[Closed] Religion in schools

Britain is the only Western democracy to require worship in non-religious publicly funded schools.

Except not in practice. How many schools have been pulled up for not doing it?

You might not like it, but If you are actually in a position where you need to deal with this, it's one of only 3* options you have for your kids.

1. Go along with it and join in.
2. Attend but don't participate.
3. Sit out completely.

4. Campaign for change.

4. Campaign for change

Go for it.

But...

...... If you are in a position where you actually need to deal with this...

Won't help much if you are in a position to deal with the decision now though, because it's not going to change soon, if ever.

Britain is the only Western democracy to require worship in non-religious publicly funded schools.

Except not in practice. How many schools have been pulled up for not doing it?

That's part of the argument for abandoning the requirement altogether.

I've not had lunch yet, so I'm not going to spend ages researching figures, but [url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/jun/11/schools.uk ]this article[/url] quotes the former head of Ofsted as saying "76% of secondary schools were already failing to provide for daily worship", in 2004.

In the same article, Canon John Hall, the Church of England's chief education officer said "I believe that there are not many secondary schools where there is nothing like a daily act of worship".

So, in secondary, it's somewhere between "not many" and 75% 🙂

Won't help much if you are in a position to deal with the decision now though, because it's not going to change soon, if ever.

The curriculum is currently being reviewed, so now would be an excellent time to consider its official removal.

Then fire up your campaign !

I would be interested to see how it goes.

If you are actually in a position where you need to deal with this, it's one of only 3* options you have for your kids.

If I'm ever in a position where I need to deal with it, I'll be naming him Jesus.

But yes. Those will only ever be the three options available if we just nod and smile and go along with it. That's why I said it was weaselly; the last thing the Church wants is to be challenged on stuff like this, far more preferable for us all to conform (or pretend to conform).

In the same article, Canon John Hall, the Church of England's chief education officer said "I believe that there are not many secondary schools where there is nothing like a daily act of worship"

Is he saying most do, or hardly any do ?

Then fire up your campaign !

I would be interested to see how it goes.

There's already [url= http://www.secularism.org.uk/collective-worship.html ]an ongoing campaign[/url].

I saw that site earlier in another post.

How long happen they been campaigning, and what's been achieved so far ?

In the same article, Canon John Hall, the Church of England's chief education officer said "I believe that there are not many secondary schools where there is nothing like a daily act of worship"

Is he saying most do, or hardly any do ?

He's saying that most secondaries do something that would be classed as a daily act of worship.

Don't worry, Sharia law will soon be the de facto in this country.

He's saying that most secondaries do something that would be classed as a daily act of worship.

Righto. Strange double negative threw me a bit. Couldn't work out if it was intentional or not.

I saw that site earlier in another post.

How long happen they been campaigning, and what's been achieved so far ?

The organisation has been around for [url= http://www.secularism.org.uk/history.html ]a long time[/url], not sure how long that particular campaign's been going for though.

How long did the campaign for equal marriage take?

Righto. Strange double negative threw me a bit. Couldn't work out if it was intentional or not.

He's spent too long worshiping and not enough in English lessons.

The organisation has been around for a long time, not sure how long that particular campaign's been going for though.

Ok, just trying to judge timescales, and they have been around a while obviously.

How long did the campaign for equal marriage take?

Why ? Is this something I should know ? 😕

Why ? Is this something I should know ?

Being gay was illegal until 1967, just ten years before I was born. In 2014, the first same sex marriages took place.

Sometimes, change takes a long time to happen. That's no reason to not campaign for it.

Strange double negative threw me a bit

Britain is the only Western democracy to require worship in non-religious publicly funded schools.

Except not in practice

I will accept some break the law but it does not negate the fact it is required.

You were expecting iron cast logic from the religious dude then

I liked the fact that he stated his belief, but then there was no evidence to back it up 🙂

neal or the canon 😉

No offence neal just a joke I accept you are one of the logic botherers on here.

Sometimes, change takes a long time to happen. That's no reason to not campaign for it.

You seem to be reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Where did I say there is no reason to campaign for change ?

molgrips - Member

Except not in practice. How many schools have been pulled up for not doing it?

So the law is an ass, and the school guidelines are widely ignored- all sounds like good reasons to change things. Rules that nobody listens to are worse than no rules at all.

Won't help much if you are in a position to deal with the decision now though, because it's not going to change soon, if ever.

I think I misunderstood "if you are in a position to deal with the decision now" and read too much into "it's not going to change soon, if ever", and thought you were saying there's no point in campaigning.

Fair enough.

What I meant was, if your kids are at/about to be at school, you have 3 options.

Campaigning won't change anything fast enough to change your options.

Worship in schools helps prop up the whole Bishops in the Lords, unelected head of state, established church thing by way of subtle indoctrination leading to ticking the CofE box on the census form and a vague sense of the belief that there's a heaven and you'll meet grannie again.

Thankfully, this seems to be changing.

Fair enough.

What I meant was, if your kids are at/about to be at school, you have 3 options.

Campaigning won't change anything fast enough to change your options.

My two are in Y3 and Y6.

I'm stuck in education for the foreseeable future though so it would/could affect me for longer.

Thankfully, despite being in possession of a rather lovely pipe organ in a grand Victorian wood-paneled hall, complete with stained glass windows, sixth-formers are exempt from enforced worship and we're a very secular place.

