to private schools do so because they want their children to have a type and standard of education the State can't or won't provide. They are prepared to pay for it, while also suffering a double tax whammy , namely paying for other children's schooling out of the tax they pay, and then paying for their own children's schooling out of after tax income.

Parents who demand State religious schools also want a special type of education, but they are NOT prepared to pay for it themselves, although many could, and selfishly expect instead that everyone pays towards facilities for which large tracts of those paying for said facilities are instantly excluded. A Catholic child can go to a non-denominational school, as can a child of any faith or of none. But can a non-Catholic child now get into a Catholic school? We see in the Telegraph today a group of Catholic headteachers saying even some Catholics won't get in, just because they're not 'Catholic' enough! Let's hear it for inclusivity!

I disagree with JPearce's suggestion, as it happens.

Maybe, Mr Geoffrey Smith, you would like to see your faith-based arguments applied to other aspects of State obligation. For example, if the State is to outsource its welfare responsibilities under a faith-based welfare programme, maybe the religious organisations involved should get to be highly selective about which candidates for welfare they should be allowed to help. Take the letter in the Telegraph from the five RC school heads demanding the right to reject believers applying to faith schools on grounds of the “degree of their faith affiliations”. Should that apply also to religious charities being able to select who they will help according to a similar criterion being met?

If that suggestion sounds absurd, why is it not also absurd for a State-sponsored activity like schooling?

[J Pearce]

"So, it is not as if state non-religious schools are neutral and J. Pearce attacked Jewish schools particularly in the blog to which I responded."

Err….no Dr. Lancaster, I didn't attack Jewish schools, actually. I merely used them as an example of how schools dedicated to one religious ethos are most unlikely to provide an ideology-free, impartial academic environment (the opposite of which was a point you made previously).

You appear to have misinterpreted what I said. Not my problem.

[J Pearce]

"I am at a complete loss to understand how having religious education in schools brainwashes to the extent that "many children presented with these fairy tales do carry them into adult life as facts" without their re-evaluating these so-called "fairy tales" in later life and making their own minds up. "

That’s a perfectly reasonable point to make, Keith, and stikes me as perfectly commonsense. But the points I have been trying to make (and probably Alistair, although I can't speak for him), is that there is a subtle but important difference between the teaching of RE in school (one of a number of subjects which occupies the timetable) and the idea of basing the entire school ethos around a religious belief system, such that it pervades every aspect of academic experience.

You and I both know that most secondary state education, at least, isn't really dominated by any one particular religious ideology. Sure, schools may recite prayers during morning assembly, but thats about it. And I guess that’s OK (although I'm iffy about the prayers). But from what I understand, that is markedly different from a "faith" school, which bases its entire academic culture around the religious belief system it promotes. In effect, once a child enters school, their experience of education is "seamlessly" (I use the word advisedly) integrated with their experience of religious belief. The value system of whatever particular religion it happens to be, permeates the very fabric of school life. And after all, isn't that what a "faith" school is all about? Promoting a religious ideology alongside a "first class" education?

I get queasy about this when it becomes part of a state education system and taxpayers are expected to fund it. I think there is something very wrong when a publicly funded school imposes entry criteria upon its students, not based on proximity to the school or even academic ability, but on religious belief. Its segregation, full stop. Even those who promote the idea of faith schools admit as much. It amounts to a dissemination of a religious agenda, via the state education system. That is worng. The Church exists to do that. Parents do that. It is not the role of the state to favour the promotion of religious ideology.

Jill, you make the point about 3/4 of England and Wales being Christian. Well excuse me, but where are all these Christians on a Sunday morning?! Did they all forget to set their alarms?! Given that all these declared Christians don't seem to be particularly bothered about making any effort whatsoever about their religion, it is NOT a reasonable assumption to presuppose these people all want their children to experience a religious ethos in their schools. Again, the point needs to be made between the difference about teaching children about religion and basing an entire school ethos on one religious ideology. The former is fine, the latter in a state funded system, is inherently elitist, sectarian and just plain wrong.

