Religious indoctrination and religious segregation has no place in schools. Children should be able to learn and work out their ideas without officially imposed or sponsored indoctrination from priests, imams, or rabbis. There should be no faith schools. Schools should deal in inquiry and reason, not faith.
That is the basic issue highlighted by the outcry against the mild comments on faith schools made by the Chief Inspector of Schools, David Bell, in a speech on 17 January. Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, has endorsed the comments.
Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society told Solidarity: “Our position is that there is a problem in the state sector, and not just in the relatively small number of independent faith schools. One third of our state schools are faith schools, and the Government is embarked on a process of expanding faith schools in the state sector.
“The Church of England has a target of 200 new Church of England secondary schools, which the Government has endorsed. In our view it is not the state’s role to be subsidising proselytisation. But there is a further problem.
“We accept that if we are to have Church of England schools, then we have to have Muslim schools. But that leads straight to religious segregation and apartheid, promoted as a matter of national government policy.
“The only sensible way forward is to make all schools community schools”.
Tony Blair is a fervent advocate of faith schools, including those run by the Christian-fundamentalist Vardy Foundation. He has just appointed as the new Secretary of State for
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly, who does not deny being an associate of Opus Dei, the sinister ultra-Catholic society which grew up under Franco fascism in Spain and is now a worldwide spearhead of the most conservative forces in Catholicism. (She can only be an “associate”, not a member, because Opus Dei admits only men as members).
Already there are seven thousand faith schools in the state sector, now including 44 non-Christian (Jewish or Muslim) ones. There are about 300 independent faith schools, over 100 Christian, about 100 Muslim, and over 50 Jewish.
Bell supports faith schools. But he said: “Religious segregation in schools… must not put our coherence at risk… Faith should not be blind. I worry that many young people are being educated in faith-based schools, with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society. As my Annual Report will say about Muslim schools: ‘many schools must adapt their curriculum to ensure that it provides pupils with a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England and helps them to acquire an appreciation of and respect for other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony…’”
This mild comment earned him denunciation as “Islamophobic”. But there is nothing “Islamophobic” — or “Christophobic” — in saying that when children are faced, through government policy, with a choice of either Christian or Muslim schools, then division, prejudice, and fear will prosper. Northern Ireland, with its education system divided into Catholic and Protestant schools, shows us how.
Houzan Mahmoud, British representative of the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq, told Solidarity: “I am against all kinds of religious schools. I want secular education which will promote equality and integration. I am an ex-Muslim myself, but I don’t want my daughter to learn about Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. At her age I want her to learn about more interesting stuff, not those scary things. Different religious schools means segregation for children. But what we want is equality and integration”.
Whether the Christian or Muslim schools are more or less liberal, and provide more or less teaching about other faiths, is not decisive — though with Kelly in charge, only a fool will rely on Christian schools being liberal, and only a double fool will rely on Muslim schools not responding in kind to Christian illiberalism.
The core idea of any such religion is not about love or truth, or any such humanist idea. It is that books (Bible, Koran, Torah) or specially-appointed people (priests, imams, rabbis) can transmit instructions from “God” about what to eat, what to wear, how to conduct sexual relations, and what rituals to perform; and that if we defy those instructions we will be punished.
Such ideas may be hardened or softened, interpreted harshly or liberally, but without them there is no religion. Religion means fear. And religion also implies that other religions are traducing and misrepresenting God. Softened or hardened, it implies some degree of hostility to other religions and to disbelief. And it is by definition impervious to reason, for it is a matter of upholding one set of claims to represent God’s ukases — Bible and priests, or Koran and imams — against another.
Members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty in the National Union of Teachers are starting a campaign on this issue, with motions to the union’s conference this Easter and plans for a fringe meeting there.
Comments
Muslim Schools
Salaam
Muslim schools are for those Muslim parents who would like to send their children.
Iftikhar,I think all chil
Iftikhar,
I think all children have the right to a secular education, regardless of their parents wishes that they have a christian, muslim, jewish or any other religious education.
Children are not the property of their parents, and their rights should be upheld against the wishes of their parents when necessary.
Simon
What about the kids' rights?
But don't the children of Muslim parents (or Christian parents, or whatever) have the right to a secular education?
