Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: jeremyp on January 03, 2016, 03:57:44 PM
-
A hotel in Berlin has a better idea
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/682693622341439492/photo/1
-
A hotel in Berlin has a better idea
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/682693622341439492/photo/1
Phew for a moment I thought it was going to be The God Delusion.
-
"Yet to be fair, sacredness of human life was eventually known to the men who brought you that declaration was because of the bible."
A very telling comment from one of the tweeters. Slightly lacking in grammatical accuracy, mind, but still a very true statement.
-
"Yet to be fair, sacredness of human life was eventually known to the men who brought you that declaration was because of the bible."
A very telling comment from one of the tweeters. Slightly lacking in grammatical accuracy, mind, but still a very true statement.
The Bible doesn't give the impression that human life is sacred.
-
The Bible doesn't give the impression that human life is scared.
No it doesn't, but it does teach that it is sacred, j ;)
-
No it doesn't, but it does teach that it is sacred, j ;)
No it doesn't. It teaches that human life can be destroyed for almost any reason as long as God approves.
-
When I was at school Gideon's presented all Yr 7 pupils with a special edition of the NIV NT with a suggested selection of readings for teenagers. Needless to say, it included those from Paul on homosexuality.
Helpful...
-
When I was at school Gideon's presented all Yr 7 pupils with a special edition of the NIV NT with a suggested selection of readings for teenagers. Needless to say, it included those from Paul on homosexuality.
Helpful...
Ditto
Imagine if some Muslims came in and handed out copies of the Koran.
-
Ditto
Yup, same.
-
When I was at school Gideon's presented all Yr 7 pupils with a special edition of the NIV NT with a suggested selection of readings for teenagers. Needless to say, it included those from Paul on homosexuality.
Helpful...
Would you expect the Declaration of Human Rights to be shorn of its references to education and girls if it was being handed out in a Muslim area?
-
Would you expect the Declaration of Human Rights to be shorn of its references to education and girls if it was being handed out in a Muslim area?
The UDHR is about breadth and inclusion (all girls everywhere should have the right to a decent education), not discrimination and ugly and poisonous bigotry based on ignorant and toxic ideas (no point educating girls - they're only girls).
-
Would you expect the Declaration of Human Rights to be shorn of its references to education and girls if it was being handed out in a Muslim area?
Of course not, nor would I ask that the Bible be shorn of its bigotry, I'd just ask that it shouldn't be handed out.
-
I think the worst thing about the Gideons handing out the bibles, was the fact that they made children ( by pressurising them ) into promising to read a. Section everyday.
It's that, I never liked. ( most children don't like the idea of refusing in front of their peers and adults) it isn't fair to make children make promises they are not going to keep and don't want to make in the first place.
I have one, which I was presented with at a young age ( primary, junior).
The Gideons are also very sexist and refuse to accept women preaching in any way.
I'd have been quite happy to have received a copy of all the holy books ( of various religions ) , provided no promises were extracted from youngsters.
I'd have loved to have had a copy of the Koran ....... Or anything which told me what others believe.
I don't have an issue with handing out holy books just the promises and the rest of it that go with them.
Have you noticed Rose, if you put these books in the bin in the hotel room it gets replaced, you have to take them to a bin outside of the hotel to really get rid of them.
Ippy
-
Have you noticed Rose, if you put these books in the bin in the hotel room it gets replaced, you have to take them to a bin outside of the hotel to really get rid of them.
Ippy
Or take it down to reception and tell them someone has left their book in your room and could they put it in lost property.
-
Have you noticed Rose, if you put these books in the bin in the hotel room it gets replaced, you have to take them to a bin outside of the hotel to really get rid of them.
Ippy
ippy, taking them to a bin outside the hotel doesn't work either. Most hotels have an arrangement with Gideons that they can come in and replace the bibles that have been taken (and many do get taken) or thrown away, on a regular basis.
-
Or take it down to reception and tell them someone has left their book in your room and could they put it in lost property.
Again, this falls down because the Bibles have a message along the lines of 'This Bible has been donated by the Gideons' printed on the cover, or on one of the very first few pages.
-
Of course not, nor would I ask that the Bible be shorn of its bigotry, I'd just ask that it shouldn't be handed out.
It appears that a number of people have found such a Bible at a time that they have been in mental turmoil, perhaps even considering suicide and - having read some of the passages and (in some cases larger chunks) - have found peace of mind, and rethought their future intentions. I'm not saying that they have become believers, but I'd have thought that one person stopped from committing suicide or some other detrimental act is a good enough reason for thm to be available in hotel rooms. People are, after all, within their rights to ignore them.
-
It appears that a number of people have found such a Bible at a time that they have been in mental turmoil, perhaps even considering suicide and - having read some of the passages and (in some cases larger chunks) - have found peace of mind, and rethought their future intentions. I'm not saying that they have become believers, but I'd have thought that one person stopped from committing suicide or some other detrimental act is a good enough reason for thm to be available in hotel rooms. People are, after all, within their rights to ignore them.
If one person might be saved by good pornography, then that should be there as well?
-
If one person might be saved by good pornography, then that should be there as well?
Is there any evidence to support such a supposition?
-
Is there any evidence to support such a supposition?
Where's the evidence to support yours?
-
Is there any evidence to support such a supposition?
Yep
-
Of course not, nor would I ask that the Bible be shorn of its bigotry, I'd just ask that it shouldn't be handed out.
Stalinist.
-
Stalinist.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay 20,000 points for meeeeeeeee! :D
-
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay 20,000 points for meeeeeeeee! :D
Arseholeist
-
Stalinist.
I argue that the Bible should not be censored and you call me a Stalinist.
My inability to take you seriously is definitely coming to a middle.
-
Arseholeist
Hee hee, Vlad is still pissed from Christmas and isn't even bothering :D
-
Hee hee, Vlad is still pissed from Christmas and isn't even bothering :D
An arseholeist is one who believes that arseholes exist. The existence of toilet paper would seem to put that beyond doubt.
-
I argue that the Bible should not be censored and you call me a Stalinist.
My inability to take you seriously is definitely coming to a middle.
Didn't you want it not to be distributed as well though?
-
Didn't you want it not to be distributed as well though?
I didn't want it to be "handed out". In the context it was clear this meant in schools and hotels. I have no objection to people putting copies of the Bible in bookshops and libraries - under fiction.
-
I didn't want it to be "handed out". In the context it was clear this meant in schools and hotels. I have no objection to people putting copies of the Bible in bookshops and libraries - under fiction.
Yeah, your sort has no trouble with The God Delusion being displayed in the science section at Waterstones.
-
I didn't want it to be "handed out". In the context it was clear this meant in schools and hotels. I have no objection to people putting copies of the Bible in bookshops and libraries - under fiction.
While they are at it they can ensure churches put signs up saying. 'For Entertainment Purposes Only', same as spiritualist mediums have to. Why single out one lot of beliefs that claim much but can't prove their claims?
-
Yeah, your sort has no trouble with The God Delusion being displayed in the science section at Waterstones.
This sort does, as the book doesn't belong in the Science section. The vast bulk of Dawkins's books do, but that one doesn't.
-
Yeah, your sort has no trouble with The God Delusion being displayed in the science section at Waterstones.
That is clearly the wrong place to put it as it isn't a science book although Dawkins is a scientist.
Many of his earlier books are clearly popular science books and fully deserve to be in the science section, along with Brief History of Time etc, but not The God Delusion.
-
Yeah, your sort has no trouble with The God Delusion being displayed in the science section at Waterstones.
That would be a clear misclassification.
-
And to be completely fair, the Bible isn't entirely fiction.
-
ippy, taking them to a bin outside the hotel doesn't work either. Most hotels have an arrangement with Gideons that they can come in and replace the bibles that have been taken (and many do get taken) or thrown away, on a regular basis.
It's far worse if you don't at least try Hope.
lppy
-
They belong to the hotel Ippy, plus someone else might choose to read it, even if you don't. They are usually hidden in a drawer.
I wouldn't dream of throwing them out when staying in a hotel anymore than I would throw something out if I was a guest in someone else's house.
Why would you do that?
:o
They probably think you are like one of those people who take the towels and bathrobes when they leave, except your fetish is bibles :o
Why or how would anyone get sexual pleasure from taking and then throwing a bible into a waste bin.?
ippy
-
They belong to the hotel Ippy, plus someone else might choose to read it, even if you don't. They are usually hidden in a drawer.
I wouldn't dream of throwing them out when staying in a hotel anymore than I would throw something out if I was a guest in someone else's house.
Why would you do that?
:o
They probably think you are like one of those people who take the towels and bathrobes when they leave, except your fetish is bibles :o
The solution is, of course, for the hotel chains themselves to refuse to accept and distribute the bibles. And I gather a number are now.
It has always seemed bizarre to me that a hotel should feel it appropriate to accept, what is in effect, promotional material for one specific religion, to be placed in every single room.
The notion that this is appropriate in our highly multicultural society where most people aren't religious and those that are actively religious, seems way past its sell by date.
Kind of akin to the rule in desert island discs that you get the Bible and Shakespeare 'free' and get one other book. That's merely a bit of fun, unlike allowing religious organisation access to hotel rooms to distribute promotional material. If you want to read a bible, bring your own.
-
Throwing away hotel property, IMO is almost as bad as stealing.
But are they hotel property?
I'm not sure they actually are - aren't they the property of the Gideon organisation and the hotel has allow them to place their books in the hotel's rooms.
-
Yes they are the property of the hotel, they are discretely put in a drawer for the use of guests if they wish to make use of it.
Why do you assume that? Unless the ownership is actually passed from the Gideon organisation to the hotel then I think they remain the property of the Gideon organisation.
However anything that doesn't belong to you, belongs to the hotel.
Not necessarily - if I asked whether a hotel would be prepared to display marketing materials, or even examples of luxury products, those wouldn't necessarily become the property of the hotel. They would effectively be items 'on loan' from the provider for a particular purpose.
I think it is the height of rudeness to throw away a book that belongs to the hotel and is subtly put in a drawer ( for the use of other guests) because of some prejudice some hold.
It's uneccessary.
Indeed it might be rude, but not really rude to the hotel - but rude to the Gideon organisation that provided the books. The only real issue to the hotel is that their staff are likely to need to spend the company's time 're-stocking' the bibles provided by Gideon.
Much better for them to say - 'sure this was something that hotels used to do back in the 20thC, but it isn't really appropriate in this day and age. We'd prefer not to be seen to 'side' with any particular religion so we won't be having your books in our hotel rooms.
I see no reason why the hotel cannot hold a small number of 'emergency' bibles (and korans etc) if a customer request one as they'd forgotten their own - just as hotels often will provide toothbrushes etc.
But to assume that every room should have a bible (but no other religious book) really isn't appropriate in this day and age.
-
I do actually agree with you on many points, but I do think if someone has the urge to throw away a book hidden away in a drawer ( they have no reason to even open )when they are probably only staying in for a night or two, has a psychological problem.
If they go to the length of throwing it away off site, it shows an even bigger problem.
IMO it's not normal behaviour.
Most people don't bother to open the drawer.
Once it even gave me and my husband a bit of a laugh ( and he is an Athiest ) as the one in the drawer was updated with modern language and it sounded hilarious.
The bibles do belong to the hotel because the Gideons give them, not loan them.
If you don't want a bible in your room you can always stay at a travelodge
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726128/Travelodge-removes-Bible-room.html
I think they have taken the most sensible way, by keeping some behind the reception.
Most travellers are not looking for religious inspiration, I think the c of e is out of touch with the modern traveller.
I think hotels do it because it's what used to be done, if guests don't want it they need to give sensible feedback, not aggravating the hotels by binning things.
🌹
I too think that Travelodge have a sensible approach - not to place bibles in every room, but to have some (and I presume korans etc) available at reception for anyone who wants one (which I suspect will be very few).
I still don't agree that you can presume that the hotel owns the bibles. It depends entirely on what the 'agreement' between the hotel and the Gideons is.
I don't think the agreement is - we give you some bibles - they are yours, your property to do with as you wish. No I think the agreement is that the hotel agrees to place Gideon's bibles in each hotel room (although clearly Travelodge won't) - if that is the case the bibles may well remain the property of the Gideons, with the hotel agreeing merely to perform the service of placing one in each room.
There are plenty of other examples (often in luxury hotels) - for example pieces of art-work which are displayed in the public space or in rooms but are remain the property of the company producing them and are placed in the rooms as marketing in the hope that visitors may buy them. They aren't the property of the hotel, nor or the guest, yet may well be in the hotel room.
-
The solution is, of course, for the hotel chains themselves to refuse to accept and distribute the bibles. And I gather a number are now.
It has always seemed bizarre to me that a hotel should feel it appropriate to accept, what is in effect, promotional material for one specific religion, to be placed in every single room.
