For Once I agree With The Church!
Head teachers should allow imams, rabbis and priests to offer religious instruction to pupils in all state schools, teachers' leaders have said.
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) said the move would be a way to reunite divided communities.
The NUT said parents had a right to have specific schooling in their own faith, if that was what they wanted.
But the Church of England disagreed, saying: "Religious instruction belongs with the religious institutions.
The Church of England, whatever their motivations may be (and I would not speculate as my thoughts would most likely be unduly cynical) is absolutely correct. The state should have no business in promoting religion. Not I might add because I am what Orwell referred to as an "embittered atheist" - I have the utmost respect for people's faiths. Rather, it is that religion is a personal and not a state matter. I would go further than this and state unequivocally that the Church of England should be separated from the state, all blasphemy laws should be repealed and so too should the recent implementation of religious hatred laws. This is not to state that school pupils should not be permitted to express their faith - on the contrary, if pupils wish to wear the hijbab, turbans, crucifixes, pentagrams, the tam (the knitted hat worn by rastafari) or whatever, they should be permitted to do so. If they wish - as the article mentions - to start after school faith clubs, then that should be permitted too. But school should be about teaching critical thought, imparting knowledge and gaining skills, not just for the workplace but for life. It should not a place of indoctrination. As a Marxist, I would not call for children of mine (if I had any) to be taught historical materialism or the labour theory of value, and my beliefs are as intrinsic to me as say my friend's Catholicism or Islam are to them. That is something that my Muslim friend in particular has recognised.
Some will say, "how dare you compare your beliefs to people with faith? That's insulting!" Not at all! it is in fact that argument insulting to anyone with a deeply held set of secular beliefs. The idea that a particular kind of faith or belief is better or should have more respect than another is in itself divisive. If this idea is adopted then will those who defend it ask for wiccans to have separate instruction? Rastas? Satanists? Scientologists? Again some might say this is ridiculous. Again I answer that this charge denigrates all those who are not part of the Abrahamic tradition. And if their answer is yes, all these faiths are equal and should be accommodated (and they should) than this can only lead to an unworkable curriculum and an alienated and atomised school populace as classes become increasingly compartmentalised.
But the NUT said having children taught at different faith-based schools had led to community breakdown in some areas.
Offering pupils some instruction in their own faith could reduce the demand for faith schools, said NUT General Secretary Steve Sinnott.
And this is the heart of the matter. Instead of the NUT opposing the atomisation and division of communities by calling for the end of state funded faith schools, they're trying to accommodate them. As I earlier wrote, religion should not be a state affair which means that the state should not be funding state schools. I am not claiming that they have no right to exist, of course they do. Only that the money used to build them should come from the pockets of the communities that want them.
Thankfully I am not a lone voice:
The NUT's statement also comes as delegates prepare to debate calls for faith schools to be abolished.
I hope that this proposal wins the day.
LandersUK
I agree. If you want your child to go a school that teaches and is run by one single specific faith then you pay for it.
State run schools should teach something about faith and cultural groups. I would have used the word religion but some groups that are worthy of being taught aren't seen as religions no matter how hard they try.