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?

Christians, on the other hand seem to think that something disastrous will happen to their children if they go 6 hours without praying.

if christians want to do christian stuff, there is a place for that. It's called church. Talk about Jesus all you want there. Draw him, paint him, sing him, eat him (in cracker form), I don't care because attendance at churches is optional. I can stay away if I want, and I do.

Also, since when did "what's the harm" become the bar for what's being taught in school?

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.

I don't care. Why don't they do their prayers at these empty churches? Leave my kids out of it. Maybe more people would attend if they didn't get their prayer fix in state schools?

Why are they taking up school time with it? that's what their churches are for!

I am not worried about my kids being recruited. I am worried about their time being wasted with utter nonsense, and I object on principle to the CofE given special consideration.

Loads of lovely songs. About a squillion folk songs available which are just as much a part of British culture

Oh, I can imagine the outcry that would cause: the ones that aren't about Christianity or death are largely about sex, although a vast number are about all three. And that's before we consider the violent (literally and figuratively) misogyny of the folk tradition. Which ones did you have in mind? Specifically? Assume I have a working knowledge of English folk music because, well, I do (although my membership of the English Folk Dance and Song Society has, sadly, lapsed).

I am worried about their time being wasted with utter nonsense

So buy them a book to read and withdraw them.

Or home school them.

Or go private.

Or move to another country.

It hardly seems worth getting a cross as you are ("I object on principle"? Have you considered doing crosswords instead?)

Compulsory Christian collective worship was introduced with the 1988 Act, actually. Get your facts straight.

And I have to say that you seem much more "het up" than any of us secularists and atheists!

And since when did "I object on principle" be synonymous with "I am very cross"?

Compulsory Christian collective worship was introduced with the 1988 Act

1944 Education Act, S.25(1)

"Subject to the provisions of this section, the school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the school, and the arrangements made therefor shall provide for a single act of worship attended by all such pupils unless, in the opinion of the local education authority or, in the case of a voluntary school, of the managers or governors thereof, the school premises are such as to make it impracticable to assemble them for that purpose."

If you think that in 1944 "religious" in a "county school" meant anything other than "Christian" you're out of your mind.

Gosh you're angry................

I am smiling at the thought of a classful of six year olds singing Long Lankin or Fanny Blair or The Cuckoo's Nest.

But of course the British folk tradition is thoroughly steeped in Christianity, so perhaps we could get them to learn The Bitter Withy or King Herod & the Cock as well.

So buy them a book to read and withdraw them. Or home school them. Or go private. Or move to another country.

why is not remove the special privileges from one religion an option?

To you also think that the other religious exemptions (such as outright discrimination) are also harmless?

What's odd here is that order for me to exempt my child from religious indoctrination it's not sufficient to not attend church. I also have to dance around the state school system.

what's your justification for the continued Christian worship?

That on a list of required education reforms, each requiring parliamentary time, political will and broad consensus amongst stakeholders to design and execute, it barely gets on the radar. It's a quaint relic of the past, which does no harm (pace the more excitable posters here). If you don't like it, explain it to your children as being like morris dancing or eating haggis: vestiges of the past which we wouldn't re-invent, but carry on with out of habit. There are bigger fish to fry.

Any school which doesn't want Christian worship can seek a S.7(6) or whatever it is "determination" and do something else, and any parent can withdrawn their child. The stuff about privileging and sponsoring Christianity is just meh so far as I'm concerned: yes, in the abstract, it's a problem, but such a trivial one it just isn't worth the political stones that would be required to deal with it. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't invent it, but given it does, and given the history of the church's involvement in the primary education system, it just isn't worth the blood and treasure.

For a start off, it wouldn't be enough to remove the obligation, because a large majority of schools would continue morning worship anyway. You would have to actively forbid it to make a significant difference, and no government would dare do that. It just isn't worth it.

why is not remove the special privileges from one religion an option?

Because we live in a democracy where that isn't on the political radar. You're free to campaign for it, but today not even the fringiest hard left would be bothered to start the war. It's a classic English compromise: we avoid the culture wars by nodding and getting along.

Ah, so you're objections to people objecting about it is that you think parliamental time could be better spent elsewhere. So why are you getting involved in an idealogical argument?

indeed. that's a different objection. Why not just say that from the get go?

it sounds like, actually, Ricardian is more strongly objecting to not removing it.