The notion that this is appropriate in our highly multicultural society where most people aren't religious and those that are actively religious, seems way past its sell by date.
Kind of akin to the rule in desert island discs that you get the Bible and Shakespeare 'free' and get one other book. That's merely a bit of fun, unlike allowing religious organisation access to hotel rooms to distribute promotional material. If you want to read a bible, bring your own.
Best comment so far. It really is a weird situation. Yet again, you wouldn't get it with a political party.
-
Best comment so far. It really is a weird situation. Yet again, you wouldn't get it with a political party.
So, you'r esupoortive of throwing out the bay with the bath water?
-
So, you'r esupoortive of throwing out the bay with the bath water?
Pardon?
-
So, you'r esupoortive of throwing out the bay with the bath water?
You must have a very large bath (and yes I do realise it is a typo) ;).
-
So, you'r esupoortive of throwing out the bay with the bath water?
What baby?
I don't see why a bible placed in every hotel room whether or not it is wanted can be considered a 'baby' in 'baby and bathwater' context.
If you want to read a bible in a hotel room then you are very welcome to bring your own along. And the Travelodge approach seems sensible too - that the hotel keeps a few copies of key books (e.g. sacred texts) that are available on request to those that might suddenly need them but have forgotten to bring their own.
Given that a hotel room is effectively 'home' for the guest during their stay I think it is perfectly reasonable for guests not to have sacred texts automatically provided in their 'temporary home' unless that is something they actively want - in which case, again, they can bring their own or request one from reception.
-
What baby?
I don't see why a bible placed in every hotel room whether or not it is wanted can be considered a 'baby' in 'baby and bathwater' context.
If having a Bible in a hotel room can be shown to have saved lives, which I understand it can be, to suddenly ditch them, or have them available only on request seems to be pointless. If someone comes into a hotel with the intention of committing suicide or suffering from some other traumatic, is having a Bible only available 'on request' a sensible precaution, when having them in rooms where someone can pick them up unpremeditatedly, and without the emnbarrassment of having to ask someone for it, really a good idea? After all, one isn't required to pick the Bible up when its in your room, so there is no coercion going on.
Given that a hotel room is effectively 'home' for the guest during their stay I think it is perfectly reasonable for guests not to have sacred texts automatically provided in their 'temporary home' unless that is something they actively want - in which case, again, they can bring their own or request one from reception.
There are volumes and documents in my home that I have absolutely no interest in. I suspect that there are in yours too, especially if you have a partner/spouse/children/friend who come in and out of the place. Are you going to say that those documents shouldn't be allowed into the place?
-
I doubt a Bible has a life, more likely someone might take their own if they believe some of the stuff in it to be true!
A mentally ill cousin of mine tried to commit suicide after some Biblical verses were brought to his attention by a misguided born again!
-
If having a Bible in a hotel room can be shown to have saved lives, which I understand it can be
Understand on what basis? Where's the evidence for this assertion?
to suddenly ditch them, or have them available only on request seems to be pointless.
The point very much remains the one that Prof. Diddy outlined in #41 above.
If someone comes into a hotel with the intention of committing suicide or suffering from some other traumatic, is having a Bible only available 'on request' a sensible precaution, when having them in rooms where someone can pick them up unpremeditatedly, and without the emnbarrassment of having to ask someone for it, really a good idea?
Interesting that you see asking for a Bible as something embarrassing ;)
After all, one isn't required to pick the Bible up when its in your room, so there is no coercion going on.
It shouldn't be there in the first place for the reasons that PD has already outlined: the principle one being that it looks like an endorsement of only one religion - arguably one interpretation of one religion - which doesn't include all the other religions, or indeed any other belief system such as a political philosophy. Why is it only a Gideon Bible that has to be foisted onto hotel chains - why are they not there too? British society is often called multicultural and so it is, but the vast bulk of the population are non-religious.
There are volumes and documents in my home that I have absolutely no interest in. I suspect that there are in yours too, especially if you have a partner/spouse/children/friend who come in and out of the place. Are you going to say that those documents shouldn't be allowed into the place?
Private homes are not commercial businesses unless they also happen to be B & Bs.
-
If having a Bible in a hotel room can be shown to have saved lives, which I understand it can be, to suddenly ditch them, or have them available only on request seems to be pointless. If someone comes into a hotel with the intention of committing suicide or suffering from some other traumatic, is having a Bible only available 'on request' a sensible precaution, when having them in rooms where someone can pick them up unpremeditatedly, and without the emnbarrassment of having to ask someone for it, really a good idea? After all, one isn't required to pick the Bible up when its in your room, so there is no coercion going on.
Sorry - but you are really talking non-sense. Are you really expecting anyone to take your notion of Gideon as suicide prevention strategy seriously.
If you really think this then hiding it in a drawer is out - must be on show. What about on bridges, cliffs, level crossings etc. In your nonsense notion they should all have prominently displayed bibles - just in case.
I think the ability to call the Samaritan (or other support organisation) would be much more helpful. So perhaps hotels should be required to have big 'Samaritans' posters displayed just in case.
There are volumes and documents in my home that I have absolutely no interest in. I suspect that there are in yours too, especially if you have a partner/spouse/children/friend who come in and out of the place. Are you going to say that those documents shouldn't be allowed into the place?
But that's your choice. What we are talking about here is a room, automatically 'pre-installed' with a bible whether the guest wants it or not.
If a bible it important to you bring your own.
-
Sorry - but you are really talking non-sense. Are you really expecting anyone to take your notion of Gideon as suicide prevention strategy seriously.
If you really think this then hiding it in a drawer is out - must be on show. What about on bridges, cliffs, level crossings etc. In your nonsense notion they should all have prominently displayed bibles - just in case.
Quite a few people hang themselves from trees, so every tree with branches sufficiently high off the ground to suspend a body should have its own Bible.
I think this one's going to take a bit of work ...
-
If having a Bible in a hotel room can be shown to have saved lives, which I understand it can be, to suddenly ditch them, or have them available only on request seems to be pointless.
You do understand that Rocky Racoon is a pop song by the Beatles and not a factual documentary, don't you.
-
That's the second genuine laugh out loud moment in about an hour or so. It's fun on here at times ;D
-
Quite a few people hang themselves from trees, so every tree with branches sufficiently high off the ground to suspend a body should have its own Bible.
I think this one's going to take a bit of work ...
Why just the tree - surely if I buy some rope from the hardware store it must come complete with a bible - just in case.
-
... and a free Bhagavad Gita with every set of kitchen knives.
-
I doubt a Bible has a life, more likely someone might take their own if they believe some of the stuff in it to be true!
A mentally ill cousin of mine tried to commit suicide after some Biblical verses were brought to his attention by a misguided born again!
So to take Hope's illogical argument to its extreme - as a bible might also drive some people toward suicide, every bible must also come with another bible - just in case.
-
Two Bibles for every tree that someone might hang themselves from now?
But what if we cut down all the trees to provide all the paper for the two Bibles that every tree needs - oh, wait ...
-
;D
-
Given that Hope seems to be so concerned about preventing suicides perhaps we could compare which of these would provide the most effective way to prevent suicide.
Option 1: For an organisation with a reported revenue of $12 billion to spend their time and effort in distributing a billion bibles to hotel rooms, on the off chance that once is a very, very blue moon a person contemplating suicide at a hotel might decide otherwise through the off chance of finding and reading a bible - noting too that there will be others for whom reading that bible might further exacerbate the likelihood of suicide.
Option 2: For an organisation to put the same time and effort into providing counselling services for those at risk of suicide and broader services to address mental health issues.
Hmm - tricky one, isn't it.
Put it this way - who prevents more suicides - the $12 billion Gideon movement or the £13 million Samaritan movement.
-
In the article (link above) one hotel replaced the bible with "40 shades of grey". ;D
Did they get a 20% discount for a bulk purchase?
There was a window in the bathroom so you could watch your other half on the loo and shower from the bed , fortunately there was a heavy drape .......... ??? :o
I once stayed in a hotel where the bathroom had a set of double doors. The toilet was lined up perfectly with the crack in the middle, so if you were sitting on it, you could see everything going on in the room.
-
I think back in the 1800 's ( when this "bibles in hotel rooms "all seems to have started ) travelling far from home was pretty much unknown, the working classes couldn't afford to stay in a hotel and the middle classes probably did read a bible often because religion was perceived as part of that educated refinement. Heathens were perceived as uncouth and savages.
( or you could argue, the possibility of more travel was just starting out)
I think in those days, the bible in hotels had some purpose.
It was there if those who could afford to travel forgot theirs and was intended to bring comfort and a sense of familiarity to people away from home.
It was a different world.
Most working class families didn't get family holidays where they went away, if they were lucky mum might take them hop picking, but that was work too.
So in those days, leaving and having to be away from home was considered much more traumatic.
We live in different times now, the comfort of the familiarity of the bible no longer applies to the vast majority who hop on a plane to the other end of the planet, almost without thought.
Plus the bible isn't a symbol of familiarity it was years ago, when just a trip in the uk took a lot longer.
They haven't always had cars for example and being away from home was a lot more unusual.
We've outgrown the reason for the custom IMO.
I think a lot of what you say is right - we have certainly outgrown the custom.
But the problem is that the Gideons are phenomenally well organised and well funded so no doubt they simply appear at hotels with further bibles for distribution and it would take a strong hotel manager to simply say 'no' when they have taken them for decades. It is a kind of passive bullying in a way - simply expecting what has always happened (which is let's face it a favour by the hotel to the Gideon's) to always happen.
So hotel chains (just as Travelodge has) need to say 'no - we aren't going to take these bibles and distribute them any more. This isn't appropriate in the 21stC and it does fit with our business model nor with what our customers want as a service'.
But I guess some chains will be scared of the hyperbolic media over-reaction just as we saw for Travelodge. The response beggared belief. Here is a situation where a hotel chain does a favour to an evangelical organisation, without any requirement so to no, nor any requirement that a bible should be in any hotel room. Yet when they decide not to do it any more they are accused of 'banning' things - they never banned anything, because there was never an obligation to provide the bible in the first place.
-
I will be interested to read this thread. When we were given our Gideon NTs in the first year at secondary school, my new form teacher threw them out to us one by one. A good indicator of the sort of bloke he would turn out to be (a bit sarcastic but quite a good bloke generally); he spotted me reading it and promptly told me not to! I met him years after I'd left the school and amazingly he had married the RE teacher !!!
We were also given a hymn book which was required for assembly each day. How cool was it to see big cocky sixth formers having to sing hymns!
-
The toilet was lined up perfectly with the crack in the middle
It's always a more pleasant experience when that happens, Jezza.
-
But I guess some chains will be scared of the hyperbolic media over-reaction just as we saw for Travelodge. The response beggared belief. Here is a situation where a hotel chain does a favour to an evangelical organisation, without any requirement so to no, nor any requirement that a bible should be in any hotel room. Yet when they decide not to do it any more they are accused of 'banning' things - they never banned anything, because there was never an obligation to provide the bible in the first place.
Vide the recent 'Christianity banned in cinemas' non-story.
-
Vide the recent 'Christianity banned in cinemas' non-story.
Indeed
-
I will be interested to read this thread. When we were given our Gideon NTs in the first year at secondary school, my new form teacher threw them out to us one by one. A good indicator of the sort of bloke he would turn out to be (a bit sarcastic but quite a good bloke generally); he spotted me reading it and promptly told me not to! I met him years after I'd left the school and amazingly he had married the RE teacher !!!
We were also given a hymn book which was required for assembly each day. How cool was it to see big cocky sixth formers having to sing hymns!
The Gideons handing out bibles to individual school kids is much more problematic in my opinion than their bibles being placed in hotel rooms.
I don't think this happens though in the UK - and certainly any head teacher approached by the Gideons with a few to handing bibles to school kids should be told (politely) where to go.
-
The Gideons handing out bibles to individual school kids is much more problematic in my opinion than their bibles being placed in hotel rooms.
I don't think this happens though in the UK
I don't know if it still happens now but it certainly did at my school 1983/4.
-
I don't know if it still happens now but it certainly did at my school 1983/4.
It didn't in mine in the late 1970s and early 80s.
Certainly not happened with any of my kids and I've never heard anyone else mention this as happening recently. Maybe in faith schools, but I'd have thought they would want bible more consistent with their denomination.
-
I
But I guess some chains will be scared of the hyperbolic media over-reaction just as we saw for Travelodge. The response beggared belief. Here is a situation where a hotel chain does a favour to an evangelical organisation, without any requirement so to no, nor any requirement that a bible should be in any hotel room. Yet when they decide not to do it any more they are accused of 'banning' things - they never banned anything, because there was never an obligation to provide the bible in the first place.
