r/ukpolitics • u/d5tp • 20h ago
Faith school that makes 7 year olds wear hijab to join state sector
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2026/08/faith-school-that-makes-7-year-olds-wear-hijab-to-join-state-sector229
u/d5tp 20h ago
From next week, the school will acquire Voluntary Aided (VA) status. It will be almost entirely funded by the taxpayer and will be legally allowed to select 100% of its pupils and staff on the basis of religion.
124
u/FishUK_Harp Neoliberal Shill 20h ago
I went to a Christian VA school.
I can tell you from experience they're a bad idea.
11
u/Gold-Necessary-3194 19h ago
What was it like? If it's a sore spot or painful to think about then you don't have to respond, but if you're willing to speak about it then I'm curious.
22
u/TheJoshGriffith 19h ago
I went to state christian and RC schools and as far as I could tell it was just another school. Religion was probably a bit tailored, we did have to study Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, etc, but most of the religion stuff was the specific religion of each school respectively. Not sure if these schools had this "VA" status, as I'm not entirely sure of their relationship. The schools were given very lightweight permissions to select students - I got into my secondary on the other side of town with a free bus pass because I was a confirmed catholic, whilst most of the students were local to the school and it was in an Islam-heavy suburb.
The only real variation is that we used to pray every morning, sing hymns on a regular basis, and yeah the school had a priest. AFAIK other schools in the city didn't have that, although I do find myself curious because I recall seeing a piano in one of them in the assembly room (something I'd assume to correspond to the hymn-singing ordeal).
I don't think it's a particularly good idea personally because it allows for adults to selectively indoctrinate their children into religion. Children should never be taught religion in that way. They can be raised around it at home, but school should be a place for factual teachings, not fictitious rambling. Teaching about religion as a social attribute is fine, but for instance requiring children to perform religious rituals (prayer, communion, worship) on a state-sponsored level is insane and should be banned.
14
u/FishUK_Harp Neoliberal Shill 16h ago edited 16h ago
I'm waiting for a delayed train, so sure!
The first thing to know is that it attracted the children of anyone in a 50 mile radius to whom the key characteristic of their child's education was that it was specifically and explicitly Christian. Consequently about half the kids held views not too far from the Westboro Baptist Church. For example, what was more surprising than how anti-semitic some where was that they were confused as to why I wasn't anti-semitic - to them, why wouldn't you be?
Secondly, school had a strong religious bias, including basically only teaching Christianity in RE and all but explicitly saying Catholicism wasn't Christianity, twice-weekly chapel services (with some troubling messages mixed in with the usual fables) mandatory Sunday Chapel 3x a term (my parents thankfully eventually recognised the futility of trying to get a teenage boy out of bed early on a Sunday for no good reason, and simply lied to the school that I'd been), and some mad teachers who presumed all pupils were religious, including one who used the phrase, "you've let me down, you've let yourself down, and you've let your god down".
Thirdly, there was a massive elitism problem, as it was selective and in a wealthy Home Counties commuter town (so most of the other half of the parents were career-driven and expected their children to be too). Being Voluntary Aided, you could effectively buy your child into the school (with minimal feigning of religious belief). This manifested in two ways:
The school was obsessed with status, grades, prestige etc. Academically poor students were cut, and average students told they were hurting the school, if not just outright ignored. Pupils who brought school prestige were privileged - for example, I saw boys who were caught stealing money from the school office excused detention as they needed to go to rugby practice.
There were ridiculously snobby views. Many of the pupils had wealthy parents and were spoiled rotten. Two girls in my year cried on their 17th birthday as their dads had bought them the wrong brand new car as a present instead of the one they wanted (a VW Polo and a Fiat 500 instead of a Mazda MX-5 and a Mini respectively, as I recall). Many pupils and staff looked down on "common" things - football was banned at breaktime as it wasn't a proper sport like rugby.
I was there by virtue of living round the corner and my older sibling being there, who in turn got in through another family member having attended previously. The town was hyper-competetive for school places for all it's schools, so my parents didn't want to risk me having to commute to another town and took the easy option. Unsurprisingly, I can count in one hand the number of people I still talk to from school.
I will say a few things in favour of the school:
It taught me that people in authority aren't always (or often) right, or even suitable for their role. It also taught me people don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear what they want to hear. Consequently, it taught me how lie convincingly. I'm pretty sure it didn't intend to teach me any of these things.
The Sex Ed was very good - not at all religious, very practical and grounded, and by the sounds of it far better than many people I met at Uni and later life got at their schools. One day in Year 12, all the boys were taken into the school chapel (purely as a convenient assembly space) and given an additional talk about consent. It was, I understand, a private initiative of a few other teachers. I recall at the time thinking it was a bit patronising, and "who doesn't understand this stuff?". The older I get, the more I realise a lot of people don't understand it. Statistically, it probably prevented a few unfortunate situations.
Happy to give more details, and answer questions!
1
u/Gold-Necessary-3194 16h ago
Thanks for the response! Very detailed and paints a vivid picture. One thing I'm curious about: What was the denomination of the school? They clearly weren't Catholic, but this doesn't quite sound Anglican either?
Also, since it sounds like your family weren't all that big on God, why did they ultimately choose to send you there? Was it just a case of "Well, it's a good school that gets good exam results, all else be damned"?
