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?

Actually, this is pretty much what your second post says innit.

I hope neither of you think i was trying to offend. Reading that quote back I think I sounded harsh and that wasn't my intention at all.

I have always believed in 'something else' even before I became a Christian so find it interseting to hear what others believe when they disagree.

MIFLAW, I'll take your second point first:

'how do the French cope?'

Not very well. I am french/english so I know a lot more about France than most Brits, having a French family, with cousins that have gone through the french school system, and it is a much less tolerant society than the UK in my experience. There is a lot more racial tension in the cities in particular.

'relying on religion to promote tolerance is a bit like relying on a fox to mind the chickens.'
If you have religious extremists running the show then yes (and I include atheists that spread intolerance of those that choose to follow a religion in my definition of extremists), but it is not the case that extremists are running the majority of UK schools.

I believe in "something else" too, in the sense that there are many things in the universe more powerful than me, over which I have no control, but which can nevertheless have a major impact on my life and actions - and not least among them is my subconscious.

I just don't believe that any of them are supernatural.

Am interested as to wh yanyonw would believe - if he or she also believes in a supernatural creative force - that there are things we are not meant ot understand.

Why would a god do that?

I fully agree that there are things we don't understand, cannot understand, and maybe never will understand - and that that can be a positive thing.

But "not meant to" undestand? I find that very odd. In fact, for me, it is precisely at points like that that even the potential truth of a religion starts to unravel. I know that the standard answer is that one needs "faith" - but that always strikes me as a circular argument, a bit like (and no offence meant) the joke, "how do you keep an idiot in suspense? I'll tell you next week."

Flock

I would dispute that French racism is down to their lack of religion. It is down to their racism. Germany is a much more religious country than France and yet also has major problems with racism.

My fox/chickens point has nothing to do with extremists. It is a fundamental tenet of Christiantiy that Christians are right and everyone else is wrong ("none shall come to the Father except through me.") A more basic definition of intolerance at a fundamental level you could not hope to produce. And Christianity is in no way unique in this respect.

So, no, nothing to do with extremists. Just with religious people.

I do like coming back to a thread and finding that someone has already said what I'd like to, only better. Thanks MIFLAW

(BTW, is your nickname an acronym for something? Its bothering me I can't come up with an obvious solution...)

MIFLAW if we understood everything there would be no need for faith.

if we understood everything there would be no need for faith.

True...

But not understanding everything does not mean we do need faith. We need (a) to keep pushing at the boundaries of knowledge and (b) the humility to realise that just as my dog will never understand calculus or the phases of the moon, we may never understand everything in the universe. That doesn't mean there has to be a supernatural explanation - just that we have limitations.

I used to be "Man, I feel like a woman" - because I'm a man. On Mumsnet. Geddit?

Melted - that is so circular that I genuinely do not know what to say.

There IS no need for faith - unless you already have faith.

Are you suggesting that, essentially, your God keeps things up his sleeve so the kids don't get bored?

Funny way to go about it, in my book. I mean, great way to be an uncle, granddad or children's entertainer, but a bit less obvious in a supreme being.

Not intending to be flippant but, TBH, faced with this, I can't really help it.

Anyway, we've drifted a bit, haven't we?

I say that, if you want to believe a supernatural being who you cannot see created the world and everything in it, including you, and knows in advance what you are going to do, but still lets you do it and establishes a series of tests to prove you love and serve him and gets very angry if you don't and, having given you free choice, punsihes you for making the wrong choice .... (I'm getting exhausted now) ... then so be it.

But I object to my child being taught this belief as fact and I object even more to my money being spent to do so.

Faith is the big con-trick of Christianity (and presumably some other religions). I'm amazed now how long it took me to realise.

But then, it took me quite while to realise that believing the Bible was the Word of God because, er, the Bible said so, was just a little logically flawed .

"Melted - that is so circular that I genuinely do not know what to say.

There IS no need for faith - unless you already have faith.

Are you suggesting that, essentially, your God keeps things up his sleeve so the kids don't get bored?"

Haha. No not really but it did make me giggle. I thought you were a woman and was reading your posts in a womans voice and now hearing them in a mans voice is odd.

I will not try and explain anymore. Yes we went off topic. I like that it is taught in school but also would expect other religions to be taught too. I find it fascinating hearing what other religions believe.

My child will be brought up hearing the Word of God but will also be taught about other religions and what they believe. Only my son can make his own descions and you cant force one way or the other.

I find who wrote the Bible fascinating too. Pauls letters to various churches for example. I would never argue that a man wrote those words. Whether you believe God inspired what he wrote/guided him or not is personal. Paul himself says in some parts that he has not been directed by God on a couple of different topics but what he is writing is what he thinks on the matter.

Firstly, Hi ? this is my first post, and I felt I had to comment after reading a number of posts that contained statements that it would be polite to call ?misinformed? and some that pushed the envelope on gullibility to Midwestern USA status.

