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?

I missed this one, but I'll put my vote in for keeping personal beliefs in the supernatural out of school. That's what churches are for and it avoids the whole issue neatly as everyone gets to teach their kids the story they prefer.

It's logical and fair that way. Just as you play the music you like at home, but it's not considered fair to play it loudly in the park and force everyone to listen to your personal choice.

If people think children should be taught philosphy & ethics then let that be the lesson name and content.

Perhaps that doesn't work well enough for you, but that's the right way. If the only way to get kids to think the way you want is to make up stories about a god who can punish and reward then that is unethical in itself so hardly a good example to set.

And for those who reckon 'no one believes in creationism any more'.

Creationist Museum

I disagree Onagar - if religion was kept out of schools altogether, some children would get a very one sided view being only exposed to the (maybe misguided) beliefs of their family, and some would have no exposure to religion at all, which is bad news from the point of view of building relationships with others and promoting tolerance. Outside of Europe, the majority of people have religious belief of some description, it is part of life that children should not be sheltered from.

The creationist thing is a red herring too - I don't know any christians that genuinely believe that creationism is the truth, and coming from a small village with an active community church that supplies, among other things a nice toddler group that I take DS to each week, I interact with a number of christians.

Next bit not directed specifically at you Onagar..

the reason I said that some people's views on this thread were extreme is that they seem expend far more energy than I'd consider normal on something that they claim is such misguided nonsense and such a waste of time. If they directed their energy into doing something useful for their community (like a toddler group with nice toys and free cake), I would have more sympathy for their views.

I am confused. People think that Christians DON'T believe in Creation?

melted - I find it equally bizarre that you don't think that your experience of the world could be an emergent behaviour of inititally simple systems interacting in increasingly complex ways. I don't see any necessity for a supernatural explantion. I don't think that in any way devalues those experiences though.

I don't argue with the bible or any of the stories in it - what would be the point? I don't beleive in the basic assumptions behind them. The detail of the bible doesn't even figure in the question of if God exists or not, as it is only relevant if he DOES.

Creationism is a belief in the literal truth of Genesis - that if took 7 actual days etc, and was about 3500 years ago. So evolution did not happen as there was no time for it, God created all species pretty much as they are. Most main stream Churches (as I understand it) now maintain it shouldn't be taken literally, and accept the Universe as billions of years old. I imagine that even within churches there is a range of belief.

American Evangelical churches tend to be creationist and have tried to have school curriculum's altered to reflect this.

It isn't that as such, it is that they argue with things from the Bible and don't seem to have read too well into it and are often wrong in what they think the Bible says about a certain issue.

'They' again... who is this 'they?' I used to be a Christian - bible study groups etc etc. Of course atheists may be wrong about what they think the Bible says about a certain issue... but then again, so are many Christians, according to other sects of Christians

Creationism is a bit of a red herring in the UK - or should be. Unfortunately you do hear of a few instances of it cropping up in schools here.

Believing in an ultimate Creator is a different thing. Most Christians do I think belive this.
And this is one of the areas where the 'collective worship' can introduce a pervasive meme into the minds of children - that 'someone' must have started it all. Lots of childrens hymns are based round the 'creator god' image.

Yes - the issues with faith based collective worship in schools, is that it sets up the idea that the issue is which religon to pick, and does not give equal time to the idea that it's all just a load of old bollocks.

creationism is bollocks. and i think your a bit thick to think otherwise quite frankly.

however i cannot shift from my mind the comlex beauty of the earth and the things on it, the iricle that is life. the wonder of insects and plants and trees and birds

the comlex societies that we have created for ourselves.

the fact that as beings we live on a planet that gives us sustainance - just the right distance from the sun, with a moon to light up the night sky

all seems a bit more than 'random' to me

Meltedchocolate

Having something that could be called a "soul" is not dependent on a god or gods. A soul can simply mean that we can "take a step back" from direct experience, reflect on it, consider the role of others and adjust our future behaviour accordingly. Demonstrably this is true - but why should it need to come from a God?

Jaxxyj, that's shocking - I don't believe in any god in the sense implied here and therefore don't call "him" any name at all.

Flock - "I disagree Onagar - if religion was kept out of schools altogether, some children would get a very one sided view being only exposed to the (maybe misguided) beliefs of their family, and some would have no exposure to religion at all, which is bad news from the point of view of building relationships with others and promoting tolerance. Outside of Europe, the majority of people have religious belief of some description, it is part of life that children should not be sheltered from." One - relying on religion to promote tolerance is a bit like relying on a fox to mind the chickens. Two - how do the French cope?

