Why is religion forced on all children at school?

[Kateyoz]

We are not religious and so chose a state school not a faith school for our boys but they come home every day singing hymns they are taught in assembly - the school said we can withdraw them from assemblies but why should they be made to miss out? Shouldn't state schools teach all beliefs and not focus on one, or leave religion to the parents and keep it out of school? Feel like mine are being indoctrinated into a religion against our will

Jassy I'm not at all sure that the purpose of mainstream education is evangelism or indoctrination. Certainly not my experience. I have friends and colleagues who are Christians and one good friend who is a Church of England vicar none have tried to indoctrinate me or my family (or the children they teach) and respect that I don't share their faith.

Jassy I'm not at all sure that the purpose of mainstream education is evangelism or indoctrination.

No, and I didn't say it was. It is one of the purposes of the Church of England, so it's reasonable to ask when the Church is using its resources (the vicar's work time), which of the Church's aims they are furthering by doing that. Why is it wrong to ask which of the Church's aims they are trying to meet by going into a school?

I have friends and colleagues who are Christians and one good friend who is a Church of England vicar none have tried to indoctrinate me or my family (or the children they teach) and respect that I don't share their faith.

Great, and so do I. Why is that relevant to what clergy do in their role as clergy, rather than as individuals, and the purpose of that?

It's like saying that because I don't try to get my friends to do things that would further my employer's business when we're out at dinner, I must not do things that further my employer's business when I'm at work. Which is clearly nonsense. And in my experience man clergy are just as able to separate their work and social spheres as well as most other folk.

I really don't get why you're so intent on shutting down this line of questioning.

A vicar says when they go into a school, it's not for the purpose of indoctrination. I say, ok, cool, what's it for, then?

I haven't had an answer, but I don't get what the issue is with the premise of the question. Are we not supposed to question the purpose of how our kids spend their time at school?

It's not indoctrination. Let's get this straight.

When I go into a school I am offering the children and staff a glimpse into the Christian faith. I don't insist that they believe. I am careful to say that they can join in prayers if they wish to. I stress that Bible stories are stories.

Indoctrination is when the same message is given constantly with no possibility of an alternative. Advertising is indoctrination into the capitalist message that if happiness can be bought l, that what we want we should have, and that all our desires should be satisfied. It's an all pervasive message that is reinforced across multiple cultural channels and is widely accepted in society. It's hard to swim against the tide - particularly for children and young people.

That is indoctrination. An act of worship of a broadly Christian nature, a visit by a vicar or an assembly where you sing hymns - which at very many schools may only happen a couple of times a year (certainly the case at my kids' primary school) is not indoctrination.

You may not like it, but don't weaken your argument by misusing words.

I don't think it's indoctrination. My issue is that it "normalizing" Christianity. It's insidious and leads to the mindset where people who aren't Christian tick the Christian box on the census form because they know they aren't Muslim or Jewish or Hindu but they think they have to be ^something".

There should be no more place in a school for Christian worship than there should be for astrology or socialist worker meetings..

When I go into a school I am offering the children and staff a glimpse into the Christian faith. I don't insist that they believe. I am careful to say that they can join in prayers if they wish to. I stress that Bible stories are stories

But if other faiths (and the validity of having none) aren't presented in the same way, in school assemblies, with prayer and collective worship (where relevant) rather than comparatively in RE, can you see it's not being presented equally?

And of course the law doesn't allow for all faiths and none to be treated equally in school assemblies.

As I say, I'm stuck with a church school, which angers me - so this isn't actually about my kid; the aim of my kid's school is to indoctrinate him, they're pretty open about that.

But can you answer me what the purpose of giving children 'a [regular] glimpse into the Christian faith' is, when it's part of worship rather than RE, if it isn't to try to win at least some to the Christian faith?

It's not indoctrination. Let's get this straight

Also, I think it's quite important that we only speak to our own experiences. I've heard plenty of people, teachers as well as parents, reporting on assembly sessions that sound a lot more heavy-handed than your approach. Your approach may not be indoctrination (or evangelism?). That's great.

