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

They don't get leaders for 2 reasons-people have such busy lives they don't have the time, working hours are long and they can't commit to a regular slot each week and then men are worried that they might be considered suspect if they want to work with children or young people-a sad reflection of out times. I don't think that the ethos is a stumbling block.

But why should it be updated? It isn't a state thing. There are secular alternatives. Why change it?

Actually, is updating? Why would removinghte religious ethos be updating? Changing, yes...

Why do you need to change things if it ain't broke spacehopper? They are amazingly successful, worldwide organisations-no one is forced to join.They have huge witing lists. Someone could start something similar without God and the Queen-but they don't. I expect that if you live in the UK you are already doing your duty to the Queen as she is Head of State-so it isn't necessary.

I actually cross posted spacehopper so didn't see the question!

please do not take your child out of assemblies or strive to make her any different from the other children. I was taken out (by choice) & I regret it, something to do with being 'special' . It's good to learn about other religons & for your DD to make her own decisions..I think religon is a lifestyle choice ?

FWIW my daughter went on a church trip the other day, came home clutching some sort of homemade cross - that Jesus apparently died on & a palm leaf She was very pleased with her visit - she's 6 - I just explained I believe something different & lots of people believe in different ideas & when she is older she can learn about them & make her own choices.

A lot of Christian based organisations are successful. It seems unfair to say 'what a great idea-we want it- but we want it on our terms'. Why not say 'what a great idea-we will do something very similar but without the Christian ethos'. There is nothing to stop someone setting it up.

caughtinafo

Don't worry about that, I've no intention of allowing her to be singled out.

As I said earlier, RE good, RI bad.

DD making her own mind up, good.

Man in class filling her mind with any thing that can't be proven, bad.

To be fair Picesmoon, there are many secular alternatives. but you started talking about the Brownies, specifically.

I want my DC's heads filled iwht all sorts of things that can't be proven. But not told that things that can't be proven have been proven. IYSWIM. Well, not at school anyway

"....therefore it follows that you are another person writing your own posts, on another computer, at an undetermined location. I can trust this theory until evidence to the contrary comes to light.

Before you say I sidestepped the task, remember that I have faith in reason and deduction, thus I now have believe in your existence and realness."

Actually, all you can deduce from the existence of words under the header mathanxiety is that fingers have at some point touched a keyboard and spelled out words in English. The fingers may belong to one or more individuals. In fact, come to think of it, and it's an outside chance mind you, my kitten (assuming I have one, another leap of faith required here) might conceivably have trotted back and forth across the keyboard and managed to press the keys to form words. You may have got that impression from some of my posts, of course, but there's no way you can prove your impression.

RavenAK

Sorry I presumed collective worship (hymn singing, saying the Lord's prayer etc) took place in assembly as it did when I was at school. I only asked cos my DS is nearly 4 and so far has no concept of religion or that hymns aren't just songs.

No, you were right nappy addict -they do all that in assembly, it's just not the whole of the assembly iyswim.

Actually, given the school's roughly 20% children of Muslim parents, I'm increasingly wondering why ds was even noticed as a non-participant in Xtian hymns & prayers.

& what the expectation is of children who are, sorry, whose parents are, of a different faith or none.

It's just pernicious, & so easily avoidable.

True, But then I would not chose to argue the validity of my assertion with someone who felt differently about the facts. I would, if they were amiable, discus the data and listen to any new evidence or sustainable interpretations they may have. We might even ponder the infinite number of cats theory. But I would find it challenging to talk to someone who had come to radically different views and brooked no dissent.

But the point is that your existence or lack thereof, Doesn't affects which keystrokes I make in response. The root cause and origin of the post is not the issue, only the effect it has on my life, and how I react to it. I am not responding to you as a person, because you are an unknown. but I am responding to your, or your cats, posts.

Because I have no access to the necessarily data required to state any thing more about you and/or your cat, I chose to work down to a statement of only the facts I could reasonably be sure of. Yes there could be more than one of you, I should have said "at least one person" (but the use of the world reasonably knocks the cat theory into a hat)

Religion on the other hand seeks to explain things in the human experience, by creating a totality, rather than sticking to what we could be sure of, early humans must have thought that the world was a near perfect fit for them, it provided food, water, clothing, and a cave to raise the kids. therefore it must have been made for them, but by who? quite understandable at the time, but we now know man in fact was made to fit the world, not the other way around.

Your reaction when you read my deductions was to try to find a flaw, and you did, that is what scientist do all the time and I'm not going to deny the merit of your counter statement. picking holes in theories and suggesting alternatives is good science.

'To be fair Picesmoon, there are many secular alternatives. but you started talking about the Brownies, specifically. '

My point exactly, Tinnitus. You have the choice so it seems unfair to want to join the Brownies but change it to suit you. It is very different from school, you have to attend unless you HE but Brownies is voluntary (is quite open about the Christian nuture)and if it doesn't suit there are alternatives-you don't need to change it.

'Religion on the other hand seeks to explain things in the human experience, by creating a totality, rather than sticking to what we could be sure of'

Isn't it rather boring to stick to what we are sure of? I would have thought that humans always question, in all ages and at all ages (even 3 yr olds) and this is what separates us from animals who just accept. We are constantly seeking answers to the big question of 'why are we here' I would have thought this was a good thing. Are we just supposed to think 'we are born, one day we will die-let's just get on with it and not bother questioning'?