Parents can pass on their religious beliefs to their children in their own time. When kids go to school, it should be a liberating experience that allows them access to views other than their parents'.
Importantly, if schools teach children about religious beliefs, they should teach them the *facts* ie. that these are beliefs, not scientific truths. And they should not compel children into taking part in acts of worship which they may not understand and may not agree with. On both of these points, 'faith schools' do the opposite.
I agree with this, but I thin
I agree with this, but I think there is a real danger of the Left falling into an inadequate liberal secularism on this issue. Merely bringing about secular education will not make going to school a 'liberating' experience. Schools are integral to the bourgeois State and have as their primary social purpose the reproduction of labour in order to serve capitalist profit. In a 'secular' school kids are free to think what they think about religion - they are less free to imagine a different secular future, they will be taught in careers lessons how to compete in the 'jungle' of the marketplace, they will learn to discipline their time according to a timetable which mirrors the capitalist workplace, they will learn to obey orders.
There is nothing 'neutral' or 'liberating' about school - occasional moments at best. This is not to criticise teachers, but to say they are constrained by their social location. There is a real danger of the Left going on about faith schools so much that we end up saying 'if only religion were out of schools they would be fine' - a subtle form of idealism. Secular schools under capitalism are not neutral, they are sites of social discipline. The condition for liberating education is the liberation of humanity from capitalism!
Hmmm
Well, in general, yes.
But the 'big danger' facing the left right now is NOT that it digs in too much for 'liberal secularlism'. Quite the opposite. The mainstream left has largely abandoned secularism, preferring to defend 'faith schools' out of some misguided - or opportunist - view that this somehow defends people and groups against oppression.
By contrast, faith schools actually entrench conservative political leaders against members of 'their own' communities as well as denying children's rights.
OK, so maybe those of us who do defend secularism should make sure that we don't turn into liberals - although, "fat chance of that" would be my instinctive response!
But the biggest danger facing the left is the abandonment of secularism, not the over-promotion of it.
Neutrality in schools, or the lack thereof.
I feel you too are in danger of an even more worrying form of idealism - schools always teach people some ideas about dominant social forms therefore to protest about any particular instance of that would be foolish. Of course we would argue against anyone who claims schools would be fine if not for the religious element, of course there is more to it than that. But just because there is more than one thing to fight against doesn't mean you stop fighting, precisely the opposite I would imagine.
The idealism you seem to fall prey to is that as socialism will liberate humankind it is the only thing worth fighting for, and that any demands that fall short of it are to be abandoned. I hate to break this to you but we're not having a revolution as we type, and that as such it might not be a bad idea to fight reactionary movements even if doing so will not directly bring socialism into being. Just because education will only be liberated when it is free from capitalism doesn't mean we shouldn't fight reaction anywhere we find it. If we don't then this liberation you talk about is never going to actually happen...
Of course I don't think that
Of course I don't think that campaigning for anything short of socialism isn't worth doing, not least because the fight for socialism grows out of day-to-day struggle around current issues. I said, or I think I did, that I support the campaign for secular education. However, I think there is an over-emphasis on this issue which blunts the Left's imagination. The role of socialists is not only to support current struggles but to foster peoples' imaginations and desires for the future. We need to do both.
More generally, I think socialists don't critique education under capitalism often enough or loudly enough. We can, I think, learn a lot from anarchists on this issue. None of this contradicts supporting secular education, supporting teachers' struggles etc.
The case for Religious Education
As some one that teaches Religious Education and Religious Studies I must object to a few of the views expressed in an article that I otherwise agree with.
Anyone who is involved in the teaching of religions will scoff at the notion that the role of RE/RS is to teach any religion as 'true', rather the point is both to learn about religions and learn from them by constructing a critical engagement of the pupils with some aspects of the religious tradtion that they are looking at. This is not my opinion but is what is laid out in all RE/RS syllabuses.
It seems an arrogant statement to say that all religions and all followers of religion are not concerned with love or truth, rather they seek to be told what to do! This is a gross distortion of what may people will have experienced of religion. How would you feel if some one argued that Communism is not about liberation but about the transmitting of holy texts via the Party leaders/clergy? You wouldn't deny that this can be the case but it is not the whole case!
