…and this is a 
Two countries separated by a common idiocy
Category: Creationism • Religion
Posted on: September 23, 2007 9:49 AM, by PZ Myers
I had not known that the UK actually had a legal requirement "in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature." How … quaint. That must create a fair number of atheists, since I think I would probably have reacted with some resentment if my school had shuffled me off to chapel every day, just on the general principle. And I've learned something else: the UK government has an infestation of holy muckity-mucks, almost like ours! When Dr Paul Kelley tried to turn the school he runs into a a fully secular institution, he was told he couldn't do that:
One senior figure at the then Department for Education and Skills, told Kelley that bishops in the House of Lords and ministers would block the plans. Religion, they added, was 'technically embedded' in many aspects of education.
"Technically embedded" — I like that. It's an admission that they're locked in to paying lip service to a non-existent being. At least they're honest about it, unlike their American counterparts. Kristjan Wager reports on one of our Republican senators in Louisiana trying to smuggle in support for a far-right-wing group of crazy dingleberries who want to screw up science education.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.
The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education."
These conservative groups have done more to poison the nice word "family" than the Mafia and Charles Manson combined. When I see the word "Family" in a title any more, I have to choke back a gag reflex in order to gurgle out my immediate protest — and no, it's not because I'm against families, it's because I despise these Christian liars who offer token support of good values and then use that window dressing to excuse dragging human dignity into the slime. The Louisiana Family Forum is no different; their goal is to keep children ignorant and pious.
The group's stated mission is to "persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking." Until recently, its Web site contained a "battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous" concept that "has no place in the classroom." The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry.
Ask not why America is polarized on religion—look only to the demented fuckwits who have discovered that religion is an easy shortcut to allow promotion of the indefensible and the inane, and have turned "family" into a synonym for "cult".
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Bob O'H | September 23, 2007 10:07 AM
You're right about the effect of the daily worship in British schools. It has the additional effect of making hymns like "All Thing Bright and Beautiful" and "Onward Christian Soldiers" a form of torture to adults and children alike.
Bob
Posted by: raven | September 23, 2007 10:08 AM
Look at it on the bright side. Most or all of that $100,000 will probably find its way into the Family groups pockets one way or another.
This is federal money going to Louisiana, a state with a long history of being generous to those who have a bucket under the government tap and a friendly hand on the knob.
It's more about wealth distribution than "education". The Family groups have two sets of values. The public ones and the real ones. Vitter himself is a classic example. A fundie cultist with a prostitute habit.
BTW, isn't illegal for the feds to give money to religious groups? Separation of church and state. The Faith based religious nonsense was just a fig leaf so the theocrats could put the death cults on the list of groups enabled to raid the treasury.
Posted by: MartinM | September 23, 2007 10:14 AM
Nor had I, and I've lived in the UK all my life.
Let's see. Primary school, we had assembly every Friday morning, complete with hymns and prayers. Every now and then one of the local ministers would come by and talk to the class. I distinctly remember him picking up a book and telling us that it took faith to believe that it would fall if he let it go. Even my ten-year-old Christian self thought that was silly.
Hmm...secondary school, we still had regular assembly, but I don't recall any religious aspect. There may have been a short prayer at the end; my memory of that time is shockingly bad, given that it was just over a decade ago. We had compulsory religious education classes for the first two years, but those were real RE classes; comparative religion and such, not indoctrination. The only religion we had 'technically embedded' that I can recall was our Christmas and Easter services.
Still far more than is reasonable, but daily? May have been legally required, but it certainly wasn't enforced in any school I was in.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | September 23, 2007 10:17 AM
There's an interesting theory doing the rounds that Britons have a steeply declining church attendance precisely because there's a state religion, which limits choice.
In the US, there is (or used to be) separation between church and state, which has led to the free-market taking over churches who ruthlessly compete for members by making more and more outlandish promises.
The solution to destroying religion? Hand it over to the government.
Posted by: Bartholomew | September 23, 2007 10:22 AM
The funny thing about the "legal requirement" is that most schools simply ignore it most of the time, and just make token efforts. As with most of the other aspects of religion embedded in British law, they're only tolerated because nobody takes them very seriously.
One pernicious aspect though: children are allowed to opt out of school assemblies if their parents object. That sounds fair enough, but when I was at school the practical consequence was that when the school was gathered together as a community often the only students absent were the very few Asian kids in the school, who had Muslim parents.
Posted by: sailor | September 23, 2007 10:27 AM
"You're right about the effect of the daily worship in British schools. It has the additional effect of making hymns like "All Thing Bright and Beautiful" and "Onward Christian Soldiers" a form of torture to adults and children alike."
