We also suggest provision for additional optional faith-based religious instruction classes on school premises, subject to demand. These confessional classes could be after school hours or as part of an options system (which should be outside the core curriculum, and could include options on the humanist worldview and/or philosophy and ethics), as long as they did not interfere with students’ educational entitlements, and could be taught by visiting religious teachers or clerics. Having such classes on school premises would improve relationships with some groups of parents and permit proper vetting, regulation and inspection, so that they conformed to minimum educational and other standards

I can certainly see the arguments against. I do think this would prevent a fair number of people from sending their children to an independent faith-school, which I’d say is better for the child, for not that much cost. And, quite frankly, I’d rather religious instruction happened under a controlled environment like a school than in a church. I don’t know how you’d decide on standards, but if some extremist teacher started telling people that all gay people were evil, for example, he’d quickly be removed from a school.

Ah, now I see why you’re anti the humanist proposals! Possibly my fault - maybe I haven’t been clear enough on the difference between religious education and religious instruction. Religious education is overhauled from the current system but is a very much part of the curriculum. Children are taught about a wide range of faiths (and non-faiths) in an unbiased manner (or at least as much as that is possible). Religious instruction is the process of teaching a faith as true, with the intention that the child accept it as true. It’s this would be entirely extra-curricular.

i think the humanist approach lacks the sublties which could make it a good idea (in my book anyway) - if religious teaching is extra curricular are they:
a) saying no more r.e. in general for students - clearly not helpful… exposure to all cultures and customs is important to make you aware of the world around you… if it was done in a more scientific manner like in geography (why not!) perhaps it’d be easier on the humanists ears.
b) saying it has no place in schools - thus why the heck not leave it to the church.. if the shoe fits… why reinvent the wheel… yada yada…

In practice the situation is far worse. As detailed above, reading over the plans for Christian faith schools gives the clear impression that the aim is to produce Christians. That’s entirely what you’d expect - people who genuinely think that children should be raised as Christians are going to be incapable of creating unbiased schools. And Christianity is relatively benign in this regard - can you imagine a truly unbiased Muslim school? Or a Jehovah’s Witness school?

Some children do indeed challenge their beliefs as they get older, but many do not. Those who do often suffer greatly - it’s far from easy to reject what everybody around you thinks is true. You and I rejected organised religion, but our families aren’t religious - I can’t imagine how difficult it would be for somebody under that kind of pressure at home as well as school. Also, even if you’re right and plenty of children did question their beliefs it’s still unfair on them to start with, and the autonomy argument says that’s not an appropriate way to treat somebody.

I think that the humanist approach does a reasonable job. There would be some state-funding of religious instruction, but on a purely optional basis and entirely extra-curricular. Compared to Labour’s suggested system it’s incredibly minor. The other way not to assist parents, of course, would be to remove faith from all publicly-funded schools entirely, but this simply isn’t practical (or, it pains me to say, reasonable).

I’d pick you up on linking social acceptability and morality. If it’s socially acceptable to stone a woman to death for adultery, does that make it morally acceptable? I’d also say that it was the Enlightenment that has driven most of the characteristically religious ideas from society, leaving us with the shared human values we generally have (in this country) today - it’s against the law to kill somebody because that’s clearly wrong, not because the Bible says so; it’s no longer illegal to be a homosexual because there’s no reason to think it should be that makes any sense. I think that reason and compassion have defined the latter part of 20th century society, not religion. As for promiscuity - witness the 70s

What more RE would you have preffered, it at least exposed us to varying beliefs, religions and practices, and taught us to be respectful of the views around us? There is a clear problem of assigning balanced amounts of time to the subjects in the curriculum…

“…denying their children the right to an fair, informed education that allows them to behave autonomously.”
I certainly understand your thoughts on parents vs childs rights, there are obviously competence issues inherent in these relationships, and before the child is able to think about these decisions the child’s welfare has to be the state and parent’s responsibility. Its unfortunate that religions dont give children born into the respective religion the right not to be brought into the religion until the child is of a competent age, but many parents do this anyway. As you say, to actively choose to turn to the religion would be the greater choice - rather than have it as the assumed thought. For the few parents that don’t, the children often challenge these beliefs as they become older as you have mentioned in your posts. I guess the only way to not assist parents is to remove public funding from all faith schools… something labour’s policy is the opposite.

Moral from the latin moralis from mos meaning “custom”. I guess i was saying the thought of black and white morals derive from religion. You know i do not believe that morals are exclusive to religion, but there is no arguing that religion helped define the levels of socially acceptability and hence morality. Promiscuity was popular with the romans until that bloody christianity took over Religion has a lot to answer for

1. “I was quite clear I was talking about the schooling of the child. Raising a child is certainly problematic where religion is concerned - my parents chose a C of E school for me, but chose not to christen or raise me in any religon. However someone who is deeply religous would believe that raising their child in a religious way would be in the child’s best interests - and who are you or I to actively infringe on the parents beliefs, causing them distress, by preventing them from raising their child? Compare the distress to someone telling me i can’t prevent my child taking the gun in my example..”

