Compulsory collective prayer in Northern Ireland

robindch

Scott Moore is a 6th form student in Strabane who is upset about collective prayer at schools in Northern Ireland. Specifically, he's annoyed that parents, not students, decide whether the student must attend - effectively denying the right of conscience on the part of the student. Teachers, on the contrary, are permitted to excuse themselves on grounds of conscience. Scott has petitioned the NI Minister for Education, John O'Dowd, to end legal support for compulsory collective prayer in Northern Irish schools.

The petition is here:

https://www.change.org/p/john-o-dowd-make-prayers-in-assembly-optional-for-northern-ireland-schools-to-hold

Scott Moore wrote:

In Northern Ireland, almost all schools must hold Christian prayers in their assemblies daily. These are known as acts of collective worship under the law.

Teachers can withdraw themselves, but pupils can't, without parental permission. If they aren't religious, they don't have the right to having their views recognised. The only way around this is if their parents will take them out. But because of their own hardline Christian views, they might not.

I don't believe that collective worship should occur at all. It inhibits the ability of pupils to determine their own religion. This is because a single view is promoted above all others. It is not fair for one religious view to have a privilege which no other such view has. In my view, collective worship violates young people's right to freedom of religion. This is because it stops them from being able to decide in a balanced manner what their views actually are. As a vulnerable group, children and young people do not deserve this.

I believe collective worship should face complete abolition. But that's not what this petition is about. Instead, it aims to to change the law so schools can choose whether their assemblies have prayer.

We can achieve this, if we can get enough signatures. We can persuade the Education Minister to change his department's policy. We can show him people want schools to have a choice on prayers in assembly. He can then work to change his Department's position on collective worship. Then, he can put an amendment to the Northern Ireland Assembly to get the law changed.

This is an issue that has affected me. My name is Scott, and I'm 17 years old. When I was 12, I decided I didn't believe in the existence of a god, and was an atheist. Soon, I began asking my school for exclusion from religious events (e.g. Easter/Carol services, collective worship, RE, etc.) but they refused because under the law, I needed a parent's permission. As Christians and people who were adverse to kicking up a fuss, my parents refused. I was lucky, though, because they later changed their mind when I was 15. But it still wasn't fair. At any time they could have decided they could put me back into acts of collective worship. It should have been my choice.

Right now, I'm in sixth form. I won't have to do RE. But my parents could put me back into collective worship and the Easter/Carol services. I trust that they won't, but it's not right that they should hold that power. It should be my choice.

By signing my petition, you can help me get that choice, and help many others who want it as well. It's not just about avoiding an assembly. It's about having your identity recognised. It's about your sense of being an independent person recognised and respected. It's about recognition for having your own views, and not someone else's. Today, I am a humanist. I do not believe in the existence of a god. I deserve to have my views recognised and respected, just like everyone else.

Thank you for reading. I hope you will sign my petition. For me and all other nonreligious young people who want recognition and respect.

Does anybody know if there's been a similar petition here in the south?

Could there be enough interest in getting one going?

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Does anybody know if there's been a similar petition here in the south?

Could there be enough interest in getting one going?

In a catholic ethos school I'd be very surprised if a school would be ok with a student opting-out.

In secondary in my school (CBS) they did a prayer once a week on Tuesday at morning assembly, not once did I ever see somebody opt out. Infact you got in trouble if you were late to assembly.

I'd imagine the republic is not that much different to Norther Ireland in relation to this topic.

lazygal

Once a student is 18 years of age he or she can opt out of prayer. And parents can always opt their children aged under 18 years out of any and all religious elements of the school day.

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/school-religion-primary-secondary-opting-out/

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Once a student is 18 years of age he or she can opt out of prayer. And parents can always opt their children aged under 18 years out of any and all religious elements of the school day.

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/school-religion-primary-secondary-opting-out/

So if this teenager in the republic he'd have the exact same issue given his parents are religious, perhaps they should atleast revise down the age to 16.

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

And parents can always opt their children aged under 18 years out of any and all religious elements of the school day.

In theory.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Once a student is 18 years of age he or she can opt out of prayer. And parents can always opt their children aged under 18 years out of any and all religious elements of the school day.

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/school-religion-primary-secondary-opting-out/

Yup. The issue here is not actually about compulsory religion vs. freedom of conscience; it's about whether Scott gets to exercise freedom of conscience, or his parents do on his behalf. It's about when society recognises Scott as an autonomous adult.

As Scott makes clear, he doesn't in fact have to attend the collective worship (or religious instruction); his parents, Christians themselves, opted out on his behalf when he was 15, and the school has respected that. His point is that he (and others) should be allowed to opt out (or, presumably, opt in) regardless of his parents' views.

And presumably this is a point which would have relevance to more than just religion; should Scott, for instance, be allowed to make his own decisions about whether he will eat meat? Or go to an "adult" film? Or marry? (At 17, Scott can marry in NI, but only with his parents' consent. He could marry without anybody's consent in Scotland. He could marry only with court approval in the Republic.)

So, yes, it's an interesting point, but not fundamentally one about religion or freedom of conscience; more about adulthood and autonomy.

BlaasForRafa

Peregrinus wrote: »

And presumably this is a point which would have relevance to more than just religion; should Scott, for instance, be allowed to make his own decisions about whether he will eat meat? Or go to an "adult" film? Or marry? (At 17, Scott can marry in NI, but only with his parents' consent. He could marry without anybody's consent in Scotland. He could marry only with court approval in the Republic.)

The thread is only 6 posts old and your already introducing whataboutery, nice one.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, yes, it's an interesting point, but not fundamentally one about religion or freedom of conscience; more about adulthood and autonomy.

No this is fundamentally about freedom of conscience and no matter how much you hate it it's about freedom from religion, which everyone should be entitled to.

Peregrinus

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The thread is only 6 posts old and your already introducing whataboutery, nice one . . . No this is fundamentally about freedom of conscience and no matter how much you hate it it's about freedom from religion, which everyone should be entitled to.

Except that's not what Scott says. He currently isn't taking part in the collective worship, and isn't being required to. He is free from religion. He's explicit about what he's calling for:

"Right now, I'm in sixth form. I won't have to do RE. But my parents could put me back into collective worship and the Easter/Carol services. I trust that they won't, but it's not right that they should hold that power. It should be my choice.

By signing my petition, you can help me get that choice, and help many others who want it as well. It's not just about avoiding an assembly. It's about having your identity recognised. It's about your sense of being an independent person recognised and respected. It's about recognition for having your own views, and not someone else's. Today, I am a humanist. I do not believe in the existence of a god. I deserve to have my views recognised and respected, just like everyone else."

In other words, there is already a choice about whether Scott participates. The issue is not about whether there should be a choice, but about who should exercise it - Scott or his parents?

On review: Actually, now that I look at it, Scott's not quite so clear. He says the above, but his petition is "Make prayers in assembly optional for Northern Ireland schools to hold". The rationale he puts forward - recognition of the individual's views, having individual views respected - suggest that they should be optional, not for the school to hold, but for the student to attend. Transferring the choice about whether Scott should attend collective prayers from his parents to his school, or giving both the parents and the school a choice which might avoid any need for him to attend, wouldn't do anything to increase either his individual autonomy or his freedom from religion; his participation would still be decided by others.

recedite

Scott is conflating two issues, whether he should be able to make a decision opt out himself, and whether the school as a whole should be able to opt out.

But if the school opted out, the second point becomes moot. So I can see where he is coming from.

I see half the schools in Wales were breaking the same law. And that article is from 2005. But NI is of course a different kettle of fish. It seems to be a somewhat archaic law, equivalent to our notorious Rule 68.

Fleawuss

The issue is the legal one of adulthood. What is outrageous is the default position on collective worship is IN. Why not say all those who want to worship go to venue x, those who don't go to y.

Hotblack Desiato

Nobody in that article is even questioning the requirement for compulsory prayer, so much for the BBC's commitment to balance!

If people want to worship they have plenty of time at the weekend.

BlaasForRafa

Fleawuss wrote: »

The issue is the legal one of adulthood. What is outrageous is the default position on collective worship is IN. Why not say all those who want to worship go to venue x, those who don't go to y.

Because then there would be less chance of people being indoctrinated.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Scott is conflating two issues, whether he should be able to make a decision opt out himself, and whether the school as a whole should be able to opt out.

But if the school opted out, the second point becomes moot. So I can see where he is coming from.

