Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 4, 2013 in In the News | 11 comments

Atheist teacher fired, refused to conduct religious assembly

 

A UK atheist teacher has been fired for refusing to organize religious assemblies. From the article:

An atheist teacher has been fired from a state school because he asked not to be involved in organising religious assemblies. The school said it respected his atheist beliefs, and he was free to exercise those beliefs in his own time, but he cannot pick and chose which school activities he will get involved in.

A statement by the teacher, released through his lawyer, said it was “his sincere belief that there is no such thing as God, and that he opposes all forms of organised religion. He cannot, in all conscience, be involved in an activity that promotes religion, much less an act of ‘worship’. He simply asked his employer to accommodate his sincere beliefs, and is disappointed that this has resulted in his dismissal.”

While the school “respects” atheist beliefs, they feel those beliefs shouldn’t interfere with teacher duties.

The Religious Alliance has supported the teacher’s dismissal. A spokesman said: “When you are paid to do a job by the state, you have to follow the state’s rules. Parliament passed the law that requires religious assemblies in schools and a teacher shouldn’t be allowed to opt out just because he is an atheist. What’s next? Will an atheist teacher be allowed to refuse to teach a child maths, just because that child is religious?”

But the British Atheist Council has hit out at the teacher’s dismissal as “an appalling attack on freedom of conscience”. A spokeswoman said: “There were plenty of teachers at the school willing to provide a religious assembly for pupils, no assembly would have been cancelled just because this one teacher asked not to be involved. To force this teacher out of his career is a huge over reaction – and speaks of something deeper, an anti-atheist undercurrent.”

Link

*Update* I was evidently incorrect in assuming everyone would read the linked article. With this story, it’s important to read the link to truly find the incongruent element in this story. My mistake. Sorry.

  • Darth Cynic

    Hmmm, well I think it evident that the law mandating religious assembly in state schools should be repealed and the state take no part in religious instruction. However, as the law is currently on the books this teacher appears to have little grounds for refusing to discharge duties they were fully aware of when taking up the position. Basically they are refusing to do their job which seems little different than the devout Christian pharmacist who for reasons of conscience wishes to be exempted from providing contraceptives. All I see is superiors reasonably asserting their authority over an employee who refuses to budge and not indicative of anti-atheist undercurrents; which strikes me as somewhat hyperbolic a reaction to one instance.

    • BethAnnErickson

      You have a valid point.

  • Vic

    What I would be interested in is: Would they allow a religious person to not participte if it was an event which is against religious belief?

    Call me a cynic, but I think the person would be excused. And that’s what the representative of the atheist organisation meant by “anti-atheist undercurrent”.

    All mere speculation by me, though.

    • Acleron

      Only if we had evidence that this has happened in similar circumstances.

      I imagine the lawyers are looking for such cases. Perhaps a religious person has been excused from teaching evolution.

      But overall, I am uneasy in this case for the reasons given by the first commenter. I support action against religiously inspired pharmacists and Muslims complaining about handling non-halal meat. This teacher would have known what the job entailed and has decided that once employed, he no longer wanted to do part of it.

      It seems hypocritical to me to support him and complain about the religious.

      A final point, in employment cases, there is often much else to the situation, in general, employers tend not to argue their case in public.

      • BethAnnErickson

        Another great point. This is a fascinating situation.

      • Vic

        Good points, and I’d be interested how the legal case would turn out, if there were one.

        “It seems hypocritical to me to support him and complain about the religious.”

        If we’d go from the status quo. I am convinced that religion and religious events have no place at school in the first place. But under the current legislation in the UK, I’d probably have to concede that you are right.

    • BethAnnErickson

      That’s a great question.

  • Vic

    Wait a moment!

    “Who do you agree with? The school? The Religious Alliance? The British
    Atheist Council? I ask because the imagined story I outline above (and,
    yes, it is only an imagined story) fairly well mirrors that of Lillian
    Ladele, the Christian registrar who was dismissed from working at
    Islington Borough Council because she asked not be involved in the
    registration of same-sex civil partnerships”

    I didn’t realise it is only an imagined story. :/

    “If at the start of reading this post you were beginning to be outraged by
    how the school had treated the atheist teacher, then you ought to be
    appalled by how Lillian was treated. The true test of tolerance lies in
    how you react to the beliefs you don’t like, not the ones you do.”

    Touché, monsieur. But I should have smelled it the second “atheism” was called a “respected belief” and that an atheist would refuse to teach a pupil math. And what I smell is not olibanum.

    “Lillian was employed by a public authority, Islington Borough Council.
    The council is required by law to provide same-sex civil partnership
    registrations to the public. But that doesn’t mean every single
    registrar has to be involved.”

    I call false equivalency.

    If all registars refused to work on religious grounds, a civil right (partnership registration) would be denied which could not be gotten elsewise.

    If all teachers refused to work based on atheistic grounds, religious education/events would not happen at school. Where they should not be in the first place. Religion is a private matter, if parents want religion for their kids, don’t pay for it via tax payer money. Get a private religious teacher for your community, where the pupils can go after school and organise events yourself.

    Now everyone can make fun of me because I didn’t read the source immediatly. Well played, BethAnn Erickson.

    • BethAnnErickson

      Thanks for your comment. As someone unfamiliar with UK laws, I honestly can’t comment on the differences between this case and Lillian’s. If you’re familiar with these laws, then your comments are most certainly thought provoking. I find the whole situation fascinating. Thanks again for your insights.

      • Vic

        Hm? I’m confused. The passages are quoted from the linked article, by Mike Judge in the huffington post. See 6th and 7th paragraph.

        There is NO atheist teacher who was fired. The case is made up. It’s a Christian author who used that invented story as a metaphor/analogy to point out different attitudes towards religion and atheism (and from the tone of the article I assume Mr. Christian-Institute is very concerned over the rampant oppression of christians by evil militant atheists, but let’s not digress).

        I thought everyone was aware of that except me? D:

        • BethAnnErickson

          Spot on. That’s one reason I find the whole discussion utterly fascinating. So many dimensions to this story, it’s amazing.