to not allow my child to do a reading in church?

[GooseyLoosey]

Dh and I are atheists. The dcs attend the local school which is C of E (although wholly state funded). There are no alternative non-C of E schools locally.

The school tends towards being very religious and there is a special Easter service in church for the school this week. Ds (5) has been given a reading to do at this service. It includes many "Praise God" and "God is good" type statements.

I don't wish to over react but getting ds to actively participate in an act of worship may be a step too far for me. AIBU to object and to consider telling them to get someone else to do this?

I wasn't brought up to be religious at all. Never Christened etc I did a lot of drama at my school (which was 40% Jewish) so usually did readings at services. I always felt very proud to do them and mum and dad plus my Jewish 'auntie' loved them too - especially at Christmas. Didn't get indoctrinated by my school or my parents who thought I should experience all kinds of belief and make up my own mind.

Don't become a censor. Be proud of your boy and give him freedom to make up his own mind.

UQD, there are certain ways of looking at the world. You believe that scientific evidence of something is required in order to make something true or valid. Others believe that there may be more to this world than the world of science. "Belief system" may be the wrong way of expressing those views of the world but I can't think of a better one.

"if you require no evidence to believe stuff, you have no criteria on which to base whether or not you believe anything" - not true, I just have different criteria to you.

As for people asking for scientific evidence thinking they have all the answers being rubbish - I couldn't agree more. No one has all the answers.

Depends what you mean by letting it go, UQD. If you think you're showing restraint, I'd hate to see what you would be like if you really let rip. Do you feel tempted to run amock during masses, or chase nuns down the street?

stillstanding It may be cause all of my in-laws are Catholics and DH went to a Catholic School so a large proportion of his friends are Catholics too - but I have found that my lack of faith gets treated with a lack of respect.

Like because I have no faith, there is nothing to respect.

For example, it is assumed that I will send Ds to that same CofE school that all of my neices and nephews go to. When I point out that I am uncomfortable with that, I get laughed at. After all, I don't believe in anything so why would I object to a school with crucifxes in every room and it's own school prayer?!?

DH's Aunties and Uncles also refuse to have anything to do with DS as he is not Baptised.

Another one who hasn't read the whole thread, but has two points to make nonetheless :

• lots of CofE schools are not financed by the church. In our area it is the only one to go to unless you go to another village, impossible if you don't drive.

• OP, if your child attends a church school and you do not want your DS to "actively participate in an act of worship" then this service is the least of your worries. He will be being taught the Lords Prayer and other prayers in assembly. If you really wish to stop him participating - and not look like a bit of a twat in the school's eyes - you will have to insist that he also does not attend assembly and other religious services. You need to show the courage of your convictions, here. Just objecting to the easter service participation looks like you are doing it all for show. I think it's an all or nothing situation.

Or is the way you have put it in your OP slightly misleading - is it your DS leading an act of worship, rather than participating in it, which you are objecting to? If so, perhaps better to object on those grounds instead.

georgimama - I'm not talking about me in particular! I'm quite vocal, I admit that. But so many atheists just know they will cause ructions and so let it go.

stillstanding, the problem I have with "believing that there may be more to this world than the world of science" is that, in order to think that, you only have to take a reductive approach to "science". The issue is maybe one of semantics. A lot of people are still hung up on the word "science" as representing the subject they studied at school - you say science, people think flasks and retort stands, circuit boards, equations.

My understanding of "science", and most scientists' understanding of the word, would be broader - almost immeasurably broader. Science is "the study of our understanding of the way the universe and everything in it works." So to say that a scientific approach is not required is to say that we should not be attempting to understand the universe.

SarahL2, that is awful - you need to sort those inlaws out and the aunts and uncles are genuinely appalling. In the face of that I guess you just need to try to be calm and measured and put your case forward in as polite a manner as you can muster. I hope your DH is supportive and backs you up.

