UKC

by a new teaching assistant (6 months into the job) that a "good example" of a non-fiction book was the Bible.

Now, I'm not religious at all, people can be as religious as they want but I'm less than happy about this as are at least another 10 parents (that I've spoken to) with children in the same class.

The school is not a religious school of any kind, they are not taught RE (if indeed it still exists?) and I'm a little bewildered that someone in a teaching position thinks it is ok to say such a thing.

Now regardless of what other people on the forum may think, as I'm sure some will think it is acceptable to say such a thing, I think is is "holy" (bad pun intended) unacceptable I'm pretty livid and have volunteered myself as a spokesperson for the parents so what's the best way to go about it?

I'm planning on having a word with the headmistress first thing tomorrow but I don't want to go over the top but I do want to make sure the TA doesn't suggest such a thing in the future which I think is a very reasonable request.

Over to the UKC massive for views and "discussion"

PS, I'm aware that at this time of the year they will be doing a nativity play but im sure they haven't been informed that this is "exactly" what happened all those years ago, I mean it can't be true as my daughter is playing a dinosaur in the nativity this year. (Blasphemy comments welcomed)

In reply to Denni:

Given that any school is obliged to ply your child with a certain amount of religion doctrine, I suspect you won't get very far.

In reply to Denni:
You could contact the Humanist Association for helpful advice/pointers before going in and grumbling?

https://humanism.org.uk/

In reply to Denni:

Apart from the fact that its a fairly extreme religious position (most Christians do not take the bible verbatim) At the very least, there's an assumption that your daughter would come from a Christain family. Would she say that to every child? What about, oh, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc.

In reply to Denni:

The TA is almost certainly acting autonomously and in isolation; although I doubt that she's acting with any real agenda - you or I might casually have suggested Classic Rock, given *our* interests - schools are generally very sensitive to stuff like this.

Have a really, really informal word with the Head - informal to the point where it doesn't register on the paperwork. This will produce a much better response than a bigger fuss, as it'd be easy to deal with. Nobody needs to be offended.

In reply to Denni:

What are you talking about? The Bible *is* a good example of a non-fiction book.

PS. That wasn't a good example of a pun. You should have used the word 'wholly'.

PPS. I believe it is a legal requirement that schools provide RE.

In reply to Denni:

How old is the kid? They sometimes get the wrong impression, although if the numbers are there that adds some sense to what your child has said.

Primary schools are full of Christians doing this stuff, I would put something in writing to the head and if you're really concerned copy the Governors in.

Without a written complaint the Head will feel their hands are tied as to what action they can take ( if the TA kicks up a fuss they have no evidence a parent spoke to them).

In reply to Martin not maisie:



This^

Or let this one fly, unless it was a science or history class. If it becomes regular then perhaps something more formal should be done.

In reply to Denni:

Do you think other people may have been upset if she described it as a fiction book? Just let it slide she doesn't deserve a headache over such a trivial comment.

In reply to Martin not maisie

Speaking as an ex-Head I always preferred the informal approach and certainly never felt my hands were tied without a formal letter. Involving the Governors at this stage would almost certainly be counter-productive and hinder the Head from acting quickly and quietly. Keep it as friendly and personal as possible.

In reply to Denni:

In fairness unless you're a really militant atheist its surely not such a big deal. You could just explain to your daughter why some people might think its a work of non fiction but why you think it isn't and she'll bit a bit better equipped to cope with the world and its strange inconsistencies.
Its quite possible the TA has had very little training and may well not be that well educated (have you seen what they get paid?) and probably won't have been on the equity and diversity course yet It was almost certainly a spur of the moment comment and not part of some religious agenda.
If you really can't let it pass a quiet word would almost certainly resolve the matter most easily.

In reply to Denni:

Send a copy of Lance Armstrong's Auto Biography to the TA as a Christmas Present with the words "This is also a good example of a non-fiction book".



and then think no more about it. In the big scheme of things it isn't really a massive issue is it?

Just chat it through with your child

In reply to Denni:

Hi all,
thanks for the comments, appreciate it.

I'm fairly objective with most things and part of me thinks being a "new school parent" (daughter is only 5 and in year 1) that this is probably fairly trivial and the TA has done nothing harmless but, it has still annoyed me.

So right course of action is a mellow approach and forget it, totally agree :0)

In reply to Denni:

Schools are legally require to compel the children to worship the Christian's god on every school day. (Unless you've asked to exempt your child.)

By that standard, saying the Bible is "non-fiction" seems pretty mild.

In reply to Denni:


Do you think it's fiction, then? E.g. the Old Testament's full of history, isn't it? Just asking!!

In reply to Denni:

It's completely unacceptable for self nominated missionaries to come into school and do this. Make your feelings know to the head. Just that. Otherwise the next logical step for the TA is to start on creationism.

In reply to Denni: depending on the authority the training assistant may have very little training, and may not have thought this through fully. I would also suggest a quiet but firm approach.


But I wouldn't let it ride. You don't know what's coming next

In reply to Denni:

Speaking as an atheist, if asked to categorise it as fiction or non-fiction. I'd probably have put it on the non-fiction pile too. Ditto the Koran. Let it go, it's not worth falling out over at this stage.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I agree - the Bible is a hugely influential piece of literature in English culture, regardless of what your religious beliefs are. The language of the King James Version is every bit as inspirational as Shakespeare's works, with which it was contemporaneous. The question of whether to categorise it as fiction or non-fiction should be the subject of an intelligent debate, not of a PC witch-hunt.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I agree. The content of the Bible, regardless of whether one has any sort of religious belief, is largely historical and full of interesting nuggets. I don't think the teacher would have been saying that 'god exists' any more than saying that he (she?) doesn't- more likely just saying that it's not a work akin to The Hobbit or Tracy Beaker...

In reply to Siward: Personally I would put it in the fiction category, unless you believe that there was a boat large enough to carry two of every animal with enough food and room to keep prey and hunters apart, never mind creating a woman out of a man’s rib.

In reply to Neil R:


Would you put a mediaeval treatise on medicine in the 'fiction' category because we now know that Galen's "four humours" have no foundation in modern science?

In reply to Neil R:

Did the TA definitely know what 'fiction' and 'non-fiction' mean?

In reply to Andy Morley:


And I agree with this - while it's not exactly a classic of the 'non fiction' genre, the Bible, not like the Guinness book of records or Dr Johnson's dictionary or Peak Bouldering, it's not really as good a piece of fiction as Wuthering Heights or even Richard III. It's true that the King James has better wordiness than before, I suppose. They're a bit of a niche category these religious (hi)story texts I suppose.

In reply to Andy Morley: I don't doubt it has some historical basis but the central concept takes some believing. I'm sure that certain events could have occurred - parting of the Red Sea caused by a Tsunami / earthquake (take your choice) but doubt it was due to a man pointing a stick.

In reply to Denni:

I'd also put it in the fiction pile. But given that it has even started a discussion on the merits of its fictional/historical status suggests it isn't a 'good' example of a non-fiction book.

I don't suppose a quiet word with the head would do much harm.

In reply to Neil R:


Sure, but to take it at face value and then to refute it is anachronistic. By modern standards it's a wholly unbelievable account of events but at the time (or 'times' because it was written over thousands of years) it was a hugely successful explanation of troubling phenomena. The fact that our early attempts to understand the universe and human life through fable don't work in the same way in the modern era in no way takes away from their significance at the time they were writtin and subsequently popularised.

In reply to Denni:

I would class it as non-fiction. It's an historic account, it doesn't mean it has to be entirely factual. But yeah I'd say its non-fiction, however its not a good example as its confusing.

In reply to sg:

This is most likely the problem... I've had the odd TA in the past that was more of a hindrance than a help. They're often not that qualified and pass on misconceptions that they believe to be true. Often it's been like having another child in the class!

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Yep. It's an interesting question and possibly a false division. As a statement of what Christians choose to believe, it's fact. As a historical account, all but the most literalist Christians would have to admit it isn't. Even as one without any faith I'd struggle with the 'fiction' label.

Depending on the age of your child, I would explain to them that they will meet people who believe all sorts of stuff throughout their life, and in the end it will be up to them to listen to the arguements and come to their own opinion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/11/government-confirms-collective-wo...

I can't remember the last time I was in an assembly that was particularly religious (we did have what Hindus do for Diwali this week, but that certainly not an act of worship, just an explanation of the traditions by some of the students and teachers that celebrate. )

I would think the TA isn't supposed to be discussing her views, and should probably be getting on with helping the children. A quiet word with the head is called for.

In reply to Denni:


It's more important to have a word about this, while looking for a different school.

In reply to Denni:

I hope the dinosaur isn't going to be scary and eat the baby?!

As far as I know RE is comparative religions rather than anything else.

In reply to Denni:

My response would largely depend upon the TAs motivation.

If they're just a bit clueless, a quiet word with the head.

If they're actively and intentionally pushing a belief system then I'd hit the nuclear button.

Impossible to judge from one instance filtered through a child's observation and memories.