I don't agree. If the school opts out, Scott would have no choice to make. I don't see that his autonomy is enhanced by depriving him of choices. The school opting out has exactly the same effect on Scott as his parents opting out; someone else is making the decision as to whether he will participate in collective worship or not. The only difference would be that the school would be making a single decision for everyone, whereas the present system allows for diverse decisions in respect of different pupils. If anything, the present system permits students at least the possibility of more influence, since there is a stronger case for Scott being able to persuade his parents to take his views into account in a decision affecting him (as in fact they have done) than for Scott to be able to persuade the school to take his views into account in a decision affecting the entire school.

If Scott is to be consistent, he should look for the right of students to decide for themselves whether to opt out of worship. He should look for this regardless of whether schools are required, or merely permitted, to organise collective worship.

There is of course a third alternative; schools could be forbidden from organising collective worship. But Scott isn't seeking this, and it plainly would do nothing to enhance his autonomy, since then he would have no choice to take.

BlaasForRafa

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is of course a third alternative; schools could be forbidden from organising collective worship. But Scott isn't seeking this, and it plainly would do nothing to enhance his autonomy, since then he would have no choice to take.

This is the way it should be, schools should have no role in supporting indoctrination of anybody.

Scott would always have the choice to pray before school, or during breaks, if that's what he chose to do.

Absolam

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This is the way it should be, schools should have no role in supporting indoctrination of anybody.
Scott would always have the choice to pray before school, or during breaks, if that's what he chose to do.

Right now he has those choices and the opportunity to participate in collective worship at school though.
It seems you want to limit what Scott is permitted to do, whereas Scott wants to retain the options and simply make the decision on what he ought to do for himself. I think that in this particular circumstance I'd rather see teenagers be allowed to make some decisions for themselves than have no choice allowed to anyone.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Right now he has those choices and the opportunity to participate in collective worship at school though.

If the school stops organising the collective worship, Scott only loses one of his options; the opportunity to attend collective prayers with a captive audience (some of whom don't want to be there). Why would anyone in a healthy mental state want to be part of a group that contained unwilling participants anyway?
Interested pupils could still organise their own prayer groups, meeting up at lunchtime or after school.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If the school stops organising the collective worship, Scott only loses one of his options; the opportunity to attend collective prayers with a captive audience (some of whom don't want to be there). Why would anyone in a healthy mental state want to be part of a group that contained unwilling participants anyway?
Interested pupils could still organise their own prayer groups, meeting up at lunchtime or after school.

So.. he would lose an option is really the point there? It seems Scott wants more choice, not less.
Right now, parents of pupils have a choice; Scott would like that choice to be his not theirs. It seems BlaasForRafa and yourself feel you should make that choice on their behalf, which is not something I think anyone in a healthy mental state would readily agree to.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

So.. he would lose an option is really the point there? It seems Scott wants more choice, not less.
Right now, parents of pupils have a choice; Scott would like that choice to be his not theirs. It seems BlaasForRafa and yourself feel you should make that choice on their behalf, which is not something I think anyone in a healthy mental state would readily agree to.

But you think it is mentally healthy to be forced to be in a particular group, or, even if you actually want to be in that group, be in a group that you know other are being forced to be in?

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

But you think it is mentally healthy to be forced to be in a particular group, or, even if you actually want to be in that group, be in a group that you know other are being forced to be in?

MrP

Well, I'm not a mental health professional, but I suspect the answer is as relevant for any group activity a child's parents 'force' them to participate in; I think that word force would bear some scrutiny. if they're physically beating them to compel them to engage in rugby matches despite their being asthmatic, that doesn't sound great. If they're sending them to bed without supper for skipping band practice to smoke behind the sheds, maybe that's a little different. I don't think it's all that honest to be trying to impose your own perspective on the religious participation of others by claiming you're concerned that someone else's parenting is imperiling their children's mental health though.

recedite

There is no law to say that all schools must implement compulsory rugby training or band practice.

BlaasForRafa

Absolam wrote: »

Right now he has those choices and the opportunity to participate in collective worship at school though.
It seems you want to limit what Scott is permitted to do, whereas Scott wants to retain the options and simply make the decision on what he ought to do for himself. I think that in this particular circumstance I'd rather see teenagers be allowed to make some decisions for themselves than have no choice allowed to anyone.

Lets cut to the chase here because you couldn't give a flying **** about this chap having a choice, you just want the state to continue imposing christianity on students.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

There is no law to say that all schools must implement compulsory rugby training or band practice.