Absolutely - I was forced to go to church, I was caned for not noticing I was supposed to read the lesson one day, it was great training for Atheism!
Religion handed over to the state is the best possible solution.
The state handed over to religion is hell on earth!
Posted by: Don | September 23, 2007 10:32 AM
I teach at a British school, and the requirement is seldom enforced unless some senior staff want it to be, and even then it is often resisted. Most schools use assembly for basic announcements, and a moment of 'silent contemplation' at the end is usually enough to fit the bill.
The requirement was part of the deal cut when the government took over most of the church schools.
It so happens that my deputy head is a devout christian who was long in the habit of pounding our tortuous drones on the piano, 'Jesus is the King of Kings' kind of stuff. Once a few of us started advising non-christian (and non-royalist) parents to politely ask for their children to be withdrawn, the resulting admin persuaded the head it was easier to drop the sectarian aspects.
Unfortunately, Brown has not seen fit to reverse Blair's drive to hand over schools to proselytising entrepeneurs. Religion in state schools is generally more or less residual. The problem is the new faith schools.
Posted by: tristero | September 23, 2007 10:34 AM
Many countries have have officially established religions. When I was in Iceland, I learned that all citizens must belong to the state church, although they can petition for removal and I gather it was pretty pro forma. Religiously motivated craziness like we see is all but non-existent in Iceland
However, the situation in Iceland is in no way applicable to the US (duh), not the least because they have something less than 350,000 people and have nothing resembling the complicated history of religious dissent and contention that the US has.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2007 10:38 AM
PZ is correct in saying that state funded schools in the UK are required to have a daily act of worship by law. However this requirement is frequently ignored for a number of reasons, the mains ones seeming to be a lack of an auditorium large enough to accommodate the whole school, and the lack of staff willing to take part in such an activity. As a result this law is largely ignored and when it does take place it is often on a weekly rather than daily basis and consists of singing a hymn (All things Bright and Beautiful being a favourite. Bob is right, I HATE that hymn!) and maybe a vague kind of prayer that expresses hope everything gets on well together.
In short what we have is a rather typical British compromise. Many in education would be happy to see the back of the requirement but know that attempts to do so would create a backlash from the usual suspects. Instead the law is pretty much ignored, the inspecting bodies do not question whether the law is being followed and the politicians can appease both sides.
Posted by: inkadu | September 23, 2007 10:39 AM
You mean religious mullahs are structurally embedded into the British system of government?
Sounds like we need some American-style regime change. It's the only way.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 23, 2007 10:44 AM
When I was at school - more years ago now than I care to remember - there was a daily assembly at the beginning of the school day with a couple of hymns and the odd prayer. There was also a compulsory period of RI (Religious Instruction) once a week, if I remember correctly.
Hardly anyone that I knew of took them seriously as acts of worship, though. They were just a part of the daily routine like eating breakfast.
One thing about Brits, though, is there is a healthy scepticism about anything even approaching religious zeal. You just don't get the sleazy televangelists there that you have here in the US. If they tried it, they'd probably get the piss taken out of them in the same way that David Blaine did when he spent a few days hanging around in a tank by the Thames.
Posted by: Monado | September 23, 2007 10:44 AM
In defence of the British system, they do have a state religion, courtesy of Henry VIII, son of a usurper, who needed a divorce. Since science hadn't discovered the germ theory of disease, he didn't know that his failure to produce a son was the result of syphillis, so he argued that God was displeased with him. The Pope wasn't buying it, so he broke away and founded his own church. Heads rolled, literally, on both sides of the question. He was the self-proclaimed Defender of the Faith, as the monarch has been since then.
Now that Prince Charles has married a divorced woman, normally a bar to ascending the throne, it is about time to disestablish the Church of England; but don't hold your breath.
OTOH, I didn't do me any harm to proclaim "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to my Queen and country" every morning.
Posted by: Ruth | September 23, 2007 10:47 AM
The requirement for a daily act of Christian worship is, as the saying goes, 'more honoured in the breach than in the observance'. Rather like the USA's restriction on the consumption of alchohol by those under 21.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2007 10:48 AM
Inkadu,
Church of England/Wales/Scotland Bishops do indeed sit in the House of Lords by virtue of their position. The Chief Rabbi and a leading Muslim also have seats but were appointed to the Lords as individuals and not as a result of the position they hold.
This may well change as there are plans to (finally!) have an all elected House of Lords.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 23, 2007 10:53 AM
I propose we start a new group, MARS (Militant Atheists for Religion in Schools), to demand "a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature" in every classroom, enforced by corporal punishment for non-participation, or non-enthusiasm during participation.
