Faith Schools: Yay or Nay?

[lostbookworm]

Well, recently I watched The Big Debate on Faith Schools, including Richard Dawkins as a panelist. As I have an interest in Religion in politics, I was extremely interested in it. While watching it, I remembered watching Richard Dawkins show on them. My opinion, is scrap these schools.

I am a firm believer in Dawkins belief that a parent's beliefs should not be forced upon the child. The child should be taught about religion equally, and then allowed to decide for themselves. However, Faith Schools encourage forcing this religion onto a child.

There is then the debate that Faith Schools don't teach the theory of Evolution, but in an atheists view should. I agree with this, however I also agree that by teaching this, it defies the original views of Catholicism, therefore creating a paradox.

What do you think? Should Faith Schools be allowed? Should a parents beliefs be forced on a child? Should Evolution be taught at Faith Schools.

By the way, I release there have been several threads like this, but none directed AT Faith Schools.

[Rose]

trollololol.

/spam.

Always wanted to do that. Haaaaaah. Now I can sleep in peace.

[Lykaios]

I've heard there's almost a polar opposite with religion vs. atheism in America and in Britain. As I know little about the former, my example's about the latter, just so you know. Here, most people are an atheist or an agnostic. 'Religious' people (I hate that word) are the minority.

When I was in primary school, though (I went to two), my schools both had an element of what I imagine a 'faith school' might have - we prayed, sung hymns, and sometimes heard Bible stories in assembly, said grace before leaving the classroom to go have lunch, did Nativity plays at Christmas, Easter things at Easter, etc.

And talking to my friends, most of them had this experience, too, whether or not they were in a school which openly said 'I am C of E or Roman Catholic, etc" - both my schools were not openly religious in the name. It simply appeared to be the remnants of tradition from when these schools were fully religious, back in the day, and now, there is actually a law or regulation or something which stops primary schools doing hymns and prayers in assembly unless they say they are a religious school in their name or something, which came in around the time I left primary school.

However, despite this, we were taught evolution and science, etc. 'properly', but we were taught Religious Education too (by that I mean not just Christianity - we were taught about the other major world religions, too). Both were treated as subjects, neither preachy. Most people my age and older came through schools like this, because then, that's what they were all mostly like, and very few of them came out of it religious unless they were already religious.

So brainwashing? People here thought so, hence the new regulation - which oddly enough, many non-religious people protested against as they thought it was good their kids were experiencing a bit of tradition and an alternative way of life. RE is still taught in these schools, same as Science is. And surely elsewhere (America?) they have some kind of syllabus which all kids need to know to pass exams and whatnot? Wouldn't it be obvious a school wasn't teaching Science properly when all the students fail the exam? I dunno.

Here, it's going the other way - people are saying RE should be excluded as a subject. I disagree, not because I'm religious, but because I've seen what happens when RE is taught well and badly in a school. In my first secondary school, RE was taught very well. We covered varied Religions, but also ethics, philosophy and about people themselves. As a result, there was a good awareness of religious acceptance in that school, and very little bullying or ignorant discrimination towards religious people.

In my second secondary school (and Lizzie can vouch for this) RE is taught as a series of information. 'Muslins do this because of this and if they don't, this happens.' As a Christian, I know that this is very untrue for people who share my faith - everyone has their own opinion or belief, nothing is a straight answer - so I was very sceptical about believing the same of Islam. There was none of the exploration about why people believe, about the diversity of beliefs within religion, or much on culture or anything. In the Christian section, everything was taught as generally Christian, but was actually based around C of E or Catholicism, but we were taught nothing on even what denominations were. The result of this at the school is a very poor understanding of religious people or religions in general. I was bullied from my first week until I left, purely because I'm Christian.

So I think it is important for RE to be taught in schools, even if it's purely to educate people in an understanding of others, but obviously not to the extent where you're being uneducated in other things like Science. If a teacher doesn't want to teach Science, they shouldn't apply for a job that means they have to.

EDIT: forgot about the parents bit. I think that bit's quite a hard one to answer. Like with the schools thing, there's always going to be a question of whether it's too much or too little. I wasn't brought up in a Christian home, but I have friends who have and some say they hated it, others say they valued it, and some say they didn't mind it much because their parents weren't pushy about it but rather 'encouraged them'.

If I ever have children, I would love to share what I believe with them and take them to church, etc. but I would never force them to do so if they didn't want to because I fully believe that believing in God is an utterly personal thing. Nobody can force that kind of decision because it effects everything you are. But in the same way, I would not want them to be forced to be atheist, because that is just as bad as forcing someone to be religious. I would prefer my child grew up with all options open and chose for themselves whatever they believe. Obviously I'd be more biased on the Christian side, but I would not hate or judge my child if they decided to become a Hindu or an atheist, etc. and if I took my child to church and one day they said they didn't want to go, I'd be fine with that.