The problem with campaigning though, is that any government that needs to make the decision will have one question in their minds.

Which will cost fewer votes, keeping it as it is, or changing it.

I think I know what the answer is.

I honestly don't think it's a vote winner or loser, which is partly why it'll be hard to get it changed.

The best thing would be a coordinated opt-out campaign.

Just to tangent for a second, have we had many vocally Atheist senior politicians?

miketually - Member

subtle indoctrination leading to ticking the CofE box on the census form

And let's not forget the leading question, or the followup surveys that showed that 50% of people who identified themselves as christian when asked the census question, about half don't believe in christ and a little under half don't believe in god 😉

(it's not a conspiracy mind; the question's been kept the same for many censuses, so that it's useful comparatively. Changing from a leading question to a neutral one would wreck the usability for trends.)

Cougar - Moderator

Just to tangent for a second, have we had many vocally Atheist senior politicians?

Nick Clegg! Alistair Campbell as well, ironically he's quite good evidence for the existance of satan.

Could ask two questions, one leading and one not? Maybe.

So you didn't read any of what came before the bit you quoted then ?

In answer to my earlier question, a quick Google revealed this (emphasis mine):

The Test Act 1672 formerly made it illegal for a Roman Catholic to hold high political office in the English Parliament. It has, however, long since been repealed, but that's not really the end of the story.

Given that one of the functions of the Prime Minister is to recommend to the monarch who should hold the offices of Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York, both of which carry with them both primacy within the Church of England and seats in the House of Lords, constitutional convention suggests that the PM should not be perceived as possessing bias against the Established Church (Church of England/Church of Scotland). [b]Every PM has officially owed allegiance to one or other of the established churches[/b] - Benjamin Disraeli had to evidence family conversion from Judaism before holding office in the 19th century as far as I can recall.

This is comment rather than a reputable source. Is it true? That to be PM, you [i]have[/i] to align yourself with a Church? (Wasn't John Major Atheist?)

What I meant was, if your kids are at/about to be at school, you have 3 options.

Did I read that right?

Is it true? That to be PM, you have to align yourself with a Church? (Wasn't John Major Atheist?)

His religion is listed as Anglican on Wikipedia, but I don't really know that much about him. He certainly wasn't a "good Christian" while he was [i]aligning himself[/i] with Edwina Curry.

I'd not be surprised if there was some 'rule' like that. The leader of the party most able to form a government is invited to be Prime Minister by the Queen, who is both head of state and head of the established church. If (by some 'miracle') the Lib Dems won the next election, she could refuse to ask atheist Nick Clegg to form a government as it would/could lead to a constitutional crisis.

One of the arguments against making same sex marriage legal was that it would create conflict between church doctrine and national law, so there could be a similar issue. It just shows how ridiculous it is to have an established church.

hmm maybe I've misunderstood your posts

Looks like you have misunderstood yes.

I've said neither of the things you mention.

(You could probably twist what I said if you really wanted to and tried hard enough, but either way, that's not what I said)

Edit- I suppose, if you do have school age kids right now, it's probably not going to change in time for it to make a difference to them, but I didn't say that means you shouldn't "worry" or try to change things still.

It just means that you are protesting to try and change things for future generations, which is fine obviously.

what I want to know is if religion in schools is worthwhile, how come whenever I go to a wedding, funeral or turn on songs of praise, they never do any of the good hymns from "Songs of Praise" (circa 1986).

I'm fairly against anybody wasting to much time on montheistic RE at secondary level but at primary school, christianity is just a set of half decent parables with all of the "be excellent to one another" good stuff and none of the "except those guys" that religion seems to entail for grown ups.

miketually - Member

He certainly wasn't a "good Christian" while he was aligning himself with Edwina Curry.

While it might not be essential to be religious to be a politician, it certainly is a requirement that you be a lying hypocrite.

That would be everyone but AS then 😉

it certainly is a requirement that you be a lying hypocrite.

Why's that NW ..... aren't voters interested in electing a politician if he or she isn't a lying hypocrite ?

You could be right about the voter appeal of lying hypocrites.

Voters don't want to hear the truth ..... they want to be seduced !

Look at this guy, being a lying hypocrite never did him any harm.

[img] [/img]

Three general election wins and a few £millions stashed away in various bank accounts.

nealglover - Member
I've said neither of the things you mention

*properly this time 😉

Yes I did say something [b]similar[/b] to the second one, but without the "so don't worry about it"

Just that things won't change fast enough to have a direct effect on your kids if they are already school age now.

But regardless, without the first thing, which I didn't say, there is no contradiction is there 😉

Can I have a mid-season "Previously on..." recap, please? I've completely forgotten what Brian was doing in Los Angeles and thought that they'd killed off Jennifer three episodes ago.

Okay stand down, nothing to see here.

Today was the day of reckoning, the day of the church thing with school.

I skulked along but it was actually really good. Was not really religious at all, no mass, no bowing heads, minister did not even put his costume on. The kids did a play, which was intersected with lots of 'Christians believe such and such.' There were not even any prayers. Minister spoke for about 1 minute at the end to say well done and invite people along to the eater service which, weather dependent will be held out on the hill top, he then mentioned that other churches will also welcome people along if they wish (plugging the local competition.)

All much of a moan about nothing, it was done really well.

Now back to your arguing!

nealglover - do you accept the idea that it's possibly to imply things without directly saying them?