Organized christianism in America will be extinct within a generation (not counting among the S&M crowd, whose mostly secular culture will, alas, have to bear this sacrifice for the national betterment).
Posted by: Wrought | September 23, 2007 10:54 AM
I went to school in the UK and we had a Humanist headmaster who allowed very little faith teaching, and what there was tended to look at the main faiths throughout the world. However, I imagine this was an exception.
There is currently (until Nov 15) a petition on the UK government's website to end faith schools and stop the teaching of Creationism (which is spreading all too rapidly in the UK, I've seen MPs calling for it to be taught and public seminars called Answers In Genesis recently).
If you're British and reading this then perhaps you could go and vote on
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/faithschools/
There's 17,000 votes so far.
Posted by: K | September 23, 2007 10:58 AM
"All Thing Bright and Beautiful"
Come on, who else is thinking, "Planet of the Apes?"
Posted by: bigTom | September 23, 2007 10:59 AM
Im with sailor. If we could have the same thing over here, the natural rebellion of youth against authority would do the trick.
Posted by: SEF | September 23, 2007 10:59 AM
It came in, it exists, it gets enacted and enforced to greater or lesser extent (depending on the number and extremity of the nutters in charge and in the vicinity, eg local vicar) and schools variably get penalised in inspections for not including it (again depending on who's involved). However, in practice there's probably little respect for the daily farce among the enslaved participants (and not just from me!); and secondary/high schools also don't always enforce the RE lessons up to age 15/16 exam level as they are supposed to do.
Posted by: alex | September 23, 2007 11:02 AM
you know, having finished a full-time British education about this time a year ago, i actually feel that all the praying, hymns etc where what helped me to atheism, and i'm sure most of my peers at school felt the same.
while it's actually nowhere near as extreme as being enforced every day, a good bit of hymn-singing every week or so works wonders for allowing young, open-minded pupils to see the gaping holes in Christianity.
Posted by: Jeremy Miles | September 23, 2007 11:04 AM
Forced religion in school certainly gave my atheism an early boost. Although some of the songs that we were forced to sing are almost universally recognized as classics, and not hugely religious (Morning has broken, Jerusalem), just hearing them now makes me feel tired and bored.
Posted by: Theo Bromine | September 23, 2007 11:06 AM
Ontario public schools had mandatory religious education up to the 1970s. When I was in elementary school in the 1960s, there was a daily bible reading and the class recited the Lord's Prayer right after singing the national anthem each morning. Being Jewish at the time, my parents instructed me to stand silently during the Lord's prayer. Thursday mornings, there was a 45 minute "Religious Education" period, during which I and the 2-3 other Jewish students were excused to spend the time in the library. (I guess there were no other religions represented in the class :/) By the time my kids were in school in the 1980s, the daily bible reading was gone, the recitation of the Lord's prayer was replaced by a period of silence, and I think the weekly religious education session for elementary schools was subsumed into the "multiculturalism education" portion of the standard curriculum. No wonder the country is going to Hell In A Handbasket.
In an effort to address this moral degeneracy and restore the Cult of the Family, in the upcoming Ontario provincial election, we have candidates representing the "Family Coalition Party", in whose opinion
A family is defined as those individuals related by ties of blood, marriage or adoption. Marriage is the union between a woman and a man.
(and they go on to point out that: The Family Coalition party would revoke all legislation that re-defined the term "spouse" to include same-sex persons, within the limits imposed by federal law. )
Posted by: wintermute | September 23, 2007 11:07 AM
Re: All Things Bright and Beautiful:
Do they still tend to sing this verse, or has it been dropped since I was at school, what with the modern egalitarian sensibilities?
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
Posted by: Clare | September 23, 2007 11:07 AM
Assemblies is only one part of it; when I was a kid (admittedly, quite a long time ago), we had daily assemblies with hymns, readings, and occasional visits from the vicar, AND there was compulsory Religious Education ("RE" or Scripture) class. This was basically Bible stories in primary (elementary) school, and more Bible stories, plus some more philosophical and ethical discussion in secondary/high school, and a bit of comparative religion around the age of 16. Assemblies ranged from humdrum to dreadful; scripture actually could get interesting if the teacher wasn't an idiot, and we got more deeply into questions of ethics, or symbolic analysis (which happened often, actually; the teachers weren't blowhard evangelicals thank goodness). I fully support keeping religion out of schools, but as I see it, there were two positive upshots of compulsory religion in my young life: a life-long aversion to religious practice (from assembly... yes, it works! ... although only perhaps on those who don't go to church as well, or does that compound the effect?); and sufficient knowledge of the Bible as a cultural artifact that I can understand and enjoy Biblical references in art and literature. I've always found it surprising that so many supposedly devout Christians seem to know very little about what's actually in the book....
