School assembly

This is the third of my pieces on religion.

There is still more. Since I wrote the last two pieces on this subject, the Secretary of State for Education has announced a review of the national requirements for the teaching of religious education in state schools. His statement comes in response to those who have long complained that the teaching of religious matters in many schools is inadequate.

Inadequate? By whose standards? Is it really true that children are given too little exposure to Christianity? (Recently a parent expressed to me her view that my class of ten and eleven year olds should be taught in more detail about the Bible. When I asked her why, she said, "Because we are Christians.") Is it also true that too little is taught about other major religions? I think not.

Since the Education Act (1944) every local education authority has been legally responsible for the provision of an agreed syllabus for religious education. These documents are given automatic legal status, and consequently every school managed by the publishing authority is bound by their terms. National requirements include a daily act of worship which must be "wholly or mainly of a Christian nature" together with some timetabled teaching.

I have taught for six years in Hertfordshire. The county guidelines for RE are detailed and comprehensive. They cater more than adequately for Christianity; major world religions, and other aspects such as reverence for nature etc., and being nice to one another. County advisers and inspectors are employed to assist schools in the effective delivery of the material. The syllabus itself was drawn up by a team of educationalists and others with considerable relevant experience. Why is it now deemed inadequate?

Part of the answer lies with the Christian lady quoted above. Interviews with parents such as she are not uncommon. Almost unheard of are conversations like this (unfortunately fictitious) one.

"I think you should teach your class nothing about the Bible."

"Why do you say that?"

"Because we are atheists."

Am I correct in assuming that you do not find this state of affairs surprising? It is accepted, is it not, that the Christian lady has a valid point (or at least one which will cause numerous heads to nod) while the fictitious atheist is out of line? After all, the law requires that schools teach Christianity, but says nothing about the views of atheists. It is almost as if their point of view were somehow less worthy than that of religious advocates.

But maybe the atheist has a genuine concern for the welfare of her child. Perhaps she has considered the matter of religious education at great length, and has come to the conclusion that it does positive harm to developing minds. Maybe she is unhappy for her child to be exposed to the attractive and superficially plausible, but woefully inaccurate, ideas contained within the Bible about the universe and man's place in it. Doubtless she would rather her child be allowed to develop free from such influences, until said child reaches a level of experience whereby he or she may make in-depth evaluative judgements. If, at such a time, the child decides that Christianity is a realistic option, then so be it.

What of the Christian parent's viewpoint? Why is she not happy to follow the example of the atheist? After all, the atheist is not advocating any kind of conditioning or indoctrination. She is not asking that Christianity be vilified or criticised in any way. She is simply asking that it be omitted from her child's education in its early years. Clearly the Christian finds this unacceptable. After all, she has said as much. Not only does she want a staple diet of Christianity for her child (and all of its classmates); she wants the input level increased over and above that already required by the law.

The Christian parent is asking that a group of children be made to study the Bible. The Bible is a highly persuasive document, employing all manner of tricks intended to train the reader toward a particular way of thinking. Children are extremely receptive individuals. Lacking in knowledge and experience, they nonetheless thirst for information, and never tire of asking questions designed to determine the limits of the world (how long, how high, what's the fastest, etc.). A set of beliefs such as that laid out in the Bible instantly answers a good many of those questions. Therefore we cannot escape the conclusion that the Christian parent wishes such ideas to be placed in children's minds.

It seems incredible that the law, in a democratic country such as this, should support those who advocate indoctrination. Even though the number of actively religious people is declining, public sympathy as reflected in the media still takes the Christian parent's side. It is considered acceptable for an adult to stand in front of a group of children and argue powerfully for the existence of God. It is far less acceptable for an adult to argue before an audience of children that belief in God is an unnecessary anachronism which serves to hamper our understanding and appreciation of the wonderful world in which we live.

Last month I witnessed a school assembly at which the vice chairman of the school governors addressed a group of children who were about to transfer to secondary education. This is an extract from his speech which will live in my memory for a very long time.

"You may or may not believe in God. I do. He has given you that choice."

As I was sitting at the back of the room, no-one (with the possible exception of the speaker) can have noticed my open mouthed incredulity. The learned old fellow was arguing, quite seriously, that atheism is explained by the divine gift of free will. Not can be explained; or might be explained: is explained. He may as well have said, "God exists. If you don't believe in him then you are wrong. I believe in him so I must be right." If this is not indoctrination, then I am at a loss to know what is.

Some may argue that parents such as my fictitious atheist could, if unhappy with the teaching their child receives about the Bible, withdraw said child from religious education lessons. Surely, then, the parent would be happy? I think not. How many of the child's classmates would also be withdrawn? I contend that few parents would have thought about the matter in the same depth as did the imaginary lady, while more than a few would find, if honest with themselves, that they shared her reservations about the usefulness of religious teaching. Most would take no action because they would not wish their child to stand out from its peers. The results of undue attention drawn to children are all too well known. Others become curious about, and even jealous of, the perceived asymmetry between themselves and the child who does not have to go to RE lessons. The right of withdrawal will become effective only when exercised by a majority of parents. I hope that we will not have to wait for long.

Much, if not all, of the current moaning about religious education comes from Christians, unhappy that more time is not devoted to misleading and confusing children by means of myth held up as fact. Why is it that these people have an axe to grind? Could it be that for some reason they feel that it is better for children to be educated in a Christian way than in some other way? Perhaps they know, against the better judgement of other parents, what is best for every child. If you are a parent, and you are unhappy about the current status of religious education in schools, then for heaven's sake say so. If you take this advice, and if you look forward to the day when seemingly plausible, seductive lies will no longer be spread with the blessing of the law, then I assure you that you will be in good company.