Sharing/conflict resolution at nursery school?

Nicki

Schools are indeed places of learning.

Religion, whether you personally believe in one or not, is a major part of life which influences people's behaviours, laws of the land, politics, etc as well as playing a significant part in literature, music and the arts.

For those who are not taught about religion at home, they would be significantly disadvantaged in understanding the whole of modern society if they were not allowed to be taught anything about it at school either. Added to which this would in my opinion increase religious intolerance if you churn out generations who have no idea why certain things are important to colleagues or neighbours and therefore ride roughshod over them.

It is perfectly possible to teach some religious concepts in school without having to throw out the science curriculum and move to teaching creationism! It doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation.

Nicki

NANU if there is an oversubscribed welsh school close to you which does not have the same religious content to the day is it not possible to apply to this one citing special circumstances in that you wish a more secular education and if necessary appealing to get in on those grounds. That would sound more likely to work than being able to force your closest school to abolish prayers and assembly.

Person_one

Nicki wrote: »

Schools are indeed places of learning.

Religion, whether you personally believe in one or not, is a major part of life which influences people's behaviours, laws of the land, politics, etc as well as playing a significant part in literature, music and the arts.

For those who are not taught about religion at home, they would be significantly disadvantaged in understanding the whole of modern society if they were not allowed to be taught anything about it at school either. Added to which this would in my opinion increase religious intolerance if you churn out generations who have no idea why certain things are important to colleagues or neighbours and therefore ride roughshod over them.

It is perfectly possible to teach some religious concepts in school without having to throw out the science curriculum and move to teaching creationism! It doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation.

I don't understand why a few posters here are ignoring the very important distinction between being taught about a religion and being taught to follow a religion.

The first is great, fantastic, really interesting.

The second is inappropriate within a school, or in any situation with other people's children really.

The OP has only ever expressed a dislike for the second one of those and has stated repeatedly that she's in favour of the first.

*max*

For what it's worth, I went to school in France, which is a secular state. State schools, therefore, do not have any religious element to them. We were taught about religionS (plural) in philosophy class in high school, and were of course free to believe in any (or none) of them.

I personally do not feel at any disadvantage whatsoever, socially or intellectually, because of this. I actually agree with the OP on this. I am all for a separation of state and church, as IMO religious beliefs have no place in school in particular. School should be about facts and theories, not beliefs taught as facts.

peachyprice

notanewuser wrote: »

How though?

Apart from restricted shopping hours on Sundays and the timing of bank holidays, the Christian hangover has no impact on my life.

Do you really need to ask?????

Our entire law system is based on christianity! Being an atheist is one thing, but being ignorant to the fact that you live in a christian society and believing that just by not believing in god mean you can opt out of our society, morals and culture is really beyong the pale.

peachyprice

Janepig wrote: »

I don't think that knowing the story of Adam and Eve would have stopped someone from thinking that "I don't know you from atom" was the correct version of the saying. To my mind it was a mistake in a similar vein as the many people who say "should of" instead of "should have".

Jx

Or the timeless classic, 'chester drawers' :rotfl::rotfl:

notanewuser

[

peachyprice wrote: »

Do you really need to ask?????

Our entire law system is based on christianity! Being an atheist is one thing, but being ignorant to the fact that you live in a christian society and believing that just by not believing in god mean you can opt out of our society, morals and culture is really beyong the pale.

:huh:

Not for the last hundred years they haven't. Older laws were perhaps based in Christianity, but now?

Must be a book in the bible I missed that revised the 10 commandments etc to allow gay sex and gay marriage, equal rights for women, affairs and divorce, killing of others by national armed forces, ban corporal punishment, recognition of other gods.......... We no longer have to swear on the bible in court. Need I go on?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/feb/28/christianity-gay-rights-english-law

"Although historically this country is part of the Christian west, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century. Our society is now pluralistic and largely secular. But one aspect of its pluralism is that we also now live in a multi-cultural community of many faiths. One of the paradoxes of our lives is that we live in a society which has at one and the same time become both increasingly secular but also increasingly diverse in religious affiliation.

We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to "do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." But the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that 'Christianity is part of the common law of England' is mere rhetoric; at least since the decision of the House of Lords in Bowman v Secular Society Limited [1917] AC 406 it has been impossible to contend that it is law."

As for morals, again, they're not reserved for Christians!

Nicki

Person_one wrote: »

I don't understand why a few posters here are ignoring the very important distinction between being taught about a religion and being taught to follow a religion.

As the conversation had moved on to the OP and other posters objecting to children being taught the story of Moses parting the Red Sea by acting out the scene, I would say that they were clearly objecting to both aspects at that point in the thread.

notanewuser

Nicki wrote: »

As the conversation had moved on to the OP and other posters objecting to children being taught the story of Moses parting the Red Sea by acting out the scene, I would say that they were clearly objecting to both aspects at that point in the thread.

Erm, I didn't object! Presumably that was part of an RE lesson. I questioned the acting out, not the learning.

You're not great with detail, are you?!

Person_one

Nicki wrote: »

As the conversation had moved on to the OP and other posters objecting to children being taught the story of Moses parting the Red Sea by acting out the scene, I would say that they were clearly objecting to both aspects at that point in the thread.

It seemed to me like they objected to the teaching of it as though it were history, rather than religion.