to think that some non-religious parents over-react just a teensy-weensy bit when their children are exposed to religion in the most benign form?

[SueBarooeeooeeooooo]

s'ok if I am. But threads complaining about this sort of thing are a regular MN feature, and I can't help thinking that some parents seem tremendously precious about it. We're Christians and it often comes up that not everyone believes the way we do, and I talk to my children about it and they wander off and scribble on the lounge walls again.

I've seen people complaining about Christian mums and tots groups, simple 'thankyou' prayers and christian charities. I am 100% ok with you bringing your children up atheist, theist, or chocolate-worshipping. Honestly, if I whipped myself up into a panic over every mention of different beliefs or none that my children encounter, I'd never get anything done.

(Please note, this is not a church schools whinge, I'm against selection on religious grounds.)

and yes I do think the support of monogamy is not for the purposes of social structure but much more for the purposes of social control and in particular the control of women and their sexuality.
(gosh this one is going to run and run?!)

the church is responsible for some terrible things. But they have done those things in spite of the Judaeo Christian framework, not because of it. IMO.

agreed harpsi - thought this (obv) at fiery 14 and surprised to find that I still do.

Harpsi, good grief, no. It's just been the framework for a certain amount of stability over a long period. I make no grand claims for it being a utopian paradise. I just think we do very well in the UK, as an example, because of an accepted understanding that you look after people less fortunate than yourself, just because you should. That's not a universal belief.

It's not something that is exclusive to Judaism and Christianity, but the existence of the tenet in those faiths has been a large part of it becoming part of our western system of morals.

Again, not saying that it has therefore been practised by all.

not for the purposes of social structure but much more for the purposes of social control and in particular the control of women and their sexuality.

-------

You're making a conflation between motivations and situations. I don't doubt that monogamy has been used for the purposes of social control. But it has also therefore, provided a social structure.

And, in another terribly worthy post, I'd also like to register glee at this thread not turning into a sream-fest more-heat-than-light nightmare, and say ta very much to those who've posted on't. I've really enjoyed the conversation.

ooh-er I'll take that as a compliment.

You'd make a great vicar though. Have I told you that before?

Aye, Justa, I'm sure you'll do just fine as a vicar.

Suebaroo, I'm not at all sure that compulsory monogamy is a stablising influence on society. Think of the long history of murders fuelled by sexual possessiveness, women forced to give away unplanned babies or exiled from their homes, etc. WHat makes for a stable society, unfortunately, is the existence of a slave class who can be persuaded that slavery is their natural and deserved state. Which religion has always been very good for.

We have compulsory monogamy here? Well, no wonder you're pissed off about it...

madamez of course you're right- Monogamy has demanded/enforced a 'voluntary' slavery. But I think it's hard to deny that it's been a stabilizing influence on civilization. That was its raison d'etre, and had it not been successful it would have floundered long ago.

The question is, is it still demanding a 'voluntary' slavery for the purposes you describe?

sue don't understand the compulsory ref?

re ruty's "the church is responsible for some terrible things. But they have done those things in spite of the Judaeo Christian framework, not because of it. IMO."

I think this is one of the most frustrating aspects of the debate - the disassociation with The Church/the church for some aspects of Christianity, but not for others (usually the cuddly bits.)

justabout lol lifeblood. But did you know that under new consumer legislation you can claim unjustly sucked lifeblood back?

If something is enforced by means of relentless propaganda and socially-acceptable violence, it's pretty close to compulsory. You don;lt have to look very far to find stories celebrating people's acts of assault and criminal damage as long as those acts are perpetrated against those who have refused or rejected monogamy.

Also, there have been many societys that didn't practice monogamy: harem societies, polygamous tribes... that one society was overrun, conquered and trashed by another is not necessarily proof that the society was wrong - or right.

I keep asking, but if anyone's answered, I've missed it. How would the Christians on here fel if their children went to a non faith state school and were obliged to inscribe a pentacle and invoke the Mother Goddess every morning, or were all issued with prayer mats and enjoined to turn to Meccah and pray to Allah?

Well Helloooo Seeker!
at my ds's non-faith school they celebrate every lummin religious day possible. We have a day off in 10 days time for Diwali, 10 days ago another day off for Eid, as well as the obvious Easter and Xmas.
It's driving me ...insane.
But you know all that because you already joined another thread about whether schools include atheism as part of their (constant and nebulous) promotion of belief as the default option.
So the answer to your post, for me, is its ALL wrong wrong wrong.
Suspect you knew that.

A question I asked on another thread: Why do schools have to celebrate Eid/Diwali/Easter. Why can't they just inform/educate about said festivals.

By 'nebulous' i meant that other word that means hard to grasp/pin down/generally floaty. Obviously.

Seeker, I'd be fairly unhappy about that, yes. But I wouldn't expect you to be happy about your children being forced into a Christian act of worship at school, and I've said so on the thread already.

onebatmother, I was quoting Madamez when she said that monogamy was compulsory. Which I thought was a tad melodramatic...

Sue - so I'm not over reacting when I object to my children being taught to pray at their state school then? Sorry - I thought your OP implied I was!

OBM - we really need to get this Enlightenment Week sorted out!

Seriously Seeker? As in actually.. do something?