Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
UnquietDad · 03/04/2009 09:28

Are they left by The Real Santa?

dreamylady · 03/04/2009 09:29

GooseyLoosey,

YANBU.

I am coming late to this and the thread has veered way off topic, also I haven't read the entire thread and I may be repeating points already made but i just felt the need to support you in this as you've taken quite an unfair battering from some quarters.

I think it shows remarkable maturity in your ds that he feels uncomfortable (if that's what he means by silly) making declarations he doesn't believe in front of all his peers. I feel the same way about role play on training courses but at least everyone knows that's only pretend. Presumably you've taught him it's wrong to lie, and making a statement you don't believe is a similar thing so good for him not wanting to do that. If he just means he's embarrassed about public speaking, then again fair enough, he can learn to do that when he's bigger, if he needs to (this skill is not a pre requisite to becoming a rounded successful human being).

I was really cross at all the judgemental 'you should choose another school' statements. Where I live there are 3 schools in walking distance, two religious and one secular, so it is possible to make that choice here - but I still feel angry that I should have to make that choice (predictably the overall results at the faith schools are slightly better - but not enough for me to need to compromise my principles). However your situation is completely different. I strongly believe as you do that children's schooling should be rooted in their local neighbourhood community, I also believe that faith based education in some areas damages community relations and creates false divisions and inequalities between people, not just on faith but also on socio-economic grounds. So good on you for instead standing up for your view of the world and making it very clear to the Head when your ds started that that's where you stood - not easy to do, brave and showing great integrity I think, and the opposite of hypocritical (is it? )

This is now going a bit off topic but many atheist and agnostic posters have referred to there being lots of good things about church and community and i'd agree - i also have fond memories of choir, sunday school etc - but how much better if people like us who didn't actually believe in the 'god stuff' formed an alternative so we could have all the secular fun without having to role play . You could still have a good old singalong, some community notices, some readings, bit of philosophical debate, cup of tea and a biscuit, charity fundraising, the lot. In fact the community I live in has all these things going on but just not all pulled together in a regular Sunday morning slot. I think it would be brilliant, but haven't worked out what we'd call it. Any suggestions?

Meantime GooseyLoosey, did you make a decision? Have you spoken to the school - it seemed that was the way you were heading - I would love to hear how it went. Faith school 'management' should be aware when parents are unhappy with religious aspects of education - if they have your child in their school then you should have just as much of a voice as other parents and they should be happy to hear your views - many others may feel the same way but just too afraid of making their concerns clear.

Finally, mumsnet etiquette question - is it OK to refer organisations / interest groups to specific threads? I'm a member of the Secular Society and I bet they'd be interested in this debate.

nightingale452 · 03/04/2009 10:20

I'm a little confused by the C of E school being the 'only' choice. I'd have to assume that you live in the middle of nowhere, have no car and there's no public transport. While I do sympathise with your dilemma, surely if you feel this strongly against religious activities, a different school, even one which was more effort to get to, would have been a better choice.

spongebrainmaternitypants · 03/04/2009 10:39

justabout, sorry to be ignorant, but what is the Real Presence?

(Lol at being left by the Real Santa!!)

dreamy, interested in the Secular Society - I'm a lapsed member of the BHA, are they much of a muchness?

justaboutback · 03/04/2009 11:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

justaboutback · 03/04/2009 11:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

prettybird · 03/04/2009 13:13

Gooseyloosey - I bet you never thought when you started this thread that it wold generate over 800 posts!

UnquietDad · 03/04/2009 15:17

Okay. Not laughing. Hand up with a serious question. Even if god could focus his spiritual energy in that way and overcome the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them... WHY? What's the point?

And if god can do this, why doesn't he do so in places where it would be more useful - e.g. turning African earth into edible vegetables? (No doubt this is something to do with free will...)

CoteDAzur · 03/04/2009 16:02

Well, to play Devil's advocate:

If indeed there were a God, his motives would probably be as impenetrable to us as ours are to lab rats. So the only point of a "Why would he do xx?" question would be to establish that we can't think of a reason. Not that there isn't one.

SamsMama · 03/04/2009 16:07

UQD, you crack me up. And yes, thank you, I will believe in "my twaddle" but leave you alone, and I'm quite content to do so.

I believe in the sacrament as a symbol. Raised as a sort of half-assed Lutheran-Buddhist-Deist/Pagan, I was never taught about transub...transub...what is it called? I attend Catholic church now because I like this particular church, which is the same reason I used to attend the New African Baptist Church in my old town. DS isn't baptized yet, but will be soon, and into the Catholic church. The problem I am starting to have with this is actually in relation to the wafer/wine thing. I have celiac disease and we suspect DS does as well. I don't take communion at church (and I must say I get some amusement out of assuming people think that I'm some Jezebel who's commited a mortal sin) b/c the wafers are wheat, which I can't consume. Some churches are fine with Hosts made out of rice, but others aren't. (Haven't checked to see about our church yet.) Now, if Jesus can transform a wheat wafer, there's no reason he can't a rice one, eh?

As to the services for non-believers post, do you have Unitarian churches? I think some of them have some sort of service for people who just want to come hang out and sing w/o talking about a deity.

ruty · 03/04/2009 16:49

Communion is a symbolic act of the last supper. That's it. I don't really think that is in conflict with the idea of a Real Presence, as those with belief may find the symbolic act of communion so powerful that the feel very close to God at that moment. God doesn't switch a light bulb on and off in her presence [if she exists] she is omnipresent, innit.