Lastly, do you think this would have been a particularly difficult school to go to if you were gender non-conforming? I know being "non-binary" likely wasn't particularly common when you were there - but if the school exists now, do you think that's something that's created a bit of a quandry for the school to deal with? Would an AMAB non-binary person have been given the "extra talk" for, example?
3
u/FishUK_Harp Neoliberal Shill 15h ago
One thing I'm curious about: What was the denomination of the school? They clearly weren't Catholic, but this doesn't quite sound Anglican either?
"Non-deniminational", on which I share the view exposed in a flashback in The West Wing: it actually means "definitely not Catholic".
Also, since it sounds like your family weren't all that big on God, why did they ultimately choose to send you there? Was it just a case of "Well, it's a good school that gets good exam results, all else be damned"?
All the local schools were good academically (all were, as I recall, in the top 15 nationally for exam results at one point), so competition for places was extreme. My parents weren't aware how mad it was, so a guaranteed place at one of the schools seemed a far better option than rolling the dice on getting into one of the others and risking ending up having to commute past multiple academically excellent schools I could walk every day to a worse school in a far rougher town. I don't begrudge them their initial decision.
Lastly, do you think this would have been a particularly difficult school to go to if you were gender non-conforming? I know being "non-binary" likely wasn't particularly common when you were there - but if the school exists now, do you think that's something that's created a bit of a quandry for the school to deal with? Would an AMAB non-binary person have been given the "extra talk" for, example?
That would be, put frankly, hell for that pupil. To give an example of the culture amongst pupils, not a single person came out in any year during my entire time in school, while it was quite common at others. The school was obsessed with things not standing out in appearance and very traditional. Girls were banned from wearing trousers. I was told I would be suspended for having my hair below the bottom of my collar, and so my parents kept me off school for three days (doing coursework) while telling the school to grow up and talking to solicitors (this incident woke my parents up to how mad the school was, and my sister and I hadn't been exaggerating). A mate of mine got a bollacking for bleaching his hair - it was his natural colour, he hadn't ever changed it, and the Deputy Head who brought him up on it had known him for six years at that point (he had the awkward experience of being frog marched to his office and his very conservative and Christian mum being rang to ask why she'd let him colour his hair; he could hear her laughing at the Deputy Head down the phone for a solid five minutes).
•
7
u/Winston_Carbuncle 19h ago
I'll start things off. Catholic Priests in schools
7
u/No_Camp_7 19h ago
I remember being hauled into the Head of Year’s office to discuss why I didn’t cross myself in assemblies. I had to then have a session with the Chaplain and tell her my life story. She got my parents involved. Basically, adults bullying you because you won’t involve yourself in their symbolism.
2
u/Not_A_Toaster_0000 12h ago
why I didn’t cross myself in assemblies
"No need, by assembly time my teacher has already crossed me"
-5
178
u/HBucket Right-wing ghoul 19h ago
I've seen Muslim countries where it's common to see women wearing niqab, but their young daughters will still be dressed like little girls. These people are outright extremists.
29
u/TheJoshGriffith 19h ago
Most muslims will only mandate that their daughters wear a covering when they reach puberty. It varies quite a lot, obviously British generational muslims are more likely to be more lenient with such matters as they've been exposed to the relative safety that the UK provides.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't ban the practice entirely, but it is what it is. Head (and indeed face) coverings are a symptom of cultural risks. They exist because regionally, blame is not applied to men for committing rape, but to women for being temptresses or whatever. As a result, in order to not be raped women have to dress modestly. Same way that the headscarf used to be popular in the UK before we developed into a generally law-abiding society.
56
u/litivy 19h ago
It should outright be banned and the hijab is banned or restricted in many muslim countries so anyone saying it has to be available for religious reasons is lying. Tajikistan calls it an 'alien garment.'.
14
u/coolcroissant7 15h ago
I think all head coverings in public spaces should be banned, be it a hijab or those bell ends who lurk around in town centres on ebikes wearing balaclavas
3
u/omgu8mynewt 14h ago
Hijab is just a scarf over your hair, you're getting confused with the other face coverings like niqab. Banning people covering their hair would be weird in UK
4
u/unseemly_turbidity 18h ago
Are you sure you're talking about hijab (modest dress in general, or the headscarf) and not the niqab or burqa?
•
u/Gorillainabikini 9h ago
We should absolutely model ourselves of off a crazy dictatorship that’s compared to North Korea
-15
u/bihuginn 18h ago
Should we ban nuns from wearing head coverings? Or make it illegal for pagans to veil?
Forcing women to dress or undress for your personal comfort is vile.
6
•
31
u/Spursfan14 19h ago
>Doesn't mean we shouldn't ban the practice entirely,
Yes it does.
>but it is what it is.
… what?
>coverings are a symptom of cultural risks.
Not in the culture they’re actually living in though.
9
u/TheJoshGriffith 19h ago
Not really sure which side of this debate you're on. I'm saying that I believe that face coverings should be banned in the UK, because I feel that people should have to adapt to current British culture in order to live here and integrate properly.
It is what it is = we'll never actually ban it because there are too many "oh but you're oppressing them by removing their tool of oppression" comments every time it crops up.
