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

As I have said, Tinnitus, it's a huge pity that a secular educational option does not seem to exist in the UK, if only for this reason "I am beginning to think that perhaps RE should be excluded from school-when so many people seem to take their ideas from childish things they didn't understand at the time!" Piscesmoon great comment.

I believe schools, churches and the body politic as a whole would benefit greatly from separation of church and state in the educational sphere. Churches are well able to survive and even flourish in the US without any state help, sponsorship, or support of church-run schools. American public schools are truly secular. Parents who wish to provide religious education for their DCs do so outside of school or send them to a church-run school (where they pay fees).

Math - yes, but:
secular doesn't have to exclude balanced RE. The 'silly ideas' stem more from halfbaked assemblies than properly thought out curriculum lessons. Indeed, there are those in the US who wish that - while keeping the admirable seperation of church and state, that there was RE because all that most kids there get is their own parents' particular brand of religion.

But removing worship from schools - that really is overdue. I have never heard a single good explanation for why it should be retained. It really isn't contingent on full disestablishment - if MPS can make a non-religious affirmation of allegiance rather than a religious oath, then why should education still be the one area anachronistically bound?

Piscesmoon: FFS how much more clearly can I state it? 'Toxic tosspots' are the extremists who do harm to other people in the name of their imaginary friend - those who go about their business and don't make pests of themselves are perfectly OK people who just happen to believe a load of old nonsense, which they are perfectly entitled to do.

SolidGoldBrass, so you are happy to allow people to believe what they like. Maybe we should have more religious education, because I for one was not aware of these Great Pumpkin worshippers. You don't like toxic tosspots and Great Pumpkin worshippers. That's fine, they may not like you either. As long as they are not committing any crimes, then live and let live. What do you want to do, ban them?

"Piscesmoon: FFS how much more clearly can I state it? 'Toxic tosspots' are the extremists who do harm to other people in the name of their imaginary friend - those who go about their business and don't make pests of themselves are perfectly OK people who just happen to believe a load of old nonsense, which they are perfectly entitled to do."

For fark sake come on SGB, are you just trying extra hard to be offensive. Seriously, you may not believe it, fine. But that is simply inflammatory and plain rude.

I thought that was SGBs mildest and most conciliatory post ever!

I think 'secular' does have to exclude balanced RE. Religions are distinct from each other, prayers are different (how many versions of the Lord's Prayer are there?), and parents would end up exasperated trying to get the story straight with the DCs when they come home from school or when the family goes to their place of worship. Separation of church and state in the US means no state sponsorship of religion of any kind or of the idea of religion in schools. Only in high school or maybe middle school would a student come in contact with the idea that religion exists, through social studies, history, or sociology class. And there is no attempt to teach comparative religion even to these relatively mature students.

I wish a teacher luck, standing in front of a class of Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Church of the Nazarene, Presbyterian, Lutheran (Missouri Synod), Lutheran (Evangelical), Hindu, Taoist, Greek Orthodox, Swedenborgian and Ukrainian Catholic children as well as many who have never come on contact with any religious beliefs, and trying to teach balanced RE of any kind. Every religious denomination holds its own set of beliefs, and some are quite markedly different from others. Trying to steer some sort of middle path would be well-nigh impossible, and would in the end be disrespectful to the idea that an organised religion embodies any kind of fundamental truth for its subscribers. Do you try to tell Jewish children that there may well be some merit to the Jesus thing? How do you approach the question of Transsubstantiation? As for the Swedenborgians..... Do you ignore many of the important details (Jesus, resurrection, heaven, Mary, are just a few examples of religious tenets) for fear of stepping on the many toes that are sitting there in the class? If so, what are you left with?