But it makes me laugh Jill, when you accuse me of precisely the kind of behaviour which you promote yourself, i.e. segregation of children in education based on religious belief! How would you propose we educate those Hindu's. Muslims and Jews amongst us if we were to adopt an entirely Christianity-based faith schooling system? Do you think they are going to be happy with that? I don't. But I do believe that if the state were to offer a school system free of religious ideology and based on - shock horror - education, then at least people of all religious denominations would have a simple choice: state education, or build your own schools.

The problem is this unholy fudge which the government has allowed itself to be drawn into, such that a growing number of faith schools are publicly funded. It’s a disaster and a recipie for social unrest in years to come.

[Keith Downer]

"Mr Downer, what exactly do you mean by "comprehensive" in the context of RE in a faith school such as an Anglican or a Catholic primary or high school?"

Sufficient to have grasped a thorough understanding of the religion concerned, Mr Smith, but not so "comprehensive" as to be qualified to officiate at a C of E service on Sunday or to act as a replacement for the imam at Friday prayers.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Dear Ruth,

At last, Mr Pearce and I seem to be able to
agree about something!
"If local parents don't like it [secular education], they can set up their own school using their own money".
"If privately funded schools want to explicitly promote a specific academic environment based on a particular religious ideology, fine. But let's not
have the taxpayer funding it".
I agree! There is, however,one problem.
The religious taxpayers of the UK are compelled by law to pay TWICE for the education of their children in their own faith schools; once for the state schools and again for the church schools. If Mr Pearce can see his way to granting the religious parents of Britain exemption from general taxation, equivalent to the cost of building and maintaining their own faith schools, then we have a solution to his rather vexing problem, don't we?
However, what Mr McBay feels about Mr Pearce's concession to the primitives doesn't bear thinking about. Even his undoubted powers of invective would be found wanting.

[Jill]

Here is a breakdown of religious affiliation from the National Statistics Office.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954

I like Alan's idea of having a few purely secular schools, and letting parents choose. We would all have to jump out of the way of the rush of parents hoping to get their children into them, and telling lies in order to obtain places. Not!

Of the quarter of the population declaring no religious affiliation, I wonder how many of them are actual atheists. I suspect a large proportion are simply not interested in religion, but nevertheless would not interfere with the beliefs of others, or object to their children participating religious
education required in the National Curriculum. I have a RE teacher friend; I must ask her if any parents ask for their children to be withdrawn from the class.

Alistair, can you give us any figures for atheists? How many people belong to the National Secular Society?

As Alan has pointed out on another thread, democracy doesn't seem to rate very highly amongst atheists bent on repressing the overwhelming majority of the population.

[alistair mcbay]

Well, what about this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6107898.stm

The Schools Adjudicator has upheld complaints made against 5 Catholic schools over their admissions criteria.
The schools' admissions rules were found to "fetter the freedom of parents".

How so? Well, the Chief Schools Adjudicator says "The Catholic schools were saying to parents that, 'if on your list of preferences you name a non-Catholic school, that will count against you because that will show you are not truly committed to Catholic education'.
Schools should not be concerned with why parents chose to apply for places elsewhere, he said.

So there we have it - Catholic parents must not select the best school for their children, they must select a Catholic one even if its bad. And there are bad ones, contrary to what the RC authorities say. See:

http://www.halifaxtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=700&ArticleID=1834073

Still, I suppose it's reassuring to know that the RC church will apply discrimination to its own as well as to non-believers!

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Some bloggers may not realise that state schools do teach religion, in theory the six main religions of the country, but in practice tend to teach Christianity and Islam, these reflecting the proportionate intake of pupils.

So, it is not as if state non-religious schools are neutral and J. Pearce attacked Jewish schools particularly in the blog to which I responded.

Jewish parents would like their children to learn something about their own religion and ethos and also to be safe from violence, given the admitted and worrying rise of anti-semitism in British society, which I myself have experienced teaching in state schools.

In my experience, Jewish schools do not preach against other religions and their interest is focussed on giving Jewish children an insight into Judaism as a practice, history and people (not a faith, as wrongly assumed by many).

I have taught RE in state non-religious schools, so am speaking from experience here.

