How do you maintain an enthusiastic demeanor about your child's school play, when inwardly you HATE that it is nativity?

[nevergoogledragonbutter]

Ok, so i'm not religious. I'm personally somewhere halfway between atheism and humanism depending on whether i can see a difference between the two, a moment that comes and goes.

But, I have come to accept that we live in a country that teaches a 'broadly christian' approach after being initially a bit wtf to find that him going to a non-faith school actually doesn't mean we can avoid the subject.

I don't feel that taking him out of assembly would make any difference other than to make him feel different about something he's too young to understand.

But, it irritates me highly that he is taught bible stories at a non-faith school and it irritates me even more that he will be expected to re-enact the nativity story and spend the next 6 weeks learning his songs and lines.

And while i would dearly love to see my 5 year old sing and dance or say some lines, the experience is marred by the play being religious. i have to somehow look past the religious aspect.

I don't want my own beliefs to ruin what could be a very enjoyable thing for him to do with his friends.

Is it possible to keep my feelings hidden? Is that the appropriate way to deal with it?
Why can't they do something else that would be entertaining for everyone?

I'm ok with nativities. I like all that at Christmas.

It's when the school Christmas play morphs into some odd tale that seems to have been based loosely on what they had in the dressing up box at the time with special walk on parts for literally everyone that I get completely lost.

I watched one two years ago and had no clue what it was about. At all.

(Of course I clapped etc)

Hooray!!!

Thanks Grimma for noting that the HATE in the title was actually just my ploy to get some discussion going.

Actually this thread was my attempt to respond to the thread the other day questioning the debating ability of mumsnetters. This confirms for me that people need to make more effort to encourage discussion around a topic rather than just responding 'troll', 'popcorn', 'get your hardhat' etc.

In truth i'm irked, irritated etc. Not overwhelmingly livid.

Some very good arguments for both sides on here.

Of course i will nod and smile and politely go along with it in RL. I have no intention of ruining the experience for christians. But on mumsnet I can have a rant and get it out of my system. It's my way of ensuring that I will help DS learn his lines and get a costume organised without brewing my own little debate in my head and him picking up on any lack of enthusiasm.

If anything we can all attend the nativity with more awareness of what might actually be going on in the minds of the other parents when outwardly they are being enthusiastic and encouraging.

I find it incomprehensible that people say 'there is no God because Mummy say so' and the DC is expected to take it without question

I'd find that incomprehensible too. And in all honesty I've never come across an atheist who does this (agnostics by definition won't) - because every atheist I know has come to that conclusion based on questioning, examining evidence etc. Taking the absence of god on faith would be exactly as ridiculous as taking the existence of god on faith.

I'm afraid that line really is the property of the faithful.

glad to be of service, NGDB.

Grimmathenome - you are on fire! (poss the fires of hell? .

Loving this debate.

Ferncottage - if I thought they were teaching spelling in a way that represented a belief system as factual, erm yes I would have a word.

I don't see why people have such a problem respecting Atheism beliefs. I'm sure there is some doctrine about that somewhere hmmmm.

Ah yes, 'Faith'. A concept which translates variously as 'I am stupid and do what I'm told', 'I haven't really thought about this at all', 'Well there must be something in it' (er, why exactly?) 'I prefer to believe that Everything Happens For A Reason rather than cope with the fact that about half the things that aren't right in my life would be better if I got off my arse, and the rest aren't fixable'.

SGB - thats not quite how I'd put it.

You've got to have faith because it says in the Bible you've got to have faith. Which must be right because the Bible is the Word of God because er, it says so in the Bible... er ...

I said it recently, I'll say it again, 'faith' is the big con trick of religions which demand it.

I think people have a problem respecting some atheists since many seem determined not to respect the beliefs of others.

I respect and understand atheistic arguments, as do many Christians. We are not stupid. We can comprehend.

Db I don't think this has demonstrated some marvellous ability to debate. Comparing the Bible to a fairy story is extremely trite, and not going to get very far in a theological debate. But I guess it's a level you approve of.

Sometimes I think there are atheists who post who truly believe they have found the final answer to this, basing it on little more Occam's Razor. They may find it utterly incomprehensible that "otherwise" intelligent people have faith. However are they genuinely puzzled and interested, or just replete with their own self-righteousness?

Would they have studied the beliefs and struggles of Descartes, Faraday, Newton, Galileo, the professors of physics and other sciences? Have they actually thought much further than: there is little empirical evidence, and organised religion can be very cruel?

Is there any atheist on here who can disprove the existence of the Christian God? I can. Then the journey of faith continues beyond that, for me.

'And in all honesty I've never come across an atheist who does this (agnostics by definition won't) - because every atheist I know has come to that conclusion based on questioning, examining evidence etc'

I have no doubt that atheists have thought it out very carefully for themselves, but what upsets me is that they then think they have thought it out for their DCs too. They get very upset about things like nativity plays and their DC coming into contact with Christians etc. I would have thought that this was a very good thing-the DC then has a wealth of experience to make up their own mind. If in the end it happens to be a different view than the parents I don't see that it matters.
Lots of people have, what I would term,very odd views but I would defend to the hilt their right to have them and I don't think that anyone (whatever the age) should be told what they are supposed to believe. If my mother happened to be an active member of the Tory party, a vegetarian and a Catholic , there is no reason at all why I can't be a meat eating communist and atheist-and still get on! It is not in her gift to tell me what to think.

but what upsets me is that they then think they have thought it out for their DCs too.

That would upset me to. It was what I was trying to say. I don't want my DD to take my word for it. I don't want her indoctrinated by anyone else either; fortunately nativity plays etc won't do that so they are not even a slight problem.