I would have thought that, if a hotel chain quietly said no, or even accepted the Bibles but didn't put them in the rooms, nobody would notice.
-
Thoughts on the Travelodge stopping having the bibles in rooms from the Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow
http://thurible.net/2014/08/16/travelodge-got-right-removing-gideon-bibles/
-
I would have thought that, if a hotel chain quietly said no, or even accepted the Bibles but didn't put them in the rooms, nobody would notice.
Well it didn't work for Travelodge.
I think the problem is that however quietly the hotel says 'no' to the Gideons, they won't be quiet and they will go straight to the media. I can't imagine it was Travelodge who created the media storm, can you?
-
The Gideons handing out bibles to individual school kids is much more problematic in my opinion than their bibles being placed in hotel rooms.
I don't think this happens though in the UK - and certainly any head teacher approached by the Gideons with a few to handing bibles to school kids should be told (politely) where to go.
It used to
When I was given mine I had to go to the front in assembly and promise to read it every day, any child that was brave enough to say no would have been punished ( the cane)
The gideons did there own sermon in the assembly.
-
When I was given mine I had to go to the front in assembly and promise to read it every day, any child that was brave enough to say no would have been punished ( the cane)
So no pressure or coercion at all, then.
-
It used to
When I was given mine I had to go to the front in assembly and promise to read it every day, any child that was brave enough to say no would have been punished ( the cane)
The gideons did there own sermon in the assembly.
Appalling, just appalling.
-
The Gideons handing out bibles to individual school kids is much more problematic in my opinion than their bibles being placed in hotel rooms.
I don't think this happens though in the UK - and certainly any head teacher approached by the Gideons with a few to handing bibles to school kids should be told (politely) where to go.
The Gideons still hand out New Testaments to Yr 7 pupils across the UK. As for your suggestion that "any head teacher approached by the Gideons with a few to handing bibles to school kids should be told (politely) where to go (sic)" I couldn't agree more!! ;D
A few years ago, I collected one of as much as I could that the Year 7 and 8 kids were given by various groups over the space of a year - just to get an idea of what they were being bombarded with. They ranged from condoms to New Testaments, alcohol calculators to advice of budgetting. Nothing wrong with any of those per se but which were actually appropriate for 11 and 12 year olds?
-
I do NOT believe that the Gideons would stand there and allow a child to be caned for not making the promise. Talk about inventing things and running a smear campaign. Absolutely NOT believable. I also received a Gideons New Testament in grade 5, no promises demanded and no CANINGS!!
I have never used a Gideons bible when staying in hotels. I always have my own. I did note the first time in Waikiki that the Buddhist's have a book sitting right beside the Gideon's in the top drawer.
-
The Gideons still hand out New Testaments to Yr 7 pupils across the UK. As for your suggestion that "any head teacher approached by the Gideons with a few to handing bibles to school kids should be told (politely) where to go (sic)" I couldn't agree more!! ;D
A few years ago, I collected one of as much as I could that the Year 7 and 8 kids were given by various groups over the space of a year - just to get an idea of what they were being bombarded with. They ranged from condoms to New Testaments, alcohol calculators to advice of budgetting. Nothing wrong with any of those per se but which were actually appropriate for 11 and 12 year olds?
No idea where your information comes from, but I have two kids who have recently been through year 7 and 8 and they have not been given 'condoms to New Testaments, alcohol calculators' - there has been some information, mainly aimed at parents as well as the kids on financial budgeting, which I don't see as inappropriate for 11 or 12 year olds. All the other things you mention aren't appropriate for that age group. In my opinion handing out non-neutral evangelical materials to kids is never appropriate in a school, whatever the age of the kids.
-
No idea where your information comes from, but I have two kids who have recently been through year 7 and 8 and they have not been given 'condoms to New Testaments, alcohol calculators' - there has been some information, mainly aimed at parents as well as the kids on financial budgeting, which I don't see as inappropriate for 11 or 12 year olds. All the other things you mention aren't appropriate for that age group. In my opinion handing out non-neutral evangelical materials to kids is never appropriate in a school, whatever the age of the kids.
PD, my information came from the concrete evidence of what was handed out - but I wasn't saying that it occurs in every school - in the same way that Gideons don't hand out New Testaments to Year 7 students in every school in the UK. Mine was but an example.
As for handing out 'non-neutral evangelical' materials, copies of the RSV and even the AV aren't particularly 'non-neutral', let alone evangelical, even though they may not be the most up-to-date and therefore linguistically correct versions.
I would agree with you, though would use the word 'evangelistic', if people were handing out tracts that were highly denominational or radicalising.
-
PD, my information came from the concrete evidence of what was handed out - but I wasn't saying that it occurs in every school - in the same way that Gideons don't hand out New Testaments to Year 7 students in every school in the UK. Mine was but an example.
When and where was this - I think that any head handing out, or allowing the handing out of condoms to 11 year children would be in immediate hot water.
As for handing out 'non-neutral evangelical' materials, copies of the RSV and even the AV aren't particularly 'non-neutral', let alone evangelical, even though they may not be the most up-to-date and therefore linguistically correct versions.
I would agree with you, though would use the word 'evangelistic', if people were handing out tracts that were highly denominational or radicalising.
What are RSV and AV Hope? Are these types of bible?
The issue is that no bibles should be handed out to kids in schools from third party organisations whose mission is evangelising. I have no issue with bibles being available in schools for use as part of learning in RE lessons, which those lessons should be neutral and aimed at increasing understanding of the belief system of christians rather that at trying to get children to become christians.
School isn't the place for evangelising it is the place for learning.
-
What are RSV and AV Hope? Are these types of bible?
Revised Standard Version and Authorised Version respectively. The AV is more commonly known as the King James Bible.
-
Revised Standard Version and Authorised Version respectively. The AV is more commonly known as the King James Bible.
Thank you - not really standard acronyms.
As pointed out in my post, the version of the bible is irrelevant - it is the approach and the motivation of the organisation providing them which is the problem.
-
I do NOT believe that the Gideons would stand there and allow a child to be caned for not making the promise. Talk about inventing things and running a smear campaign. Absolutely NOT believable. I also received a Gideons New Testament in grade 5, no promises demanded and no CANINGS!!
I have never used a Gideons bible when staying in hotels. I always have my own. I did note the first time in Waikiki that the Buddhist's have a book sitting right beside the Gideon's in the top drawer.
No I'm not saying the Gideons would have stood there or that they would have approved, but you would have been called to the headmasters office afterwards and been given the cane.
I was caned for a lot less, back in the bad old days when caning was common.
I'm not making it up.
It was a very narrow minded Christian primary/junior village school.
Christianity was forced on young children and at eight ( being unchristened ) I was made to stand up in front of the class by the teacher and was told I wasn't in the book of the lamb and I was going to burn in agony for eternity.
Basically they shamed me, because I was different. My best friend s dad belonged to a coven and it was all kept quiet because of prejudice ....... People can be very nasty sometimes.
If you were different you kept it to yourselves or you got treated like I did.
Caning me for being ( in their eyes rude enough to refuse to promise to read a bible every day) as a rebel it would have got me caned, no question.
You got caned for talking or not behaving in church when they decided to make us walk down the road.
In fact you got caned for just about anything, I think they must have believed in spare the rod spoil the child.
Or for not removing your hat or waving and bowing and scraping to local gentry as they went past in a car. ( something else I hated)
Considering my own experiences in a "faith" school I suppose it's surprising I'm not totally opposed to them, but I think schools are very different now.
I also think it wasn't typical of a faith school.
In those days teachers hit children, not like now.
You were expected to be a Christian and I remember them mentioning other religions once, it was Hinduism and it was described as a system of belief for savages.
If I thought faith schools were all like that I'd oppose them too.
I have heard some horror stories from others who went to a catholic boarding school.
But my particular school was c of e.
-
Appalling, just appalling.
The problem being with the school, not the book.
-
That's a matter of opinion.
-
The problem being with the school, not the book.
And with the Gideons for thinking that evangelising to young kids in schools is ethical behaviour - it isn't.
-
No I'm not saying the Gideons would have stood there or that they would have approved, but you would have been called to the headmasters office afterwards and been given the cane.
I was caned for a lot less, back in the bad old days when caning was common.
I'm not making it up.
It was a very narrow minded Christian primary/junior village school.
Christianity was forced on young children and at eight ( being unchristened ) I was made to stand up in front of the class by the teacher and was told I wasn't in the book of the lamb and I was going to burn in agony for eternity.
Basically they shamed me, because I was different. My best friend s dad belonged to a coven and it was all kept quiet because of prejudice ....... People can be very nasty sometimes.
If you were different you kept it to yourselves or you got treated like I did.
Caning me for being ( in their eyes rude enough to refuse to promise to read a bible every day) as a rebel it would have got me caned, no question.
You got caned for talking or not behaving in church when they decided to make us walk down the road.
In fact you got caned for just about anything, I think they must have believed in spare the rod spoil the child.
Or for not removing your hat or waving and bowing and scraping to local gentry as they went past in a car. ( something else I hated)
Considering my own experiences in a "faith" school I suppose it's surprising I'm not totally opposed to them, but I think schools are very different now.
I also think it wasn't typical of a faith school.
In those days teachers hit children, not like now.
You were expected to be a Christian and I remember them mentioning other religions once, it was Hinduism and it was described as a system of belief for savages.
If I thought faith schools were all like that I'd oppose them too.
I have heard some horror stories from others who went to a catholic boarding school.
But my particular school was c of e.
I think the problem with faith schools is that, although it might not occur in every one, it can occur - that being a view that one of the jobs of the school is to bring up the pupils to be of a specific religion.
And there are plenty of faith schools that still do that - effectively training the kids to be devout catholics etc as part of their mission. I think that is simply wrong. No school (certainly no state funded school) should ever consider that part of its mission is to ensure that their pupils develop a particular religious faith.
-
And with the Gideons for thinking that evangelising to young kids in schools is ethical behaviour - it isn't.
Why?
-
Why?
If you have to ask it suggests you don't really have much understanding of ethics.
Aligning yourself with a belief (whether political or religious) should be based on consent - and if you know anything about consent then you would understand that evangelising children is about as far removed from being ethical as it is possible to get, falling foul of ethical practice on just about every ground.
-
I think the problem with faith schools is that, although it might not occur in every one, it can occur - that being a view that one of the jobs of the school is to bring up the pupils to be of a specific religion.
And there are plenty of faith schools that still do that - effectively training the kids to be devout catholics etc as part of their mission. I think that is simply wrong. No school (certainly no state funded school) should ever consider that part of its mission is to ensure that their pupils develop a particular religious faith.
On one hand I am all for parents being able to send their children to schools that stand for their values they believe in. So Muslims should be able to send their children to schools that honour Mohammed and that tradition and Christians send their children to schools that teach their values about and around the teachings of Jesus.
I don't agree that the only schools that should be faith schools are private ones.
Firstly because only people with money are given a choice and secondly because private schools are not governed by the same rules and controls that a state school is.
Everyone should have access to a faith school for their children if they wish, not just the well off elite.
I think faith schools need to be state schools because they then have to follow the national curriculum ( if you look at the gov website on it, private schools don't have to)
The national curriculum acts as a form of control on what is taught.
The areas I think need looking at are the ones where they are not just teaching the values but insisting the child actually belongs to the religion.
All state schools should take a mix of religions and treat other religions with respect.
I used to enjoy assemblies on the whole, where the school got together at the start of the day to catch up on notices and relevant things and sometimes children joined in by playing instruments and singing together.
It gives the school day a structure.
The reason most don't now, has nothing to do with religion but the whole school won't fit because most schools are overcrowded.
I think there is a danger of unsuitable people teaching and it being excused because they are using religion as an excuse.
I think faith schools tolerate the wrong sort of people in control. They are sometimes not critical enough.
It's the same in churches though, I've noticed some very unsuitable people try and teach Sunday school lessons, and although many Christians do know really, they don't tend to be critical of fellow Christians.
I do think there are potential issues with faith schools but I do think they are important.
Some secular schools are dire, have lots of problems of their own, my two went to secular schools and I wasn't impressed by them,either really.
I don't feel the need to throw out faith schools because my experience wasn't that good.
I don't think my grown up children's experience in a secular school was that wonderful, it just didn't involve religion.
I think it's human nature that a small percentage of teachers are unsuitable, it's the children who see it.
The problem is that school itself teaches children what to think and believe, and some teachers do it in a way that upsets their pupils.
You can get a bigoted atheist just as easily as a bigoted Christian.
The problem then is you wind up with Muslim and Christian families feeling their child is being brainwashed into atheism.
A creeping atheism.
You need good regulated faith and secular schools that teach good values and inspires children to find out more, and about how others see the world.
I can understand why a religious person could see the move to all secular schools as being a move to influencing their child to reject a religious outlook or to break them away from their family or their community.
