Gideon's Bibles

[OH MY WORLD!]

I do NOT believe that the Gideons would stand there and allow a child to be caned for not making the promise. Talk about inventing things and running a smear campaign. Absolutely NOT believable. I also received a Gideons New Testament in grade 5, no promises demanded and no CANINGS!!
I have never used a Gideons bible when staying in hotels. I always have my own. I did note the first time in Waikiki that the Buddhist's have a book sitting right beside the Gideon's in the top drawer.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Gideons still hand out New Testaments to Yr 7 pupils across the UK.  As for your suggestion that "any head teacher approached by the Gideons with a few to handing bibles to school kids should be told (politely) where to go (sic)" I couldn't agree more!!   

A few years ago, I collected one of as much as I could that the Year 7 and 8 kids were given by various groups over the space of a year - just to get an idea of what they were being bombarded with.  They ranged from condoms to New Testaments, alcohol calculators to advice of budgetting. Nothing wrong with any of those per se but which were actually appropriate for 11 and 12 year olds?

No idea where your information comes from, but I have two kids who have recently been through year 7 and 8 and they have not been given 'condoms to New Testaments, alcohol calculators' - there has been some information, mainly aimed at parents as well as the kids on financial budgeting, which I don't see as inappropriate for 11 or 12 year olds. All the other things you mention aren't appropriate for that age group. In my opinion handing out non-neutral evangelical materials to kids is never appropriate in a school, whatever the age of the kids.

[Hope]

No idea where your information comes from, but I have two kids who have recently been through year 7 and 8 and they have not been given 'condoms to New Testaments, alcohol calculators' - there has been some information, mainly aimed at parents as well as the kids on financial budgeting, which I don't see as inappropriate for 11 or 12 year olds. All the other things you mention aren't appropriate for that age group. In my opinion handing out non-neutral evangelical materials to kids is never appropriate in a school, whatever the age of the kids.

PD, my information came from the concrete evidence of what was handed out - but I wasn't saying that it occurs in every school - in the same way that Gideons don't hand out New Testaments to Year 7 students in every school in the UK.  Mine was but an example.

As for handing out 'non-neutral evangelical' materials, copies of the RSV and even the AV aren't particularly 'non-neutral', let alone evangelical, even though they may not be the most up-to-date and therefore linguistically correct versions. 

I would agree with you, though would use the word 'evangelistic', if people were handing out tracts that were highly denominational or radicalising.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD, my information came from the concrete evidence of what was handed out - but I wasn't saying that it occurs in every school - in the same way that Gideons don't hand out New Testaments to Year 7 students in every school in the UK.  Mine was but an example.

When and where was this - I think that any head handing out, or allowing the handing out of condoms to 11 year children would be in immediate hot water.

As for handing out 'non-neutral evangelical' materials, copies of the RSV and even the AV aren't particularly 'non-neutral', let alone evangelical, even though they may not be the most up-to-date and therefore linguistically correct versions. 

I would agree with you, though would use the word 'evangelistic', if people were handing out tracts that were highly denominational or radicalising.

What are RSV and AV Hope? Are these types of bible?

The issue is that no bibles should be handed out to kids in schools from third party organisations whose mission is evangelising. I have no issue with bibles being available in schools for use as part of learning in RE lessons, which those lessons should be neutral and aimed at increasing understanding of the belief system of christians rather that at trying to get children to become christians.

School isn't the place for evangelising it is the place for learning.

[jeremyp]

What are RSV and AV Hope? Are these types of bible?

Revised Standard Version and Authorised Version respectively. The AV is more commonly known as the King James Bible.

[ProfessorDavey]

Revised Standard Version and Authorised Version respectively. The AV is more commonly known as the King James Bible.

Thank you - not really standard acronyms.

As pointed out in my post, the version of the bible is irrelevant - it is the approach and the motivation of the organisation providing them which is the problem.

[Bubbles]

I do NOT believe that the Gideons would stand there and allow a child to be caned for not making the promise. Talk about inventing things and running a smear campaign. Absolutely NOT believable. I also received a Gideons New Testament in grade 5, no promises demanded and no CANINGS!!
I have never used a Gideons bible when staying in hotels. I always have my own. I did note the first time in Waikiki that the Buddhist's have a book sitting right beside the Gideon's in the top drawer.

No I'm not saying the Gideons would have stood there or that they would have approved, but you would have been called to the headmasters office afterwards and been given the cane.

I was caned for a lot less, back in the bad old days when caning was common.

I'm not making it up.

It was a very narrow minded Christian primary/junior village school.

Christianity was forced on young children and at eight ( being unchristened ) I was made to stand up in front of the class by the teacher and was told I wasn't in the book of the lamb and I was going to burn in agony for eternity.

Basically they shamed me, because I was different. My best friend s dad belonged to a coven and it was all kept quiet because of prejudice ....... People can be very nasty sometimes.

If you were different you kept it to yourselves or you got treated like I did.

Caning me for being ( in their eyes rude enough to refuse to promise to read a bible every day) as a rebel it would have got me caned, no question.

You got caned for talking or not behaving in church when they decided to make us walk down the road.

In fact you got caned for just about anything, I think they must have believed in spare the rod spoil the child.

Or for not removing your hat or waving and bowing and scraping to local gentry as they went past in a car. ( something else I hated)

Considering my own experiences in a "faith" school I suppose it's surprising I'm not totally opposed to them, but I think schools are very different now.

I also think it wasn't typical of a faith school.

In those days teachers hit children, not like now.

You were expected to be a Christian and I remember them mentioning other religions once, it was Hinduism and it was described as a system of belief for savages.

If I thought faith schools were all like that I'd oppose them too.

I have heard some horror stories from others who went to a catholic boarding school.

But my particular school was c of e.

[Spud]

Appalling, just appalling.

The problem being with the school, not the book.

[Shaker]

That's a matter of opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem being with the school, not the book.

And with the Gideons for thinking that evangelising to young kids in schools is ethical behaviour - it isn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I'm not saying the Gideons would have stood there or that they would have approved, but you would have been called to the headmasters office afterwards and been given the cane.

I was caned for a lot less, back in the bad old days when caning was common.

I'm not making it up.

It was a very narrow minded Christian primary/junior village school.

Christianity was forced on young children and at eight ( being unchristened ) I was made to stand up in front of the class by the teacher and was told I wasn't in the book of the lamb and I was going to burn in agony for eternity.

Basically they shamed me, because I was different. My best friend s dad belonged to a coven and it was all kept quiet because of prejudice ....... People can be very nasty sometimes.

If you were different you kept it to yourselves or you got treated like I did.

Caning me for being ( in their eyes rude enough to refuse to promise to read a bible every day) as a rebel it would have got me caned, no question.

You got caned for talking or not behaving in church when they decided to make us walk down the road.

In fact you got caned for just about anything, I think they must have believed in spare the rod spoil the child.

Or for not removing your hat or waving and bowing and scraping to local gentry as they went past in a car. ( something else I hated)

Considering my own experiences in a "faith" school I suppose it's surprising I'm not totally opposed to them, but I think schools are very different now.

I also think it wasn't typical of a faith school.

In those days teachers hit children, not like now.

You were expected to be a Christian and I remember them mentioning other religions once, it was Hinduism and it was described as a system of belief for savages.

If I thought faith schools were all like that I'd oppose them too.

I have heard some horror stories from others who went to a catholic boarding school.

But my particular school was c of e.

I think the problem with faith schools is that, although it might not occur in every one, it can occur - that being a view that one of the jobs of the school is to bring up the pupils to be of a specific religion.

And there are plenty of faith schools that still do that - effectively training the kids to be devout catholics etc as part of their mission. I think that is simply wrong. No school (certainly no state funded school) should ever consider that part of its mission is to ensure that their pupils develop a particular religious faith.

[Spud]

And with the Gideons for thinking that evangelising to young kids in schools is ethical behaviour - it isn't.

Why?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why?

If you have to ask it suggests you don't really have much understanding of ethics.

Aligning yourself with a belief (whether political or religious) should be based on consent - and if you know anything about consent then you would understand that evangelising children is about as far removed from being ethical as it is possible to get, falling foul of ethical practice on just about every ground.

[Bubbles]

I think the problem with faith schools is that, although it might not occur in every one, it can occur - that being a view that one of the jobs of the school is to bring up the pupils to be of a specific religion.

And there are plenty of faith schools that still do that - effectively training the kids to be devout catholics etc as part of their mission. I think that is simply wrong. No school (certainly no state funded school) should ever consider that part of its mission is to ensure that their pupils develop a particular religious faith.