The best possible alternative is 'civics', and this is basically what American public schools do through behaviour codes that emphasise respect for diversity, and the relentless teaching that America is a marvellous place and all American children should be proud of all things American and their American citizenship. There is no prayer, no assemblies of a religious nature at all. There are school spirit assembliles where academic achievement and sports teams are cheered and acknowledged. 'Moments of silence' at the start of the day that were introduced following a court case have now been abandoned, following another court decision. Students pledge allegiance to the American flag in every school (religious as well as public) every morning, with hand over heart. It is the first item on the order of business. There's a flag in every classroom.

Grimma, I thought SGB was losing her edge too...

I thought that was SolidGoldBrass offering an olive branch in recognition of the stronger arguments of piscesmoon

Mathanxiety - I'd imagine RE within curriculum lessons to be learning facts about the hard theory and philosophy behind individual religions (as far as that exists), is that not how you'd imagine it?

Sorry - didn't put that very well, I see your point in that it's hard to get a consensus on what 'a religion' believes.

those who go about their business and don't make pests of themselves are perfectly OK people who just happen to believe a load of old nonsense, which they are perfectly entitled to do.">>

I don't see anything in that statement which advocates banning religion, or is even remotely unreasonable if you think about it.

By damnedchilblains Thu 01-Apr-10 21:12:18

For fark sake come on SGB, are you just trying extra hard to be offensive. Seriously, you may not believe it, fine. But that is simply inflammatory and plain rude.

y GrimmaTheNome Thu 01-Apr-10 21:14:06
I thought that was SGBs mildest and most conciliatory post ever!

By mathanxiety Thu 01-Apr-10 21:20:01
Grimma, I thought SGB was losing her edge too...

By claig Thu 01-Apr-10 21:27:12
I thought that was SolidGoldBrass offering an olive branch in recognition of the stronger arguments of piscesmoon

seriously guys. don't give up the day jobs....

There are hundreds of thousands of religions, though. Just a glance at Wikipedia (yes, I know) shows up this list, and an assertion that there are 38,000 Christian denominations alone, without even touching on non-Christian religions.

And tbh, I don't see the point of trying to do this in school. If parents think religion is relevant and something they wish to impart to their children, they should be allowed to conduct the religious training of their own children in the way they see fit and not have to contend with the opinions of a textbook writer or individual teacher.

Teaching facts about religions and their philosophies sounds rather dry, maybe a sure way of killing children's interest in the subject? The way I imagine it, it would be like a Christian Brothers school approach, with all the life sucked out of it, if there was no discussion or debate allowed. A teacher would have to be extremely careful in his or her approach if discussion or debate was to be used as a teaching method. Small children generally do not handle the concept of relativism well and small philosophical distinctions are not their stock in trade; the very notion that religions are comparable and all have their merits is anathema to some religions.

Children are used to accepting the teacher as the authority in the classroom (or at least they are encouraged to see teacher as an authority figure) -- in the case of teaching a course on religion, how could children be expected to disregard that teacher's authority and understand that 1) Their parents may well have a different view from that held by the teacher or taught on the course (not all members of an organised religion agree with everything that particular church teaches, 2) Their religion may well hold the view that other believers are just plain wrong? (Religions have the right to believe this and teach it to their members) 3) Teacher is not advocating that women should wear a burqa/ Nobody should eat meat/ Jesus rose from the dead/ There is no God but Allah.... I think there are just too many very fine lines to sidestep when it comes to teaching religion in school, and young children and their teachers are not the people to tackle those fine lines and distinctions. Nor do I really think it would be a necessary subject for young children to tackle in order to learn basic civic values, if that was the aim of including it in the curriculum, or even to impart the message that there were a lot of different religions. What would be the purpose of trying to teach small children about different religions, and could this be accomplished in a way that was less complicated?

Math:
don't have time for long reply, but in a multicultural society, isn't it a good idea to at least get a basic idea about the various religions? An idea of culture and practices, so you don't just think the other lot is weird?

Methanxiety - I do see your point, but I'd guess that the teacher would have to take great pains not to be advocating anything at all, just trying to impart 'facts' a la Wikipedia! Agree that it's difficult though, especially in the case of religions which object to even learning the basic facts about other religions.