The problem with some parents is that they are too controlling and forget that even if you grow up in a completely Christian household, go to church, do everything 'right, etc. there is still that inner personal decision to make, and until then, it is just a façade or an education. You can't force that decision, ever.

/oopsendsrant

[lostbookworm]

Ah yes, I am directing this AT English Faith Schools. You see, the point I'm making is not at normal teaching of Religion at schools, but at specific Faith Schools, the ones with it in the name. You see, at these schools, they may teach Evolution, but they don't put a lot of emphasis on creationism, or what that religion believes. This is what I'm against.

I agree with what you said. They should teach a rounded view of Religion and give reasons for it. Otherwise, as you said, it leads to Religion racism.

Regards the parents issue, I believe we need to ask it. We shouldn't force children into ANYTHING. It's the child's choice. However, by saying, "We are Christians, all your friends are Christian, but hey, you don't HAVE to be Christian." What is that going to do? Peer-pressure via parents/friends and in the point I'm making, Faith Schools push a child into that Religion. I'm saying it's no good. We need to change it.

Also, Faith schools effectively encourage secularism. Children are kept away from other Religions and taught that THIS one is right, and THAT one is wrong. Are these the ideals we want children to grow up in an already divided multi-cultural society such as the UK? I think not.

[Peppermental]

hahahahah "face schools". new favorite typo.

[Lykaios]

Ah yes, I am directing this AT English Faith Schools. You see, the point I'm making is not at normal teaching of Religion at schools, but at specific Faith Schools, the ones with it in the name. You see, at these schools, they may teach Evolution, but they don't put a lot of emphasis on creationism, or what that religion believes. This is what I'm against.

I agree with what you said. They should teach a rounded view of Religion and give reasons for it. Otherwise, as you said, it leads to Religion racism.

Regards the parents issue, I believe we need to ask it. We shouldn't force children into ANYTHING. It's the child's choice. However, by saying, "We are Christians, all your friends are Christian, but hey, you don't HAVE to be Christian." What is that going to do? Peer-pressure via parents/friends and in the point I'm making, Faith Schools push a child into that Religion. I'm saying it's no good. We need to change it.

Also, Faith schools effectively encourage secularism. Children are kept away from other Religions and taught that THIS one is right, and THAT one is wrong. Are these the ideals we want children to grow up in an already divided multi-cultural society such as the UK? I think not.

There are very few faith schools like this in the UK. Most have been forced by media and LEA pressures to conform to a certain standard of teaching regulation. Faith schools can have heavy influence of their line of faith (mostly Catholic and C of E) but by the LEA's standards, they have to comply to the national syllabus. This includes teaching science. All schools do the same exams - if a school is failing to keep numbers in a subject (especially in Maths, English or Sciences), it is dogged by the LEA and Ofstead until it does, or it is closed.

This is why independent schools like Summerhill have had issues in the past, because their numbers do not cooperate with national expectations. Their philosophy of education does not work with the government's.

But faith schools here, unless they have special privilages (the only exceptions I can think of are possibly private schools, but I think even they are under LEA authority), have to teach the same syllabus that other schools do. They're just allowed to do the assembly thing, and have a much larger Christian influence, also the teachers are normally Christians too.

Faith Schools push a child into that Religion.
No they don't. And actually, I reckon it's the opposite. People push against indoctrination, and it is natural for the human race to go against rules. I know several people from schools like this, and I only know one who came out of that education believing in God.

Like I said before: forcing belief in God is not possible because it is a completely personal decision that changes your whole life. It's not as simple as people often paint it. There is a big difference between believing in God and knowing everything about a religion and following the rules. There's a change in the heart. Knowing is not believing.

[Crocolyle]

I haven't posted in a while, so I doubt anyone really remembers me, but, anyway...

I am an atheist who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school from first grade until high school, and I actually strongly approve of schools with a religious foundation and if I have children I intend to send them to similar schools, despite having abandoned my Christian faith.

I personally think it's acceptable for the beliefs of a parent to use religion as a foundation for the beliefs of children. You say that the child should decide for themselves, and while I agree with you, in order to make a decision on the subject, it makes sense to have some sort of religious background even if you ultimately reject it. Essentially, as you said, the parent should say, "This is what I believe and what you can choose to believe. When you are more mature, you decide for yourself." Religion is more than just a collection of myths--it is a socialization tool that encourages certain behaviors and, particularly in the case of organized religion, provides a sense of community. While morality and ethics are subjective concepts and while most people can figure out their own morals, religion helps provide a foundation because many--if not all--religions provide instructions for how to live, and provides a simple reason for good behavior for young children whose minds are not developed enough to understand the real, more abstract reasons. But again, it is up to the person whether to accept or reject any moral rules.

