Is being pubicly atheist a recent thing, especially re. collective worship?

[wanderings]

Firstly, I'm taking no sides - I had strong atheist views when I was younger, but gradually changed my mind.

There are many threads on MN about this, especially annoyance by atheist parents about collective worship in schools, and I have been wondering if it's recent that people have felt so strongly about it. I find it hard to imagine buses in the 1980s and 90s saying "there probably is no God", or parents taking their children out of assembly, or people muttering and sneering in the back row when attending baptisms (under duress): if it happened I was blissfully ignorant.

Speaking for myself, I rebelled with my heart and soul when my parents suddenly dragged me to catholic church every Sunday when I was 9. I saw the whole thing as utter nonsense, and a waste of valuable weekend time. However, I gradually changed my mind as an adult, but went CofE rather than catholic. I took the view that you did not have to take a literal view of the Bible and the church's teachings; as a child I was very literal-minded. I also love the sense of community in church.

Does anyone think it is because a generation of young adults are remembering being forced to obediently sing hymns, hear prayers from their school days, had to learn "impossibilities" such as the great flood, and are now making sure their children won't have to do the same, now that they have the right to say something which they didn't as a child?

I am sure that we can somehow distinguish between football matches, Bruce Springsteen concerts and state schools. There is a difference, but I just can't put my finger on it.

red what made you want to settle here, if you regard our laws as being so outrageous?

what made you want to settle here, if you regard our laws as being so outrageous?

I don't regard your (mine too now) laws as outrageous. I regard some as outrageous, and that's one of them.

work, to answer your question.

By all means, we should change any law that makes attendance at football matches mandatory.

There are no laws which make attendance at state schools mandatory. But you knew that, right?

Unlike you, it appears, I've been through state education in the UK as an atheist, and in an era when there was a lot more cultural homogeneity. I don't recall having the slightest difficulty about it.

I am sure that we can somehow distinguish between football matches, Bruce Springsteen concerts and state schools

They're all voluntary activities. What difference do you think there is? If you want to attend a state school, you can. If you want to attend a football match, you can. Your point is...?

red so just how bothered are you? I presume you could work elsewhere? If the offer of work is enough for you to stay here with some of our 'outrageous' laws it kind of puts this into perspective doesn't it?

They're all voluntary activities.

really? You are having trouble with this? you class all those as all the same kind of institutions with the same compulsions for participation?

I guess my sarcasm was misplaced. You may not know the difference.

you class all those as all the same kind of institutions with the same compulsions for participation?

Yes.

How much do you actually know about UK education laws? I gather you aren't British, so what's it to you anyway?

If the offer of work is enough for you to stay here with some of our 'outrageous' laws it kind of puts this into perspective doesn't it?

what perspective? yes, it's not enough to make me upsticks and leave, if that's what you are asking. Do be honest, I didn't know the extent to which the tentacles of the CofE would extend into the lives of non-members. My fault of course and it probably wouldn't have stopped me from coming.

That being said, for better or for worse this is now my home and I largely like it. No place is perfect. This is a way in which the UK can be improved.

Yes.

good to know. I think you may be alone in classing all those things together. But just to clear things up, you think there is the same compulsion to attend state school as a Bruce Springsteen concert? Even at a Bruce Springsteen concert (again, I may be wrong about English law), they don't make you sing along, do they?

yes, I am having trouble suppressing both sarcasm and laughter.

But just, to humour you, you do know that primary education is mandatory here, right? If I choose not to send my kids to state education, I still have to provide some provision for their education.

As far as I know, I can attend 0, 1, 1000, or 10,000 Bruce Springsteen concerts here. Furthermore, if I choose not to attend a Bruce Springsteen concert, I don't have to attend some other concert in its place.

You must be joking. I will assume that.

I am not British, but live in England. I know a reasonable amount about the laws here. My children are in, what is apparently as voluntary as a Bruce Springsteen concert, state education here. So, yeah, I have a stake in it.

I think it's good to know that there are atheists out there with this view, if only to highlight that atheism and secularism aren't the same. Everyone knows you can be the latter without being the former (as I mentioned, my parents are religious but secularists. Incidentally, I would have much less problem with religion if most religious people were like that), but you can also be the former and not the latter (as we see here).

You know what?

I think Ricardian is a Christian shill.

Nobody could really be that stupid, could they?

But just, to humour you, you do know that primary education is mandatory here, right? If I choose not to send my kids to state education, I still have to provide some provision for their education.

Which you can do at home, or in any other school set up for the purpose which meets minimum standards. If you don't like state education as constituted, you can even now get the state to help you set up an equivalent, and the obligation to collective "broadly Christian" worship does not apply in Free Schools. Sending your child to your local state school is voluntary. Even once they are there, you have an absolute right to withdraw them from religious observance if you're that bothered (I'm not: they're empty and meaningless words, so where's the harm?). Yes, you'll claim that's not "full engagement" or something but getting het up about withdrawing your child from an activity you don't think the school should be carrying out anyway is disingenuous, to say the least.

Anyway, the government's open to school which don't follow this model.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10791997

The offer's there for you.

I think Ricardian is a Christian shill.

Your paranoia is showing.

Right Ricardian. Wasn't Bruce Springsteen here last summer? I don't recall the government enquiring at all why I don't attend.

The point seems to be going clear over your head. I want no special provision for any religion at state schools. That's what religious schools are for. That should be an optional add on, not an opt out. You do know what comes with this, right? Schools are some of the few institutions legally (yes, LEGALLY) allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Even once they are there, you have an absolute right to withdraw them from religious observance if you're that bothered (I'm not: they're empty and meaningless words, so where's the harm?).

what's the harm? If they are "meaningless words", why are they doing it at school? This is precisely the unquestioning attitude that reeks of conformity. If it has no meaning, don't make kids do it.