I haven't read it all, so apologise if it has been mentioned, but have you asked your DS if he wants to do the reading?
You have sent him to a Cof E school so I would leave it up to him-he may not share your views.

I am appalled at the attitude of your relations SarahL2-I don't know how you deal with people who are so bigoted.

SarahL2. They are horrible. They are bigoted and narrow minded.

But they are not typical. Surely you can see that? If they were typical you would've been burned at the stake by now at the very least

Do you really think they are representative of all Christians? Really?

This is all very interesting. In America our public schools aren't religious at all for the most part. When I worked in a bigger school, the "Winter" program (no Christmas mentioned at all) had songs about sharing, snow, and being friends. I work in a rural public school now, and I was totally surprised when they sang a song that mentioned Jesus. Most people in my community attend church, however, so I don't think any of the parents had a problem with it. If someone did, they could complain and the song would have been taken out. I know that some children at the old school I worked at didn't say the God part of the Pledge of Allegiance, and that was supported. DH and I were actually thinking of sending DS to a Catholic school when he's older, as we're religious and know that for the most part he won't learn any of that at school. Remains to be seen if we can afford it!

OP, your beliefs are different from mine, but they should be respected. If your son truly doesn't want to say something he doesn't believe, then by all means ask for it to be given to someone else. As long as you do it respectfully there's no reason anyone should take offense.

UnquietDad, perhaps it is one of semantics (although perhaps a little more, no?!) ....

Your definition of "science" is certainly broad indeed. I think a lot of faiths also aspire to an "understanding of the way the universe and everything in it works". It is obviously the criteria or principles which you apply to that understanding that is the difference.

Your set of criteria are more limited than mine. Mine includes some that you would not accept as valid. We believe different things.

Science isn't the study of everything though is it? It isn't the only way by which we study and understand the world. You don't use science to study history, philosophy, literature or art. Why use it as a basis for studying theology?

As for atheists not wanting to cause ructions - I suspect that is because for a quite a few so called atheists (not anybody on this thread obviously) it is a default position because they haven't ever put any thought into the subject at all.

Sarah - How you are treated is really not nice but these people aren't behaving like Christians and should be ashamed of themselves

i wish schools were like that here Samsmama. I think the OP, if her son doesn't want to do the reading, should just have a quiet word with the teacher and I'm sure it'll be dropped.

The bigger problem is how atheists deal with people of faith. I can quite see how being told what you base your whole life on is a "crock of shit" would be very upsetting, and certainly wouldn't say that to anyone.

On the other hand, if you are an atheist, it is extremely hard to see the other's pov. The more I read about Christianity, how the early church evolved and so on, the less I can see how intelligent people still believe. But extremely intelligent people do. It's a mystery to me, but I can't make myself believe it; I do need some evidence of some kind (N.B. I'm not saying "scientific" I'm saying any evidence of any kind would be good!). So if I find it mystifying, how can explain it to a 4yo?

Being an atheist is certainly not an easy option, but it's the only one I can take.

Interesting post, stickylittlefingers. I've always thought that being an atheist is an easier option than having faith for precisely the reasons outlined in your post.

To me it seems the easiest thing in the world to say that you would only believe in something where there is scientific proof. Where there is none and you have to weigh up the arguments, consider all the intangibles and then still have faith seems practically miracaculous.

'I think the OP, if her son doesn't want to do the reading, should just have a quiet word with the teacher and I'm sure it'll be dropped.'

I agree, but it depends on whether it is coming from her DS or OP-it isn't a problem if he wants to do it.

One interesting test of the opposing point of view is to ask how easy it would be to convince an person of greater intellect than yourself of its truth. In the case of religion I think it's very, very difficult.

I'm not saying you have to be stupid and credulous to believe the utterances of faiths, because, to my frustration, lots of intelligent people patently do believe them. (Rowan Williams, for one, is far more of an intellectual than I could ever be.) But it would be pretty easy to convince someone of low intelligence that everything was "made by god" - it's a simple, comforting, reasonable-sounding platitude. You don't need to provide anything in the way of supporting statements or evidence. Which makes it extraordinarily convenient.