These groups, who say they do a lot of work in state schools, including fulfilling the collective worship requirement, seem to take quite a different approach.

Our primary school used to use a Christian group to run "moving on" assemblies for Year 6s. Well, they did til a group of us actually read the material they gave the children. No indication at all of their bias til well into the booklet, when they started to talk about Jesus being a good person to turn to if you felt lonely in year 7........

Of course I hope that some children will become interested in Christianity. I don't think that is an awful thing. But I don't think whatever I say or do is going to magically convert them - I'm not that conceited about my own powers as a speaker! But it may give them access to something they wouldn't get elsewhere. It may broaden their minds. It may give them something to ponder on. It may plant a seed which flowers much, much later in their life. I don't know.

For the record I would be happy for an imam or a Hindu priest to do an act of worship at my children's school. I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world for my child to become a Muslim or a Hindu. I can think of many other things that would be much worse than that.

I'm pretty sure that when the British Humanist Association sends a speaker into a school they are hoping that the children will become Humanists. They probably tell them, as if it were a fact, that there is no God and no life after death too.

The point you are missing is that schools are statutorily obliged to push Christianity- to a greater or lesser extent. Exposure to other faiths or none is entirely in the gift of the head teacher. And, frankly, it would be a brave head teacher who got an Imam in to lead a worship session............

As you and au both know, this is a statute that it honoured more in the breach than the observance. The law is widely ignored, particularly by secondary schools, but increasingly by primary schools.

It's disingenuous to pretend that all achhhols are holding Christian collective worship every day when quite plainly they are not.

And as far as I know there has been no case of a school being held to account for not holding a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature. The government is too busy chasing them over theorcSAYS performance.

Hymns are just songs.
Why would children take the words any more literally than any other song?

I would much rather religion was kept out of school (other than teaching about all religions in RS lessons), but I really can't get stressed about hymns.

Sorry typos: Schools, their SATS results.

As I said - to a greater or lesser extent.

Yours obviously to a greater extent. Otherwise they wouldn't be inviting you in- they would be doing the "let's have a quite moment to think about the people we love and who love us" thing.

What I find disingenous, frankly, is the wide eyed denial of the existence of Christian privilege, the repeated assurance that "a little bit of Christianity won't do any harm" and the bizarre belief that in order to be informed about the faith you have to practice it.

Of course I hope that some children will become interested in Christianity. I don't think that is an awful thing. But I don't think whatever I say or do is going to magically convert them - I'm not that conceited about my own powers as a speaker! But it may give them access to something they wouldn't get elsewhere. It may broaden their minds. It may give them something to ponder on. It may plant a seed which flowers much, much later in their life. I don't know

From your perspective, I can see it's just fine that Christianity has more access to this opportunity than other faiths - and infinitely more than anyone who might want to go into a school and tell the assembled children 'In my view, religion is a construct invented by humans to meet their emotional and intellectual needs, and here's why.'

But from an objective perspective do you think it's ok that Christianity is given special status by law in our schools?

I'm pretty sure that when the British Humanist Association sends a speaker into a school they are hoping that the children will become Humanists. They probably tell them, as if it were a fact, that there is no God and no life after death too.

On what basis are you 'pretty sure'? Their public position is:

If collective worship was ended and RE became universally objective, fair and balanced (and included non-religious views such as Humanism), community schools would indeed be exactly what we would want a school to be – open and accommodating to all.

Religious faith is a private matter for families and communities, to be accommodated but not supported or favoured by the state and its schools. The BHA respects human rights and has no objection to optional worship or optional religious instruction.

Anyway, even if they were proselytising about Humanism, that would not be meeting the statutory worship requirements - I've not heard of the BHA speaking at school assemblies rather than in the context of RE lessons (which is properly comparative and 'some people believe').

You can't seriously be saying that Humanists have the same access and privilege in the education system as Christians, or even all other religions?

At any rate, I think it's no more right for Humanists to be pushing their lack of religious belief in children than it is for religious people to do that. A properly secular system provides a level playing field for all children.

