To be a little disappointed that Jesus is being taught as fact in Y1?

[PoxAlert]

We're atheists, so therefore didn't consider any faith schools for our DD.

We want her to learn about all cultures and religions and be tolerant of them all. We have friends of many faiths and beliefs and just want to be kind and happy.

Of course I expect (and welcome) Christianity to be taught in school, but we just got a copy of this term's curriculum (DD just started Y1) and for a non-faith school it seems a bit much.

Or am I being unrealistic and the school and church will always be linked?

Some of the RE points are:

"To learn who Jesus was" "who were his friends" "what did he do?"

I guess I was expecting a "what do Christians believe?" "why do they celebrate Christmas" etc etc than what seems to be a fact based history lesson....

Either way I'm not going to kick up a fuss with school, it's not a big deal really, she's free to make her own decisions in life. Just surprised me a little.

I’m a Y1 teacher and I would of course say “Christians believe x”, “Muslims believe x”. It would be seen as very odd to teach religion as fact, that’s not the point of RE. You are allowed to say “I’m a Christian and I believe x” although you need to tread carefully when litttle ones hero-worship you and want to believe the same things you do!

My children come home from their state school and talk about what they've learnt about Jesus. We sent them there for this reason and the school is upfront.

You may not like it OP but others do. It's a big world.

As an atheist I believe in many things, but they have verifiable evidence to back them up, god has no such evidence. The gospels are not eye witness accounts, we don't even know who wrote them as they are completely anonymous. The writings of Paul are from a man who never met Jesus. As for offending deeply held beliefs, so what? Nobody has a write not to be offended, especially when those beliefs are based on a dubious ancient book containing talking donkeys and snakes as well as advocating terrorism, mas murder, rape and slavery.

Its F**king mental to teach little children what Christians and Muslims etc believe. That's something you should do at secondary school when they have developed some form of critical thinking.

I mean its the equivalent of teaching a 4/5 year old what conservatives think, what communists think, what fascists think, what drug addicts thing, what paedophiles think, what alien aductionists think, what climate change deniers think...

Why do we subject young babies children to such mind altering dogma?

Actually the historical evidence to support Jesus' existence is dubious and largely second hand and written centuries after the fact. It's certainly not universally accepted by historians.

I have not read through the thread and it’s late so won’t write more tonight but the consensus of most historians is Jesus existed as an historical figure.

the consensus of most historians is Jesus existed as an historical figure

Can you can anyone point me to that consensus? Because some people keep parroting the words but no one ever shows that it is actually true climate change is not man made.

Can you can anyone point me to that consensus? Because some people keep parroting the words but no one ever shows that it is actually true

I did so on Tuesday, but here it is again, with two more quotes from the same article:

Historicity of Jesus

The Christ myth theory is the is "the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence."[112] In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[113][114][115][116][56]

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[3][4][5][6][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4][nb 5] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 6][13][nb 7][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 8] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 9][19][20][21]

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 285

You can go to the linked article to follow the footnotes back to the original works.

Seriously MissConductUS Wikipedia is NOT a scientific consensus. Is that all you have?

And that is why intelligent people do not blindly accept some sort of bias 'religious' consensus.

The Wikipedia article is extensively footnoted to and quoting from the scholarly works in the references. If you can find similar support that the myth theory is mainstream among historians please provide it.

Jesus is fact
What about the stories of water into wine and feeding the 5000? Assuming OP's child will be taught these facts under the headline "What did Jesus do?", she has a point doesn't she?

I understand the multiple faiths point. Where it falls down is most parents who say this teach and attend nothing. So basically teach their child agnosticism. Which is fine and a choice. But do t claim to be embracing an u sedate I feel of all religions when you don't get off your hum and attend or discuss any. UK currently is still a Christian country (just) I have been to a Jewish or Muslim country. I don't know if their cirriculum involves religious teaching (maybe someone can enlighten me please)? You have the choice not to attend and to continue 'teaching' your child nothing. Attendance isn't compulsory if you're uncomfortable with the content.

Its F**king mental to teach little children what Christians and Muslims etc believe.
The issue is that they are already talking about it - I hear children saying that God is real to their peers. So not addressing it in some way makes it worse. At a very young age the message of “we don’t all believe the same things and can still be friends” is important. At the same time you start to gently encourage critical thinking and appropriate ways to challenge the views of others so that by the time they move up the school they’re able to have those conversations constructively.

