No one has proposed “one-size-fits-all” schools”. I support choice but that should be within one school.
In many areas the population is too low to support more then one such. In the others, having pupils travelling to several schools from one area would cause many transport problems with transport.
I know of schools pushing religious propaganda (because that is what parents, not pupils, want) but of none using “atheist” propaganda.
Richard Dawkins is a scholar, not a propagandist, since he supports his views with evidence and asks others to do likewise.
Pupils can and should question him, as they should those who disagree with him, including parents.
If, as Mr Robertson says, they feel he is “mocking their faith” then their minds are closed as a result of propaganda, and not being taught to think for themselves, which should be key aim of education.
No good parents want their children to hear and read only what they themselves believe. I am grateful my parents never sought to have me indoctrinated either in religion or politics and left me free to think for myself
Mr Robertson should also explain what he means by “atheist secularists”. The inference is that there are “theist” secularists. He says he is not a theocrat, so he must be one of these
For the six years of my secondary school education, in the 1950s in Glasgow, during the first period in the morning, designated as RE (religious education), I never received any religious education.
That period was for chatting, catching up on homework, reading comics, or whatever.
Any religious education I received was at our local Church of Scotland Sunday school.
Robert M Dunn
It is quite astonishing that an official of the National Secular Society (Alistair McBay, Letters, 10 July) writes against the United Nations Charter on Human Rights in declaring that parents do not have a right to have their children educated according to their faith.
Mr McBay not only goes against this basic human right, but also against logic and reason, when he paints the nightmare scenario of 300 Christian denominations in Scotland each having their own state-funded schools.
Of course such a scenario would be ludicrous but that is not what I was arguing for.
Does Mr McBay not know of the Dutch system whereby a national curriculum must be followed, and there must be more than 200 pupils?
There are almost no denominations who would get those kind of numbers – Christians would actually have to work together!
He does not seem to realise that Scotland did have a state-funded Christian school system (officially it is still supposed to be that) which worked perfectly well.
However, now that it has largely been taken over, cuckoo-like, by the atheistic secularists, it is time for the churches to reclaim the schools they handed over to the state.
I agree of course that schools are for teaching, not preaching. The trouble is what is taught and from what perspective.
Mr McBay does not seem to realise that all schools are “faith” schools, in that they all have an ethos and basic philosophy. Why should the only philosophy allowed be a state-mandated secular humanism?
Why not allow parents their human right to choose which philosophy/faith their children are educated under?
I would even be happy for the National Secular Society to have schools based on their philosophy – providing they could actually get 200 parents in the same area who wanted that!
David A Robertson
St Peters Free Church