Back in the neolithic days when I was in school in the UK...well, the requirements of a school were to prepare its students to take what are now GCSR exams. When I took them, they were O and A and S level exams, and there were many different boards with each having their own syllabi.

If I didn't take an O level in anything religious, I never got the idea that the government cared what I was taught--Fay, Am-Chau--is that a correct impression?

Hil, remember that in the UK we still have an established church-- the Queen is the head of Church as well as State, and Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Most religious state schools are Church of England, with Roman Catholic second and a scattering of Jewish and Muslim places. The concept of church-state division is not really recognised here, at least in the structure of the system.

We now have the National Curriculum which lays down what state schools have to teach in key subjects-- which I think means only science, maths, and English. (For example, the religious education programme is "non-statutory"; it's also possible for parents to take thier children out of RE lessons.) The various exam boards do have different requirements, but they all fall within the demands of the National Cirriculum, as I understand it. I believe all UK state schools teach evolution (and my father is a science teacher in a C of E secondary school, so I think I'd have heard if they'd stopped).

It's interesting that country with a state church seems to have much less angst over religion than the U.S., which declares freedom of religion. Then again, England seems a bit more psychially stable than the U.S. anyway. I wonder if that's because England doesn't fuss so much about overt weirdness.

I wouldn't say we were free of angst over religion, Connie. For example, we've recently had/are still having an important public debate about the right to wear religious symbols-- sparked off by two key cases: a woman who worked for British Airways and was not permitted to wear a cross on show while in uniform, and another woman who was a classroom assistant who was asked not to wear a Muslim veil which covered her mouth while at work. There's a strong freedom of religion tradition, but there is debate about the outward expression of religion.

Shaw often argued that having an established church was an important factor in keeping England (the term he used) free from religious domination. Establishment, he claimed, made it an essentially secular institution, which as an arm of the state would not have great secular power compared to other departments, but which as a primarily secular power would no longer have the moral leadership an independent church has. A lot of that argument depends on the form of establishment. It obviously does not apply to theocracy, where the state is an arm of the church rather than the other way around.

Too much of the U.S. these days is an unspoken theocracy.

The history of religion in the U.S. is particularly interesting for me because I've got several Colonial ancestors who bucked the system by being unapologetic Quakers in Puritan colonies when it was illegal not to attend Puritan services.

History, she is cool.

Word, Connie.

The concept of church-state division is not really recognised here, at least in the structure of the system

Hmm. That's - well, I see what you mean, but I don't think I'd have put it that way. But I see what you mean.

And, yeah - when your Queen is the Head of the Church - well, maybe that's got something to do with the fact that most people don't go to church. (That and the whole 'hey, let's found a religion based on my wish to marry my pregnant mistress! Yeah! And let's steal all the stuff those bloody monks have got, while we trash their monasteries. Hmm. I liked it when the Pope called me Defender of the Faith for refuting some other guy's protestantism, so I think I'll keep that title. But bollocks to his Church! Yeah! Go me! Somebody bring me another stoop of WINE!' approach to Christianity demonstrated by Henry VIII. Which tends to stop me from taking the C of E terribly seriously as an institution. But that's just me.)

If I didn't take an O level in anything religious, I never got the idea that the government cared what I was taught--Fay, Am-Chau--is that a correct impression?

Well, these days in the primary curriculum RE isn't mandatory. There is a curriculum, and there are schemes of work that most school's follow, but it's very much 'hey, look, here's an interesting religion! These folks do this! Let's make some divali lamps!' rather than trying to inculcate any particular view. I think that school assemblies are less overtly Christian than they used to be, maybe - but I may just be thinking about my High School (which was a private school anyway, and had the following school song:

" Hear the ancient watchword ringing! / Each for all and all for God! / May it nerve and brace our spirits / As we march along life's road. / Each for all, the school's great motto! / Listen to its clarion call! / All shall share in each one's honour! / Shame of one is shame of all! / All for God, so help us Father / Whose we are and whom we serve..."

...Well, you get the picture. So, yeah, I remember assembly involving hymn singing every morning. But then I also remember school uniforms, hockey sticks and mandatory Latin, which also - not so much with the typical UK childhood.)

Evolution, though? That's in the science curriculum. None of this Intelligent Design business.

I also remember school uniforms, hockey sticks and mandatory Latin

Hey, me too!

We had religious assembly every Tuesday. The Christian one was held in the main hall, and the Jewish one in the library off it. I soon started to go to Jewish assembly. Not many people told me I couldn't go (because I wasn't Jewish), and to all those I replied that I wasn't Christian, so if those were the rules I wasn't assembling at all.

I got to go to the Jewish one.

Also, at Christmas over half the school trucked down the way to the church for a religious service. I started refusing to go to that in Lower Fifth, and I remember Mrs. Shaw pushing so that I didn't have to. Unfortunately she had to, and she was no more Christian than I was.

Instead I hung with the Jewish girls, and there were quizzes on Jewish history and stuff. Much more fun.

The school was technically Christian, I guess. Or expected you to default that way. The few Muslim/Jain/Buddhist/etc girls just did the Christian stuff.

We never covered any material on the major Jewish holidays because almost half the school was missing. We also had a compressed Friday that started and ended early to make sure there was reasonable time to get home and get ready before sundown.

That and the whole 'hey, let's found a religion based on my wish to marry my pregnant mistress! Yeah! And let's steal all the stuff those bloody monks have got, while we trash their monasteries. Hmm. I liked it when the Pope called me Defender of the Faith for refuting some other guy's protestantism, so I think I'll keep that title. But bollocks to his Church! Yeah! Go me! Somebody bring me another stoop of WINE!' approach to Christianity demonstrated by Henry VIII. Which tends to stop me from taking the C of E terribly seriously as an institution. But that's just me.

I just bought a board game, called Here I Stand, which covers the period of the Reformation. It's rather delightfully asymmetrical. The players are the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans, the French, the English, the Papacy and the Protestants. And they all have different goals (the Ottomans are pretty much entirely conquest-and-piracy focused, while the Papacy and Protestants fight over the hearts and minds of Europe, and the Hapsburgs, in addition to their extensive territorial concerns, also get points for exploring the New World). The English player gets extra points for Henry VIII cycling through his six wives in an effort to produce an Edward.