It's all a battle for children's minds, and the end product.
Children have minds of there own though.
I don't see trying to influence children into being non religious ( or keep it at home only/ private) is a positive step, anymore than teaching them being religious is the only way to be.
Both have their issues.
I think we need faith schools as state funded schools.
I'd never support a move to get rid of them because I think what passes for secularism in many cases is actually worse.
Parents should have a say in the type of school their child goes too, and I don't like the move by elements in our society to take away their choice and influence the minds of their children instead..
???
-
On one hand I am all for parents being able to send their children to schools that stand for their values they believe in. So Muslims should be able to send their children to schools that honour Mohammed and that tradition and Christians send their children to schools that teach their values about and around the teachings of Jesus.
I don't agree that the only schools that should be faith schools are private ones.
Firstly because only people with money are given a choice and secondly because private schools are not governed by the same rules and controls that a state school is.
I fundamentally disagree.
There is an obligation on the state to provide quality education for all children - there is not an obligation to provide bespoke types of education based on the beliefs of some parents. All state funded provision should be suitable for all children - and faith schools clearly aren't.
There is a second and equally unacceptable matter. All state provision should be available to people based on need and without discrimination on any of the accepted 'protected characteristics' - which includes religion. Faith schools are allowed to (and most do) discriminate in admissions on the basis of religious belief. That is completely unacceptable. Can you imagine if this were a hospital or a GP - you are waiting in the waiting room and someone else jumps the queue and the reason bing that they are of a different religion to you - completely unacceptable in any publicly funded service.
If people want to send their kids to a faith school they are welcome to do so, but there should be no funding from the state - they should be within the private sector. If parents squeal that they can't afford it, well how about the churches actually paying for this. If it so important to religious parents and churches for there to be faith schools then surely it would be high on their priorities to put their hands in their own pockets, rather than rely on state handouts.
And nothing in the notion that faith schools should not be state funded contravene accepted human right (e.g. UDHR) where the ability to education children in a faith is a negative right (i.e. the state should not prevent you) rather than a positive right (i.e. the state should have an obligation to provide a school paid for form the state).
There is also a pragmatic argument - if ever child is allowed access to a CofE school and a catholic school, then it isn't acceptable not to have a muslim school in every area, and a jewish, hindu etc etc one. And belief isn't just religious, so a case can be equally made for vegetarian or vegan school. environmentalist schools or even political schools. This is practically impossible - because who loses out - the vast majority who want to send their kids to schools that are neutral with regard to religious or political etc belief. It is classic case of pandering to a small minority at the expense of the majority wishes.
-
I fundamentally disagree.
There is an obligation on the state to provide quality education for all children - there is not an obligation to provide bespoke types of education based on the beliefs of some parents. All state funded provision should be suitable for all children - and faith schools clearly aren't.
There is a second and equally unacceptable matter. All state provision should be available to people based on need and without discrimination on any of the accepted 'protected characteristics' - which includes religion. Faith schools are allowed to (and most do) discriminate in admissions on the basis of religious belief. That is completely unacceptable. Can you imagine if this were a hospital or a GP - you are waiting in the waiting room and someone else jumps the queue and the reason bing that they are of a different religion to you - completely unacceptable in any publicly funded service.
If people want to send their kids to a faith school they are welcome to do so, but there should be no funding from the state - they should be within the private sector. If parents squeal that they can't afford it, well how about the churches actually paying for this. If it so important to religious parents and churches for there to be faith schools then surely it would be high on their priorities to put their hands in their own pockets, rather than rely on state handouts.
And nothing in the notion that faith schools should not be state funded contravene accepted human right (e.g. UDHR) where the ability to education children in a faith is a negative right (i.e. the state should not prevent you) rather than a positive right (i.e. the state should have an obligation to provide a school paid for form the state).
There is also a pragmatic argument - if ever child is allowed access to a CofE school and a catholic school, then it isn't acceptable not to have a muslim school in every area, and a jewish, hindu etc etc one. And belief isn't just religious, so a case can be equally made for vegetarian or vegan school. environmentalist schools or even political schools. This is practically impossible - because who loses out - the vast majority who want to send their kids to schools that are neutral with regard to religious or political etc belief. It is classic case of pandering to a small minority at the expense of the majority wishes.
I think we shall just have to agree to disagree.
IMO a case cannot be made for vegetarian or vegan schools at all, it's pushing an argument until it makes no sense at all.
-
I think we shall just have to agree to disagree.
IMO a case cannot be made for vegetarian or vegan schools at all, it's pushing an argument until it makes no sense at all.
Why?
It is pretty clear that under UK Equalities legislation vegetarianism and veganism are considered legitimate and protected beliefs in just the same manner as religious beliefs. So if people are entitled for the state to fund religious schools I think, were a case to be brought, that the same would need to be afforded to other protected beliefs, including vegetarianism and veganism.
Just because you think there is a line in the sand it doesn't mean that there is a logical argument that that line exists, nor that the law would recognise it.
And don't forget that there are about 12% of the UK population are vegetarian (and by definition that means they are 'active', i.e. practicing) - that about the same, possible more, than active members of all religions in the UK put together. Maybe they want schools that promote vegetarianism to their kids and have a vegetarian ethos. If we allow schools for christians, muslims, jews etc, why on earth not vegetarians.
Of course the only sensible (and ethical) answer is not to fund any schools run on the basis of a particular belief (religious or otherwise) and ensure all state funded schools are neutral with regard to religious and other beliefs.
-
If you have to ask it suggests you don't really have much understanding of ethics.
Aligning yourself with a belief (whether political or religious) should be based on consent - and if you know anything about consent then you would understand that evangelising children is about as far removed from being ethical as it is possible to get, falling foul of ethical practice on just about every ground.
The problem with that is that children are dependent on adults, and so if an adult is providing for a child's needs then the child is naturally going to be influenced by the adults' beliefs. The Gideon Bible has a list entitled "where to find help when:" (followed by headings such as "anxious" or "afraid", and a passage from the New Testament or Psalms which provides help in those situations). If by providing scripture verses which help a child in various situations the Gideons are simply meeting some of his or her needs, I don't see how it is unethical for a child to be influenced by their beliefs (unless they are teaching stuff which is unethical)
-
If one person might be saved by good pornography, then that should be there as well?
Paul Tillich, the distinguished German theologian, seemed to need both (I think he kept the porn in his Bible, not the other way round).
-
The Gideon Bible has a list entitled "where to find help when:" (followed by headings such as "anxious" or "afraid", and a passage from the New Testament or Psalms which provides help in those situations).
Frankly it beggars belief that any sane person would suggest that the appropriate response to a 11 or 12 year old child who is feeling anxious or afraid would be to direct them to a passage in the bible. What planet are you on.
The correct response would be to get them to talk to an adult they feel comfortable talking to about how they are feeling, about why they might be feeling that way and what can be done to help alleviate their anxiety or fear. And that person might be a parent, or perhaps a teacher at school or someone else they trust and feel comfortable talking to.
To send them off to read the bible seems to me to be about as far away from acting in their best interests as you could get.
-
Why?
It is pretty clear that under UK Equalities legislation vegetarianism and veganism are considered legitimate and protected beliefs in just the same manner as religious beliefs. So if people are entitled for the state to fund religious schools I think, were a case to be brought, that the same would need to be afforded to other protected beliefs, including vegetarianism and veganism.
Just because you think there is a line in the sand it doesn't mean that there is a logical argument that that line exists, nor that the law would recognise it.
And don't forget that there are about 12% of the UK population are vegetarian (and by definition that means they are 'active', i.e. practicing) - that about the same, possible more, than active members of all religions in the UK put together. Maybe they want schools that promote vegetarianism to their kids and have a vegetarian ethos. If we allow schools for christians, muslims, jews etc, why on earth not vegetarians.
Of course the only sensible (and ethical) answer is not to fund any schools run on the basis of a particular belief (religious or otherwise) and ensure all state funded schools are neutral with regard to religious and other beliefs.
Because being a vegetarian just means they don't eat meat, it isn't a belief system any more than being diabetic is.
Vegetarians come in all faiths and none and are already catered for with both faith and secular schools.
It's not like vegetarians can't be Christian is it?
Vegetarianism of itself isn't a belief, it's an action.
People are vegetarian for a wide range of reasons, they might not share the beliefs of another vegetarian.
It doesn't follow.
A Christian shares beliefs in common, vegetarians don't.
Not everyone gives up meat for the same reasons.
-
Frankly it beggars belief that any sane person would suggest that the appropriate response to a 11 or 12 year old child who is feeling anxious or afraid would be to direct them to a passage in the bible. What planet are you on.
The correct response would be to get them to talk to an adult they feel comfortable talking to about how they are feeling, about why they might be feeling that way and what can be done to help alleviate their anxiety or fear. And that person might be a parent, or perhaps a teacher at school or someone else they trust and feel comfortable talking to.
To send them off to read the bible seems to me to be about as far away from acting in their best interests as you could get.
Not really.
I can only think you haven't actually read the passages it links too.
If you think that's about as far away from acting in their best interests as you can get, I think you need a reality check.
Dropping bombs on them or neglect are far worse.
There are far worse things for children in life than passages in a bible, which when I've looked, basically just gives them some comfort.
i don't really approve of the Gideons to be honest, but it has more to do with this promise thing and putting children under pressure to read a portion every day.
It's unfair to make children promise something like that IMO.
Having said that, I see no harm in just handing them out.
If it was down to me, children would get a copy of all the holy books as part of RE.
But I wouldn't pressure them into believing in any of them.
It doesn't hurt children to look.
Not all children want to talk to an adult, sometimes they want to think it through for themselves.
I have no issue with a child that wants to read a bible to gain some comfort or some space.
Children don't always want to refer things to an adult, because an adult tells them what they should do.
It isn't always wanted.
Adults with good intentions can sometimes take over.
-
It doesn't hurt children to look.
Providing you make it clear that it is just a belief that may help them to feel better, but is not a proven fact.
-
Providing you make it clear that it is just a belief that may help them to feel better, but is not a proven fact.
I wouldn't tell any child, that any religion was a proven fact.
But I wouldn't tell them God didn't exist, either, or that them feeling better wasn't linked to God in some way.
I wouldn't tell them that prayer didn't work, either.
You never really know what's in someone else's mind, or what they may need at that moment.
Children make up their own minds, and have to work some things out for themselves.
My two are Athiest, but it is who they are.
Other children may see things differently, that's ok.
We aren't all the same.
:)
-
I wouldn't tell them that prayer didn't work, either.
I should hope not, because it undoubtedly can work if the kid already believes God is real. It's an illusion, of course, but it can still work.
-
This is the list of recommended Bible readings found in Gideons. Not ideal for troubled youngsters.
http://www.gideons.org/readthebible/Helps.aspx
-
I can only think you haven't actually read the passages it links too.
Wrong - I've looked them up.
So explain to me why the following may be of use to an 11 year old child who is really anxious about going on a week outward bound activity holiday from school because they are concerned about their weight and have already had negative comments from other kids at the school.
Noting that, of course the Gideons have a one size fits all approach - targeting everyone not just christian kids (indeed their evangelism is most aimed at those who aren't christian as their aim is conversion) - so we should assume this child isn't an active christian and probably has never read the bible or been involved in worship - the child may not believe in god, or is not certain god exists. I make these assumptions because this is the most likely situation for 11 year old children in the UK. So this is what the Gideons think a child should be encouraged to read to sort out their anxiety:
'But now, this is what the LORD says- he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine. 2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze. 3 For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.'
Who in their right mind would think this is an appropriate action for an adult faced with an anxious child. Bonkers.
If you think that's about as far away from acting in their best interests as you can get, I think you need a reality check.
Dropping bombs on them or neglect are far worse.
We are talking about a child who is suffering from anxiety or fear - I don't think anyone would suggest bombing them would be an appropriate course of action.
As to neglect - well you could argue that if faced with that situation as an adult you sent the child off to read sections from the bible which are, frankly' gobbledegook (see above) then that might be an act or neglect - minor neglect for sure, but so far away from what should be done as to take it into that territory. And don't forget that there have been a number of awful cases over the past few years of neglect involving highly religious families neglecting their children due to them being insufficiently pious in their religion.
By the way I know plenty of actively religious people (including my wife) and I cannot imagine any of them would consider the appropriate response to an anxious or fearful child would be to send them off to read the bible. Nope understanding, listening, hugs, reassurance etc, etc yes - sending them off to read sections of the bible - never.
-
This is the list of recommended Bible readings found in Gideons. Not ideal for troubled youngsters.
http://www.gideons.org/readthebible/Helps.aspx
Indeed.
