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

I'm not at all sure where you find all these people SGB. I go around daily life without discussing religion with anyone and haven't come across anyone being a pest about it. It is simply not a topic that comes up. In general, I have no idea of people's religious beliefs-it is a private mattter-which is where it should stay IMO. The woman with the crucifix is very rare-if it was common it wouldn't make the national newpapers.
I haven't studied the Bible, but I can't see why the Old and New Testament can't stand alone. Surely it is just a collection of books by a whole series of different authors over a massive time scale?

My friend has had a short story published in an anthology-while she is thrilled to be published, she isn't too sure that she wwants to be associated with some of the other authors, although she has become firm friends with a couple. I would have thought the Bible was similar-the person who wrote one book might not want to be associated with the people who wrote the rest.

Because a central part of the New testament is the fulfilling of prophecies from the Old testament. It's necessary for context if nothing else.

I would think that very few people get the context though, I wouldn't want to start at the beginning and read through to the end-I would have thought you could dip in and out and that it can stand alone-if you want it to.

"...within their understanding of the world." How very patronising, Tinnitus. Coming from someone who didn't know her child's school, in her native country, would be teaching religion, that is rich indeed.

You don't have editorial control over what anyone in the 70s put in their films, but you do get to exercise control over the links you choose to share on a forum. And seemingly, as far as you're concerned, anything goes. Your injudiciousness as to content and your preferred choice of source reveals you to be a person who confuses silliness and mud-slinging with intelligent debate.

I think the history of Britain could easily be tackled in history class, even those aspects of history that revolved around the potent brew of politics and religion.

Once again Picesmoon, you are missing the point. Bible vol.2 was about a man who believed in the message of vol.1. His teachings were based entirely in the meaning of the Torah. so following his teaching is to adhere to its message.

It has nothing to do with authorship. it's about the message of Jesus and how Christians gloss over the bits that don't look good.

SolidGoldBrass, it seems that whatever I say, you regard it as "ridiculous biased nonsense". If I was to say that the sky is blue, I expect you would say that that is another example of what the crap-peddlers and scumbags say. I am not defending religious institutions or denominations, I am talking about religion in general and worship of God. Religious institutions have been set up by men and are therefore flawed since they contain human beings who are not perfect and may have carried out sinful deeds. But religious people have been at the heart of social progress over the last hundred years. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was at the head of the civil rights movement in America, the suffragist Frances Willard was the founder of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Monseigneur Bruce Kent was a leading figure in CND. Some social reformers like Michael Foot and Tony Benn come from religious backgrounds. Gordon Brown is the son of a minister, a social reformer probably to your liking, and recently said "the Catholic communion in particular is to be congratulated for so often being the conscience of our country". Tony and Cherie, two more social reformers, are Catholics.

If the religious institutions are in collusion with the powerful, then why are their members not allowed to wear crosses at work, why are Christian traditions constantly under attack from faceless jobsworths in councils? Why are we insulted by the printing of Winterval posters using public tax payers' money?

I am surprised that you have fallen for the argument that the "whining bucketheads" who wish to wear a cross, are racists. This is an argument peddled by the people who wish to undermine Christianity. I have never seen a case where Sikhs are required to remove their turbans at work, but have seen many cases where Christian symbols are under attack. Christians are the sole target of these actions.

You can have a look at the "dustbin-lid sized crucifix" that the woman at BA wanted to wear in the following article.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410299/Christian-BA-employee-legal-action-suspension-wearing-cross. html

Whoever told you that she was a racist has conned you to help their purposes. Her name is Nadia Eweida, her father is Egyptian and she is a Coptic Christian.

"I would think that very few people get the context though, I wouldn't want to start at the beginning and read through to the end-I would have thought you could dip in and out and that it can stand alone-if you want it to."

That is often why people get the wrong message. they take bits out of a book (Torah/Quran/Bible), take it out of context, attach their own meaning, and get the message wrong.

Tinnitus, I find the Old and New Testaments remarkably different. I don't know enough about it to know why this should be. I personally do not believe much of the Old Testament. I find the New Testament to be a profound religious document which contains much wisdom. But I think both Old and New Testaments should be taught, since they are both a part of our tradition.

Don't forget Bishop Desmond Tutu.

Trying to obliterate Christian references from the British public square is not merely anti-religion, it is an attempt to rewrite history, and smacks of the Soviet Union.

Methanxiety

So, when faced with an argument you can't refute (that religions can be seen growing out of misconceptions in the modern age). rather than concede the obvious logic that this is most likely what happened with most faiths. you have resorted to personal attacks. I have to tell you that you are not the first person to try this technique.

I must confess I have just tried to go through your post and refute your points as best I can, but you have finally beaten me. by mixing anger, nonsense, vitriol, and intransigence you have reminded me that you are just not up to this. You are utterly out of your depth here. and I'm just not prepared deal with someone who has such double standard regarding the weight of evidence.

