When headmistress Julia Robinson introduced multi-faith assemblies at her Sheffield primary school it seemed like an obvious recipe for classroom harmony. With more than 200 children on her roll, 35 of whom are Muslim, it appeared pointless to have two separate gatherings ”“ a situation she had inherited when she was appointed as head of Meersbrook Bank Community Primary School.
Although the majority of its pupils are white Christians, and one fifth of the pupils come from ethnic minorities, it seemed altogether more inclusive to amalgamate morning prayers.
Aware that religious education has become a much-debated and, at times, divisive issue in modern, multi-cultural Britain, Robinson proceeded with sensitivity and caution. She sought the advice of Sheffield city council, set up a working party and spoke to as many parents as possible. Confident that all were in agreement, she decided to hold a single assembly that included the many religions they represented. All seemed to be going well. Indeed, when Ofsted inspectors reported on the school, they praised its ”caring and inclusive atmosphere”. They applauded Robinson’s leadership and described Meersbrook as a shining example of one in which ”pupils feel safe and develop strong relationships with adults and one another”.
These particular troubles arise in part from the statutory requirement in England and Wales (described in the article) that every school day must include collective, broadly-Christian worship. They illustrate the wisdom of the Establishment Clause of the U.S.’s First Amendment.
In re: #1. Maybe, yes, maybe no. It seems to me that the Establishment Clause is being interpreted in a way that is fairly alien to the intentions of its authors. Until fairly recently (in the grand flow of history) the Lord’s Prayer was said every day in American schools. Committed Christians differ as to whether the abandonment of prayers at school is a good thing or not, but I don’t think it’s fair to base such a move on a document that was written to prevent a particular denomination from becoming established as a State Church.
As an addendum, I’m not American, so I’m happy to be corrected if my understanding of the Establishment Clause falls short of the truth.
The problem is that Christianity was replaced with an ethos that was nomially secular, but in reality was a nullity, a vacuum. Islam is rapidly filling that vacuum in Britain in an atmosphere that is at once hostile to an enervated (at least among native-born CoE grandees)Christianity and virtually prostrate to a violent, menacing Islam.
Remember that when the First Amendment was adopted it applied only to the Congress and the federal government. In Connecticut and Massachusetts the Congregational churches received tax support until the 1820’s. Until the Revolution the Church of England was established in the colonies from Maryland south and vestries in Maryland and Virginia levied a tax of about two per cent of income on all white male adults and on all slaves old enough to be economically productive. The tax provided for the care of the old, sick, and poor, for schools and schoolmasters, and for building churches and paying Church of England clergy.
The establishment clause is balanced by a “free exercise” clause, and the history of the legal interpretation of these is an effort to maintain the balance.
However the courts tend to treat the free exercise as a nullity.
I’m a chaplain at a state Church secondary school in the UK. I lead or organize assemblies twice a week and 6 church services a year. I do find it very difficult to hit that balance between ‘collective, broadly Christian worship’ in assemblies and assemblies that turn into feel-good fests with no signficiant spiritual input. The majority of our students are white, working class and culturally Christian, but we do have significant numbers of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students. It’s a difficult balance, but its helped by explicity being a ‘Church School,’ where the expectation is for Christian worship, and I make no bones about the fact that I’m a Christian, we’re a Christian school, and that’s the POV that the school takes in assemblies. But its balanced by having a habit of seeking out non-Christian or non-faith teachers and students to hear how they ‘hear’ the assembly. The situation,though, isn’t helped by RE resources that use ‘The Good Shepherd’ as a reason that some Christians support animal rights. In trying to be all things to all people, some of the faith issues discussed/worship in state schools becomes nothingness.
good morning isaac,
‘The situation,though, isn’t helped by RE resources that use ‘The Good Shepherd’ as a reason that some Christians support animal rights. ‘
can you explain this please? i support humane treatment of animals and conservation of wildlife and i am a Christian. thanks.
Over here, in the US, we are seeing a resurgence in extreme Animal Rights: calling for an animal “Bill of Rights”, equating pet ownership with slavery, bombing of research centers that use animals for testing, etc. I took Isaac’s comments to reflect this type of ‘animal rights’ not the humane society type.
By the way, as someone who greatly admires St. Francis of Assisi, I also, support humane treatment of animals and conservation of the earth, but believe in that with a balance with human rights and needs as well (eg. support of testing drugs on animals if it is done humanely and will lead to the saving of human lives — polio and smallpox vaccines for example).
I understood #7 Isaac to be objecting to the “logic” of saying, “We should support animal rights because Jesus is the Good Shepherd.” Whether or not Christianity ought to imply support for animal rights, the fact that the Bible uses sheep and shepherds as a metaphor for God’s people and God is really not relevant to the question; and in that form the argument is vacuous.
Ah, good point, too.
#7: Good points there, Isaac. A few years ago I was fairly familiar with a lot that went on in UK Religious Education and much of it was just schlock, especially the so-called textbooks authored by Victor Wratton (or ‘Wrotten’ as I call them) – a feeble multi-faith collection of bullet points, giving seriatim views of the alleged ‘Six Faiths’ mainly on ethics, with a determinedly left-wing bias.
Victor Wratton’s influence runs through a lot of the UK examination system, as (I believe) he writes one of the exams.
The factoid ‘textbooks’ on Islam that abound in UK schools are just as bad – a child learns almost nothing about the life, wars, political acts and marriages of Muhammad and his differences with Christianity and Judaism, which are central to any intelligent understanding of Islam.