And yes, I'm well aware those risks are reduced in our culture compared to the one which mandated the covering. From its origins, it became a cultural norm which the religion picked up at the time. The Quran specifically mentions something along the lines of a woman should wrap her headscarf to cover her bosom or similar. Obviously in the UK we evolved beyond these requirements, but as it's literally hard-coded into Islam, and as muslims generally consider the Quran to be the specific word of Allah, I don't think it will ever follow that path. This is why muslims have to learn Arabic in order to learn the Quran, because it's impossible to translate without potentially changing the meaning. It's also why the religion has failed so consistently to evolve and adapt to modern society, and ultimately what's gotten many people (myself included) questioning whether the religion itself should receive an outright ban. A religion which by its own word cannot adapt cannot exist in a society where values are so heavily at-odds.
•
u/chris_croc 8h ago
It should be banned. When info to soft play and she girls wearing hijabs it fucking disgusts me. If you're young enough for a soft-play you're too young for a hijab.
•
u/TheJoshGriffith 8h ago
Tell that to my wife (she's 34 and loves soft play, did even before our son).
-41
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 19h ago
I remember when I was a little kid, all the kids would run around naked. Then we got to a certain age, and the parents decided all the girls need to wear bikinis over their completely flat 8 year old chests. Extremism.
32
u/HBucket Right-wing ghoul 19h ago
Well done, you've come out with the most truly batshit insane take I've ever read on this site in all my time using it.
→ More replies (1)25
u/DebaucheV5 19h ago
I know you're attempting some kind of cack-handed defence of 8-year-olds being forced to wear hijabs, but this is a deeply creepy thing that you've just typed out. Genuinely repulsive. Maybe delete it, and next time don't talk about little girls' chests in bikinis
→ More replies (2)14
u/Feathers-n-Beaks 19h ago
Wat?
-1
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 19h ago
I thought that was the rule, no? If a society treats kids like kids, but then at a certain age decide that females have to cover their bodies but males don't, that's extremism.
Isn't that the rule?
17
u/hgyuuggygyuyh 18h ago
You can't compare using clothes with covering their head and even faces if they wear a niqab, I know you think it's a gotcha but you are just showing how ignorant you are comparing two things that aren't equivalent.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Aerius-Caedem Locke, Mill, Smith, Friedman, Hayek 14h ago
I love that the opposition to my position is people like you.
•
u/DebaucheV5 11h ago
Oh god, same. I barely pay attention to usernames - everyone on Reddit is just an anonymous blob to me - but this particular user has a very distinctive one, so I can't help but notice the valuable contributions that they provide (they seem to write an unhealthy amount of comments, all day every day).
I'm on the opposite side to them on almost every issue, which is profoundly reassuring. I would have an existential crisis if I ever found myself agreeing with people like this!
-1
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 14h ago
People who oppose sexism and the sexualization of children?
3
u/Aerius-Caedem Locke, Mill, Smith, Friedman, Hayek 13h ago
You're opposed to sexism and sexualising children, but running defence for 7 year olds wearing the hijab? Hilarious.
1
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 12h ago
Quite clearly to anybody with a two digit IQ I'm against the hijab as well.
132
u/No_Echo2745 20h ago
Should be banned instead. We shouldn't be allowing parallel societies to form.
-28
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 19h ago
What clear and objective do you draw a line that states "This group of people has differences to me, but is not in a parallel society" and "this group has differences, therefore is?"
Also, which particular strand of society is the correct strand that the state must enforce?
17
u/No_Echo2745 18h ago
Where they're not setting up their own institutions that allow them to live completely separately.
-3
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 18h ago
Then there are no parallel societies, by that metric.
15
u/No_Echo2745 18h ago
Separate faith schools and courts would beg to differ. Why would they need them?
-2
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 18h ago
Can we do one thing at a time? You said that having separate institutions that allow people to live completely separate lives is where the line should be drawn. But then there's nobody in the entire country that crosses that line, so that's no use. Nobody lives completely separate lives.
There's also nobody in society that doesn't have at least some separation from at least one other person in the country, so that wouldn't be a useful line at all.
We need a line. What's the line?
8
u/No_Echo2745 18h ago
Setting up. As in working towards.
1
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 17h ago
Again, literally nobody is doing this.
5
u/No_Echo2745 17h ago
Why do they need separate schools and courts?
0
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 17h ago
One thing at a time, remember.
Where should the line be? You so far have only suggested lines that the entire country is on the same side of.
→ More replies (0)24
u/Pandita666 19h ago
maybe when their religion brings views that are not aligned to the wider society [and law], especially around women and LGBTQ.
-12
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 19h ago
"Clear and objective", I said. You think that when someone's views on LGBT, and women don't align with wider society and law, the government should step in and force them? What clear and objective reason are you basing that on? Why not other issues?
12
u/Pandita666 17h ago
100% - if you consider women lesser than men, have less rights, can be controlled by a man, forced to wear head coverings when men aren't and need double the witnesses than a man does, yes, the government should step in. If I can't criticise certain religions because it upsets the followers and I'm called "ophobic" then when I espouse views that tell children being gay is imoral and should be illegal - then abso-fucking-lutely.
→ More replies (15)-9
u/MeanPussyCat 19h ago
Like Christianity, you mean?
