Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Gordon on November 20, 2019, 02:34:10 PM
-
Parents looking to ensure their children aren't participating in prayers by default win their court case.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshire-parents-win-right-to-prayer-free-school-assembly
-
Jolly good. :) When my husband was a secondary school head teacher, 1989-2004, he gave the kids a thought for the day, no prayers during his assemblies. This didn't go down too well with religious parents but he got away with it, possibly because the school's OFSTED reports were very good.
-
I really like the idea of a thought for the day especially about an ethical/social issue (but then I would wouldn't I).
-
I really like the idea of a thought for the day especially about an ethical/social issue (but then I would wouldn't I).
My husband's thoughts for the day were always about ethical or social issues.
-
Eggsellent! I'd think that would please everyone nowadays.
-
Why all this pleasantness on here ? 😝
-
Why not Wal?
-
Why not Wal?
its all so false, Robbie a bit too much Pollyanna for my liking . 😱
Except for you 'cause you're lovely 😘
-
I am never lovely to Wallys. Or Wallies.
-
Parents looking to ensure their children aren't participating in prayers by default win their court case.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshire-parents-win-right-to-prayer-free-school-assembly
I must admit I'm struggling to see how this is a development from reading the news article.
From the article:
'A Church of England multi-academy said it would allow the children to withdraw from the assembly and prayers, it was confirmed on Wednesday.
The Oxford Diocesan schools trust said a small number of pupils would be provided with alternative materials overseen by a teacher, instead of having to take part in collective worship.'
It already is the law, and has been for decades, that parents can remove their children from collective religious worship (and therefore that schools cannot force them to take part) - so there is absolutely nothing new here, only recognition that the school must abide by the law. The only possible new element is that the children will be supervised and be provided with 'alternative materials' while not at the assembly.
Hardly a major victory, it would seem to me. In our increasingly secular country, where likely 90% of children (and their parents) choose to have no part in organised religious worship, it is bizarre and completely anachronistic that state funded schools are still required by law to provide a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature. The reverse should be the case - in other words that no state funded school should be permitted to deliver an act of collective worship (unless as a completely optional and opt-in extra-curricular activity outside the normal school day). Whether parents (and their children) choose to be religious or not should be an entirely private matter, not one for the state to condone or support either way.
-
I think those humanist parents are just troublemakers. They've got their kids withdrawn from assembly, as they quite properly have every right to do; what more do they want?
-
I think those humanist parents are just troublemakers. They've got their kids withdrawn from assembly, as they quite properly have every right to do; what more do they want?
For their choice to withdraw their children from that activity - as is their right - to not adversely affect their children's education, for the time to be used for education (as it's supposed to be) and not merely for them to be dumped somewhere as an inconvenience to be monitored.
O.
-
I think those humanist parents are just troublemakers. They've got their kids withdrawn from assembly, as they quite properly have every right to do; what more do they want?
To be provided with an activity of equivalent educational value - which seems completely reasonable to me as the school is funded from tax, so why should their tax give them less than the next parent's.
-
Parents looking to ensure their children aren't participating in prayers by default win their court case.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshire-parents-win-right-to-prayer-free-school-assembly
A Church of England multi-academy said it would allow the children to withdraw from the assembly and prayers, it was confirmed on Wednesday.
They should not have applied for their child to go a Church of England school if they did not accept their prayers. Personally, the school should appeal and should add it into their form
that is is a church of England school and parents and children must accept their daily way of worship before school or they cannot be accepted.
Saves these problems.
-
They should not have applied for their child to go a Church of England school ...
They didn't - the school in question is not a faith school.
-
They should not have applied for their child to go a Church of England school if they did not accept their prayers. Personally, the school should appeal and should add it into their form
that is is a church of England school and parents and children must accept their daily way of worship before school or they cannot be accepted.
Saves these problems.
No child should be 'forced' to accept worship sessions, Sass.
Worship should be a free gift from the person to God, not a chore.
I skipped my last two years assembly at school - and in that last year I had already decided for Christ!
As an aside, in my local comp - non-denominational - worship is not compulsory, nor should it be.
ASs a result, a group of students who were Christian asked for space to form their own Chrisdtian Union.
Thery started of as five kids four years ago - now that first bunch has left, but the union, which has over twemnty members, contintinues, and has led the school assembly - which they skipped in the first place in order to meet - several times.
-
They should not have applied for their child to go a Church of England school if they did not accept their prayers. Personally, the school should appeal and should add it into their form that is is a church of England school and parents and children must accept their daily way of worship before school or they cannot be accepted.
Saves these problems.
If it weren't a state school they'd have exactly that right, but it is a state school. In some places, there aren't non-denomination options in a realistic travel distance. If the school can't fulfil its duty to offer a secular worthwhile education to serve the whole of its community, maybe it should hand education back to the state - saves these problems.
O.