The beliefs of the parent are inconsequential compared to the rights of the child. It is not reasonable to say that ‘distress’ to parents outweighs the rights of their child to make their own decisions. If the parent was demanding their child be taught creationism and no evolution in a public school, would you agree with that? I actually think that most parents would agree that children should make their own decisions when it comes to their faith or non-faith. Even if you’re devout, surely it’s better for your child to actively come to Christ (say) than to simply never be shown any other options.

2. “The parents have the firm belief they have their child’s best interests at heart, and I fail to see how, whilst respecting their beliefs, you can claim that sending their child to a school which happens to focus on faith is immorral, especially when morals themselves are inherently drawn from religion. (You and i know we disagree on this point : I believe there is no universal right or wrong : just infinite shades of grey.)”

I don’t think I necessarily believe in moral absolutes, but that’s entirely separate from the idea that morals are drawn from religion, which is clearly nonsense (as you well know). Neither you or I are religious - do we go around stealing from shops and killing people who annoy us? We do not, but not because we thinking of the ten commandments. It’s horrific to say that morals cannot exist without religion. See this if you need convincing.

It is immoral because the child has the right to a free and informed religious education. Would you consider it completely ok to bring a child up as a Liberal Democrat, or a strong adherent of capitalism? This is closely linked to the idea of whether faith schools can provide such an fair education, whch is coming up next.

3. “You are assuming faith schools fail to teach the children about any other religion. You also seem to think children will not have exposure to, and awareness of people who aren’t religious outside of school, let alone inside school? I fail to see a problem in faith schools if they uphold the value of teaching. The world is a multicultural diverse place to which no child is sheltered or unaware, and for a faith school not to have provided for the child to live in such a place would be a failure in one of its primary purposes. If a particular faith school was to fail in this regard then you and I would agree that this particular faith school requires more varied thought, but I have hope that the schools will make the more learned choice.”

The very post you’re commenting on (and the following) demonstrate exactly why I don’t think faith schools are capable, in theory or (particularly) in practice of providing a reasonable and informed religious education. I’d like to hear arguments against the points I raise, rather than straw men

4. “See now I do see the ability to “send [your children] to any school you want” as the MOST important issue here, and deserving of discussion! However its the public need triggering the public provision of services that highlights our difference of opinions, on the single issue of free choice we are agreed. My thinking is that having free choice and having to pay for free choice aren’t inherently compatible…”

I think your desire for choice in schooling is overriding the big picture, here. Parents would still be able to choose a school for their child based on teaching standards or whatever other criteria they liked. But the problems of separating children by their religion are detailed in my numerous posts, and that’s why I think every publicly-funded school should be open to everybody, with a reasonable and fair standard of religious education that everybody reasonable can agree on.

5. “A significant need for a provision of a faith school in an area should result in the establishment of a publicly funded school to provide for the communities needs. I presume there has to be some working guidelines for the establishment and funding of publicly funded faith schools, otherwise “Nod’s Public School” adopting the faith of “Provision of a High Income” would be doing rather well with its single teacher and pupil (coincidentally one and the same).

I think having the ability to send your kid to any school should always be within your right - regardless of whether its a faith school or not.”

My argument is that there is no ‘need for a provision of a faith school in an area’. I’ve argued why I think they are inherently flawed. In the alternative there would be all sorts of different schools - sports academies, language colleges etc. - with all types of attractions / disadvantages. We are not faced with a choice between faith schools or a mass of identical cookie-cutter schools.

I know you’re very concerned about individual rights, but you seem to always forget the child’s rights. By sending children to faith schools, as it stands currently, the parents are denying their children the right to an fair, informed education that allows them to behave autonomously.

6. “Well, I’d point out that my taxes could easily be going to a non-faith based school, and equally the taxes, of people whose children are going to these faith schools, could also be going to either one. It’s called public funding for a reason and I am definately not arguing that my taxes should not be spent on teaching on Religious Education - It clearly did a good job of “providing children with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to religion” when we were at school.

The reason I mentioned “my taxes” was confusingly in response to the presentation of the humanist proposal as in my opinion its always going to be more expensive and generally discriminatory / segregative to have to seperate classes or assemblies into faith groups for prayer / study - such as is presented by the humanist proposal.

I see no problem with establishing public faith schools, with the caveat that there is a public need for the school, and as long as the child is taught to be respectful of other schools of thought, such as other religions. A failure on either of these two points would result in my preffering the old/current system, and still strongly disliking the humanist proposals.”