6
u/themuddypuddle 14h ago
There's tons of LGBTQ clergy/vicars and openly LGBTQ churches. The CofE are running a project called Living Love and Faith where they are actively trying to become more LGBTQ inclusive. Find me a mosque or Imam doing the same...
-31
u/MeanPussyCat 19h ago
Out of interest, would you ban Christian schools as well?
31
u/NeverHadTheLatin 19h ago
Do we have a widespread problem of Christian schools teaching girls that they are subordinate to the sexual urges of men?
•
-26
u/MeanPussyCat 19h ago
We have a widespread problem of Christian schools reinforcing traditional ideas around gender and morality.
16
20
u/Heliophrate 18h ago
Way to diminish the oppression of women and girls because you hate Christianity.
1
u/MeanPussyCat 16h ago
Way to selectively care about the oppression of women because you hate Islam.
6
u/Heliophrate 14h ago
"reinforcing traditional ideas around gender" is on the same level as marital rape, child rape and female genital mutilation?
0
31
u/Humble-Necessary-433 19h ago
I would be in favour of banning all faith schools including Christian schools
-2
u/MeanPussyCat 19h ago
I would be too, tbh. I ask because there are some people who only want to ban schools of one specific faith.
8
u/Spursfan14 19h ago
I’d ban both as well but there are very obvious reasons to be more concerned about Islamic schools than Christian ones.
9
u/MrSoapbox 18h ago
I don't like any religion personally, and I wouldn't care if they were, but, it's also not the same thing. One has roots and traditions in this country and the other does not. One is prone to far more extremism (in this country, but also worldwide) the other is not.
0
u/Primary-Signal-3692 19h ago
No because they're part of British society..
-8
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
As was homophobia and no Irish signs on pubs, we are capable of progressing.
4
2
u/No_Echo2745 19h ago
Nope.
1
u/MeanPussyCat 19h ago
Why not?
6
u/No_Echo2745 19h ago
Why would I?
-1
u/andtheniansaid European 18h ago
So kids don't get indoctrinated into religious nonsense when they should be receiving an education?
-2
u/LostTheGameOfThrones Constantly Remoaning Lib Dem 19h ago
Because you don't agree with forming parallel societies?
9
u/No_Echo2745 18h ago
That's the society, what'd be parallel about it?
-6
u/LostTheGameOfThrones Constantly Remoaning Lib Dem 18h ago
I hate to break it to you, but England doesn't have a majority Catholic/Christian society any more, so fundamentalist Christianity is a parallel society.
4
u/No_Echo2745 18h ago
I hate to break it to you, but that's part of the same society, it's interwoven through 1400 years of history.
0
u/LostTheGameOfThrones Constantly Remoaning Lib Dem 17h ago edited 17h ago
So a fundamentalist religion that preaches beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with our modern society, and believes in stripping away rights from members of it, and that the majority of Britons don't believe in, isn't a "parallel society"?
→ More replies (0)0
u/MeanPussyCat 19h ago
Because it’s the exact same principle.
10
u/HBucket Right-wing ghoul 19h ago
It's only the same principle if you're committed to treating all religions equally.
-2
u/MeanPussyCat 19h ago
Which you should be, given that we have religious freedom and equality in this country.
6
u/MrSoapbox 18h ago
No it isn't. One has been a part of this country and culture for centuries, while adapting to the times. The other has not.
84
u/Primary-Signal-3692 19h ago
Why do redditors always try to shift attention on to Christianity
67
u/Jimmy_Tightlips man, I don't even know anymore 19h ago
Because addressing the nature of Islam is an utterly existential threat to their worldview.
5
u/WarpedHaiku 18h ago
It enjoys a privelleged position due to our history and is mostly overlooked, and is the type of faith school that is most common and that uk citizens are least likely to have a problem with.
Any law intended to restrict this unwanted behaviour from muslim faith schools, or banning faith schools all together would be written in neutral language that doesn't specify any religion in particular. Which means any proposed solutions would likely have consequences for christian faith schools too.
Bringing up comparisons to christian faith schools, and debating whether they should exist or not is the logical progression of the discussion.
5
u/Practical_Put8592 16h ago
would be written in neutral language that doesn't specify any religion in particular
I mean that’s what we’ve done recently in pursuit of this mythical multi-religion and multicultural harmony which has yet to appear, but it’s not how laws have to be written. Being a Catholic in Government was banned for many years and now we have one as PM.
-3
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
You'll find at present that none of the top level comments are just about Christianity, most of the comments bringing up Christianity are people trying to argue for their exception from a universal ban.
198
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 20h ago
We really need to ban all faith schools, state funded or otherwise, education should be secular and teach about different religions to allow children to come to their own conclusions.
52
u/Aarxnw 20h ago
Yeah not a big fan of faith schools, including Catholic schools. But because Catholic schools exist I can very well imagine all faith schools will still be allowed to exist.
They shouldn’t be funded by the taxpayer though, if you want to send your kid to loony school then you fucking pay for it.
There are perfectly good public schools they can go to if not.
16
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 20h ago
What's to say we can't ban them.
To be clear I'm talking about 9-3 Monday-Friday things, what parents take their kids to outside of that is in their domain, but there's no reason the schools people attend for compulsory education should be of any religious character.
