to think that my DD has a right to a secular education

[Tinnitus]

Two years ago my DD came home to tell EXP and Me about the "true meaning of Christmas". We are both atheists and had purposely sought out a non religious school and so we were perplexed. We took every opportunity to explain that this story was just that, a story, not the literal truth.

Inevitably DD soon started on about the true meaning of Easter and so I made an appointment to see the headmistress of her school. By the time of the appointment I had learned from DD that it was a classroom helper who was feeding her this guff and not a teacher, and I felt a quiet word would suffice.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that not only was the helper indoctrinating DD, but the local evangelical church held monthly assemblies with the children. Indeed it turns out that every school in the country must be affiliated with a church of some type, but is not obliged to brand themselves thus. The head mistress was courteous and obliging and agreed to my request that the brainwashing of DD stop. I made no demands about her education other than She does not come home spouting twaddle.

Two years on and she is beginning to again to talk about Heaven, Hell, God and the Devil. But she has no idea who Adam and Eve were. When I "tactfully" quizzed her about this I discover a local CofE vicar has been regularly talking to the children about his faith, but without emphasizing that it is only his own opinion. Worse still, He has had my DD praying in class.

I have asked the school to live up to their earlier agreement as calmly as I could.

AIBU

Cool, then you won't have any objection if I bring my DD up without interference in those beliefs.

no objections at all. I repeat what I said about 3 hours ago
"If you don't want your DD to be influenced by Christian beliefs, fine, that is your choice. You will have to do whatever is necessary so that it doesn't happen."

I'm beginning to suspect that I may be more of an antitheist

Well as the post points out I thought I had. seems some people just are not that understanding.

Tinnitus, wrt your remarks on science -- has it had a linear progression since the wheel was invented? No blind alleys? Never used for anything other than purely intellectual and/or progressive purposes?

"magine my surprise when I discovered that not only was the helper indoctrinating DD, but the local evangelical church held monthly assemblies with the children. Indeed it turns out that every school in the country must be affiliated with a church of some type,.."
Yes, so I've just learned myself - that was sneaky, wasn't it? I find this outrageous - especially as it seems it's only the kids coming out with it at home that their parents find out!!!!! You're not the only one!

Claig - while you might not 'care' what Tinnitus believes, the point is her child is being indoctrinated, as she says, against her express wishes, into beliefs that she does not share, does not wish her child to share and, most worryingly, without her knowledge.
As to having to do "whatever is necessary so that it doesn't happen", Tinnitus already assumed that had been covered by deliberately seeking a 'non religious school'.
Yes, Tinnitus, I share your concern, it seems to have been introduced by a back door someone had carelessly left open, and one that needs to be firmly shut, albeit with a 'Please knock before entering' sign - extending a courtesy not expressed by those who seem have pushed their way through without invitation ...

How do you fail to notice that the school you choose for your child, indeed all schools available in the UK, are not affiliated with or sponsored by some organised religion? How much research does it take to figure it out? How could anyone live their entire life in the country (assuming you have) and not know such a basic fact about your own school system?

Tinnitus, I think you're a troll with a persecution complex and an axe to grind against religion in general.

GardenPath, you say

"As to having to do "whatever is necessary so that it doesn't happen", Tinnitus already assumed that had been covered by deliberately seeking a 'non religious school'."

Well Tinnitus assumed wrong, she found out that she had not done enough, such is life. If she doesn't want to be led up the garden path, then she should take heed of the words of a religious man

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." ?John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)

Claig: trusting in something which doesnt exist is not innocuous. Believing that what's going on inside your own head is divine inspiration is not harmless.

GrimmaTheNome, the majority of people on earth have some sort of faith in a higher power. I think it is a bit presumptuous to think that their faith is harmful.

Tinnitus feels that she may be an antitheist. A humanist describes antitheism in the article to which she linked. I think that antitheism does more harm to the individual than believing in something

"while atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god."

Claig - Other people's beliefs DO do me harm though. They expect them to be respected, at my expense even though there is no rational basis for those beliefs.

Catholics expect to be able to exclude Homosexuals from adoption, therefore decreasing the pool of available adopters and increasing the cost to society of having more children in care, for instance.

