insulting religions

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

Hi, I've never posted on this topic before, I tend to hang out in aibu, but don't want to start a bun fight!

So, I am a liberal Christian. I firmly believe that everyone had to right to believe (or not) whatever they want, provided that belief doesn't hurt anyone else.

Earlier today I posted a lighthearted status on Facebook, which had led to me being called mindless, stupid, stuck up, thinking I'm better than everyone else. I've been told God is a c**t (sorry I hate that word so much I won't type it) and that the Bible is only God for loo roll!

I'm just really angry that people think its ok to insult me/my religion like that, when I haven't once preached or insulted others.

Obviously the easy solution would be to delete them off of Facebook, but they are people I get on with other wise.

Don't really know the point of my post, just hoping id feel better writing it down.

would you want schools to address children's spirituality at all, or leave it out of school life?
I think RE lessons are important in a "this is what different people believe (or not)" way. I don't think a school has any business teaching children to pray to a particular god or gods. Teaching of any particular version of religious beliefs should be down to the parents, outside of school hours.

What would happen in assembly?
Talks about important topics, information about what's happening in school, celebrations of achievements, all the usual stuff. Minus prayer.

Would you want any religious people involved in the life of your school?
As long as they keep their religion to themselves then I don't see why they shouldn't have an involvement if there is some benefit to the school. Same goes for anyone.

Would you accept any form of funding from religious groups (e.g. proceeeds from the church beetle drive going to your school's building project)?
If there were no strings attached then fine.

Would you want your governing body to all be non-religious?
Religious belief or non-belief should not be a bar to being a member of a school governing body. As long as they keep their beliefs to themselves.

Would you be happy with, say, a secondary school Christian Union club happening in your school?
If it's a voluntary thing (opt-in, not opt-out) that happens at lunchtime or similar then I would have no issue with that at all if it's what the students wanted. Same goes for Hindu club, Shinto, Humanism etc.

Snorbs, thank you for answering. As I said, I'm not being combative, I'm curious to know what peoples' ideals are.

Wrt to qu 1, I didn't mean so much 'what would your R.E. curriculum include?' but rather, 'In what, if any way, would your school seek to recognise or nurture children's spirituality? Would your school consider spirituality to be, in any way, part of its remit in educating children?'

So your assemblies would be information-conveying. Would you try to encourage any kind of community ethos, or recommemd any personal virtues to the children?

Would you allow governors to wear clothes etc. that indicate their religious identity? At what point would you draw the line and say 'You can't say / wear that?' (E.g. if a Christian governor turned up for a meeting on Ash Wednesday with an ash cross on his forehead, if a Muslim governor wanted to wear clothes which indicate religious identity)

Holo - I had a secular education. We had 1 hour per week of RE, which was mostly a history of religions thing plus a few prayers. We had assemblies once a week where important school events were announced, medals given out, or just to watch "talent shows" where a few of us would sing, play instruments etc. It was great.

"A child's spirituality" isn't a given thing, and even if some children have this "spirituality", it will not be identical. I find it strange that you assume it to be uniform across hundreds of children and so include it in the school curriculum.

I assume nothing, Cote! I'm just asking questions.

Slightly puzzled though; did I read it right that you had a secular education, but you said prayers as part of R.E. lessons?

I'm not thinking so much about the curriculum (Double Maths followed by Spirituality, then Geography), but rather the ethos of schools. For example, if a particular virtue is recommended (e.g. patience), what is going to be the underlying reason to recommend children to be patient? the child's own self-interest, or community cohesion (if everyone were patient in the lunch queue, there'd be no pushing and fighting')? I guess, I probably believe that all educational contexts, religious or not, have philosophies which guide their everyday life. So I am wondering what people here have as their ideal philosophy to shape a learning community.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nurture a child's spirituality". Spirituality is a word that is used to cover a lot of subtly (or not so subtly) different things.

You almost seem to be suggesting that spirituality is innate in children and I'm not sure I'd agree with that but it does depend a lot on how you define "spirituality".

Well, Ofsted talk about spirituality as part of what constitutes a human being, so I was just thinking of the kind of question that Ofsted asks of schools. Probably, if you were in charge of a school, you'd need to reach your own definition of 'spirituality' which overlaps sufficiently with what Ofsted look for. See here

I wasn't necessarily trying to say that churchgoers don't think and reflect on their experience (although my mother's generation seem just to accept it's "what you do" like putting the bins out, going to the WI and wearing a proper coat). I just wanted to point out how difficult it can be to extricate oneself from the cultural norms of Christianity - if you have always grown up with it, not being religious is the thing that seems odd. Once you have had a bit of distance from it, it is definitely being religious which seems the odd thing. And if you'd never been exposed to it culturally at all, it would seem a quite bizarre concept.

It's not accusing anyone of being "thickos" by any means. I have Christian friends who are highly intelligent and very deep thinkers in all other aspects of their lives, and it is an eternal source of frustration to me that they seem to allow themselves to have a different kind of thought process (more intuitive and "woolly" if you like) when it comes to their faith. The study of science and literature at university level involves an enormous amount of what I'd call healthy scepticism (why does this critic/scientist think this? what are his/her references? what's his/her evidence? etc.). It involves mistrusting your text until you have supporting evidence, and it's a good way of training you to think. I find it frustrating, and can't really understand it, when someone who had the top First in their year and a PhD and works as a university don is capable of the kind of un-thinking which those rather airy concepts "faith" and "spirituality" seem to require. But these things are a lot easier if you have simply grown up with them as the norm.

I haven't read this whole thread, but wanted to add my opinion anyway.

I think it's unacceptable to abuse someone on facebook for whatever reason and I would never personally abuse someone on facebook or anywhere else because of their religion.