Is there a law to say that schools must implement compulsory collective prayer?

Absolam

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Lets cut to the chase here because you couldn't give a flying **** about this chap having a choice, you just want the state to continue imposing christianity on students.

Whilst it's very kind of you to tell me what I want (presumably to save me the extraordinary effort involved in doing it myself), I think I'll decide for myself all the same. And I've no interest in the State (either ours or the British one) imposing any religion on anyone; I'm much more interested in minimising the infringement on peoples liberty to practice or not whatever religion they please.
Cutting to the chase, using someone else's bid to be accorded more freedom in order to advocate for your own desire to afford everyone less, really shouldn't go unremarked.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Is there a law to say that schools must implement compulsory collective prayer?

I believe there is, yes. Remember, Scotty's petition is "make prayers in assembly optional for Northern Ireland schools to hold" - a petition which would make no sense if it were already optional.

I think the position in NI (and England and Wales) is that every school (or every controlled school and every maintained school) is required by law to hold a daily act of "collective worship" of a "broadly Christian character". There's an individual opt-out which, again by law, is exercisable by the parents, not by the student.

On edit: It's Article 21 of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

I believe there is, yes. Remember, Scotty's petition is "make prayers in assembly optional for Northern Ireland schools to hold" - a petition which would make no sense if it were already optional.

I think the position in NI (and England and Wales) is that every school (or every controlled school and every maintained school) is required by law to hold a daily act of "collective worship" of a "broadly Christian character". There's an individual opt-out which, again by law, is exercisable by the parents, not by the student.
On edit: It's Article 21 of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986.

Whew! I'm going to pull my neck in there.... I'm actually astonished that collective worship is a legal requirement in schools in Northern Ireland. And England and Wales, apparently. Wow. And in this day and age, considering the size of the non Christian population in the British Isles, it must be broadly Christian too; I have to say I'm flabbergasted! I did read that a school can apply to the local Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education to have the Christian character requirement lifted for its non-Christian pupiils and offer an alternative form of Collective Worship e.g. one that is wholly or mainly of a broadly Islamic character, but still... wow.

But not, apparently, that schools must implement compulsory collective prayer; as has been pointed out, it isn't compulsory as parents may opt their children out, per the legislation.

Still, I think that's going to be the oddest thing I'll come across this week. Thanks!

Peregrinus

Actually, the "broadly Christian character" bit is from the English/Welsh legislation. The only requirements in NI are (a) that there is to be "collective worship" in the school day, and (b) if the school is a "controlled school" - i.e. one run by of the Education and Library Boards - the worship is to be "undenominational" and "based upon the Holy Scriptures according to some authoritative version or versions thereof". In a maintained school - which would include all Catholic schools and, I suspect, any Islamic school or school of any other minority religion - the content of the worship is up to the Governors. It can be denominational. On the other hand, it doesn't have to be Christian.

We could split hairs and say that students are not required to engage in "collective prayer"; the only obligation (subject to the parental opt-out) is to attend at collective worship. But, really, I don't think that disposes of any of the objections of principle to the arrangement.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Does anybody know if there's been a similar petition here in the south?

Could there be enough interest in getting one going?

There is no legal requirement in the Republic for schools to make collective worship a part of the school day.It's up to school managers to decide whether and how often they organize collective worship.

The position which Scott is campaigning for with his petition is the position which already prevails in the Republic.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Whew! I'm going to pull my neck in there.... I'm actually astonished that collective worship is a legal requirement in schools in Northern Ireland. And England and Wales, apparently. Wow. And in this day and age, considering the size of the non Christian population in the British Isles, it must be broadly Christian too; I have to say I'm flabbergasted! I did read that a school can apply to the local Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education to have the Christian character requirement lifted for its non-Christian pupiils and offer an alternative form of Collective Worship e.g. one that is wholly or mainly of a broadly Islamic character, but still... wow.

But not, apparently, that schools must implement compulsory collective prayer; as has been pointed out, it isn't compulsory as parents may opt their children out, per the legislation.

Still, I think that's going to be the oddest thing I'll come across this week. Thanks!

I am not sure what amazes me most, the fact that you were arguing against something when you didn't even understand what you were arguing against, or, the fact that having had your misunderstanding pointed out you simply slide slightly sideways to argue against part of the definition, still getting the whole thing slightly wrong.

