Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder if religion/belief is really a choice?

253 replies

TheoriginalLEM · 12/10/2015 21:42

Please excuse my ramblings but i had this thought.

I would imagine that being "religious", be that Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or whatever is a choice, in as much as you choose your religion and or whether to follow it and to what degree.

But belief? What you actually truly believe in your heart of hearts - is there a choice in that?

I believe in God, am Catholic but not practising. I don't feel that i have ever made a conscious "choice" to believe in God and if i were to make an evidence based choice, well i probably wouldn't believe; but i do believe there is a God, i don't know what influence "he" has on my life and on those around me. I believe that "my" God is the same as the Gods of other religions. Its just the religion that is different, but the Gods are one and the same. I don't really know why i feel that. So whilst I believe in a Christian God, i believe that whoever other religions worship are a different version of the same God.

I don't know why - i just "know" and well, my reality is really all that counts to "me" isn't it. My world. my bubble, my perception. Just the same as all of us - it comes down to us as one single being, maybe that,s where i should be looking? If i was looking, that is.

Sorry none of that probably makes any sense outside my own head.

OP posts:
noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 08:43

Oh and incidentally, why did you quote my post and address other posters?

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 08:49

Sorry, forgot to add, you even have the choice of sending your children to a faith school.
Yet you still think your personal beliefs should be alliwed to affect other places where people wish to.remain religion free.
Why is that? Seems incredibly arrogant and entitled to me.

capsium · 16/10/2015 08:56

noef I'm not confused at all. The churches established the first schools in this country and included collective worship. When these schools converted to state schools, the churches still owned and maintained the buildings and collective worship was and still is protected by law.

As I said earlier, schools prepare children for adult life, they are a microcosm of our society. Our society is one which includes collective worship and makes provision for it - so do schools.

You challenge this, yet are reluctant to let parents make a choice for their own children. People can chose for their children not to be involved in collective worship in schools just as they can chose in our wider society.

capsium · 16/10/2015 09:04

Oh and incidentally, why did you quote my post and address other posters?

noef

I commented on your post then in separate paragraphs I had replies to other posters. Do you wish to autocratically control people's posting style as well?

Seems incredibly arrogant and entitled to me.

What seems arrogant to me is wishing to make an autocratic change to the current law under the guise of 'fairness'.

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:06

capsium our society is one that includes collective worship as a matter of choice, in places of worship, for those who want to opt in.
Not everywhere.
Why should children from non religious families have to opt out and be deprived of school assemblies just to suit people like you?

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:11

Well obviously, any change in law wouod go through the usual democratic process, so it wouldn't be autocratic, would it?
As for your postng style, just thought it was normal internet ettiquette to address the person directly if you quoted their posts. It's what most people seem to do.

capsium · 16/10/2015 09:20

Why should children from non religious families have to opt out and be deprived of school assemblies just to suit people like you

noef because it is being kind and tolerant.

As for your postng style, just thought it was normal internet ettiquette to address the person directly if you quoted their posts. It's what most people seem to do.

noef I believe it is good etiquette (on the Internet and elsewhere) not to be overly judgemental over every minor perceived indiscretion.

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:26

capsium presume you are having a laugh now, seeing as you've done it again. It just appears rude, tbh.
Now, why do you think everyone else should be 'kind and tolerant' ,therefore miss out,to allow religious children to do something they have ample opportunity to do the other 17 hours a day? Or even 24 hours a day if they exercise their option of sending their children to a religious school?

JasperDamerel · 16/10/2015 09:27

If schools are a microcosm of society (and I don't necessarily agree that this is the case) then 6% of pupils would attend a worship service on one day a week during their leisure time.

We do not (and I am very glad of this) live in a society where every workday starts with team prayers according to the faith of the boss.

I would also like to point out to the atheists on the thread that capsium does not speak for all religious people.

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:28

Jasper appreciate your last sentence Smile

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:31

Sorry caosium- see you were abbreviating my name. Apologies.

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:33

capsium making far too many spelling mistakes today. I wish there was an edit facility on here.

capsium · 16/10/2015 09:40

If schools are a microcosm of society (and I don't necessarily agree that this is the case) then 6% of pupils would attend a worship service on one day a week during their leisure time.