More generally, arguments about important moral issues such as abortion, family life, the environment etc. are poisoned by religious groups expecting that the details of their scripture have some bearing on the argument. The moral sense of the individual believers, and any rational argument supporting the relevant organisations positions I have no problem with. Even the organisations HAVING influence I have no massiveproblem with (they are after all lobbying groups like any other). The idea that I should take their opinions seriously because of what some bloke 'reckoned' 1500 years ago is insane and wastes an awful lot of resources.

Claig - re " the majority of people on earth have some sort of faith in a higher power."

This is a very weak definition of religon and draws in an AWFUL lot of people who have never really thought about it. Certainly in the west , it is the default 'hedged' position of a lot of people.

ooojimaflip, if you were in charge of the world, then things would be different. But you're not, people have different opinions and their rights to belief cannot be ridden over roughshod. You can only argue for your position and they can argue for their position. All you can do is vote for people who agree with your beliefs and hope that they gain power and implement policies that remove the poison of religious groups.

I agree that my definition draws in a lot of people. But I think that these people would be against people who sought to infringe their rights to believe.

Claig: Yes, there are laws against discrimination. But a lot of stupid superstitous people argue that they should be exempt from those laws, because their superstitions ought to be 'respected'. This is why it's important to take the piss out of superstition and treat it with contempt when necessary - it's not worthy of 'respect' and while the superstitious are entitled to think bad things about gay people because their imaginary friend is a homophobic arsehole, they are no more entitled to act on those thoughts (by discriminatory behaviour, turning people down for jobs etc) than any other bigotted fuckwit.
ANd what Lenin did was really a matter or replacing one lot of religious nonsense with another, Leninism hitting most of the targets to be called a religion in its own right.

.
'@ picesmoon

Sorry, I'm not spacehoppers keeper. But you really have moved your views around to suit the point you're trying to make.'

I think that spacehopper was nearer the mark in saying that I was boringly tedious with nothing new to say. My views have't moved. I I fail to see how I am manipulating anything, unless you are easily manipulated-which I doubt.
I have been consistent.

1.I started by explaining the history of why English schools are not secular, the 1998 Edcation Act and that it is a more complex question than the government just saying 'no collective worship in schools'.

1. I explained that it isn't up to the Head teacher-it is the law and I posted a link to Muslim advice for parents with children at state schools. It set out how you could work through the law to change things if the school was predominently not Christian. I think that I also posted an explanation from the Humanist society.
2. I said that if you don't like it you need to do more than just moan and that you should join the Secular Society who are actively campaigning for secular schools and would welcome new blood. I posted a link.
3. I pointed out that school assemblies put most children off completely-if they haven't totally switched off. I said that I hadn't come across a single convert to Christianity through school assemblies! I disputed the Jesuit claim of 'give me a child until they were 7...'because in that case the churches would be full.
4. I agreed with OP that she should beware of American evangelists-in my limited experience they do indoctrinate. I didn't think that Cof E does-in my much wider experience.
5. My core point is that a DC should be exposed to all views and make up their own mind. Spacehopper has an intelligent DS and she is 100% sure he will follow her views. I have 3 intelligent DSs and I am 100% sure they can work things out for themselves and I don't have to forcefully tell them my side as a fact. I can put 'I believe in front' and they can hear what 'other people believe' and work it out for themselves. They are not my possessions-I can't control their minds. They have come out with the opposite view to me. They have been to church, sat through countless school assemblies and don't believe in God. This doesn't bother me-no one has yet told me why it is important that a DC has the same views as a parent. I believe in God and they don't-so what? If I was an atheist and they were ardent church goers I would still say 'so what?'Is it supposed to affect our relationship. Is love conditional on them thinking the way that I tell them to think? Why not have trust in your own DCs reasoning powers. The odds are they will take after you so you really don't need to hammer it home.
6. I don't think that collective worship should have a place in schools but I do think that RE should be taught, along with History-people can't make sense of the world today, and learn by mistakes,if they are ignorant. If you visit the National Gallery (or any other art gallery)you can't understand many of the great works of art without a grounding in religion. The culture of this country is founded on Christianity. Even if you are celebrating Christmas and Easter from a secular/pagan or totally differnt viewpoint DCs out to be aware of the Christian cultural heritage.
7. I then got sidetracked and annoyed by the utter drivel being spouted about the Bible and hymns! The time warp where people still think that 'All Things bright and Beautiful'has a verse about the poor man knowing his place!! I can't remember who has posted telling me that most of the world thinks that Noah's Ark is a true story-but rubbish! The Bible was a book where people made sense of the World. Noah and family could hardly build an ark big enough and equip it with enough food (no fridge to keep the meat fresh for the carnivores)and then scour the world from the equator to the poles getting 2 of everything back to the ark, alive and in good shape after treking 100s of miles. The animals then line up meekly, the lions behind the zebras behind the foxes and the rabbits etc and all live together in harmony in a small enclosed space.I knew it was a story from Sunday School at the age of 4 yrs-it was never presented as anything else.
8. Religion isn't static-it changes and moves as time goes on-this is a strength and not a weakness-and doesn't disprove it.

