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?

But it's been normalised for centuries, millenia even surely UQD? It's not a new thing. For all the entirely rational arguments about atheism being a default position and people only believing because they make a choice to do so (as I think has been stated on this thread) isn't it more the case that in this country Christianity, or at least a broadly Christian culture, has been the default position for a long, long time?

Gracie ----->

Madonna - a couple of thousand years, I grant you. Not an awful lot really, in the grand scheme of things. Various beliefs have come and gone. Christianity too shall perish.

Actually, I don't have a major problem with Gracie.

She &/or her dh teach at an overtly religious, private school. Fine.

Well, not great, but I suppose if the school can get paying punters that's their right in a liberal democracy.

Keeping this nonsense out of state schools is more to the point - & it's such an obvious solution. State schools, funded by tax payers of every conceivable stance on religion, should not teach religious studies prescriptively.

I really don't get why religious parents find this such a threatening idea.

Well no, in terms of human existence a short time. Unless we're buying into the 6000 year old earth and all that. But in terms of this country's education systems - well, pretty much all of it.

raven makes a fair point. You want it, you pay for it.

Quoting Gracie:

"I'm saying the criteria for a 'scientific' journal makes it impossible (no matter how much evidence you provide) to print anything that suggests a creator. Any form of god is by nature supernatural (e.g. outside our natural understanding) so no matter what evidence is produced the conclusion will be that it points to something un-natural and therefore not scientific."

So, the discipline of science and the practice of faith are two separate areas that at the least aren't obliged to cross-reference to one another, and at most are completely incompatible with one another?

Then wny try and impose one upon the other?

Some religious parents raven.

I am heartily fed up of being lumped with the creationists and the church-schoolers. I am neither. Yet am a 'religious parent'. I suppose. Sounds rather odd.

'Our experience was that we very definitely wanted a secular school for our little boy, particularly at infant level,'

The state system in England isn't secular. There are church schools and non denominational schools. This is where people have a great misunderstanding. They think that by not going to a church school they will not get Christian worship. State schools are legally obliged to hold acts of collective worship, which have to be broadly Christian. If they haven't understood this I can see why they get upset, but if they have gone to a C of E schol they should know what to expect. (It doesn't really matter whether you think they should exsist or not Ivykate-they do exist and are quite open about what they do-if you don't like it, don't send them).

It is scarey that education and religion doubled up in such a way that you can't get one without the other.

I quite like 'If you don't like it, don't send them', insofar as it applies to private schools.

I'm less happy about it when it's the state primary. Paid for by me...& my Buddhist dh...& my Muslim CM...

apologies FM, point taken

It is so boring when people think christian = creationist but ho hum.

Onager, in response to your post to me some pages back:

I took offence at SGB's suggestion that it is "important to be free to laugh at and despise all the superstitions and to say openly that they are all bullshit.."

I take no offence to your using an analogy between a garden gnome and Jesus in your argument which is reasoned and respectful. And I certainly don't want you to lie or not express your true opinion in any way.

There are hundreds of perfectly civilised ways to express one's opinion on religion without laughing at or despising others as a lot of posters on this thread have proved.

I don't treat ANYONE in the way SGB thinks appropriate regardless of whether they believe in garden gnomes, jesus, allah or the god-of-science-and-nothing-else-but.

I don't think that people realise that Britain is a Christian country, because they don't come across it in their normal walk of life, and then they get a surprise when their DC starts school. Threads occur on here over and over again because people think that a non faith school is a secular school. They haven't read the 1998 Education Act.
Perhaps a site that explains it clearly is the humanist society here, who want changes.

Stillstanding: how I express myself on an open debate about religion in schools is not how I express myself in casual conversation with people, believers or unbelievers. I am only rude to religious people in a face-to-face situation if they, basically, start it. ANd I don't mean by simply stating that they have a religious belief - if someone says 'Well I'm a [insert myth system-adherent of choice here]' then I would simply say, 'Well I'm not' and continue the conversation, whatever it might be. If someone is arguing for superstition's privileged status, I will disagree with them and if they want a row I'll happily give them one, but if they simply mention in passing that they hold certain opinions/beliefs then I'm not bothered, any more than I am bothered by people adhering to the belief that Robbie Williams is a great musical talent, that football is remotely interesting or that Pot Noodles are not, in fact, delicious. I have repeatedly stated that I respect people's right to hold any and all lunatic beliefs (this includes people's right to think that some races are inferior to others and any other belief or opinion or thought which is unpopular or contrary to mine). I think that everyone is entitled to hold thoughts, opinions and beliefs but that people should be judged on their behaviour (ie you can think that all followers of the Great God Pan or indeed Girls Aloud are subhuman scum but you mustn't follow them about shouting at them or put their windows in). But I think that the right to be'offensive' is a very important one, because too many people claim that because they are offended, it's not permissible to examine their behaviours or challenge them.

What I find amusing and bewildering about these threads is that so many people pull out the Science card, when the vast majority of the population are turned off Science, believe in pseudo-science, and admit to not having a clue... My job would be a lot easier if everyone had the same zeal for Science as mumsnetters.

As for 'faith' schools, they are queuing to get it, I tell you. Ask yourselves 'why?' Whatever it is that people think they get from faith schools is part of the whole package.

The other interesting fact about science is that if you google it you will find that many leading scientists have a belief in God, one doesn't preclude the other.
I also agree with the fact that people are queuing to get into faith schools.There are very few that are undersubscribed, they are delivering what people want. If you took away the faith part I think that it would be a very different school.

Sorry, solidgoldbrass but Pot Noodles are gross!!

I am yet to be convinced by an atheist that their lack of belief/belief is correct, as rather than arguing logically and coherently for the viewpoint, they tend to end up belittling religion. It is fine to argue for rationality, for science and that this is the basis for your value system. That I can respect and admire, but when your argument against religion is that it is "mythology" and "fairy stories", equivalent to supporting a football team or liking Girls Aloud, you make yourself appear petty and vindictive.
Are you so insecure in what you do or don't believe in, that the only way you can survive debate is by belittling the other side? I'm sorry, but that just shows lack of character and that you do not have the strength of your convictions.

Piscesmoon: "The other interesting fact about science is that if you google it you will find that many leading scientists have a belief in God"

I did google it and found that 'many' is less than 10% and declining fast.

Leading scientists reject god

"The popular media perpetuates the fiction that science is supportive of religion.... Most scientists are, in fact, not religious. And the percent of "leading" scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998"

"On the subject of eminent scientists, they mention unpublished data collected by one of the co-authors: "Beit-Hallahmi (1988) found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from."

Hello again - sorry for disappearing but I really did need to do some work. I see this has become a debate about religion and I'm not sure what I can contribute to that. In my mind, I am absolutely certain that there is no God - there is no room for doubt. Therefore, this is what I teach my children. They are aware that other people do have religious beliefs (including their grandparents) and that such beliefs are important to them and should be respected.

However, I know that on the other side of the fence, religious people are equally certain that there is a God. They can point to nothing factual which would convince me of this and I can not prove the non-existence of God in such a way that it shakes their faith. In my experience this means that whilst there can be an interesting exchange of ideas, niether side are prepared to move.

Anyway - to addres some of the points which have come up since I left: I deeply resent being called a hypocrite. I could just go with the flow and not do anything at all. That would be hypocritical. However as it is, I have never hidden my beliefs, we did not pretend to be church goers to get into the school, so I utterly fail to see how I can be accused of hypocrisy. I have never accepted the Christian ethos of the school although I have tried to adapt to it.

My own eductation was largely secular - we did sing hymns in assembly but we certainly never visited a church or saw a vicar.

As for what I am going to do, I haven't decided yet. I asked ds what he thought of the reading last night. He said again that he thought it was silly and didn't really mean anything. We talked about what it might mean to some people but when we had gone through the 100th iteration of "why", I'm not too sure how convinced he was or indeed, how well my explanations stood up.

Sorry to take so long to answer UQD, I made my post on my way to bed.

"no other kind of pressure group has that degree of influence over the education system." - yes I agree with you. And I am a committed Christian and churchgoer, I should tell you, as I expect it must affect my argument, although I hope it doesn't of course.

The point I was trying to make is that the link between the Church of England and education is a historical one. To save you scrolling back, many church schools were originally charity schools, run by the church, on church land, for the education of the poor which would otherwise have had no education. They were taken over by the state but the church retained, shall we say, an "interest."

So in my view, one of the reasons for the church having this degree of influence is simply historical.

Another reason is that the Church of England is our state religion. A member of our church (like many, struggling financially) is often heard to remark that the Church of England is the only organisation which exists for the benefit of its non-members.

If you want to get married, you are entitled to do so in your Parish Church. If you want to be buried, you are entitled to be buried in your Parich churchyard (supposing there is room). You can do these things if you are an atheist. You are also entitled to have your children baptised, although of course you are unlikely to do so if you are an atheist (but you would be surprised!).

Should tragedy strike your family (God forbid) no matter what religion - if any - you were, you would receive a visit from your parish priest offering support. It is his job to minister to all in his parish, whatever religion they are. This would not be the case for a Catholic priest, or a Muslim, Jewish or Hindu faith leader - they are only required to support "believers." The difference lies in the fact that the CofE is what it says on the tin - The Church of England.

So that's my take on why the Church of England is so present in the education system: because it is part of the state system, and was one of the main building blocks of the education system.

I'd drone on but the DCs are fighting.

As an aside. I am going to an interesting lecture tonight. The title:

"Darwinism - Belief or Science"

Should be interesting.

GooseyLoosey I don't think you are being at all unreasonable to question whether your son should do this reading or not. At the end of the day, there is a very wide divdide between attending a religious ceremony and participating in it.

For example, I have attended church weddings of a friends (it's what they wanted and they asked me to be there) but when I got married, I felt like I had to have a civil ceremony for it to mean anything to me. Promising to love and cherish DH in front of a god would have been meaningless to me.

If your son thinks the reading is silly and you are uncomfortable with him having to praise god (I certainly would be if my DS was in this position. Not sure I could even read it myself!) then you could either ask for the reading to be changed or let your son stand down. There will be other opportunities for pulic speaking - he is only 5 after all.