To think schools shouldn't teach religion as absolute fact?

[PoesyCherish]

DSD is 6 and is learning about Christianity in school. They're teaching her Jesus is the Son of God rather than "some people believe he is". Everything about the religion is taught as fact. They've also failed to mention anything about any other religion.

AIBU to think they shouldn't be teaching it as absolute fact? How are children supposed to be understanding and tolerant of other people's beliefs if they're taught one world view as fact?

Oh I am. Nothing else is valid, everybody who says anything she deems "irrational" has automatically lost the argument

But she has not set up reason as a god. You have inferred she has, which is not the same.

@missfattyfatty regarding Santa, I had a formal complaint against me for saying that Santa was a construct as well as a lot of the Christmas traditions...including how the Gospel writers used Greek, Roman and Hebrew myth around the birth narrative of Jesus. We were investigating the concept of religious myth and their purpose and how there can be the same in secular society.
I wouldn't mind but this was with a Year 8 class, not even primary!

*rtft not raft!
(I can actually raft tho)

echt

I know it isn't. I inferred it, so I think it.

But your inference is not her implications i.e. you say she said things she never said, i.e. that reason is a god.

echt

Again, I know it is not her deliberate implication. This is my view of the implications of her attitude and words. This is what happens when our thoughts and words encounter those of others: others think through the implications and draw their own conclusions. It is irrelevant whether she thought them through to that conclusion or not - I did.

Any school that receives public money should not be allowed to teach religious belief as a fact, whether they are a faith based school or not. Of course children need to learn about religion in order to understand other subjects - history, sociology etc but there needs to be a line drawn.

noeffingidea

But the government funds faith schools in the full knowledge that many parents want religion taught as fact. Why would they draw your line for you?

Again, I know it is not her deliberate implication. This is my view of the implications of her attitude and words. This is what happens when our thoughts and words encounter those of others: others think through the implications and draw their own conclusions.

No, Pengggwn, in the context of this thread, which is about religious belief, your ascribing the deification of reason to what WrongOnTheInternet said is not what she said. You made it up.

echt

Let me help you. Implications are not things that people say. Implications at e things that are implied.

But those things can only be considered to be implied because they are inferred, and inference can only occur through the mediating presence of the mind of the listener or reader.

You do not infer the same from her statements as I do. I may or may not be reasonable in my inference, and you may or may not be reasonable in your interpretation.

That she did not explicitly say what I inferred is irrelevant because, if she had explicitly said it, it wouldn't be inference at all.

Faith schools have a right to exist if they aren't inciting extremism and violence, and if they service a community that wants them, extreme secularists should not be allowed to prevent those communities or government from offering them funding. Of course people with antipathy towards other people's religions should have a right to express their opinion but not step in and dictate. A line has to be drawn.

People cannot be held responsible for things people impute that they did not intend. They can apologise for giving offence but that is at their discretion.

This is actually one of the markers of our slide into post-rationalism and results in non-existent concepts like microaggression etc.. You cannot make up intentions someone does not have in your own mind and hold them accountable for those intentions, that's irrational, you can only hold people responsible for what they did say.

We're atheists so didn't even consider any faith schools for our girls.

But TBH that's what I'd expect of a catholic school. Surely Catholics believe the bible as fact?

I'd be very upset though if a non-faith school starting teaching Jesus as fact not a story that some people believe.

ImAIdoot

I am not 'holding anyone responsible' for anything, am I? I am merely stating my view of the implications of the marks on a page made by another person. I am 100% entitled to do so.

that's irrational

It would be irrational to say the other poster intended the implication. Obviously I cannot say that. I can only say that I think the implication is present, whether she intended it or not. That certainly isn't irrational.

may or may not be reasonable in my inference

You're definitely not. You made it up.

echt

No, I inferred it. The attitudes expressed by that poster towards reason bear several comparisons to the attitudes expressed by some persons of faith towards their gods: the sense of infallibility, the sense that others must recognise that infallibility, the desire to eradicate all other modes of thought or feeling. Very similar to deification.

I don't care one speck whether you agree or not.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

There is a quite interesting correlation between some of the anti-clerical attitudes expressed in this thread and the attitudes enshrined at the peak of the French Revolutionary Terror in the Festival of Reason.

@Pengggwn I struggle to argue against you with great conviction because I do agree there is some dogmatic atheism going on.

I would take issue with describing it as "reason" more than anything else.

ImAIdoot

Ah. 😂

If the child is in a Catholic school then you are being unreasonable. I teach in a Catholic school and yes we teach the children that Jesus is the son of God because that is what Catholics believe. We support the ethos of the school as well as the beliefs. I am not Catholic- I am however Anglican so still hold these beliefs. If you don't want a child learning this then send them to a non-faith school. That is why there are religious schools. I don't see the problem personally. If you go to church you are told Jesus is the son of God so if you go to a church school it should be the same principle.

Leaving aside that as a step-parent your only involvement with the kid’s religious education is the initial choice you made to join a religious family.

Hahahaha yes okay. I haven't joined a religious family.

For those saying there was a choice, what choice exactly? Her mother is disabled and at the time of choosing a school couldn't drive. Should she have given up any form of custody for her daughter during the week so DP could drive her to the school miles away? Should her mother have given up on any form of involvement in her child's education because she couldn't travel to the school miles away?

I agree OP - religion has no place in schools. It can be taught at home or in church / temple etc

PoesyCherish

How far away are you suggesting the next nearest school was, that your DP couldn't have picked her up at home and drive her to school, then driven her home again?

Sorry - meant outside of R.E. Not that it shouldn't be discussed.