To object to prayers and hymns at school?

[Maitri]

DD (5) goes to a non-denominational school. The reason we chose the school is because it is not a church school despite having some very loose links with a local church. We're very happy for the school to celebrate Easter, Christmas and Harvest with the children as we are in a predominantly Christian society. DS used to go to the same school and I was really happy that in addition to Christmas etc, the children would make little divali lamps and would learn about other faiths' celebrations (we live in a very culturally un-diverse area). In recent months, the school's links with the church seem to have strengthened as the vicar puts in an appearance every week and DD comes home with a new prayer or a new hymn every couple of days. She's constantly talking about Jesus and "how sad it was that he had to die for us"(!). We balance it with the old line of "Well, some people believe that Jesus was a real person and some people believe that he wasn't...". There has been no mention whatsoever of other faiths.

I wanted other MNers' views on this as I'm considering talking to the headteacher about her views. What do you think?

op yanbu.

Scorpette puts it very well.

You can talk to the school, but I doubt you'll get very far.

Isn't an RE Teacher protesting about having RE taught in schools a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas, though but?

Still utterly at this OP's claims for her profession.

Which is why there is no point, unless you have the law at your fingertips mummyloveslucy! The Head is not free to do as she/he wishes.

I don't know about the OP but I don't want to stop my child learning about Christianity, or any other religion, so no I won't be withdrawing them. I just really hate being put in a position where I am contradicting what they have been taught as fact at school because I feel that I am undermining the teachers which I don't want to do.

However I went to a C of E primary school and still managed to grow up as an atheist so I'm confident that my children will also be able to find their own path in the future regardless of what they are taught now.

@gerontious - name them

There were loads of 'holy men' and 'prophets' and the like at that time and Jesus (well, whatever it would've been back then) was one of the most common male names, so when contemporaneous sources mention 'Jesus', we have no proof that they were talking about 'THE' Jesus. Or that they weren't referring to a popular character in urban myth. Or just using a popular and common name as a character in their own stories. Or even getting the source of their facts wrong and erroneously attributing facts, characteristics and stories to someone called 'Jesus' (again, not necessarily 'the' one).

Concrete proof is impossible. Wanting it to be fact doesn't make it so. Like religion in general, then

Tacitus, Julian the Apostate, thr Talmud

None of these Christian sources, indeed all withs omething to gain by not knowing him

Contemporaneous accounts of seing JC's birth records (albeit by Christians so not as reliable)

It is generally accepted, I have Uni handouts staing 'It is generally accepted that as a manb, Jc existed...'. note I did not study theology; World faiths is a different kettle of fish entirely with regards to that.

There are of course people who disagree, but hte main academic opinion unless there has been a sea change since I graduated (in 2008) was that the man existed- as in was born and died. pretty much every other detail is down to beleif, obv.

its a Christian site (been in Uni alle vening, not searching for mroe LOL but there are a few names on there worth searching anyway.

Admitting the existence of Jesus is of course in noway the same as beleiving he was the Son of God, thats another thing entirely.

I also do not think that imaginary numbers are necessary for life, but they get taught..... and I can't get my head around them. We all have our blind spots with certain subjects.

Bad example - 'imaginary' numbers are definitely necessary, any physical scientist or engineer knows they need to be taught. They are objectively true, whether your head goes round them or not. I'm glad mine did else I wouldn't have got far as a crystallographer.

Eulers identity is true and beautiful.

Add message | Report | Contact poster By BalloonSlayer Mon 02-Nov-09 19:37:45
Isn't an RE Teacher protesting about having RE taught in schools a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas, though but?

Not at all. OP is not protestig at religion being learned about, she is protesting about having a particular religion practised and indoctrinated.

I see no reason why an RE teacher needs to be a believer in or a practiser of any particular religion.

Do the contemporaneous sources speak about the author meeting him personally or merely of hearing about him? Because in 2000 years time, someone might read my teenage diary about having seen ET and conclude that aliens definitely exist because "Scorpette The Wise saw an extra-terrestrial"

'Contemporaneous accounts of seing [sic] JC's birth records'. Popped down the local registry office to ascertain it, did they? Did they get a photocopy we can look at? As you say, Christians at the time claim this. Does not mean that they did at all, seeing as their agenda demands that they insist they did. And again, there is the whole issue with Jesus being the most common man's name at the time going on there (and his parents having v common names, occupations and backgrounds). This is self-protecting propaganda that is instantly dismissible as any sort of fact.