The Church was of paramount importance in the setting up of the state school system. If you give up on all religious teaching in school, what do you get in their place - the survival of the fittest, which is what we have at present.

As I say, the answer may lie in introducing subjects of a more philosophical nature, which many now study at A level, together with RS.

[alistair mcbay]

"Where are these gormless sheep who cannot think for themselves because they are so devoted to Jesus Christ as a result of their religious education?"

Well, Keith, start by looking in the Government!

[alistair mcbay]

Anyone read this self-serving letter today from the headteachers of Catholic schools?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=A1&targetRule=0#head7

Under the title “Faith schools threat”, it seems that, having won the right to exclusive segregated schools for believers, organised religion in the form of the RC church is now demanding the right that they can select dyed-in-the-wool believers only. Demanding the right to reject believers applying to faith schools on grounds of the “degree of their faith affiliations” is a nothing more than a charter to enforce zealotry.

We know that the RC Church has a crisis on its hands in Britain, with churches being closed due to a shortage of priests and a haemorrhaging of worshippers. It has publicly admitted that many are no longer practising their faith, so it is intent on using its exclusive State-funded schools to force people back into the pews. I have seen one school's admission policy which states “it may also be necessary to enquire into the level of support the family gives to its church”, which could be interpreted to be financial, as well as the routine manning of the bring & buy stall, thus making an already skewed selection policy even more exclusive.

I dare say the Government will capitulate, as usual. You can bet that headteachers at Muslim and other faith schools are watching this closely.

This is what happens when Government constantly gives in to religious bullies - the more the religious authorities get, the more they want. And if the Catholic schools win this one, which they will, the Muslim schools will want it too.

And Adonis and Blair will continue to defend this nonsense as "parental choice". What a way to run an education system.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Downer, what exactly do you mean by "comprehensive" in the context of RE in a faith school such as an Anglican or a Catholic primary or high school?
Do you mean that Islam or Judaism or Hinduism should be taught in ALL its belief and practice? If so, by whom? I suggest that only an imam or a rabbi would be qualified to teach the subject to this exacting standard. Any one else, such as the local vicar or a lay volunteer, would not be regarded by the Department of Education and Skills as being of an adequate standard. If, on the other hand, you mean that only a superficial knowledge of another religion is required, perhaps of GCSE level, then I would say that, not being a core subject, it would soon be discarded by all disinterested pupils, as if it were a foreign language. It would become, in effect, a drag on the main objective of learning more about the Christian faith and acquiring the basic knowledge of those subjects which would be needed to support a future career.
No, sir, like I told Mr Marsh, it's an interesting idea, but the impracticality of it soon becomes evident when you realise the disadvantages it has.

[Christopher]

"Such a claim can hardly be sustained when 72% of the population describes itself as Christian, and when even secularists routinely admit in newspaper articles that they tell lies in order to get their children into Church schools."

Two sleights of hand in one posting, Alan. Not bad going, eh?

We all know - you do too - that the 72% figure isn't worth a row of beans. Then, to describe the parents who are not observant religiously as 'secularists' really takes the biscuit.

With your permission, Alan, since you have quoted from Wikipedia yourself, here is the definition of secularism:

"Secularism has two distinct meanings.
It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.
It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from religious domination. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and women's rights. A secularist would argue that such issues are relevant to public policy-making, whereas Biblical interpretation or church doctrine should not be considered and are irrelevant."

To describe ambitious parents who are indifferent to religion but want the better-funded schools for their kids as secularist is a caricature. I wish they all were and would write notes excusing their children from assembly and religious instruction once they got them in. Unfortunately the average person just couldn't care less, Alan. We both know that.