It is perfectly acceptable to describe something as being compulsory when exceptions apply. The wearing of seatbelts in the UK and Ireland is described, for example, as compulsory, yet there are exceptions. Collective worship in schools is compulsory, but it is possible for parents to opt their children out. This would be similar to the seatbelt analogy. Regardless of that, and even if it wasn't the case that it is perfectly acceptable to describe something as compulsory even where there were exceptions, I believe the "Compulsory" in Compulsory Collective Worship refers to the compulsion on schools to provide it.

And irrespective of the above, the main issue the kid in the story has is that it is a parental opt out those having the collective worship inflicted on them can't opt out.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not sure what amazes me most, the fact that you were arguing against something when you didn't even understand what you were arguing against, or, the fact that having had your misunderstanding pointed out you simply slide slightly sideways to argue against part of the definition, still getting the whole thing slightly wrong.

I'm pretty sure you'll find I wasn't arguing against anything to do with British legislation; I was arguing against compelling schools to remove any option that allows prayer (or indoctrination, as BlaasForRafa felt it was). Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant though, eh?

MrPudding wrote: »

It is perfectly acceptable to describe something as being compulsory when exceptions apply. The wearing of seatbelts in the UK and Ireland is described, for example, as compulsory, yet there are exceptions. Collective worship in schools is compulsory, but it is possible for parents to opt their children out. This would be similar to the seatbelt analogy. Regardless of that, and even if it wasn't the case that it is perfectly acceptable to describe something as compulsory even where there were exceptions, I believe the "Compulsory" in Compulsory Collective Worship refers to the compulsion on schools to provide it.

Sure, but not to put too fine a point on it, collective worship is compulsory for schools. It's not compulsory for parents; they can opt out. Schools are compelled by law, parents are compelled by nothing other than their own preference. Unlike your seatbelt analogy parents have a choice; seatbelt wearers have no choice, they are either compelled or not compelled entirely according to the provisions set out in law.
Perhaps Robindch intended the compulsory in compulsory collective worship to apply to schools; it's certainly possible. But you yourself argued as to whether it is mentally healthy to be forced to be in a particular group; that compulsion is certainly not one placed on a school it's a compulsion on an individual so it's evident where you placed the compulsion element in your argument; on the pupil.
Recedite also argued that there is no law to say that all schools must implement compulsory rugby training or band practice; if the school is not subject to a law, and is (uncompelled by law) implementing compulsory training then such compulsion is again on the pupil not the school.
Since I was answering your points I think I'm entitled to stick with the same subject of compulsion as the points I'm answering, do you not? Because it wouldn't make much sense if I argued against a cumpulsion not put forward in the posts I'm answering. Even if you now believe the "Compulsory" in Compulsory Collective Worship refers to the compulsion on schools to provide it.

MrPudding wrote: »

And irrespective of the above, the main issue the kid in the story has is that it is a parental opt out those having the collective worship inflicted on them can't opt out.

Yes the issue he has is that his parents have a choice rather than him; BlaasForRafas' (and it seems Recedites) issue however was that the school had prayer at all. And in my reply I said that it seems BlaasForRafa wants to limit what Scott is permitted to do, whereas Scott wants to retain the options and simply make the decision on what he ought to do for himself. I was pretty straightforward in saying I think that in this particular circumstance I'd rather see teenagers be allowed to make some decisions for themselves than have no choice allowed to anyone.
Dos that cool your amazement at all?

__________________

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is no legal requirement in the Republic for schools to make collective worship a part of the school day.

It's been a while since I've been in a school controlled by our religious friends, but do I have a suspicion that Rule 68 of the Rules for National Schools under the Department of the Education, issued 1965 is still in force around the country:

Rules for National Schools wrote:

Of all parts of a school curriculum, Religious Instruction is by far the most important, as its subject matter, God’s honour and service, includes the proper use of all man’s faculties, and affords the most powerful inducements to their proper use. Religious Instruction is, therefore, a fundamental part of the school course, and a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school.

Absolam

In fairness, the Rules (which apply to all schools, not just those controlled by our religious friends) require that religious instruction be provided, and that (somewhat nebulously) a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school; which doesn't necessarily entail any acts of worship, collective or otherwise. So they don't require collective worship, unlike the UK legislation which requires both collective worship (the schedule for which Inspectors are empowered to examine to ensure compliance) and religious instruction.