To think that religous education should be complusory for EVERYONE

[ReallyTired]

I think that everyone should learn about ALL the major relgions in the world, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, or Athesist or agnostic.

However I think that religous education should be taught as "This is what Christians believe" rather than "This is what WE believe". Children should not be subjected to attempts to convert them to different relgions, but they need to understand and tolerate difference. Ie. Learn that there are times that we should agree to disagree.

A basic knowledge of the five world's major relgions helps children understand current affairs, history and avoid offending people from other cultures to themselves.

If parents want their children brought up as a Christian, Muslim, athesist or pagan then they can take their children to church/ Temple/ Mosque out of school hours.

I like the assemblies at the the special school I work at. They have no relgious songs, but the school has fun singing pop songs. Although the songs are non religous they have lyrics encouraging good behaviour.
All the children are included and gain from the experience.

I do believe in god but my searching and questions certainly can't be answered by or contained within any one religion.
I think that everynow and then someone has been inspired by insight in the same way as scientists are when they reach some new understanding (anyone read khalil Gibran?)

but they are concepts that are hard to live out. ie 'love your neighbour as yourself' if we really did that fully, life would be very different in this world.

Compulsory RE at GCSE for my kids.

Taught well (for the most part)

It is part of history, part of who we are,.

Helps with all sorts of other subjects. - English Lit for example

"Spero, I'm kind of that you need to ask. It's part and parcel of the more extreme communist regimes "

But I'm not talking about REGIMES, I'm talking about individuals. I don't think Stalin and his ilk murdered people for believing in God, they murdered people to impose their ridiculous policies of collectivism et al.

I'll try and be more specific. Has an atheist parent ever murdered his or her child because that child displayed adherence to a religious faith? Genuinely curious.

I don't think I've ever heard of this, and it brings me back to my point that religious people do seem to get very curiously angry when their 'faith' is challenged.

And I don't think its curious at all that so many people over so many different cultures have believed in god/s. We are all afraid of the unknown and we all like to feel that we belong and are worth something. I quite understand how religion can provide that.

Well, I'm reluctant to bring personal experiences to bear in a topic like this, but as you've asked for examples...

When I came out to my father, he was enormously supportive. When I told him I had become a Christian he beat me up so badly I had to go to A&E. He's a staunch atheist and, in his own words, has nothing but contempt for 'sky pilots'.

You see, we humans are so horrible and violent...we need help, outside help!

Kay- what a horrid experience! My parents are a lesser version of yours, they'd have no issue uf I was gay, religion to them is very dodgy, I just tryu not to discuss it with them.

Missed this yesterday as was ill. A few thoughts:

• RE including roman/ greek studies- good teaching of Christinioaty necessarily does. I would argue though that there's an equal p[alce for this within English Lit.

*Buddhism- God- ahh yes. Still have several thousand words on this left...

Basically, trad Buddhism (Theravada Buddhism) has no God. Mahayana (a less monastic branch which covers far more people), like mostaiths, ahs different branches. Many of these use icons as a focus for meditation which sometimes take on the deity role after time. there are also boddhisattvas which dont seem to be prescribed for in Theravada and are a later development (my study)- these are poeple who have attained Buddha-hood but choose not to enter Nirvana but to be constantly reincarnated in order to help others attain enlightenment. Theya re rather 'god-like'. then there's branches of non- trad buddhism such as Pure Lnad which ahve an almost Chrsitian flavour and hings sucha s divine grace.

*RE causing problems by identifying differences and highlighting them- itdoesn't have to be taught like that! The most exciting presentation I gave was on the relationship between Islam, Christianity and Judaism- a shared history. And there's much to sahre in other faiths too- if you're interested look up the universalist writings of Swami Vivekananda, the man who broght Hinduism to the mass satge. Wonderful writer and thinker.

rosewlilly- gibran is wonderful i agree - you might to try the vivekananda chap i mentioned below, 'living at the source' is on amazon.

Rosylily, that's one of the reasons we invent gods. We look around and it's all so hard that we really wish there were someone to hold us and look after us and make it all better.

This is not a new observation on my part, but of course most of us have experienced this as kids. We simply miss having parents to look after us. Mostly a daddy, but the role of mary in the catholic church was gradually increased so there could be a mummy too. (do male dominated societies have a female figure like mary?)