A scientific theory, on the other hand, requires reams of research, peer-reviewed publication and sometimes even decades of debate and counter-debate before it is accepted. Which is extraordinarily inconvenient - as it should be.

This is my problem with stillstanding's attempt to redefine the argument as one of opposing beliefs, a re-drawing of the playing field which I simply will never accept. My set of criteria is not just "mine". I recognise the intellectual burden of demonstrating "proof" of a claim, and where this is not possible, of providing enough evidence to put the claim "beyond reasonable doubt."

It's a bit like setting these two scenarios against one another:

a) saying your house was broken into by Fingers McSmith, because he is a dodgy type who is always doing that kind of thing and his eyes are aso close together (belief)
or
(b) providing DNA evidence, motive and opportunity for a case against Fingers McSmith (evidence).

Neither "proves" he did it, but you're on a hell of a lot less of a sticky wicket with (b). The two approaches are in opposition, but are patently not "equal and opposite".

stillstanding - not miraculous - just mystifying? Why would you believe something with no proof whatsoever?

And it's difficult because the rest of the world who aren't atheists find the idea of not believing in an afterlife so difficult. How to turn up to a funeral when you don't think the dead person has gone to heaven - but you do want to support the family?

Piscesmoon - I think the OP said early on that he thinks the reading "is silly". Doesn't sound like someone who wants to do it to me?

I dont actually agree with children going to church they should be in school doing lessons and visiting church on a Sunday if they choose to, not in school time.

If a visit to look at the type of religon it is at a church or temple - fine but not going to a service and partaking in that service.

chegirl The lack of respect for lack of belief does seem to be a re-occuring theme...

For example - a few months ago, the Secular Society commissioned an advertising campaign on some Buses that said something along the lines of "There is no god, now stop worrying and start living life". One bus driver refused to drive the bus on the grounds that he was a christian and didn't agree with the slogan on his bus. He was allowed to get away with this! I'm sure if an Athiest had refused to drive a bus with a quote from the Bible on it, he would have been at the very least suspended. It certainly wouldn't have made it to the papers!

And at the Song Time at our local Library - we're not allowed to sing Christian songs at Christmas for fear of upsetting other faiths, but it is perfectly acceptable to sing "Goosey Goosey Gander" which advocates throwing someone down the stairs for refusing to say prayers!!

DS, while otherwise supportive, unfortuneately agrees with his family on the school matter. I've given up on his Aunties and Uncles and just feel sorry for them for missing out on such a wonderful little boy

SarahL2: I think it is NBU for that bus driver to refuse...BUT I would also support an athiest bus driver who didn't want to drive a bus with Bible verses on it.
Unquietdad, I know what you're saying. I'm certainly no genius, but I'm not a total idiot either. I go over it alot, why exactly I believe what I do. The answer is, I'm not sure. I have no proof. It's completely unreasonable. And yet, I do. I believe in Jesus. Odd, huh? I have several friends who are shake their heads everytime I say that I've been to church. It's the same for my husband; he's one of the brightest people I (or most people, not to brag! ) have ever met, and he believes completely. I wonder if it's something in the genes...

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. Best of luck to the OP

There is a difference between respecting people's right to believe crap and respecting the crap - what all the superstitous appear to insist on is that the rational concede that 'there must be something in [whatever superstition is being peddle]. Well, there isn't. It's bollocks. End of. However, I do not, for instance, hang about outside temples/mosques/churches to point and laugh at the believers, nor would I corner someone at a party who had professed adherence to a myth system and rant at them indefinitely (well, not unless they started spouting crap of course).
However, it remains very, very important to be free to laugh at and despise all the superstitions and to say openly that they are all bullshit, because allowing religious types to have their crap exempt from mockery or criticism is extremely dangerous: think of all the abusers, crooks and loons who have hidden or tried to hide behind religious privilege over the years.