Well, maybe 'offensive' is too hard a descriptor but I would say it is uncharitable. I am a catholic. That is my core identity before anything else. I've heard much worse than contributions in this thread but I'm pointing out that there is a charitable way of disagreeing.

People seem to put extreme emphasis on Genesis. It makes me think that people aren't aware that Catholics (Protestants differ) are under no obligation to take Genesis as literal (and I have yet to meet one who does). The context and genre indicate that it is not to take literal. I think of it as a revelation appropriate to people of that time. As we have developed, we can understand creation and evolution more. Religion and science aren't polar opposite (as mentioned in another thread, many many Catholics are scientists including the fact that the 'big bang' was actually 'discovered' by a Catholic priest.

To mock the entire religion because we believe in 'talking snakes', is quite incorrect for many denominations and the founding denomination.

It's in the national curriculum.
So a government issue not a school issue.
Judaism is generally taught later in school as it covers the holocaust.
Has OP checked the national curriculum?

I think the topic heading is.perhaps misleading. I'm a primary school teacher and R.E. lessons often have a big question such as these but it taught in the context of, what Christians believe rather than it being fact. At least that's what we're supposed to do. I'm sure.somempeople will reach to their own religious viewpoint.

Not read it all but... I taught primary, I’d say Christians believe when introducing a topic but I doubt I’d write it before every line on my plans.

The issue is that they are already talking about it - I hear children saying that God is real to their peers.

Probably due to the religious instruction provided by the mandated “daily acts of Christian worship”.

I suppose it's telling that the religiously inclined are happy to accept a wikipedia "consensus", rather than actually look at the facts themselves.

We don’t do that Titty. Ever. But shhh don’t tell Ofsted

(It is a valid point though! I don’t know how typical my school is.)

"We don’t do that Titty. Ever. But shhh don’t tell Ofsted grin"

I know you were joking- but this post says so much about faith in schools. We don't have a daily act of Christian worship- but we know that technically we are supposed to and we're breaking the rules by not.

Walking Dead - it is vital to teach them as young as possible.

We are atheists but very close friends are RC and CoE. We have been invited to christening and obviously have to explain what the sacrament means and why they do it and why DD hasn’t been baptised.

Also, we go to museums and historic houses, this means coming across religious symbols and often a chapel. Again, you need to explain this. A holiday in Spain where we visited a Muslim Palace meant explaining about it.

We live in a society shaped by Christianity. This means I explain to my child the reasons behind Easter and ?Christmas and who St. Nikolaus was as it would be a crime to have her ignorant about it.

All history is linked to religion, most children before secondary level will know about the tudors and the Reformation even if only in absolute basics. Most will have heard about the crusade and Richard the Lionheart. If they did WWII they will have heard about Judaism.

There is a huge difference in teaching and indoctrination.

Just because one Christian used Wikipedia doesn't mean that the 'religiously inclined' don't use academic research. That's a generalisation across billions of people.

Look into the Jesuits in Roman Catholic. They are a scholarly religious order and some of the greatest academics.

the issue is that they are already talking about it
I find it hard to believe that groups of 4 and 5 year olds are sitting around debating which god if any is real and what the nature of their existence is.
I suppose we should be grateful religious schools are around to ease their existential angst and explain that jesus is the one true deity who will make them immortal in exchange for their eternal subservience. It really must take a weight off their tiny minds.

The Wikipedia article is extensively footnoted to and quoting from the scholarly works in the references
Since when did Wikipedia become written by unbiased & qualified expert historians?
I guess that means the world is flat, as Wikipedia has extensively footnoted articles which quotes from multiple scholarly references.

"Look into the Jesuits in Roman Catholic. They are a scholarly religious order and some of the greatest academics."
Of course. However, on threads like this is it true that Christians are often reluctant to cite their sources- and if they do, they are often first level Wiki sort of stuff- or even c&p from the many "how to debate with atheists" websites. This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but it is a frequent occurance. The problem is that in general, non religious people who know about this stuff are more likely to know more because they are actually interested in the background. People of faith are looking for evidence to support an already sincerely held belief.