If the law is ignored why not reform it to make it more inclusive? Humanist speakers don't ever say there is no god or life after death as a fact and their training is very clear in never criticising other beliefs and only stating their beliefs as opinion.

If humanist speakers were invited into schools as often as religious speakers to give an even view of all beliefs then I would have no problem. It is the clear preference of broadly Christian worship - that is not ignored by most primary schools i know - that creates the inequality. If children are to be exposed to religion in school they should be equally exposed to the belief that it is also ok to not believe in god and believe in the good in people without a need for a higher being to define our morals

As you and au both know, this is a statute that it honoured more in the breach than the observance. The law is widely ignored, particularly by secondary schools, but increasingly by primary schools.

That a bad law isn't observed by all, or even by a substantial proportion, is no reason to retain a bad law. Particularly when there are plenty of schools who do follow it, and evangelical organisations who use it as a means for proselytising, and Heads who use it to advance their own religious agendas.

I'd also be sceptical of surveys that ask parents what they think their kids do at school, rather than information from the schools.

Have to out so don't have time to answer all these. I've no doubt if the law were to be reformed the daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature would go - maybe rightly so. I suspect then there would still be Christian assemblies in schools, maybe fewer than now. But I don't know.

The BHA advertises speakers for schools and materials for assemblies on its web site - if not to promote Humanism then why else?

If you think that the idea that practicing a faith is central to learning about is ridiculous then that shows that you know very little of religion. In all the major religions it is practice - worship, prayer, alms giving, keeping the sabbath, fasting and so on - rather than doctrine that is the core of the religion. To learn about Christianity or Judaism or any other religion you have to try the practices at their centre.

That is why secularists are so appalled by the possibility that children might pray or worship - they are recognising that those things are the really important bit, rather than learning about festivals and doctrines.

The BHA advertises speakers for schools and materials for assemblies on its web site - if not to promote Humanism then why else?

To attempt to give a balanced view and gain some equality of belief in a state that promotes through legislation a single belief system? If every time you were invited to do an assembly why not invite a humanist, bhuddist, Imam etc with you? That would make a great assembly with everyone respecting everyone else's beliefs and showing we can all exist together. But the law doesn't ask for that, just Christianity.

" To learn about Christianity or Judaism or any other religion you have to try the practices at their centre"

Wow. So children in English schools only learn about Christianity? RE lessons teach them nothing?

I was talking about this with DH yesterday, we're pagans, not bringing the DC up to be anything. I don't think that they should have assemblies with any religious content, DH thinks that we live in a Christian country, therefore we should put up with Christian assemblies.

If you think that the idea that practicing a faith is central to learning about is ridiculous then that shows that you know very little of religion. In all the major religions it is practice - worship, prayer, alms giving, keeping the sabbath, fasting and so on - rather than doctrine that is the core of the religion. To learn about Christianity or Judaism or any other religion you have to try the practices at their centre.

Following that logic, you are happy then that children at English state schools 'learn' only about Christianity? Do you think that is even handed?

I do enjoy how you've misquoted and misrepresented me, though. Do you feel you needed to do that to be able to make a valid point, or was it accidental?

That is why secularists are so appalled by the possibility that children might pray or worship - they are recognising that those things are the really important bit, rather than learning about festivals and doctrines.

Well, no. Have you tried listening to secularists (including those of religious faith) rather than impose your own prejudices and biases?

I have no problem with children choosing to pray or worship if they choose to do so. I have a problem with it being imposed on them in a state-funded institution they are required to attend, and I have a particular problem with one approach to religion being prioritised and promoted to all children above others by a state institution like a school.

I have to come back to this because I am shocked by the idea that in order to learn about a faith you have to practice it.

I'd really like to hear more about this.

Not sure why it is such a shock. People do come to faith or explore faith by working alongside Christians in homeless projects or street pastors or any of the very many social action projects run by churches. I spent yesterday with a homeless man who knew that a church and Christians would help,him out when he was in distress. Faith leads to action.