Also, you are incorrect to say that Evolution defies the principals of Catholicism. According to contemporary Church doctrine, because Evolution is considered scientific fact, Catholics are allowed to believe that humans as well as other animals have changed over time. I don't recall ever consulting a Bible in a science class in my fourteen years of Catholic education, even though my seventh grade biology teacher was a nun. We only consulted the Bible in religion class and were told to interpret it as spiritual truth, not literal truth, and these notions were supported by our Vatican-approved textbooks meant to supplement our reading. Our textbooks in fact discussed the history of the Bible and the different religious sects that led to its creation so as to put the scripture into context. We realize the story of Noah has its origins in the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh and that Adam and Eve may never have existed. We also read heretical, non-canonical gospels (such as the infancy narrative of St. Thomas and the Gnostic Sayings of Jesus) to understand the historical context of the New Testament.

[Peppermental]

Raising a child is putting your beliefs on them, its not like as a parent its your job to have absolutely no influence on their opinion. I do, however, think that religious schools are hilarious. The idea of academia being permeated by such a strong bias seems kind of odd. Nothing like the themes of damnation to encourage kids to learn...

Dogma doesn't have a place in the school setting. For instance, I have a few gay friends who have attended Catholic high schools and talk about how they've had to hide their sexuality. Schools should educate children about religions, as they're a major part of the global culture and social sciences are a core part of school curriculum, but for a school to enforce a particular view based on anything less than objective fact (if we fall into a Solipsist debate i will fucking kill myself.) is silly.


I'm speaking of public institutions, also. If parents decide to send their kids to a private institution, they can teach whatever silliness they'd like.

[Crocolyle]

Raising a child is putting your beliefs on them, its not like as a parent its your job to have absolutely no influence on their opinion. I do, however, think that religious schools are hilarious. The idea of academia being permeated by such a strong bias seems kind of odd. Nothing like the themes of damnation to encourage kids to learn...

Dogma doesn't have a place in the school setting. For instance, I have a few gay friends who have attended Catholic high schools and talk about how they've had to hide their sexuality. Schools should educate children about religions, as they're a major part of the global culture and social sciences are a core part of school curriculum, but for a school to enforce a particular view based on anything less than objective fact (if we fall into a Solipsist debate i will fucking kill myself.) is silly.

I'm speaking of public institutions, also. If parents decide to send their kids to a private institution, they can teach whatever silliness they'd like.

Academia and Religion used to go hand in hand. It was Catholic monks who copied and perserved ancient Greek and Latin texts and translated Arabic ones in the middle ages and are largely responsible that we can read ancient writings, both religious and secular. Also, many Universities across Europe were tied to or connected to religious groups until the Reformation. A lot of people talk about how the Catholic Church during this time suppressed science, but that mostly happened in the Rennaissance as a reaction to Protestantism.

On a different note, Academia has its own biases. It's only with rigorous testing and years of debate that new ideas get accepted as fact. This is true in nonscientific academic fields, such as literature. A lot of very good work is rejected by academics as being unworthy of study because of the presence of fantastic elements, allegory, or didacticism (if that's a word), when all that was commonplace even in "literary" fiction two hundred years ago.

I had friends who were openly gay when I was in high school and neither the faculty nor the students had any problems with it. In fact, the school I went to has a mandatory retreat that Juniors go on, and certain seniors are selected to speak. One of them was openly gay and selected to talk about masks people wear and honesty, and a large part of his talk was about how he tried to hide his homosexuality. My school was an all guys school, so outwardly people seemed homophobic and made lots of gay jokes, but the people I know who were gay were generally accepted. At one of our sister schools (an all girls school), I know some people who had the opposite experience, but in my experience this was out of the ordinary.

It isn't Catholic "dogma" that homosexuality is sinful (though the Church does considers homosexual acts sinful because it can't produce children, which is kind of the point of sex [I personally think what two or more consenting adults do in their bedroom and how they do it is their own business, but the Church's argument is not without logic]). Dogma is more established spiritual truths of a faith that are not subject to change--stuff like, "Jesus was fully divine and fully human," the trinity, Mary was the god-bearer, Mary's virginity. Unmarried priests and all male priesthood, for example, isn't actually dogma (it's doctrine, which is subject to change).

There actually were some Jewish and Muslim students and some students who were of a different Christian denomination, and I mean, they were entitled to their beliefs, though in religion class they obviously still had to do their work--they weren't forced to pray or anything.