Who am I to make such I judgement I hear you not ask? Well, I am the head of the RE department in a non-denominational secondary school, my qualifications include a Honours degree in Theology and comparative Religions and I also lecture for the Catholic Certificate in Religious Education for post grad teacher trainees. So without further ado...

1 - There is no Contemporary documentation to show Jesus ever lived and was not a fictional or mythological character. Most scholars think he did, but there is no conclusive proof. The idea that he defiantly did and the only argument was if he was ?divine? or not was introduced in the late 19th century as part of what a modern scholar would recognise as part of a ?wedge? argument ? in other words, get people to believe a little bit at a time... first that he existed, then that he was a moral person and eventually get to he was the son of God. For a, presumably, specialist qualified RE teacher such as ?scaryteacher? to so glibly trot out a blatant fabrication such as ?no historical? doubt is concerning, when even the most cursory internet search will show otherwise is rather worrying.

As for accounts of seeing his birth records (PeachyInCarnivalFeathers) ? hate to break this to people, but the census the Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem for Did. Not. Happen. There are no records of his birth, never would have been. The Roman Empire made no census during that time period ? it is thought that was added in to tie the Gospel with earlier Jewish writings.

2 ? The idea that a RE teacher must be religious is both insulting to the professionalism of the individual, shows a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of RE (see #3) and makes about as much sense as a History teacher being born in the fifteenth century or a doctor being ill.

3 ? The purpose of Religious Education is NOT to make people religious. Any teacher who was doing this should not be teaching and if it was my department they would be removed for professional misconduct. The purpose of RE is to learn about religion to better understand peoples beliefs, motives, values and cultural differences. I see no reason why a child of any faith background should not take part ? if it is done correctly. As the UK is nominally Christian, Christianity does take up the majority of the syllabus ? but that alters biased on the demographic of the school in question.

Welcome to Mumsnet Philosophicaldad. Not used to people posting qualifications, but if you're slapping them on the table - I too am head of an RE department etc etc, sounds like my qualifications surpass yours. Why is this relevant? I've no problems with the second and third points you make, but you're way out with the first.
Given we are talking 2000 years ago, the evidence for Jesus's existence (previously cited by other posters) is greater than the amount of independent sources we have for many other historical figures of the time. Is there no doubt that Jesus existed? Of course not, anything can be doubted. But as you yourself say, "most scholars" accept that he did. Are we going to doubt the historicity of Mohammed, Moses, William Wallace as well, or does Jesus get special treatment in this regard?

Nice to meet you PhilDad. Heavy first post but welcome all the same.

I can honestly say I didn't know that about Jesus. Fascinating. I have always been told there was evidence of His existance. Not that any of that would change my faith but it is interesting to hear.

Without wanting to be pedantic - I did not say "no independent sources? but ?contemporary? which is an important distinction. Equally saying ?A? has more evidence than ?B? provides no weight to the argument ?A existed? and posting it is merely indulging in a logical fallacy.
Yes, I did say ?most scholars think Jesus existed as a historical figure?... but a popular idea does not automatically make it a true idea ? nor was my point the existence or non existence of Jesus ? my point was it is not a decided question.
And frankly, yes ? we should always doubt ? be it the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, William Wallace or whoever, because once we stop doubting then we can never learn anything new. It?s the people who don?t doubt you want to watch out for, not to mention the people who don?t read your post?s properly or try to fob you off with logical fallacies or hope your just picking on Jesus and will be intimidated if they drop some other names in.

Meltedchocolate there is evidence of his existence, based on writings by Romans talking about the followers of Christ. There is not 100% evidence of his existence. There is not 100% evidence of most people's existence.

Well TBH Iggi999 I think there is anyway because the words in the Bible are evidence to me. Paul talks of Him in his letters. Thank you though for that. That evidence is what i heard of.

Hell, I'm not sure I exist.

You exist in my dreams OOOJ!

lol. I am trying to figure out how ooo's name came about......

But I still don't understand how evidence of Jesus existence is relevant to anything other then the history of Christianity. Believers will consider the Bible to be proof, non-beleivers won't see Jesus existence as proof of anything other that the existence of a bloke called Jesus.

MeltedChocolate - Oojimaflip had gone

PD I read your post as "properly" as I could, it was a bit tricky in places due to somewhat lax grammatical structures.
Not sure where intimidation came into my post, maybe had better re-read it.. nope, still nothing. I think it is worth pointing out that the lack of absolute evidence for a historical Jesus is not limited to Jesus, as I in fact regularly come across people who doubt that Jesus lived, but believe blindly in the existence of everyone else they've ever heard about.
History classes would be very slow indeed if students doubted the existence of everyone under discussion. Accurate yes, but pragmatic, no.

?I think it is worth pointing out that the lack of absolute evidence for a historical Jesus is not limited to Jesus?
... Yeah, that?s what I said.

?History classes would be very slow indeed if students doubted the existence of everyone under discussion. Accurate yes, but pragmatic, no.?
... errr, no. That is, in fact, the point of history classes ? the examination of sources, making judgments on their accuracy, bias and application. Jesus has loads of Secondary sources, but no Primary ? and a good historian should therefore be wary.