Child forced to join in act of worship.

[danot]

Hurrah! You can understand something then.

 

 

I'm not talking down to anybody. I'm merely responding to somebody who persistently accuses me of saying what I have not said, and has failed to show either where I said it or where they got the impression that I had implied it. (i.e. a troll.) Now you're accusing me of not knowing who I am.

 

 

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt to begin with. The doubt is diminishing rapidly.

 

(My bold/red.)

 

I have never made that claim. For the last time, either quote the post where I said that, or quote the post where you got the impression that I implied that. Otherwise, stop suggesting that I did.

 

One last try...

 

Post 183...

 

 

 

Post 184...

 

 

 

Post 186...

 

 

You said by whom; 'the vicar'. But not how. My contention is that the officiate at a wedding has no authority over a voluntary guest who is free to leave at any time.

 

Post 204...

 

 

(My bold/red.)

 

A child obliged by law to attend school, under the authority of adults in loco parenti, who can humiliate them by making them 'perform' in front of their peers, is not in the same position as a voluntary guest at a wedding, in my opinion. Neither the singing of hymns nor the price of cheese have anything to do with that. That's all that I was saying, and still am. You are welcome to agree or disagree as your conscience dictates, but instead continue to accuse me of saying something completely different.

 

I cannot put it any plainer than that.

You are not accused of anything redwhine. Although what you said did seem to suggest that you believed vicars do not have the authority over their wedding congrigation that teachers have over their shcool assembly, which I presumed you were applying within the context of the thread, which clearly as everything to do with singing hymns.

 

The point I was trying to make redwhine, was that teachers do not have any greater authority than vicars with regards to hymn singing. Which is why I fail to see how you can view them to be completely different matters?

[redwhine]

You are not accused of anything redwhine. Although what you said did seem to suggest that you believed vicars do not have the authority over their wedding congrigation that teachers have over their shcool assembly, which I presumed you were applying within the context of the thread, which clearly as everything to do with singing hymns.

 

The point I was trying to make redwhine, was that teachers do not have any greater authority than vicars with regards to hymn singing. Which is why I fail to see how you can view them to be completely different matters?

(My bold.)

 

Teachers are adults and are in loco parenti in relation to a child who is legally required to attend school. A vicar has no authority over a guest at a wedding. That applies to singing hymns, doing maths homework, etc., etc., etc. So teachers do have more authority over hymn singing in schools than vicars over hymn singing by guests at a wedding. But that particular is not germane to the general point which I was trying to make.

[harvey19]

Correct. So let's not assume that it was. OK?

 

 

...like thumbscrews, the rack, etc.?

 

 

So do I.

 

I can not understand how you can condemn the school out of hand when you have only heard one side of the story from someone who was not present.

Objectivity and perspective.

[danot]

(My bold.)

 

Teachers are adults and are in loco parenti in relation to a child who is legally required to attend school. A vicar has no authority over a guest at a wedding. That applies to singing hymns, doing maths homework, etc., etc., etc. So teachers do have more authority over hymn singing in schools than vicars over hymn singing by guests at a wedding. But that particular is not germane to the general point which I was trying to make.

So your comment wasn't related to the thread then?

[danot]

If you had not already approached the school and arranged for your son to be excused from singing hymns in assembly why shouldn't the teacher have told him to join in with the rest of the pupils ?

Because they have no right.

[danot]

I think the poster has sensibly done what many contributors advised and not kicked up a fuss at the school.

We have had a teacher called a control freak, accusations of a child being bullied, discriminated against and humiliated after hearing only one side of the story.

If the parent had not aproached the school previously and stated their wishes for the child not to sing hymns how was the teacher to know the child should be excused ?

I think the parent has now followed the correct course of action for the childs sake and should let them decide on their religious beliefs or non beliefs at a later age. I do not think singing hymns in a school assembly will make any difference one way or another.

I believe most parents, including myself, woudn't have any reason to be concerned about their children singing hymns in assembly. Although that isn't the issue is it.

[harvey19]

Because they have no right.

They have no right to tell a pupil to do the same as everyone else ?

When a reason is known the situation is different.

[DragonofAna]

They have no right to tell a pupil to do the same as everyone else ?

When a reason is known the situation is different.

 

I think we should check up on a teacher's right to force a child to sing. And then check on that teacher's right to threaten a child and humiliate the child for not singing.

 

Not sure if there is an actually law that states a child must sing hymns or be humiliated.

[harvey19]

I believe most parents, including myself, woudn't have any reason to be concerned about their children singing hymns in assembly. Although that isn't the issue is it.

My post covers the issue in an objective unbiassed way.

[danot]

They have no right to tell a pupil to do the same as everyone else ?

No!.. not necessarily. Just because something is common practice in our schools, doesn't mean teachers have the right to enforce it.

Originally posted by harvey19

When a reason is known the situation is different.

What do you mean?.. being in possession of the full facts?.