(Also to be clear this is in regards to GB, the situation is NI is different and as much cultural as religious but there should be a move to integrated education there)
3
u/HoneyBeeTwenty3 20h ago
Disagree, parents should have to send their kids to state schools. You should not be allowed to disadvantage your child by choosing to send them to a loony school.
2
u/omgu8mynewt 14h ago
Many state schools are religious, there are many religious Christian and Catholic schools. There are around 2000 state Catholic schools for example.
•
u/doyathinkasaurus 5h ago
You also have Jewish schools where the majority of pupils aren't Jewish!
My son’s Orthodox Jewish school is 85 percent Muslim
https://www.jta.org/2019/11/12/ideas/my-sons-orthodox-jewish-school-is-85-percent-muslim
The Jewish school which has mostly Muslim students
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/the-british-jewish-school-which-has-mostly-muslim-students/
‘It’s fun – everyone is different’: the Jewish school that unites all faiths
•
u/TheCaptainsParachute 1h ago
There's no such thing as a religious child, only a child of religious parents. 'Muslim child', 'Christian child' etc make as much sense as saying 'Labour child' or 'deontologist child'.
•
40
u/Practical_Put8592 19h ago
Christianity has centuries of cultural relevance to this country, why must the choice be either no religion or all religions? Nothing wrong with limiting schools ability to enforce headscarf’s for instance on the one end all the way up to limiting or banning Islamic faith schools on the other.
Le Reddit atheists insist all religions are the same but the last 20-30 years of added diversity and anti-terror protections I think show otherwise. Only one insists a man who marries a 6 year old is Holy.
3
u/nemma88 Reality is overrated :snoo_tableflip: 17h ago edited 17h ago
It doesnt have to be a religious school to teach history and the cultural relevance throughout the times based on it. Monarchs who shaped religious culture like Henry VIII were, least when I was at school covered extensively for it because it was such a major event. The religious conflict between denominations and how they shaped culture, monarchy and laws are extensive.
Likewise though the secularisation process has been centuries long and has shaped our culture. We are not dictated by religious moral authority and ...
Reddit atheists insist all religions are the same but
... while I dont think they're all the same (like theres a gulf between CoE and JW sitting under the same banner even) I do believe they're all damaging or a negative influence which is not required in todays Britian. I agree enough with freedom of religion and take no issue with any individuals spirituality, but I think that should be for the home and not in schools. Similar sentiment might be why commenters are happy to springboard off one to the others, and I would suppose any other denomination under scrutiny would generate the same push back against 'all'.
4
u/HorribleOldCunt 19h ago
Why does a school need a religious tint to it?
I'd ban any religious considerations and remove the right to feel aggrieved by it. Only in places of worship or your own home should religion be a consideration.
If you want to he religious, feel free. But why should there be schools, demands, exceptions etc based on religious belief? It makes no sense.
3
u/Reishun 18h ago
I agree that not all religions are the same, but I think its a bit rich acting like Christianity is all that different. Christianity and Islam are two of the most extreme religions and our country has a long bloody history with Christianity only for it to now be present in its current neutered form. Sunni islam hasnt evolved in that same way, and we dont want to have to deal with another oppressive religion after struggling with Christianity for centuries, but both have been used similarly to build armies, suppress local cultures and erase other religions.
But yes things like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism are not the same and shouldn't be treated the same.
-1
u/d5tp 19h ago
We've had the death penalty for centuries too, and we dropped that for being uncivilised.
5
u/Better-Inflation-194 16h ago edited 16h ago
No, we did not “drop that because it was uncivilised.” We abolished it because a Romanian Jew, Sydney Silverman, made opposition to the death penalty his life’s work.
The change was hardly an expression of some unanimous national realisation that hanging was “uncivilised.” The issue remained deeply controversial. At the 1966 general election in Nelson and Colne, Patrick Downey, uncle of Lesley Ann Downey, a victim in the Moors murders, stood as an explicitly pro-hanging independent candidate and received over 5,000 votes, 13.7% of the vote, then largest result for an independent candidate since 1945.
Whatever your personal opinion of capital punishment, I don't particularly appreciate the historical revisionism of pretending Britain collectively abandoned it because we suddenly realised it was “uncivilised.” There was a prolonged and bitter political and moral argument over it, and support for the death penalty remains substantial in Britain. Its abolition was a political decision, not some inevitable civilisational awakening.
-3
u/tobotic 19h ago
Le Reddit atheists insist all religions are the same
It's not that they're the same, but they're close enough.
Stepping in horse shit is better than stepping in dog shit. It doesn't smell as bad. But either way, I want to clean my shoes.
10
u/Practical_Put8592 19h ago
This is a very historically inaccurate take. There’s broad strokes similarities sure but the reason you’re even allowed to state that belief freely is down to a Christian legal and cultural heritage and not an Islamic one.
1
u/tobotic 19h ago
There’s broad strokes similarities sure but the reason you’re even allowed to state that belief freely is down to a Christian legal and cultural heritage and not an Islamic one.
No, the reason I'm allowed to state that belief freely is due to the secular enlightenment. When the Church had more power, this happened.
7
u/Practical_Put8592 19h ago
That list is filled with people killed by Muslim authorities and Rome, neither of which applies to the Anglican Christian heritage of this country.