[Keith Downer]

Alistair, there appears to be a major element in your contributions - both in this discussion and in other issues covered by this blog - with which I cannot agree (and which, I feel, we will never agree on).
Teach a child about Christianity in a school (as I and countless others were in the past) and they lose the ability to evaluate that teaching, either as children or adults, and become mindless followers of, what you perceive as, a fantasy figure!
How on earth do you come up with that conclusion? Is it personal experience? Is there some survey or analysis that I have missed? Are the people that you have personally come into contact with so different from the vast number of people I have met in my life? Where are these gormless sheep who cannot think for themselves because they are so devoted to Jesus Christ as a result of their religious education?
I never left the educational system brainwashed by RE teachers and I've yet to meet someone who was. I've met plenty of people who never received any meaningful RE teaching, some of whom are still very nice, well balanced people and some who could have used some useful information and discussion about spiritual matters.
Now, if you want to refer to Islam and to teachings which leave no flexibility or breathing space for debate, dissension or rejection, that may be a different matter but my experience of Christianity has been a million miles away from that dogma.
Yes, I've met adults who have been Christians since they were children; I've met Christians like myself, who were agnostic until later life but unless you think someone like James is truly representative of Christianity, I am at a complete loss to understand how having religious education in schools brainwashes to the extent that "many children presented with these fairy tales do carry them into adult life as facts" without their re-evaluating these so-called "fairy tales" in later life and making their own minds up.

[Jill]

Oh. I had been beaverishly typing a response to J Pearce's post in reply to mine, and I see Alan has literally pipped me to the post. Still, I shall post it anyway, in my own write, as Ernie Wise (was it?) used to say.

J Pearce, I love your comment that I am the foremost proponent of faith schools. That makes me feel really really important but, alas, it’s not quite accurate. Over three-quarters of the population of England and Wales declared a religious belief in the last census, 37.3 million of them Christian. I can only assume that they would require some sort of Christian ethos in the schools at which their children are taught. A reasonable assumption, or not? As one of the remaining quarter, J Pearce, I am assuming you would want your son to go to a school where there is no Christian or other religious ethos. Well, you are in the minority, but you don’t seem to have any qualms about forcing your ideas on the rest of the population while you object to what you perceive as us forcing ours.

I make no bones about not wanting schools of other faiths in a Christian country. I would not go to live in a Muslim country and expect a Christian school to be created for my children by Muslims at their expense. (In fact I would not go to live in a Muslim country full stop, but that’s beside the point.) It wouldn’t happen, would it? However, this situation has been created for us by the insane policy of multiculturalism, and we are now having to deal with it, so practicalities have to be faced, and an increase in Christian teaching is what the British public, in my opinion, is instinctively grasping at, according to the census figures. Secularisation would be of no help at all. The Muslims are not going to stop at your say-so.

What a pity the national ratio of believers/atheists is not reflected on this blog.

[J Pearce]

"Dear J. Pearce
I think your wording speaks for itself and shows your own biases, I am afraid."

Ok, Dr. I.L., no worries, I'll make my biases explicit then. I believe that, if you have a faith school that promotes any one particular religious faith (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), it is inevitable that the children who attend that school will end up being inculcated into the religious belief set that is being promoted by that school. This might happen overtly (the school may enforce a strong religious ethos in its day-to-day workings), or it may happen subliminally (i.e through non-impartial teaching or the choice of educational topics), but its going to happen regardless. Its pretty niave to assume that it won't, really. After all, isn't that the whole point of a faith school?

Of course, if the parents of said children, want that for their children, that’s fine - let them pay for it. But don't use taxpayers money to promote religious ideologies, of whatever shade. Our state education system should be free from such influences.

Theoretically...

[J Pearce]

"Over to you, Mr Pearce."

I've never said that I supported the quotas proposal. In fact, its ridiculous pandering and signals an enfeebled, desperate political class who can barely think beyond their salaries, perks and obscene pension provisions. But enough of that hobby horse…

There should be no "quotas" whatsovever - a school should serve the constituents of its geographical location, regardless of class, creed, religious background. And there should be a standard curriculum, which is flexible enough to take into account local nuances such as ethnic, cultural and historical composition of area, such that teachers have the flexibility to adapt core subjects to appeal to their audience. De facto language is English - for all. De facto religion - none. (i.e. no religious ceremonies of any kind in the morning in school). Its hardly rocket science! If local parents don't like it, they can set up their own school using their own money. It’s a farce and a tradegy that we have already allowed schools in some areas to become extensions of other countries. This needs to be reigned in quickly, otherwise we can look forward to perpetual ethnic and religious conflict in this country ad infinitum.