The harm is the act of worship. that's harmful, and should be outside the remit of schools. I have no objection to song singing (as songs), christmas concerts, or anything like that. it is the act of worship that is objectionable.

But more importantly, what are these people (CofE) doing in state schools? They already have 30% of the schools, leave the remaining 70% alone.

The offer's there for you.

really? 1 school for me and 30000 for everyone else?

Both the article is idiotic, and so is Michael Gove. This isn't news. Anyone can set up a free school, including "The atheist Richard Dawkins".

"Yes, you'll claim that's not "full engagement" or something but getting het up about withdrawing your child from an activity you don't think the school should be carrying out anyway is disingenuous, to say the least."

I want my child to go to assembly. To hear the school notices, to see awards given out, to receive any whole school bollockings. I don't want my child to be made conspicuous by being taken out. I don't want my child to be given the idea that Christianity is the norm, and that any other faith, or atheism or secularism is the oddity. I also like the idea of a moment of quiet collective contemplation and a song in the middle of a busy school day- I think that's very valuable. Why should only Christians,or those prepared to pretend to be Christians get that?

That should be an optional add on, not an opt out

What's the practical difference? What would differ between the experience of someone opted out and someone in your alternative system not opted in?

The harm is the act of worship. that's harmful

Really? They're empty, meaningless words. So's Harry Potter: they're made up stories that people read for pleasure. Talk of "harm" is just dramatic nonsense: what harm? I arrived in school knowing there was no God, I left school knowing there was no God. In the meantime I learnt some nice tunes and enough about the Bible that I can appreciate some bits of Shakespeare and Bach I wouldn't otherwise be equipped for. Empty and meaningless doesn't mean that large parts, indeed most parts, of western European culture up until the 19th century were crucially influenced...including, ironically enough, the endless Biblical references of Mr Springsteen.

it is the act of worship that is objectionable.

You've withdrawn your child/ren from religious observance at their school, yes? So what's your problem now?

I have no objection to song singing (as songs), christmas concerts

They're going to be pretty shit Christmas Concerts if we can't have a quick round of Once in Royal David City. I like a carol, me.

"You've withdrawn your child/ren from religious observance at their school, yes? So what's your problem now?"

I answered that in my post of 17.10. But you're obviously not interested in anyone else's point of view, so hey, ho.

What would differ between the experience of someone opted out and someone in your alternative system not opted in?

how do you not see the difference? In one case, a religious activity is school sponsored, and by default children are expected to participate. It gives christianity a special platform.

That's as opposed to having Christian clubs at a school, where clubs are the norm, and membership is truly voluntary (i.e. you can participate in the school fully, during school hours, without attending the christian club). The Christian club should be as optional as the chess club.

In the meantime I learnt some nice tunes and enough about the Bible that I can appreciate some bits of Shakespeare and Bach I wouldn't otherwise be equipped for. Empty and meaningless doesn't mean that large parts, indeed most parts, of western European culture up until the 19th century were crucially influenced...including, ironically enough, the endless Biblical references of Mr Springsteen.

as has been repeatedly said here (of course, you may not have read these parts of the thread, but I recently wrote this above), no one is objecting to Christian content. that's education, and has an appropriate place in RE or history class. NO ONE IS OBJECTING TO TEACHING THAT. It's the worship that's being objected to, as well as Christianity being favoured over other religions.

I don't want my child to be made conspicuous by being taken out. I don't want my child to be given the idea that Christianity is the norm

They're at school six hours a day, forty weeks of the year. Are you really that nervous as a parent that you think you can't transmit your own values in the remaining large percentage of the year? I'm not.

And you can't have it both ways. Christianity, in the broad sense of "cultural Christianity" is the norm. Noisily talking of your rejection of it is making yourself conspicuous. Want to campaign against that? Fine: everyone needs a hobby.

I also like the idea of a moment of quiet collective contemplation and a song in the middle of a busy school day

Could you name a song that would pass muster for your purposes? I'm assuming you're not proposing choral arrangements of Barry White numbers, so what did you have in mind?

"They're at school six hours a day, forty weeks of the year. Are you really that nervous as a parent that you think you can't transmit your own values in the remaining large percentage of the year? I'm not."

Neither am I. Christians, on the other hand seem to think that something disastrous will happen to their children if they go 6 hours without praying.

Loads of lovely songs. About a squillion folk songs available which are just as much a part of British culture as Make me a Channel of your Peace....

And you can't have it both ways. Christianity, in the broad sense of "cultural Christianity" is the norm.

there are things that are hard to separate from broader british culture because of course the two are intertwined. We are objecting to official observations of one religion, and it's special treatment in schools.

It's the worship that's being objected to,

You're wildly over-estimating the importance of a hymn and a prayer. Given that church attendance in the UK is in free fall and the demographics of it are skewed violently to the over-60s, this worship you're so worried about seems pretty ineffective as a recruiting sergeant. Most parents aren't bothered, as witness the very low levels of withdrawal. Most of the small numbers of withdrawals that do take place are for religious reasons, as the theists fight amongst themselves over whose imaginary stories are right. I guess I probably agree that, once everything up to and including the paintwork in schools is fixed the model you propose would be better, but it's so far down the list of priorities that no-one is going to waste time on it.

As part of the settlement in the 1944 Act which brought church schools into the state system (the state, previously, not having troubled to build many), the church got to impose a daily worship obligation. It's honoured in the breach. If I were asked outside the fun of an argument, I'd say that if starting from scratch you wouldn't do that, and I doubt many (including the church) would disagree. But it is the law, and changing it would be hard work and politically corrosive. So we don't. The grand English compromise.