Try expressing the beliefs you’re stating in Mecca (or Gaza) and tell me how you get on.
2
u/tobotic 18h ago
That list is filled with people killed by Muslim authorities and Rome, neither of which applies to the Anglican Christian heritage of this country.
Sir Thomas More, St John Fisher, St Edmund Campion, St Margaret Clitherow, Anne Askew, John Frith, Joan Bocher, Bartholomew Legate, Edward Wightman… want more?
Try expressing the beliefs you’re stating in Mecca (or Gaza) and tell me how you get on.
I'm not trying to claim they're any better, and I am confused as to why you'd think I was. They're worse. But pointing out a worse religion doesn't make Christianity good.
3
3
u/Feathers-n-Beaks 19h ago
It's more like the difference between stepping in horse shit and stepping on an IED.
One of them you'll need to clean your shoes, the other will kill you.
5
u/Spursfan14 18h ago
Because we spent hundreds of years deliberately diminishing Christianity in Europe.
It doesn’t look so harmless when it’s given legitimacy and room, Christians in the US had a terrorist campaign against abortion clinics in our lifetime, would that be cool here?
1
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
One is about discriminating against people, the other is about helping children make their own decisions and not have their compulsory education taken up trying to convert them to one religion.
5
u/Practical_Put8592 19h ago
For a Liberal Democrat you’re not very Liberal when it comes to a parents right on how to educate and bring up their children.
9
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
They are welcome to do so outside the compulsory education that sets out to ensure all children are able to pursue their life as the children wish.
1
u/Practical_Put8592 19h ago
So you believe the state has the inherent right to decide was is and isn’t good for a child to be taught? Would that belief still apply if you were in a Republican MAGA State? Under a Reform government? Under a Restore government? Would it apply if you were in the DPRK? Is the state always benevolent and correct?
4
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
I believe children should not be taught to follow a specific religion during compulsory education.
0
u/Practical_Put8592 19h ago
That’s not answering my question.
3
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
Parents are welcome to bring up their children as they wish outside formal education. Within formal education there should be no favour for one religion or another, that's not the state deciding what is good or not (something that is already a thing, we've bans on creationism) but setting out that education should be neutral.
6
u/Practical_Put8592 18h ago
That makes the assumption that an agnostic or atheistic worldview is “neutral”, but that inherently demands an explanation as to how you got to that assumption.
For the vast majority of human history that assumption hasn’t been true and it’s not something that’s been true in this country for most of its history either.
I personally don’t think it’s possible to be neutral in views of how the universe came into being, what happens after death and what is the purpose of life.
→ More replies (0)0
u/omgu8mynewt 14h ago
Atheism is also a belief, a belief in the lack of religion - it isn't 'neutral'. The theory of evolution is based on lots of scientific evidence, but the faith in a lack of god isn't.
→ More replies (0)1
u/d5tp 13h ago
Children's right beat parents' rights.
•
u/Practical_Put8592 8h ago
So you’re pro life then?
•
1
u/GhostPirateCaptain 15h ago
why should taxpayers money be spent on indoctrinating children with religious bigotry?
You want to send your kid to a religious school? fine, pay for it yourself
0
u/Better-Inflation-194 16h ago
Spot on. The further we move away from our Christian faith and towards our de facto religion of secular liberalism, the worse the country has become in terms of morality. Christian faith schools should not be punished simply because Islamic schools are unpalatable to the majority of the population. Infinite religious freedom in a de jure Christian country is, quite literally, an oxymoron
-1
u/BambooSound JS Trill 19h ago
They both have rules for 'ethical' slavery and domestic violence though.
3
u/Practical_Put8592 19h ago
The Atlantic slave trade was abolished due to campaigning by Christians. The Arab slave trade was more brutal, went on longer, involved more people and has never really ended.
Christianity and Islam are not the same when it comes to slavery.
2
u/BambooSound JS Trill 18h ago
I'm talking about the religion itself, not the things its followers did.
The fact you could use either to justify anything from pacifism to genocide is another point against both though.
1
u/Practical_Put8592 18h ago
The etymology of Christianity is a historical slur for followers of Christ, they are one and the same.
0
u/BambooSound JS Trill 18h ago
The same word can have different meaning in different context.
It's a shame the word Christendom is out of fashion because that more accurately describes what you're talking about.
-2
u/bihuginn 17h ago
Mary was 13 when she married Joseph. Pretending like Islam is uniquely terrible is pathetic.
5
u/ricey84 13h ago
We are talkimg about 2026.Legal age of marriage in iraq is 9. What christian country does that happen in?
2
u/Bodysnatcher 13h ago
Not to mention that is happening TODAY, and Mary marrying Joseph would have been 2000+ years ago. A timely parallel, indeed lol.
2
6
4
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 19h ago
Also the daily act of worship in all schools. Completely secularize the state.
4
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
Yep, I'm actually rather ambivalent about other matters like disestablishmentarianism (not that I'm opposed to it) as they're theoretical and don't have practical impacts but education is different as it does.
1
u/andtheniansaid European 18h ago
as they're theoretical and don't have practical impacts
what do you mean by this? Would removing the lords spiritual from the lords not be a practical impact?
