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.

re proof of God's existence

I have always wondered why we have no indication that the Torah, Bible, and Quran were inspired by a higher intelligence/knowledge than the desert hobbits of the day.

Why couldn't any of them mention something that couldn't possibly be known by the average illiterate Arab or Semite?

Something like:

"Yeah, go with Allah, but you shall never go faster than the feeble light of the candle" (can't go faster than speed of light)

or

"God made the softest pencil and hardest diamond out of the same material" (carbon)

Then I would believe, no problem.

My admitally thin evidence for Hitler not being a christian is this

wiki.answers.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_Nazis

"Hitler was born and baptized into the Catholic Church, as were many other prominent Nazis. However, he rejected the church completely and stated "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." "

I think the truth is that Nazis had a range of religious views or prehaps Nazism became a religion and like the most dangerous of religions its followers lost all logic and were comsummed by it.

The crimes of the the Nazis are certainly proof that you do not have to be driven by a specific religion to do terrible crimes.

Certainly there is plenty of evidence that Chairman Mao and Stallin were athetists.

Rosylily -

"But why is [religion] in everyone's culture all over the world? What is the point of it?"

It provides order in the society, like marriage.

Most people believe that if they behave when alive, they will be rewarded when dead.

Obviously I don't believe this, but I love it that they do. It keeps them from stealing my stuff, hurting my child, and killing me

Kay - That's horrible.

If DD decides to follow a religion, I wouldn't beat her up (of course), but I will be disappointed. Sad, even.

Kay, re "if someone is a Muslim and rejects that religion for another or none at all, that person should be killed"

That part of the Quran is actually quite detailed. First everybody tries to convince him to come back to Islam. Then his wife and children are to be separated from him (so he doesn't intellectually contaminate them?). After a couple of such steps, he is to be killed.

The problem with such detailed explanations of how Muslims should lead their lives & how the society should be governed is that Quran is believed to be the literal word of God. Mohammad was illiterate and the story is that Quran 'came down' to him page by page, already written.

Not much of a disobedience, or even debate, possible when you are faced with the literal word of God, and that is a major reason why Muslims are having a hard time moving away from the literal interpretation of Islam.

Reallytired: FFS if you are going to use examples from history please do so with a degree of accuracy. Hitler was not an atheist, he believed in various piles of superstitious bollocks, including Norse gods, astrology and various chunks of Christian mythology too. Naziam had a religious framework and a religious ethos: being ';not-a-christian' is not the same as being free from religion.

Oh, and in stating that religion is and has been used a lot as a means of oppressing people is not the same as saying that everyone with an imaginary friend and a pet mythological system is or wants to be a vicious tyrant. I don't mind what other people choose to imagine in the way of friends, I object to myth systems being used to harm others. Just like saying that knife crime in the streets is a terrible thing doesn't equate to wanting everyone to be forced to eat their dinner with plastic spoons because knives are So Evil.

Peachy, he enslaved women and children and had forced sex with the women after killing their husbands and fathers. In what parallel universe does that equate to being good??

Ms Demeanor - When and where did Mohammad rape women? Just curious.

I know I made it very clear that I was referring to the customs of the era the Qur'an was written in, I was also fully aware someone would choose to ignore that aspect of my posting. Such is Mumsnet.

CoteDAzur, you can play with the words all you like, but you are still trying to tell us that lack of evidence is not an indicator that a thing is less likely to exist.

I have the following evidence that there is a tree outside my window.

1. I can smell it
2. I can hear the leaves rustling
3. it was there before it got dark and all my experience and knowledge tells me that it will almost certainly have not moved

I have no evidence that outside my window is a 7ft tall banana playing "abide with me" on a ukelele.

1. I haven't seen it
2. I haven't heard it
3. I haven't smelt it
4. There certainly wasn't one there earlier
5. my knowledge and experience tells me that there will almost certainly not be one there now.

I'm pretty sure I know which is more likely and you can use any term to replace 'likely' that you want, but we know what we mean.

On the same basis god existing is as likely as the 7ft tall banana

It's not absolute proof of course, but it's a reasonable deduction. You can't go through life looking out for 7ft tall bananas just in case one turns out to exist after all.

The writings of the Old testament are supposedly superseded for Christians by the new testament

but its to do with peoples understanding of God being incomplete so the paedophile hing is wrong as a comparison, its not like saying you didnt know, its like someone at the time thinking he was and their descendants saying they were wrong to think he was as he wasnt actually.

RE the thing about the Qur'an- Quran 24.33: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.

so whilst the end is horrific it does actually state not to do it. most of the recounts of actual rape are from the Hadith which are known by scholars to be often falsified. Muslims dont believe that obv, but that raher removes the arguments appertaining to it imo.

lol so the whole old testament is a lie?
but it's ok the new one is the truth.

Ok Mohammed and his disgusting prediliction for raping slaves (this is all easily googled) Peachy, come on, the whole point of relgion is that this awful, horrific stuff comes direct from an immortal, beyond time god so the whole 'it's of it's time' excuse really cannot hold.
FROM THE KOran - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."
This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 23:5,6

"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..."

Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 4:24

"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. (Muhammad Pickthall's English translation of the Quran).
This verse is one verse out of a long passage dealing with who Muslim men can marry or have sexual relations with. The phrase "captives whom your right hand possess", means the slave girls Muslim men own.
Note also that this passage deals with more than just marriage. In Sahih Muslim volume 2, #3432, the background context for this Quranic verse is given. It relates to the events at Autus, and it permitted the Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.