RE/RS is possibly the one subject on the syllabus where there is no right or wrong answers but an emphasis on the development of critical reason and of opinion. It is also a chance to think about and debate issues that would not crop up in any other subject. It would be odd if people who see themselves as progressive would line up with those reactionaries who see RE/RS as worthless as its not about preparing the next generation of workers for deadend jobs. This socialist, atheist teacher union activist for one would oppose you.
Steve Davies
It not just about RE classes
I wasn't particularly referring to RE classes. I'm sure they've changed a lot since I was at school, and my kids are as yet too young for RE classes. So I don't feel knowledgable enough to comment.
What I *am* bothered about is compulsory religious worship at schools, religious appointees on governing bodies, and the designation of a school as being of a particular religion. These things are clearly based on telling children that the particular religion concerned is the one truth.
After all, if it is simply a matter of RE lessons teaching about all religions equally (and - I wonder if you could confirm this - about secularism and atheism too), then why have such things as C of E schools, Muslim schools, etc.?
I am also bothered about the so-called 'right' of parents to withdraw their children from learning about things such as sex education, usually on religious grounds. Parents should have no right to deny their kids the right to this knowledge. This is a clear example of putting religious beliefs above concern for passing on facts and learning.
Religious Education
Ok, I'd totally agree with any act of worship being compulsory (a moments reflection tells us that this wrong!). Im against a school being designated a particular religion too, though in practice not all 'faith' schools try to promote the pupils to become members of that faith: I know of inner city CoE schools that are 95% muslim.
For some 'faith' schools it is more a matter of broad principles that they encourage, or a particular mission that they have (such as providing education for recently arrived pupils in Britain) rather than promoting one religion as true. Guess which type of faith schools broadly dont do the above!
I teach Religious Studies AS and A2 level and that explicitly deals with the arguments against the existence of God,as will GCSE at a lower level. In any case, I think often socialists devalue the experiences of religious people and the notion that they might be anything to learn from any religion would be laughed at by most socialists.
I share your concerns about pupils being barred from some subjects on their parents say so on religious grounds, but then for some at least of the parents they will believe that are doing whats best for their child. Do you think the state should make it illegal for this to happen?
By the way RE is the only subject that parents have a right to withdraw their children from.
SD
I agree with that, but my und
I agree with that, but my understanding of what 'secular' education means is not necessarily incompatible with the type of RE you describe - what it IS against is confessional schools, instruction etc.
Importance of RE
We should remember the great benefits that teaching RE in Britain has brought!
In the USA, RE is not taught in schools. Only 2% of people there say they do not believe in God. Whereas here, RE IS taught, and the amount of atheists is around 33-44%. Presumably this is because when children are taught about religion, they can see that it is all blatantly useless and untrue.
I hope RE is continued, and teaches about atheism and humanism too, so we can better minimise the amount of religious reactionaries in Britain.
re: RE
Mod Trot, I assume you jest about RE being responsible for atheism. France, where religion is scrupulously excluded from schools, has a similar percentage of atheists to the UK (and Russia has the highest percentage worldwide) so I suspect the difference between Europe and America is down to other factors.
I went to CofE schools until I was 13 and I certainly don't recall being indoctrinated or told the Bible was a set of instructions from God, although we did sing hymns in assembly. But then the CofE is not exactly 'old time religion'.
I think we have to be honest and say that it is Muslim schools which have brought this issue to a head. Faith schooling was formerly an question (like the monarchy) where most socialists had a clear position but wouldn't feel the matter was one to campaign about. However now that fundamentalists are getting in on the act (by fundamentalist I mean people who regard holy text as literal truth) we need to draw a clear line and the only logical and non-discriminatory place to do that is secularism.
Islam is probably the main fundamentalist religion in the UK at present (the small but growing minority of born-again Christians notwithstanding) and it's unfortunate that the question of belief has become conflated with the issues of race and immigration, leading to confusion in the SWP and elsewhere.
Regarding religion more generally, Camus among others felt that Marxism had its moral roots in Christianity (in the same way as Christianity largely descended from Greek philosopy) and I think that's an idea worthy of serious consideration.
Not just Muslim schools
I don't think that it is just Muslim schools that have raised the profile of this issue. It is also the government's policy of allowing ever more wacky Christians to control state schools through their Academies programme. Fortunately, there are some good examples of school workers and communities defeating this.