Another reasons for inventing gods are because we fear dying. It's extremely difficult to imagine not existing so many people refuse to do so and imagine a new life after death.

Then there is responsibility for your own actions. When I make a mistake (frequently) it's entirely down to me. I have to fix it or live with it. If I were religious (not all but most religions) I could ask god to forgive me and stop worrying about it. I could even go and do it again.

Kay, I'm sorry to hear that too. I am inclined to go along with Spero about religious people being more likely to be violent over religion. Clearly and sadly it's not always true.

And just to clarify that. It doesn't have to mean that religious people are more violent, but they are more likely to care. Also many religions (and I know christians hate to hear this) many religions advocate killing non believers.

Who doesn't hate to hear that there are religions that advocate killing non-adherents. It's a very unpleasant thing.

What concerns me about some of the more vehement rhetoric on the matter from atheists is that there is potential there for just creating a whole new brand of bigotry.

As in 'religious people are dangerous and potentially violent' being a justification for some fairly draconian pre-emptive measures, iyswim.

Any sweeping statement that encompasses a whole group of people with hair-raising language is wide open for abuse.

You want to point the finger at some religious believers for being unreasonable, bigotted and murderous, I won't argue the toss. I'll happily point that finger with you.

But any statement that begins with 'such and such grouping are dangerous' is likely to eventually end with a 'therefore something must be done'.

I'd agree if we were saying that black people are violent or something.

What we are saying is that some people who join a group, which has in it's rulebook "must be prepared to kill unbelievers" sometimes kill unbelievers.

Even those who only joined for the coffee and cakes are on shaky ground since their presence supports the others.

I don't see anything unfair or unreasonable in disapproving of that.

kayH how horrible, what a nasty piece of work he must be. so sorry to hear that.

i am very sad that anyone should feel so threatened by another's views that they react in this way. It does make me question how sincere they really are in their views as I've often thought there is a clear correlation between how violently you react to criticism and the integrity of your opinion under attack.

but while I don't believe in god I do believe in karma to the extent that someone who behaves like that will one day chose to get in a fight with someone who will hopefully kick his arse extremeley hard.

lol, yes, I see your point there.

Trouble is that most religious believers you speak to would genuinely and without guile disavow any intention to kill unbelievers, even if it was part of their rulebook.

For example, it's part of Islam that, if someone is a Muslim and rejects that religion for another or none at all, that person should be killed. However, all of the Muslims I know would disassociate themselves from that belief, even though some of them would support it in a very clearly delineated set of circumstances.

Now, I find the mere presence of the belief abhorrent. But I would be very foolish to pretend that it was a strongly held belief of an everyday british Muslim.

And, the simple fact is that not all religions have 'kill unbelievers' as part of their rulebook in any form. So, as a criticism, it hits the target only in a limited sphere.

Well, thanks for your kind words about my dad's reaction to me everyone I wasn't going for the pity thing, but I will accept all good thoughts you can spare

There is a better resolution - while he's still very hostile to my faith, we are beginning to rebuild the relationship, with proper and appropriate boundaries.

'(do male dominated societies have a female figure like mary?)'

Hinduism hasw a vast number of female deities, some with extremely powerful roles (eg Kali).

it is simply not true that all religions state that believers must kill non-believers. And even where there is something related its often misinterpreted and it has to be remembered that these books were written in ancient times.

Hinduism supports universalism

Jainism is a faith of total non-volence
Islam prescribes tolerance for people iof the book- so although far from inclusive people who claim anti_christian violence is called for by Muhammad are simply wrong

Also much of what is criticised in Islam does not come from the Qur'an, but from Sunna and Hadith- the work of HUMANS. Indeed it is known that dynasties used to pay Hadith writers to create Hadith to fit political motives.

Ergo, it is not religion to blame but humanity.

ONe of the reasons why you won't find a society properly free from religion is the number of people for whom religion has been an extremely useful tool for gaining and retaining power ie it's a great excuse for invading other people's territory and enslaving them. Religion is very useful for subjugating other people: you can intimidate them with violence up to a point, but convincing them that your imaginary friends have actually created them to be your servants/inferiors will hold them for much longer. Tyrants also like to foster religion amongst the oppressed because convincing them that they will get a reward when they are dead is a good way of keeping them quiet and under control. This has also been one of the reasons for the incredible violence over changes in religion or disagreements over doctrine: can't have the lower orders thinking for themselves...