I don't understand the vitrol being poured on religion. I can see that people don't think it is for them, but most of the trouble in the world comes from deciding what is right or wrong for other people. Throughout history religion has been supressed or persecuted and it survives everything. Live and let live. Why get in such a passion about what other people believe or even what your DCs believe? Have faith that they will make the decisions that are 'right' for them. I wish that I had such conviction that I was right! I am quite open to the possibility that there is no God-it is only a matter of faith.Maybe in 10 yrs I will feel differently-who can say? Not me.

OP keeps telling me that I ignore her points or don't understand them. I do. You don't want your DC 'indoctrinated' at school. Therefore it is up to you to do something-make a difference-get involved.If everyone banded together changes would have to happen. Moaning on Mumsnet will do nothing! I have been posting sometime and have taken part in at least 6 threads like this-although none with as much vitrol or the weird view that a child of Christian parents who rejects it is to be applauded and their parents have to accept it, but that a child who does it the other way around can't expect any tolerance or understanding from parents!

SolidGoldBrass, no one is stopping you from insulting, disrespecting and taking the piss out of these superstitious "fuckwits". You can do what you like, but they are also entitled to their beliefs. They cannot break the law, but they live in a free society without thought crime, and they are entitled to their beliefs.

Lenin replaced worship of God with slaughter and injustice on a mass scale. I prefer the religion that he was so intent on eradicating to the Godless hell that he sought to promote.

@ Methanxiety

So you don't understand science or religion?

@ Claig.

Your quote about that indolent simply doesn't apply here. I acted as soon as I perceived a problem and the problem has been one of basic dishonesty on pat of the Headmistress. Like many quotes (note I include secular ones) it is a poor fit if you look at the facts (OP)

@ picesemoon

I'm afraid you're just repeating things that have been effectively countered many times here, as though they were fact. You are proving my point that faith requires a degree of blindness.

You have padded out your post with repetition and I'm just not going to bite.(again) it is very poor.

CLaig: All religions have a history of slaughter and injustice on a mass scale. In fact, far more people have been killed in the name of some imaginary friend or other than Lenin managed, so claiming that he was much much worse because he didn't invent an imaginary friend to tell him it was all right to kill people to get his own way is a bit stupid, really.

"Lenin replaced worship of God with slaughter and injustice on a mass scale."

Might want to check out a little known historical footnote of a man called STALIN.

Claig - I would say that they don't actually believe. You know the same way you say believers don't consider the existence of God to be a fact.

I bloody should be in charge of the world too.

The Czar made no secret of the fact that Russian Orthodoxy was simply a means of keeping the peasants in line. so if you know any thing about the Russian revolution you wouldn't question the anger directed at the church.

piscesmoon, you have been very polite in putting forward your case and have put a lot of effort into your long posts. Tinnitus thinks that "failt requires a degree of blindness", but I fear that your arguments are falling on deaf ears.

There is a reason behind the vitriol against religion. Most people who are vitriolic towards religion may not be aware of it, but people like Lenin were all too aware of it. To really understand it, you need to study why the major proponents were so intense in their hostility towards it.

ooojimaflip, I agree they are not ardent believers, but they want their children to be married in church, they want to have a religious funeral, they want to continue the cultural traditions of their ancestors. They are not against the continuation of these practices.

Many Labour voters turn up and vote because their whole family always has done. They don't all understand the issues. But that is no reason to ban them from making their choice.