Another dimension that no-one seems to have factored into this is the environmental one. Its all very well shouting educational "choice" for your children (i.e. my local school is crap but I like the RC school 5 miles down the road), but look where its getting us - the entire country nears gridlock every weekday morning and evening, due to the amount of school run traffic on the roads. Can I be the only one who has forseen the obvious looming clash between parental choice in schooling and the need to "go green"?

Alan, the "72% Christian population" figure being bandied around is a useful stick to beat people over the head with but surely, given dwindling Church attendances (and the fact that we are constantly being reminded what an amoral, non-Christian society we are becoming), that 72% figure more accurately represents the percentage of people who ticked a box on a census, rather than the actual amount of people who define their existence through Christianity! I'd wager a small amount that for every one true Christian who ticked the box in the census, 5 people who ticked it did so without any real religious conviction(s) whatsoever.

And I haven't argued that RE should be removed from the curriculum. I am arguing that schools which consciously promote a religious ethos should not receive state funding. There is a world of difference between teaching children about the facts of religious history (which is good) - and preaching a religious ethos at them. If privately funded schools want to explicitly promote a specific academic environment based on a particular religious ideology, fine. But lets not have the taxpayer funding it.

[alistair mcbay]

"Such a claim can hardly be sustained when 72% of the population describes itself as Christian"

And we all know what a contrived fudge that was! This aspect of the census has been totally discredited, Alan, yet still you cling to it like a drowning man to a piece of driftwood. I wonder if you are you one of these theologians who still believes that a single passage in Josephus, so obviously a later edition to the original text by someone with an agenda to advance, is "contemporary proof" that jesus existed?

In pagan Scotland, the latest Scottish Executive Household Survey reveals one third of Scots as having no religious affiliation. But the breakdown by age is more revealing. For 16-24 year olds, the figure is 46 % (CofS 30%)and for 25-34, the percentage is 48% (CofS 26%). That changes at age 45-59, with 31% not religious against 45% CofS, while at age 75+, 15% have no religion, against 61% CofS. But at all ages up to 44, non-religious us substantially the biggest single group.

Given the demographic trends, well it's not hard to see where it's heading. The figures are most alarming for the RC church, outdone by non-religious in every age group. No wonder Cardinal O'Connor is using the pages of the Tablet to call for lots of Polish immigrants to be welcomed here!

The lack of "totally secular" schools is more to do with organised religion's money translating into power and thus influence and control, to force a religious agenda, and up until recently the indifference towards this. I've lost count of the number of mums I have spoken to outside school gates who don't care if their kids get low marks on RE exams, as it's something that doesn't really matter. But you are wrong about the distinct lack of enthusiasm for such an agenda among parents. A Guardian /ICM poll found that even while falling on their knees to get a place, parents still overwhelmingly oppose religious schools - by 64%. There are many parents who would rather have the time devoted to RE in schools devoted to giving extra help to Mary or Jonny with their maths, or their Engish, and the Government's own depressing reports on literacy and numeracy spell out why.

We know that the "popularity" of Christian schools has been proved in study after study to be all about selection, and thus the doubling of the difference between themselves and more inclusive schools.

As Polly Toynbee pointed out in the Guardian, parents being forced to fake Christianity is relatively harmless; far more alarming are the extreme faith schools for children of fanatics. A casual look at the reactions to Johnson's quota idea shows the problem - Jewish, Muslim and RC leaders refusing to admit outsiders because they aim "to create the total Muslim personality" or because "the Jewish community needs to maintain its distinct identity and ethos, and has no interest in spreading its message to others", As Polly says, "Every frocked and bearded man of faith rallied to the cause of absolute segregation, the Church of England moderates giving respectable cover to zealots. Standing firm would have struck a blow against all religious extremism: what could be more extreme than demanding that children of one faith and culture are kept in strict apartheid from all others?"

At least these zealots have saved secular commentators from arguing in future that these are sectarian schools - the zealots themselves have now categorically stated that they are.

