Why should I pay to send someone's child to a faith school?

[BJ.]

On the front page of today's Daily Torygraph (sorry, can't find the story on the website at this time), there is an article in which various religious sections are claiming it could cost up to £500 a year for some people to send their children to faith schools as the local councils are withdrawing subsidised transport. They are calling these cuts a 'tax on religion'. One goes so far as to claim it breaches the human rights of Catholic children.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the state already provide free education? Why should a percentage of my taxes go to satisfy parents who feel the need to have their children indoctrinated at some faith school? As an analogy, I could walk down into Belper on a Saturday afternoon and watch Belper RUFC play for free but I choose to get in my car and drive 40 miles to watch Leicester. What would be the response of these religious leaders if I was to ask them to put their hands in their pockets and give me money to cover my fuel costs and season ticket?

[Rizzo]

BJ - I agree completely. My husband and I decided to send our daughter to a private school when she was 13 after we became so disillusioned and unhappy (all three of us!) with the state school she'd attended until then. So we both took on extra work, my parents helped a little financially (she is the only grandchild) and she blossomed and did well there.

The point I make is that we made the choice to pay to send her there, and yes it was a school with a "Christian-based ethos" - although that wasn't the main reason we chose it. But if people choose or wish to send their child (children) to a Faith school of any creed or belief, then they shouldn't expect extra assistance based on their choice of a faith school rather than the nearest one or the one allocated by the Council.

It seems to me that "it breaches my Human Rights" is a very popular phrase attached to anything that people think they should be entitled to have and be funded by others without any input or funding or effort from themselves.

[DickyP]

Generally agree with the sentiment that if you want something extra you should pay for it.

However, we shouldn't be surprised if they are jumping on the human rights bandwagon - it's been flavour of the month for a long time with any and all identifiable groups. Religious groups, with some justification, feel they've been on the raw end of many 'human rights' decisions so reckon they'll have a go as well.

By the way the whole thing is a bit of a red herring as there is no subsidised school transport for any parental choice out-of-catchment pupils anymore, not just those wishing to send their kids to faith schools. There are also cases where there is no transport whatsoever to schools in rural areas, subsidised or unsubsidised.

I'd be far more likely to support any complaints about the raw deals given to rural families whose education is the worst funded but the most expensive to access.

[Kinoulton]

Organised religion drives me nuts. Many of us have private spiritual beleifs and many of us don't.

But the idea that we still have laws dictated by the Bible (e.g. Sunday opening) and laws that defy it (e.g. gay marriages) proves what a mess it all is. Chuck it out for the foul bigotry that it really is.

And as for "fundamental rights", apparently I have a fundamental right to having my bins emptied weekly and a fundamental right to good hair care. What a load of cr*p.

[DickyP]

I too get annoyed at the anomalies that the selective abandonment of the religious basis of our laws has got us into. Unfortunately, it is a fact that most of our ancient laws are based on those of the church and we've neither replaced them all nor kept with them but fiddle around on what seems to be a purely accidental basis.

For instance if gay marriage is now OK, and multiple serial marriages are OK, why logically is bigamy still a crime?

And Sunday opening is a strange law as well: other countries in Europe which are far more officially secular than us have far more draconian Sunday trading laws than us, whereas a number of the more religious ones have far more relaxed trading laws on Sunday.

Confusion is definitely the word.

..... and lastly if you'd ever had anything to do with the Church of England you'd never use the expression organized religion!

[CJ]

couldn't agree more. some people seem to think the rest of us should subsides everything they do. NO! if you choose to send your kid to a school which is not the one allocated to you, then you can pay to get him/her there. it's one of the things to take into account when deciding on a school.

[fleabane]

B.C. and A.D.

Offensive to whom?

[DickyP]

B.C. and A.D.

Offensive to whom?

Blinding case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"! Unless we're going to move the start point, why do we need to change its (accurate in name if not in time) description? Let's face it strict Islamic countries don't use the system anyway, and no-one else seems to care.

[Kinoulton]

To me, if religion provides for charming throwbacks, like Christmas, Easter Eggs then why not carry on with it? There's precious little joy in the world.

But the fact that serious laws are even influenced by some half remembered and half invented poppycock from the Bible, Koran or wherever is the sign of a backward country.

Scrap it. Russia showed us the way, but because they were communists, we ignored everything they said.

[DickyP]

To me, if religion provides for charming throwbacks, like Christmas, Easter Eggs then why not carry on with it? There's precious little joy in the world.

But the fact that serious laws are even influenced by some half remembered and half invented poppycock from the Bible, Koran or wherever is the sign of a backward country.

Scrap it. Russia showed us the way, but because they were communists, we ignored everything they said.

Poor example of scrapping laws: soviets instead just used the name of the 'the people' to implement probably the most arbitrary and repressive set of anti-individual laws seen in the 2nd millennium. And even then they ignored them, and certainly ignored niceties and minor details such as evidence and proving people guilty.

[BJ.]

UPDATE:
Here's the link to the Torygraph article.

[Kinoulton]

The problem with some of these Catholic Schools, for example, is that they achieve a level of behaviour, sporting achievement, and academic ability which many of our state schools can only dream of.

I was lucky (I think) in that I grew up in the days of the 11 plus and ended up at a very good grammar school. These days, kids of all abilities are given Hobson's choice and are packed off to their nearest Comp where they might be lucky or they might be trying to learn amongst a load of ill mannered anarchist thugs and teachers who can't cope.

Hence faith schools become an attractive alternative. I agree that we shouldn't subsidise them, especiially as they indoctrinate kids with religious rubbish and intolerance. But it would be nice if there was an attractive state-run alternative. Alas, often there isn't.

[DickyP]

....as they indoctrinate kids with religious rubbish and intolerance. ....

Smacks of Ambrose Bierce's definition of bigotry to me: "Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain."

[Kinoulton]

Dunno why these double posts keep happening to me.

Maybe it's Him up there!

[Kinoulton]

I think the difference is, that being non-religious, I'm not asking anyone else to share my views.

In my 13 years of school, I don't recall my valuable education time being wasted by boring daily assemblies about atheism.

For the last 50 years the BBC has spent our license fee money on Songs Of Praise, which as far as I'm aware does not cater for agnostics.

No one comes on to Radio 2 at 9:15 a.m. to advise me that there is no God and it's all a load of nads.

All we get is state sponsored doctrine about Christianity and state sponsored nods to Islam etc to say "they think differently".

I just don't feel the need to pay for opinions with which I disagree.