CiderIUpAndSetIFree, I was wrong about SGB. From the vehemence of her earlier posts I thought she was so much against the Great Pumpkin that she wanted it banned. But I have read her posts again and see that all she is saying is that she disagrees with it. That's fine and they probably disagree with her.

shit - really didn't mean to type methanxiety, sorry Math Time for bed...

@ methanxiety

just a couple of references you need to correct your post.

instruction
? noun a direction or order.

education
? noun 1 the process of educating or being educated. 2 the theory and practice of teaching

I hope now you get the difference between RE and RI.

I can agree with you SGB if you are separating the harmless from the bigots. I thought that you were throwing them all in together and putting all the evils of the world down to those with a faith. As long as you are happy to leave people with their 'Great Pumpkin' I don't have an argument!
If anything this thread has shown me that collective worship has no place in school-there seem to be so many weird ideas that have come from it. Much better to do courses in comparative religions and find out about them. One of those cases where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It would seem to me that young children are picking up odd facts, never get them corrected and keep them as truths! They are simply too young to understand some things e.g. I think 'If you want to make this your prayer say Amen'goes completely over their head and they don't realise they have the choice of not making it their prayer. You have to remember that lots of teachers are atheists and it doesn't get them out of their turn to take assembly!

Sheesh, Tinnitus, I can't win for losing with you. I'm all for secular education in schools and admire the American system. Do you or do you not want your DD to have a secular education? Perhaps I was right about you, you just have a persecution complex and need an enemy, so religion in school and that evil CofE vicar will be the designated bogeymen...

'Religious instruction' as the term is understood by educators isn't a direction or an order, plus the word 'religious'. It's teaching a child the tenets of a particular religion. 'Religious education' is quite similar, but usually means (and I took others' references to RE to mean) more of a comparative and general education about the existence of religions and what different religious practices and beliefs are.

Maybe you didn't get a point I was making: RE and RI are very difficult to separate in practice where small children are concerned. You may think what you're doing as a teacher is RE but the children may see it as RI.

Not really, mathanxiety.

'Religious instruction' would certainly imply teaching students beliefs, in a non-critical & prescriptive manner; whereas 'Religious Education' would suggest an evaluative & comparative approach.

The difference is at the heart of this thread.

Not difficult at all to separate in practice. My ds is 5, & perfectly able to get his head round the difference - he's come home today telling me that 'Mrs A told us that Jesus died on the cross to save everyone from sin' but is fully able to comprehend that other important figures in his life dissent from this view (atheist mother, Buddhist father, devoutly Muslim CM...).

No I think we agree on the definitions, and the last thing I need is more enemies.

but the final logic of your point is that seven year old are unable to distinguish between the two, so knowing that and supporting my right to not have my child indoctrinated, you must concede that the best thing is if it all ceases and she gets back to playing kiss chase.

RE is an appropriate subject for secondary school, in the mean time, why not concentrate on teaching acceptance of other children in their class who are ethnically different. that would help their world view no end and give them a grounding for RE later.

RI is, as you may have guessed, not appropriate at any time. (IMOhA)

My DD is seven and thus has a limited understanding of the world outside of her immediate environment.

Not wishing to be un-PC, but here are some more people with a limited understanding of the world outside, It's a good example of how religions take shape in their embryonic stages, and the use of flawless logic based on flawed information.

Tinnitus, couldn't agree more with your post of 23:10:47.

And then you had to spoil it with that very definitely unPC (understatement of the year) YouTube clip. Seemingly, the YouTube Cult is alive and thriving in your neck of the woods.

I'm guessing you haven't yet tried to glean a better understanding of the world outside your own head by cracking open a book or two, since you think that was 'flawless logic'.

Not that you're all that interested in MHO, but I think your last post is a good example of your real motive in starting this thread.