to think that some non-religious parents over-react just a teensy-weensy bit when their children are exposed to religion in the most benign form?

[SueBarooeeooeeooooo]

s'ok if I am. But threads complaining about this sort of thing are a regular MN feature, and I can't help thinking that some parents seem tremendously precious about it. We're Christians and it often comes up that not everyone believes the way we do, and I talk to my children about it and they wander off and scribble on the lounge walls again.

I've seen people complaining about Christian mums and tots groups, simple 'thankyou' prayers and christian charities. I am 100% ok with you bringing your children up atheist, theist, or chocolate-worshipping. Honestly, if I whipped myself up into a panic over every mention of different beliefs or none that my children encounter, I'd never get anything done.

(Please note, this is not a church schools whinge, I'm against selection on religious grounds.)

And I really mean that

yes glad we cleared that one up Sue!

No schools? Oh well, I'm off, I was hoping Cappuccino and I could abuse each other a bit before dinner

I can't honestly say that religion impinges at all on my life in any way other than the school thing. Unless you count Christian Aid knocking on my door just as I'm putting ds to bed?

But Sue don't think you can exclude religious schools from op. It's central to why the godless get riled imo.

"I think it is just bad manners to enjoy the hospitality of a local church, who is investing time money and people in providing a toddler group, and then grouse about the fact that it has a religious dimension"

Ok I have a couple of points to make about this:

Firstly, in one of yuor very eloquent posts you said quite forcefully that the provision of these groups was specifically for the purposes of "service" and helping the commuunity" and NOT about mission and evangelism.

if that is the case, then imo you can't put caveats on the service provided, and expect gratitude. I don't think you can have it both ways. although I will say (again) that ime churches of all persuasions do provide many wonderful and energetic services for the community often where other charities bow out.

secondly, more importantly, if your point does apply to other churches it doesnot and cannot apply to the established Church of England. As the State church, it owes a debt/responsbility to the community - the way in which the church is currently funded and (crucially) historically founded was on the back of money provided by the people. this is another of these "you can't have it both ways" things - the community/society provided the buildings in which you worsip and there is a responsbility to allow the community to use them. this is a pretty well established principle, e.g. all people in the parish are entitled to be married/christened in their local church. that is the quid pro quo for e.g. things like funding church schools etc.

again, in fairness, I would say that ime the vast majority of CofE vicars feel that very keenly and bend over backwards to serve their communities. I very often use churches for artistic purposes and only very occasionally will a vicar suggest we end with a hymn and a prayer

ooooh but Sue you wouldn't. Where would be the fun in that?

You could say things like 'Did Mrs Barton really say that? How interesting. I wonder why she thinks that'

and

'Ah yes that's an interesting point of view isn't it? What do you think? I wonder, hmmm, some people think this . . .'

See? You could throw little sceptical stones into their ponds and watch the waters ripple. It's awful fun. Promise.

I do still think The point I made on this yesterday still stands. This is/was a christian country so our default position within beaurocratic institutions is going to be christian
It would be different in a non christian country
I don't quite understand why people seem so shocked with this
Our country is built on Christian values (as they were seen at the time)
And to foresee the arguments I will no doubt get, I am making a comment on our country and not the fact that christian values are exclusive to christianity. They are most definitely not.

Why should politics and religion mix?
Why should an unelected body be given the privilege of dabbling in the politics of our country?
I truly don't get it. And I look around the world at some horrendous travesties and I don't get it any more.
Just because it's the nice old CofE, we are supposed to not bother?

Ah, now I think you're talking about big politics - Anglican bishops in the House of Lords (so much there that I have a problem with) and the like.

I'm talking about personal politics.

100x, blimey I wouldn't say nothing about it to the kids, I just wouldn't make a big deal out of the fact that she had atheist teachers etc.

I know of someone very recently who was told by her teacher that her (religious lecturer) father had lied to her about the bible, and while her dad wasn't very happy about the complete unprofessional behaviour of the teacher, it was a great opportunity to discuss some important stuff.

TM, oh yes, me too.

back to my point about fluffiness grimpruner. 'common sense' or 'tradition' - ways that lots of objectionable things have been got away with, in the past.
harpsicorpse you're very reasonable and clever.

Oh no I'm onto big politics.
Personal politics/morals/ethos/whatever is an interesting topic but if someone is guided by their faith, who am I to tell them otherwise (so long as they don't start telling me what to do, or landing unelected positions within government )?