However, I think it's really, really important to question religion. All the time. Question it, challenge it, laugh at it, if necessary. Because people CHOOSE to believe it and if those beliefs are upsetting or offensive or funny, or illogical, or you simply don't agree with them, then I think you should say so. And give the religious person the right to reply. You don't have to agree with each other.

As for the Church of England, I think of course it should be held up to more scrutiny here than other religions because it holds itself up as our national religion. For example, if it stops women or gay men becoming bishops that's a massive issue because it means there are seats in the House of Lords - part of our democracy - that aren't open to women or gay men. Of course we should question this. I feel the same about faith schools, schools that my children aren't welcome at.

But abuse? Nope. Not right.

Ah, the hermeneutic of suspicion! Have you read Ricoeur? If not, do. It is really worthwhile examining what the hermeneutic of suspicion (which Ricouer affirms as part of learning) is, and how it fits in to how we learn and live. 'We will suspect everything but suspicion itself!' (My words, not his).

I've travelled quite a lot, and I think that's helped me to appreciate English Christianity for what it is. I am very happy to be a member of the Church of England but I realise that, as someone said upthread, there are lots of ways of being Christian, and indeed lots of ways of being. Being mixed-race and brought up in a multicultural area helps!

" did I read it right that you had a secular education, but you said prayers as part of R.E. lessons? "

Yes, education completely secular, except an hour of RE per week where we learned a few verses of the Quran (as prayers) through the year. We weren't sitting there and reciting prayers, though. Just teacher checking if we have learnt them. Sorry for the confusion.

"if a particular virtue is recommended (e.g. patience), what is going to be the underlying reason to recommend children to be patient? the child's own self-interest, or community cohesion (if everyone were patient in the lunch queue, there'd be no pushing and fighting')?"

Of course kids shouldn't push each other because those are social rules that allow people to live together, not because God ordered children not to push each other.

If you tie moral & behavioural guidance to religion, then you are going to have a tough time getting non-religious students to agree with the necessity of following that guidance.

Ofsted?s view of spiritual development is not necessarily religious:

?Spiritual development relates to that aspect of inner life through which pupils
acquire insights into their personal experience which are of enduring worth. It is
characterised by reflection, the attribution of meaning to experience, valuing a
non-material dimension to life and intimations of an enduring reality. ?Spiritual? is
not synonymous with ?religious?; all areas of the curriculum may contribute to
pupils? spiritual development.

Yes, I know Ofsted's definitions, Cote!

I am not tying anything to anything - I am asking what people's ideals are. Let's not make assumptions about me, eh?

So when Christians ask themselves (as I am assured they do) why the Judeo-Christian God isn't just "one of many", and why it isn't just the latest in a long line of deities which the human imagination has managed to invent, and how they can believe in it without any actual evidence for its existence, what answers do they come up with? (Presumably they are answers which allow them to continue believing.)

Holo - I don't know why you are getting het up. I didn't know Ofsted's definition and thought people here would be interested to see that they don't mean "religion" when they talk about a child's spirituality.

I wasn't "making any assumptions" and I wish you would stop saying that in every post to me.

I think broad-brush "spirituality" stuff can be covered under the PSH&E curriculum. Certainly, what my DCs tell me of PSH&E it sounds pretty similar to Ofsted's outline.

That being said, I suspect that learning to deal with life experience etc is possibly one better done through example over time rather than formal learning. Eg, watching how one's own parents deal with things and approach difficulties is likely to be much more influential than a school setting.

Without wishing to be flippant, I'd answer that in one word: Jesus.

I (with most, maybe all Christians) believe that in Jesus, the fulness of God dwells - so to see Jesus, or encounter Jesus in the Bible and in the church, which is his body, is to know who God is.

I'd say that there is truth in all religious traditions, as all traditions seek wisdom - but it is only in Jesus that the fulness of God is made known.

(Am I allowed to say that, or is it offensive proselytsing?)

Holo - my answers would be much like Snorbs'. I've PMd you something on collective worship which related to a specific school so didn't want to post publically.

On the 'spirituality' - Ofsted's definition seems reasonable (except not sure what 'intimations of an enduring reality' means. ) - how that translates into action within a school I don't think can be prescribed. In addition, teaching of ethics - rather than specifically religious 'morality' should be included.

What a school should do is provide a wide background of knowledge and an environment in which children can learn to think and develop as individuals - rather than being (to greater or lesser extents) encouraged in one particular religious direction.

Crumbs Cote, much further up..I was being light-hearted! You unenlightened do suffer, don't you.

DadOnIce, are you the poster I talked to on this board a few months ago about science and faith?

Pan, are you stirring, or am I misreading you?

million - no, I wasn't here a few months ago. I used to post here under a different name but that was ancient history... more like 3 years ago.

Holfernes - I'm sure you'll understand that doesn't actually mean much to me. I mean, I am happy to accept the evidence for the existence of someone called Jesus Christ as a historical figure, but it is a loooooong way from there to supernatural belief and "worship". Your explanation doesn't make clear why the Christian god needs special pleading.

As to what should be covered in schools: the cultural impact of religion, definitely. Christianity and Islam should no more be ignored than the beliefs of the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Egyptians (as so much of art, music, architecture etc. needs that context) - and also given no more credence. I'm of the "schools should not teach faith but should teach 'about' faith" school.

Without wishing to be flippant, I'd answer that in one word: Jesus
But the next generation of monotheists then would say 'Allah'... as I'm sure you know, that's the answer that makes sense to Christians - but doesn't really advance the argument with non-christians.

You unenlightened do suffer, don't you.

Oh, are we getting onto Buddhism now?

Can you explain to me how you understand the phrase 'special pleading' in the context of your sentence, DadonIce?

indeed Grimma.

I do like these threads - where minds are changed and all variety of opinion is respected.