Has anyone withdrawn their child from collective worship?

I can't comment on this case because I know too little to judge but the assumption in general that the complainant is in the right if the school caves in is simplistic. I have 8 relatives who have worked lifelong in education and having discussed the subject often from nursery to tertiary education educational institutions routinely fold even when they are the right because it's easier.
 
PlacidCasual said:
I can't comment on this case because I know too little to judge but the assumption in general that the complainant is in the right if the school caves in is simplistic. I have 8 relatives who have worked lifelong in education and having discussed the subject often from nursery to tertiary education educational institutions routinely fold even when they are the right because it's easier.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Which is the point I'm making. To assume the OP is in the right is wrong.
 
Dis86 said:
All I'm saying is we have one obviously biased point of view and series of events. To take that as gospel (ha!) would be foolish.
Click to expand...

I'm not taking his POV as gospel I'm just dealing with the facts presented and have stated twice now that his POV is irrelevant to what I've posted.

You could, because you seem to want to, assume the unlikely scenario given each of those facts... that the resignation of both parties who were obstructing this was pure chance, that the solicitor was dodgy and that the local authority settled in spite of being in the right (given that they seem to be happy to fight other rather trivial issues such as fines for taking kids on holiday during term time I'm not sure this is a reasonable assumption). So yes it is possible that you can explain away all three of those independent facts but it seems rather less likely than not that all three are as you'd want them to be. Especially, as we know, that the OP's request was one that the school is supposed to adhere to and we also know from earlier in the thread that he's documented the difficulty he'd had in getting the request approved - the requests for more meetings etc.. which only serve to waste his time further as he's made a legitimate request.
 
dowie said:
I'm not taking his POV as gospel I'm just dealing with the facts presented and have stated twice now that his POV is irrelevant to what I've posted.

You could, because you seem to want to, assume the unlikely scenario given each of those facts... that the resignation of both parties who were obstructing this was pure chance, that the solicitor was dodgy and that the local authority settled in spite of being in the right (given that they seem to be happy to fight other rather trivial issues such as fines for taking kids on holiday during term time I'm not sure this is a reasonable assumption). So yes it is possible that you can explain away all three of those independent facts but it seems rather unlikely and is really clutching at straws.
Click to expand...

I've never stated the solicitor was dodgy, I've stated that they took on a case. Of course a solicitor will take on a case - like I said, when something goes to court there is always 1 losing party. So that means in any court case a solicitor has taken on the losing sides argument. They get paid either way. I've been taken on as an expert witness in a case that the side I was the witness for lost. I still got paid.

I'm not assuming any scenario and things you're presenting as facts aren't necessarily facts. The solicitor taking on the case, as I've explained is a completely moot point! The LA settling to make someone shut up and go away is not an admission of fault. We know the OP was kicking up a stink so they had to take some action. Put yourself in their shoes, what would you do? Potentially lengthy, expensive and from a PR perspective horrendous legal case or small amount of compo and someone shuts up and sods off? Honestly - tell me you can't see the daily mail sadface if this went to court!
Again like I said, if the head was so terrible why weren't they sacked?
 
Dis86 said:
I've never stated the solicitor was dodgy, I've stated that they took on a case. Of course a solicitor will take on a case - like I said, when something goes to court there is always 1 losing party. So that means in any court case a solicitor has taken on the losing sides argument. They get paid either way. I've been taken on as an expert witness in a case that the side I was the witness for lost. I still got paid.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that solicitors don't lose, obviously one side has to lose if it goes as far as court, but the point is that his solicitor has clearly thought that he has a case worth pursuing whereas the local authority (presumably after taking some legal advice) have decided it is worth both settling and adhering to the request. Combine that with the resignations of the head teacher and the governor and it really doesn't seem likely that the OP was in the wrong here.

I'm not assuming any scenario and things you're presenting as facts aren't necessarily facts. The solicitor taking on the case, as I've explained is a completely moot point!
Click to expand...

not really, if the OP had no grounds from which to take any action and the school was perfectly reasonable then most solicitors would advise him of that - it seems pretty clear that the OP's request was a legitimate one that was at least worth pursuing and was being frustrated by the school

The LA settling to make someone shut up and go away is not an admission of fault. We know the OP was kicking up a stink so they had to take some action. Put yourself in their shoes, what would you do? Potentially lengthy, expensive and from a PR perspective horrendous legal case or small amount of compo and someone shuts up and sods off? Honestly - tell me you can't see the daily mail sadface if this went to court!
Click to expand...

yet LAs are quite happy to go all the way legally on plenty of other legal matters - like school uniform policy/religious dress:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4311193.stm (this went all the way to the court of appeal)

like fines for taking kids on holiday in term time:

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...rm-time-holidays-jon-platt-unauthorised-break (this went all the way to the Supreme Court)

Again like I said, if the head was so terrible why weren't they sacked?
Click to expand...

That is something that we can only speculate on - plenty of people 'resign' when forced out, it is rather common for senior people in plenty of organisations to be offered the opportunity to resign. Again bit of a coincidence to have both resignations at the same time just a week before this went further + the settlement.

