Faith schools

It's completely wrong to label a child as religious - all you're doing is taking the parents religious views and imprinting them upon the child.

Would we do that for anything else? Political viewpoints for example? "Oh, my childs a Tory child, we've always been Tory and I'm sure they're right, so I don't want him to learn any Labour ideals - send him to a separate school!"

Yet if you put 'Islamic' and "Christian" in there it's ok.

The lunacy of it would strike us if we hadn't been desensitised to it by years of this nonsense.

I urge anyone who feels strongly about this to sign the below petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/faithschools/#detail

By the same logical it's completely illogical to label a child English as nationalism is a value created by men...

Your argument is incredibly strange, you accept that parents have the right to install certain values in a child - but then deny them the right to install values that disagree with your political philosophy.

I shall be eternally grateful to my parents for telling me that decisions to be made about my religion (along with my political views, career choice etc etc etc) were mine and mine alone and not influencing the decision as to the path I should take (insofar as they influenced this point of view I suppose).

Your comparison to nationality is in some ways a fair point, in that nationality is a human construct like religion. However, been of a nationality does not imply you have a specific opinions on issues - being English does not makes me agree with the war in Iraq, for instance, wheras being Christian would (probably) imply that I believe in god and the resurrection and water into wine and all the rest of it.

Nationality, therefore, is more to do with a geographical statement - it's not presuming someones opinion to call them a British child any more than my being labelled by my blood group does, or hemisphere or origin does.

Human children have a tendency to accept as fact that which they are told at an early age - there is an important evolutionary advantage to this ("don't play with the lion") etc. Indoctrinating opinions at an early age certainly reduces the chances of a child making a free decision about their religion, or lack therof, in later life as they tend to accept it. I accepted it (initially) when I was told the story of Adam and Eve, which neither of us thinks has any merit whasoever. I find the Jesuit phrase- "Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man" really rather unsettling in this context.

If you don't think this happens, then the clustering of religions in families than tend to have religious parents is surely evidence.

Everyone has a right to determine their own religion, or lack therof, on this we agree. Therefore, schools should be free of indoctrination towards any particular religion or superstition. It's an active detriment to a child in some cases - remember the squabble when it turned out that Emmanuel college in Gateshead had been teaching that the world was 3000 years old in A SCIENCE LESSON for (I almost said God's) sake?

As old Prof Dawkins says - believing the world to 3000 years old is equivelent to believing that the distance between New York and San Fransisco is 28 feet.

And I wouldn't be too impressed if that was taught in a geography lesson.

You're overlooking one critical point:

It is the duty of the state to define who its nationals are (not the new born), thus nationality is not simply a case of where you or born... Its a case of whether the individual fits into a man made criteria.

The acceptance of nationality and rejection of religion is a huge statement of hypocricy.

But 'being British' or 'being Swiss' doesn't tell you anything about what that person believes, as 'Britishness' is not a belief system in the way that a religion is. Its the right to determine ones own belief system that i'm arguing for.

Where I think your coming from is on the subject of the teaching of morals to children, perhaps the only area where I think I support teaching 'right' and 'wrong' to children. The reason I support it is for reasons of convenience - we need to teach children about moral concepts, in order to enable them to conform with the values of our society - it is so widely accepted, I think, that it is 'wrong' to steal something that you are justified in telling a child as much, and not that 'some people believe it's wrong, but some don't for such and such a reason'. This is because, ignoring Darwinian origins of morality for a second, you'd have to allow the child to learn the necessary language and philosophical skills to understand the implications of something before deciding not to steal something, maybe 10 years down the line.

The key points here are 'convenience' and 'wide acceptance'. Really, I suppose you shouldn't teach basic chemical reactions as 'fact' as you can't prove that there aren't situations in which they might not occur - but there is damn good evidence for them, and to teach everything as 'theory' and discuss leftfield examples when they might not occur would paralyse the education system.

The relevance of this to religion comes with the fact that not many people accept each individual religion as fact. There was a link on digg not so long back to a list of over 5000 gods throughout the ages, and, at best, 4999 of them don't exist. If there were 5001 theories about what happens when you mix an acid and a base, I don't think it would be right to teach one of them as fact at all.