Just because someone's university says that most people accept he existed doesn't mean that he really did!

There is a small amount of evidence but it is flimsy and from thousands of years ago, the stories have been written and rewritten so many times that no-one knows what was in the original stories anymore (for ex., Mary was not a Virgin in the Bible until a few 100 years ago - 'strangely' coinciding with a new Catholic and therefore social obsession with female chastity and sexuality at the time of a new edition of the Bible) and no-one wants to accept that it might all be hearsay, myth, half-truths, assimilation of many facts and people, made-up stories foolishly taken as truth and plain old flim-flam. Logically, no-one can state that there is 100% proof. If the same levels and types of evidence were used to prove 100% that another figure lived at the time - a figure that has no emotional investment for anyone involved in the research or the society funding it - the conclusion would have to be that they cannot prove it.

People are free to believe what they want. I put my belief in logic and provable facts and there is simply not enough proof that 'THE' Jesus definitely existed, end of story. And logically, the things he's supposed to have done and been are absolutely impossible, unfeasible and ridiculous.

I think that lazy assumptions, lack of questioning, illogic, unquestioning conformity and acceptance (and lies) are deleterious to the individual and society as a whole. Wanting to believe that Jesus definitely existed or believing it because that's what everyone's always been told doesn't mean he did exist.

Re: Mary as virgin - I meant that the Immaculate Conception wasn't invented as a concept until a few 100 yrs ago. It is entirely believable that a 13 yr old girl (as she supposedly was) would've been a virgin on her wedding night.

Er, surely there were no Christians (ie, followers of Christ) at the time of his birth?

head explodes with logical inconsistency

Um, I don't get it. There's a law that says you have to teach religion? In all the schools? I don't think that's fair.

I'm religious as all get out, but here if I want my religion taught to my son anywhere other than my home or church, I'd have to send him to private school, and I'm ok with that.

Seriously, there's a law? (Ignorant-of-other-country's-educational-systems-emoticon)

It goes back to Henry Vlll, CheerfulYank!
The church and the state are one, the Prime Minister appoints the bishops, the Queen is Head of both. State schools have the state religion. There won't be a change until they are separate.
By law schools have to teach RE (the only subject that has to be taught by law)They also have to have an act of daily worship.
People do not realise that the UK is a Christian country, it isn't very obvious these days, until their DC goes to school. They then get a shock because they were under the impression that if they don't choose a faith school they are not getting prayers, hymns etc. Many of UK's schools are church schools and people have no choice, if you live in a village some distance from the next village your only choice may be a C of E school. With the 1870 Education Act Board schools filled in the places that didn't already have a church school.
Thes threads turn up at very regular intervals-a non denominational school is not a secular school. I think it should be made clear, I think it is just assumed because if people went to school in England themselves they would have had the same and if it had changed there would have been a huge news item about it-it wouldn't be a quiet change.

I think that you will find that many private schools in the UK are the same CheerfulYank. Most of the big, old, long established boarding schools will have their own chapel.
Parent's have the right to withdraw their DCs from both RE lessons and collective worship.

Scorpette, I think you may be getting muddled about "the immaculate conception" - and I don't blame you as it is utterly bizarre, IMO.

The story of Mary being a virgin - true or not - when Jesus was conceived has been in the new testament ever since it was written (not quite 2000 years)

The concept of the "immaculate conception" is the Catholic church's idea that Mary herself was born without sex having taken place between her parents. That I think is the "idea" that is only a couple of hundred years old.

FWIW I do not have a problem with the OP's, or anyone else's, views on Christianity or teaching in schools, or whether Jesus really existed or not.

My problem with the OP is the claim that she is an RE Teacher in a secondary school when she:

• does not seem to understand the legal requirements of schools to teach RE

• reports saying " Well, some people believe that Jesus was a real person and some people believe that he wasn't...". as 'the old line' suggesting that's just what everyone says when everyone doesn't say it and it goes against generally accepted academic opinion

• has panicked because her child came home saying ""how sad it was that [Jesus] had to die for us"(!). " and has assumed that this means the Vicar has told her child exactly that, rather than, "Christians believe that Jesus had to die for us." Surely a RE teacher of all people (any teacher in fact)would appreciate that messages sometimes go home a little lost in translation. But No! It's the school!