And again - we already know that the request was a legitimate one he is entitled to make, if the school simply adhered to his request then they'd not have had this issue in the first place. Presumably it is in an all white/Christian area as they ought to have provision already in place for this sort of thing should they have say muslim/jewsih/etc.. kids attend.
 
I obviously respect all of your views, but would suggest that anyone with doubts reads the relevant sections of the Education Reform Act - specifically the parts which define the difference between collective worship and assemblies (the law clearly defines these as separate things, even if one may directly follow the other).

I would hope that after doing so you would agree that the school attempted little more than blackmail by threat of ostracisation in order to dissuade us.

As people have suggested, we live in a small, almost exclusively white village. I hope urban schools would react somewhat differently!
 
dowie said:
plenty of people 'resign' when forced out, it is rather common for senior people in plenty of organisations to be offered the opportunity to resign.
Click to expand...

What i have observed is that in most cases people are given the option to just resign as it has less paperwork ( i assume) , these were not senior people at all, not even close, some of them are barely more than minimum wage...
 
I'm disgusted by some of the replies in this thread and now understand a lot of the disguised racism on here and other social media sites.
I'm 100% atheist but I wanted me and my kids to learn about the World and how to act around different cultures but it's clear some posters have no idea what's taught in class nowadays.
I also remind myself that as an atheist I am in a minority where the majority believe in some kind of God.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I'm disgusted by some of the replies in this thread and now understand a lot of the disguised racism on here and other social media sites.
I'm 100% atheist but I wanted me and my kids to learn about the World and how to act around different cultures but it's clear some posters have no idea what's taught in class nowadays.
I also remind myself that as an atheist I am in a minority where the majority believe in some kind of God.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, hence the desire to keep them in fact based Religious Education - understanding what (and why) other cultures do is important.

Not sure you are in a minority being non religious any more:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-no-religion-british-social-attitudes-survey
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I'm disgusted by some of the replies in this thread and now understand a lot of the disguised racism on here and other social media sites.
I'm 100% atheist but I wanted me and my kids to learn about the World and how to act around different cultures but it's clear some posters have no idea what's taught in class nowadays.
I also remind myself that as an atheist I am in a minority where the majority believe in some kind of God.
Click to expand...

I'm all for tolerance and "live and let live", but there are many aspects you should question.

You shouldn't believe that the majority believe in some kind of God; for example, in America you wouldn't get very far as a public figure slating the Almighty, so you might as well go with the flow for your own sanity.

Who's doing the survey? Is it a) I believe in God b) I believe in some form of God c) One of the first 2 answers. No one's ever asked me.

And for things like circumcision. I can't fathom why people think the Lord is fantastic, but I'm just going to snip the end of my son's penis off, because his design wasn't quite there..

I liken these things to owning an Ant Farm. You set one up, they'll be ants that divide and conquer, they'll be ants that may choose to wear a leaf on their head. You'd very unlikely to intervene. I doubt you'd be that fussed if they didn't prey to you.

And then again, people have done amazing things as their faith has led them there which shows power of sorts.

Jesus healed a blind man. In this day and age, we realise that there are several types of blindness.
http://www.healthline.com/symptom/blindness
Bring this up in RE and see what Teach says. Hypertensive Retinopathy can be treated by a change in diet. Maybe this is what the bible was getting at?

As for RE, if you can stick around. Put some questions tactfully across and hopefully realise, that the more we integrate, the more we'll get tasty foods and realise that we won't get struck down for eating a bacon sandwich, except maybe for a heart attack in our 50s.

What we have to accept is that Jesus would have been more of an Intel and Nvidia man.
 
chris.tarry85 said:
We have an awful C of E rector at the moment - the full telling 5 year old to repent their sins, burning in hell speech.

He has, in the course of a year changed our daughter from regularly (of her own free will) going to a lunchtime JAM club (Jesus & Me) to thinking that God is scary!

I therefore want to withdraw them from the church led worship, but leave them in the teacher led RE classes to ensure they get a balanced view of other religions too.

Has anyone done this before?
Click to expand...

Why be associated with any religion that scares little children now or in the past.

It is in the title of the post, collective worship. Why would a god care in the first place? Only a conceited god would want little kids to worship them.

Why not teach them science, philosophy. How to think rationally.

I don't care one bit what adults do with their work/leisure time but don't teach this nonsense to children who know no better and believe anything adults tell them. If religion is so good then let them reach the age of reason unmolested and let them decide for themselves.
 
@chris.tarry85 great result. Well done for sticking to your guns and standing up to those sanctimonious, bigoted bullies. I'm sure you were made out to be nothing but a trouble maker every step of the way, it's how this brain washing has endured for millennia. Fortunately, we live in a great country where you can challenge and overcome things like this. Unfortunately, judging by some of the comments in here we still have a way to go yet.
 
I don't understand the people saying that removing children from RE/worship/bible club at school is removing choice. Surely it's the opposite? You were forcing them/allowing them to be forced to learn through a Christian/other perspective, and by removing them from that you're allowing them the opportunity to make a rational decision at a later date. Personally I'd close down all religious schools and make it illegal to subject children to any religion (except from a factual perspective, taught as part of the history curriculum perhaps). I suspect we'd end up with a vastly non-religious population within a generation or so, for the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom