I don't think that teaching really gets conveyed though. It never did when I was a kid. We did the lord's prayer, which was just a thing we recited and I'm reasonably sure most people didn't know what a trespass was and I'll admit I'm still not sure if daily bread is something you bake. Same with the Hymns: they were never treated as anything other than songs. That's why it creeps me out - you've got 100 kids singing songs and reciting things mindlessly with no understanding of what they mean other than they're loosely associated with God.Gavin Scott wrote:I can't agree with that - if you left it to some parents to give their children a grounding in decent behaviour then god knows (no pun intended) how they would end up.Sput wrote:I find it pretty weird that one of OFSTED's parameters for "good" things is a daily act of worship. The whole thing creeps me out; to me it's the sort of thing that parents should have to opt their kid into rather than out of.
If you strip away the Catholic fear-based firey pit of Hell aspect, Christianity is really about living a decent existence - doing unto others as you would like done to you; having compassion and forgiveness; and more straightforward things like it being wrong to kill.
Those are not an unreasonable things to teach children - and those lessons will stand them in good stead. The idea of Heaven and Hell is a metaphor for action=consequence. Its those who don't believe there are consequences to their actions who do the most hideous things.
80s school hymn book
Knight knight
My hymns weren't that loosely associated with God, most spoke loudly of Christianity and Jesus and praise the lord but then I reckoned I went to a fairly non-denominational school at the time but looking on it now it was overtly Christian in many of its practices.
I think the thing at that age was that although the principles and moral grounding might have been there, we (or at least I) didn't really understand it too well. Whenever I was taught religion in primary school, it was about reciting things by heart and learning about the significance of certain events. And at that age you're not really interested in that kind of thing at all, staring out the window suddenly becomes a far more attractive thing to do.
Having said that though, the school I went to throughout middle school did a better job; instead of having just a class about religion they put in bits of community service (you had to do four hours of voluntary work somewhere) and we also learned about other religions. I'd say that was far more beneficial than learning hymns like "The Blind Man Sat by the Road and He Cried" (Lutherans, don't ask) off by heart.
Having said that though, the school I went to throughout middle school did a better job; instead of having just a class about religion they put in bits of community service (you had to do four hours of voluntary work somewhere) and we also learned about other religions. I'd say that was far more beneficial than learning hymns like "The Blind Man Sat by the Road and He Cried" (Lutherans, don't ask) off by heart.
I got to many a time at my old Primary School, the only downside was that the overhead projector was very heavy so it'd be up to two of you to carry the bugger. Also placed the sheets the wrong way or upside down many times too. Although everyone in class took it in turns to do so.nodnirG kraM wrote:Did you ever get to be the lad in charge of moving the words up the screen every so often during assembly? A chance that was constantly denied to the likes of me...marksi wrote:We had an overhead projector.
I never used to like singing hymms, most Wednesdays we had to go through Hymm practice and that was torture, the teachers were often saying that it wasn't good enough, so what? It's not as if we're on Songs of Praise or anything like that. :roll:
Come High school we never did it, we usually sang 12 Days of Christmas at Christmas time, other than that never, thank the lord.
steve
I have no problem with religion being taught in schools because like everything that is a large part of culture, its existence and the meaning of its doctrine should be discussed. It's when that "teaching" or "learning" turns into indoctrination that it's a bad thing, and I'd say enforced singing of God's good deeds definitely crosses that line.
That said, the teachers at my school had an intersting theory: that when reading the Lord's Prayer, the prayer itself was compulsory, but saying Amen at the end was not. So those who did not believe could omit the "Amen" from the end. Bit tenuous but something at least...
That said, the teachers at my school had an intersting theory: that when reading the Lord's Prayer, the prayer itself was compulsory, but saying Amen at the end was not. So those who did not believe could omit the "Amen" from the end. Bit tenuous but something at least...
That's a fair point. But remember that religion is about long term consequence - and whether there is a "term" longer than human lifetime is rather debateable, isn't it?Gavin Scott wrote:The idea of Heaven and Hell is a metaphor for action=consequence. Its those who don't believe there are consequences to their actions who do the most hideous things.
That's not to say actions good in the long term aren't also often good in the short term, but there is a difference there that cannot be ignored. And some actions based on this premise are quite obviously bad for the "lifetime" term.
I have serious misgivings about compulsory religious education in government schools. First and foremost, religion should be a personal choice. I don't accept that it is the role of our education system to be forcing students to adopt a church's interpretations of the world. Don't get me wrong, I respect the moral guidance that religion can offer. I take Gavin's point about consequences, but I don't believe that religious education it the sole way such lessons can be taught.
Secondly, I have a problem with schools essentially giving preference to one religion over others. Schools should have absolutely no role in determining what religion their students should 'believe'. Even if schools offer equal time to all religions in their classes (which would be a near impossible task in itself), then the state is still essentially helping to enrol members for different faiths. Just as I do not appreciate religion getting involved in matters of state, I don't much care for the government getting into the religion business either. (As it happens, I don't believe the Church of England should be given the privileged status it has in the UK either).
In principle, I have no problem with parents electing to put their kids into religious classes. That should be their choice. But the default position should be an 'opt in' one, not an 'opt out' one. Specifically, religious classes should not be a core part of the curriculum which kids are required to get permission to exclude themselves from. It should be an optional extra that families can choose to take part in if they so wish.
Secondly, I have a problem with schools essentially giving preference to one religion over others. Schools should have absolutely no role in determining what religion their students should 'believe'. Even if schools offer equal time to all religions in their classes (which would be a near impossible task in itself), then the state is still essentially helping to enrol members for different faiths. Just as I do not appreciate religion getting involved in matters of state, I don't much care for the government getting into the religion business either. (As it happens, I don't believe the Church of England should be given the privileged status it has in the UK either).
In principle, I have no problem with parents electing to put their kids into religious classes. That should be their choice. But the default position should be an 'opt in' one, not an 'opt out' one. Specifically, religious classes should not be a core part of the curriculum which kids are required to get permission to exclude themselves from. It should be an optional extra that families can choose to take part in if they so wish.