Jasper people have the choice to do exactly this under the current law, except they, apparently, are too busy being offended over being given a choice to exercise it.

capsium · 16/10/2015 09:44

Sorry caosium- see you were abbreviating my name. Apologies.

capsium making far too many spelling mistakes today.

Grin No worries.

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:46

capsium you still fail to explain why you feel the 6% should be catered to, in a non faith school.
Why should secular/atheistvparents nedd to opt out of something that really doesn't need to be there in the first place?
Being nice and tolerant isn't really an explanation, because surely then, all the religious people could say 'hey, you know what. We can worship anywhere , why not allow all the non religious people to have a secular assembly'.
Sounds nice and tolerant to me.

capsium · 16/10/2015 09:53

noef 'should be catered to'? Because it is the law. The 6% has not fully been established either because people do not exercise their choice. I'm for everybody exercising choice, which would establish what people truly want regarding collective worship in schools, in order for provision to be best tailored to what people actually want. But this,somehow, does not seem to satisfy you...

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 09:57

We know it's the law. Smile. We're just questioning if it should be.

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 10:04

As to your 2nd point, I'm not 'satisfied' because I believe that all state schools should be secular. There is no need for collective worship of any kind in a state school, within the normal school day. I believe if there was a referendum on this matter the majority of people would agree with this ,seeing as society is generally becoming more secular.

capsium · 16/10/2015 10:05

noef how do you arrive at the answer for 'should?'

Apart from my faith, I would ask everyone what they would like to happen and aim to fit provision to the demographic. In some schools assemblies might be 100% secular and worship provision not taken up if the demographic indicated this is what they wanted.

So if you don't wish to ask others to establish what 'should' happen, and you do not possess any answers through faith or beliefs, ho do you establish what 'should' happen? Where is the empirical evidence for what 'should' happen?

JasperDamerel · 16/10/2015 10:07

But that isn't how the current law works at all!

In society as a whole, if a person wishes to take part in an act of worship they find a suitable place/group, which is organised by members of that particular religion, find out the time and place of the worship and, if they are welcome, join in.

In schools, the equivalent would be a lunchtime or after-school Christian worship club, or possibly some sort of breakfast club in a church near the school with children being supervised by the organisers on the walk to school afterwards. Or, possibly, their could be a whole-school assembly where the teachers talked about inspirational historical figures, celebrated the achievements of the pupils, organised charitable and community events, and pupils who opted out would have the option of leaving after the school notices were read at the start of the assembly to miss the rest and have 15 minutes of silent reading of one of their sacred texts in one of the classrooms insteadwith a TA supervising to make sure they on with their reading.

capsium · 16/10/2015 10:08

X post, if there was a desire for a referendum I would accept it and vote accordingly.

How would churches be compensated for their land and buildings under current property laws?

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 10:17

capsium 'should' become secular? Well of course they should. After all, faith schools already exist for those who want their children to have a religious element to their religion.
It's completely anachronistic to have an element of compulsory worship in state schools. They are for everyone, not just religious people.
Religion is a private individual matter nowadatlys, so why should it be enforced in schools? I would absolutely hate to be a teacher who had to be present or even participate in religious observances as part of my job.

capsium · 16/10/2015 10:18

noef and why does a belief that all state schools should be secular trump a belief that we should keep collective worship provision in schools, which people receive or don't receive by choice?

capsium · 16/10/2015 10:26

noef it is only the provision of collective worship that is compulsory, not the take up.

You might have a leg to stand on if people were exercising their choice to opt their child out to of receiving collective worship but they aren't.

Maybe this taking this option is set too low on their list of priorities, maybe they are unconcerned about their children receiving collective worship provision, maybe they actually want their child to receive collective worship provision? However whatever the reason is, it remains to be established. Added to this, until people take appropriate action their reasoning is unlikely to be established.

noeffingidea · 16/10/2015 10:29

capsium I explained why, already.
A state school is a public body, the same as a hospital, a university, a registry office, etc etc. The purpose of a school is education, not religious worship.
If I went into hospital I wouldn't expect a religious service to be held on my ward and to be told 'you can opt out if you don't like it'. I mean, seriously?
Why should it be acceptable in schools?