YanknbeforetheCockcrows · 03/04/2009 17:09

ruty, just to be clear Catholic Communion is NOT a symbolic act. They (are supposed to) believe that it is actually, literally Jesus' flesh and blood. yergghhh

SamsMama, if you aren't Catholic, you shouldn't be taking communion at a Catholic church anyway, regardless of wafer composition (not that I care, but that's their rule).

Jeez, this is reminding of all the scenarios in my how-to-be-Catholic classes in high school....'If Cathy Catholic marries Larry Lutheran, blah blah blah'.

My mom (converted Catholic) used to refer to Unitarians as 'The church of Anything-Goes'.

My father would be soooooo proud that I even remember the word transubstantiation....please don't tell him! It only gets his hopes up.

morethanjustadad · 03/04/2009 17:10

God doesn't switch a light bulb on and off in herpresence [if she exists] she is omnipresent, innit.

....and the debate opens up on yet another front

ruty · 03/04/2009 17:14

[whispers] but most Catholics don't actually believe it Yank - at least, not the sane ones.

Funny isn't it, i usually refer to God as she/he [the Holy Spirit is female in the original Hebrew so totally justified] but from now on i think I'm just going to try to counteract hundreds of years of bias and just say 'She'. In my own small way.

spongebrainmaternitypants · 03/04/2009 17:38

justabout, thank you, and no I'm not laughing - was brought up proper to respect others!

It is interesting that you're embarrassed to admit this though - surely faith is something that takes, um, a leap of faith!! Sorry, couldn't think of a better way to put it. For someone like me who has no faith in religion what you believe is, of course, non-sensical and can't possibly be true. But this is where the fairy analogy is a good one - why is believing in fairies any more rational/irrational than believing in god?

I would also second UQD's point and, this is one of the main reasons I could never believe in god, why does he never seem to put all this power to good use. Why doesn't he protect people and stop the misery and suffering in the world?

I know that is a massive question and I know those with faith will shoot me down in flames for being so simplistic, but to me it is simple - why believe in a god who doesn't actually seem to do anything useful?

spongebrainmaternitypants · 03/04/2009 17:46

I meant no faith or religion!

SamsMama · 03/04/2009 17:58

I have to laugh at myself too, b/c here I am saying:
"I believe that a virgin conceived. I believe that a man walked on water and that that same man rose from the dead. But believe that the wafer and wine are actually flesh and blood? Ridiculous!" But I believe those things nonetheless.

About the me not taking communion thing- I went to a Catholic church many years ago (before I was diagnosed with celiac disease) and the priest encouraged me to take communion. He said my being confirmed by the Lutherans was good enough for him.

justabou, I also think it's interesting that you're embarrassed. I think my lack of that is what lets me get on so well with all my friends who are athiests, b/c my faith doesn't require their validation. (Or their lack of faith mine.) I have a friend who always says "Have a nice talk with your magical sky daddy?" after he hears I've been to church. I just reply "Yup," and smile. (And then he shakes his head as though he plans on having me institutionalized). If you believe it, well and good. Millions of people do, you don't have to be embarrassed.

justaboutback · 03/04/2009 18:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

justaboutback · 03/04/2009 18:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

YanknbeforetheCockcrows · 03/04/2009 18:34

Sorry Samsmama, the priest in that case was going against the Canon Law. As a Protestant, you should only be given Holy Communion by a Catholic if you are on death's door (which it doesn't sound like you were).

Myself, I must have received Catholic Communion 'illegally' loads of times because:

--I don't believe in transubstantiation (Canon Law says you must)

--I haven't confessed after my last mortal sin (actually, I haven't since confessed the First Reconciliation because it was terrifying!)

--I sometimes scarfed some food just before mass (has to be at least an hour before taking Communion).

I don't know what point I'm trying to make, or possibly I don't even have one. I guess I think people should seriously research a religion and its laws before becoming involved. And be respectful by not picking and choosing only the bits you like. If that's what you want to do, then perhaps organised religion is not for you (or you need to start one of your own!).

justaboutback · 03/04/2009 18:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

justaboutback · 03/04/2009 18:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

YanknbeforetheCockcrows · 03/04/2009 19:00

Interesting. . .

the bits of Canon Law I read didn't seem to lend themselves to any other interpretation, but I think that is the way with religion--stuff just gets made up on the fly and justified in various ways later.

One of the many reasons I just don't 'get' organised religion and won't be a part of it.

onagar · 03/04/2009 19:26

Fascinated by the transubstantiation being real. I always assumed it was meant to be a symbol.

If it did change there would be interesting implications. For one thing cannibalism
is a serious criminal offense. So... if you really believe then you are breaking the law, but if you don't then you are ok.

Also as has been said we can disprove the transubstantiation with some simple tests. If transubstantiation is an important part of the whole belief then give me a true believer and a test tube and I can give you an atheist. It's like having proof jesus was not crucified.

Since I can't see any of you wanting to eat human flesh I'm convinced you must all be quite sure it's not real, but I don't see how you reconcile that if you are catholic.

justaboutback · 03/04/2009 19:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn