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.

Jumjum - you're (again) grossly misrepresenting the aims of secularists.

'and does smack of the Soviet-style treatment of Orthodox Christian in the 20the century and the imprisonment of parents who passed their faith on to their children'

That is simply mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

It's a bit like gay marriage. I defend people's right to have one, I'll attend and enjoy it but I don't want one myself. I would be really, really horrified to be forced into one, since my partner of choice is DH.

"Sharing the fricking "good news". hmm"

It's just a turn of phrase ShagOBite. I was discussing the Bible and it's a phrase mentioned in there :) So don't blame me

Parents are free to withdraw their children from acts of collective worship in schools. So regardless of whether or not you think there should be any collective worship in schools, it cannot be described as "forced", as you are of course free to decide your children will not participate.

jumjum, reasonable? We've got people objecting here to what are effectively mandatory prayers in schools and rather than advance arguments about why you think that is ok, you're drawing comparisons with Soviet Russia and the nazis.

As I've already described, several times in this thread, my DCs' very ordinary state primary school requires its pupils to join in with prayers and hymns or be excluded from the entire assembly. Worship of a broadly Christian nature is a legal requirement in State schools.

Logical? There are people here who have raised some very apposite points regarding your position and you just bluster and obfuscate and raise straw-man arguments and, when all else fails, flat-out ignore them.

But let's try one more time in the near-certain knowledge that I'll either be ignored or compared to Pol Pot or something:

You seem to be insisting that the religious can pray whenever they want, wherever they want, and regardless of others around them. I work in a university. There are special areas set aside for those who wish to pray in peace. Fair enough, I have no problem with that and (I'm pretty sure) neither would most atheists.

But let's imagine that there is a lecturer who decides to start every one of her lectures with a 10min Wiccan prayer.

If you were a student in these lectures, having paid your £3,000 a year student fees, would you have a problem with such prayer? After all, the lecturer would be exercising her right to pray whenever and wherever she wants which is what you seem to be calling for. Or would you think that she should organise her day such that her worshipping can be done at times when it does not interfere with her day job?

Popcorn - the opt-out from assembly is simply not an acceptable solution, for the reasons already described (repeatedly). For most parents, having the child participate is the lesser of two evils. This situation could so easily be avoided by making worship an opt-in activity. Not a ban on worship happening on school premises - just making it an 'extra'.

I can't see why anyone would object to this unless they actually want to indoctrinate other people's children.

Popcorn -

Yes parents can withdraw their children from acts of collective worship in schools. But as Grimma and others have said, most decide on balance that it is not worth singling their child out as weird, having them miss out on other aspects of assembly, generally winding the school up by being difficult etc...so the effect is that a large % of children apparently voluntarily taking part in Christian worship would not be there if it was a completely free choice. The same I guess goes for teachers.

In the same way people whose village school is CoE could in principle choose to home educate, try to find a non-faith school in another town, go private etc..so they are not, strictly speaking, being FORCED to partake in church education. But its not really a free choice either.

If collective worship in both community and traditionally faith schools were an opt-in activity - say half an hour early, during lunch break or, as it was in my school a weekly "Christian Assembly" for those who wanted, do you think there would be the same number of children attending? I don't - I think the number would be more similar to the proportion who make the free choice to go to church on a Sunday.

So the question is .....What is the purpose of having children, parents and teachers who have no desire to be involved in Christian worship or faith-based education be pressured into it because it is the default option in their local schools? Who would lose out if it became an opt-in activity?

Yes jumjum, you can have your carol concerts if you like but you'll just not be allowed to force me to stop and listen. I don't know what's so difficult to understand! Just stop inflicting it on me. I'm not remotely interested and want the freedom to exercise that.

On the matter of opting out of school worship. My DD is just 5 in Dec, she is an incredibly shy, quite introverted child outwith the home environment. If I were to single her out by withdrawing her I think it could potentially be very harmful to her. So I just need to put up and shut up, but also be prepared to debunk her when she inevitably has her head filled with nonsense about being thankful to god fir rainbows and butterflies etc etc blah blah blah.

"Who would lose out if it became an opt-in activity?"

Christianity is so uncool in many circles that a lot of young people would feel social pressure not to join in, due to their friends laughing at them if they chose to attend.

At present the 'opt out' is the parents choice, I'd have thought that at junior ages the same would apply for opt-in. So that objection doesn't really apply.

If (as the supporters seem to assume) lots of parents think that collective worship is a 'good thing' there would be plenty doing it. If not - well, then its just the flip side of what opters-out get now, and parents can do Sunday school and whatever they want at home.

"parents can do Sunday school and whatever they want at home."

If we continue to offer middle-of-the road, liberal, wishy-washy CofE exposure at school, this does have the advantage of countering those home environments where weird fundamentalist or extremist beliefs are propagated.

"Christianity is so uncool in many circles that a lot of young people would feel social pressure not to join in, due to their friends laughing at them if they chose to attend."

Still this assumes that attending and taking part in Christian worship (whether you want to or not, or whether your parents want you to or not) is necessarily A Good Thing for all.

There are a lot of things that young people do or don't do because they are cool or not. This is not, in itself, an argument to make them all compulsory.

Otherwise you could set up schools with mandatory chess, and give admissions priority to whose parents play chess regularly (....and it would get good results, thus supporting the argument that chess based discrimination is a good basis for organising education.)

....lots of adults (even those who are cultural christians) don't attend Christian worship on a sunday. Maybe some of them feel social pressure not to.....On this logic perhaps all employers, public hospitals etc.. should institute daily worship?

Some people seem to want to live life without ever encountering any religion whatsoever, whereas religious people do of course encounter a great deal of secularism and atheism all the time.

If we are to have healthy freedom of speech and religious expression this means we DO have to listen to things we disagree with sometimes.

Are secularists going to say they don't want to see posters advertising carol services, as people can always contact the church to find out? No religious opinions in the newspaper as people can always phone the vicar? No notice boards outside the local church in case it indocrinates anyone walking past? No R.E. in schools because you can always listen to what your parents tell you?

Make religion hide away and you will only drive it underground, and there's a danger that without an overall openness and structure it will become more extreme. Fundamentalists will relish the challenge I am sure.

PopcornBiscuit - I really don't think you get what secularism is. It's not about suppressing religion. You can be both religious AND a secularist, and many people are.

I did say "secularism and atheism".

I don't see why there should be any connection between faith and the state whatsoever, or why we should be a 'Christian' country, or an anything country. It's a completely outdated idea. The state, and all state education should be completely secular.

I never understand why committed Christians get so het up every time this subject is raised - it makes zero difference to the way they can live their lives and practice their religion and pass their faith-based values on to their children.

If we are to have healthy freedom of speech and religious expression this means we DO have to listen to things we disagree with sometimes.

Of course.

Are secularists going to say they don't want to see posters advertising carol services, as people can always contact the church to find out?

No.

No religious opinions in the newspaper as people can always phone the vicar?
No
No notice boards outside the local church in case it indocrinates anyone walking past?
No
No R.E. in schools because you can always listen to what your parents tell you?

Absolutely no, RE in schools - proper balanced RE as it more or less is now is essential (the lack thereof is one of the things the USA got badly wrong.) This is what's needed, not 'wishy washy CofE' worship in schools.

If you think the answer to any of the above might have been 'yes' you don't understand what secularism is.

No one is trying to drive religion underground.

I think you'll find the vast majority of atheists aren't interested in suppressing the existence of religion either.

It's the expectation enshrined in civic life that everyone should have faith which is objectionable.

Popcorn, I don't think most atheists care about 'encountering' religion actually, it's just that as they do not value one religion over any other they do not understand why the nation as a whole should have an all-encompassing label saying 'Christianity' that defines it, and supposedly most of the people in it.

Popcornbiscuit.

You are escalating a reasonable question into something unreasonable rather than answering it.

Are secularists going to say they don't want to see posters advertising carol services, as people can always contact the church to find out? Nope.
No religious opinions in the newspaper as people can always phone the vicar? Nope.
No notice boards outside the local church in case it indocrinates anyone walking past? Nope
No R.E. in schools because you can always listen to what your parents tell you? Nope

If we see religion for what it should be in a modern, free society as something that people can freely choose to partake in or not, then it is on par with Chess or Warhammer or skateboarding or any one of hundreds of hobbies that are meaningful for those involved.

Should the chess club stop advertising because people can always phone to find out? Nope.
Should opinions by chess players be banned from the newspaperNope.
Can the chess club not put up notices on a public noticeboard Nope
Should schools not mention chess where it is relevant to a topic being studied Nope

Should schools be banned from running chess clubs for those who want to attend no
Should all state schools be impelled to conduct daily chess sessions? no
Should some state schools be allowed to select pupils on the basis that their parents play chess? no

As an atheist I have no interest in surpressing people's involvement with religion or compromising free speech. Far from it. My only concern is where religious bodies seek to take a specially protected or priveliged role in civic life. And that is not because I am anti-religion - I don't think ANY specific grouping should have any priveliged structural role in civic life. I am amazed that individual Christians think it fair and right to claim rights within government or council proceedings simply upon the basis of their religious belief.

It is also unfair that in many cases, the children of regular (Christian) worshippers get preferential treatment with regard to state school admissions.

Once again, the rallying call of the Militant Secularist:

What do we want? No privelige and no discrimination.
When do we want it? As soon as possible within our democratic and judicial framework.

Shocking, isn't it?