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.)

The way I see it with my church is that there's a script which has certain parts played by men, and they currently stick to the script. Other churches have started to be a bit more flexible, and I think the underlying principles in the Christian faith mean that eventually it will probably become common to be more flexible, like having a female Doctor Who .

Harpsi, yes, I wouldn't disagree with you about the church not being feminist, certainly. I suppose that because Christianity, as I understand it, comes at these issues from a different angle, and I appreciate it often looks different to the way others approach things.

So, you see various imbalances, and you think the way to deal with it is to agitate and organize a change from the outside-in. Christianity comes at those things from the perspective that things change from the inside-out.

I was lucky in that my Christian upbringing was United Reformed Church (same a Heifer).
They have had female ministers and elders for ages (well, in the Congregational church which was one of the bits that united with the Presbyterians to form URC, don't know about the Presbs).

They are also democratic, in that decisions about important matters (like choice of minister) is put to the vote of all church members. [dad used to say, actually its a theocracy because we pray for guidance beforehand].

My mother told me the Congregationalists also used to have some church schools but stopped it prewar because they realised it wasn't a good idea.

I was a bit shocked when I realised what other Churches were like - which probably helped pull off the warm fuzzy wool from my eyes!

I've just thought - do you know what does get to me? The fact that since going to school, my son has not been in one nativity at Christmas! There have been "plays" at the end of term which manage to cram Mary and Joseph in at the very end, but no story of their journey to Bethleham etc. The reason - because it may upset the parents children of other religions. I've not met any parents who would object yet. And I'm not religious!

Oh I like the URC
Sue/justabout I absolutely take your points. my sisters (two of them are the ex-elders of the Baptist church I talked about) - well I love them very much and I find it personally infuriating that they allow themselves to be subjugated in the way they do, but I respect their personal choices and recognise the great work they do in the community every day and I am sure that is repeated all over the country. Freedom of religion, freedom of choice must of course include choices with which I do not agree or approve .
But the limit to this tolerance (personally) must be when misogynistic/anti-feminist religions have any influence over public life and public policy. it is then that individual choices start to become imposed on the wider community, and however good the intentions that is simply unacceptable in my eyes and imo as a country our failure to form a secular state holds us back, intellectually and socially.

Some schools do seem to be oversensitive. School nativity plays are sweet - and also somewhat ridiculous which my subversive heart rejoices in.

We did get some annoyed comments last year when new headmaster introduced lessons-and-carol service using the local RC church - not from 'other religions' as far as I could see, but from previously undeclared secularists. I didn't think it quite overstepped the mark, but thats partly because from my Nonconformist church background I like a jolly good community singsong and secular life doesnt provide enough opportunity.

lol at a female Doctor Who.
I think you are right Sue, that churches have a greater tendency to stick to the traditional "script" and avoid change.
which is the opposite from the way society should work, imo.
and no I have absolutely no problems with a nativity play. great story. not strictly true in any sense, but a great story

also query 'script', replace 'patriarchy'??

sorry, tried to stay away...!

Message withdrawn

onebatmother, lol, yes, if by patriarchy you mean that the 'qualifications' list in the bible includes being a man. Like I say, some stick to the script more closely than others.

waves fundy flag for the reality of the nativity story

When you look at women like Hildegaard and Julian of Norwich, and certainly the women around Christ, it seems that the inequality of women in the Church was a device created much later.

ruty this is interesting, your family history particularly so.

But was it all aimed at me and my patriarchy post or something I said earlier.. sorry, a bit foggy today, but I don't think I've ever questioned the kindness of christians as individuals? or set the CoE up as shining example of egality?

I appreciate that everyone's got to make their own decisions regarding how much misogynistic, homophobic or racist bullshit they're prepared to put up with in the name of superstition - just as everyone makes their own individual decisions on how much leeway to allow friends, colleagues etc in the matter of personal prejudices. SOmeone can have political/ethical views you don't share, or tend to tell sick or offensive jokes, and yet be a person who is helpful and kind, someone who would drive you to hospital in an emergency or lend you their last fiver, etc. INdividual members of various faiths and indeed various faith organisations can do lots of stuff to help their fellow human beings without insisting that said fellow human beings have to pretend to believe the relevant myths.
HOWEVER and this is the important bit. THe reason rational people do not want the superstitious having power over public services is because they do not want their kids fed racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit even at a warm and fluffy level, thanks.

yes, that is the important bit madamez.

I don't want that either thanks Madamez. but I do find your 'superstition' argument rather reductive.

[sorry for going on in last post!]

're ruty's "the church is responsible for some terrible things. But they have done those things in spite of the Judaeo Christian framework, not because of it. IMO." I think this is one of the most frustrating aspects of the debate - the disassociation with The Church/the church for some aspects of Christianity, but not for others (usually the cuddly bits.)'

sorry, one bat, my longwinded dribble was in response to this post.

[apologies for killing the thread with family saga]

OK, 'superstitous that some people take seriously'. THat better?

justa re "
None of us are suggesting that faith groups have some sort of right to run or disproportionately influence public services"

I think perhaps the reason for general rantiness (sorry madamez) is because the OP wonders why, obliquely, atheists get so het up about a bit of goddiness.
and the worship in schools/church schools fact of life, is imo a significant reason for up-hetting and answers the OP.
things have moved forward since then but think that's why it keeps popping up...

family saga faaar more interesting than thread! |Sounds.. Lawrentian?