Sorry-I realised that Grimma, and I think that you are entirely right. I was getting at the sort of person who won't allow their 12yr old DD eat meat, when not at home, because the mother thinks it cruel. It entirely ignores the fact that DD might see nothing wrong with it and might want to be a chef as a career or be a farmer and raise beef cattle! It is also the sort of person who has decided that their 5 yr old will be an atheist because they, as the mother, are an atheist-maybe their DC will eventually be the archbishop of Canterbury! I can't see what is wrong in a DC being exposed to all belief systems and a nativity play explains why Christmas has it's name. It is also a huge part of the culture, I was in one, my mother was in one, my DSs were all in one and hopefully (if I have any) my grandchildren will be in one.I think they are lovely and they do get away from the commercialism of Christmas.

I am a Christian Agnostic. So the Christians hate me, the atheists hate me.

Llllama: No, I can't disprove the existence of a Christian god. I don't think that line will get us very far - I'm sure we all know the arguments about disproving negatives, orbiting teapots etc.

And no-one can prove a Christian God either. Hence faith....

I don't find faith incomprehensible - I used to be a Christian. I wasn't stupid then, and I certainly thought I'd thought about it .From the viewpoint of faith, its internal logic works.

Having stepped away from that viewpoint and looking at religions from the outside as the evolved human systems they are, its not at all incomprehensible why the most prevalent ones rely on faith.

po: I do try not to hate anyone... 'Christian agnostic' seems like quite a respectable position to me. Actually I've sometimes described myself as an agnostic atheist

OK pisces, I think we're in full agreement on that!

Grimma, there is such a proof.

My point is that atheists seem to think they have exhausted all intellection exploration with their arrival at atheism. And actually, it's very simple to prove that it is logically impossible for the Christian God (perhaps not others)to exist to actually start from this proof but then to continue to inquire.

Whereas on this thread we have had posters telling us that Christians/religious believers are stupid and gullible.

I understand atheist arguments, I've constructed them myself, but when someone says "I cannot comprehend" I do think, well, how do you know it's an unintelligent faith system? If you can't understand it, don't judge it and find it wanting.

Back to faith for a moment... after finishing the earlier post I realised that while I can understand faith as a believer and as a rationalist, theres an aspect which does puzzle me. I've seen the question asked before but never heard a good answer. Its siply enough stated:

If there is a God, why would he require faith?

This is my take on it: because we can't know God (because we aren't divine) we have to rely on trust, that is, faith. I believe that if we had empirical evidence or some kind of empirical "reveal", then we would be dealing with something that wasn't divine at all.

The opposing view is that this rather conveniently precludes questioning of God's motives and the condition of man.

My "take" isn't an evangelising position. It's not going to convince anyone else. It's the sort of analysis that I think Christians make for themselves, rather than in the hope that it will answer the question, score a point and win an argument.

quite so llama - its the sort of thing I'd have come up with when I was a Christian. And you've said yourself what I might now respond . Except to add that it doesn't really work if Jesus was God incarnate.

Its only part of it though. Even if that provides some sort of explanation why faith is needed in dealing with a God, it doesn't really address why the central thrust of Christianity is 'justification by faith'.

I think the argument goes that rather than requiring faith, Jesus came to make God more tangible. Prior to that there had been many prophets, who were all supposed to be speaking on behalf of God, but because people doubted them, then Jesus came as a 'once and for all'.

Oh dear. And then people doubted Jesus (not just atheists, Muslims think he's another prophet)...

Doesn't really stand up to the slightest scrutiny, does it?

Pity - I really was hoping for something more convincing, I wasn't just trying to be provocative.

Grimma is that supposed to make some kind of "patting on the head" point? -- "yes, I would have come up with that sort of thing. Oh dear"

Was that why you asked the question, to to try to catch me out and score a point? Or did you really think I was going to come up with an answer that would convince you to become a Christian again?

i've never seen a patronising drawl verbalised so well without the words "patronising drawl" actually written down

I really really don't want to get into a theological debate. But you know, lots of people doubt;

Climate Change
the benefits of breastfeeding
whether man landed on the moon
the deaths of Kennedy/Princess Diana/Elvis
9/11

doesn't mean any of those things either didn't happen or were conspiracies.

The point is that if you met God and said 'Oi, why didn't you send us some proof', he would say 'Well, I sent you Abraham, I sent you Moses, I sent you Elijah and Elishah and when you STILL didn't believe I sent you Jesus. How much more proof do you want?'

Have you heard the story about the Flood?

"A flood threatens a town, forcing everyone to evacuate, But Joe thinks,
"I'm a devout man, God will save me," and stays
put. As the waters rise, Joe's neighbor comes by and says, "Joe come with me, we've got to go." Joe declines,
"I'm a devout man, God will save me."

The waters keep rising, Joe scrambles to his second floor. A firefighter in a rowboat comes by. "Get in the boat or you'll drown," he says. Joe again declines, saying,
"God will save me. So this flood story goes."

The Flood Story

A flood threatens a town, forcing everyone to evacuate, But Joe thinks,
"I'm a devout man, God will save me," and stays
put. As the waters rise, Joe's neighbor comes by and says, "Joe come with me, we've got to go." Joe declines,
"I'm a devout man, God will save me."

The waters keep rising, Joe scrambles to his second floor. A firefighter in a rowboat comes by. "Get in the boat or you'll drown," he says. Joe again declines, saying,
"God will save me. So this flood story goes."

Flood

Finally, the flood waters force Joe to his roof. A police helicopter comes by and throws down a rope. "Climb up or you'll drown," the policeman yells. "No, I'm a devout man,
God will save me," Joe replies.

Soon, Joe drowns.
He arrives in heaven and challenges God.
"Why didn't you help me?"

"What do you mean?" God says.

"I did help. I sent a neighbor, a firefighter and a helicopter."