[alistair mcbay]

Keith

"As a child, I could be presented with "incontrovertible evidence" about an issue which, as an adult in later life, might not seem so "incontrovertible"!

What, you mean like the "incontrovertible evidence" for God given to our children who are indoctrinated to believe in Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, the Three Wise Men following a star, Jonah and the whale, Moses in the rushes, the walls of Jericho, turning water into wine, rising from the dead to go up to the sky, a talking incendiary bush, a conversational snake ....etc ad nauseam? Yet many children presented with these fairy tales do carry them into adult life as facts, in spite of St Paul's dictum at
1 Corinthians 13:11 (KJV):

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

If only, if only...

I think you are missing the point Keith, not me.

And as for "individuals whose contribution was within the framework and structure of a society that owed it's existence to something far greater than freethinking", that is the typically arrogant Christian view. You appear to be saying that had believers not been there to create misery and oppression, there would have been no need for freethinkers to be able to fight back against it. What a justification for our so-called Christian culture!

[Keith Downer]

"Who would teach Judaism in a Muslim school?"

I may have misunderstood, Mr Smith but my understanding of Alan's suggestion - taking a C of E school as an example - was that the national RE curriculum would enforce comprehensive teaching about other major faiths such as Islam and Judaism but the ethos of the school would remain Christian.
Therefore, the situation of an imam actually teaching in a Christian school would not arise - although I would anticipate invitations to those representatives of other faiths to occasionally participate in and complement the educational process.

[Alan Marsh]

JP said to Jill, "By definition, you are advocating educational exclusion based on religious belief". Such a claim can hardly be sustained when 72% of the population describes itself as Christian, and when even secularists routinely admit in newspaper articles that they tell lies in order to get their children into Church schools.

Given the fact that declared atheists and agnostics are a small minority in this country, it seems to me that they are going to have to work very hard to justify the exclusion of Christian RE from state schools, as has been happening in many places since 1944.

One solution might be to set up an explicitly secular school in each locality, and require a religious ethos in all the rest. Then let the parents decide whether they want a secular school for their children, or a school which provides a proper RE curriculum.

Given the almost total lack of explicitly secular private schools, it seems there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm for such an agenda among parents, compared to the numbers willing to pay almost any amount or do almost anything to secure a Christian education for their children.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Dear J. Pearce

I think your wording speaks for itself and shows your own biases, I am afraid.

On the other hand, how refreshing it was today to visit a teacher training college for Arab teachers in West Galilee.

It was set up by the Israeli Ministry of Education six years ago, and looked more like a Cordovan palace than an institute of education.

It was an inspiration to see staff and students of all faiths and ethnic groups mix and mingle, some in burkhas, some in jeans, some with large crucifixes, all speaking Hebrew as the language of preference.

I was invited to attend two lessons on how to teach English to the next generation: the two lecturers being Jewish from Haifa University - and a great inspiration they were, especially to me, as were the students!

I was even invited to visit their homes in the future and meet their families.

This was the first day of term, but the Muslim principal (preferring to speak Hebrew to English) found time to explain to me the College's dreams and goals of building bridges and living in harmony.

He asked me to send this message back to the UK.

[Keith Downer]

Alan, I think you have presented a sensible, balanced solution, one which I could certainly support and, Jill, I identify with and support your comments where our Asian population is concerned. It is no longer sufficient or appropriate to mis-interpret those concerns that you so effectively identify and to dismiss them as racist, bigoted, Islamaphobic or ill-informed.
Alistair, I have taken the time to re-read my recent contributions and I cannot find any suggestion that you should believe in God because I do and it works for me. If that is your interpretation of my remarks, I apologise. I do not see this blog as an opportunity to evangelise or to force my views and beliefs on anyone else, merely as a forum for intelligent discussion amongst adults.
"Will you also honour the debt to the many freethinkers"; yes, Alistair, most readily and with great humility and respect but as individuals whose contribution was within the framework and structure of a society that owed it's existence to something far greater than "freethinking".
"Would you be prepared to admit to me that you would stop believing if there was similar incontrovertible evidence provided to you that god did NOT exist?"
Once again, Alistair, you have missed the point. This is not about "evidence" or I would be travelling the world searching out religious phenomena in order to bolster my faith. In this life, any "evidence" would be subject to the extent of my experience, intellect and knowledge at a particular time. As a child, I could be presented with "incontrovertible evidence" about an issue which, as an adult in later life, might not seem so "incontrovertible"!
If I die before you, Alistair, and discover God does not exist, I will make every effort to return and let you know that you're right.