All the above lead me to feel that the claim of being an RE teacher is highly suspect.

Oh and again at being happy to celebrate Easter but upset at the child bing told the beliefs behind the festival ("Jesus died for our sins and rose again".)

I mean WTF?

The sources vary- one tells of Nero's annpyance at the Christian peoples,others are different; one is someone telling himself of seeing JC's birth register entry within a feasible timespan. noe were Christiansd AFAIK

But TBH it seems pointless to get het up about- in 20,000 years they will be able to prove I existed, but if thereare any great doing attributed to me that will be made up. What you beleive is a matter of faith.

Virgin Birth/ whole nativity thing- most faiths have a simialr stopry somewhere along the line, IIRC there's a very close parallel in Hinduism and possibly Paganism as well. Many of us Christioans would accept that the Bible has accrued a few myths. I'm no Theologian (we only did a year of that), but there are interesting things about comparability between texts in the Bible if you pull it part the way the researchers do, so I would suggest at the elast the myths developed early on, which in turn might suggest a great man if nothing else (in such a society as they ahd with a large number of competing pro-faiths one might understand why fo,lloweers attributed miraculous acts to theitr leaders to differentiate- possibly not relaidsing that one day we would ahve a society obsessed with truth,accuracy and where the story telling traditions had all but vanished outside the realms of soap operas).

It'simpossible to know scientifically, but quite easy to apply our knowledge of how humans react to special people when considering likelihoods. Even now- how many stories about the so-called special people of our time in the press bear any relation to relaity?people don't want to hear that Kerry katona worke at 7, dressed the kids then amde a cuppa; they want to think she rolled out bed still coked up, ssent them off still int heir PJ's, ahd a massive row with ehr ex then went clubbing. Or rather than CherylCwent to superdrug becuase she ran out of tampax, she lounged glamourously in a sequinned frock eating lettuce and having her people paint her toenails.

Actually, i think you could do afab artcilepulling apart todays Bibles (hello,OK,Closer...) andcompparing how they report famous people to what could ahve happened around JC. Pull in a bit ofPsych and away you'dgo.

beginning to wish my MA was more related LOL.

Oh andthe thing about Virgin Mary-isn;t there a suggestion that Vitgin was a mistrajnslation of the word for young woman, which was interchangeable?

Personally I don'tfind it ahrd to combine the idea of a God Jesus with the acceptance that the Bible is a work of social collaboration,though of course many don't. The essentialpoint Ithink is that whilst the Qur'an as a comparison is a book by Allah in Islam, in Christianity the Bible is a book by Humans about God.

I really do think a lot of you are missing what the OP was actually getting at.

She is not objecting to the christian religion being taught.. she is objecting to an apparent increase in the level of connection to the local church and seeing more and more turn towards indoctrinisation of the faith in the school and less focus on learning about the other faiths.

I think you're all being incredibly harsh, and this really isnt the forum to be discussing such heavy religious doctrine, there is a religion section for that.

This was about asking if it'd be ok to voice her concerns about obvious changes with the Head Teacher of her daughters school.

Nah, things develop, the OP is always but a start point- as with any conversation.

If the OP needs furheradvice I'dsuggest check the OFSTED / ESTYN report as it may be they were haled up recently

I don't agree with religion in schools.

this may be useful - points out that even within the law only 51% of 'collective worship' needs to be 'broadly Christian in nature'.

I think that religious worship has absolutely no place within a state school, and I also think there is a massive overemphasis on it in the time given to it in the curriculum.

Schools are supposed to be places of education that promote critical thinking and give children the tools with which to educate themselves, and I think that superstition and the supernatural have no place in that.

Most religions have special places that people can go to if they do believe - churches, temples and mosques, and it's ridiculous that children should have to forgo a portion of their school day so the other kids can chant whatever mantra it is for that day, without being dragged into it. I think that's one of the things that gets up people's noses about this...that it's not enough that people are free to practice whatever belief they want to - they need to drag everyone else into it...just go to church ffs!