FROM THE QURAN - 33:50

"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."This verse is for Muhammad. Supposedly, God allows Muhammad to have sex with his slave girls.
These verses establish that it was permissible for Muslim men to have sex with female slaves.
ISLAMIC EXAMPLES OF MUSLIM MEN HAVING SEX WITH THEIR FEMALE SLAVES.Muhammad had sex with a slave girl named Mariyam. He probably also had sex with another slave girl of his - Rayhana.
Mariyam was a Christian slave girl and she was given to Muhammad as a gift by the governor of Egypt. Muhammad got her pregnant and she gave birth to a son. Afterwards Muhammad married her. The son died 18 months later.
Here is the reference. NOTE: Words in [ ] type brackets are mine FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30

"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."

This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 23:5,6

"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..."

Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 4:24

"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. (Muhammad Pickthall's English translation of the Quran).

This verse is one verse out of a long passage dealing with who Muslim men can marry or have sexual relations with. The phrase "captives whom your right hand possess", means the slave girls Muslim men own.

Note also that this passage deals with more than just marriage. In Sahih Muslim volume 2, #3432, the background context for this Quranic verse is given. It relates to the events at Autus, and it permitted the Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.

In the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", mention is made of Mariyah. On page 151, it says

"He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir."

Ok Mohammed and his disgusting prediliction for raping slaves (this is all easily googled) Peachy, come on, the whole point of relgion is that this awful, horrific stuff comes direct from an immortal, beyond time god so the whole 'it's of it's time' excuse really cannot hold.
FROM THE KOran - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."
This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 23:5,6

"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..."

Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 4:24

"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. (Muhammad Pickthall's English translation of the Quran).
This verse is one verse out of a long passage dealing with who Muslim men can marry or have sexual relations with. The phrase "captives whom your right hand possess", means the slave girls Muslim men own.
Note also that this passage deals with more than just marriage. In Sahih Muslim volume 2, #3432, the background context for this Quranic verse is given. It relates to the events at Autus, and it permitted the Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.

FROM THE QURAN - 33:50

"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."This verse is for Muhammad. Supposedly, God allows Muhammad to have sex with his slave girls.
These verses establish that it was permissible for Muslim men to have sex with female slaves.
ISLAMIC EXAMPLES OF MUSLIM MEN HAVING SEX WITH THEIR FEMALE SLAVES.Muhammad had sex with a slave girl named Mariyam. He probably also had sex with another slave girl of his - Rayhana.
Mariyam was a Christian slave girl and she was given to Muhammad as a gift by the governor of Egypt. Muhammad got her pregnant and she gave birth to a son. Afterwards Muhammad married her. The son died 18 months later.
Here is the reference. NOTE: Words in [ ] type brackets are mine FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30

"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."

This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 23:5,6

"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..."

Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 4:24

"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. (Muhammad Pickthall's English translation of the Quran).

This verse is one verse out of a long passage dealing with who Muslim men can marry or have sexual relations with. The phrase "captives whom your right hand possess", means the slave girls Muslim men own.

Note also that this passage deals with more than just marriage. In Sahih Muslim volume 2, #3432, the background context for this Quranic verse is given. It relates to the events at Autus, and it permitted the Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.

In the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", mention is made of Mariyah. On page 151, it says

"He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir."

at this thread. I spent years painstakingly shedding the layers of my childhood religion to arrive at a kind of atheism which I thought to be the most rational understanding of the world.

But having read all this utter tripe about "imaginary friends" etc trotted out by the regular atheist posters on here, I'm feeling inclined to go straight back to the bosom of the church.

Sorry, it's so disgusting and horrendous, I feel sad for posting it. Surely this man's so called teaching is not suitable for young children?

Imaginary friends are benign. These so-called religious leaders are anything but, sadly.

IorekByrnison, if you think 'imaginary friends' doesn't describe religion then you never really left it.

MsDemeanor, thanks for posting that. I'm glad you dealt with the 'it's of it's time' excuse. That one gets used regularly I've noticed.

of course for scholars time holds an i,mportasnt point! its exactly the context these things are trying to be understood in! I am not Muslim, so don't believe the Qur'an comes from Allah- henceforth i try to understand why it says what it does, and part of that has to be the context in which it was written.

It only becomes irrelevant if you believe it is the word of Allah, in which case it would supersede such constraints.

In fact that's true of every text ever written, from the Qur'an to the Famous Five.

Othrer religious texts aren't so much the literal word of God, and for example most Vicars I know dont believe the Bible is literal word, just a retelling (many years later) of Biblical events.

Not true of all Christians bv, but many.

Anyway my head is firmly ensconced in Boddhisattvas and deadlines atm.... you don''t get more dedicated than that

Well then I think we agree Peachy, and I'm not arguing with you at all. I just cannot understand how believers can use the 'it's of its time' excuse, as they believe it comes directly from a god who is immortal and impervious to time, so as much of our time (and of the future) as of the time these books were ghost-written (!)

perhaps we're looking at this from different angles though:

you want to justify or condemn, which is possibly fair enough inthe specific context of this debate

my wish is to understand, as in gain knowledge of why X states Y. A different aimn, perhaps, relevant to my overall life.

I could happily spend many hours condemning religion (and have when needed, possibly more vehemently than one would expect). However for the wide angled view i need to take, its imperative that I look at the positives as well. Otherwise i'd fail. That simple.

I started out wanting to understand and have been shocked by what I found.
I thought Hinduism was the most benign of religions until I found out how Sita was only OK once she was found to be chaste after being abducted, meaning women must take responsibility for not being raped, adn if they are, they are bad. that put me right off, I can tell you.

x posts

i dont know either how anyone could say that of a book and believe it to be true

I can conceive gow someone could say it meaning that the understanding of God at the time was incomplete, iyswim? Which isnt relevant to Islam but is to Old Testament.