Smidgey

But it is often the case that children are faced with religious teaching/indoctrination in the only school available to them. Often it is the case that only a religious school is in the catchment or that even state schools have religious ceremonies. I remember at my non-religious state school we still had weekly visits by the local pastor and the entire school would go to church at Easter and Christmas. I got this in primary and secondary school. Looking back on it it makes me deeply angry.

As would I. I have nothing against religious or secular private schools. I just don't want taxpayers to pay for it.

It's not free and nobody has a right to education. It is extremely utilitarian to have an education - but it is not a 'right'.

This is okay, but the problem is when we have no choice in how our taxpayer pounds get spent and it is often the case that they go to faith schools when I would rather not have them do so.

Smidgey

Furthermore, just from today's newspapers there are several examples of why church state separation is required in this country, or at the very least no tax being used to prop up faith schools:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2085998,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1826519.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...3/neduc323.xml

tito

The voucher system would replace cactchment areas.

I would say you have a right to an education, in any case you should get one.

It is also strange for you to say that you don't want faith schools funded by tax payers money when that argument is only as strong as the one that says atheist schools should not be funded with taxpayers money.

I believe a voucher should be given to every child, if he wants to go to clown school so be it.

rjt

This seems a sensible way forward, it is silly to say non faith schools should recieve tax payers money but faith schools should not, it appears that choice is what matters but not for christians, just another example of the increasingly secular country we live in I suppose

Smidgey

Both of you have just gone down the route of what most proponents of faith schools go down.

Secularism does not equate to atheism.

Just because a school is non-religious and only teaches religion objectively in R.E. classes does not make it an atheist school. Far from it. An atheist school, in the sense of a current religious school, would be one that actively taught that God did not exist in philosophy and science classes. This is clearly not the case in non-religious state schools.

To equate nothingness with atheism is folly.

There is no substantial basis to make the claim that one has a right to education. Although I do agree, we should all get one just from a utilitarian standpoint.

Why is this strange? I don't want atheist schools funded by the taxpayer and I have made this perfectly clear. I want separation of church and state or church and school. This has nothing to do with the government funding atheist schools.

rjt

All i would want for my child is for he/she to be educated at a faith school, I have no objection to others choosing no faith schools for their children and there should be plenty of choice within the state sector. Why should I pay taxes towards non faith schools whilst the state denys me the right to have adequate provision for my child.

Britannist

I fully support faith schools.

Some of the best schools are Church of England and Roman Catholic schools.

rjt

A fact conviently ignored by prisy sucularists who seek to deny Christians the same freedom of choice and opportuinitys the seek for their children.

Britannist

Exactly.

The more faith schools there are - the better.

tito

The more anything schools there are the better.

I should have every right to attend a school which largely focuses on poking oneself in the eye, so long as I teach a core syllabus. I would of course have to close due to lack of interest, but I at least can.