[Tim Cooper]

Kate: Your potted history of the effects of the Reformation and the progressive changes resulting from protestantism are well-known and I can see your reasoning expressed in the light of your Quaker schooling - hierarchy or no. But it doesn't detract from your wider point- about which we undoubtedly agree; Islamic incursion poses a considerable threat. For this reason (among many others) I believe that we need a system which separates religious fervour from religious education in order to unite the fragmented society that we are rapidly becoming. Regarding eccentricities, my comments were intended to be taken within the context of the various pronouncements made by senior clerics, too numerous to quantify and which to me appeared to merely attack secular viewpoints whilst adding little to the debate.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"If a national RE curriculum were
imposed...."
The problem with that idea, Mr Marsh, is all too obvious. Who would teach Islam in an Anglican
school? The vicar or an imam?
Who would teach Judaism in a Muslim school? Who would dare to!!! Would you agree to Catholicism being taught in a CofE primary by a Jesuit priest?
No, sir, an attractive idea, but a non-starter.

[Geoffrey Smith]

The House of Lords has voted by a large majority to support the government's decision to withdraw the Johnson Proposal.
In some ways, the implementation of this proposal could have had interesting results.
We might, for instance, have seen a notice board outside the local St Joseph's RC Primary School bearing the words: All faiths welcome, but attendance at morning Mass is compulsory for all pupils. It is illegal to segregate pupils for any reason whatsoever.
Over to you, Mr Pearce.

[J Pearce]

"Where are these bigots? Mostly among the secularists on this blog, as far as I can see, whose intolerance of the Christian faith (or any other faith, for that matter) far outweighs anything the Christians have come up with."

In regards to the contents of this thread Jill, this is selective amnesia of the highest order. You are one of the foremost proponents of faith schools. By definition, you are advocating educational exclusion based on religious belief, a form of educational apartheid. It doesn't get much more "intolerant" than that, does it? In the sense that you will not "tolerate" the removal of religion from state funded education and in fact are actively promoting the propogation of (your chosen) religious beliefs through the state education system.

In fact, you said the following:

"More Church schools, is what I say. Hundreds more, then more children can be brought into the Christian faith – thus pushing back Islam and instilling Christian behaviour into the nation’s children at the same time."

There isn't exactly a lot of room for misinterpretation with this comment, Jill! "pushing back Islam" - you don't need to be a fully paid up psychoanalyst to read the underlying meaning in that! What happens to choice? What happens to those people who don't want to send their children to an exclusively religious school? Oh, that’s right, they get dumped in the dregs of a state system which has been neglected, due to the fact that faith schools suddenly begin eating up the majority of the education budget - if the vested religious interests have their way.

In fact, its has become abundantly clear that a number of contributors to this blog appear to be in favour of educational elitism based on religious belief. The "I'm alright Jack" attitude mentioned by Alistair is very much alive and kicking in religious circles. What would God have to say about that, I wonder?

You are also being wilfully ignorant - deliberately misleading, in fact - about the majority opinion of those on this blog who are opposed to faith schools, Jill. What you call secular "bigotry" is nothing more than an attempt to cogently argue that academic selection through religious belief should be removed from a state education system. Those "secularists" of all shades who have made arguments in favour of this, have made no secret that it applies to all faiths, not just Chistianity.

The gradual sectarianisation of schooling in your area that you describe, Jill, is a shameful expose of the moral vacumn at the heart of our current state administration and underscores the need to remould the education system such that it cannot splinter along religious or ethnic lines.