Make a note, take no other action and see what comes up in the future.

In reply to Kipper:

At 5 I think reading is probably more important. And sums.

In reply to JIMBO:

I have a TA at the moment that keeps saying "I learnt so much in your lesson today". I have set 10. We are doing Maths that I would expect an average 6 or 7 year old to find straightforward. It is a bit of a worry. Thankfully my main TA is amazing.

In reply to marsbar:


Coerced worship is still legally required, even if large swathes of schools ignore the law, and even if the government turns a blind eye to that.

In reply to Denni:

I can't remember the last time I met anyone that claimed to be religious.
Let alone someone that would try to suggest their views to anyone else.

I wouldn't want my kids learning anything about religion other than 'look at how much this silliness has held back progress, tolerance and caused so much trouble.' id be pissed if the school was wasting an hour a week teaching them fairytales for any other reason than learning how to structure prose.
Have a word with the head, and hopefully the TA just misspoke rather than anything insidious.

In reply to mark_wellin:

I don't think learning about religions is wasted, there's a difference between that and religious coercion though.

However I think the TA was broadly right in that it's non-fiction, it's a poor example as traditionally we link facts and non-fiction but there are plenty of biographies and autobiographies which stray..

I think just have a quiet word and give her the benefit of the doubt. 5 year olds won't know if that many books, never mind non-fictions to put things into context.. And neither will most TAs. It's more than likely an innocent mistake or rather just a poor example than an actual mistake.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I would be happy if it was removed but its not having much impact.

In reply to Denni:

I'd let it go this once but if those tw*ts so much as mention Farther Christmas I'd fire bomb the gaff.

In reply to JIMBO:


I didn't like to say it but, quite!

I'm impressed this topic is generating so much steam with talk of nuclear buttons and the like. Most of us working in schools have more than enough to keep us busy without worrying about calling out a SWAT team for a slightly misplaced comment!

In reply to Denni:

It's a really bad example to choose really.

"The Bible" is actually a collection of 66 books all of different sub genres. Including letters etc.

I don't think it warrants complaint, it's neither fiction nor non-fiction.

It's a theological text book for study.

In reply to Denni:

The Bible is in the non-fiction genre because the *authors* believe they are telling a true story and present it with the intention that the reader accepts it as the truth. It's a question of writing style not whether the content is actually true.

In reply to Stig:

Perhaps it is an example of a non-fiction book, but it is a very poor example. The term 'non-fiction' more usually means something factual. Some parts of the book are fairly accurately described by the term 'fiction' while the whole thing doesn't fall under the literary category of 'fiction'.

So, it's a great example of a book which doesn't fit easily into either category, 'fiction' nor 'non-fiction'; what it's a *good* example of is a Holy Book.

As for the issue itself: who is the TA's line manager? Might be worth an informal word with them, if they will see the point, as I'm not certain there is such a thing as an informal word with the head.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The Old Testament is not even that. (You can't be serious.) It's a quite unpleasant, tedious and dubious 'history' overlain with much mythology. And some brilliance (E.g. the Book of Job ... which might as well be fiction - it doesn't matter.)

In reply to Denni:
F**k me. As religious indoctrination goes it's not exactly being brainwashed by the scientologists is it? It's probably some off the cuff remark by a teaching assistant with an NVQ Level 1 in 'books and shit'. But yes, crack on, hound the evil bitch out of a job.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yeah a better example would have been a Brief History of Time or anyone of a myriad of other non-fiction books a five year old would be familiar with

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm slowly coming around to your thinking on this one..

Now I'm living in the U.S. It really worries me how much religion is pushed, when it shouldn't be here.

But especially in the poor uneducated areas, even in the NE, it's pushed on students.

I do think we should fairly much fully separate church and state once and for all. I'm all for some religious schools, even some state funding for them, and I'm certainly for religious education, but the churches should find them more.

In reply to Ridge:

No one is saying hound her out of a job, they are saying have a quiet word.

In reply to Ridge:


That made me laugh out loud. Thanks

In reply to marsbar:


I was being slightly facetious

However for a teaching assistant, (i.e not a trained teacher), only 6 months into the job I'd put it down to a lapse of judgement in trying to explain something to a 5 year old unless it happened again. Sadly it doesn't take much for a 'quiet word' to snowball into something much more serious if the head starts panicking about offending other religions or a visit from the dreaded OFSTED.

In reply to Ridge:


Bang on, and thanks for cutting to the chase. I found this thread really depressing. We're well used to closed-mindedness from traditional religious people, like the ones in the States who want to ban Harry Potter books. I didn't realise how far the same mentality is spreading with 'atheists' who want to ban any mention of the Bible. It strikes me that atheism is just another weirder form of religion really and they all just want to ban each other.

Is this a home-grown UK version of intolerance or is it an example of creeping Americanisation? In the States they have people called 'Liberals' who are every bit as bigoted and intolerant as the religious right who they see as their arch-enemies. Did we invent the sort of stuff that's in this thread all by ourselves or did we just import it from America along with MacDonalds and KFC?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


We don't really know that. Or, at least, that's true of some parts of it. But many parts could easily have been written as allegories. The book of Job is one example.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Nobody in this thread, atheist or otherwise, has suggesting banning mentioning the bible. So it's you inventing stuff.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Did anyone suggest that? Oh, no, they didn't. A lot of measured calmness and less action have suggested to the OP.

I myself mentioned escalation, but only if future actions by the TA showed them to be intentionally pushing religion and I suggested doing nothing now.

Being unhappy at a person in a position of authority pushing one of many logically incompatible views as truth (so on the balance of probability they are either lying or deluded, even before consideration is given to the content) is not the same as wanting any mention of the bible banned.

Nobody I read on this thread has called for banning the bible, indeed many different contexts for its discussion have been suggested.

You appear to be arguing against some ghosts of your imagination.

In reply to Denni:
You could set fire to a large wooden cross outside the school.

Actions speak louder than words.


In reality though I'd mention it to the head, but very low key.

As for RE, along with French, I hated it and couldn't see the point of it when I had to do it.

Now I think any knowledge is is good knowledge, if you can understand where another persons thoughts and action might stem from or be influenced by then all the better. Knowing something about another persons beliefs is like knowing a little about their language, it helps to break down barriers and create friendships.

This obviously depends on the type of RE being taught, my daughter is being taught the main ideas behind the major religions and some information about ancient religions too Aztec Etc.

In reply to Denni:

I'm not sure I see the problem, the Bible is a good example of a non-fiction book. On the other hand it's not exactly age appropriate reading material for a 5 year old.

I'm pretty sure the school should be providing some RE material by law. As an atheist I don't see anything wrong with that so long as it's tackled appropriately.
jk

In reply to Sir Chasm:


They may not have said that directly perhaps, but this 'quiet word with the head' that several people are touting, what would that involve? What exactly are you all proposing should be said in that 'quiet word'..?

And even if the quiet words are also a bit vague as well as being quiet, what's the head's likely response going to be? Either s/he is going to mouth a few mealy plattitudes while internally shrugging his/her shoulders and ignore you (also quietly), or they will decide they'd better do something about it if the quiet people rattle him/her enough. And if they do end up doing something about it, what are they likely to do? Devise and implement a subtle and varied RE strategy to match the complex needs of modern Britain and train all the TAs in how to respond 'correctly'..? Or just have a 'quiet word' with the teachers and assistants telling them not to mention the Bible or religion at parents' evenings?

My money would be on the latter.

In reply to krikoman:


Agreed. Although some people on here seem to think that you'd be better off telling them that their beliefs are silly superstitions, probably throwing in a few references to "invisible friends" and "sky faries" for good measure, at which point they'll immediately see the error of their ways and join you in your rationalist utopia.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Nobody has even come close to it, you've made it up. The quiet word would be along the lines of "the bible might not be the best example of a non fiction book, can you think of another option?".
Again, nobody is suggesting banning mention of the bible, you're making that up.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Another person reading things not said on the thread, where actually people are cautioning against reading to much into the actions of the TA. Looks like you've got it backwards, no?

Myself, I don't want insulting of religions in schools, a balanced comparative presentation that doesn't abuse a position of authority over young minds to push one view as fact is all I would like.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Or the third option?

Tell you to go away, stop wasting their time and do some research.

In reply to Denni:

i would 100% say something

it might be the thin end of the wedge for her trickling in her twisted vision of the world,stop it before your kids start to believe it

In reply to wintertree:


"I wouldn't want my kids learning anything about religion other than 'look at how much this silliness has held back progress, tolerance and caused so much trouble.' id be pissed if the school was wasting an hour a week teaching them fairytales for any other reason than learning how to structure prose."

FWIW I'd say that if they were doing a "lets name some examples of non-fiction books" thing and someone suggested the Bible after I Am Zlatan Ibrahimovich and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and they gave them a tick and a "well done" then that'd be fine. If someone asked for a non-fiction book to read and they suggested reading the Bible to find out the truth about Our Lord Jeebus then yeah, quiet word with the head, please don't do that again.

