Subjects that regularly raise their heads in Scotland are faith schools, religious education, religious worship in schools – usually brought up by the humanist society which is against all of these, seeing religious education as indoctrination – especially in faith schools. Most of these schools happen to be Catholic so it’s often taken as an attack on Catholicism. This month the objection was the decision by the Scottish Government not to allow 16 -18 year olds to choose to opt out of religious observance. The report of it in the media showed a lack of clarity as to what the problem actually was. It confused religious observance, religious worship and religious education as though they were all the same thing so in the end it was difficult to know what the Humanist society was objecting to. As Confucius said “ if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things and if language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success”.
Religious observance is an unfortunate term. It sounds as though it demands or encourages a religious affiliation that pupils might not subscribe to. In fact it relates to what was once called school assemblies. When Christianity was the dominant religion and culture and religious education bible study assemblies often resembled acts of worship with prayers and hymns followed by the giving out of notices by the head teacher. Sometimes there would be visits to Church for events such as carol singing at Christmas and prize giving at the end of the year. All of this was fine when the pupils were believers and part of a faith community.
Things have changed. Religious education has developed beyond the confessional teaching of Christianity to include other world religions and schools, even Catholic schools, are now multi-faith and multicultural. Religious education is now seen as educational. It’s not about making pupils religious in the sense of indoctrinating or inculcating a particular faith. Rather it encourages students to question and reflect and develop a sense of meaning, value and purpose in their lives. It is about developing an understanding of religion and belief (now the name given in equality legislation to those who are not religious), giving pupils the opportunity to reflect on their own faith and understand that of others. With this changing understanding of religious education so too there was a change in the understanding of what school assemblies should be. It was recognised that no-one should be asked to participate in an act of worship expressed in terms of a religion or faith they did not believe in. In Scotland parents have always had the right to withdraw their children from religious education and from acts of worship. But religious observance now, according to the Scottish Government, is meant to be ‘a community act which aims to promote the spiritual development of all members of the school’s community and express and celebrate the shared values of the school community.’ It’s a moment to experience the corporate identity of the school and reflect anything that touches the school community. Who wouldn’t think this was a good thing or would want their child to be on the margins of this expression of community? Of course it depends on how it’s done. Change is slow and I’m sure that ten years after the Report on Religious Observance many schools are not adept at good assemblies. There’s also, of course, the added tension faith schools where an act of worship can express the faith values of the schools but then excludes those students who don’t belong to the faith. The experience can be educational for them and there is the ‘opt out’ clause for parents but faith schools too have to think, I believe, about expressing the corporate multi-faith nature of their community.
The model for this new approach to religious observance is often taken to be the Time for Reflection at the Scottish Parliament. When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999 it was decided that there would not be Christian prayers led by a chaplain as is the case in the Westminster Parliament. Rather there would be a space to stop and reflect and this would be led by people from different faiths – and none. It’s a great privilege to do this. I’ve done it twice and I know many people who’ve done it. Not only is it an opportunity to reflect with Parliamentarians but it encourages a sense of engagement with the Parliament – at least it did for me. The Humanist Society is not against this approach. A few years ago it came to an agreement with the Church of Scotland to petition the Scottish Parliament to change the name religious observance to that of Time for Reflection. It didn’t come to anything. I’m not sure why. For one thing it would require a change in law and that is quite an undertaking. I also suspect that the joint statement agreement didn’t have the backing of the whole Church and that there were objections to it. To get the agreement of a Church or faith community takes a long time and a long process of consultation. It’s easier for the Humanist Society which has far fewer members to do this.
So where does all this take me with regard to interreligious dialogue? Well it teaches me that so many misunderstandings arise because of confusion as to what we are talking about. It teaches me how important it is to clarify our terms, to tease out what we mean by the words we use before we even begin to dialogue. If we do this we might find we are closer in our understanding than first appears to be the case or that our disagreements are not so much about content as form. It also teaches me that there is a need to really dialogue about these issues and to develop ways to celebrate our common identity in a reflective way, whether that be the school community or the civic community – an agenda I’d like to see the interfaith world take seriously.
Religious observance is an unfortunate term. It sounds as though it demands or encourages a religious affiliation that pupils might not subscribe to. In fact it relates to what was once called school assemblies. When Christianity was the dominant religion and culture and religious education bible study assemblies often resembled acts of worship with prayers and hymns followed by the giving out of notices by the head teacher. Sometimes there would be visits to Church for events such as carol singing at Christmas and prize giving at the end of the year. All of this was fine when the pupils were believers and part of a faith community.
Things have changed. Religious education has developed beyond the confessional teaching of Christianity to include other world religions and schools, even Catholic schools, are now multi-faith and multicultural. Religious education is now seen as educational. It’s not about making pupils religious in the sense of indoctrinating or inculcating a particular faith. Rather it encourages students to question and reflect and develop a sense of meaning, value and purpose in their lives. It is about developing an understanding of religion and belief (now the name given in equality legislation to those who are not religious), giving pupils the opportunity to reflect on their own faith and understand that of others. With this changing understanding of religious education so too there was a change in the understanding of what school assemblies should be. It was recognised that no-one should be asked to participate in an act of worship expressed in terms of a religion or faith they did not believe in. In Scotland parents have always had the right to withdraw their children from religious education and from acts of worship. But religious observance now, according to the Scottish Government, is meant to be ‘a community act which aims to promote the spiritual development of all members of the school’s community and express and celebrate the shared values of the school community.’ It’s a moment to experience the corporate identity of the school and reflect anything that touches the school community. Who wouldn’t think this was a good thing or would want their child to be on the margins of this expression of community? Of course it depends on how it’s done. Change is slow and I’m sure that ten years after the Report on Religious Observance many schools are not adept at good assemblies. There’s also, of course, the added tension faith schools where an act of worship can express the faith values of the schools but then excludes those students who don’t belong to the faith. The experience can be educational for them and there is the ‘opt out’ clause for parents but faith schools too have to think, I believe, about expressing the corporate multi-faith nature of their community.
The model for this new approach to religious observance is often taken to be the Time for Reflection at the Scottish Parliament. When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999 it was decided that there would not be Christian prayers led by a chaplain as is the case in the Westminster Parliament. Rather there would be a space to stop and reflect and this would be led by people from different faiths – and none. It’s a great privilege to do this. I’ve done it twice and I know many people who’ve done it. Not only is it an opportunity to reflect with Parliamentarians but it encourages a sense of engagement with the Parliament – at least it did for me. The Humanist Society is not against this approach. A few years ago it came to an agreement with the Church of Scotland to petition the Scottish Parliament to change the name religious observance to that of Time for Reflection. It didn’t come to anything. I’m not sure why. For one thing it would require a change in law and that is quite an undertaking. I also suspect that the joint statement agreement didn’t have the backing of the whole Church and that there were objections to it. To get the agreement of a Church or faith community takes a long time and a long process of consultation. It’s easier for the Humanist Society which has far fewer members to do this.
So where does all this take me with regard to interreligious dialogue? Well it teaches me that so many misunderstandings arise because of confusion as to what we are talking about. It teaches me how important it is to clarify our terms, to tease out what we mean by the words we use before we even begin to dialogue. If we do this we might find we are closer in our understanding than first appears to be the case or that our disagreements are not so much about content as form. It also teaches me that there is a need to really dialogue about these issues and to develop ways to celebrate our common identity in a reflective way, whether that be the school community or the civic community – an agenda I’d like to see the interfaith world take seriously.
RSS Feed
