ChatterBank1 min ago
Richard Dawkins - Faith School Menace?
122 Answers
Did anyone else see this on Wednesday night? One in three of our schools are now faith schools funded by the tax payer, but in the area of religious education not only do some of them teach the subject for up to four times longer each week than other schools, they are left to do their own thing and have their own regulators. Additionally, the Islamic school taught creationism and a version of evolution but left the students to make up their own minds on which was true. Needless to say when asked all, without exception, said they believed the Koran‘s version - and alarmingly their Science teacher said the same. Can you imagine the ‘make your own mind up' scenario being applied to any other subject - and that being acceptable to any school that cares about the standard of education it offers, or more particularly to a government that sets a national curriculum? Religion demands that we close our eyes to its failings - and because it demands it, we do it regardless of the effect it has on future generations.
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't see faith schools as a menace, but I think it's about time they were regulated the same as "normal" schools and there was a common curriculum. At my non-faith secondary school we learned science etc to heard all about the evolutionary theories, but then in RE we were told "the Bible teaches this, discuss, what do you think?" - so there was a balanced view.
I agree with Dawkins on the potential harm of faith schools, but I believe he is naive in thinking he can change their thinking. Their beliefs have been brainwashed into them from an early age. Arguing against faith from a science perspective is pointless. By definition, faith means believing in things that can't be proved. So Dawkins is missing the point to some extent when he appeals to evidence. No amount of evidence is ever going to convince a closed mind.
I firmly believe in youngsters being able to make informed choices about their lives. It's as much about different viewpoints and the freedom to question as it is about facts.
The thing is, many of us have become so immersed in our family's religion that we dare not question it. It becomes so much part of our wider culture that to reject and question it religion is often to reject and question everything you have grown up with. You fear that without your religion and your culture you will have nothing. And if you've not had much of an education, not been encouraged to ask questions and find out for yourself, then you're trapped there because you can't see beyond the bounds of the place you're in.
So when a faith school purports to offer different takes on these things, it's not with any real expectation that pupils will reject anything they've grown up with. Another word for it is brainwashing, and the sooner state schools become 100% secular, the better.
If we want our kids to learn to act, dance or play football to a high standard, we usually have to pay for it and we sometimes get charitable grants and support. The same should apply to religious teaching. It should be paid for by the churches and parents who want it and not the taxpayer.
The thing is, many of us have become so immersed in our family's religion that we dare not question it. It becomes so much part of our wider culture that to reject and question it religion is often to reject and question everything you have grown up with. You fear that without your religion and your culture you will have nothing. And if you've not had much of an education, not been encouraged to ask questions and find out for yourself, then you're trapped there because you can't see beyond the bounds of the place you're in.
So when a faith school purports to offer different takes on these things, it's not with any real expectation that pupils will reject anything they've grown up with. Another word for it is brainwashing, and the sooner state schools become 100% secular, the better.
If we want our kids to learn to act, dance or play football to a high standard, we usually have to pay for it and we sometimes get charitable grants and support. The same should apply to religious teaching. It should be paid for by the churches and parents who want it and not the taxpayer.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Religion should not be taught in schools at all. If parents really want to have their children brainwashed with mumbo jumbo then they should pay for it out of their own pockets. Schools should only teach those things that are generally accepted to be valid by the majority. Religion is such a dogs breakfast of beliefs and opinions that you could teach it 'till doomsday and not cover half of it. It does not need to be taught as it is just a matter of belief or disbelief anything more is just waffle and padding.
Don't misunderstand my previous posting. If you want to know how the world works, then the answer is to be found by studying objective scientific evidence. The point I was making is that those who operate faith schools are not seeking the truth - they think they know it already. For them, it is enough that their parents believed it, and their parents before them. They don't have to analyse the evidence - they are told what to believe in a book written thousands of years ago. So what if it conflicts with scientific evidence? It's a matter of faith, and therefore irrelevant to them. You can't argue against that sort of logic.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
boxtops, you have a strange idea of what a 'balanced view' is. How about a balanced view between standard geography and flat-earthism, between astronomy and astrology, between earth orbiting the sun and geocentricism, between aerodynamics and magic carpets, between blood-letting and modern medicine ...and between evolution and creationism?
You cannot have a balanced view between reason and nonsense.
You cannot have a balanced view between reason and nonsense.
I went to a strongly Christian grammar school in the 1970s. It was not a church school and there wasn't a nun or a clergyman in sight, but transgress the rules in any way and you were told that you had acted in an unchristian way. This view was usually put forward and promoted by the headmistress and her gang of four - the white, middle-class matriarchs who ran the school.
In fairness, we had quite a broad RE curriculum presided over by a couple of rather eccentric and decidedly non-conformist ladies who definitely didn't push any one religion at us. My teacher did actually say on a number of occasions that she could not tell us what to believe - only that we should learn what other people believe and then decide for ourselves. We studied a number of faiths in depth which, I think, was more in deference to the fact that the school population was made up of a good number of Jewish, Sikh, Muslim and Hindu girls, as well as a sprinkling of Jehovah's Witnesses. I remember we also discussed a lot of moral and ethical issues such as contraception, drugs, disability and homelessness.
But for all that openness in the RE curriculum, there was still very much a sense of the teachers expecting us to behave according to Christian principles. We'd be told off (and sometimes put in detention) for not closing our eyes and joining in with prayers, and for not singing (Christian hymns) in assembly, for instance. I also remember one girl, a Jehovah's WItness who believed in giving small gifts all year round, being hauled into the headmistress' office for giving ordinary, single pencils to all her classmates.
In fairness, we had quite a broad RE curriculum presided over by a couple of rather eccentric and decidedly non-conformist ladies who definitely didn't push any one religion at us. My teacher did actually say on a number of occasions that she could not tell us what to believe - only that we should learn what other people believe and then decide for ourselves. We studied a number of faiths in depth which, I think, was more in deference to the fact that the school population was made up of a good number of Jewish, Sikh, Muslim and Hindu girls, as well as a sprinkling of Jehovah's Witnesses. I remember we also discussed a lot of moral and ethical issues such as contraception, drugs, disability and homelessness.
But for all that openness in the RE curriculum, there was still very much a sense of the teachers expecting us to behave according to Christian principles. We'd be told off (and sometimes put in detention) for not closing our eyes and joining in with prayers, and for not singing (Christian hymns) in assembly, for instance. I also remember one girl, a Jehovah's WItness who believed in giving small gifts all year round, being hauled into the headmistress' office for giving ordinary, single pencils to all her classmates.
The point is that although these schools are funded by the public purse they are not regulated in the same way as non-faith schools, and they are not obliged to teach the national curriculum in the same way. Can it be right to allow different rules for publicly funded schools? I don't believe so, but it's happening and no one is objecting because it's happening in the name of religion, and that, as we know, is beyond reproach - even though we are fully aware that it's filling our children's heads with misinformation. It's time schools parted company with religion - permanently.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.