And lets not forget that every troubled child is an individual. Their concerns, the reasons for them and the solutions to them will be as individual as they are. So no 'one size fits all' approach would be suitable. Without trying to understand the specific issues of that child and their individual needs you will never truly be able to support and help them.
Sending them off to read obscure and incomprehensible sections of the bible (or any other similar book) is likely to lead the child to feel more confused and more isolated as the adult hasn't engaged with them as an individual at all, merely pushed them aside by telling them to go and read a book.
-
The problem with that is that children are dependent on adults, and so if an adult is providing for a child's needs then the child is naturally going to be influenced by the adults' beliefs. The Gideon Bible has a list entitled "where to find help when:" (followed by headings such as "anxious" or "afraid", and a passage from the New Testament or Psalms which provides help in those situations). If by providing scripture verses which help a child in various situations the Gideons are simply meeting some of his or her needs, I don't see how it is unethical for a child to be influenced by their beliefs (unless they are teaching stuff which is unethical)
Religion and verses from the Bible made me afraid as a kid, there was never any comfort for me in that not so good book!
-
Because being a vegetarian just means they don't eat meat, it isn't a belief system any more than being diabetic is.
Vegetarians come in all faiths and none and are already catered for with both faith and secular schools.
It's not like vegetarians can't be Christian is it?
Vegetarianism of itself isn't a belief, it's an action.
People are vegetarian for a wide range of reasons, they might not share the beliefs of another vegetarian.
It doesn't follow.
A Christian shares beliefs in common, vegetarians don't.
Not everyone gives up meat for the same reasons.
Vegetarians (and certainly vegans) aren't just people who just don't eat meat, most are people who belief that eating meat is wrong. That is a belief system and those are the people I am talking about - which I suspect will be most vegetarians (certainly those I know are vegetarian on principle) and I suspect nearly all vegans. And their belief (that eating meat is wrong) clearly fits the criteria for protection under the 2010 Equality Act, namely:
It must be genuinely held;
It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on information available at the moment; (2011 the present state of information available)
It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society; (2011 and must not be incompatible with human dignity…)
It must be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
So the question remains why are some peoples beliefs (which are protected under the 2010 Equality Act) suitable for the state to provide schools that are run according to that belief (religions) while other beliefs (which are similarly protected under the 2010 Equality Act) aren't. I think the answer is that they are and were the government to refuse (on principle) to allow a state funded vegan school then I suspect they'd lose if they were taken to court.
And on your non-sense about vegetarians coming in all 'faiths' - so what; christians come in all political opinions - that doesn't mean that their political belief trumps their religious one or vice versa. You don't seem to be able to think beyond a narrow notion that religion must always have primacy.
-
Religion and verses from the Bible made me afraid as a kid, there was never any comfort for me in that not so good book!
I think an 11 or 12 year old child who is anxious and fearful because he or she is being bullied is much more likely to gain comfort from many of Jacqueline Wilson's books - which often deal directly with these sorts of issues, rather than obscure and incomprehensible sections of the bible. Reading Jacqueline Wilson's books might make him or her feel they aren't so alone or unusual and give them courage to talk to others about their problems.
-
Recounting "God" stories as reality to children, is taking advantage of their vulnerability and doing them a disservice.
-
Why have you assumed that the Gideons are suggesting children read it in isolation?
I've never heard of that.
Are you saying they go around telling children not to talk to an adult as well?
It doesn't seem to occur to you they could do both, does it?
Do you have any evidence that the Gideons are saying children shouldn't also discuss things with an adult they feel comfortable with, as well?
Here is there 'help' section online:
https://www.gideons.org.uk/about_the_bible/bible_helps
Where does is suggest that someone suffering should contact another support organisation, e.g. the Samaritans - it doesn't.
Where does it suggest that a child suffering from fear or anxiety should talk to an adult ab out it - it doesn't.
All it does it guide the reaser to bible passages.
So if your are suicidal and type 'suicide' in the search you get:
'1 Corinthians 10:13
13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.'
And a couple of other verses that are equally unlikely to be of any help to anyone. Does it also say - think about calling the Samaritans - no. Does it also say 'talk to someone you trust about your thoughts' - no. Does it say - go to your doctor - no.
I think I have made my point.
No over to you - provide evidence that the Gideons in the written material they distribute (including online) do guide people to other sources of help (other charitable help, medical services, responsible adults etc etc) beyond bible passages in times of need.
-
Some of the vegetarians I know, don't eat meat because they don't like it. ( the taste and smell of it).
It's not a religion.
Where have I ever said that vegetarianism or veganism is a religion - I haven't. I have said that in many, likely most, cases they are a belief.
And non religious beliefs are as protected as religious ones under the law and therefore people are required by law to be treated equally irrespective of their beliefs. So to allow state funded schools for some beliefs (many religions) but not others (other religions and non religious beliefs) means that the government would be breaking its own laws.
Were someone to try to set up a state funded vegan school and be refused by government on principle I think they would have a very good case that this would be unlawful.
-
I don't think they would be refused if there was enough of them.
I think they wouldn't succeed because their belief in common only amounts to what they eat and a right not to be discriminated against because of it, and they can be easily catered for in our present system.
Religion has a much broader basis of belief in common, which often effects far more than just what they eat and there are far more Christians and Muslims to have a school than vegans.
Veganism generally only effects what you eat and wear.
A religion tends to get faith schools because it has more structure and ritual.
You could have Buddist and Hindu schools because they may well be vegan and of a faith.
But veganism on its own isn't enough to justify a school.
So the only way to be fair is to cut tax reliefs to all.
-
Not really.
The only fair way is to allow a school if there are enough pupils of that belief to fill it and it can be shown there is enough of a way of life and ritual that it requires one.
But that is hardly 'fair' to minority groups, is it?
-
If we never did things because it was unfair to a minority group somewhere, we'd never do anything :o
Sometimes you have to go with what the majority want, rather than just minority groups.
That's democracy isn't it?
;)
Indeed! But let's not hide the fact.
-
People who moan about faith schools, forget that those parents pay taxes too.
Indeed and people of faith aren't discriminated against at non faith schools. By contrast people without religious faith, despite paying exactly the same in taxes are discriminated against by faith schools. So you can have two children and families, identical in every respect except one is from a christian family the other from an atheist family. The christian meets the criteria for two schools (one faith one non faith) the atheist meets the criteria for neither. There will never by an opposite situation. How can that be fair.
Plus some faith schools are very popular and one near me everyone was trying to get their children into.
Their results were a lot better than the secular one, plus even non Christians liked their children being taught basic Christian values.
Faith schools are quite popular on the whole.
Oh no - the hoary old myth of the 'popular' faith schools. No evidence for this at all, beyond trading individual anecdotes. Actually all the evidence suggests that non faith schools are much more likely to be oversubscribed than faith schools. Actually just last week I sway further evidence of this in my own area (Hertfordshire) - go check out school guru which gives up to date information on the most popular schools in the county (based on number of applications per place available).
Guess what - of the top 10 most popular secondary schools schools in the county how many are faith schools - exactly zero.
Of the top 10 most popular primary schools schools in the county how many are faith schools - also exactly zero.
And even in my more local area - my immediate city
Of the top 10 most popular primary schools schools in the city how many are faith schools - also exactly zero.
Of the top 5 most popular secondary schools schools in the city how many are faith schools - one - blimey, creeps in at number 5 and guess what, there are only 9 secondary schools in the city and 3 of the 4 below it are also faith schools. The only outlier is a brand new non faith school that only opened a couple of years ago so not surprising is hasn't quite generated a popular groundswell yet.
And you'll find the same or similar all over the country. So when you actually look at the evidence it is the non faith schools that tend to be much more popular, more oversubscribed than the faith schools.
As to results - when account is taken of the intake there are no differences between faith and non faith schools, so pupils make just as much progress in non faith schools as faith ones. Any difference in headline grades is due to the well known 'backdoor selection' effect where faith schools take more children from advantages backgrounds, fewer from disadvantaged background, fewer on free school meal, fewer with special education needs etc than would be expected given the demographics of their local area.
-
I think they wouldn't succeed because their belief in common only amounts to what they eat and a right not to be discriminated against because of it, and they can be easily catered for in our present system.
For some vegetarians, their vegetarianism is much more than a mere dietary restriction. For some, it's a whole moral and philosophical idea of how we relate to the world and animals in particular and how we should treat them. I would argue this has a more profound effect on their lives than Christ on the average CofE regular.
-
For some vegetarians, their vegetarianism is much more than a mere dietary restriction. For some, it's a whole moral and philosophical idea of how we relate to the world and animals in particular and how we should treat them. I would argue this has a more profound effect on their lives than Christ on the average CofE regular.
I'd agree - I know very few (if any) vegetarians who are vegetarian because they don't like meat - actually I know plenty who really like meat but won't eat it on principle - and that principle is based on a belief that eating meat is wrong.
And that belief is very all encompassing. Plenty will see that their belief not only impacts themselves, both in terms of emotional (doing the right thing) but also physical wellbeing, it also impacts on the welfare of other animal species and also on the 'well-being' of the plant in that the environmental benefits of vegetarianism are often part and parcel of their beliefs.
So it is perfectly reasonable to argue firstly that vegetarianism and veganism as beliefs are more expansive (individual, other humans and other people and the planet) that christianity, which lets face it is basically an entirely 'human-centric' belief system with no real recognition of the importance of other species/the planet etc.
Also I agree with Jeremy - most vegetarians practice are active every single day, every meal they eat. You don't get many vegetarians, prepared to describe themselves as such you don't eat meat on most days, but eat a nice roast chicken on others. Nope they are actively vegetarian day in , day out. By contrast there are plenty of christians whose active engagement with their belief is little more than one hour on a Sunday, and for the rest of the week they are (in active terms) indistinguishable from non christians.
-
I'd agree - I know very few (if any) vegetarians who are vegetarian because they don't like meat - actually I know plenty who really like meat but won't eat it on principle - and that principle is based on a belief that eating meat is wrong.
And that belief is very all encompassing. Plenty will see that their belief not only impacts themselves, both in terms of emotional (doing the right thing) but also physical wellbeing, it also impacts on the welfare of other animal species and also on the 'well-being' of the plant in that the environmental benefits of vegetarianism are often part and parcel of their beliefs.
So it is perfectly reasonable to argue firstly that vegetarianism and veganism as beliefs are more expansive (individual, other humans and other people and the planet) that christianity, which lets face it is basically an entirely 'human-centric' belief system with no real recognition of the importance of other species/the planet etc.
Also I agree with Jeremy - most vegetarians practice are active every single day, every meal they eat. You don't get many vegetarians, prepared to describe themselves as such you don't eat meat on most days, but eat a nice roast chicken on others. Nope they are actively vegetarian day in , day out. By contrast there are plenty of christians whose active engagement with their belief is little more than one hour on a Sunday, and for the rest of the week they are (in active terms) indistinguishable from non christians.
I was thinking it is more than just food. For instance, I could imagine a vegetarian refusing to play cricket because a cow needed to die to make the ball. Then there might be animal based products in the art classes and domestic science would be an obvious problem.
No, I think the justification for vegetarian schools is far higher than for CofE schools.
-
If we never did things because it was unfair to a minority group somewhere, we'd never do anything :o
Sometimes you have to go with what the majority want, rather than just minority groups.
That's democracy isn't it?
;)
And where is the evidence that the majority want state funded faith schools. There isn't any - survey after survey has demonstrated that the majority do not want the state to fund faith schools. And in even greater numbers they don't want an expansion in the number of faith schools. And what do we get - protection for existing faith schools and a major programme of expansion.
It won't end well, give that there is already over-saturation of faith schools, given that they tend to get rather fewer applications per place than non faith schools. And as the number of people in the UK who are religious continues to dwindle that problem will become even worse.
-
I was thinking it is more than just food. For instance, I could imagine a vegetarian refusing to play cricket because a cow needed to die to make the ball. Then there might be animal based products in the art classes and domestic science would be an obvious problem.
No, I think the justification for vegetarian schools is far higher than for CofE schools.
Yes, of course.
The vegetarian (and certainly) vegan beliefs go way beyond simply eating meat - it is about how we treat members of other species.
I doubt there are many state schools in the UK that really cater for those needs - indeed I suspect few go beyond the provision of one vegetarian option (probably not even vegan) in their school canteen.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11286467/Primary-school-tables-faith-schools-dominating-rankings.html
The highest primary school was a Sikh one.
Hmm the Daily Telegraph - always the best source of unbiased information - not!!
Why ask the monkey when you can go straight the the organ grinder - in other worlds the information that comes from the Department for Education that the Telegraph puts their own spin on.