-
I must admit I'm struggling to see how this is a development from reading the news article.
From the article:
'A Church of England multi-academy said it would allow the children to withdraw from the assembly and prayers, it was confirmed on Wednesday.
The Oxford Diocesan schools trust said a small number of pupils would be provided with alternative materials overseen by a teacher, instead of having to take part in collective worship.'
It already is the law, and has been for decades, that parents can remove their children from collective religious worship (and therefore that schools cannot force them to take part) - so there is absolutely nothing new here, only recognition that the school must abide by the law. The only possible new element is that the children will be supervised and be provided with 'alternative materials' while not at the assembly.
Hardly a major victory, it would seem to me. In our increasingly secular country, where likely 90% of children (and their parents) choose to have no part in organised religious worship, it is bizarre and completely anachronistic that state funded schools are still required by law to provide a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature. The reverse should be the case - in other words that no state funded school should be permitted to deliver an act of collective worship (unless as a completely optional and opt-in extra-curricular activity outside the normal school day). Whether parents (and their children) choose to be religious or not should be an entirely private matter, not one for the state to condone or support either way.
Yes you're right Proff, this is how the law operates within our school system, at present, it might be better when taking in mind the general exponential falling off of interest in anything religion based to have somewhere for the children of religious believers to go whilst the secular assembly is in progress,.
The small numbers of children there are still left now of religious believing parents could be provided with alternative materials and be overseen by a teacher, instead of having to take part in secular assembly, this would be far more realistic and in keeping with how things are nowadays.
ippy
-
Is there not another factor involved here? The most recent major change in the management of schools has been the establishment of academies - a move designed to remove the "power" of local government in the provision of education. Effectively, the state provided for the removal of the management of schools from LEAs to subcontractors for the Department of Education.
Schools which had formerly been secular institutions became part of CofE diocesan academy groups - this happened in the case of the village primary school which my granddaughters attend. Without a car journey of three miles, there is no alternative school.
-
I like what Anchorman said and do agree nobody should be coerced into praying at school.
Harrowby what you said about grandchildren:- "Without a car journey of three miles, there is no alternative school." I wouldn't consider three miles to be very far away, I checked and the school I went to post 11 was just over five miles away and it didn't take long to get there or back. Sometimes we got a lift (my cousin and later my sister went there as well as local friends so plenty of adult drivers), depending on who was about but there were good buses or couple of stops by train. Maybe where your granddaughters go there isn't a good public transport which is fairynuff however usually nowadays parents get together and organise car transport between them.
As long as they're happy at their school no probs. Sorry if I'm going off the point somewhat, the 'three miles' stuck in my head & just didn't seem much of a distance.
-
I like what Anchorman said and do agree nobody should be coerced into praying at school.
Harrowby what you said about grandchildren:- "Without a car journey of three miles, there is no alternative school."
Robbie
You did not notice the word primary? One of my granddaughters is 7 the other is 5, you would expect them to walk?
-
Mea culpa I read 'academy' & didn't notice 'primary'. At their ages living near their school is great advantage, later on might be different. My school prior to 11 was not far away from home.
-
Do away with religion based schools completely everywhere other than leaving religion in its legitimate place within our history and let the parents that have religious beliefs deal with any religious position they feel they need to take with their children to them outside of school hours.
If all of the schools were secular, that is all of them working on a level playing field where religion or none is concerned, there would no longer be any need for any exclusions, with the benefit given to the children of no matter what religion their parents have a belief in, or none, at least all of the various children would be mixing instead of being segregated, with the added advantage of knowing each other and growing up together.
I really think making any one group of children to feel they're the odd ones out by excluding them, as is the present mode, or in a way separating them is not a satisfactory arrangement.
ippy
-
They didn't - the school in question is not a faith school.
When I read "A Church of England multi-academy said it would allow the children to withdraw from the assembly and prayers, it was confirmed on Wednesday." it was this that brought
the faith school to my attention.
-
No child should be 'forced' to accept worship sessions, Sass.
Worship should be a free gift from the person to God, not a chore.
But the child is not the person complaining, the parent is.
How do you force acceptance or worship and how does it become a chore?
For me worship if not from the heart is of very little consequence anyhow. Do you believe lip-service is worship? King James Bible
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.King James Bible
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Not a worship session if the heart is not part of it.
I skipped my last two years assembly at school - and in that last year I had already decided for Christ!
Does this mean anything in the greater scheme of things to come?
Are you claiming that none participation leads to Christ and God and if so why complain about children taking part in prayers before school lessons.
You cannot have a foot in each camp. It is clear to me that worship does not constitute faith or communion with God if their is no willingness from the heart of the participant.
As an aside, in my local comp - non-denominational - worship is not compulsory, nor should it be.
ASs a result, a group of students who were Christian asked for space to form their own Chrisdtian Union.