I think your reaction belies the fact that somewhere in this you know you've lost the argument. perhaps given time to think about it all away from here you will start to give it all a lot more thought. I wish you well with that.

"SolidGoldBrass, it seems that whatever I say, you regard it as "ridiculous biased nonsense"."

"Some social reformers like Michael Foot and Tony Benn come from religious backgrounds."

She has a point.

She may have a point, shame that you don't.

Is it too much to ask that you be polite enough to spell Mathanxiety's name correctly? After being told about several times, it is starting to look like you are being rude deliberately.

If you read her last post to me you will see that she can hold her own on that score.

(By the way, it's not her real name, OK)

Errrr, Michael Foot was a renowned atheist.

Don't insult the man.

sorry it looks like you are right about Michael Foot. I watched a programme about his life recently on BBC2 and it said that his father, Isaac Foot, was a methodist lay preacher and Michael was educated at a Quaker school. I wasn't paying too much attention to the programme, so I came away with the view that he was a methodist like his parents and some of his brothers if I remember rightly.

I started another thread to see if people followed the religious or atheist beliefs of their parents. It hasn't has a lot of response (religious questions don't-this thread may be long but it has the same people posting over and over) but it has shown that people don't always follow their parents -they don't see things because 'Mummy says so and Mummy is right!'
They make up their own mind. There are those with a faith who had parents who brough them up as atheists, Catholics married to Jews, OHs with different view points, siblings who have entirely different views, despite the same upbringing. The world hasn't fallen in! They still get on.
I still fail to understand, despite over 700 posts, why your DC has to think the same as you. No one has given me a convincing reason for why it matters. If they don't -so what? Everyone is different-why not celebrate it rather than make them fit a mould of you choosing?

OFFS. DS can think what she likes. I do not want to impose my views on her. I do not require that she thinks like me at all.

I am not happy that other people at her school are not extending her the same consideration.

As you know, I have had to reiterate that point many times to you Picesmoon. if there is any thing there you don't get, tell me now because I don't want to come back to it again.

What I don't understand Tinnitus is why it really matters what your DC is told in a school assembly or how it is put. If you bring her up to question everything-including you-then she will be intelligent enough to sort it out for herself. My DSs have been to church where it is put forward as 'a truth' and they haven't accepted it. They think for themselves. They can do this at a young age. They don't need me to make sure that no one 'indoctrinates' them-I made sure they weren't candidates for indoctrination in the first place.

If I were Jewish or Muslim, would you understand me not wanting someone converting DD to Christianity?

"...the weight of evidence" is a skit or 'documentary' from YouTube that patronises both Aboriginals and religious westerners alike? Poking fun at something in a mock-serious fashion is not an argument. It is what you would expect from someone unwilling to respect other people's beliefs and their right to hold them, though. The one thing your choice of 'evidence' shows is that you are at least consistent.

And since Claig has pointed it out, why do you consistently misspell my MN name, the only one you know me by? Do I have a right to ask to have at least that much about me respected? No doubt there's some clever little clip on YouTube that will explain all.

Why would she be converted? That is the bit that I really don't understand. The home is the greater influence. I think you are placing way too much importance on it. When they start school they get new ideas, it may be that you get fed up with the world according to Miss X, or they get God, in the case of mine it was them finding toilet jokes-irritating at the time, but they grow out of it. I think you will get your 5 yr old ardently telling you that what they say at school is 'true', but they don't do it at 10 yrs, certainly not by 14yrs! I still haven't found anyone who got a faith through school assemblies!
I agree that collective worship has no place in schools (but RE, like history does have a place) and I think you are right in tackling with the Head the way it is presented. I also think that a campaign to have secular schools is a good idea. Meanwhile trust your DC-I really think you are taking it all too seriously. The whole country would be born again Christians if it had the sort of impact you fear!

The merits of the clip apart, I was deadly earnest about the point I was making. Religion can be shown to arise out of misinterpretation of experience. If that was to subtle for you, I apologize. But that can not excuse your remarks about my intentions here.

You are right about your MN name, but it seems a good fit considering some of your posts. I genuinely thought you were playing devils advocate, and looking to be contentious. singling yourself out as a naysayer to inflame opinion. regardless of logic or, many times, consistency. But if you insist that these are really your thoughts, I will from now on respect your MN name.

OK, We seem to agree on most things here.

But the fact is they have reneged on a promise. So maybe I am not wrong to worry about the lesson she may take from school. I want her to learn to keep her promises.

@ Tinnitus -- I don't doubt your deadly earnestness. It is very apparent.

Glad you will now abstain from naming me as you see fit and will use the name I chose for myself. It will be a good exercise for you to acknowledge that there is reality out there beyond your own head.