So there was a recent report on Faith schools, which concluded on results that:
'Examination results for faith schools are somewhat better, on average, than those for non-faith schools. For instance in 2013 64% of pupils in mainstream state funded faith schools achieve five or more grades at A*-C including English and Maths compared to 60% of pupils at state non-faith schools. However, pupil intake differs between in faith and non-faith schools, both background characteristics (such as free school meal eligibility) and their prior attainment, so headline results may not give us the most meaningful comparisons. ...
And they then looked into comparisons when compounding factors such as pupil prior attainment etc and school type were taken into account, so effectively comparing like for like, the only difference being one group of schools is faith the other non faith. And their conclusion:
'The performance gaps between faith and non-faith schools are smaller still or reversed when schools status is included in this analysis.'
So there is absolutely no evidence that any difference between the schools is due to the faith nature of the school.
There is an issue over difference between schools that in control of their own admission and those where the LEA runs the admissions. Those that run their own admissions tend to end up with a better prior attainment of pupils etc (i.e. back door selection). Now traditionally that has largely been faith schools, but not anymore as there are now several thousand 'academy converters', both faith and non faith, that have exactly the same ability to control their own admission criteria, have the same administrative arrangements and funding arrangements with government etc. So they are identical, except some are faith and some not. And guess what: there is no difference between faith 'academy converters' and non faith 'academy converters'.
-
I'm convinced the NSS and others fiddles their statistics by only asking these questions to people who inevitably are going to give a predictable answer.
And which statistics might those be Rose:
Official stats on applications per place for schools (don't think the NSS has anything to do with this), opinion polling much of which has nothing to do with an NSS agenda, data on progress by students (direct from the Department of Education).
I think it is often the other way around - that there is a spin that faith schools are a) more popular than non faith schools, and b) that kids make better progress at faith schools, because they are 'faith' schools. Neither is backed up by evidence.
Here is a great example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9729674/Top-state-schools-flooded-with-over-1000-applications.html
Again from the Torygraph. Their spin being that:
'Parents are flooding an elite group of grammar schools, faith schools and flagship academies with more than a thousand applications, it was revealed.'
The clear implication being that faith school are disproportionately amongst the most popular schools.
Yet actually look at their list of the 30 most popular schools and only 6 are faith schools - i.e. 20%. Sounds impressive until you add in the fact that 34% of schools are faith schools, so faith schools are clearly punching well below their weight in terms of popularity. Which doesn't surprise me at all, as all the evidence suggests that it is non faith schools that are much more likely to be most popular and oversubscribed than faith schools.
See my evidence from Hertfordshire too - rather more compelling that your vague anecdotal assertion that 'the Faith school near me was a lot more popular'.
Actually is astonishes me how few applications there are for faith schools even ones that are top notch in terms of their academic record.
-
the Faith school near me was a lot more popular
Perhaps that's so, but this is purely anecdotal and there is no evidence to back this up.
So here is some evidence from my city.
There are 9 secondary schools, 6 non faith (including two single sex, one boys one girls) and 3 faith schools (one mixed CofE and 2 RCC - one mixed, one girls). Every parent puts down 4 choices so a 4 applications per place might be considered par - above that the school is oversubscribed, below that undersubscribed.
If you rank the schools - the top 5 are all non faith, the bottom 2 both faith. The only cross over being a faith school as number 6 and a non faith (but new) school at number 7.
Average applications per place for the 6 non faith schools, 4.45 application per place; at the 3 faith schools 1.98 applications per place.
The change in number of applications is also revealing - so the new non faith school is improving massively - a 42% increase in application this year compared to last. But interesting this isn't taking applications from the other non faith schools - quite the reverse all the other non faith schools also stayed the same or increased the number of applications. By contrast all of the faith schools are losing applications, with applications compared to last year down by 7%, 14% and 15% for the three faith schools.
Now that's evidence.
Summary non faiths schools are twice as popular as faith schools and getting more popular still. Faith schools are half as popular as non faith schools and getting less popular.
-
To give you an example of my local schools ( yes I looked it up :) )
The only thing that matters around here is which catchment area you fall in. ( when you have to move mid term)
In 2006 The local average of children getting 5 or more GCSEs at C or above:
Local average was 38.7%
National Average was 45.6%
The local secular school 11%
Firstly data from nearly 10 years ago?!?
Also why no comparison with any other local school. But more importantly, so what - so you've got a rubbish non faith school locally and perhaps a better faith one. So what - that tells you nothing about the broader picture as we can simply trade very specific examples.
So the secondary school my kids go to (mixed non faith) is about 200 yards from another secondary school (mixed, faith) - they are basically tapping into exactly the same local demographics.
My kids school - A*-C GCSEs - 86% (most recent data, not from 2006) and OFSTED outstanding in every area.
Nearby faith school - A*-C GCSEs - 50% (most recent data, not from 2006) and OFSTED - Inadequate in all but one area, requires improvement in the other.
And guess what, this autumn 1196 people applied for the 180 places at my school, just 239 applied to the faith school.
But all this proves is my local faith school is really good (and popular) and the neighbouring faith school is really poor and really unpopular. It tells us no more about the bigger picture than your very limited and outdated anecdote.
I've not seen any reports of parents complaining that they don't want their child to go to a faith school.
But I've seen plenty that don't want their kids to go to the local secular one.
Actually there are loads of reports about desperate parents doing everything they can to get into non faith schools, including breaking and bending the rules by pretending to live in places they don't etc.
But the proof really is in the pudding - forget sensational newspaper articles and look at the real evidence, which is of course the schools parents chose to apply to. Did you not read my post - in my city there are, on average, 4.45 application per place at the non faith schools, and just 1.98 applications per place at the faith schools.
And in the county as whole the top ten most popular primary schools are all non faith, and the top ten most popular secondary schools are all non faith.
And this seems to be similar across the country (as even the Telegraph article demonstrates, despite their spin, with faith schools punching well below their weight in popularity stakes) - I remember a recent article about the most popular schools in London which needed two tables, one for faith schools and one for non faith - why? Because not a single faith school would have made in into the overall top ten most popular.
-
But the point remains that some people like them and want to send their child to one, and they can't afford private education.
But clearly less than like non faith schools, or they would be gaining the same or more applications per place as non faith schools - but all the proper evidence (not anecdote or media spin) tells us that applications per place at non faith schools are higher than at faith schools.
-
If we only had secular state schools ...
By the way as far as I am aware there are no secular schools in this country. All state funded schools (whether faith or non faith) are required to hold acts of worships of a broadly christian nature. That isn't consistent with the notion of a secular school.
-
By the way as far as I am aware there are no secular schools in this country. All state funded schools (whether faith or non faith) are required to hold acts of worships of a broadly christian nature. That isn't consistent with the notion of a secular school.
Somebody attempted to open an explicitly secular school a few years ago (I assume that this meant a school without daily worship of a broadly Christian nature, etc.) and was refused permission to do so.
-
Somebody attempted to open an explicitly secular school a few years ago (I assume that this meant a school without daily worship of a broadly Christian nature, etc.) and was refused permission to do so.
That's right - because to do so would require a change to the law.
So Rose continually using the term 'secular school' is inappropriate - there are no secular schools, although I think that all state funded schools should be secular - i.e. totally neutral toward religion. But that doesn't, of course, mean that they would teach about religion - but would do so in a manner which is neutral.
-
But thats ridiculous, and I don't think it happens.
For a start most large state schools can't have assembly because they can't get all the children in the main hall at the same time. ( so bang goes the collective worship)
I know that was the case when mine were at primary even more so at secondary.
M
I'm not even sure we had religious assemblies once I got to about 14. ( many years ago)
It was straight to the form you were in and being registered as attending and then it was straight off to classes.
That was 40 odd years ago, has something changed in the last 20 years?
Firstly collective doesn't necessarily mean every kid in the school. Collective worship might be half the school, a single year group or even just one class, it is still collective.
But sure plenty of schools don't comply with the (farcical) law, but it remains in place. There are no secular schools in the UK.
-
It might not totally be the faith thing that does it, but about how the school is supported in the community, and teamwork.
I think the worst secular ones are the ones where that sense of outside community help is missing.
Do you really have any insight into non faith schools Rose - given the stuff you come out with I suspect not.
Don't forget many non faith schools are a type of school called a 'community' school (or rather used to be before they were effectively force to become academies). And the clue is in the name - schools embedded in and inherently part of their local community.
There is no issue with non faith schools being embedded in their local communities given that's who they represent, most have admissions criteria based on distance so they are local schools for local kids, at the heart of local communities.
Sure faith schools tap into a different kind of community - the narrow community that are of a particular faith (perhaps just 10% of the actual community) but often they are very detached from their actual local community. Indeed round my way most primary schools almost outdo each other in being visible in the local community - every event advertised for all to see (and everyone welcome to attend) christmas and summer fairs advertised up and down the local streets, often on altered estate agent boards. But there are some that don't, that are invisible as you drive, walk or cycle up and down the local streets. And those schools are the faith schools, who seem to have a deliberate policy not to interact with the community outside their narrow faith group. Sad but true.
So for example, I go past two local catholic schools (infant and junior) on my way to work. You'd never know they existed for all their visibility within the local community - yet look in the local church newsletter (which I see regularly as my wife is a parishioner) and there it all is. Happy to engage with their 'faith community' but deeply unwilling to engage with the actual community on their doorstep - you know the one that includes people of all faiths and none.
There is no problem with the sense of community amongst non faith schools - in part because the parents whose children attend are also your neighbours - unlike many faith schools where kids come from miles around and often there are very few who actually life locally.
-
A church school has a service at Christmas and is connected to an outside community in a way that is lacking in the secular schools I've seen.
Then perhaps try and emulate that, in a secular school.
And what makes you think non faith schools don't Rose.
Guess what they do - indeed I was at my kids school christmas service/concert the week before christmas - packed to the rafters. Held in a local church (I'm sure the church is very rarely that full), and with quality of musicianship that was breathtaking - recorded by the local radio station as they know what a fantastic event it is.
And raising money for a local hospice.
And of course that's jut one of dozens of events that the school puts on - many of which are entirely open to the local community, who are very welcome to attend, and do in large numbers.
Rose you are terribly jaundiced about non faith schools - maybe you should find out about the best (or even mediocre ones that still engage very well with their local communities) and you'd change your mind. Don't forget that a school (along with a pub, shop and once upon a time a church) were always at the heart of a community. And they can only be at the heart of that community if they are the organisations that most in that community use. And most people in a local community use their local non faith schools - they are at the heart of a community in a manner that a faith school (except tiny villages where there is only one school) can simply never be, as they only represent perhaps 10% of the local community rather than all of it.
-
I don't actually dislike non faith schools, it's just I think people should have a choice.
Why not make non faith schools really secular by removing the Christian worship?
It'll take a change in the law, and the usual suspects will be hopping up and down and bleating about the marginalisation of Christianity of course, but I suspect such a move is on its way.
-
Funny thing is ( according to some ) when it's not about religion it's ok to force something onto children which isn't their choice, it's a double standard.
I'm just justifying the point that a vegetarian school makes as much sense or more than a faith school. Personally I wouldn't allow either in the state sector although I would cater to special dietary requirements for vegetarian or religious reasons where possible.
Suddenly if it's about God, it's abuse. Veganism and it's suddenly ok.
I don't think it is actually. Child nutrition is far more critical than adult nutrition and a vegan diet needs to be planned very carefully to avoid malnutrition.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/20/veganism-safe-children
-
Well the schools near you obviously do a lot, it doesn't make me wrong, it just means that the schools I've come into contact with, just haven't done the same things.
Yes it does make you wrong when you generalise about the 13,000-ish non faith schools that you have no experience of on the basis of, what would appear to be a single poor non faith school that you do have experience of.
Just because that one was poor it doesn't mean all are poor - just as just because the faith school near me is poor it doesn't mean that all faith schools are poor. But I base my more general comments on actual data relating to many schools - including data on attainment and progress of students from every single school in the country.
-
I don't actually dislike non faith schools
You could have fooled me.
, it's just I think people should have a choice.
No you don't. You won't even countenance the notion of schools for the 12% of the population that are vegetarian or vegan. Yet you seem perfectly happy for tiny religions, with less than 1% of the population (e.g. Sikh) having their own schools. You don't actually support choice, you support maintenance of religious privilege.
Why not make non faith schools really secular by removing the Christian worship?
I couldn't agree more, and I suspect this will happen pretty soon.
And allow state faith schools, for those who want the religious element.
That way you have more choice.
That's where we disagree for the reasons I have stated. I don't think any state funded school should have an ethos aligned with any belief, religious or otherwise. And part of the reason for that is on principle, that education transcends narrow differences in belief etc.
So schools (and other educational establishments such as universities) should welcome everyone regardless of their belief, race, religion etc. Our current approach is increasingly divisive - with kids of this religion off to that school, those of a different religion off to another, the non religious kids off to another and so on. How does that help social cohesion when we schooling our kids in a manner which means they are likely to rub shoulders with a narrow section of other kids who are broadly like them, rather the diversity of the society outside the school gate.