Thery started of as five kids four years ago - now that first bunch has left, but the union, which has over twemnty members, contintinues, and has led the school assembly - which they skipped in the first place in order to meet - several times.
I personally believe those names written in the book of life before the world was created are not decided upon by anything that happened after. I was talking to a friend tonight about lip service and how those who work miracles and preach would find some of them told by Christ that he does not know them. Do you believe people who come to God do so because their names are in the book of the living or because "and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:". I cannot have a foot in both camps but I can see that those who come to God through Christ is by the will of God not men.
-
When I read "A Church of England multi-academy said it would allow the children to withdraw from the assembly and prayers, it was confirmed on Wednesday." it was this that brought
the faith school to my attention.
It isn't a faith school - read further in the article. That it is run by a CofE multi-academy trust does not mean it is a faith school.
It is a non faith school.
-
But the child is not the person complaining, the parent is. How do you force acceptance or worship and how does it become a chore? For me worship if not from the heart is of very little consequence anyhow. Do you believe lip-service is worship? King James Bible This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.King James Bible Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Not a worship session if the heart is not part of it. Does this mean anything in the greater scheme of things to come? Are you claiming that none participation leads to Christ and God and if so why complain about children taking part in prayers before school lessons. You cannot have a foot in each camp. It is clear to me that worship does not constitute faith or communion with God if their is no willingness from the heart of the participant. I personally believe those names written in the book of life before the world was created are not decided upon by anything that happened after. I was talking to a friend tonight about lip service and how those who work miracles and preach would find some of them told by Christ that he does not know them. Do you believe people who come to God do so because their names are in the book of the living or because "and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:". I cannot have a foot in both camps but I can see that those who come to God through Christ is by the will of God not men.
What I'm claiming, Sass, is that assembly and worship in schools were irrelevant for me when I was atheist, and, when I became Christian, simply going through the motions. If worship is simply lip service, why have it in schools? If the kids - some oof them of an age to understand the concept - find assembly a drudge and would rather not listen, what is the point of worship in assembly. You quoted the KJV - you've sort of made my point. I remember singing hymns in Jacobean English written by Georgian and Victorian era folk who had no concept of life two hundred years after they died, in a language we did not use, hardly understood, and found baffling. All that 'Thee's, Thoughs and Whereasmuch' spoke too much of Shakspear, and we were already sick of that in English class. Does mouthing stuff you don't understand and don't know why you're doing it constitute a grounding in the faith? My coming to Christ had nothing to do with any assembly or RE session inschool; indeed, I remember primary school. Although we were non-denominational, each morning started with the Lord's Prayer. I remember kids getting belted for not joining in! My own rebellion was to try and gabble it as fast as possible. Is that any way to either treat the words or address their instigator? Doesn't it mock the faith?
-
Doesn't removing religion from the all of (1)the school curriculum automatically remove the need for any rejigging of who goes where, plus the advantage of all of the children mixing, growing up together and likely becoming life long friends regardless of whatever the religion, or none, of their parents?
(1) I'm not suggesting removing religion from where it would be ridiculous to remove it, from say history lessons for example, or a humanities lesson.
-
Doesn't removing religion from the all of (1)the school curriculum automatically remove the need for any rejigging of who goes where, plus the advantage of all of the children mixing, growing up together and likely becoming life long friends regardless of whatever the religion, or none, of their parents?
(1) I'm not suggesting removing religion from where it would be ridiculous to remove it, from say history lessons for example, or a humanities lesson.
This is the motivation behind the campaign to remove the requirement for an act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature from the curriculum but a parallel extension of Religious Education to include a broader range of religious and ethical stances - it's supposed to be teaching about religion, not inducting into religion.
Children deserve to be educated about religions before the state sponsors their indoctrination into a particular path.
O.
-
When I was a school child, none of us actually enjoyed the praying in assembly or the hymn singing or the meaningful stories which usually involved six foot long chopsticks. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we hated it, to a person. If God exists (which she doesn't), she must be a bit concerned about all this forced worship.
-
This is the motivation behind the campaign to remove the requirement for an act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature from the curriculum but a parallel extension of Religious Education to include a broader range of religious and ethical stances - it's supposed to be teaching about religion, not inducting into religion.
Children deserve to be educated about religions before the state sponsors their indoctrination into a particular path.
O.
Yes Outrider what you say is about the essence of it, the only thing is what will the religionists be doing on loosing this potential recruiting ground of theirs.
Usually the religionists having had this privileged hunting ground for new recruits right back from forever will see its loss as persecution rather than seeing it as creating, a long overdue, level playing field and I don't know about yourself but I don't think teaching about religion as compared to teaching religion to our future generations of children will remain foremost in the minds of religious believers, I don't trust them to comply; most of them of all religions do have this compulsion/directive to spread the word.
ippy
-
This is a related link: secularism.org.uk/opinion/2020/01/promote-religious-freedom-in-schools-abolish-the-worship-requirement
ippy.