That really doesnt explain the continuation of religion in secrecy under the former communist USSR does it?

Religion can be used by humanity as a tool for both oppression and freedom, people xclaiming to use Christianity to harm are not Christan, they have no understanding of the message of Jesus.

Religion can beget negative effects. It can also provide charity, comfort for the distrressed, community.

Now if people want to condemn the effects of people who act in the name of religion i'm all behind them, but there is so much positive that comes from faith-

love they neighbour

zakat

the ramakrishna math (social works in India)

now, all this can equaly come from a non-religious perspective I totally agree- as equally as humanity causes evil, it also causes god and morality. But some people need that framework and as long as that's done in a bon-harmful way then why not?

For ever Inquisition there is a Gandhi

Mohammed murdered, or ordered the killing of lots of people though, didn't he?
How can this be squared with telling children that he was a man of peace?

And don't get me started on the god of the Old Testament!

Yes, totally agree. Pillars of salt, mass drownings...lovely bloke!

"Just out of interest has there ever been an atheist who murdered a religious person explicitly and soley in the Name of No God? "

er.. yes. 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis as part of a final solution.

Stallin murdered many religious people who did not conform with communism and China has a history percuting those who believe in God/gods.. particuarly in Tibet.

In fact athetist pschopaths seem to be more efficent at murdering people.

reallytired - and the evidence that Hitler was an atheist is....?

The writings of the Old testament are supposedly superseded for Christians by the NT- that's supposedly the reason (Pauline Theology) why Chrsitians don't have, for example, to folow food laws: Jesus came with a new message- an evolutionary religion. I agree though that squaring the works of the OT with the NT is dificult and a big problem of Theology.

As for Muhammad a man of peace, again I agree to an extent- but in context you have to remember the book is from a much older era. Now, if you are a Muslim you beleive that it's all true: however if not, then you also accept that its a creation of its own time, and that a lot of what Islam taught had at least its roots in wisdom even if dealt with in ways totally unpalatable to us now. For example, the punishments regarding such things as adultery are abhorent but the motivations behind them (eg the stability of the family) are still things we aspire to. So modern ethics in ancient ways, perhaps?

The best take on religion IMO is when the moralities from them (often similar throughout them all) are given a bit of modern philosophy. And most Muslims don't live a life of Shari'a or stonings, do they? But the sanctity of the family is still predominant in the culture.

BTW in certainly many if not all battles (can't remember exactly) Muhammad didnt kill the adversary females and children, just enslaved them, which though again awful is perhaps better than many of his contemporaries would have done?

Greyriverside - You missed the point... completely.

"CoteDAzur, are you suggesting that for all outcomes/concepts for which we have no proof whatsoever the probablity of them being true is 50% ?"

Why would I ever suggest something as stupid?

What I am stating (not suggesting, for it is fact) is that probability is NOT related to evidence.

Anyone who has studied any probability at all knows this.

I gave the example of the dice. When that proved too complicated (6 sides and all) I gave the coin as an example.

Whether or not you have proof that the outcome of the die is a 6 or the outcome of the coin is heads, the probabilities are still 1/6 and 1/2, respectively.

Similarly, the fact that we don't (yet) have any proof for the existence of God does not mean that the probability of his existence is very low.

Please try to understand it this time. It is not that hard. I know you can do it.

UQD, re "So you can say that a question with a Yes-No answer has a 50-50 probability, but that doesn't mean each of the answers is equally likely. Does it?!

No, it doesn't.

As I tried to explain to greyriverside, the point I was trying to make was that evidence or its lack thereof does not have an effect on probability of whether or not something happened.

re evidence/proof

Yes, I do see the distinction but felt there was little difference for the purpose of this discussion. There is no proof of the existence of God. There is also no evidence of the existence of God. Yet lack of proof and even evidence does not mean there is no God. It means one of three things (1) there is no God, (2) there is a God but he doesn't want to be found, even indirectly through evidence, or (3) there is a God, and he is indifferent to our search for him, but we just don't have the proper tools yet to find the proof of his existence.