Custy I don't think anyone has outed themselves as a creationist. The only person to come close is MeltedChocolate, and that might be due to a misunderstanding of terms.

And I don't think that beleiveing in Creationism is 'thick'. If you accept the idea of an omnsicient, omnipotent being who intervenes directly in our affairs, it's perfectly plausible.

That's kind of part of the definition of Omnipotent.

But if you accept that, than the hypothesis that the universe was created 3 seconds ago is equally plausible.

So you end up in all the God=perfection=wouldn't deceive arguments.

Ah so Lottie you mean that they do not believe in the actual 7 days as such and that Adam and Eve may be symbols kinda thing? I personally don't think either way. I think I will never know and am more thn happy with that. I would probably lean towards the symbolism thing though. The 7 days thing is neither here nor there to me because i think time is a human thing IYKWIM.

I haven't read the article. I dont wanna go too deep into things this morning.

The pope is not someone i would listen to so that means nothing to me.

I genuinely find this interesting. To hear what other people do and don't believe. I think personally MIFLAW that you are wrong about what a soul is. That is only how i view it though.

Very interesting.

Custy I am not sure what you would class me as, creationist or not but I can assure you I am anything but thick.

MeltedChocolate - You are not a creationist.
I think MIFLAW's defintion of 'soul', is pretty close to 'consiousness', which is probably to narrow a defintion in Christian terms.
What would your definition be?

I agree, I thought MIFLAW was describing consiousness aswell. I am not sure to be honest how I could describe a soul. I know what I believe but am dreadful at putting it into words. A soul to me is something extra, not physical. We have our physical bodies but also our souls. Our bodies are our physical being and our souls our spiritual being. I don't know how else to explain.

I guess I am indeed defining a consciousness - but I meant to imply (and failed to do so) a capacity for moral judgement too.

Which, in my view, is the important bit of what constitutes a soul.

If you then start thinking about an ETERNAL soul which exists independently of the body and somehow "outlives" it then, while that still doesn't imply a god, it would be a bit meaningless without one.

But that's a question of non-physical afterlife, which, theoretically, a belief in a god does not necessitate (although most religions do posit some sort of existence after death). It's not a question of a soul per se.

In other words, I would say that we have a soul, and it is non-physical, and it is what raises us above the level of animals and allows us to bring value judgements to bear on actions - but that it does not exist independently of the physical body, certainly does not survive it, and so in no way necessitates the existence of a creator God.

Of course my definition is too narrow in Christian terms - because i'm not a Christian and do not believe in life after death.

I do, however, believe that I am a being with an awareness of an existence on a non-physical (moral, spiritual and intellectual) and the possibility of choice.

I would avoid describing that as a soul, specifically to avoid confusion with the religious concept. I would say I am a conscious being and one that can comprehend abstract concepts.

Oooj

TBH so do I in general.

but I cannot let this

"oooj you really don't believe in having a soul? Your thinking, feelings/emotions and love is all just a reaction to what is around you? (Not that you think 'you' are anything as such. Just 'living' cells.) Really? Why? This is a genuine question because that seems totally bizarre to me"

stand as it seems to suggest that those attributes constitute a soul and that only a god could give us such a thing - so you either believe in a god or you believe in randomly acting beings at the mercy of particle physics.

I would say that you can call that a soul if you like but that, once you take out the afterlife bit, having emotions and love in no way presupposes the existence of a god.

Or rather, yes, we are at the mercy of particle physics - but that that creates an illusion of consciousness which is so prevalent and all-pervading that it is convenient to treat it as "real".

Interesting MIFLAW. I would say there is a bit more to it than that but i guess it all comes back to either you do believe or you don't.
I believe there are somethings that we are never meant to understand and that is where faith comes in.

MIFLAW - (I realise we are actually agreeing here, but anyway) - I don't have a problem with "Your thinking, feelings/emotions and love is all just a reaction to what is around you? (Not that you think 'you' are anything as such. Just 'living' cells.) ".

I'm comfortable with the idea that my consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of living cells. Any that my identity is an abstract concept within that phenomenon. In fact I think it's pretty cool.

I don't think that this devalues or indeed tells us much about the experience of consciousness. And I don't think it tells us anything about free will or morality.