When I came to America, I was pleasantly surprised to find that religion was not supposed to be in school (setting aside those cases where it does sneak in, oh and that funny flag-worshiping ritual). I am utterly against putting it back in school, even to reproduce the rather positive results of my own experience, but I would love to figure out some alternatives that would work as well.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 23, 2007 11:15 AM
When I was in Jr. High in rural southern Minnesota, we had "release time" for the last period of school on Wednesdays. That means, we all packed up and went to our respective churches for religious indoctrination (as a Methodist it was called "confirmation classes"). Those who didn't go to release time had to sit in study hall.
I wish I'd been an atheist then, and I hope someone sues their asses now (if it's still being practices).
Posted by: Tristram Brelstaff | September 23, 2007 11:15 AM
I always thought our school assemblies were part of a program to immunize children against religion.
Posted by: Clare | September 23, 2007 11:16 AM
Wintermute -- I can't speak for anyone else, but that verse was excised when I was at school so it just seemed like a nice nature hymn. This would have been 1960s to 1970s. My mother told me and my brother about the existence of that verse so we knew what an evil establishment hymn it was.
She also disliked the tune.
Posted by: SEF | September 23, 2007 11:17 AM
It has been dropped (in most places anyway), due to it revealing too much about the evil nature of religion. I saw/heard something relatively recently about the fact of it being dropped. Unfortunately I don't recall where. I do know it was definitely still around in the 60s and 70s. However, the song doesn't appear at all in the earliest hymn books in my collection and that verse had been dropped from it by the time of the latest ones (which also happen to be from the less authoritarian and more easily embarrassed flavours of Christianity).
Posted by: wintermute | September 23, 2007 11:22 AM
Re #12:
Well, not quite. Henry VIII removed England from the Catholic Church, but he didn't establish a state religion. That was done by Elizabeth I in order to stop the purges that happened every time a monarch of a different religion took the throne; it was explicitly designed to "look Catholic and sound Protestant", and generally not be offensive to anyone, which is why it remains so much of a milquetoast religion that even outspoken atheists can become bishops.
The title of Defender of the Faith was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X for a book he wrote on how great the Pope was. It was revoked after he broke with the Catholic Church, but the English Parliament later granted the title (in reference to the Anglican Church) to Henry's son, Edward VI.
I'm not sure how syphilis would prevent someone having sons, especially in light of the fact that Henry VIII had three children, one of which was a boy.
Posted by: Eldritch Anchovy | September 23, 2007 11:26 AM
Re: All Things Bright and Beautiful, here's the Monty Python parody:
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.
Posted by: kevinj | September 23, 2007 11:42 AM
that particular law, as already mentioned, is by and large ignored. Even the roman catholic secondary i went to didnt bother with it and that was a school where the local diocese had sign off on teacher appointments.
I think it has survived due to this, organising a campaign against it fails when everyone asks "what law? How come my childrens school isnt impacted by it?"
However with the religious types getting more demanding about their special privileges this and other items(such as the lords spiritual) are getting questioned more and more.
Posted by: Jack McCullough | September 23, 2007 11:43 AM
I've always thought it was quite amusing that succeeding kings and queens of England have arrogated to themselves the title Defender of the Faith. I assume it means that if a king or queen ever wins and Olympic gold medal all his or her successors will call themselves Olympic Champion.
Posted by: Mooser | September 23, 2007 11:43 AM
And on that note...
Posted by: Jack McCullough | September 23, 2007 11:46 AM
Having spent my entire elementary and secondary education in Catholic institutions in which religious instruction and observation were mandatory, I can testify that it didn't take. In fact, the rote nature of both the instruction and observation probably contributed to the weakening of the commitment of many American Catholics to their religion.
Posted by: JamesR | September 23, 2007 11:47 AM
""The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education.""
Isn't this an example of how we can expect the religious to accept framing of science? This is the frame the religious have been placing on science education and it is a lie. They no more care about real science than they do about a flat earth. They have learned the framing technique very well. They have been purposely and maliciously framing their particular ideology into a science format and have convinced many of their sheeple that science is what they are teaching.
Isn't this the very thing that framing and appeasement lead to? If we allow this to remain unchallenged and to stand as being a pursuit of science then we have only to expect that the future scientists will not have an adequate education. And isn't this what we can expect from the religious who have time and again revealed themselves to be manipulative liars?
Posted by: Mez | September 23, 2007 11:47 AM
Monado, the title Fidei Defensor, or "Defender of the Faith", was given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of his writings, which vigorously attacked Martin Luther and early Protestantism.