We worry about lack of understanding of religion, we worry about radicalisation, yet we resist the very things that would help instantly. Rather than learn about some other kids religion in theory, how much better if there is a strong likelihood that the kid next to you (who you do school work with, play with etc) is from that religious tradition. Rather than being told that some parents and their kids don't believe in god, how much better if there is a strong likelihood that the kid next to you (who you do school work with, play with etc) is atheist.
-
It makes more sense to me to keep faith schools to keep diversity in this country and the freedom to bring up children in your own tradition without having someone interfering and telling you what bits you should be following.
It isn't that I believe in any one religion or anything, but that other people have a different interpretation of their religion than I do, because we all make value judgements.
Faith schools give people freedom to do it their way.
I'm acknowledging that the way I see the world is not the only way, and I would like us as a country to keep a certain amount of freedom, so that people can have choices.
The trouble with the NSS and the BHA is the want to do away with that freedom by removing all secular faith schools and degrading religion down in to something else which fits their definition of that religion and their value judgements.
But it doesn't fit and will reduce the freedom and diversity in this country, and I think that's a wrong turn.
Since all religions are nothing more than the beliefs of ancient people, with no basis in facts, it is clearly wrong to educate children as if such beliefs ARE facts.
-
I know that, but you were doing the same thing with faith schools earlier.
It seems ok to make out all faith schools are bad and have bad results but unfair and wrong when aimed at non religious schools.
No I haven't.
When I talked about academic results I used data from every school in the country. When I was talking about popularity I used data from every school in the county and my city - and also every school in the country (from the Telegraph data).
I have never said that faith schools are bad - I have said when proper comparisons are made (taking account of school type and student intake so that the only difference is faith vs non faith) that they are no different from non faith schools.
I do assert that there is no evidence that they are more popular, and plenty of evidence that they re less popular than non faith schools (based on evidence).
I do also assert that their admissions approaches are often unfair, specifically bringing in more affluent and higher prior attaining kids than their local demographic would suggest. But again that is based on comprehensive assessment of the intake of every school in the country - so based on evidence.
-
I would like to see the education system include classes on morality and good citizenship, and relegate religious beliefs to mythical studies.
-
Oh dear!
I really don't think you can all see how dictorial and judgemental you all are.
:o
It's no good, you can't see my point.
???
We all have to be forced to see things your " one true way" .
Reminds me of a certain religious attitude.
I'm afraid until evidence is forthcoming for the existence of any "gods", it is the only sensible way to go.
-
People have a variety of opinions on what is sensible.
I would love to hear one reason why it is sensible to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
-
Oh dear!
I really don't think you can all see how dictorial and judgemental you all are.
:o
It's no good, you can't see my point.
???
We all have to be forced to see things your " one true way" .
Reminds me of a certain religious attitude.
Bizarre comment - I think it is the other way around.
It isn't me that is making sweeping judgements on the quality and popularity of 13,000 non faith schools based on your personal, and negative, experience of one.
It isn't me who is happy for everyone to have a school for that aligns with their own personal beliefs, however tiny a proportion of the population they are ... but only if that belief is religious, while failing to even countenance the possibility of a school for the massively greater proportion of the population who believe that eating meat is wrong on moral grounds.
Where I have made points about faith schools they have been based on broad evidence, not on narrow personal experience and anecdote.
Where I have provided an opinion on what schools should and should not be funded by the state I have based it on a cogent principled and pragmatic argument and also one that is consistent. So my personal opinion is that the state should not be funding schools run on the basis of a specific belief system. However if the state choses to do that it cannot reasonably limit those belief systems merely to religious beliefs - so if it is appropriate (in principle) to fund a Hindu school, it should also be appropriate to fund schools aligned with other non religious beliefs that are protected under current equality laws, so to include vegetarianism, secularism, humanism, environmentalism plus political beliefs too.
But of course I actually don't want to see a state funded humanist school or vegetarian school any more than I want to see a state funded christian school or jewish school. Rather I think that all state funded schools to be suitable for children regardless of their religious or other beliefs.
-
Well they can't be, and they're not.
As I explained.
What can't be? and what isn't what?
Not really making much sense Rose.
If you mean that vegetarianism or veganism aren't beliefs as defined within UK equalities legislation, then sorry but you are wrong. Where they are based on a belief that eating meat is morally wrong then without doubt they qualify. Remember the requirements are:
'It must be genuinely held;
It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on information available at the moment; (2011 the present state of information available)
It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society; (2011 and must not be incompatible with human dignity…)
It must be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.'
Clearly fits, as does humanism for example too.
And do you mean they can't be allowed schools - why not. There is no reason, in principle, why schools associated with non religious beliefs cannot exist if those associated with religious beliefs are allowed.
The consistent view is to either accept that all are possible, should be supported and allowed (religious schools, vegetarianism schools, veganism schools, humanist schools, environmentalism schools etc) - or that none should be allowed state funding. To claim that only religious beliefs should be afforded state funding for schools is special pleading of the highest degree.
My view that none should be funded is consistent and based on a sound principled and pragmatic argument (even if you don't agree). Your view isn't consistent and that undermines your argument on both principle and pragmatic grounds.
How can you accept that a group of Sikh's want to set up a school based on Sikh principles and beliefs should be allowed to use state funding, but a group of vegans wanting to set up a school based on vegan principles and beliefs shouldn't be allowed state funding. Nonsense.
-
Sorry
I was responding to this part of your post
My feeling was that no one size fits all
Indeed but you there are many, many ways to develop diversity in schooling that doesn't involve slicing the community into pigeon holes based on real or nominal religion. It is critically important (probably now more than ever) that our children have the opportunity to learn, play, fall out, make up etc etc with kids from all faiths and none. That is one of the most important educational lessons we can provide to our children. While we salami slice our communities and send the christian kids to one school, the muslim ones to another, the vegan kids to a third, the atheist kids to another (the one left) we won't achieve this and we will fail our children.
In no other publicly funded service would we possible accept separate provision based on religious faith and prioritising the access to service based on that faith - why do we accept it in schooling. Imagine if you went to the local hospital and they said 'sorry this is CofE hospital - you are jewish - to the back of the queue you go - we might treat you but not if there are any CofE patients who need treating - they will always get priority over you'. Nope we'd never allow it and nor should we in state funded schools.
-
But ok if there was sufficient demand and was more definable, I'd give it a chance.
So exactly how many schools would you have to set up in each area. So you'd need:
CofE
RCC
Methodist
Jewish
Buddhist
Sikh
Muslim
Hindu
Vegetarian
Vegan
Environmentalist
Labour
Tory
LibDem
UKIP
Humanist
etc, etc, etc
Because you can't reasonable allow some but not all provided there is some demand (and lets be honest the current system tolerates and supports tiny religious schools that if the were faith would never be allowed to continue due to such limited demand).
Plus sufficient other school places for the 'ignored' majority who want their kids to attend a school without an 'ism' and to be able to rub shoulders with all sorts of kids.
It is pragmatically impossible and non-sensical, while of course (in my opinion) wrong on principle.
-
But it isn't like that, many Muslims will go to non religious schools, so will many Christians.
There will always be diversity in non religious schools, faith schools is just freedom for some who want something different who are perhaps stricter.
It's just not comparable to a hospital.
Unless of course you compare it to a private one, that will only treat you if you have money.
It's just about choice, not being forced to conform.
None of which excuses teaching children beliefs as facts.
-
But it isn't like that, many Muslims will go to non religious schools, so will many Christians.
There will always be diversity in non religious schools, faith schools is just freedom for some who want something different who are perhaps stricter.
It's just not comparable to a hospital.
Unless of course you compare it to a private one, that will only treat you if you have money.
It's just about choice, not being forced to conform.
You wouldn't allow any NHS funded hospital to discriminate against people in treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. Nor I suspect would you in other publicly funded services. Indeed it would be unlawful. Why do you accept such discrimination in state funded schools?
-
Because I don't see schools in the same way as hospitals.
But both are state funded and both school provide their services without discrimination on the basis of faith or belief. Hospitals don't, but faith schools do discriminate.
A hospital is something we all may need at sometime or another, but for medical treatment, which is a physical thing.
People go there when they are ill and in need. When you go into a hospital its goal isn't to mould your character and educate you.
Since when is it the job of the state to mould your character - that is surely the responsibility of parents, not the state. I am actually rather frightened by the notion that the role of the state is to mould the character of my children. I think that's what happens in some rather authoritarian countries but should not in a country that respects individual freedoms such as the UK. The role of state funded schools should be to provide the highest quality education for children.
-
The role of state funded schools should be to provide the highest quality education for children.
And teaching them that "God" is real rather than an illusion isn't included in 'quality education'.
-
Schools are different, they are there to educate and mould the future generation something entirely different to a hospital.
As we all think different things are right, have differing opinions of what is important and see the world in different ways (and how children are raised matters a lot to most parents) I think we should cater for some differences of opinion within the education of children.
Yes, we should - we should give the children information and intellectual tools so that they can decide for themselves what their opinions will be.
Making all faith schools private schools deprives poor religious people of choice.
But allowing religious people to limit their children's exposure to other ideas deprives those children of choice - whose rights take precedence? In my view those children deserve to have their own lives and their own choices, whilst their parents have already made their choices.
So I think there is room for state funded faith schools.
That rather depends on what you think the role of faith within the school is - if it's to skew the curriculum to represent a particular view of reality to children then no; if you think it's an opportunity for a religion to back education as a charitable endeavour then I whole-heartedly agree.
What qualifies can depend on many factors such as demand, and how many children in the catchment area. That they teach a positive message about other religions and the rest of society. They would have to be measured on what they taught the children aside from religion.
Unfortunately, particularly in rural areas, that idea that you can choose between local schools is a myth. In Oxford - not a rural area - there's a huge swathe that's only served by C of E schools, there is not a state-funded secular option for parents to choose.
In the small town in which I live there are two C of E primaries, a Catholic primary and a Jewish primary - not only does that leave atheist/secular parent with a quandry, what are the options for the few muslim families in the area?
But there is only so much money and room for themed schools ( perhaps that's better a word than faith schools).
Exactly, and if you're unfortunate enough not to fit the theme what do you do? Do you send your five or six year old on a two or three mile walk? A seven or eight mile bus trip across town? The point of small, local primaries is to facilitate getting small children who can't easily travel long distances to them to keep the school day short and the disruption to parents low.
A drama school is a themed school, or could be.
Specialist academies is a slightly different issue.
It's about not being judgemental, and acknowledging what other people who differ from me, want.
No, it's about not being judgmental and not presuming that a child of people with a particular faith position should be restrained in their life choices by those parents' faith position.
If there is enough demand for a faith school, fine.
No, a child's future shouldn't be subject to market forces.
As long as it is properly run and the children cared for and taught about the world around them.
If that's the case, why not have a universal curriculum that applies to all, why create faith schools that have exemptions from certain areas: either something is worth learning or it isn't.
O.
-
It happens in just about every country in one form of another, or it takes a slightly different form in say a communist country.
But it is there.
Look up non cognative skills.
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Non-cognitive_skills_literature_review_2.pdf
Also this is in part what teaching citizenship is about.
It's about moulding children to how the state wants them to be.
Did you not know this?
One of my friends taught citizenship and is a sociologist, and we often discussed it.
http://www.citized.info/pdf/commarticles/James_Arthur.pdf
Citizenship is a very obvious way of the state moulding children.
To someone who is strictly religious they may see something like citizenship as an attempt to mould their child into something the state wants, rather than adhering to their faith.
Therefore you have this battle going on which deep down is about the moulding of a child's mind.
A lot a religious people want their children to go to a school that is going to mould them in line with what they believe.
It's the same for the non religious I guess, they don't really want their child to leave school as a catholic.
Children are going to be moulded anyway, because it's natural for them to learn from those around them.
Hence religious or non religious people sometimes want schools that are fertile to them being moulded a certain way, one that fits in with their philosophy of life.
Non religious schools mould them another way, which has a more independent veiw on life to the point where they feel the religious element isn't a moulding the approve of.
It's the reason why very very strict religious groups see non religious schools as brainwashing their children and why the whole discussion is some what embittered.
They, like you, see the state moulding their children as a frightening and undesirable thing.
No schools my kids have attended have moulded their character and I'd be very concerned if they tried to do so.
And I have no idea where (and most importantly when) your notion of citizenship comes from but in my experience it certainly isn't 'the state moulding children', in other words attempting to create uniformity - quite the reverse. Where it touching on 'character' much of it is about understanding individuality and developing respect for individuals regardless of their individual attributes etc.
