To think it is about time to stop being a Christian country.

[ShagOBite]

On the council prayers debate, lots of people have said "but we're a Christian country". Why are we? Should we be? How do we go about changing this? It seems so inappropriate and unnecessary in this day and age.

Bettybathroom I suppose so, I mean for me the two are connected, humanity and spirituality.

I dont really understand those spiritual atheists though. Are ghere any on this thread?

afropop yes thanks for correcting me, virgin birth not immaculate conception.

and some of our education facilities were founded by churches. e.g grammar schools, universities.
If you get rid of these schools then I think standards would go down not up and produce mediocracy for everyone.

er... every grammar school I know of selects by ability not faith nowadays. So do universities (well, the ones old enough to be founded by the church). They don't seem to have suffered much by becoming secularised.

I mean for me the two are connected, humanity and spirituality

oh good. Just your personal bias then. I was quite when I read your previous post - it really was the most extraordinary statement.

I used to be a Christian, now I'm a Humanist (no need for those derogatory quotation marks, please) and a secularist. (Not a 'militant' one, don't know what the heck that phrase really means other than 'not actually a doormat'.)
Anyhow, personally I'm more in touch with my humanity now than I was before.

If you want to think about 'spiritual atheists', how about Buddhists - think they fit the bill?

Gosh, how did I ever manage to get a good education without my parents being forced to attend church for years and years....

God says "because you are reasonably intelligent, Scottish and a bit of a smartarse"

" I don't think that belief can be forced or foisted on anyone. However I think people should be exposed to religion, including seeing people praying rather than just learning about it in a purely theoretical context in RE lessons. In that way, those who seek God can find a way to Him. That's the reason I support preserving the link between the state and the Anglican church - Anglican because of the connection to our history and culture and therefore our identity."

You support a state supported anglican church because of the connection to history and culture? There is no reason why something that is part of history or culture should be allowed to form or shape our laws. Laws should be based on scientific research and a unilaterally decided upon "fair" option by elected representatives facing full checks and balances. It should not be based on the ethics of a religion which has a "connection to our history", it is down to the individual to choose whether to ascribe to those ethics, their contraception, fertility treatments, abortion practises, rights as a homosexual should not be compromised by the religious views of others. Whether or not that religion has a "cultural link". Can you see that by ensuring others follow those religious rules it is forcing and foisting beliefs on people?

It is not for the state to "expose" people to religion, it is a personal belief much the same way that the state has no duty to expose people to pacifism, racism, vegetarianism, conservatism etc etc.. It is not the place of the state to encourage people to find their way to God. It is not their place to encourage or expose people to any particular belief system, they should provide a framework under which people are free to find and explore what ever beliefs they feel are personally right, without imposing those beliefs upon others. Further, by exposing people to only one particular religion, you infer that it somehow gains some kind of superiority over other religions due to its historical links. Surely, if the wish is genuinely to allow people to find God, then it should be those who seek ANY god? Therefore, there should also be hindu, muslim, sikh prayers? As well as perhaps a representation of atheism?

If people are "seeking" god, then they will be actively seeking him, i.e. going to church. The removal of a state supported religion will not remove that option, it will merely prevent it from being foisted upon children who are NOT seeking religion.

I think worship should take place in assembly, and that children should either be formally excused, if there is a major objection, or just quietly listen, or take part as they wish. Pretty much the same could have gone for council meetings.

Why should worship take place in assembly? These children have no religion. For the most part, their parents have no religion. They should not need to be formally excused for a "major objection" to something to which they (or their parents) do not ascribe. School is not the place for worship, religious buildings are. If the council members wish to gather before the meeting to pray they are welcome to do so in their own time, but people who do not ascribe to a religion should not have a religion pushed on them simply through a wish to take part in a council meeting.

As someone a lot earlier in the thread stated - babies are born atheists!

Agree with you there himalaya. I've always been interested as to what would happen if you took it to ECHR - surely they would over rule it? No discrimination on basis of religion?

Grimma we still don't have an answer as to how that would produce mediocrity do we?! I don't even know where to begin on that one...!

Bugster "I don't think that belief can be forced or foisted on anyone. However I think people should be exposed to religion, including seeing people praying rather than just learning about it in a purely theoretical context in RE lessons. In that way, those who seek God can find a way to Him. That's the reason I support preserving the link between the state and the Anglican church - Anglican because of the connection to our history and culture and therefore our identity."

But surely God (all powerful, able to perform miracles, create the universe etc...) can find his own way to people? Meanwhile schools (overstretched, limited resources, seeking to serve a diverse population) could get on with the stuff that they need to do like teaching kids how to read and write, and think critically.

I think worship should take place in assembly

Simple question - why?

Surely ought to be an 'opt-in' activity, not an 'opt-out' one.

This is of course where the other problem arises with those bleating about the importance of Christianity and whining about all those nasty rational people: they are very quiet about the numbers of Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans, [insert whichever myth systems I've forgotten here] who are also British or English, and don't want the Christian brand of mythological bullshit foisted on them when they've got their own brand of bullshit.
It's quite amusing in a way to watch the silly bastards try to pretend they're all on the same side and 'any supersition is better than none' when they all think each other is mad/wrong/deluded and only their imaginary friend is real.

My dsis lives in Australia. She is a humanist, like her dh....both were brought up within a religious environment. The school thier dcs attend is a state school...religion instruction is optional (not religious education) and it is taken by leaders in the religious community. A child (or parents) can choose to take a different religion to learn about each term...they have opted for their dcs to learn about all the different religions each term, truly giving them a choice of connecting with God in what ever way works for them while gaining a deeper understanding of other's faith. She says it's entirely normal for dcs to take no religious instruction classes and it's normal for them to stick to the religion of their parents....all instruction must come from the religious community not the school and if a religious community chooses not to get involved that's ok too.

I have to say I thought it was a great approach.

I'm not sure I like the sound of that. I prefer the fairly unbiased RE given in non-faith schools (though it should be broadened to include more than just religious worldviews). So that every child learns something about a lot of different religions. I think that faith schools should have to follow this curriculum too - they could do extra 'own faith' biased lessons on top I suppose.

Sorry Grimma this is on top of RE. All children are educated with regards to all religions but the worshiping is the optional class, so everyone gets a bit of what they want and it doesn't cost the state anything because all instruction of worship is done on a voluntary basis.

Oh, I see, I thought you meant it was RI instead of RE (as it used to be, pretty much, in my schooldays). As an option on top of a balanced RE curriculum, sounds good.

I would love my children to go to an atheist school which taught them about all religions and grow up in a country in which religion has no role in politics.

IMO worship has no place at all in schools.

I would also love to live in a country in which people were far more open to different view points but understand that certain places should remain secular.

Tralalala Seconded.

You probably mean a 'secular' school not an 'atheist' one.... there is no atheist organisation which wants to run schools which indoctrinate children to not believe in God.

Tralalalala.

Please sign the e-petition and pass it on: epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1617

Lagrand - share it on Facebook please.

Proper http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1617 link I hope...

Bugger... try again

Thanks GTN

I said earlier in the thread but it's more topical now, I don't think there should be a designated subject for religion in schools. It should be mentioned as part of geography, history and cultural/political studies but singling it out just gives it more importance than I believe it's due. We need to take away it's importance. It needs to just be treated as something some people choose to do sometimes.

To me it's like having hillwalking in the curriculum, yes quite a lot of people do it but I have no interest in it, I see no benefit in being educated in schools on it and it provides no benefit to the world at large.

mushroom magee the church doesn't really form or shape our laws. Prayers in school and councils are not forming our laws.

technodad don't agree about children being born atheists. Of course they aren't born with knowledge of religious writings etc but that's far from being atheist.

bugster bishops in the House of Lords are.

But they're only a minority aren't they and besides are any of the members of the House of Lords directly elected? Upper houses in many countries aren't really that democratic, usually you get there if you've been in public life long enough, pretty much like here, they provide a kind of comservative balance to the more populist lower house.

That's not a problem for me though and I think a minority of bishops fits nicely in there.

Prefer that system to a communist totalitarian regime......