[Peppermental]

The point of sex? Ascribe inherent meaning to any action, because that can TOTALLY be objectively proven. The churches judgment of it, since it is part of their doctrine, makes it dogmatic. So, regardless of their flawed logic, it is in fact a dogmatic belief. Academia and religion did in fact used to go hand in hand, this point was never disputed. However, it is contradictory for an institution to encourage the kind of scrutiny the scientific field encourages (no fact is considered a fact until it is rigorously proven through repeatable testing etc.) but also teach that any faith based idea is indisputably correct without objective proof. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a faith-based belief, or that people don't have the right to do or believe what they'd like, on the contrary, I support the right for private educational institutions to teach whatever religious bias they would like, however it cannot happen in a public school whose stated purpose is simply the education of students in areas deemed core content (language arts, math, sciences, history, etc.).

[Crocolyle]

The point of sex? Ascribe inherent meaning to any action, because that can TOTALLY be objectively proven. The churches judgment of it, since it is part of their doctrine, makes it dogmatic. So, regardless of their flawed logic, it is in fact a dogmatic belief.

Sex is the biological mechanism that allows humans to reproduce. While it is also pleasurable, relieves stress, and is an expression of love, it is the means through which people reproduce, whether they actually want children or not. The reason why it feels good is encouragement to have children, from a biological standpoint. I'm not saying it's only point is reproduction, or that the main reason people have sex is to have children, but rather its biological function is reproduction.

Think of eating. I love food. The channel I watch most frequently on TV is the food network and I love cooking and I'm a pretty good cook (friends have invited me over to their apartments and asked me to cook for them). I eat because food tastes good and because eating is a pleasurable experience, even when I'm not really hungry; however, I'd say the point of eating is nourishment, not having something that tastes good in your mouth.

I'm not saying their logic is flawed or their logic is sound--I personally disagree with the Church in this regard (I'm not a practising Catholic. I am an atheist), but the Church thinks of sex as God's gift to humans for reproduction, and that is why the Church is against homosexual acts, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, and most forms of birth control.

It's not really even doctrine and the fact that something is considered doctrine doesn't make it dogma. Doctrine =/= Dogma, once again. What you see in the Nicene Creed is Dogma. A lot of what you'd see in the Catechism is Doctrine. Doctrine is subject to change. Dogma isn't. Dogma and Doctrine rarely have anything to do with one another. It isn't a Dogmatic belief because it isn't an issue of Dogma. This is an argument of semantics, but your word choice is incorrect, because the Church's opposition to homosexual acts isn't dogma, and might not even be doctrine.

However, it is contradictory for an institution to encourage the kind of scrutiny the scientific field encourages (no fact is considered a fact until it is rigorously proven through repeatable testing etc.) but also teach that any faith based idea is indisputably correct without objective proof.

Depends on the field, in my mind. I don't agree it is contradictory because Theology isn't math or science. Nothing in theology can be objectively proven. It's a field like literature (where very few things can be objectively proven, yet it is still studied in institutions where math and science are studied)--just make a good argument and you're fine. In fact, analysis of scripture is a form of literary analysis. Subject areas like Church History are more like History or social science. The only problem you run into is if you read scripture out of context and as scientific fact instead of as "spiritually true" (if you are of that religion) stories that explain the beliefs of a people.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a faith-based belief, or that people don't have the right to do or believe what they'd like, on the contrary, I support the right for private educational institutions to teach whatever religious bias they would like, however it cannot happen in a public school whose stated purpose is simply the education of students in areas deemed core content (language arts, math, sciences, history, etc.).

Agree 100% with all these points.

[lostbookworm]

POST TICKET! I've been off but I'll post soon. FUN! :)

[Peppermental]

I think I misunderstood what you meant as purpose. In terms of function, sex is the vehicle for reproduction, and in that sense you're correct. I was more talking about purpose in the individual subjective sense. Its relative to whatever endgame you have in mind, for instance someone who puts pleasure over reproduction would say the purpose of sex is for personal pleasure. But even then, its not as if the act of homosexual intercourse is an assault on heterosexual intercourse. No one's sex organs are damaged by other's practicing different forms of sex. It all comes down to subjective value systems and their conflicts I suppose. But I feel like we agree on main points, so now I'm just waiting for Lostie to say something so I can troll him.

[AlextotheAndra]

I wanted to post in here because I go to a catholic school, where I would say at least half the students are atheists or indifferent. I am religious, but I also believe in evolution! I will argue until my firing day against fundamentalists but I would like to point out that it was MY choice to go to my school. I believe in the values of religion, I have disagreements with parts of the church and also the interpretation of the bible by some people, but a lot of what I know of the bible, the way it was written, myths and contexts and other holy texts as well has come from my school. So what I would really like to say is that religion for me at least is a personal choice, my schooling has had no impact on what I believe if anything it has made me more critical. You can not brand all religious schools together, and the same goes for government ones as well. It is a choice made by the parents and children and as long as people wish to be educated in such a manner I see no reason as to why they should not be allowed to. If you have an issue with my views please message me :)
(and before you say I am a naive little girl who lives in a bubble, one of my closest friends us an atheist, we have constant discussions over religion and we often agree)