On one hand I am all for parents being able to send their children to schools that stand for their values they believe in.  So Muslims should be able to send their children to schools that honour Mohammed and that tradition and Christians  send their children to schools that teach their values about and around the teachings of Jesus.

I don't agree that the only schools that should be faith schools are private ones.

Firstly because only people with money are given a choice and secondly because private schools are not governed by the same rules and controls  that a state school is.

Everyone should have access to a faith school for their children if they wish, not just the well off elite.

I think faith schools need to be state schools because they then have to follow the national curriculum ( if you look at the gov website on it, private schools don't have to)

The national curriculum acts as a form of control on what is taught.

The areas I think need looking at are the ones where they are not just teaching the values but insisting the child actually belongs to the religion.

All state schools should take a mix of religions and treat other religions with respect.

I used to enjoy assemblies on the whole, where the school got together at the start of the day to catch up on notices and relevant things and sometimes children joined in by playing instruments and singing together.

It gives the school day a structure.

The reason most don't now, has nothing to do with religion but the whole school won't fit because most schools are overcrowded.

I think there is a danger of unsuitable people teaching and it being excused because they are using religion as an excuse.

I think faith schools tolerate the wrong sort of people in control. They are sometimes not critical enough.

It's the same in churches though, I've noticed some very unsuitable people try and teach Sunday school lessons, and although many Christians do know really, they don't tend to be critical of fellow Christians.

I do think there are potential issues with faith schools but I do think they are important.

Some secular schools are dire, have lots of problems of their own, my two went to secular schools and I wasn't impressed by them,either really.

I don't feel the need to throw out faith schools because my experience wasn't that good.

I don't think my grown up children's experience in a secular school was that wonderful, it just didn't involve religion.

I think it's human nature that a small percentage of teachers are unsuitable, it's the children who see it.

The problem is that school itself teaches children what to think and believe, and some teachers do it in a way that upsets their pupils.

You can get a bigoted atheist just as easily as a bigoted Christian.

The problem then is you wind up with Muslim and Christian families feeling their child is being brainwashed into atheism.

A creeping atheism.

You need good regulated faith and secular schools that teach good values and inspires children to find out more, and about how others see the world.

I can understand why a religious person could see the move to all secular schools  as being a move to influencing their child to reject a religious outlook or to break them away from their family or their community.

It's all a battle for children's minds, and the end product.

Children have minds of there own though.

I don't see trying to influence children into being non religious ( or keep it at home only/ private)  is a positive step, anymore than teaching them being religious is the only way to be.

Both have their issues.

I think we need faith schools as state funded schools.

I'd never support a move to get rid of them because I think what passes for secularism in many cases is actually worse.

Parents should have a say in the type of school their child goes too, and I don't like the move by elements in our society to take away their choice and influence the minds of their children instead..

 

[ProfessorDavey]

On one hand I am all for parents being able to send their children to schools that stand for their values they believe in.  So Muslims should be able to send their children to schools that honour Mohammed and that tradition and Christians  send their children to schools that teach their values about and around the teachings of Jesus.

I don't agree that the only schools that should be faith schools are private ones.

Firstly because only people with money are given a choice and secondly because private schools are not governed by the same rules and controls  that a state school is.

I fundamentally disagree.

There is an obligation on the state to provide quality education for all children - there is not an obligation to provide bespoke types of education based on the beliefs of some parents. All state funded provision should be suitable for all children - and faith schools clearly aren't.

There is a second and equally unacceptable matter. All state provision should be available to people based on need and without discrimination on any of the accepted 'protected characteristics' - which includes religion. Faith schools are allowed to (and most do) discriminate in admissions on the basis of religious belief. That is completely unacceptable. Can you imagine if this were a hospital or a GP - you are waiting in the waiting room and someone else jumps the queue and the reason bing that they are of a different religion to you - completely unacceptable in any publicly funded service.

If people want to send their kids to a faith school they are welcome to do so, but there should be no funding from the state - they should be within the private sector. If parents squeal that they can't afford it, well how about the churches actually paying for this. If it so important to religious parents and churches for there to be faith schools then surely it would be high on their priorities to put their hands in their own pockets, rather than rely on state handouts.

And nothing in the notion that faith schools should not be state funded contravene accepted human right (e.g. UDHR) where the ability to education children in a faith is a negative right (i.e. the state should not prevent you) rather than a positive right (i.e. the state should have an obligation to provide a school paid for form the state).

There is also a pragmatic argument - if ever child is allowed access to a CofE school and a catholic school, then it isn't acceptable not to have a muslim school in every area, and a jewish, hindu etc etc one. And belief isn't just religious, so a case can be equally made for vegetarian or vegan school. environmentalist schools or even political schools. This is practically impossible - because who loses out - the vast majority who want to send their kids to schools that are neutral with regard to religious or political etc belief. It is classic case of pandering to a small minority at the expense of the majority wishes.

[Bubbles]

I fundamentally disagree.

There is an obligation on the state to provide quality education for all children - there is not an obligation to provide bespoke types of education based on the beliefs of some parents. All state funded provision should be suitable for all children - and faith schools clearly aren't.

There is a second and equally unacceptable matter. All state provision should be available to people based on need and without discrimination on any of the accepted 'protected characteristics' - which includes religion. Faith schools are allowed to (and most do) discriminate in admissions on the basis of religious belief. That is completely unacceptable. Can you imagine if this were a hospital or a GP - you are waiting in the waiting room and someone else jumps the queue and the reason bing that they are of a different religion to you - completely unacceptable in any publicly funded service.

If people want to send their kids to a faith school they are welcome to do so, but there should be no funding from the state - they should be within the private sector. If parents squeal that they can't afford it, well how about the churches actually paying for this. If it so important to religious parents and churches for there to be faith schools then surely it would be high on their priorities to put their hands in their own pockets, rather than rely on state handouts.

And nothing in the notion that faith schools should not be state funded contravene accepted human right (e.g. UDHR) where the ability to education children in a faith is a negative right (i.e. the state should not prevent you) rather than a positive right (i.e. the state should have an obligation to provide a school paid for form the state).

There is also a pragmatic argument - if ever child is allowed access to a CofE school and a catholic school, then it isn't acceptable not to have a muslim school in every area, and a jewish, hindu etc etc one. And belief isn't just religious, so a case can be equally made for vegetarian or vegan school. environmentalist schools or even political schools. This is practically impossible - because who loses out - the vast majority who want to send their kids to schools that are neutral with regard to religious or political etc belief. It is classic case of pandering to a small minority at the expense of the majority wishes.

I think we shall just have to agree to disagree.

IMO a case cannot be made for vegetarian or vegan schools at all, it's pushing an argument until it makes no sense at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think we shall just have to agree to disagree.

IMO a case cannot be made for vegetarian or vegan schools at all, it's pushing an argument until it makes no sense at all.

Why?

It is pretty clear that under UK Equalities legislation vegetarianism and veganism are considered legitimate and protected beliefs in just the same manner as religious beliefs. So if people are entitled for the state to fund religious schools I think, were a case to be brought, that the same would need to be afforded to other protected beliefs, including vegetarianism and veganism.

Just because you think there is a line in the sand it doesn't mean that there is a logical argument that that line exists, nor that the law would recognise it.

And don't forget that there are about 12% of the UK population are vegetarian (and by definition that means they are 'active', i.e. practicing) - that about the same, possible more, than active members of all religions in the UK put together. Maybe they want schools that promote vegetarianism to their kids and have a vegetarian ethos. If we allow schools for christians, muslims, jews etc, why on earth not vegetarians.

Of course the only sensible (and ethical) answer is not to fund any schools run on the basis of a particular belief (religious or otherwise) and ensure all state funded schools are neutral with regard to religious and other beliefs.

[Spud]

If you have to ask it suggests you don't really have much understanding of ethics.

Aligning yourself with a belief (whether political or religious) should be based on consent - and if you know anything about consent then you would understand that evangelising children is about as far removed from being ethical as it is possible to get, falling foul of ethical practice on just about every ground.

The problem with that is that children are dependent on adults, and so if an adult is providing for a child's needs then the child is naturally going to be influenced by the adults' beliefs. The Gideon Bible has a list entitled "where to find help when:" (followed by headings such as "anxious" or "afraid", and a passage from the New Testament or Psalms which provides help in those situations). If by providing scripture verses which help a child in various situations the Gideons are simply meeting some of his or her needs, I don't see how it is unethical for a child to be influenced by their beliefs (unless they are teaching stuff which is unethical)

[Dicky Underpants]

If one person might be saved by good pornography, then that should be there as well?

Paul Tillich, the distinguished German theologian, seemed to need both (I think he kept the porn in his Bible, not the other way round).

[ProfessorDavey]

The Gideon Bible has a list entitled "where to find help when:" (followed by headings such as "anxious" or "afraid", and a passage from the New Testament or Psalms which provides help in those situations).

