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 not allow my child to do a reading in church?

934 replies

GooseyLoosey · 30/03/2009 08:45

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?

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:16

No they won't. They wont be allowed to come to their own conclusion that racism is tolerable for example. They will be guided as to what is accpetable, even in a secualr school. I'm all for secular education - but it isn't all free-thinking.

UnquietDad · 30/03/2009 21:16

Gracie - but you don't get the "right" to go to a religious hospital or have your bins collected according to a religious ritual. I fail to see why not having a faith school would somehow remove your "choice".

Arsenal supporters don't get to send their children to "Gunners schools". Star Trek fans don't get to send their children to "Trekkie schools." No other type of pressure group or special interest group has this amount of leverage over the state school system - why should the religious?

Evolution is a theory - with a lot of scientific facts behind it to support it. It should be taught as such in the science curriculum.

Creationism is a theory - totally devoid of evidence, but nevertheless believed by many deluded idiots sturdy upright citizens of the parish. So it should be taught, along with other religious beliefs, in RE. This is, was, and always has been my take on it.

spongebrainmaternitypants · 30/03/2009 21:17

Gracie, your dh should certainly not be teaching creationism in science as a Y5 teacher. It is a belief and belief only, there is no evidence to support it at all. Quite different from the wealth of evidence to support evolution.

He is doing his children a massive disservice if he is doing this and if I was a parent I would be speaking to his head about it!

Gracie123 · 30/03/2009 21:18

Up to year 8 (which I know is secondary in some parts of the country) but really only science with his year 5 class.

I do know several of the other science teachers though, and I know that both evolution and intelligent design are both covered as theories with GCSE level students.

Interesting that everyone is shocked about me saying both are taught as valid theories. Spongebrainmaternitypants seems to think that would only happen in a religion free school, and that it would lead to a more tolerant and open society...

TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:18

It is also the National Curriculum's take on it UQD.

TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:19

Seriously Gracie - what kind of school is this?

TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:20

They are not both valid scientific theories. Not by a long chalk.

spongebrainmaternitypants · 30/03/2009 21:20

FM, if that's what their parents teach them it would be hard for the school to counter it - but I take your point, it is about guidance. Obviously no secular school is going to take free speech to those extremes.

But children from specific religious backgrounds deserve the right to question (and disagree) with their parents religion as much as children from parents of no faith. This is what a secular education should hopefully give them.

Not something that all parents would want of course .

MrsMellowdrummer · 30/03/2009 21:21

Spongebrainmaternitypants, I'd like to come to your school please.

spongebrainmaternitypants · 30/03/2009 21:22

Lol Gracie, I didn't and wouldn't ever say that "intelligent design" should be taught as a valid scientific theory - it isn't one and shouldn't be taught as one!

It is a belief with no validity in science at all - it belongs in RE not science!

Gracie123 · 30/03/2009 21:22

UQD, it is not devoid of evidence by any means. It is only how you view the evidence that makes the difference, that is why I think it is crucial that parents make informed decisions on where they send their kids to school.

As I think most of you have guessed we teach in a public school, but I don't see why a state school should have to be different. We teach the national curriculum, get excellent results and provide both sides of the argument. Many of our children leave as atheists and that is fine. It was their decision. Why everyone is outraged that we dare suggest both theories are covered is beyond me. So much for that open-minded and tolerant society...

spongebrainmaternitypants · 30/03/2009 21:24

MrsMellow, why thank you!

I have been told some pages back that I can't send my child to our local school (CofE unfortunately) and should homeed, so maybe I should set up my own school!

MillyR · 30/03/2009 21:24

Gracie

How is it a more open and tolerant society to teach that intelligent design is a valid theory in Biology? It is not a valid theory; it is not a scientific theory at all. To tell a school child that it is a scientific theory is simply a lie.

TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:24

I think we're in broad agreement spongebrain. I've had some really interesting chats with a couple of students after covering the Big Bang with them. They come from a religious background and struggled to reconcile what they were learning about with what they are told at home. They are doing a lot of thinking now

I should point out that I don't offer my own opinion in these situations. I let them talk.

UnquietDad · 30/03/2009 21:25

"intelligent design" is just another way of saying creationism. Dressed up in scientific-sounding language. (I like spongebrain's addition of the - wish there was some way of always rendering it that way, like a "TM" or (R) sign.)

spongebrainmaternitypants · 30/03/2009 21:27

Gracie, open minded and tolerant does not mean teaching religious belief as fact! If a secular school taught all different religious beliefs as facts you would end up with lots of very confused children!

Religion would be taught in RE. Science in science lessons.

Children would then be left to make up their own minds about the different religions they are being taught.

TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:27

You can cover whatever you like in an independent school I guess, but teaching your students that ID is in any way at all a scientific theory is just plain wrong. A complete misunderstanding. They may pass the exams, but they won't leave better scientists thats for sure.

spongebrainmaternitypants · 30/03/2009 21:29

Fallen, it is v hard as a teacher isn't it cos you can't contradict what children are being taught at home, but what I love about teaching is watching children question the world around them. That is what education should be about.

UQD, lol at "intelligent design" - I hate the phrase and yes it is just trying to cover up the word creationism, which is odd. Why suddenly change the word?

UnquietDad · 30/03/2009 21:30

Gracie - how is there a way of putting this which makes it perfectly clear?

Because.

They.

Are.

Not.

Both.

Theories.

The whole evolution versus creationism "debate" has been artifically manufactured by a powerful US Creationist lobby which gained strength during the Bush years, and it is now seeping over here. It makes no sense. You might as well have an "evolution versus Vishnu and Siva" debate, or an "evolution versus Isis and Osiris" debate, or an "evolution versus babies being found under gooseberry bushes" debate. One is demonstrable scientific fact. The other is mythology. There is no "debate".

I'm rather hoping that, now they have a President who at least acknowledges people who don't believe all that stuff do actually exist, and who, if not perfect, is actually the closest thing to a sensible human being to have sat in the Oval Office for a generation, we might start to see a bit less of it... Time will tell.

TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:30

I wouldn't be tolerant of teaching flat earth theory in Science lessons either. Nothing to do with religion. I have a religious faith. Everything to do with science.

Gracie123 · 30/03/2009 21:31

Intelligent design and creationism are very similar. They both point to a creator, whether christian or not.

I'm surprised that everyone here is so dismissive of another theory when you are all claiming that you don't want your children to go to a faith based school on the basis that they might be 'indoctrinated' with something you don't believe.

There are hundreds of research papers with plenty of scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design (I'll use whichever is less offensive to you all) and to say there isn't is either ignorance (you haven't looked) or a blatent lie. You might not agree with all the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but some of their scientist don't agree with the conclusions drawn by you.

Surely if we are being open minded and tolerant all theories should be expressed.

UnquietDad · 30/03/2009 21:33

I think I'll go away and thump my head against a wall somewhere, and maybe I'll come out of that experience with few enough brain cells to believe in "intelligent" design.

boogiewoogie · 30/03/2009 21:34

You send your ds to a COE school and you object his being asked to do a reading.

Not unreasonable to not allow it if it conflicts with your beliefs but hypocritical to send him to a CofE school in the first place. You've already admitted that you don't agree with the ethos of the school and that you don't respect it.

You can't have it both ways. You are being a hypocrite and you know it.

Gracie123 · 30/03/2009 21:34

Fallenmadonna - We don't teach flat earth theory either, because it is testable and fact. You can sail around the world and it is not flat.

It's not the same thing as a theory that is untestable. As a science teacher (did you say that? Maybe I'm getting you confused with someone else) I would hope that you know the difference.

TheFallenMadonna · 30/03/2009 21:35

Re these papers.

Please link, or at least provide some references.

'Cos otherwise I shall have to stay