I can sort of see your point, but I can also just as easily argue it the other way. Let's say I wish to found a religion tomorrow. I have a sacred text, in which it says 'Thou shalt not be Jewish: it is abomination.', and my followers have protests in the street, arguing people following my religion shouldn't have to have anything to do with Judaism in their work (eagle eyed board members will note the topical comparison with Christianity/Judaism/Islam and homosexuality).

I think we could both accept that this is wrong, and that I have no more right to teach my children and others this, than I would be to vote BNP and label my child as a BNP child 'because I have a right to instill my values in my child'. Quite simply, it's an individual decision, and the best course of action is to teach ones child theories where strong evidence does not exist, and support their right to self determination.

Phew!

The children of Turkish immigrants born in Germany are not considered German nationals; this is one of infinite examples that clearly demonstrate that nationality is a man made ideology that comes with distinct belief spectrums.... no different from religion.

You seperate the two because one is a belief spectrum that agrees with your current outlook on the world while the other is diametrically opposed to everything you stand for.

But it is your beliefs that causes the conflict and as we now live in a world that considers it ignoble to deny mankind access to individual rights, it seems wrong for you to not only deprive your brethren of these rights but to force your values upon them.

(you then went onto argue a point which had nothing to do with anything I'd said?)

this equating of inculcating religious beliefs with national identity is just a red herring. I'm english because I was born here. I'm atheist because I decided to be.
everyone has the right to decide for themselves what they believe. No-one can change where they were born and hence what nationality they are.
But no one has the right to insist that the state should indoctrinate kids with one set of beliefs over another and that the taxpayer should fund it.
Do it yourself in out of school hours at your own expense and let all kids be educated together so that they don't grow up hating and fearing the unknown others

Fine, what does a Turkish child believe that a German child doesn't?

You talk about me forcing my opinions on people - I'm the one arguing for people to be allowed to make their own minds up without exploiting childhood gullibility?

How is being born within the man made borders of a country any different to being born within the man made borders of a religion?!?!?

As for suggesting that nationalism is any less dangerous than religion, thats insanity - the creation of the state has lead man to fight wars than any other of his creations!

Because your nationality doesn't imply anything in particular about what you believe, religion does.

I wasn't talking about Nationalism, I was talking about nationality.

in the context of this discourse its one and the same... the belief that man belongs to an entity that only exists in the conscious of man has lead to countless wars.

I don't understand how you proudly promote one while dismissing the other?

ARe you suggesting that the laws of nature define states andy?

I was pretty sure that statehood existed only in our minds.

no one is proudly promoting anything, except you.
Nationalism exists and I hate it. Nationality exists and is neutral

Nations are humanity defined, so are counties, so are villages, so are hemispheres.

You've missed my point: if you say 'this 5 year old child is a Jewish child' you imply that it believes in the Jewish god. Clearly it is not old enough to have evaluated the evidence and decided for itself what it believes in in terms of the superstitious or political or anything, and I am arguing for its right to do so at a time when it becomes capable. Until it has decided for itself, it is as wrong to say 'it is Jewish' as it is to say 'it is Marxist'.

Saying 'this child is British' implies that it was born in Britain, and says nothing about its opinion on anything, leaving it free to make up its own mind later.

are you suggesting then that all palestinian people should send their children to palestinian school where they can be taught to hate jews?

how is nationality neutral?

how can something that creates the largest degrees of seperation known to man... be neutral?

And you're assuming that being british is not a belief....

Being British only exists in our mind, a child is not born British; his parents and the society he was born into label him British... He is indoctrinated into British society which teaches him the national language and values of that state....

He had no choice in the matter.... Should we deny children these beliefs... or only the beliefs you disagree with?

Being British isn't a belief I think you'd struggle to find an issue about which every British person believed? Every Christian person, on the other hand, believes in a god.

Speaking English doesn't tell you anything about what that child or adult believes.

Indoctrination of 'British values'...which are you talking about in particular? I think has more to do with ethics, and I explained why I think this is justifiable and not religion, superstition or politics as above.

being british does not only exist in our minds. we were born here it's a fact. so called british values exist only in our minds. I want children to be brought up knowing about all cultures ( since this is what we are really talking about) and not be educated (indoctrinated) into one narrow set of beliefs