In reply to Denni:

Doesn't every child need to know that 'non-fiction' books can be twaddle? It is far more worrying to imagine a child believing all things in the 'non-fiction' section are in any way accurate!

My kid's school is trying to convince them a dragon has laid an egg in the playground. Munchkin is currently persuaded by some spurious evidence. I sent her to school today with a shed snake skin and jewellery eye glass to compare the 'scale' they found with a real scale. We also talked about what happens' when 'everyone' believes something. I don't really 'get' parental desire for offspring to be protected from false belief, they will be surrounded by it and it's how they discern it that counts.

In reply to Denni:

Wow! this happened to one of the Num Num children at a school book event and the TA showed a Jamie Oliver cook book and said it was a good example of non fiction.
Three of the children in the class have converted to Pastafarianism and regularly attend the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Folk can never be too careful.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


So you seriously think that it's worth complaining to a head, quietly or otherwise, because someone disagrees with a teaching assistant's classification of a work of literature?

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that the head would interpret it that way. They'd much more likely conclude that it was an argument over religion and if they took it seriously, they'd tell their TAs to steer clear of that subject. What you fail to grasp is that even though the complainers might not overtly be asking for that, all the same, it's the most likely outcome. If you're going to approach the organ grinder about the monkey, it usually pays to have a pretty good idea as to why you're doing that, what your message is and what is likely to happen as a result.

Check out the story of Chicken Licken. This scenario is as old as the hills:
"As Chicken-licken was going one day to the wood, whack! an acorn fell from a tree on to his head.
'Gracious goodness me!' said Chicken-licken, 'the sky must have fallen; I must go and tell the King.'"
http://fairytales4u.com/story/chicken.htm

In reply to Andy Morley:


Actually no, I think the parent could explain that the bible is in a sort of grey area. But that wasn't your argument. You claimed people wanted to ban mention of the bible.






Obfuscatory screed, usual turgid drivel (not chicken little, obviously, that's great).

In reply to wintertree:


there should be zero religion in schools. Schools are a place for learning facts and skills. Religion is based on zero evidence etc.. it's the complete opposite of any subject that should be taught or referenced in school. If anything it should be mentioned in some social or historical sense, referring to a time when uneducated people believed in mystical beings so they felt better.

I would have been bang on the Head's door instead of posting here if I was the OP.

In reply to summo:


So does that mean there should be zero literature, zero poetry and zero art in your view?

In reply to summo:



You do realise that billions of people in the world practice religion.

No wonder our schools are struggling when there are parents of children wasting everybody's time with this nonsense.

In reply to Denni:

As a primary school governor, we get told of all complaints. If we got told of this one we'd roll our eyes and move on. The head would say, blah blah new parent, never comes in to school to chat unless they're complaining, why don't they invest their efforts in the PTA or some fundraising instead, heaven knows we need it. And we'd all nod, laughing at the use of the word heaven in this context.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less about this. As people have said, if the TA is a secret missionary sent to brainwash tiny minds, I'd have issues. Reality is, they aren't. They just said a book they thought the child would have heard of. A poor choice, not because of religion, but because it could frankly be a fiction, or a non-fiction book depending on your cultural context.

In reply to Denni:


Ah, but don't some literalists say that dinosaurs died out in the Flood, and therefore humans and (non-avian) dinosaurs did roam the Earth together.

As for
"The school is not a religious school of any kind, they are not taught RE (if indeed it still exists?"

I refer you to the National Curriculum
"All state schools are also required to make provision for a daily act of collective worship and must teach religious education to pupils at every key stage and sex and relationship education to pupils in secondary education."

I think the act of worship is thoroughly ignored by my kid's school, but they certainly have RE in the sense of learning about religions.

In reply to Denni:

"Sleep on it" for a while.

If it still feels like a problem at your next parents meeting/evening mention it when they ask if you have any questions.

I'm guessing that you will have forgotten all about it by then. As a parent I find that there are many things that small children say that sound alarming at first but really aren't a big deal on reflection.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


The Bible in it's entirety is a poor example of non-fiction, because it's an incredibly broad set of genres across 60 odd different bits of writing.

Luke sets his gospel up squarely as a factual and historical (but of course biased) account of Jesus' life.

The writer of Song of Songs wrote a racey poem about his feelings for a lady.

Genesis was written as a legendary interpretation of our origin in the light of belief in one great creator.

Psalms is a Jewish Top 40 countdown of popular religious songs.

Romans is a letter to the church in Rome offering advice and theological views. (Probably less fiction than printing Blair's letters to the intelligence services).

So back to the OP - which battle are you taking up on behalf of the other concerned parents? Poor literary classification or inappropriate religious agenda?

In reply to Andy Morley:


No. A book, poem or art that is written or drawn as work of fiction, that does pretend to be fact... isn't the same thing as an unproven religion which is then delivered as fact in a place of education. Especially when religion preaches on things that people should or shouldn't do.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


of course, why won't I know that.


maybe if schools dropped the religion, the morning assemblies and so forth they would free up a few more hours of teaching every week, to focus on more important factual subjects?

In reply to XXXX:


Wonder what would be said if the TA was muslim and the book they referenced was the Koran... would attitudes be the same?

In reply to Nutkey:


which shows how prehistoric or Victorian the UK education system still is.

In reply to summo:


So what about philosophy or politics - should they be banned from the school curriculum?

In reply to summo:

Are we saying no to Christmas too? no more baby jeebus and nativity stuff.

In reply to Andy Morley:

it's clearly not the same thing as religion.

In reply to summo:



Because you refer to a historical time when people believed.

School assembly is an important part of the school day. Much like our morning business meetings at the start of the day.

there is so much more to learning than factual formal lessons.

In reply to Tyler:


That's a pretty idiotic response. The Bible is a bad example because it isn't factual. There will - I hope - be lots of books a 5yo has seen that are non-fiction, like this one:

http://www.usborne.com/catalogue/book/1~S~SAS~7599/big-book-of-stars-and-pl...

In reply to Bellie:

why not, not everyone believes in it anyway and many religions have different dates for different things. Although most of the so called Christian celebrations, are all really hijacked pagan festivals, generally revolving around longest/shortest days and equinoxes. Only calendar changes and the church influence has shifted the dates slightly. Why do you think easter is floating, related to the moon. The guy can't have died on different dates every year!

here (Sweden), no religion in school, no navity stuff, carol singing etc.. no morning assemblies, no uniform either for that matter. Kids start the day in class learning etc.. easter isn't anymore than a long weekend and the 2nd term(only 2 term here) has half term in the 3rd week of Feb or sports week as it's known. As most people ski, skate etc..

In reply to summo:


Not even close. Philosophy and religion are very closely interlinked.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So why not use it for that, instead of religion, they could talk about the news of the day, have a questions and answer forum, where the teacher reads a piece of news from a paper, then the kids ask a question about it. It could even be tied to where they are in other subjects. Not made up religious nonsense.


I agree, and they could do something benefical, other than teaching kids that something which has zero evidence is true.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Philosophy doesn't dictate a set of rules to live by, it doesn't pretend all things were built by god in the world in 6 days, jesus magically curing people, or fed a few thousand people, or the seas were parted, talk of imaginary places like hell etc..

religion is about controlling people, their minds and their thoughts.
philosophy is about opening people's minds up to different ideas and thoughts.

In reply to summo:

CHAPTER I THE ONE THING NEEDFUL
‘Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!’

The scene was a plain, bare, monotonous vault of a school-room, and the speaker’s square forefinger emphasized his observations by underscoring every sentence with a line on the schoolmaster’s sleeve. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s square wall of a forehead, which had his eyebrows for its base, while his eyes found commodious cellarage in two dark caves, overshadowed by the wall. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s mouth, which was wide, thin, and hard set. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s voice, which was inflexible, dry, and dictatorial. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s hair, which bristled on the skirts of his bald head, a plantation of firs to keep the wind from its shining surface, all covered with knobs, like the crust of a plum pie, as if the head had scarcely warehouse-room for the hard facts stored inside. The speaker’s obstinate carriage, square coat, square legs, square shoulders,—nay, his very neckcloth, trained to take him by the throat with an unaccommodating grasp, like a stubborn fact, as it was,—all helped the emphasis.

‘In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!’

The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim.

(Charles Dickens - 'Hard Times')

In reply to Jon Stewart:



these are good, there are two more. Going from the big bang, development of life on earth and evolution... all for youngish kids.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Born-With-Bang-Universe-Children/dp/1584690321

we have all 3, our kids thought they were ok, but perhaps not quite deep enough.

In reply to Andy Morley:
but there are masses of great fiction out there for kids to be taught, inspiring stuff, well written and logical. There are also many good books written for kids explaining the science of what we do know about the world. I see no logical reason to even reference any religious book.

Kids don't need to be taught using material that pretends to be true, but isn't. It's not fair on the kids. Overall I don't care, as it's the UK and the UK school system was one of the big drivers for exiting the UK when our oldest was 4 1/2, so he wouldn't have to start in the local CoE school etc..

