Faith Schools?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi there, I've been seeing short programmes on the T.V recently supporting the growth of faith schools in the UK. Personally I think faith schools aren't good because they encourage segregation, it allows very religious people to keep their children cut off from the rest of society. I believe this in turn can cause dangerous and extremist views to become OK and accepted within ever growing communities. I think people in society should all receive the same level of education based on established fact and logical thinking, religion should be kept separate of education and politics, because as history has shown it only causes problems whether you believe in god or not. To teach a child that the universe is less than 10000 years old and that faith (or ignorance) is a virtue isn't far from child abuse and I repeat again VERY DANGEROUS.

What are your views on this people?

:):)

---

Oh, agree with you.

There is a major inconsistency between a school, year 2010, which teaches its students that the earth is 10,000 years old or younger vs one which teaches its students the earth is 1,000,000,000 years old or older.

In the United States, there are a number of law schools which are affiliated with non-profit religions and it is impossible for me to believe that the graduates (attorneys) of those law schools are not trying to replace USA laws with temple, mosque, and church laws.

In Europe, there are one or more countries which view forced religious education as a form of child abuse.

It's a big problem (my view).

The previous USA president, Bush, Jr. from Texas, was a religious extremist (Texas Methodist Republican) and should have been impeached (my view) for views such as the following:

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Washington, DC — Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 (December 28, 2006)

---

History of Faith Schools

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... s_heretics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanis ... nty_Python)

As someone who has both attended Catholic school and public school, I've got to say that faith schools are mostly a joke. The science programs will be corrupted to fit within the faith first and foremost at the sacrifice of the scientific method and general fact. Other programs will be fairly good but then there'll be a religion class that focuses solely on the religion du jour of the school which is just a waste of good class time.

Most "faith" schools in the UK are not so very different to the regular kind of schools, but with a generally better reputation for education standards.They seem to have higher uniform standards, and are considered more strict. They aren't as "rough". They don't do a great deal of "religious" teaching on the whole, with no extra time spent on the religious education than in any other state school. They have a tendency to sing hymns at assemblies, (but some state schools do that too.) They certainly don't spend a lot of time indoctrinating children into fundamentalism. They teach normal science and regular history. Religious Education isn't even an exam requirement, and in RE classes they teach about Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and so on. Its not even a requirement to be in a religion.

I do wonder what faith schools you think you're talking about that segregates children from the outside world. There are several "faith schools" in my area and they regularly mix with the kids from other schools, engage in sports contests and all manner of activities. They aren't walled off from the outside or anything.

I agree Macbeth, catholic schools probably aren't as extreme as their fundamentalist equivalents, although I fear catholic teachers (I'm not saying all the teachers in catholic schools are religious) may tend to be more oppressive because that's what religion essentially does to people. My girlfriend was taught in a catholic secondary school and she didn't take any notice, and to be honest she is now an atheist, is there any point in calling these schools catholic I wonder?

I don't think personally that simply mixing with other children will make any difference in the way these children are indoctrinated, they're still going to follow what they are taught to follow.

Religious training also involves training in morality. Take the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, for example. Only the first four commandments are concerned with a relationship with God. The others deal with relationships with other people--the so-called Golden Rule. Jesus said the greatest commandment was (paraphrased) love God with all your being. The second is take care of others as you take care of yourself. So if religious training teaches us the proper way of maintaining positive human relationships, what is really so dangerous about it?



Logical thinking I'll agree with you on. "Established fact," though, loses me. First, what facts are really established? It usually takes great lengths of time and sudden "quantum" leaps, but science has been "established" to adjust its positions. Relying on what is already established (and only on what is established) is to grind science to a standstill. The intention of science is to explore and verify, not come to a screeching halt! There are MANY things, even things we are aware of, that science continues to investigate and yet still renders no verdict. Those "facts" remain to be established--but we can reasonably assume that they will one day be established given changes in technology and the ability to observe those things scientifically.



The problem is secular education assumes God not to exist. It often has the veneer of remaining neutral, but it seldom IS neutral. Someone who desires for the spiritual well-being of their children cannot take comfort in spiritual needs being met through a purely secular education. "Faith schools" provide what secular schools cannot. How has history shown that it ONLY causes problems?



How is this child abuse? Why is it VERY DANGEROUS? I'm not professing a belief in the age of the universe because I don't pretend to have a way of knowing that with any degree of certainty. Nor does anyone else, for that matter. It seems every year a new radical theory is introduced regarding the origins of the universe--Big Bang, string theory, m-theory. These are all well thought out hypotheses, and sure, there's a lot of advanced ideas from physics on how these things could be, but what evidence do we have for one or the other that this is how it all happened? Sure, there are some observations that point in one direction or another, but there are other possible explanations. Such things cannot be observed via time travel, nor can such things be recreated in a lab. The scientific term for that is "unfalsifiable," though I prefer the term "untestable." And any time something is shown to be untestable, it is considered unscientific (or rather science is unconcerned about those things which it cannot test).

So if we are about the business of indoctrinating children with those things which we ourselves do not know, how exactly is that less dangerous than religious training? It is NOT less dangerous. Indeed, it seems right on par with religious education because of the assumptions that it makes. If anything, the idea that religious education is dangerous is false.

That it is child abuse strikes me as obscenely absurd. No school that I'm aware of, whether secular or religious in nature, inflicts unnecessary physical pain or distress upon children. I, for one, am not opposed to corporal punishment (e.g. paddling) within reasonable bounds. Physical Education has several roles and benefits in a child's growth and development: Games that support the development of motor skills; high impact activities that increase bone density in the formative years; activities that stretch muscle fiber; resistance activities that break down and rebuild muscle to increase strength; high-stress activities to enhance cardiovascular strength. All of these are highly stressful in ways and, to a degree, take an unpleasant physical toll on the child. Nevertheless, these activities are considered "normal" and even "necessary." If there has been no mark left on the child's body, and if the child has not been touched inappropriately in any other way or sexually molested, then there has been no abuse. Now, you might say that it's mental abuse. Since when have schools have been devoid of mental abuse of some kind? Many of us aspies know all too intimately well the distresses of school bullying. What about grading systems? Is it really healthy to build all those expectations within a student and then suddenly give them average/below average/failing grades? How do you think THAT makes a young child feel, that they are never "good enough"? What about homework? Why should school follow the child home in that way? Did anyone consider how giving low grades and homework assignments might damage a child? But you might say, "That's just part of the education process." Sure... So if a parent chooses a religious school that simply adds religious study to the curriculum, what really is the difference? None at all.

Now, I'm talking about religion in a very general way. That could mean a Christian school, a Moslem school, a Buddhist school, a Hindu school, and so on. The next thing to consider is how to methods of teaching religion versus secular instruction translate into what is good and safe for the children as well as the rest of society? That raises other questions. Does the school teach something that is in keeping with the mainstream of the religion it represents? Christian schools, for example, ought to be denominationally neutral focusing on common aspects rather than teaching a set doctrine. If they don't (or can't), then parents have to accept what the school is teaching even if it is in conflict with practices at home (e.g. a Protestant family in a Catholic school). Parents have to be somewhat accepting of what is being taught and also somewhat conform to that standard--otherwise their presence is both harmful to the school atmosphere AND to the child's well-being, especially when school teachings are in conflict with, say, certain types of open lifestyles that are in direct conflict with doctrine. I think all of these kinds of problems are eliminated when doctrinal studies focus directly on what the Bible actually says while leaving theological study to the realm of history and literature. That way, the child can make up his own mind and, more importantly, take an active role in discerning what is true about God and what is not. Schools dedicated to other specific faiths would probably be best served if they are patterned in a similar way according to their specific message.

In short, does the school remain faithful to the religion to which it is dedicated?

Secondly, what assurance is there the school encourages loyalty to its nation and conformity to the laws thereof? In other words, is a Muslim "faith school" really just a cover for a terrorist training camp targeting young people as recruits for carrying out atrocities against themselves and others? If it is a Christian school, does it teach that we should horde weapons caches for the coming apocalypse in December 2012? Most schools I know of teach respect for authority and to be peaceful, law-abiding citizens. But occasionally we hear about the isolationist homeschooler involved in shootouts with cops after which most of his family (and a cop or two) end up either injured or dead. Don't forget what happened to the Branch Davidians in Waco.

If the school teaches what it says it teaches, and if it does so in a safe manner which does no harm to its students or to the society in which it operates, there is no reason at all to stand in its way. The only real reason one may give to get rid of religious schools is a hatred or anti-religious bias that really just wants religion gone. That is a dream that will likely never come to fruition as there will ALWAYS be believer somewhere. If you don't want your own children exposed to religious messages, just send them to a secular school

There's something immensely disturbing to me about indoctrinating one's children.

My infants, junior and highschools were church schools.
I'm don't agree with faith schools, but my highschool had one of the best ofsted reports in the city so of course my mum wanted me there. But by the time I was 10 I didn't believe in god and so I got sick of being bashed round the back of the head with a bible everyday. The one thing that I don't think is fair is how RE lessons in faith school aren't inspected by ofsted, but by a seperate religious group. That way there would be bias, so they are going to want to award higher points to the teachers that do the most bible bashing. And at my school sex education was taught in RE of all subjects, why not science where it BELONGS?