Actually most of it is rather 'factual' - for example ensuring kids understand how our government and democracy work, likewise our judicial system. And also developing skills and 'tools' to help support kids as they become independent adults - such as critical thinking and debating skills and financial management.
Nothing in the agreed curriculum could remotely be considered to be the state moulding the character of the kids.
So rather than some clearly outdated article (your link), here is the latest national curriculum on citizenship:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239060/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Citizenship.pdf
Explain to me where this equates to the state moulding the character of the kids. It doesn't and there would be an outcry were it to do so, and not just from parents and pupils but from teachers too.
-
The trouble is everyone thinks children should be moulded to think like they do ;)
No they don't, speak for yourself.
I want my children to develop their own voice, their own opinions their own passions - if those align with mine, fine, but if not that's fine too. Children aren't mini extensions of their parents, they are separate and individual people and should be allowed to develop in the way that is right for them, not necessary the way their parents think.
-
The trouble is everyone thinks children should be moulded to think like they do ;)
No, some of us just think that children should be taught to think, and given the tools and the information to do so.
But by teaching them to think like you ( giving them the tools) you are hoping they will find your answers in life or ones that fit in with your own philosophy of life.
No, and yes - my philosophy is they should have the personal liberty to find their own philosophy. They don't have to find my answers, they have to find their own, but they have to be given the freedom to do that. I think they should be taught about various religions and religious ideas, because they can't make an informed choice if they aren't, but I don't think they should be exposed to a limited number of them, or a particularly line of them, or treated as though they are predestined to cleave to the thinking of their parents.
e is trying to do the same thing, give the children the tools ( mould them) to find the right answers in life.
The " right" answer here is subject to what an individual believes.
Exactly, there are no 'right' answers - education shouldn't be giving answers, it should be giving tools to find answers.
For a religious person it could be the tools to find God, to you it's the tools to make their own discoveries ie " science"
No, not necessarily 'science' - science applies to everyone, regardless of their beliefs, they don't need to accept it, it happens anyway. They should have the freedom to look at religions, look at atheism, look at spirituality and find their own path for themselves.
Not be beholden to a state-sponsored 'acceptable' list, not be pigeon-holed by what their parents beliefs are, and certainly not be constrained to my feelings of what works for me.
O.
-
The School starts to mould children's characters the minute the walk into their first day at primary school.
How many mothers have been told by their child that the teacher always knows more and their mum is wrong?
From that moment the "state" influences how your children learn about the world.
It's not all negative, but little ones start by learning they have to conform to structure of the school day as well as how they behave and think.
Part of teaching is moulding a child's character and way of thinking.
Most teachers probably describe it as giving them life skills in effect to conform to society.
Children rebell of course, when they get a bit older.
Think of this song
It's a sort of subtle conditioning.
Perhaps you approve of the end result, so you don't see it.
It's not just my imagination.
I was always aware of it as a child, people telling me what to think and even how to think.
I was a bit of a non conformist ;)
Even one of my sons aged 12 dyed his hair green with food dye at school , to be non conformist ;D
Got sent home he did. :o ::)
I think all the kids started doing it then.
Were you never a rebel Prof?
That song is from 1979, some 37 years ago - my schooling was at the same time. I have no idea when yours was.
My kids are currently in school - ages 17, 14 and 8. How schools are today is light years away from how they were in the 1970s.
Schools aways did and still do have norms on behaviour and uniform/appearance that need to be upheld (as is the case when in a profession out in the real world) - that isn't the same are requiring everyone to develop an identikit 'character' by moulding them. That doesn't happen - schools today (or at least the ones I have experience of) are happy for children to develop as individuals with their own unique character and to support that development. Peer pressure - well that's a different matter, but that isn't coming from the school per se, but from other kids.
-
IT makes as much sense or more, than a faith school to you, not to everyone else.
To other religious people faith schools make more sense. They make more sense to me.
In a school that was truly secular they would be tied into a timetable that was built on something other than their religious needs. Their children subject to influences that went against their religious teachings and community.
Lots of Orthodox Jews have two kitchens and two sets of utensils one for meat and one for dairy. The meat has separate fridges etc.
A Jewish school can specifically cater for the needs of those children in accordance with their community.
I don't feel a truly secular school which was trying to cope not just with that, but with the catering for Muslims and Hindus and your vegans.
What would happen is it would devalue each religion by taking shortcuts.
It's a value judgement on each aspect of someone else's religion and deciding what should be followed and what shouldn't.
Which in a way isn't catering for all religions, but degrading all religions towards something else.
I think it would be resisted very strongly, and I can understand why.
It makes more sense to me to keep faith schools to keep diversity in this country and the freedom to bring up children in your own tradition without having someone interfering and telling you what bits you should be following.
It isn't that I believe in any one religion or anything, but that other people have a different interpretation of their religion than I do, because we all make value judgements.
Faith schools give people freedom to do it their way.
I'm acknowledging that the way I see the world is not the only way, and I would like us as a country to keep a certain amount of freedom, so that people can have choices.
All of those arguments could equally well be applied to vegetarian or vegan schools.
I'm not against faith schools, by the way (although I'd rather everybody sent their children to a school where they get to interact with people of other faiths and none), I'm only against state funded faith schools
-
Oh dear!
I really don't think you can all see how dictorial and judgemental you all are.
Leonard: Don't jump out of that window or you will plummet to the ground.
Rose: I can't believe how dictatorial and judgemental you are.
Stating a fact is not dictatorial and judgemental.
-
I'm not against faith schools, by the way (although I'd rather everybody sent their children to a school where they get to interact with people of other faiths and none), I'm only against state funded faith schools
Likewise - more than happy for people to set up schools without state funding with a particular religious ethos (providing, like other independent schools they are of suitable basic quality to be registered as schools and retain that registration following inspection). But not for there to be state funding for those schools. If religions think this is important enough and are concerned about parents not being able to afford them, then I would have through the philanthropic and financial clout that churches have would be sufficient to provide bursaries where necessary. Don't forget that most non christian religious organisations have been doing this for years as it is only very recently that state funded non christian faith schools have really taken off.
Or there is another alternative - that kids go to state funded non faith schools and as extracurricular activities engage in specific religious education classes within their relevant faith organisation. Again this is common-place. Not sure if you were on the old BBC site, but if you were you may remember there was a poster called Little Hulton, who was a catholic priest. He and I were both of the same mind that there shouldn't be state funded faith schools (albeit coming from different perspectives. His objection was that the state funding prejudiced the ability of catholic schools to really promulgate catholic education, so he would prefer children to go to ordinary non faith schools and then get additional and specific catholic education, run by and funded by the church to give them much greater control over that curriculum.
-
Leonard: Don't jump out of that window or you will plummet to the ground.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Fortunately the house is only one storey.
Rose: I can't believe how dictatorial and judgemental you are.
Stating a fact is not dictatorial and judgemental.
Unlike the Christian "God". ;)
-
Anyway we are drifting off Gideon bibles in school.
You could also argue ( with the social engineering bit) that religions are hoping to get their own bit of it in, by having religious activities/ handing out bibles in schools at all.
Especially non religious schools.
That's also a form of social engineering.
I'm surprised no one pointed that out.
It's there to influence and mould young minds after all.
It's just putting the boot on the other foot ;)
Schools should (and I believe most do) resist any attempt to be the agents for social engineering. That isn't their role. And as in loco parentis guardians of the children while they are at school they should be very wary about allowing third party organisations with a 'social engineering' agenda (and yes that includes evangelical religious organisations) unfettered access to the children. And that would include access via promotional and printed material, not just in person. So a school should be the guardian of balance.
So I have no problem with all sorts of material being available in school - including of course bibles - but their use within a learning context must have an educational value and be subject to balance of opinion. And the best way to ensure this is to use them via the teacher as one of a number of resources.
So in my opinion it would not be appropriate to perhaps talk about the ethics of animal research in a school using only materials from anti-vivisection groups. I see no issue with having that material available as one source, provided other material, with a differing view is available and, through the teacher, the students understand the remit of the organisations producing the material.
So on Gideons bibles - sure have one, or a few available in the school library, or as available resources within lessons. Never allow them to be handed out directly to the children for them to keep.
-
Proff, I go along with all of your posts on this thread but would like to add that having specifically faith based schools affords faith a lot more credibility to the faiths than is due, they're no more important than if, say we had unionist schools and I'm sure we'd all want the state to subsidise unionist schools.
Blasted religious privilege again, we all pay for their recruitment services and as soon as this is pointed out to the religiosos, oooh we're being persecuted again.
It has to be better if all children mix at school from the beginning, better for the religious, better for the non-religious, better for everybody.
ippy
-
It has to be better if all children mix at school from the beginning, better for the religious, better for the non-religious, better for everybody.
ippy
I couldn't agree more. The sooner humans learn to mix peacefully and indiscriminately, respecting one another's rights, the sooner we will have peace in the world ... and where better to start than with the children.
-
I couldn't agree more. The sooner humans learn to mix peacefully and indiscriminately, respecting one another's rights, the sooner we will have peace in the world ... and where better to start than with the children.
Indeed.
-
Proff, I go along with all of your posts on this thread but would like to add that having specifically faith based schools affords faith a lot more credibility to the faiths than is due, ...
Blasted religious privilege again, we all pay for their recruitment services and as soon as this is pointed out to the religiosos, oooh we're being persecuted again.
Perhaps the most obvious example of a massive misalignment between the influence of organised religion in our schooling and in the real world being the Church of England.
The CofE astonishing runs over 20% of the schools in England - including more than a quarter of primary schools. Yet a few days ago the CofE themselves released their latest set of dire figure on church attendance - only 1.4% of the population attend CofE church on an average Sunday - and even weekly figures (which may often double count) are only 1.8%, ant the very peak of attendance at the major festivals is only about 4% (Christmas) and 2.4% (Easter), recognising that many of those attendees are merely 'traditional' or 'cultural' attendees, or perhaps going along once a year to please elderly parents etc.
And proportions will be lower still for parents with school age children and for the children themselves.
So how can it possible be justified that an organisations with so little active involvement from the public at large is allowed such influence over our schools (paid for of course by the tax payer, not the church).
-
Perhaps the most obvious example of a massive misalignment between the influence of organised religion in our schooling and in the real world being the Church of England.
The CofE astonishing runs over 20% of the schools in England - including more than a quarter of primary schools. Yet a few days ago the CofE themselves released their latest set of dire figure on church attendance - only 1.4% of the population attend CofE church on an average Sunday - and even weekly figures (which may often double count) are only 1.8%, ant the very peak of attendance at the major festivals is only about 4% (Christmas) and 2.4% (Easter), recognising that many of those attendees are merely 'traditional' or 'cultural' attendees, or perhaps going along once a year to please elderly parents etc.
And proportions will be lower still for parents with school age children and for the children themselves.
So how can it possible be justified that an organisations with so little active involvement from the public at large is allowed such influence over our schools (paid for of course by the tax payer, not the church).
Can't argue with any of that, the fact that non-religious people form as near as dammit 50% of the UK population that firmly places school history out of kilter with the present day and begs the question, the UK still has denominational schools, why?
ippy
-
Can't argue with any of that, the fact that non-religious people form as near as dammit 50% of the UK population that firmly places school history out of kilter with the present day and begs the question, the UK still has denominational schools, why?
ippy
But it isn't merely the notion of the 50% clearly non religious - a far, far greater proportion have no involvement with any organised religion, any religious church, denomination etc. But that's what the schools are - so denominational schools are just that, denominational - they aren't vaguely 'christian' they are CofE, or catholic or methodist etc. Yet the actual members of those denominations, let alone active members are a tiny proportion of the population.
In a way non faith schools are the equivalent of the vaguely christian yet not specifically denominational - give that there remains a requirement for them to have collective worship of a broadly christian nature, their RE curricula will focus very heavily on christianity - they are likely to celebrate in an active manner (nativity play, carol service etc) christian festivals in a manner that they wouldn't for other religious festivals (which they well recognise and learn about, but are less likely to be actively celebrated).
-
But it isn't merely the notion of the 50% clearly non religious - a far, far greater proportion have no involvement with any organised religion, any religious church, denomination etc. But that's what the schools are - so denominational schools are just that, denominational - they aren't vaguely 'christian' they are CofE, or catholic or methodist etc. Yet the actual members of those denominations, let alone active members are a tiny proportion of the population.
In a way non faith schools are the equivalent of the vaguely christian yet not specifically denominational - give that there remains a requirement for them to have collective worship of a broadly christian nature, their RE curricula will focus very heavily on christianity - they are likely to celebrate in an active manner (nativity play, carol service etc) christian festivals in a manner that they wouldn't for other religious festivals (which they well recognise and learn about, but are less likely to be actively celebrated).
My intent was adding the 50% to your post and again I'm with you, can't think why I wouldn't be, when you're, well really, stating how it is, not an opinion.
ippy