Do you feel it is important to share your views on faith or atheism?

[gingerdodger]

This is a genuine question, I am not asking to promote a faith vs atheism debate as we have plenty of those.

My question is whether people feel that it is part of their faith to share those beliefs with others? How far do you take this and how do you approach it? Similarly for those who are atheist, do you feel it is important to share your opinions and in what ways do you do this?

I know some faith groups see this as absaloutely fundamental to their faith whilst others are more relaxed. I also see that those who do not believe in God(s) also often wish to share their opinions widely. It interests me to think about what this achieves in terms of sharing opinions, understanding of each other etc.

From my point of view I strive to be open about my faith, I like to listen to other's perspectives as this makes me think (providing they are listening, I tend to bow out when it starts to feel adversarial and not inquisitorial). I don't feel compelled to actively knock on doors (metaphorically or otherwise) to share my faith but rather subscribe to the view that I hope my approach to life and openness about faith allows me to discuss my faith openly and honestly. I do believe actions speak louder than words and the best form of 'preaching' is to live Christian values of love (not saying I am good at this).

Hmm. I also think Christians have to be able to live in the real world. Although there are some elements of Halloween I think are more sinister, I have always celebrated the element of festivals that I find favourable with my DC.

With Halloween it is sharing of treats and that we do not have to be afraid of things that 'go bump in the night', they are often less sinister than you think.

And you can't escape the fact that part of it's origins rose from the masses performed on All Hallows' Eve for the souls of the dead who did not have anyone else to pray for them. Not that I think the Medieval purgatory is part of my own Christian belief, a terrifying thought, but at least the church were concerned enough for those that could not sponsor masses themselves to arrange prayers for them. It is part of church history though, and still is not forgotten.

^ That should be 'Not that the' not 'Not that I think', typo.

I just had a mental image of the head at your school being as horrified as Edward Woodward in the original Wicca Man. I do find that film sinister...yikes! You're not like that are you?

Yes- you have an accurate image of him.

Surprisingly, or not, the Bible teaches about what our priorities should be.

Surprisingly enough so does the BMA and I'm pretty sure they'd have something to say about someone who was forced onto medication against their wishes. And particularly given the NICE guidelines specifically mentioning full lipid analysis

"Measure both total and high?density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol to achieve the best estimate of CVD risk."

But to boil down your argument - anything bad is godless, anything good is godful whether the person is a christian, buddhist or atheist. So in your mind atheist = bad because that's the way you have defined it.

I have to say that does make your faith very straighforward.

Atheist does not equal entirely bad in my eyes, although atheism is contrary to my beliefs. I believe all people have flaws and can sin. I also believe all were made in God's image so have good in them. Added to this I don't know what a person might achieve or become. So I am against certain beliefs but not the people who might hold them.

Whatever the reason they obviously aren't bothered about collective worship hugely. Many are prepared attend the church, as non believers in order to get their child into the school.

Not at our school they aren't (prepared to attend church to get into school) we go to a normal run of the mill state school, two of the year 6's (one Jewish one Muslim) asked to be excused the carol service (although they had attended assemblies through the year) and were told (with 30 minutes notice) that if they chose to do that then they couldn't help serve Xmas lunch to the little ones at school (traditionally helped by years 5 & 6). Because a lukewarm turkey meal and crackers is such a key part of the christian message

So please don't assume that opting out of "worship" is such an easy thing for a child when you know nothing of the realities.

Atheist does not equal entirely bad in my eyes

So bad but not entirely bad - cheers!

I do admire your certainty (not so much your logic).

No one is perfect, entirely good.

Kew I would have allowed them to serve lunch if they wanted and think in the example you gave was unfair of the school.

Schools can handle opting out of worship so much more considerately than this.

You didn't say atheists weren't perfect.

You said they weren't entirely bad. So bad, but not totally bad then?

It's OK - I don't think Christians are entirely bad either.

Yes they could, but they don't.

Worship should be an opt in. What the problem with that? Everyone who wants to can, those who don't, don't.

I personally don't think opt in is any fairer, just biased more towards those who do not hold Christian beliefs. However, if it was law to opt your child in, for collective worship, I would accept it with good grace.

"I personally don't think opt in is any fairer, just biased more towards those who do not hold Christian beliefs."

Hang on- is this the first time you have actually accepted that compulsory Christian worship is unfair????????? Wow- progress!!!!!!!!

Kew you are reading a lot into the language I use in my posts. I could easily have said not perfect, I was just responding to your previous post where you used the word bad. Basically I believe all human beings are fallible, yes, including Christians. It's part of the reason I believe we have a need for God

Hak not really progress, it relates to the 'not entirely selfish' (i.e. partially selfish) point I was making earlier.

"you are reading a lot into the language I use in my posts"

Yeah, well, language is like that.........

Rather Post Modern of you, Hak.

BigDorrit oh I know that, because it either assumes the majority are Christian, and Christian worship is appropriate, without checking. I just believe you cannot assume they are not.

As I say, bias whichever option you choose. There will always be a bias to decisions made over groups of people that are not the same. We have to learn to live with them IMO. There are things I live with that I think could be better and more fairly organised but as I have said upthread you pick your battles.

no opt in rather than out would be (and is in the majority of countries) the default position in a school funded by the state. Because the majority of countries have this peculiar view that the state should not fund religious worship, we are in a very peculiar group of countries that do.

Its not about whether opting in or out is fairer but whether you think compelling schools to christian worship is something that the state should do.

I find it mind blowing that way more religious countries than us - the USA, SPain Portugal etc can grasp this concept but not us.

Right. Capsicum. Why would the following not be a good idea.
Assembly. Inclusive, all the usual stuff, moment of quiet reflection, bit of nice music, maybe a bit of a sing.
Everyone back to class.
Bell rings for lunch. Anyone who wants to do collective worship files off to a classroom with a teacher, does 5 minutes of praying, then off to lunch.

Nobody has to leave in the middle of assembly, everyone has the shared experience of quiet thinking together, and the Christians get their collective worship.

Sorted.

Kew it is because our Queen is head of State and the Church of England.

I support collective Christian worship in schools, purely because I see it's value (talked about upthread) and without the compulsory element, that is schools have to make provision for it, I think it would go by the wayside, which I think would be sad. I do think opt out should be handled sensitively though.

BigDorrit

Opt in is bias towards those who don't want collective worship. No action required for them. There is an assumption they are the norm not the exception.

Opt out is bias towards those who do want collective worship. No action for them. There is an assumption they are the norm and not the exception.

No collective worship in schools is biased towards those who don't see the value in worship at all. It suggests worship has no place in public places, that it is somehow potentially offensive, and should be, hidden from public view, confined to designated religious buildings.

Hak because children would miss out on some of their often, very busy lunch break. Children also need time to run around and let of steam. My DC, in reception, often did not have enough time to eat all his lunch, compounded by fine motor skills issues. Schools have to make timetabled provision for worship.

But again, if this became the norm, I would accept it with good grace.