In reply to Andy Morley:

what would you say if the TA referenced a different religion's book as being a good non fiction example?

In reply to summo:

If they struck me as interesting to talk to, I would suggest that the category of writing designated as 'non-fiction' was such a broad one as not to be able to have such a thing as a typical example of it. Then I would try to find a more interesting point behind what they were saying, for example what their take was on the religion they were talking about.

If they struck me as boring or if they insisted, I would refer them to the Dewey system of classification or something similar that's regularly used by libraries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification

In reply to Andy Morley:


This is everything to do with intolerance and I completely approve of it. We should be intolerant of superstitious mumbo jumbo that passes itself off as historical fact. Even Israeli archaeologists now admit that there is no evidence for anything that happened in the bible. The parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection, you name it - it never happened. None of the writing is a first hand account, most of it is centuries/millennia after the supposed events and is, at best, a collection of myths and ledends that only the deluded would believe.

The TA shouldn't be sacked but she should be told that she needs to keep her nut job views to herself. Of course it's quite possible that she doen't know the difference between fiction and non-fiction.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


How can you possibly understand the difference between superstitious mumbo jumbo and historical fact unless you allow kids to have access to examples of both so that they can study them and understand the difference? After all, you yourself appear to have some passing acquaintance with the Bible.

"Historical fact" is an oxymoron by the way.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Who said anything about denying access to a bible or indeed any other religious text?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Some countries with many many millions of people practice institutional sexism, or have dealt sexist societies.

Does that make it okay to teach sexism here?

No, no it doesn't.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



I'm not sure that this book is as universally known as, say, the bible. I dare say there are much better examples than the bible (you yourself concede that the bible 'could' be consider non-fiction) but to be "pretty livid" about it seems a complete over reaction. In the OPs example there seems to be only one zealot. Our children grow up being exposed to all sorts of lies, bullshit and untruths and as they develop the capacity to process complex ideas we either expose them to more of the truth or they work it out for themselves, the same with religion. I'm sure many of us were exposed to far more religion growing up than Denni's daughter is now, it didn't stop us growing up into non-God fearing atheists. When did religion turn into the great Satan anyway? Is there a problem with Christian fundamentalism in schools such that this sort of thing warrants heading up a mob address it with the headmaster?

In reply to The New NickB:


Nobody but Andy.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Grow up!

In reply to Denni:

What would you have thought if she had recommended "In Cold Blood"? My general issue would be addressing what the TA believes non fiction is and then starting to worry

In reply to marsbar:


And at a later age she will learn that there is an apostrophe is 'daughter's school'. That what education is for.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Yes, and there is misunderstanding here of what those myths meant to the people who heard them.

The Flood myth is a very good example, with people being exposed to various versions. Even Yahweh himself had different versions in different tribes, mostly a warrior god who fulfilled epic tasks (like wrestling the sea) as other gods and early jews allowed for existence of other gods in their myths.

So the idea that the stories were regarded as true reflections of actual events seems very unlikely, especially ones that involved rivers leaping up as snakes and being defeated by a warrior god (like some early jewish tribes believed Yahweh had done).

It took Jaspers' Axial people to transform those myths into something like history, even then it's not clear what the man on the clapham camel would have made of it all.

In reply to digby:


And the award for most over the top reaction goes to..... D I G B Y!!!

This is a class of five year olds discussing concepts of fiction / non-fiction (useful as they get older and start watching the news / reading the papers). A pretty cool thing to do I'd have thought; full marks to the teaching assistant.

In reply to winhill:

I like 'the clapham camel'

In reply to Denni:

To be fair, the OP could have provided a bit more context. Was it just about 'a good example of a non-fiction book' or was there some further religious proselytising going on too?

The idea that there can be such a thing as 'a good example of a non-fiction book' is a pretty daft one. I mean, washing machine instruction booklets? Travel books? Autobiography? Scientific treatise? Any would qualify, none is typical but to complain to a head about a TA for not knowing 'the right answer' to that nonsensical question really is pretty Chicken Licken.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Possibly. But as a label it is a useful differentiation from 'historical fiction'.

And many historians would dispute the idea that there are 'historical facts' anyway. There are simply interpretations of observed 'evidence'. And those interpretations change through time

In reply to Frank the Husky:


'Anything'? I think you over-reach yourself a bit there Martin. There is a great deal of supportive evidence for such things as the people mentioned in the bible and the geo-political movements described.

I do like the 'Even Israeli archaeologists' dig though; are they the lowest of the low?

In reply to Andy Say:


I'm not sure it's even possible to make that distinction. After all, as an exercise in experimental archaeology, a TV documentary re-created the Biblical account of the prophet Elijah's summoning down of 'heavenly fire' in his challenge to the priests of Baal, using only materials thought to have been readily available at the supposed time, e.g. benzene, phosphorous and water. Since so much fiction masquerades as fact, any historian worth his or her salt should apply similar levels of critical thinking to any 'source' at all.

In reply to winhill:

Doesn´t make the bible fiction, though. What about "religious text" as a separate category?

I find it a highly interesting, historical document of philosophical/religious thought from 5000 to 2000 years ago which had, for better or for worse, massive influence on the political and intellectual history of most of the world, ad whose influence can still be observed in current, secular societies.

It is e.g. interesting to follow how the concept of what a god is changes through the old testament. Several of the psalms refer to Yahwe as the best or correct god, clearly acknowledging the existence of other, lesser gods. Presumably this reflects an evolution from animistic concepts, through various polytheistic setting (different gods for different jobs), to tribal gods (different gods for different people or places), to eventually monotheism.

Bit too complicated and too much of a minefield to make it good teaching material for 5yos,

CB

In reply to Andy Morley:


Stop making up stuff.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Agreed. Read my second sentence. 'And many historians would dispute the idea that there are 'historical facts' anyway. There are simply interpretations of observed 'evidence'. And those interpretations change through time.'

It might have been that there was just a really bad fire in the town rather than a mysterious napalm attack using incendiary chemicals; but it was ascribed to Elijah.

In reply to Andy Say:



No marks to the teacher, she referred to a book in it's incorrect category, almost certainly because of her own beliefs.

In reply to Andy Say:


So what that shows is that as a source relating to historical events around 3000 years ago, the Bible has its limitations. But as a source to inform our understanding of things that happened 500 years ago it is hugely useful because many of the people living at that time and since believed it to be a literal account and based hugely important decisions on what it said.

Regardless of which way you swing on the 'is it fact, is it fiction'? question, that question is one that needs to be aired rather than suppressed if we want schoolchildren to understand the history of the country they are living in.

In reply to summo:


The category is correct. Just because you say it isn't, doesn't change it.

The are two categories. Fiction, or not fiction.

The Bible isn't classed as fiction. This doesn't make it all true, or a reference book, it makes it non-fiction.

In reply to Denni:


And in all the general argy-bargy I forgot the actual question(s) posed in the OP.

Were you and the other ten concerned parents in the class? Or are you basing your concern on the testimony of a five year old about what they did in school today?

I would suggest that you simply ask the head, or any other teacher, about the purpose of that lesson before jumping to hasty conclusions.

And the school is obliged to introduce pupils to comparative religion and the social world in which they live. They would be failing in their duty to prepare these kids for the world around them otherwise.

'I do want to make sure the TA doesn't suggest such a thing in the future which I think is a very reasonable request. ' No its not. See the discussion above.

If I were you I'd also seek to pull my kid from the nativity play on the basis that it is pure fantasy.

P.S. Santa Claus. There's a big one coming up for you..........

In reply to summo:

The same. Why would it be different?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

how can it be correct, there isn't anything proven about ANY religion, the bible is no different.

she should have picked something far far better, to best exemplify the two categories. Very poor teaching, if nothing else.

all, true, which bits are true and proven then? who by? Repeatable experimentally? Peer reviewed?

100% of all religions are unproven, so they are all firmly works of fiction.

In reply to Andy Say:
our school has zero religious influence and stuff like that does not ever happen. Normal school plays, music, performances yes.. those based around imaginary being in the sky telling people how to live their lives. No.


I don't think santa tells people what do to do or not ? Beside by double figures the myth is blown and kids learn the real facts. The teaching of religion doesn't stop though, no one turns round when they 9,10,11 yrs and say you know all those morning assemblies, well it's completely unproven bull, just like santa, tooth fairies and other such things. Nope, they keep pedalling the myth. It all belongs in history along with Thor, or the greek gods.

In reply to Andy Say:


Hi Andy, there's certainly evidence for various Roman characters, because there are contemporary records of those people. However, when looking for such evidence for the rest of them - Noah, Abraham, Moses, Adam, Eve and erm, Jesus then we're scratching around in some pretty murky waters. If these crucial characters weren'tr there then the whole thing is a myth - but you know that, right?