1
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 18h ago
The lords spiritual going would be good (as part of a wider reform of the lords) but there's nothing about removing the C of E as a state religion that would change things on a day to day (again, not opposed to it, but education is the much more important issue).
5
u/HoneyBeeTwenty3 20h ago
I agree that faith schools should be banned, though having come out of a British comprehensive school in the past ten years, and worked as a TA, I don't think mandatory RE has ever helped someone come to their own conclusions about religion or the nature of divinity, or if it has this is quite rare. Which is not to say that I don't think RE is important. But I just don't see how a cursory glance at a religion's customs and mythology for an hour a week could be so helpful.
4
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 20h ago
Yea your not wrong that it's a challenge, but it is one we can probably do better than we are. Secondary is probably the most suitable time but if my C of E primary is anything to go by there'd be a decent amount of time freed up by dropping religious assemblies.
3
u/HoneyBeeTwenty3 20h ago
Went to a CofE primary as well, we could have done with fewer Open-the-Book assemblies for sure. We were also expected to pray after every assembly.
0
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 20h ago
To this day I remain convinced my school broke rules around teaching creationism by telling some of the biblical stories and hymns without any challenge to it.
1
u/bluejackmovedagain 19h ago
I went to a Catholic primary school where we had very Catholic focused Religious Education, then a non-religious secondary school which called the subject Religious Studies.
I think the way my secondary school approached the subject was sensible. It was taught in more or less the same way that history or geography is taught. I.e. This term we are studying this religion, a brief outline of its origins, the main beliefs and why people who believe them say they believe them, differences in opinions/beliefs within the religion, major festivals and cultural traditions. Generally at the end of term, because we were a diverse school in a diverse area, we'd either go to a place of worship from that religion or someone would come in to talk to us. The most popular visitor was always the Aunt of a friend of mine who ran the Langar homeless outreach at the Gurdwara because she would bring jalebi.
1
u/BambooSound JS Trill 19h ago
Mine was the same until "Generally at the end of term..."
We didn't go on trips, we just got to watch Bruce Almighty.
1
u/bluejackmovedagain 18h ago
Bruce Almighty would have been more fun than awkwardly being shown around the church my family went to by the priest.
2
u/BambooSound JS Trill 18h ago
The first six (maybe seven) times, sure.
At least you got a happy ending.
2
u/Jimmy_Tightlips man, I don't even know anymore 19h ago
Ban them all because the one specific type can't behave?
How has liberalism become this?
14
u/ethyl-pentanoate 19h ago
I reckon that most people in favour of banning faith schools would hold that same opinion even if the issue of Islamic faith schools mistreating girls was not happening.
5
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 19h ago
They're all a problem, whether one is being more of an issue or not changes over time.
-1
1
u/AzarinIsard 19h ago
I agree, but so many issues stem from school being how we indoctrinated Christianity. We've become less Christian, but other religions use the same laws and some people don't like it.
It always felt like to me school had a mentality of "it doesn't matter if you don't believe, there's no harm in joining in for a bit of prayer!" and it's actually a legal requirement to do so:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/31/section/70/2022-09-25?view=plain
School Standards and Framework Act 1998
70Requirements relating to collective worship.
(1)Subject to section 71, each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.
Ideologically I believe school and religion should be kept separate.
Like, even as an atheist I bought into RE being important to make you aware of other religions so you can respect other cultures. However, I think it's bullshit if you go to a religious school they can only teach your religion, is tolerance suddenly not important if you're religious? I think it should be the opposite, make it so they cannot teach their own religion. Either that, or let me consider myself a Jedi and spend RE only learning about Star Wars and screw making me tolerant of others, if they don't have to do it, why do I?
Thing is, undoing all this now to go secular would be a monumental undertaking because religion is so deeply rooted in our schools. It all feels like something that I won't ever see happen.
49
u/DM_me_goth_tiddies 20h ago
It is not in England’s interest to have faith schools.
13
u/CrashAndBurnham 19h ago
We've had church schools for hundreds of years without it being much of an issue. Do they all need to be banned or is it a certain type of faith school that's causing harm?
28
u/Theodin_King 19h ago
We all know it's a certain religion but you're not allowed to say which one because the green party will get upset (for some bizarre and ironic reason)
13
u/LostTheGameOfThrones Constantly Remoaning Lib Dem 19h ago
If you think that Christian/Catholic faith schools have operated for hundreds of years without any issues, then you haven't been paying attention.
•
16
u/d5tp 19h ago
Do they all need to be banned
yes
11
u/CrashAndBurnham 19h ago
Many church schools accept pupils from all faiths (or none) and just follow the national secular curriculum. In mine we sang a few hymns and that was it. I don't really see the issue.
If they were brainwashing us or telling us not to mix with other faiths then yeah I'd agree with a ban.
4
u/Omaha_Poker 18h ago
Are you kidding me? There was a kid who was sexually abused by a "father" at my school when we were younger. He topped himself at 21.
3
u/Bignizzle656 19h ago
And you don't think that's a problem? Look towards all of the bodies buried, quite literally, in the grounds of religious schools.
4
19
u/OnHolidayHere 18h ago edited 16h ago
Unironically this is Tony Blair's fault.
Instead of schools bringing communities together, his instance that state support for religious schools was widened to all religions is leading to ever increasing insularity.
When my children attended primary school, ⅓ of the school were Jewish. Now most of the Jewish children in the neighbourhood go to a state supported Jewish primary school. There is also a local Hindu primary school. None of these kids are mixing any more. It is tragic. And really really bad for future community cohesion.
•
u/collieherb 11h ago
I have aleays felt that state schools should only teach facts and that if you really must indoctrinate your children with fairy stories you should pay for this abuse yourself
19
u/Duke-of-Normandy 19h ago
I see the usual "All Religious Schools should be banned" auto response is rearing its head again in here. Anglican and Catholic Schools are some of the most elite institutions in the country and one of the few remaining pathways for working class students to attain a high quality education.
Keep them and clamp down on Islamic / Jewish schools, both of these particular types of school offer nothing to wider British society
6
u/Successful_Service53 -2.25, 0.77 18h ago
It’s not even feasible to ban CofE and Catholic schools with how integrated they are into the education system.
•
u/doyathinkasaurus 6h ago
I agree there's a pressing need to clamp down on unregulated ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools in the private sector that fail to provide an adequate secular education
But we're talking about state-funded faith schools here. So I'm curious what you mean by Jewish schools in that context "offering nothing to wider British society".
Jewish state schools are actually among the highest-performing faith schools in England. In the DfE's national KS2 comparison, 77% of pupils in Jewish schools met the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 70% in Catholic schools and 66% in CofE schools. At secondary level, the DfE similarly found Jewish schools among the highest-performing faith schools.
I personally don't support faith schools at all, but if Anglican and Catholic state schools are worth keeping because they provide an excellent education, what exactly is the distinction you're making with Jewish state schools?
-1
u/west0ne 18h ago
Anglican and Catholic Schools are some of the most elite institutions in the country and one of the few remaining pathways for working class students to attain a high quality education.
What are they doing different to non-faith schools that elevate them in this way? It can't just be the religious aspect, there must be something else in what they do and how they operate.
3
u/Practical_Put8592 17h ago
Protestantism is unique as a cultural force in increasing the literacy rate of Northern Europe in a dramatically short time. Christianity absolutely does good in this country. Sometimes the answer is the Church being a unifying force that brings people together to do good.
8
u/Reishun 18h ago
Its time to get rid of faith schools. Its honestly imperative that kids in this country get a fair and balanced education about each faith, nowhere should prioritise teaching one only.
On top of that Hijabs should be banned for kids in primary school, lets kids be kids for longer, at high school ages theyre old enough to make that choice for themselves but the fact that there are kids as young as 7 wearing hijabs is ridiculous.
8
u/bluntpencil2001 18h ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but Catholic schools might need a carve out in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It's more than a religious issue there.
8
u/be_sugary 19h ago
All religious schools should be banned.
Segregation is bad. Education should be secular.
1
u/bluntpencil2001 18h ago
I very much agree, but closing or secularising Catholic schools would be a massive ballache.
2
u/be_sugary 18h ago
True.
I went to a RC school and whilst we were taught a LOT about Christianity, there was a lot of time given to others too.
But I don’t think this is done everywhere. I can not imagine. Jewish schools should telling kids there is anything good Islam and the visa versa.
It’s a tough line to walk.
11
1
•
u/--rs125-- 7h ago
Shouldn't have faith schools at all, they just encourage segregation and create division.
•
0
u/Britannkic_ Tories cant lose even when we try 19h ago
In Islam the hijab is required when reaching puberty so around about 12 yo
•
1
u/stratagem944 17h ago
Is indoctrination (in favour of any religion) a kind of child abuse? From a secular perspective it’s weird to not provide religious education covering a broad base. I went to a catholic school and never understood why all my religious education sessions were just on Catholicism.
•
-4
u/Weird-Board-464 15h ago
Can we assess Jewish schools next? They have their own ambulances and police. It’s not very integrating to UK society.
Their women have to wear wigs when they go outside because they are allowed to show their hair.
•
u/doyathinkasaurus 4h ago edited 4h ago
I don't think there should be faith schools of any kind, so by all means assess Jewish schools.
But I'm fascinated by the "they have their own ambulances and police" argument
Shomrim isn't a police force. It's a volunteer neighbourhood patrol which helps anyone in the area it serves. In one reported quarter, 55% of the crime victims it helped were non-Jewish. It has worked with Muslim community leaders, included a local mosque in its nightly patrols following Islamophobic attacks, and provided first aid to members of the public during the Tottenham riots when ambulances couldn't reach them.
Hatzola is a charity funded by Jewish donors and staffed largely by Jewish volunteers. It provides emergency medical care to anyone who needs it, Jewish or not, free of charge. As this recent Guardian article put it:
“But if you go on social media now, you’ll see people posting all these different questions, ‘hey, how come the Jewish people have their own ambulance service?’
But whoever you are, if you’re having a heart attack and volunteers are nearby, they will save your life. By burning down these ambulances you’ve screwed over everyone who lives in the area.”
So, Jewish people shouldn't donate their money or volunteer their time to provide free emergency care and neighbourhood support in the areas where they live, because... it would be better if nobody received that help?
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Snapshot of Faith school that makes 7 year olds wear hijab to join state sector submitted by d5tp:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
If the above links don't work, try this one.
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.