It wasn't 'til around 10 years afterwards that the kerfuffle happened about divorce that brought about his split with the Roman church, then under Pope Clement VII. The title has been passed down through the monarchy, and "F.D." is still on the coinage.
Posted by: Michele | September 23, 2007 11:53 AM
I can't hear "All Things Bright and Beautiful" anymore without thinking of the Monty Python version. The couple of times I had to sing it in church after hearing the Monty Python version I giggled all the way through the hymn. Now that I don't attend church anymore I don't have that problem. The only version I hear is the funny one.
Posted by: Philboid Studge | September 23, 2007 11:53 AM
RAven wrote: "Vitter himself is a classic example. A fundie cultist with a prostitute habit."
Not only prostitutes, but a diaper fetish to boot. At least he acknowledges that he's full of shit.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2007 12:01 PM
"I've always thought it was quite amusing that succeeding kings and queens of England have arrogated to themselves the title Defender of the Faith."
Prince Charles is reported to have said that when he has his coronation he want to become "The Defender of Faith" and not "The Faith" in order to avoid being seen as anti other religions and denominations.
The man becomes more and more deranged as each day passes.
Posted by: Drad Frantle | September 23, 2007 12:12 PM
The daily act of worship in UK schools cemented my atheism early. My parents had just not mentioned religion, pro or con, but I loved the Greek myths about Zeus and Odysseus et. al., which they explained as stories made up to explain (eg) lightning before science had been developed.
My primary school head was a catholic (and a nice old dear, BTW), but when she told us about christianity - and especially the lives of the saints, which she liked talking about - I couldn't believe that the Greek mythos, which was at least consistent with all the war and disaster in the world, had been replaced by such obvious tosh. I thought that at about 8 years old, and I still think so 30 years later.
Posted by: Donovan | September 23, 2007 12:13 PM
Growing up in apartheid South Africa, I can really relate to this. At primary school I had Calvinist dogma rammed down my throat and looking back, that is probably the main reason I am now an atheist.
On a related note, evolution was only officially added to the high school curricula in the last few years. Before that, it was included in ecology sections, but labelled "not for exam purposes"
Posted by: carey | September 23, 2007 12:29 PM
Some people get a lot out of religious instruction. My mom grew up in a Southern Baptist orphanage during the 1920's, where the little kids were treated like evil bastards (they must have been - why else would they end up in an orphanage?). So my mom came out of there vehemently ANTI-religious. She used to say that "you don't know what hypocrisy is, until you see a minister playing grab-ass with a fourteen year old girl." So let's not just reflexively reject religious instruction from those more godly than we.
Posted by: Deacon Barry | September 23, 2007 12:42 PM
Daily act of worship? Not in any school I ever attended. We did have RE - one half hour per week, twinned with the music class - literally. The two classrooms were in a portacabin in the playground. One class on each side, and at the end of the first half hour they'd switch places.
It did make for a relaxing hour on a Thursday afternoon. Our RE teacher once showed us a drawing of a dead bee, and asked us which book of the bible it was. Answer : Nahum.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2007 12:45 PM
The message I getting here is that the situation in the UK seems to suit both atheists and those intent on religious indoctination. The indoctinatots think they will be producing loads of god fearing kids by insisting on daily worship, the atheists would appear to think that daily worship is either not going to make any difference or increase the liklihood of kids rejecting religion.
Whilst I would eventually like to see the requirement done away with it is not top the the list of priorities. The current governments avowed intent to increase the number of faith schools (which paradoxically are exempt from the requirement to have a daily act of worship if I recall) is far more of a concern. It is times like this I wish John Diamond was still alive. I could just see him leading a campaign to get state funding for an atheist "faith" school. The fits the religious would have would just be wonderful to behold.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | September 23, 2007 12:49 PM
PZ,
When I read the Louisiana House's appropriations bill this year, I was absolutely shocked at how many earmarks there were for churches. I was aghast. And, what can I really do about it?
Posted by: Amenhotep | September 23, 2007 1:25 PM
Squid *nasty*? Settle down folks, or PZ will launch a cephalopod fatwa on the Pythons!
At primary school (Northern Ireland) we had a local minister who would visit class and give us religious instruction, which was very definitely based on getting us saved (and it worked with me, although the effect terminated in my 20s). One thing I can still do is recite all the books of the bible, Genesis to Revelation, in 17 seconds flat, and I know a heck of a lot more about the bible than most Christians I know (I even did some door-to-door when I was in my very early 20s, and initially felt embarrassed that I found myself often thinking that the atheists we met had some very good points).
One thing I have never forgotten was the time when our primary 4 teacher (that's, what, 4th grade in US language?) outright asked our class to put up our hands if we weren't Protestant. I put up my hand, and was asked to stand up. "What religion are you then, little Amenhotep?"
"Please, Miss, I'm a Presbyterian." Cue gales of laughter from the class of 30.
I got a lot of stick for that, even though technically I was right (although I didn't understand why at the time - Presbyterians are "Dissenters", not "Protestants"). My parents did not buy into the NI Protestant/Catholic thing, and had explicitly not made any issue of it in our home or our social mixing (this was in the 1970s when things were *bad*). My mum is still a Christian, but my dad became an atheist a few years ago, which I'm very proud about (he's a great dad; my mum's a great mum too).
In some ways, yes, religious education can prepare you for being a very effective atheist, and I would advise all atheists here to read their bibles - it is a veritable bunker stashed with ammo! We'd be fools to decommission it or put it "beyond use" :-)
Posted by: Brain Hertz | September 23, 2007 1:34 PM
People sometimes forget that the UK does actually have an official state religion, and the head of state is also head of that church...
It's typically very nominal, as noted by others above. It also has the useful effect of getting the official proselytizing out of the way in the first ten minutes of each day before everybody is fully awake.
There's also the RE classes mentioned by others, which in my case were not comparative religion, but classes in atheism. Specifically, we read the Bible in class, starting from the beginning. I still remember the howls of laughter when we did Leviticus...
Posted by: h2g2bob | September 23, 2007 1:34 PM
I agree with Deacon Barry - no school actually follows these requirements unless they are faith schools. RE lessons cover a fairly wide range of religions, and are a very good idea because they help in the understanding of other cultures.
The law is probably still on the statue books due to the way laws work in the UK. Laws are not generally repealed, but are gradually replaced by newer legislation. For example, the requirements for each london taxi to carry a bale of hay is still on the books, but assumed not to be in force and replaced to newer legislation requiring cars to be in working order.
If somebody ever is tried under a law like this, then the case will get referred to the highest court in the land - the House of Lords - who will decide if the law should still be on the books. Bishops ("Lords Spiritual") make up 3-4% of the house of lords, so this is unlikely to be a huge problem.
The real issue here is the points lost during Ofsted inspections. No legislation is required to change this, only a change made by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The DfES person quoted is basically saying they can't be bothered.
Posted by: Puddock | September 23, 2007 1:43 PM
"That must create a fair number of atheists, since I think I would probably have reacted with some resentment if my school had shuffled me off to chapel every day, just on the general principle."
That's certainly how it worked for my son. He's an even more rabid atheist than I am after thirteen years being force-fed religion through school!
Posted by: raj | September 23, 2007 1:44 PM
Andere Laender, andere Sitten, as the Germans would put it. Other countries, other practices.
The fact appears to be, however, that the religious instruction has not resulted any increase in the number of contributing adult people in the pews in the UK. Quite to the contrary. Even in the UK, people are fleeing the Anglican church.
NB: there is religious instruction here in Germany in the public schools, for those who want it. That is, there are school periods set aside for people who want to attend. It's optional. The instructors are selected and paid by the respective religious institution.
In one hilarious incident reported only a few years ago, an instructor who had thentofore been teaching a Catholic class came out as a lesbian. The RCC fired her from her position. She was so popular an instructor that her students resigned en mass from the official course, and engaged her to continue teaching them.
Posted by: Zib | September 23, 2007 1:49 PM
Mitchell & Webb - should be compulsory viewing in school assemblies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o
Posted by: Rob | September 23, 2007 1:58 PM
As a relatively recent product of the British education system I recall much of our "indoctrination". Although I went to an officially Church of England school, it was also a super-selective state grammar school. Pair a population of unusually bright students with the typical British skepticism and you've got a tough audience for any "holy man".
Two things come to mind: Once my school paired up with the equivalent girls school for some form of RE conference. We all yawned through the majority of it until they stuck a fundamentalist down in the chair in front of us. We couldn't believe what this man was saying about women's rights, evolution etc and when he asked for questions, both sides were ripping into him about the fossil record, dna, human rights etc. Most of his answers were met with laughter and he left early. After that, that conference never took place again.
Due to our CoE status we were required to have a chaplain. Acutely aware that reading directly from the Bible wasn't going to get through to anyone he would quote frequently from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy apparently without any sense of irony with regards to the author.
Posted by: Ruth | September 23, 2007 2:04 PM
Referring to the idea that the law requiring Christian worship in schools is an achaic holdover akin to the requirement for taxis to carry a bale of hay, it is not as archaic as that. It is still one of the standard things that are checked by Ofsted in the school inspection, and the Ofsted report will state if a school is failing to meet the requirement, although nothing is ever done about it.
The law was actually debated in Parliament recently, and amended slightly. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from the act of worship, but children do not have the right to withdraw themselves. This included 'children' of 16, 17 and even 18 years of age. This was challenged under European human rights laws. Over 16s can now exempt themselves, but the law is still there.
Posted by: JamesR | September 23, 2007 2:06 PM
Zib
Good one. I have never seen that. Thank you.
Posted by: tacitus | September 23, 2007 2:12 PM
I am quite happy to tell any American Christian who is willing to listen that the surest way to turn the US into a secular nation is to put religion back into public schools.
I simply point to what's happened to church attendance in the UK over the past 30 years despite (or because of) the establishment of Christianity as the state religion.
There was no bigger waste of time than all the hundreds of school assemblies I had to attend over the years. Mind you, the RE teacher had the weirdest nickname for a teacher I've ever seen: "Fain". Never did find out how that started.
Posted by: palau | September 23, 2007 2:15 PM
This is something we British commenters and bloggers have discussed in Pharyngula's comments several times before so it's not new to this blog. Religion's role in UK politics and education is something British bloggers have written about at length - in fact I have a whole archive of posts on the topic.
Fundies are everywhere, you know - but of course, US religious nutters are always madder and more dangerous thah anyone else's, American exceptionalism being what it is.
Posted by: Fatherofsons | September 23, 2007 2:15 PM
I am reliably informed by several members of the sixth form (state school) in which I have had and still have sons that there would be a riot if there was any attempt to introduce any daily act of worship.
They don't see the point, since over 90% of the year is and has been for years past solidly atheist; and I must say I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality and depth of the discussions between them as they arrive at their opinion.
I say keep the regulation. I couldn't bear the sound of bishops bleating if anyone seriously suggested its repeal.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 23, 2007 2:20 PM
Now, apply this reasoning to the Pledge of Allegiance.Makes me wonder why more people don't call for it to be abolished so that children will become more patriotic.
Posted by: Kulvinder Matharu | September 23, 2007 2:22 PM
II grew up in the UK, and went to school in primary and secondary school in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
I remember the resentment felt by the majority of my other school mates who, like me, had come from an Indian heritage and had Muslim/Hindu/Sikh backgrounds and were FORCED to take part in Christian prayers and Christian choir singing at school assembly.
I'm surprised that there is still a legal requirement. I thought that this derogatory treatment in schools had stopped in the early 1980s, at least in my area.
As for myself, because I was exposed to a multitude of religions at an early stage and I began enquiring about each and their dogmas, histories, etc and investigating scientific processes and theories.
I began questioning everything and sought truth through an open mind but through reason (scientific processes) rather than through the irrationalities of superstition such as those espoused by religion and their blind faith.
So there, I survived!
Posted by: John McKay | September 23, 2007 2:27 PM
I share your aversion to groups with the word "Family" in their name. The religious right in this country has a history of taking over words and treating them as their personal property; family, values, life, are all ruined.
Posted by: Paul Schofield | September 23, 2007 2:43 PM
In primary school they probably just about managed that. So long as you accept hymns. And have a pretty broad definition of hymn.
I remember among the standard stuff, they managed to slip in 'Streets of London' at the end of assembly (the reserved hymn spot) fairly often, which is one of the few songs I had to learn that I still like. There was also a short round we frequently sang called 'Shalom' - there was not a single Jew in the school so it still seemed to count.
Secondary school, not a jot. The teacher we had for religious education (what of it there was) was often more interested in Buddhism than Christianity. We did have a maths teacher who was lapsed (atheist) Sikh and explained how she hid that she had cut her hair short from her parents over the video-phone. By sixth form, we had discussion classes with both the principle and head of sixth form where we discovered there was not a single Christian in the class, and neither man seemed phased.
Posted by: BaldApe | September 23, 2007 2:44 PM
Eldrich Anchovy:
That was a thing of beauty! too bad people react badly to very long email signatures.
Forcing people to make religious observances is guaranteed to make them resent it, and religion with it. I say go for it!
Posted by: stewart tonkin | September 23, 2007 2:47 PM
In scotland the only compulsory lesson is (or at least was) RE or religious education, subjects like maths, english and science were not required. I think the idea was to make sure everyone was a "good xtian" butI have never seen anything more likely to cause atheistic tendancy than this class
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 23, 2007 2:50 PM
What price disestablishmentarianism?
Posted by: Paul | September 23, 2007 3:03 PM
I'm a product of UK schools (CofE Assisted, no less), and after a stint in the US I'm back in the UK with two kids at the local primary. There is some obvious religion (the Nativity every year, and various teachings about what religion means), but the teacher I discussed it with was clear that it was not part of an attempt to convert anyway, not least because she's an atheist.
In our discussions I explained my opposition to the kids being taught faith (rather than about faith), and made it clear that if my kids were told that Christianity (or any other religion) was true I would explain that their teacher was a liar and not to be trusted. Good schools here are very keen on 'contracts' between school and home, so I think that this would make them think twice about pushing doctrine.
Posted by: Arcoddath | September 23, 2007 3:04 PM
Ha ha -- my kids are at a Roman catholic school here in Scotland and my 10-year-old son's already an avowed atheist and my daughter says she's the only girl in her class that doesn't like "the churchy bits".
Church is tied in to education in the UK but most state-run schools are fairly light-hearted about it, in my experience.
Posted by: literarydeadkittens | September 23, 2007 3:28 PM
I've heard an awful lot of "oh, that requirement's residual; it keeps both sides happy".
Well, I'm British. I grew up with that requirement, and now its affects my children. If its so bloody residual, then why haven't we tossed it out with the rest of the garbage?
Oh, of course! The Bishops in the House of Lords realise its the last foothold on the nation's children, with their lovely little minds, all open and brainwashable.
If they're attitude were any more self-serving, you could accuse them of egotism. As it is, they've gone beyond the art form into the realms of 'fuck everyone, we're right'.
My answer? Screw you hippy. Take off that dress, come down off your pedestal and join us in the real world, where 'opting out' means making your kid different in an arena where children have the mentality of pack animals.
Wankers.
Posted by: Stephen | September 23, 2007 3:30 PM
My recollections very much match those of Ian Spedding. It was just part of the daily routine. As to All Things Bright and Beautiful - the Monty Python verses are a watered-down version of what got sung in the back rows of our assembly hall. The "poor man at his gate" was certainly in our hymn books in 1969, but we normally only sang about three verses, not including that one.
Incidentally, not only is Religious Education a compulsory subject in British schools but, at least in the 1970's, it was the only compulsory subject!!
Posted by: Tanya | September 23, 2007 3:31 PM
I live in liberal Canada with the separation of church and state and I was forced to recite the Lord's prayer every morning. That was only 15 years ago in elementary school. That helped turn me to Atheism. The final blow was reading the Bible. What a horrible book!
Posted by: Buffybot | September 23, 2007 3:41 PM
NZ pretty much imported the British system. State schools secular, but with the occasional bit of carol-singing at Christmas. For my last two years of high school I went to a private Presbyterian girls' school, where every Thursday morning the chaplain would come to assembly in a purple dress and burble vaguely for half an hour. Most popular assembly to skip. That idiot's now a lecturer in Religious Studies at the university, and styles himself as an expert in Islamic terrorism.
#42 - my grandmother said the same thing - she became a staunch atheist after spending the 1920s in a Baptist orphanage. She said that she was a good girl when she went in, but that they were a pack of hypocrites who forced her to become a liar and a thief.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | September 23, 2007 4:05 PM
David Vitter? Did he write that bill before, after, or while he was being spanked, powdered and diapered by his friendly local Roxanne?
Posted by: fred | September 23, 2007 4:10 PM
Just noticed that you're using MS Comic Sans for creationist quotes. Finally, an appropriate use for that stupid font!
Posted by: Moses | September 23, 2007 4:38 PM
We have that problem here, in the Southern USA. We have constant First Amendment violations by the religious right. If we try to fight it, we'd get ostracized. So we basically have to shut up.
Posted by: baldur | September 23, 2007 5:12 PM
#8 is just about right when saying that we Icelanders must belong to the state-church. When a child is given a name it will be registered in the state church unless the parents direct otherwise.
I hate to have to admit that the new buisness concept; religion, is also making its way into our society with for example a 24/7 t.v. broadcast where silly looking people rave on whith testimonials and dooms-day preaching. Of course there is the constant banner running across the screen telling you where you can put your money to save your soal. Fill-in material is made up of American preacher-tapes and I would not be surprised if they receive money from the US to help fund themselves. The idiocity is on the rise and I´m sad to say that it seems to be getting more agressive.
"tristero" is wrong in assuming that the history of religion, in our more than 1100 years, has been calm. This country succumbed to Christianity in or about the year 1000 after threats and manipulation from a new king in Norway. He is usually known as Harald the fair hair but his name also lives on here as Haraldur lufa meaning "with the ragged unclean hair" So even though this country became Christian without a bloody fight. (Which, by the way, almost came to be.) Only a part of the population were Christian at the time. All kinds of consessions were made and the old heathens were able to practice their old ways. For your information I might add that these people referred to themselves as "Heathen" for this in old Norse (Icelandic) means clear or clean. The old Pagan religion seems not to have had big place in peoples minds. I am no specialist in these matters but it seems to have been more of a sy