I have just remembered threads where I got arsey.
One was about use of OMG and FGS
And another was something about Christmas being for Christians and other people had no right to celebrate
Another was about JWs and how it was just fine to annoy people knock on doors

Hmm. I am quite arsey, it turns out. Less so nowadays, maybe MN is good for letting it all out

be arsey, m'dear, and have at it. I've decided that I'm not being unreasonable, but then neither is anyone else. MN is a gloriously good place for getting things off your chest, and long may it remain so.

Way back while I was off carving a pumpkin and making risotto from the offcuts (inspired by a different thread!) someone wondered something about how an atheist explains the universe to a small child.

Its very easy. You stick to facts. You can include things that they (and most adults) don't understand like the Big Bang. It sounds great! You take them to science museums. And natural history museums. And dinosaurs...they all love dinosaurs. You explain about life and death with the help of unfortunate goldfish, gardens, compost heaps etc.

I thought the reason for the C of E was Henry VIII trying to get out of a marriage while hedging his bets about not going to hell and snubbing that foreign Pope person. I don't think this in anyway reflects on Christians or the C of E today. However, Christianity has its place in the UK, I think, for historical rather than democratic or ethical reasons.

Ruty, I think one of the problems is that the liberal Christian message is quite difficult to explain to a young child, (as justabout said), but a simplistic fundamentalist view point (as opposed to Sue's which seems quite complex ) is quite straightforward.

Hang on MP - Henry V111 took advantage of a movement already sweeping Europe, a movement that wanted to make God a common God who anyone, even the poor could have a personal relationship with, A God whose Bible even the non educated could understand [eg getting rid of Latin prayers]
He took advantage of it for his own purposes, but the movement was already there.

I guess as I was brought up with a liberal theology [though my Dad was a Tory before he trained to be a priest ] I have never thought of it as hard to explain to a child. Of course I did my own rebelling away from the church [and still don't go] but came to see the sense in stuff my Dad said and other good people [but certainly not all the christians I came in contact with] I guess we'll see how easily it can be explained when it comes to my ds asking questions. But i will certainly be explaining the creation of the universe in terms of the Big Bang, etc!

I expect that new Christian ideas would have reached the UK with or without HVIII. However, I think his reason for putting the monarch at the head of the church were cynical.

yes undoubtedly. the problem is [forgive me for saying so] that the monarchy and the vatican are both too powerful and too potentially corrupt to be 'heads' of the church. If there is to be a 'head' at all.

Again: the problem with allowing the representatives of any brand of superstition to run public facilities is that there is no safeguard against bigoted members of those superstitions taking over the running of those facilities. Would you really be happy about all the m&t groups in your area being run by Hare Krishnas (who are nice, friendly, tolerant but kind of prefer you to join in their prayers or read their texts if you want to use their facilities). Or by vaudon or shinto groups?

I am not criticising or diminishing any of the myth systems used as examples in this post given that they're all exactly equal in their relevance as far as I'm concerned - I've used examples of minority and less well-known belief systems.

I think that the problem is that it is apparently considered completely acceptable for a primary school teacher or other authority figure to present his/her Christian beliefs as facts to children (away from their families) who are primed to therefore think it true. I don't think this is benign. Not because the belief itself is necessarily "bad", but because it is then very difficult as a parent to counter it. Yes of course the children will grow up to form their own beliefs, but it's the now that is being complained about. I have no problem with overtly religious evangelising because it is overt. I choose not to send my children to church groups, Brownies etc. But I cannot influence which teacher they may be assigned, or who comes in to give assemblies (again in a non-religious school). I don't know what those people may be saying to my children, and if it is closing their minds to alternative thoughts then I object. One of the great pleasures of having children is watching them think through and develop their understanding of the world. With my son, who takes everything he is told with a pinch of salt and always questions everything I have wonderful thoughtful conversations. My daughter on the other hand loves her teachers and accepts what they say at pretty much face value. How can I (especially as an aetheist) have a conversation about the meaning of life with her, when she says point blank "God made the world" because x says so (and he owns a church was her justification of this last time I tried). My belief in the importance of thinking is compromised by what I am sure another person would say was very "benign". So I complain!

Well said, ruty! It really pisses me off when people blithely ignore, for instance, Martin Luther and the very serious abuses he was campaigning against. Although I may be a bit jaundiced by having lots of Catholic relatives who were indocrinated by priests and schools into focusing on Anne Boleyn, conveniently bypassing the RC church's attempts to keep the masses downtrodden and ignorant.

(Although the attempted indocrination wasn't completely successful as one of those relatives was my father, a commmitted atheist who first told me about Martin Luther.)