I notice you talk specifically about evidence for people rather than for events, which is reassuring in a weird way. If there *had* been a resurrection (one of the central planks of the NT) then there would be contemporary accounts of a man rising from the dead and of tombs all over the region opening and the dead being amongst the living, and of course there aren't any such accounts because it didn't happen. It's reasonable to say that if that's a lie, then the rest of it must be viewed as complete fiction too.

In reply to summo:


So similarly you'd expect to find the works of Hippocrates and Galen in the fiction section of your local library?

In reply to summo:

Summo, just get a grip.

'The category is correct. Just because you say it isn't, doesn't change it.
how can it be correct, there isn't anything proven about ANY religion, the bible is no different.' That's just you saying everyone else is wrong.

'The are two categories. Fiction, or not fiction.
she should have picked something far far better, to best exemplify the two categories. Very poor teaching, if nothing else'.

You were there? You know what other examples were presented as fiction or non-fiction?

'The Bible isn't classed as fiction. This doesn't make it all true, or a reference book, it makes it non-fiction.
all, true, which bits are true and proven then? who by? Repeatable experimentally? Peer reviewed?'

I think you are a bit fixated on the 'miracle bits'. There were no Egyptians? There was no Jerusalem? Herod did not exist? Come to that, were there any Romans.....? The bible seems to me to be an attempt to make sense of the past from a particular perspective. That doesn't make it an equivalent to 'Lord of the Rings'. There's enough arguments between historians right now about things that happened less than 100 years ago to make our belief in the absolute 'rightness' of history a bit hazy.

In reply to Andy Say:

Basing my assumption on my intelligent, tells me what she did in school and is correct 5 year old so wind your neck in. The school may be obliged to introduce comparitive religion, there was no comparison and it wasn't a lesson on religion, it was a book day event.

If I want to stop a TA telling my daughter that the bible is non fiction, I will and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant and my request is reasonable.

Now getting back onto the subject. Had a meeting with the Headmistress and the TA. TA thinks it is ok to tell the children this, the school policy does not and she is aware of this. They will have religious classes at some point but the TA was told in no uncertain terms that she, or other TA/Teachers are not to introduce any sort of religious context into daily learning unless it is a planned class on the subject.

So I'm a happy chap but the TA wasn't happy at all with being told that she was wrong in both my eyes and school policy.

Thanks for all the positive input, Den

In reply to summo:

In reality, things are slightly more nuanced than the binary oppositions of fiction/non-fiction and fact/non-fact that you seem to prefer.

Religion is an integral part of our culture, history and identity and without it and a good knowledge of it we are ill equipped to truly understand science, history, art, literature, politics or philosophy. Things exist on continuous scales, for example one such scale could be fact at one end and belief at the other with much of our knowledge somewhere in between. That includes history, physics, even maths. There are many other such scales, fiction and non fiction books for example. The Bible certainly sits somewhere in the middle and I'm sure scholars could argue it one way or the other.

To say that religion doesn't belong in schools? Weird. I don't want my son educated by a school that doesn't share my values and have vehemently opposed options offered such as a CofE education. But any education is weaker for not including the cultural context in which all of our knowledge is set, including religion.

Anyway, as far as the OP is concerned. The only mistake the TA made is using a religious example and the only reason it's a mistake is because we all get so worked up about things that are vaguely religious, that are frankly trivial.

In reply to Denni:
I'm now of the firm belief that Atheism is just another form of balmy religion where its followers are just as bigoted at the rest of them.

Absolute madness.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Martin. Glad to hear you acknowledge that there is actually a historical basis for big chunks of the 'bibles'. I had thought that you had said above that it was all total bollocks; as demonstrated by Israeli archaeologists.

When we come to figures such as Adam and Eve, Moses etc then, true, we are delving into the mythology of a culture. Folk memory. Similarly we meet problems when we look at figures such as King Arthur and Merlin. Should we apply the critical analysis to them that we might apply to records relating to Margaret Thatcher? Is Geoffrey of Monmouth fiction or non-fiction? Or simply a record of the historical belief of the time?

We might just find that the Chilcot enquiry report, when it finally comes out in 2043, is similarly consigned to 'myth' eventually?

In reply to Denni:


Oh dear.

In reply to XXXX:


I think there's a big difference between
a) saying "here's what [religion] believes, here are some of the rituals and festivals that go with it, here's some of its history, here are some of the ways that it's influenced peoples' behaviour and interacted with their cultures and social structures" and
b) saying "here's what you should believe, now let's all say the Lord's Prayer together."

People failing to be clear about this distinction is probably causing quite a lot of extra argument in this thread.

To my mind, the former is an important aspect of education for someone who actually wants to understand the modern world and deal with the people who inhabit it in a mature fashion. The second doesn't belong in most schools, or arguably in any schools.

In reply to Denni:

I Googled this and this is one of the first hits I got:


Fairly clear-cut in my view.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Interesting use of the term "modern world." I might have used the term "present day" in that context. This is not a minor distinction.

Certainly in the UK, religion is fading and is more associated with the old than the modern. Likewise modernity, advancement and equality around the world tend to come hand in hand with the weakening of religiosity.

In reply to Denni:


Interesting to hear this outcome. So it seems that I was right in thinking that there is a tendency for schools to proscribe mention of books like the Bible outside of 'religious classes' unless accompanied by a very carefully worded 'may contain traces of peanuts' kind of statement.

My own interest in the matter, as mentioned before, is to understand whether this tendency is our own home-grown effort or whether it is an American import. In case people here aren't aware, there is a huge controversy in the USA right now over Starbucks labelling of their 'holiday red cup':
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/09/starbucks-holiday-red-cup-brews-controversy-...

Not exactly the same issue and I'm personally no fan of Christmas, but it's all part of the same bigger picture...

In reply to Denni:


Well don't bring it up as a topic for debate on a public forum if you are going to get all precious about it!

In reply to DancingOnRock:


https://xkcd.com/774/

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Its not helped that its taught in that way as well. Religious education can cover the entire spectrum.
Best really to bin it off and move the useful bit into an anthropology class. That way you get to cover other factors aside from religion.

In reply to KevinD:


I didn't think it was possible to feel superior to an Athiest. I thought that was the whole point.

In reply to wintertree:


That seems like an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it, to be honest - religion played an important role in the Civil Rights movement in the US, for instance, while the bloodier and more oppressive communist regimes of the 20th century have been pretty thoroughly atheist.

Edit: also, even given your position that less religion = more modern, that doesn't mean that understanding religion is irrelevant to understanding the modern world. It's reasonable, for instance, to want to understand how people who consider themselves faithful followers of ostensibly the same religion (and there are several examples that you could use here...) can come to such different conclusions as to its compatibility with secular democracy.

In reply to Denni:

You may wish to inform your child that non-fiction, as a book classification does not mean it is factual. You may want to have a look at this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fiction

Perhaps discuss the large array of batshit beliefs that authors may "genuinely believe or claim them to be truthful at the time of their composition"

Perhaps as an additional lesson in being gracious, acknowledge many book shops would similarly place the bible in non-fiction, along with the quran and books on advanced mathematics and therefore, in terms of book classification the TA may not even have been incorrect. To me this is the best lesson of all - being able to be wrong, fearlessly; until this is well learned most other stuff comes slowly....

In reply to DancingOnRock:



You are correct, your belief is absolute madness.

In reply to The New NickB:


I think this thread is evidence for my belief so it's not unfounded.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Also thinking about it logically, a dogmatic belief there is no such thing as god as per atheism is just as balmy as believing there's no such thing as war, money in the bank, friendship, sorrow, happiness, mental illness or any other abstract thing. All the available evidence suggests that 'god' is an idea invented by human beings - that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in some form, it just means that god a social construct - quite a powerful one as it happens.

Interesting also to compare religion to schizophrenia, if you fancy a rather large can of worms

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It is evidence that some atheists have beliefs that you find barmy, akin to religion and bigoted. Not great evidence, as it is somewhat down to your subjective assessment.

Atheists believe, or rather lack belief in a god or gods. Nothing more joins them together as a group.

In reply to The New NickB:



My concern (well, not really but for all intents and purposes) is that someone's lack of belief has led them to be outraged that someone else correctly identified the Bible as non-fiction. They then went to the school and complained, even though they were completely wrong. The school then agreed that the Bible was a bad example. These are people we entrust with our children's education.

It is completely unbeliveable to me that someone's 'lack of faith' can lead them to do this.

As I say complete madness.

In reply to Andy Say:


or should I just kneel and pray to an imaginary friend for help?


I'd imagine a newspaper and a fictional story book in school couldn't that hard to locate? Or, oh look I just happen to be walking around with a bible in my day sack ....!

In reply to XXXX:



yes, I agree, but you explain it in a social context, that some people belief this is true, others don't etc. you don't teach this a book of facts and it's all true. That is a very different route to take. It's the same line as creationism etc... I'd like to think schools were moving away from the Middle Ages.

In reply to XXXX:

Can't you let the school get on with teaching proven facts and if parents want to condition their kids in believing things that aren't proven, they can do that after school or on a weekend. Why should other kids have to listen to yours being brainwashed? What about kids from parents who don't believe that religion or another religion? What if they said the Koran was non fiction, still ok?

As said above, teaching religion in a social or historical context, isn't the same as it's all true, or even partially true.

In reply to summo:

But as people keep saying, and as you keep failing to address, there's a reasonable argument that saying "this is a work of non-fiction" isn't the same as saying "this is all true, take it home, read it, and believe every word of it".

In reply to The New NickB:


If that were the case then there would be a great many more people openly calling themselves 'atheist' or being so-called by others than there actually are.

I have a friend who considers herself an 'atheist' and who helps run the Atheist Sunday Assembly in High Wycombe. The group of people who attend her assemblies have a lot more in common with each other than they have with the vast numbers who simply can't be bothered with religion.

You have to be actively engaged with the idea of atheism to set up a 'godless church' as per this example in Brighton:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10584033.Atheists_set_up_Brighton_and_Hove_s...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That's one interpretation. The alternative is that the teacher realised that religion in schools is a minefield already and probably decided that a righteously indignant parent with time on their hands could cause them more problems than a lowly TA so decided to appease the parent and get on with more pressing matters.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Indeed there seem to be a lot of 'Athiests' who believe there is no God and are quite busy preaching that fact.

Unlike the true Athiests (such as myself, apparently) who just get on with their lives not needing anything to believe.

In reply to Tyler:


I agree. However that's not right either. Now all religious books have been consigned to 'the top shelf' for no good reason other than a bored parent.

In reply to Andy Morley:
It's not my kind of thing (the Sunday Assembly) but there's no stipulation to believe there's no god. It's a rather silly assertion that atheism means a belief there's no god, it's been trotted out many times on here. All atheism means is a lack of belief in gods.
If there are any more misconceptions you suffer from I'll try to help.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



I think the generalisation is OTT, however I will try not to assume rock dancing is just another form of balmy religion.

I'm an atheist, fully aware and comfortable with the bible and the Daily Mail being classified as non fiction despite my lack of belief in either publication's contents!

I also made a deer foot print out of a carved potato one snowy christmas and made foot prints in the front garden! It is essential my child is fooled, fully fooled, with faked evidence - until a person knows they can be tricked they remain VERY vulnerable.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It's quite well organised too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly

(This is just one example, there have been many more similar things over the centuries)

In reply to Andy Morley:

And yet there are a lot of atheists - me, for one - who don't go to anything like that. Demonstrating, as pointed out above, that there's very little that joins atheists together as a group.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Is your problem that it's much harder to indoctrinate adults and that you need to get 'em while they're young?

In reply to Andy Morley:




That is religion, however they dress it up.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No. My problem is that there are a group of people calling themselves Athiests.

Who aren't. They believe all religion (apart from atheism) is bad. They use words like indoctrination and brainwashing. They somehow believe that their children are so vulnerable that they will be instantly converted to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc at the mere sight of a leather bound book.

They're slightly misguided.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Hate to sound picky but exactly where did you find this definition of atheism? Since I am not sure it exists outside of your head.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Not something I am in to myself, but why is it religion?

In reply to KevinD:

I think a true atheist wears a kilt and plays the bagpipes, or am I getting confused!

In reply to Andy Say:


I haven't said that at all. What do you mean in quantitative terms by "big chunks" - 20%? 50%? Evidence for Roman characters counts as evidence for less than 1% of the drivel and evil in those pages.


No one has carrying out systematic abuse & murder for millennia in the name of King Arthur, nor have they used made up stories to tell us that there's a magic man in the sky who demands total gratitude and subjugation from before you are born until after you die. There's the difference.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I think there are probably also a lot of Christians who don't go to church.

Personally, I'm not at all religious - in fact I would go as far as to say that I'm probably at the extreme non-religious end of the scale. But I don't see myself as an 'atheist', probably for similar reasons. I don't see any need to wear badges or labels or to affiliate myself to others on the basis of my attitude towards 'god'. I simply can't be bothered.

That doesn't mean I want to see discussion of religion banned though. On the contrary, I want it to be talked about, because of all the damage it does and because of the impact it can have on people's lives. It's interesting in the way that mental health and psychopathology are interesting - talking about schizophrenia doesn't make you schizophrenic but denying that schizophrenia existed might be an indicator that you suffered from that condition.

In reply to KevinD:


There have been many many debates here. Atheism is a lack of belief. It is NOT a belief there is no God.

Or so I have been reliably informed on many occasions.

In reply to Andy Morley:



So you are an atheist, by most accepted definitions, just not your own somewhat contrary one.


Careful, that will look like religious extremist atheism to DancingOnRock.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



So what makes you a true atheist and other not?

In reply to The New NickB:

That's you labelling me an atheist - it has nothing to do with my own beliefs. I personally believe that gods exist and I also see a lot of evidence that suggest that human beings create them, just like they create a great many other abstract but very real things like computer software. Your labelling of me is just evidence for how you personally process and pigeonhole the beliefs of others.

Every time I get into online debates with extremists, they seem to automatically label me as what they see as the opposite of what they themselves believe. Currently, I'm being labelled as a 'liberal' by some gun-loving Americans, despite the fact that I have nothing to do with the UK Liberal Party, nor with the US political groupings that go under that name. All I've done is to question some of their logic. Earlier in the year, I had the opposite from some US liberals when I questioned some of their thinking.

So what does your use of that 'atheist' label tell us about you I wonder?

In reply to The New NickB:


I think its using the same special definition book as is being used for the atheist definition.
To be fair it does seem out to replicate some of the social aspects of organised religion but thats about it.
I

In reply to The New NickB:


Nothing really.

Other than it seems a bit pointless to be evangelical about something that you think doesn't exist.

In reply to Andy Morley:

The atheist label tells people that I lack belief in a god, outside of course your tautologous argument about belief in god as a human construct. It's a useful label if I am asked the question "do you believe in god?".

What do you think it tells the world about me?

In reply to Andy Morley:


It tells us that, of the two of you, he's a) the only one who understands what an atheist is; and b) he's the one whose emotional and intellectual developments didn't stall as a smug twelve year old.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Some atheists and in Andy's case non-"atheists" believe that clinging on to religion as much as we do as a society is quite damaging, I tend to be in agreement. At that point it becomes political and whilst you have chosen a deliberately inappropriate term to describe this, it does become important, especially when religion is at the forefront of arguments for example around gay marriage or end of life issues.

In reply to The New NickB:


If it were just you, applying a 'useful label' to yourself, it would tell me that you wanted to keep the explanation of your own beliefs simple so as not to have to go into detail - a kind of 'reach-me-down/ off the peg' belief system. That would suggest that you're either not a very original thinker, or that you don't want to discuss your exact beliefs.

When you apply that label to other people, even when they refute it, it suggests that you have a tendency to project your own ideas or self-concept onto others. It's a widespread tendency, though fallacious by nature.

In reply to Andy Morley:


I think you are over complicating something very simple, I guess for reasons you haven't come to terms with yourself.


This is an extremely interesting comment in relation to your contributions to this forum.

In reply to The New NickB:


Do you _really_ think that religion is simple?

In reply to Andy Morley:

No, which is why I didn't say that. Do you really think that my saying I lack a belief in god means I have no views on religion.

Got to go now, funnily enough to do some volunteering with an organisation affiliated to a Church.

In reply to The New NickB:


You tell me...

In reply to Andy Morley:

It's not a belief system - it's one aspect of a belief system. By telling you that he's an atheist, he's telling you that one aspect of his belief system is that it doesn't include belief in the existence of a God as a thing in itself (rather than as an idea).

If your belief system doesn't include the existence of God except as an idea then you're an atheist too. It doesn't matter whether you self-apply the term or not, that's what it means.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


You're stretching and elaborating your definition of the word 'atheist' to suit your own personal beliefs Dave. Dictionary definitions don't include the 'except as an idea' clause that you inserted.

Contrary to what Nick believes, the nature of god is a highly complex subject covered by vast, intricate and arcane areas of theology. For example, there is a whole Christian sect devoted to the belief that God is not a trinity as most forms of Christianity believe. They're called 'Unitarians'. It's quite possible that there could even be a religion devoted to the notion of god as an idea.

After all, what is god other than an idea? It's what all the evidence suggests. If you want to label me at all, you can call me an 'Empiricist'. I don't mind that one - show me evidence that there is a god that exists independently of human thought and I promise that I'll give it some consideration, as long as it's not wacko stuff about plaster statues with bleeding eyes, or pieces of toast that burn in the shape of a cross or that kind of thing.

In reply to The New NickB:


My personal favourite was when he started a classic, grumpy old man thread moaning about young people, then refused to accept any apologies from said young people, in order that he could continue whining interminably.

Then accused everybody else of being Victor Meldrew-ish.

Magical. And proof that there must at least be a god of UKC.

In reply to Andy Morley:


So you are an atheist then. Good to clear that up


Which is also the case for the starship enterprise. Most of them boil down to a creator though. The finer points of whether it is a trinity is pretty irrelevant until you prove the first.


yes because a religion doesnt strictly need to have a god involved at all.


