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.

Snorbs, a bit like this debate. People can pray or not, just don't make it compulsory.

OMG solidgoldbrass I am SO with you on the Samaritan's Purse thing! How condescending is that? "Let's put a powerball and a pair of gloves in a shoebox and send them to the poor children coz the poor things don't get any Christmas presents" when a) Most are in countries where Christmas is not celebrated, b) it's hot so they won't need gloves and c) a powerball? No-one's that desperate!

Are they the ones who stick tracts into the box?

Yup. With a founder who slags off Hindus and Muslims and appears to have had his hand in the till as well. Yet objecting to this bunch of racist crooks extracting goods, time and effort from your DC is percieved by bucketheads as being 'Waa, ANTI-CHRISTIAN!'

Jeez, I'd never heard of them. I see they're linked to the Billy Graham evangelical tripe. Just my worst nightmare! If my wee one's school decided to invite that lot along there would be words, strong words!

Samaritan's Purse Wiki entry is interesting:

Samaritan's Purse

It's run by Billy Graham's son, and describes itself as an evangelical organisation. So definitely charity with at least one agenda behind it.

Quotes from 'Controversy' section:

"In 2003, Samaritan's Purse was widely criticized after its president, Franklin Graham, stated that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion" "

"Residents from several villages stated they first had to sit through a half hour prayer meeting before receiving assistance."

"Franklin Graham has also been criticized in the United States, for drawing a full-time salary from Samaritan's Purse, while at the same time receiving a full-time salary from Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Non-profit experts have doubted that one person can do two full-time jobs leading organizations that employ hundreds and spend hundreds of millions around the world."

My DCs school did the box thing last Christmas (although we didn't partake and gave money elsewhere). I thought about complaining at the time but didn't get round to it, although I will this year if it happens again.

A while back I worked at a residential unit fir homeless young people, mostly they were 16-18 years old, most came from a pretty shitty background and were dealing with some pretty shitty issues. One of the staff members, a born-again type, found a local group of young people who belonged to a 'church' group. They were marketed as a group of young people who weren't interested in going out to get drunk and have sex and all those awful things that obviously ALL young people usually want to do, but instead met once a month to go to the cinema or bowling etc.

She called them and told them about our young peole and asked if someone could come along to chat to them about it. They agreed and right enough a young girl and boy came and spent a while chatting to them and telling them about the group. One or two of the young people did show a bit if interest and were quite keen to give it axwee try.

Shame, because the day after the visit these lovely Christians emailed to say they didn't think our young peope were suitable for their group. Kids that had been rejected just getting rejected again, by jesus' own.

(I should add that the staff member got disciplined for introducing this group to the organisation due to their evangelical nature)

Excuse terrible iPhone errors :-(

If your school does Samaritan's Purse, here are some suggestions for alternatives.

DDs primary did Link Romania, which looks like the only actual 'shoebox' scheme mentioned. It's appealing to children but not the best way of giving - its the sort of 'charity' that seems more designed to give a warm glow to the giver than really aimed at the needs of the receivers. But, if the school wants to do it, at least its an option.

I have complained in writing and offered alternative suggestions, but been basically ignored. AFAIK one of the teachers is a buckethead Christian and keen for the school to be involved, though the participation from the pupils and families is not very high.

Sounds like you need to infiltrate the PTA and use your powers of tact and persuasion to get them onboard with something else.

I would pay good money to be present at that particular PTA meeting

I have occasionally tried to persuade DS Dad (who I forced to become one of the school governers) to Do Something but he won't. Says it's not part of the governers' remit. And while he's an atheist too, he is just a bit 'Meh' about the whole thing.

Reckon he's right, its more of a PTAish thing. His remit is to make sure there isn't a coup that turns it into a faith free school - it seems far too easy to do without any consultation with the parents and once its done, its locked into being a faith school.

(clarification. Unfortunately, I mean a faith Free School. Not a faith-free school, as discussed that seems to be the one sort of free school not possible )

I was thinking you had been turned, Grimma. I have also wondered if anyone has set up (or tried to set up) a secular school for the children of atheists and agnostics. Would it be allowed the same freedom from collective worship that majority Muslim intake schools are? Or is the absence of religion not recognised in that way?

I have also wondered if anyone has set up (or tried to set up) a secular school for the children of atheists and agnostics.
I don't think so - its explicitly the policy of eg the BHA not to - the aim is proper non-discrimination and inclusivity for all. I certainly wouldn't want an atheist ghetto.

Would it be allowed the same freedom from collective worship that majority Muslim intake schools are?
Muslim intake schools aren't free from collective worship, just that they can do islamic not christian worship. Some multi-ethnic schools are allowed to do multi-faith worship. But worship, you gotta do it.
Or is the absence of religion not recognised in that way?
doesn't seem to be recognised in any way

I wouldn't want a atheist ghetto either. But if it was set up that way, parents with religious beliefs would know it was set up that way and have to decide whether they wanted their children educated in a secular way. I wonder if our results would be the same as C of E schools. It would be interesting. Could we get around the collective worship thing by having an opt-in worship where we just let a religious person pray in a room at the school and anyone who wanted their children to participate could opt into it?

As the law stands you'd probably have to have the official default that there was worship of some sort but it would tacitly be known that opting out was the norm and the kids who did so wouldn't be missing anything central to the life of the school. Which would be a bit ridiculous.

It would be interesting to see how such a school fared, but I can't see it happening - because secularists are usually proponents of social cohesion. BHA education policy gets it about right IMO.

I can completely see why most secularists and so on think that. I would like DD educated with a range of cultures and beliefs. I was and I think it really helps later on. However, it does irk when people's only response to collective worship and my objection to DD taking part is to suggest that I remove her, either from the worship or from the school. There is nowhere to remove her to except home schooling and that isn't happening.

Irks me too, especially as it would be so easy to fix the problem properly.
Fortunately my DD is now in secondary, where this ass of a law has by and large been quietly put out to grass. I'm assuming yours is still at primary - when you get to choosing secondaries, its worth taking a look at their policy on collective worship as one of the factors.

Good tip Grimma.