Choose Your Religious Education

First they take away our Christmas parties, then they say that Creationalism is actually as acceptable as the Big Bang theory in science classes, and now they want to give children a choice to ignore other religions, but only if they are “of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding”.

I am truly tired of people throwing legislation regarding religion around in an attempt to make us a better place. They do it in America with their “Freedom of Religion” in the first amendment, and now here in the UK the Cross-Party Joint Committee on Human Rights has told the government that by ‘forcing’ children to take part in Religious Studies they may be breaching Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Let me first quote in full this article:

ARTICLE 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Now let me give a rough hint as to where I believe the Cross-Party Joint Committee on Human Rights can insert their idea for new legislation. It is the same part of their body that they appear to be thinking with.

The story appears on the Telegraph’s website and I can honestly say that I had a good laugh at some of the things said, well, I would have had I not found the words utterly appalling. The report reads:

“We recommend that the Government reconsiders its objection to permitting a child of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding to withdraw from religious education.”

And states that they believe in constitutes Article 9 by removing choice. I see that particular statement as slightly ironic, and also slightly discriminatory. I’m not sure whether I should start with the irony or the discrimination, but I think to best blow the argument out of the water the European Convention should be quoted first.

Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;

…

ARTICLE 1

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

So these articles are the ‘foundation of justice’ and apply to everyone. So when the nice people at the cross-party committee say that they are protecting this convention, they are lying. They are simply protecting the rights of those who are considered ‘intelligent’. And whose job will it be to decide on the intelligence of those pupils who wish to withdraw from lessons? I once held a discussion at school (Yet again, all these philosophical debates in school…) with a child who believed he was a Christian simply because when he was young he was Christened. He doesn’t believe in God, or Jesus, or any of the supernatural things Christians tend to believe in. Surely, somewhere here the education system is failing him. Is the fact he is attending these lessons on religious education simply confusing him more? Is this boy one of the people this new legislation should be protecting? The answers here are probably yes, however there is one problem. He will most likely not be considered ‘intelligent’ and ‘mature’ enough under this ruling as he suffers from dyslexia. But even if he were given the choice to miss these lessons, and I were given the chance to advise him I would probably urge him to keep up with these lessons.

As I mentioned in the Christmas story I was against the parents for withdrawing the children from lessons, and I gave some form of explanation here as well. I am a great believer in religious studies lessons as they actually help kids learn about more than just the religion of their parents, as some will. Mr. Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the NSS (National Secular Society) is, rather unsurprisingly, all in favour of this bid to get the government to legislate. He says “School children are a captive audience for both collective worship and religious education. For those of sufficient maturity to make up their own minds that they do not want to take part, as the law currently requires them to do, their human rights are clearly being violated.” He is, in my opinion, on the wrong end of a very distinctive stick with a large arrow saying “THIS IS THE END YOU WANT”. Why take children who are, by his own admission, mature enough to make their own decisions out of a lesson that will teach them facts about other religions and leave those who will be susceptible to things in? If anything you would wish to protect those who are more easily manipulated? Or perhaps he fears that children, if given an option, will change religion. Or am I just being too cynical?

Now, before I am accused of focusing on one small part of the bill, I will mention something that is also in there, and something that I agree with. The forcing of children to attend ‘collective worship’ or ‘religious assemblies’. When I was young, well younger, I went to a C of E primary school, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, and I would not trade in that education, and I did indeed attend religious assemblies, which may well have assisted by ‘Christian faith’.

Should a “Muslim child” (or more accurately a child of Muslim parents?) be forced to take part in a Christian assembly. Should a “Christian child” (Child of Christian parents?) be forced to sit in a Jewish collective worship? The answer is no, but similarly should any child, of any faith be in an assembly with religious intent? Should the assembly perhaps be about them, and what is affecting them as they are growing up?

One thing that struck me when I moved from my C of E primary school to a non-religious secondary was the difference in assemblies. I wasn’t against them, in fact I may well have learnt more from them than I would from seven years of singing hymns and praising a sky fairy God.

“The best situation would be the replacement of the law requiring religious worship with a law requiring inclusive assemblies that would be suitable for all children.” That from Andrew Copson, the British Humanist Association’s Director of Education and Public Affairs, That is what I want to hear, but why did it not come from the NSS or the Cross-Party Committee?

Parents should not be withdrawing their children from Religious Education Lessons, Children themselves should not either. Equally schools should not be forcing children down a certain religious path. Here is my non-expert advice to the government.

Keep religion in school, but in a purely educational, not participatory way. Let a child chose their own religion, give them the facts about other religions so that they may make their own decisions. But above all, do not listen to the recomendations of a committee who simply wish to protect the rights of ‘mature and intelligent’ people, because they clearly have no concept of the term ‘human rights’.

MTFBWY