The supreme being/creator/etc.

In reply to KevinD:

>> After all, what is god other than an idea?

If that idea works for you, then great. But it's not what the evidence suggests.

In reply to Denni:

>... Had a meeting with the Headmistress and the TA. TA thinks it is ok to tell the children this, the school policy does not and she is aware of this. They will have religious classes at some point but the TA was told in no uncertain terms that she, or other TA/Teachers are not to introduce any sort of religious context into daily learning unless it is a planned class on the subject.

I'd go back to my earlier point. Just checked my guidelines; looking like 'Requires Improvement' verging on 'Inadequate'.

In reply to Andy Morley:



The thing is - there's no evidence to the contrary.

Which is why Athiests should just keep their opinions to themselves. As should all religious fanatics.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


which would mean no religion in schools, just as it should be.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



So you're saying one can only speak out against a religious belief if one has scientific evidence? I think you'll find quite a few atheists who can have and voice quite a few opinions then...

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Why do you feel I shouldn't say I don't believe in god (as in the sentient controller thingy - clearly the concept exists!)?

Nope.

Nothing wrong with teaching religion in schools, nothing wrong with believing there's no God and you don't need scientific evidence for anything.

The problem comes when you try to impose your views on other people. That's the root of all the trouble.

Teaching is not brainwashing nor is it indoctrination.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I didn't suggest banning any mention of the bible. I suggested that adults in secular schools should be aware of their professional role and behave accordingly.

In reply to marsbar:


I still don't see how describing a non-fiction book as non-fiction can upset anyone. It's just bonkers.

In reply to Andy Say:


Did you mean apostrophe in?

Perhaps you should proof read if you are going to criticise.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

A 5 year old view of life would be fiction is made up and non-fiction is true. Telling a 5 year old that the bible is true is effectively what she is doing. This is inappropriate in a secular school.

In reply to marsbar:


If schools are only going to present 5 year olds with a 5 year old view of life, then there's no point in education. It should be all about stretching and developing them, which means presenting them with ideas just beyond their grasp, then helping them understand them.

In reply to summo:


I now teach RS, Philosophy and Sociology, having trained last year to teach Citizenship (and politics at A level), and they are actually very closely allied in both content and style. But anyway, it is called "Religious Studies" or "Religious Education". Kids aren't getting taught what to believe, they are being taught what billions of other people around the world believe and how those beliefs structure and impact on the lives of others. Learning something about religion also starts knitting together numerous other parts of the culture and language, letting kids make connections between disparate parts of knowledge. We were talking about God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the other day when one of the kids suddenly looked very pleased with themselves and blurted out "so that's where the word sodo..." before going bright red and shutting up.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I have been a teacher for getting on for 2 decades now, so I already have a reasonable grasp of the method and purpose of education, but thanks for mansplaining.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Are you saying that I shouldn't say "I don't believe in a god" and my local vicar shouldn't do his sermon on Sunday?

In reply to TobyA:

So funny when they do that.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Just for you and the other "ambivalent atheists" out there! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kdyw3

In reply to marsbar:


"Mansplaining" loving that!

In reply to The New NickB:

I can't take credit for it, and I must in the interests of equality apologise to any men I offended.

In reply to Denni:

Congratulations Denni - you have created the modern equivalent of the mediaeval debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

So which shelf should we put the Bible on boys and girls? Tell you what, why don't we just take turns to chuck it at each other, after all, that would be a really good lesson on what religion's really about, but probably without any real bloodshed. Oooops, lookout, here come elf'n'safety....

In reply to Denni:

So, back to the nativity play, why is there a dinosaur?!

In reply to Denni:

A TA made a mistake. I do believe that it is mistake or at least potentially confusing because they presented something famous for being very contraversial as though it were fact.

your child has repeated this and you have hopefully explained the controversy. well done you

now you have a choice between modelling nitpicking behaviour and indulging a need to point out loudly and aggressively to everyone you meet how wrong the t a was.

or you could model understanding that not everyone thinks the same. your choice.

In reply to The New NickB:


No. I thought I already explained that above.

You can say what you want, and the Vicar is free to give his sermon.

However, I don't expect you to go into the church and tell the vicar to stop believing in God because there is no scientific evidence to support there being a god.

And I don't expect him to come into your living room and tell you to start believing in God until you have firm scientific evidence that shows he doesn't exist.

It's all very tedious. Let people believe or not believe, religion is a very personal thing.

If there is an aspect of someone's behaviour that offends you and they're claiming it's because their religion tells them to do it (anti gay etc..), they're almost certainly interpreting something wrongly. That's not the religion, that's the person. Deal with the person, don't blame the religion.

In reply to marsbar:


That's just daft and lazy.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

What about when your child can only go to the local state funded school if they attend church and at least pretend to be religious.

What about when the person "interpreting something wrongly" in their religion is a Bishop in the House of Lords.

In reply to TobyA:

Loved the last point, the quote from Jonathan Miller who
"didn't see why there should be a word for not believing in god when there wasn't one for not believing in fairies."

In reply to Denni:

My take is that the teacher was just being naive and might have said 'the bible' without thinking it through. A better choice of words would have been 'an encyclopedia'.

In reply to Ridge:


Thank you for some levity.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Are you getting "church" and "school" confused? Because that would explain a lot of your point of view. Nobody here has said anyone should go into a church and tell a vicar to stop believing...


Quite - so keep it the hell out of the classroom where people often have no practical choice but to send their children.

In reply to wintertree:


I assumed when Nick B was talking about a vicar doing his sermon on a Sunday the vicar was in his church. Are you saying he was in a school? What kids are forced go to school on Sunday to listen to the vicar give a sermon? That's new to me.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Unicorns are horses with horns on their heads. There is no evidence that such creatures have ever existed, hence I don't believe in unicorns. I don't say that I do believe in unicorns but only as an idea. I believe that the idea of unicorns exists - I'm thinking about them now - but that's different from believing that unicorns exist.

Similarly, the precise definition of God varies, but it basically boils down to some sort of supreme being / creator, and if, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you don't believe that such a thing exists (in any of the various definitions that people have used) then you don't believe in God and are an atheist.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Well at no point did anyone suggest going in to a church and telling a vicar to stop talking so I took a wild stab at what you actually meant...

In reply to wintertree:


As it happens, quite a few Church of England vicars that I've met don't 'believe' in the traditional sense, along with a former Bishop of Durham. But I fear such considerations might be distracting us from the important question of whether the Bible should be kept on the blue shelf or the red shelf in the kindergarten library.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The philosophical choice is to choose ones beliefs based on reason rather than faith. Not believing in god is a consequence of applying this empirical/rational philosophy to the available evidence, not the belief system or philosophy. If more evidence became available a rational person's view on the god theory might change.

The athiest term just adds undeserved weight to one of millions of crazy theories: you might as well call someone who adopts the rational world view an a-teapot-ist because they don't believe there is a teapot orbiting Venus.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


So what do we do when the sermon does enter the classroom, parliament etc?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Quite a few who want to get into their local school.

In reply to TobyA:


and.... I bet you don't turn around and say the Bible is a book of fact? Which is what the TA did. What and how you teach is clearly, very different to what this person said or did.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


our kids have had some good lessons at school learning the meanings and the use of words; think, know, feel and believe. How they apply to facts, ideas, imagination, senses etc.. I suspect a few people here could do with some help in picking the correct one.

In reply to wintertree:


NickB questioned whether I thought they should. I even quoted his question in my reply.

No need to take wild stabs, just read what's is written.

In reply to summo:

No. The TA said it was non-fiction. Which is the correct classification.

In reply to KevinD:


You're stretching it a bit there.

In reply to Denni:


The bible is a mixture of fact and fiction but then so are most autobiographies.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Really? You can over complicate things as much as you like, but in the end if you look at your point above, about vicars and living rooms, I am saying much the same as you. Unqualified teaching assistants need to keep out of religious debates in classrooms of young children and get on with what they should be doing.

As for the complications of fictional non-fiction classification, generally when we teach a topic initially, we would use straightforward examples and avoid confusion. We then build on that knowledge subsequently. So maybe a class of 6 year olds might have a discussion about what we do we with books we are not sure how to categorise. This would be appropriate because we already learnt about the category thing previously and they have had time to think about it. We don't start with confusing examples at age 5. They are 5 years old.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


if some of it, ideally the majority was proven to be true then yes. But, that's simply not the case.

If I wrote a book about fairies, goblins, unicorns, trolls etc.. then at the end I put a chapter about something that is known to have existed, say dinosaurs, is that a fiction or non-fiction book? Would you also then label that book as being a book of facts? Which when you say something is non-fiction is the label you are attaching.

In reply to DaveHK:


in what ratio?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Based on the op, the TA said it was a "good example" of a non-fiction book. And it really isn't, at best you can say it's in a murky, grey, in-between category.

In reply to marsbar:


So was that 'womansplaining'?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


You're the only person who used the example of marching into church and telling the vicar to stop, hence my wondering if you were muddling church and school...

You were the one to voice the opinion that those with strong views leep them to themselves. NB suggested perhaps you therefore meant preachers shouldn't preach, not that he should march into a church and stop them.

In reply to marsbar:



It's the parents fault that they're getting dragged into confusion.

The op should have just clarified that non-fiction means it's not fiction. It's fairly clear definition.

Fiction - completely made up stories.
Non-fiction - everything else.

In reply to wintertree:


I suggest you read the exchange fully, you seem a bit confused.

Especially about the 'marching' bit.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Thus the bible is 100% fiction. There may be stories about various cult leaders through the millennia, trying to persuade the various populations that their imaginary creator is the 'real' or best creator etc.. but all of them are based on zero proven facts.

Putting bible in non fiction, is the same as saying joseph smith, ron hubbard, Charles Russell, jim jones... all write non-fiction? The only difference is the popularity of each religion / cult, they all have exactly the same proof, zero.

In reply to summo:



Well, it's been explained lots of times in this thread why your wrong. It's all getting very pointless if you're not going to bother reading and understanding.

In reply to DancingOnRock:





Make your mind up, upthread you said "I don't think it warrants complaint, it's neither fiction nor non-fiction". So you accept it is a poor example.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


so are you saying only certain religions or gods are non-fiction? Even though all have the same level of proof?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Does anyone ever go into church to say that? If not, it's a rather pointless thing to say.


Why? Because religion could never be wrong and harmful?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


that's a good word. As everyone understands everything. Although the level of every person's understanding will vary.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I think that what you said was that there was no proof of 'anything' in the bible? Afraid I can't be bothered to trawl back through the thread to find the exact phrase. I was just picking up on your absolutism. (and were there no Egyptians, was there no Babylon, did the Israelites not exist?)


Unlike you to throw a straw man on to the bonfire, Martin. I'm not discussing the effect of religion over the millenia (and I agree with you); I'm discussing the status of a text.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No. I should have said factual.

The more I think of it, the more I'm convinced it's actually a very good example of non-fiction.

It's generated huge amounts of debate here. Yet not one person has suggested it's factual.

In reply to summo:


What about the bits that are law giving or advice or philosophy?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So what do you mean about both atheists and "religious fanatics" not expressing their opinions, because their position is not proven.

I assume by "religious fanatic" you mean anyone who believes in God, as that would be the flip side of lack belief in God.

I just need to know when to shut up and equally when to tell the Queen and the Archbishop to shut up.

In reply to The New NickB:




You assume wrongly.

Plenty of people just get on with their religion, or lack of, without telling everyone else what to, or not to, believe.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


But you didn't, you clearly said it was neither fiction nor non-fiction.


It's a shite example for adults never mind 5 year olds.


And?

In reply to Sir Chasm:




It's a clear example of how nothing in life is binary.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Sorry for trying to apply some sort of logic to your rambings.

The Queen and Archbishop aren't quiet about their religion, so when do I tell them to shut up?

In reply to The New NickB:



When they actually come up to you and tell you that you must believe in God.

The rest of the time you can pretty much ignore them. I don't think they'll throw you in the tower for not believing in God.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


But you said "Fiction - completely made up stories.
Non-fiction - everything else.", isn't that binary?
You also said "it's neither fiction nor non-fiction". You seem confused.

In reply to Denni:

200+ posts....has this gone UKC viral?

In reply to Sir Chasm:




Nope. Binary is two states. Here or there, black or white, on or off, true or false.

If something falls between the two and you want to force it to be one or the other then you define one state and all the other states become the other one.

You could equally have Fact and non-fact but I suspect the Fact section would be very small and there would still be a lot of people arguing whether certain facts where 100% provable.

Far easier to have novel and works of complete fiction that everyone knows are fiction and then everything else.

In reply to DaveHK:


having an opinion or telling people what to do isn't fact though, these are thoughts or rules of an individual, written down as though they have been sent from the heavens by some imaginary being.. Facts / Non-Fiction are events that are claimed to have existed, for which in the bible there is no proof.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Yes, like fiction or non-fiction, two states.



It's only you who's getting hung up on facts. Perhaps you've forgotten that the original query was for a good example of a non-fiction book. How you can look at this thread and still think the bible fits that description is very funny.


If I make up a story and place it in a real setting would you consider that complete fiction?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ok. One last time. There are many many reference books in libraries all over the world that are outdated and the 'facts' in them have been proved to be untrue or maybe just no longer in force or relevant in the modern world.

These books were not written as fiction.

They are non-fiction.
That are not fact.

Fact and fiction are two binary and opposing states.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


which is precisely what this TA should have done and never mentioned the bible at all, regardless of what class they put it in.

In reply to summo:


I'm fairly sure from what the OP said, she just used it as an example. She didn't open it up and start preaching from it.

We are just going round in circles here.

In reply to summo:


I agree it's not fact (whatever that means) but you said it was fiction which I'm sure you'll agree is incorrect.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



but a great many facts are 99.9% provable, repeatable, verifiable etc.. religion doesn't even reach that remaining 0.1% of proven fact.

Religion or god falls into that bracket of completely unknown. In the past century man has unravelled a fair bit of the universe. DNA, quantum mechanics, the very beginnings from a singularity etc.. we don't have a clue of what there was before the beginning of time, or if there are multi-verses or even infinite-verses (or anti matter, dark matter or gravity... but we are getting there). What man hasn't found is any evidence at all, that anything written down about any god, by any religion on earth is true. It is all simply guess work, imagination based on zero substance or fictional writing. We have though over the past 200-300 years though proved that a vast amount of what is written in many religious books is completely untrue and impossible.

In reply to DaveHK:


if all your laws, opinion and wisdom in the bible is fact, non-fiction... do you think everyone should live by it, it is pretty barbaric to say the least? Or like the church are you saying some bits are 'open to interpretation', which is the code word for we know it's complete rubbish, but it's our job to peddle the myth.

How about the bible is a fictional book containing many stories of differing authors, who use tales of fictional events to try and steer people in a very specific direction, or simply written to control people? Fair description? Don't get me wrong other books like the Koran are no different, it's just AL1 of the bible.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


only if the earth isn't flat.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

There is no similarity between the idea of unicorns and the idea of a Christian God. The idea of a unicorn is about a very physical description of an animal that is very limited in its scope. The idea of a Christian God says little or nothing about physical form but is all about values, principles, laws and commandments. However, the unicorn does provide an excellent example to illustrate the fiction vs non-fiction debate.

Mediaeval 'bestiaries', which usually included both real and imaginary animals, were the nearest thing they had to zoological reference books: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiary
Would you class these as fiction or non-fiction? Personally I don't know the answer to that one, though I do know that bestiaries are 'wrong' as an account of the natural world in modern eyes. But looking at modern 'non-fiction', there are lots of theories about economics, sociology, psychology and even things like medicine that are condradictory and clearly, they can't all be true. Would people like Summo argue for going through school libraries weeding out those kinds of theory that he thought 'wrong' and re-classifying them as 'fiction'?

Again, I don't know the answer to that one - as debates go, it's an arcane one though lots of people here clearly think such stuff is important. But what really troubles me is that so many people would endorse the denouncing of a Teaching Assistant on the slender evidence of a five-year-old uncorroborated by any clear detail as to what the TA was alleged to have given by way of an example to inform this arcane but obviously interesting (to some) debate, simply because they suspect that s/he had some further and more sinister agenda. Clearly the spirit of the witch-hunt is very much alive and well in 21st-century Britain!

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So which atheists are telling people they must not believe in God?

I just can't help thinking that you just want people with different opinions to you to shut up.

In reply to The New NickB:



Andy, pretty much sums it up well there. A large group of Athiests there telling a TA to 'shut up', when actually she's not even preaching.

It's madness.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

They weren't telling her to shut up. They were suggesting that a better example of a non-fiction book could be used.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


So, you are saying that 99% of this thread about Atheists and Christians and whether God exists is completely irrelevant, and the fact it was a bible is just a side issue.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Referring an earlier follow-on post from the OP about their meeting with the school: TA thinks it is ok to tell the children this, the school policy does not and she is aware of this.

So apparently the TA was wilfully and purposefully suggesting the bible against the school policy, whose existence they were aware off. So, assuming that all reporting on events is accurate on this thread, the TA was very much making a conscious choice to use a religious example to a non-religious question. Certainly introducing religion wilfully could be construed by many as preaching.


No, no it isn't. As my first post said, my reaction would depend upon the motivation of the TA far more than an isolated action. Get to the bottom of the issue, tackle that. If the TA is wilfully introducing religion against school policy, then they can damned will follow school policy ("shut up", if you prefer, although nobody has said that) or get another job.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


No. You said "A large group of Athiests there telling a TA to 'shut up', when actually she's not even preaching.". And I'm pointing out that "They weren't telling her to shut up. They were suggesting that a better example of a non-fiction book could be used.". Can you really not understand? Is there a grownup there who can help you?