AIBU to feel disappointed that religious songs and stories are being introduced to this toddler group?

[neolara]

OK. I'll come clean and admit it's a toddler group that is run in a church, headed up by the vicar's wife and staffed by volunteers from the church community. It is a completely fantastic toddler group. It's wildly popular, very friendly, lovely, lovely volunteers who make cups of tea and hand out biscuits and chat to all the mums. Really, IMO you couldn't ask for anything more from a toddler group. However, today they sang a couple of religious songs in amongst twinkle twinkle and started telling stories about Jesus. This is a new development and looks like a clear change of policy.

Up until today this toddler group was not obviously a "christian group" with no mention of Jesus or God, although families attending the group were invited along to child services and there was always information about the many and various activities the church organizes. I'm pretty convinced that the vast majority of families who go to the group are not attached to the church - they are just a random cross section of the people in our city. They go because it's a great group.

Now obviously, it is a church group, run by Christians and they are perfectly entitled to run it in whatever way they want. The running of the group has recently been taken over by someone new. She is extremely nice and seems very welcoming.

But as a non-believer, I felt very uncomfortable when the singing and stories are happening. I think this is partly because I just think the whole thing is nonsense (sorry to those who do believe, but I just do), partly because I see it as "indoctrinating" (I know this is only because I don't believe - if I agreed with the views I wouldn't see it in this way) and also because it makes me feel that if I don't believe then maybe I shouldn't be attending. I think that as the kids are so young, realistically they won't understand the stories or songs, so the fact that they are now happening is basically a way of signalling to the parents that this is now a religious group. Obviously, I can choose not to attend and this is something I may end up doing. All of which makes me sad because it has been such a fantastic, inclusive, toddler group in the past. I've been going to it for the past 7 years and it's been pretty great for all of that time.

Do you think it is worth mentioning to the (lovely) woman who runs the group the effect of introducing the religious element to the group? (I'd obviously leave out the bit about thinking Jesus is nonsense!) I wonder if she's even aware that by including religious songs / stories it can make it seem actively unwelcoming to those of other / or no faiths. Of course, this may be the effect that they are trying to achieve, which is obviously OK, (if sad for me!)

sorry-because not but.

In reply to NotADude:

an all powerful being that has created other beings in a way that they will behave in a certain manner

...has created them so that they are able to choose how to behave

is then unable to forgive the products of his own design

...forgave his people repeatedly before Jesus? death, and forgave others as well, who wanted that forgiveness. He never forced anyone to choose him, though.

unless he tortures himself to death

...allowed his son to die. Didn?t kill him. Let him make the choice. (They may be one God, in perfect unity, but they are not the same person.)

and then revives himself once more

Yup. Death could not hold him.

Nesta, take a break if you think it would be helpful. Come back, though... and maybe avoid AIBU. :)

It has also come a long way from OP question.

sgb certainly didn't reply to anything I asked her...

The Christian version of the myth of the sacrificed god is just another version of an old myth that's simply about seasonal change and harvest-type stuff anyway. Myths are important and have their place, sure. But they become a problem when people use them as a way to harm others or control their lives. I will not accept that I should dress in a certain way, avoid certain foods or place restrictions on who I can have sex with because someone's imaginary friend says so. I do not think superstition should have special privileges or any influence on public policy. Other than that, whether your imaginary friend is called Jesus, Allah, Great Pumpkin, Zeus, Isis, Mr WIlly or the pixie under the stairs is none of my concern.

Oh, ok. Well that makes sense as a problem. I can't see why people would restrict other people based on their beliefs but I know many have. People like to have power, I guess.

I personally prefer to follow the guidelines my "imaginary friend" suggests, but I would never say that you - or even I - have to do that.

This has strayed away from the original subject, then. I thought you thought it was a problem that people were singing Bible songs in public. But there's no issue of control or harm there, so presumably you have no problem with it.

Other than that, whether your imaginary friend is called Jesus, Allah, Great Pumpkin, Zeus, Isis, Mr WIlly or the pixie under the stairs is none of my concern

Why are you bothering to comment then?!
OP was only asking how to deal with the situation-nothing more.
I should let your anger go SGB-if I was your DC I really would want to explore religion-you make it sound so exciting, when it gets you so upset!

"...forgave his people repeatedly before Jesus? death, and forgave others as well, who wanted that forgiveness. He never forced anyone to choose him, though."

Nope, only condemns those to hellfire who don't. Fantastic choice that is.

"..allowed his son to die. Didn?t kill him. Let him make the choice. "

Whether Jesus was killed with or without choice, it's still just another sacrifice in order to satisfy a God's random ire. Have you never questioned why this God asked for someone to die before he'd grant forgiveness? And if Jesus's death was enough to satisfy God's need for sacrifice, why is there still so much crap happening to people of any faith?

I find theodicy utterly fascinating - not trying to pick a fight or trying to, just ultimately interested in how people reconcile this.
I've even discussed this with the vicar who once christened and confirmed me (but after I had a think and became an atheist), without him taking offence - I think he prefers an atheist who asks questions to a Christian who doesn't. He didn't have any answers, though.

Personally, I go with SGB's reading of it being just one of many change of seasons myths. Not less, but not more either.

Where's hellfire mentioned in the Bible, WW? Only in Revelation, as far as I'm aware, where there are crazy-sounding word pictures all over the place - I think it's just an image. Not meant to be taken literally.

The choice is between being with God or without him. I personally think to be without him would be horrible. But for you people who're sick of him always being talked about and seeking your attention, it's a chance to be rid of him.

Lost in Africa How about (Matthew 25:31-36, 40-43, 45-46)

" "When the Son of Man comes in His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates his sheep from the goats, and He will set the sheep on His right hand but the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those on His right hand, ?Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.? ... ?Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My Brethren, you did it to me.?

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ?Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.? ... ?Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.? And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Interesting that you didn't address the other points.

Death is just the natural consequence of sin (sin is choosing to live independently of God). Because only God can create and sustain life.

We choose to live our lives without God's help repeatedly, every day. That's all sin is. Not some breaking of random rules, ultimately. God's letting us go our own way, but still loving us and hoping we'll choose to let him lead. In the meantime, sin leads to all sorts of crap in the world, as you say, which makes most of us who see it feel sad and angry - and God feels that way, too.

That's my belief, anyway. :o

So you believe that those people who suffer in the world today have brought it onto themselves by sinning? E.g. those kids dying from hunger in Africa, Korea and elsewhere?

Well, yes, there you go - sheep and goats. A word picture. The hellfire isn't literal.

Jesus calls it eternal punishment. I said I think it'd be horrible. That's our opinion... You make your own mind up. (I'm not suggesting you haven't already. :) )

Your quote actually backs up what I was saying - it's life with God or without. That's the literal choice.

Oohh, no! Certainly not! Unfortunately, with sin having so much power in the world, the consequences of it are everywhere. They most definitely do not affect most the people who sin the most. That's a horrible idea.

Isn't there something in one of the gospels about that? A blind person, I think, and one of the disciples said to Jesus, "Who sinned that this person is blind - the person himself or his parents?" And Jesus said something along the lines of, "Neither, that's completely the wrong way of thinking about it."

So God lets shit happen to other people because of another set of people who don't remotely have anything to do with them don't believe in him (as that's how you define sin)?

Lostinafrica: So either your imaginary friend is all-powerful and as long as people kiss its arse they will be fine (so the starving babies in the developing world do only have themselves to blame for their suffering, because they didn't kiss the imaginary friend's arse enough) or the imaginary friend is a bit limited in what it can do, and to save all the starving babies is more than its job's worth or whatever.
Can you see why people think it's a load of old cock yet?

Oh Nesta honestly, don't take this to heart. SGB has this spiel she repeats on pretty well most threads like this, and it wasn't a personal attack on you, I can promise you. I think the first few times I read this stuff I too was shocked and momentarily felt it was personal but soon realised it really wasn't, and asked myself if my faith could stand up to it, decided it could. Now I just have a little smile when I read again about SGB's unicorns in the sky and buckethead nutters, and somewhat of a sense of deja vu. I'm really rather fond of her :)

I really do think that she and the slightly less vocal others are completely flummoxed as to how anyone could believe something so out there, so irrational. The bible does say that the gospel looks like foolishness to most after all. Sometimes I can look outside it all and realise that if I didn't have the surety of faith and the encounters with God I have I would be of the same thought patterns of SGB et al. I'm a rational person in general, and as part of that I regularly explore my faith, theology, church history etc and make sure it can all be reconciled with what I choose to believe, day in day out. And it does, and it can, because however foolish it all looks, I know it's true, and I know it transforms and frees.

So don't let it bother you, please - it's not so much about developing a tough skin as realising your faith is bigger than your feelings, iyswim.

PM me if you want to talk more :)

Someone asked why an unbeliever would comment and not just stick to the OP's point.
I can only speak for myself, but people had begun saying that religion is good. Much as you might like to be able to do that and forbid anyone to disagree that's not going to happen.

I's a shame that some were upset at being disagreed with, but that is going to happen.
Everyone who is devout in their belief must believe that all the other pantheons are bullshit. Just because you don't say so doesn't change that. So being upset that someone thinks yours isn't real is just daft.

Onagar I think nesta was trying to say that she felt it was a personal attack on her as well as her belief. She was saying that although yes she doesn't believe in other pantheons she has respect for the people who do, and she felt sgb had crossed the line of respecting people.

I wouldn't quite say that I would think everything else was bullshit because I have seen many times God revealing Godself through the most extraordinary and unexpected ways, and it would be somewhat arrogant to go round proclaiming that I am Ultimately Right in any case. I would say I believe Jesus when he said he is the truth, and that I am a respector of persons whatever belief or lack of belief they hold, so I wouldn't call such beliefs bullshit or other derogatory terms. However, I totally respect the right of others to do so to my or other beliefs

madhairday Isn't that a direct breach of the first commandment?

What, you shall have no other God?

No, because I do have no other God, but believe and have seen my God reveal Godself in many ways and through many cultures and faiths to many peoples. I can say with confidence I believe in no other, just believe that God is rather bigger than our mindsets and more powerful than we know, therefore is not in our neat little pockets :)

So what's the OP decided to do about the toddler group? Anyone?

Madhairday, you are being very reasonable, but in the end those who believe that jesus didn't exist and that the world was made by a whole bunch of god with hammers or lots of arms are either right or wrong. If your god was going to pretend to be that bunch of other gods then as WidowWadman points out that is a problem with the first commandment.

If he made believing in other gods a sin but then presented himself as other god's to other people that would be a mean, nasty and pointless trick.

You may well accept that others sincerely believe in their gods, but there is no way to believe they are all correct. Which means you inevitably have to believe that they made it all up.

Most religious people try to avoid admitting this (even to themselves I think) because they see where it leads. Every pantheon of gods, but your own must be fictional.

onagar very eloquently put, and saves me a whole lot of typing.

I found it by the way interesting, that a lot of the people who studied theology at my uni went from being devout believers to becoming atheists and then switching courses within a couple of terms. It's the inconsistencies which became apparent when studying the stuff in detail which drove them away from faith.

There are also quite a few people WW who have become religious once they've looked into all the material.