Less religion and more rational thinking is what is required. When it comes to the future of education in this country, there is no shame in being intolerant of the intolerant, whatever faith banner they happen to hide behind.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Dear Ruth,

I quote Alister McGrath:"Dawkins' account of religion tends to amount to little more than freak-pointing,
with the extreme portrayed as the typical. Religious people were dismissed as anti-scientific, intellectually irresponsible, or existentially immature - on a good day.
Religious folk are demonized as dishonest, liars, fools, and knaves, incapable of responding
honestly to the real world, and preferring to invent a false, pernicious, and delusionary world into which to entice the unwary, the young, and the naive. It is a
a line of thought that has led many to suggest, not entirely without reason, that Dawkins might have fallen victim to the kind of self-righteousness that biblical writers associated with the Pharisees".
- Dawkins' God, pp 8-9
Just one word needs to be changed in this extract: substitute the name McBay for Dawkins, and there
you have it, this whole debate in a nutshell.

[Tim Cooper]

Alan Marsh, speaking from the perspective of an Anglican, school governor and parent is bound to have a partial view. And whilst very few people would argue with a need for civic integration, religious teaching based on a 'wide spectrum' of beliefs disseminated from a singular point of view is hopelessly moribund. An increasingly large number of parents are keen to remove the 'religious' aspect from their children's education, with its unquestioning reliance on what they see as an assemblage of varying myths and fables. This is not the same as defining education from the standpoint of parental religious belief, because it still allows minds to be made up when children are older and wiser. The emphasis at school should be on educating our young people to a high standard in the core subjects that they will need to become useful members of society. Cluttering up their minds with a variety of dogma is likely to make the societal position considerably worse not better. Religion does undeniably form a significant part of world history, alongside continual war, dynastic power and unbridled greed. All of these histories are represented in the arts and sciences and as such should continue to appear within the curriculum.

But within Mr Marsh's plan for social and religious harmony are to be found terms such as 'impose', 'require' and 'legally enforce'. It looks like a formidable and flawed panacea to me. The issue here surely is one of wisely separating religion from the education system, ensuring that it forms no part of school ownership, with no biased state funding or unearthly institutional ethos. Ancillary to a first-class schools system, the democratic right of personal fervent religious belief is unaffected, other than losing its current privileged position.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I await the bit in Blair's memoirs which says that he got a message from God, telling him to invade
Iraq..." (J Pearce)
I know the Dems are not exactly enamoured of President Bush, so I'm sure they will take great offence at having the Chief equated with the Almighty!

[alistair mcbay]

"The point about faith is that we put our trust in and rely upon God even though we can't see or touch or hear Him and that, for Mr McBay, is ridiculous. So, Mr Smith, I don't think I'll bother trying to convince our friend of God's existence"

Keith, at the end of the day you are suggesting that I should believe in God simply because you do and it works for you. That's not good enough, I'm afraid. Would you expect me to believe in Allah if it was an imam or mullah who said this to me? So you are right that you cannot persuade me of any god's existence this way.

However, I would say, just as Dawkins does, that if you can show me compelling incontrovertible evidence that there is a god, I would be happy to believe it and enthusiastically so, although of course it might not be an ideal outcome for either of us - what if the incontrovertible evidence turns out to be for Allah, or for Zeus?

Would you be prepared to admit to me that you would stop believing if there was similar incontrovertible evidence provided to you that god did NOT exist?

You also say that you will keep reminding me of the gratitude all of us in our society should feel that in our history, there were Christian men and women who through their faith, established the ethos upon which our country has depended for so long.

Well, our society has also been riven with centuries of oppression, murder and violence on the grounds of religion, perpetrated by many of these same Christian men and women who through their faith sought to divide rather than unite, impose rather than persuade, subjugate rather than treat as equal. Please forgive me if I do not to feel any obligation of gratitude towards them, and feel that our country could have got along fine without them.

You can keep reminding me, though, as long as I can keep reminding you that you too should be grateful to the many brave non-believers who made an equally valuable contribution to our ethos and culture by fighting these forces of religious oppression. Will you also honour the debt to the many freethinkers who sought, and continue to seek to establish an ethos for Britian by peaceful means that do not attempt to discriminate, persecute, or kill on the grounds of a lack of belief in something that, as you say, we can't see or touch or hear?