Although I’d disagree and say that our religious education was utter crap, that’s irrelevant.

It’s discriminatory / segregative to have separate groups for religion? You realise that the alternative is completely different schools, right? It’s better to have all Christians in one place and all Muslims in another than to have a school which mixes the two together but gives each group a space to practice its own religion? This is pretty much what our (state-funded) sixth-form college was like - the christian union, whatever the Muslim group was called etc. all happened extra-curriculum. Was that awfully unfair? I don’t see how it would be any more expensive, either, given that by your standards faith schools would have to provide exactly the same thing.

That there is a public need for state-funded education is the very highest priority in this discussion - nobody is disputing that. I have argued in the various posts why I think faith schools would do a unsatisfactory job of educating children when it comes to religious belief, and if you have disagreements with my arguments I’d like to hear them.

1. “This is about providing children with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to religion, just as you would expect a school to do when it comes to politics, say.”
I agree with this sentiment of your post and comments - thus I did and do not feel I need comment.

2. “You do not own your children and your rights as a parent in no way supercede theirs as individuals. It is immoral to suggest that you get to treat them any way you ‘damned well please’…”
I was quite clear I was talking about the schooling of the child. Raising a child is certainly problematic where religion is concerned - my parents chose a C of E school for me, but chose not to christen or raise me in any religon. However someone who is deeply religous would believe that raising their child in a religious way would be in the child’s best interests - and who are you or I to actively infringe on the parents beliefs, causing them distress, by preventing them from raising their child? Compare the distress to someone telling me i can’t prevent my child taking the gun in my example..

3. “…just because you happen to have spawned them, and I think there’s a strong case that to choose to indoctrinate them into any religion by way of their education is also immoral.”
The parents have the firm belief they have their child’s best interests at heart, and I fail to see how, whilst respecting their beliefs, you can claim that sending their child to a school which happens to focus on faith is immorral, especially when morals themselves are inherently drawn from religion. (You and i know we disagree on this point : I believe there is no universal right or wrong : just infinite shades of grey.)

4. “Your responsibility, surely, is to bring them up to be capable of independent survival in the modern world. I don’t care that religious belief is traditionally transmitted through family and tradition - you don’t get to force your kids to think any particular way.”
You are assuming faith schools fail to teach the children about any other religion. You also seem to think children will not have exposure to, and awareness of people who aren’t religious outside of school, let alone inside school? I fail to see a problem in faith schools if they uphold the value of teaching. The world is a multicultural diverse place to which no child is sheltered or unaware, and for a faith school not to have provided for the child to live in such a place would be a failure in one of its primary purposes. If a particular faith school was to fail in this regard then you and I would agree that this particular faith school requires more varied thought, but I have hope that the schools will make the more learned choice.

5. “You *do* get to send them to any school you want if you’re happy to pay for independent education, and although I have issues with this it’s not what we’re discussing.”
See now I do see the ability to “send [your children] to any school you want” as the MOST important issue here, and deserving of discussion! However its the public need triggering the public provision of services that highlights our difference of opinions, on the single issue of free choice we are agreed. My thinking is that having free choice and having to pay for free choice aren’t inherently compatible…

6. “This is state-funded education, and the state’s responsibility in a complex, pluralist society such as ours must be to provide open and clear information on questions of religion so that children can autonomously make decisions.”
A significant need for a provision of a faith school in an area should result in the establishment of a publicly funded school to provide for the communities needs. I presume there has to be some working guidelines for the establishment and funding of publicly funded faith schools, otherwise “Nod’s Public School” adopting the faith of “Provision of a High Income” would be doing rather well with its single teacher and pupil (coincidentally one and the same).

I think having the ability to send your kid to any school should always be within your right - regardless of whether its a faith school or not.

7. “Btw, your objection to your taxes being spent on different religions is *exactly* what the government is planning to do with publicly-funded faith schools.”
Well, I’d point out that my taxes could easily be going to a non-faith based school, and equally the taxes, of people whose children are going to these faith schools, could also be going to either one. It’s called public funding for a reason and I am definately not arguing that my taxes should not be spent on teaching on Religious Education - It clearly did a good job of “providing children with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to religion” when we were at school.

The reason I mentioned “my taxes” was confusingly in response to the presentation of the humanist proposal as in my opinion its always going to be more expensive and generally discriminatory / segregative to have to seperate classes or assemblies into faith groups for prayer / study - such as is presented by the humanist proposal.

I see no problem with establishing public faith schools, with the caveat that there is a public need for the school, and as long as the child is taught to be respectful of other schools of thought, such as other religions. A failure on either of these two points would result in my preffering the old/current system, and still strongly disliking the humanist proposals.