I think that castigating Baden Powell is another case of not realising that he was a product of his time. People in history are being expected to see things from an enlightened 21st century viewpoint. I wonder how enlightened our views will seem in 100yrs time? You really can't know or compare.

'Sorry I presumed collective worship (hymn singing, saying the Lord's prayer etc) took place in assembly as it did when I was at school'

This is why I wonder why parents are taken by surprise. Everyone who went to school in England must have sung hymns, said prayers and if it had changed it would have been a huge news item, not one that people could miss. I can only assume that those who didn't realise went to a church school themselves and assumed that they only did it because they were a church school and that non faith schools didn't. In reality there is very little difference. A church school will go to church and have more contact with the vicar and assume that the pupils are Christian-non faith schools shouldn't assume that pupils are Christians but the rest is pretty much the same-there may even be contact with the vicar but probably not a church visit.

"I would have thought that humans always question, in all ages and at all ages (even 3 yr olds) and this is what separates us from animals who just accept. We are constantly seeking answers to the big question of 'why are we here' I would have thought this was a good thing. Are we just supposed to think 'we are born, one day we will die-let's just get on with it and not bother questioning'?"

excellent point piscesmoon. That is what separates us from animals. Every single human has this capability and doesn't need a petri dish to do it. We do it with our minds, we don't need to do scientific experiments to validate our thoughts and beliefs.

"Isn't it rather boring to stick to what we are sure of? I would have thought that humans always question, in all ages and at all ages (even 3 yr olds) and this is what separates us from animals who just accept. We are constantly seeking answers to the big question of 'why are we here' I would have thought this was a good thing. Are we just supposed to think 'we are born, one day we will die-let's just get on with it and not bother questioning'?"

Don't you realize, that is the best argument AGAINST religion on this entire thread. Developing theories based on the sum total of human knowledge is Science, as human Knowledge increases we modify our opinions and theories. only religion sticks dogmatically to its earlier concepts, and denies science on the grounds of faith.

In the modern world we have a burden of proof placed on those wishing to introduce ideas. God can not be proven and all works attributed to him have other rational explanations. the few gaps in our knowledge are not a "get out of jail free" card, as God is not the default position we revert to in the event that science leaves one or more question unanswered. because there is no proof for god.

If science had all the answers, it would stop.

Here is a good example of rational science in the face of religion. I really think some of you should watch it, to get an understanding of what the modern world is and where the arguments you are propagating are originating.

As an ex-guider I would like to point out the guide movement have changed to promise to 'my God' and that can be pluralised for any polytheists. I was division mentor for new Guiders so frequently had the promise conversation with atheists and republicans wanting to be involved, most of them were able to rationalise the wording in a way which suited them without changing the actual words. So the staunch republican accepted that by queen it means state and doing ones duty to the queen is doing ones duty to the head of the state at the moment therefore she wasn't promising to obey the words of the queen but to obey the position of authority. It worked for her.

Prayers in my units were non-religious (no dear God or amen) unless it was a prayer from a celebration we were observing in which case it was the unchanged version of that particular faiths prayer and my last unit before I left the UK weren't affiliated to a church so it's perfectly possible to find a secular or multifaith unit if your DD wants to, tinnitus.

The broad policy if the guiding movement is very good at the times but it is up to individual leaders how that's implemented. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ask a guiding unit to change to fit with policy, which isn't religious, but that's completely different to asking a school to change.

Tinnitus, what are your thoughts on Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, et al?

Surely the whole point about scientific inquiry, the whole basis of science, is that we cannot ever assume any question is now closed for discussion? No matter how far we think we've come? So we don't 'now know' anything about man having evolved to fit the world. We have a set of theses on that score.

'If science had all the answers, it would stop.'

You can never get all the answers-things constantly change.They are also open to interpretation. If scientists had all the answers then scientists wouldn't have a religious faith, and many do. Astronauts wouldn't have a religious faith and many do. I don't understand why you have to see something to believe in it.
If anyone ever thinks they have all the answers they would be a dangerous person.

Neither any particular church ('the church') nor science has conclusively proved either that God/ some Supreme Being exists or not. Neither one has 'a darn sight more' than the other in terms of scientific proof on that score.

Sorry but it is not, and never has been the job of scientist to prove that God dose not exist. that would be asking someone to prove a negative, which is impossible. The burden of proof lies squarely with religion to prove he exists.

Also, the question of mans evolution is not one I want to debate. that would be like debating which way is up, or is the Sun hot. Evolution is the guiding theory which answers all questions about the origins of life on earth. No fault has ever been found with it, and the only holes are in our knowledge of life's lineage, NOT in the theory itself. The only argument against it comes from the religious who claim equal standing for there faith and beliefs, despite the total lack of any evidence for any of them. You can probably guess my feelings on this.

If you didn't watch this the first time, Check out this and see if you think we should still debate it, or is "intelligent design" being rammed down all our throats?

I'm not going to debate evolution and certainly not on the basis of a YouTube clip since this is a theory I have no problem with either. Faults aplenty have been found with it, and have been dealt with (and who knows what sort of evidence will be found in the future that will end up modifying it or challenging it completely). But for the moment, as theories go, it seems pretty robust.

I have no particular feelings on this matter. I don't have the same antipathy you seem to feel for those who lack, for whatever reason, the ability to accept it even on an intellectual level. I don't understand why they are so militant about insisting creationism be taught in schools, and excluding evolution theory from science classes, thus using public taxes (in the US context anyway) to support an individual religious belief and flying in the face of the US constitution (again in the US context), getting shot down again and again by the courts when they challenge the separation of church and state there.