To AngelRho

1. It's a shame non of these so called commandments are taken into account when fundamentalists bomb people, murder abortion doctors, persecute homosexuals treat women as second class citizens suppress knowledge etc. We don't need the bible to be moral, the morals of the bible are at best hideous, all your saying is that religious people behave themselves to suck up to god. You already have to be moral to understand what parts of the bible ARE moral

2. Established facts:

Evolution proved beyond reasonable doubt by:

Molecular genetics
Geological distribution
Experiments that show evolution before the very eyes
The fossil record (creationist favourite)

The age of the earth proved by:

Radiometric dating, which rely s on atomic theory something nobody has the stupidity to deny

The big bang has a weight of evidence far in excess of the non-explanations of holy books:

The red shifts of distant galaxies
The cosmic microwave background

(you'll forgive me if I don't present all of them, this is from memory)

These are established facts that should be taught within schools, teaching a child that the morals of the bible are good and that the earth, universe and life are less than 10000 years old is ludicrous. Go and read some quotes from the pope, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and tell me they are moral.
The scientific method is a way of establishing fact and not making presumptions, are you trying to say that exploring established theories and adding more knowledge to them is grinding to a halt? are you saying we should teach god as a default? is it logical to find gaps in knowledge and fill them with god when god has no proof either, why believe in something that has no proof?

3. Why can't religious people find their "spirituality" at home? isn't their god supposed to give them the strength to keep their faith no matter what? are religious so brittle that religious children need their own schools? Again I repeat why teach something that has no proof?

4. I'm pretty sure they don't teach string and m-theory to secondary school pupils because these theories are unproven, I'm fairly sure they do teach the big bang because this is a theory that is proven. The big bang is something that is proven without string and m-theory, the latter are deeply theoretical physics that again I am sure hold more weight than anything in bronze age myths.
To say that teaching primitive myths that have absolutely no evidence to support them whatsoever is the same as teaching facts is lunatic, the scientific method isn't an opinion, or a point of view as I said above it is simply a method for establishing fact, how is teaching this on the same level as teaching completely unproven ancient myths? Science doesn't make assumptions when they say something is fact it is because it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the reason religious education is dangerous is because it teaches to believe in things that require no evidence, it teaches not to question things and as I've said above we all know what this leads to.

5. Are you saying that because "aspies" are bullied it is ok for school teachers to issue corporal punishment, the fact that you think corporal punishment is ok shows where your morals really are. Corporal punishment leads the way for terrible abuse, no teacher has the right to beat someone else with a cane slipper etc. How dare you say it is ok to hit a child that isn't yours, are you aware that this leads a child to think it is ok to solve problems with violence?
Physical education and corporal punishment are two separate things, to say that sport and beating children with paddles have an equivalence is ridiculous. Sport is about keeping fit and playing games how does that have an equivalence to paddling a child to tears?
The grading system is nothing compared to the fear a child feels when taught about hell and burning in agony, basically what you're saying is that we should take education back to that middle ages. How the hell are you supposed to gauge a child without grades? without grades you would very quickly throw or society back centuries into the past! would you give an non-academic child a job in a nuclear power station? or medical research? or even medical science which saves many thousands even millions of lives?
Please tell me how a religious school that teaches ignorance and that solving problems with violence is ok have an equivalence to the teaching of facts and non-violence!
To answer your last two paragraphs fundamentalist beliefs lead to violence, hatred, ignorance and prejudice. On the face of it religious schools seem civilised but the things they teach are primitive, and show a complete non-tolerance foe other faiths. Religion causes no end of damage to society (I'm sure I don't need to explain this)so why teach it?
Saying people are "biased" against religion is the same as saying people are biased against ignorant, non-factual and illogical beliefs. There is no such thing as "science versus religion" because again science is simply a method for establishing fact, so you might as well say "reason versus ignorance". This is a fundamental thing religious people fail to understand the only reason they stand up against it is because it contradicts what is written in there primitive, violent, sexist, repressive and immoral holy books.

Matt, Matt, Matt...you can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.
Defending religion, and religion being indoctrinated into children RELIES on the laughable assertion that scientific theory (that is to say, concepts pertaining to the natural world that are supported by ALL observable data) are somehow just "guesses"....because that's what RELIGION is- a fantastical, man-made STORY. This denial is not just a tactic used to obfuscate the debate, it is necessary for believers to justify their faith to THEMSELVES.

I think there's an important point about the word "theory", religious people confuse the common language use of the word and the scientific use of the word. In common language the theory means conjecture and ideas, in science theory means as you said, explanations based on observable and repeatable evidence. Why do religious people not grasp this simple principle? why do they not understand what evidence is? why is it they are quite happy to use the technology and abilities science gives them to then attack it with?

I don't want to come across as an angry person this just happens to be something I am very passionate about, science makes head-way and drags us from the dark ages of human misery, religion does all it can to drag us back!

Honestly, it's child abuse to send a kid to a public school in the city I live in. If you have the means to send your kid elsewhere you do. If only I were so lucky, when I was a kid I had 2 brother very close in age and my family couldn't afford to send us anywhere but public. Fortunately for my 6 year old sister, we're all pretty much done with school and so my parents can afford to send her to a Lutheran school. A Religious education is better than a crap failing inner city school education.

Who or what a child associates with is a matter for parents to decide, not the State.

ruveyn

It still stands that religion and faith be left out of the education system, how about if I home tutored my daughter to believe reality is just a computer simulation, and that peace and everlasting glory is achieved only with genocide of people that don't believe us?