Frankly it beggars belief that any sane person would suggest that the appropriate response to a 11 or 12 year old child who is feeling anxious or afraid would be to direct them to a passage in the bible. What planet are you on.

The correct response would be to get them to talk to an adult they feel comfortable talking to about how they are feeling, about why they might be feeling that way and what can be done to help alleviate their anxiety or fear. And that person might be a parent, or perhaps a teacher at school or someone else they trust and feel comfortable talking to.

To send them off to read the bible seems to me to be about as far away from acting in their best interests as you could get.

[Bubbles]

Why?

It is pretty clear that under UK Equalities legislation vegetarianism and veganism are considered legitimate and protected beliefs in just the same manner as religious beliefs. So if people are entitled for the state to fund religious schools I think, were a case to be brought, that the same would need to be afforded to other protected beliefs, including vegetarianism and veganism.

Just because you think there is a line in the sand it doesn't mean that there is a logical argument that that line exists, nor that the law would recognise it.

And don't forget that there are about 12% of the UK population are vegetarian (and by definition that means they are 'active', i.e. practicing) - that about the same, possible more, than active members of all religions in the UK put together. Maybe they want schools that promote vegetarianism to their kids and have a vegetarian ethos. If we allow schools for christians, muslims, jews etc, why on earth not vegetarians.

Of course the only sensible (and ethical) answer is not to fund any schools run on the basis of a particular belief (religious or otherwise) and ensure all state funded schools are neutral with regard to religious and other beliefs.

Because being a vegetarian just means they don't eat meat, it isn't a belief system any more than being diabetic is.

Vegetarians come in all faiths and none and are already catered for with both faith and secular schools.

It's not like vegetarians can't be Christian is it?

Vegetarianism of itself isn't a belief, it's an action.

People are vegetarian for a wide range of reasons, they might not share the beliefs of another vegetarian.

It doesn't follow.

A Christian shares beliefs in common, vegetarians don't.

Not everyone gives up meat for the same reasons.

[Bubbles]

Frankly it beggars belief that any sane person would suggest that the appropriate response to a 11 or 12 year old child who is feeling anxious or afraid would be to direct them to a passage in the bible. What planet are you on.

The correct response would be to get them to talk to an adult they feel comfortable talking to about how they are feeling, about why they might be feeling that way and what can be done to help alleviate their anxiety or fear. And that person might be a parent, or perhaps a teacher at school or someone else they trust and feel comfortable talking to.

To send them off to read the bible seems to me to be about as far away from acting in their best interests as you could get.

Not really.

I can only think you haven't actually read the passages it links too.

If you think that's about as far away from acting in their best interests as you can get, I think you need a reality check.

Dropping bombs on them or  neglect are far worse.

There are far worse things for children in life  than passages in a bible, which when I've looked,  basically just gives them some comfort.

i don't really approve of the Gideons to be honest, but it has more to do with this promise thing and putting children under pressure to read a portion every day.

It's unfair to make children promise something like that IMO.

Having said that, I see no harm in just handing them out.

If it was down to me, children would get a copy of all the holy books as part of RE.

But I wouldn't pressure them into believing in any of them.

It doesn't hurt children to look.

Not all children want to talk to an adult, sometimes they want to think it through for themselves.

I have no issue with a child that wants to read a bible to gain some comfort or some space.

Children don't always want to refer things to an adult, because an adult tells them what they should do.

It isn't always wanted.

Adults with good intentions can sometimes take over.

[Leonard James]

It doesn't hurt children to look.

Providing you make it clear that it is just a belief that may help them to feel better, but is not a proven fact.

[Bubbles]

Providing you make it clear that it is just a belief that may help them to feel better, but is not a proven fact.

I wouldn't tell any child, that any religion was a proven fact.

But I wouldn't tell them God didn't exist, either,  or that them feeling better wasn't linked to God in some way.

I wouldn't tell them that prayer didn't work, either.

You never really know what's in someone else's mind, or what they may need at that moment.

Children make up their own minds, and have to work some things out for themselves.

My two are Athiest,  but it is who they are.

Other children may see things differently, that's ok.

We aren't all the same.

 

[Leonard James]

I wouldn't tell them that prayer didn't work, either.

I should hope not, because it undoubtedly can work if the kid already believes God is real. It's an illusion, of course, but it can still work.