Because we live in a democracy where that isn't on the political radar. You're free to campaign for it, but today not even the fringiest hard left would be bothered to start the war. It's a classic English compromise: we avoid the culture wars by nodding and getting along.

we are clearly not getting along.

this particular issue may not be on the radar (although I disagree with that), religious encroachment on people's lives is on the radar. From the Lords, to gay marriage, to selling cakes, to selling beer in M&S, to the rampant discrimination in employment and enrolment in schools, all are examples of religious people wanting something that perhaps we should provide.

Oh Ricardian, thank goodness you are here to calm the loons. Seriously, thank you.

What do you think they are so angry, so afraid of?

How absurd, Redstrawberry, that you could begin to argue that Christianity is trampling all over your liberal rights. We have to bake the cakes; we can't wear the cross; we have to accept a new definition of marriage. What more do you want?

Haters. Nothing but haters.

...and I will be highly amused when you are subject to the laws which will command you cover your head when this country becomes Islamic.

How absurd, Redstrawberry, that you could begin to argue that Christianity is trampling all over your liberal rights. We have to bake the cakes; we can't wear the cross; we have to accept a new definition of marriage. What more do you want?

oh how absurd Swallowing. but let me deal with your objections.

You have to bake cakes I agree that's an infringement on your rights. You shouldn't have to bake gay cakes.

You can't wear crosses Are you talking about the airline host who wanted to wear a cross (I vaguely remember some story about that). Specifically, i think she was told she couldn't wear the cross unless it was concealed under the uniform. If so, I agree with you again. She should have been allowed to wear the cross (especially, if the airline allowed women to wear hijabs, sikhs to wear turbans, and jews to wear skull caps).

You see, when I talk about religious freedom, equality and expression I mean it. I don't pick and choose my favourite groups and think they should have special privileges. If some people can display religious symbols, they all can. I think it's ludicrous that you can force people to write a message on a cake (they specifically objected to the message on the cake, not the people).

Let's continue...

You have to accept gay marriage No you don't. You don't have to have any part of any gay marriage. Ever. You are welcome to not get gay married, not attend a gay marriage, and not have gay married friends. You are fully welcome to shun gay marriage. you just can't tell other people not to do it. I would also entirely support religious institutions' rights not to solemnize gay marriages if they choose.

So, you see, the first two I agree with you (and maybe the third. I don't know your precise objection to gay marriage. maybe you feel threatened that churches will be forced to solemnize them). But that's not equal and free society you support. You support different groups having different privileges (I assume, from your post, you haven't explicitly stated this). You presumably are especially outraged that a woman can't wear a cross, but can wear a hijab (I don't know if BA allowed that, but let's assume). Well, why not? if only Christians can push their agenda in schools, why can't only muslims wear religious symbols as airline hosts?

...and I will be highly amused when you are subject to the laws which will command you cover your head when this country becomes Islamic.

Oh, I didn't see this little tidbit. Why would I (or any of us) want islamic laws when I have said I want religion out of schools and out of my life? You think I have a special place in my heart for islam?

Weird.

What's a gay cake? A particularly flamboyant one?

"How absurd, Redstrawberry, that you could begin to argue that Christianity is trampling all over your liberal rights. We have to bake the cakes; we can't wear the cross; we have to accept a new definition of marriage. What more do you want?

Haters. Nothing but haters."
Well, you can't wear a cross in circumstances where nobody is allowed to wear any jewellery. If you were told you weren't allowed to wear a cross in circumstances where other people were allowed to wear religious symbols that were not specific requirements of their faith and other jewellery then I'd be the first in fighting your corner. And no you don't have to accept a new definition of marriage- Christian marriage ceremonies are still gay free zones.

Christian marriage ceremonies are still gay free zones.

Untrue. Quakers were in the forefront of the fight for same-sex rights, dating back to the 1960s, and have enacted same-sex marriage from the moment it was available; they took their position before the legislation recognising same-sex marriages was passed, in 2009, and before the Labour Party decided to support it.

www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/31/quakers-gay-marriage

The formal position is here:

qfp.quaker.org.uk/chapter/16/

"Marriage has a special status in Quaker practice. From the very beginning – for longer even than membership – Friends have regarded marriage as a state so momentous that it requires an explicit, solemn enactment in a meeting for worship. Friends understand marriage to be equally available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples."

Of course, you're free to hold that mainstream Quakers aren't actually Christians, but you're keeping very bad company if you do.

Untrue.

the CofE. Why precisely is the CofE barred from performing same-sex marriages? My children have to listen to their preaching, so I should have a say.