to think that my DD has a right to a secular education

[Tinnitus]

Two years ago my DD came home to tell EXP and Me about the "true meaning of Christmas". We are both atheists and had purposely sought out a non religious school and so we were perplexed. We took every opportunity to explain that this story was just that, a story, not the literal truth.

Inevitably DD soon started on about the true meaning of Easter and so I made an appointment to see the headmistress of her school. By the time of the appointment I had learned from DD that it was a classroom helper who was feeding her this guff and not a teacher, and I felt a quiet word would suffice.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that not only was the helper indoctrinating DD, but the local evangelical church held monthly assemblies with the children. Indeed it turns out that every school in the country must be affiliated with a church of some type, but is not obliged to brand themselves thus. The head mistress was courteous and obliging and agreed to my request that the brainwashing of DD stop. I made no demands about her education other than She does not come home spouting twaddle.

Two years on and she is beginning to again to talk about Heaven, Hell, God and the Devil. But she has no idea who Adam and Eve were. When I "tactfully" quizzed her about this I discover a local CofE vicar has been regularly talking to the children about his faith, but without emphasizing that it is only his own opinion. Worse still, He has had my DD praying in class.

I have asked the school to live up to their earlier agreement as calmly as I could.

AIBU

Why would you not respect their beliefs? Or at least manifestations of their beliefs such as very orthodox Jews not doing work including switching on lights and answering the phone on the sabbath? You may not share them but what does it cost you to respect them and their observance?

When dealing with children there's a fine line between ' I don't believe that, I don't believe in anything and this is why' and 'it's all rubbish, they're deluded and I can prove it'. The absence of proof of presence is not the same as proof of absence. I accept that I can't prove God exists but what do I lose by believing? Pascal's wager suggests it's the most logical course of action and along the way I personally refrain from doing lots of nasty things because I don't believe God would like them. Religion becomes dangerous when it's twisted by people for their own ends, and that will eventually include atheism.

I think atheists are acting like most other new religions as it's only relatively recently atheism has become openly acceptable. People on here are certainly being very evangelical about it!

Frakkinaround: again, 'respecting' people's right to pratice their beliefs means leaving them alone to get on with whatever ridiculous activities they feel are necessary - but there is no obligation not to think that such behaviour is idiotic. And the superstitious need to respect the right of the rational not to be bothered by superstitious nonsense that doesnt interest us.

Frakkinaround - I think plenty of people, myself included, try to act decently because it's the right thing to do and is in accordance with their OWN moral code, not because it will 'please God'.

Agree - there is a difference between respecting the beliefs of others and being expected to believe them yourself, which I think is what most people here (on both sides of the debate) are saying.

I haven't read through all the replies but surely it's good to know what the true meaning of Easter and Christmas are , just as I suspect they would be taught what the true meaning of Diwali is or any other religious festival.

Believing in any of it or having that as your faith is another matter and that should not be forced on your daughter, and you haven't stated that it was.

I would be disappointed if children weren't taught the meaning of religious festivals which are celebrated in our country!

Oh I give up, I'm an atheist and I suspect my children will be too. It's not a cause I care to fight, anger and resentment really do nothing for the soul. A knowledge of religion and how people practice is preferable than just a smirking face and pointed finger at the 'stupid'.

@ frakkinaround

What on earth are you talking about. Atheism isn't new. Your faith is what, 1600 years old?

That pails in to insignificance next to most world beliefs and they were all, by definition, pre dated by atheism.

You really are scraping the barrel.

The word 'respect' is being bandied about a lot so I just thought I'd check it meant what I thought it did - I was increasingly getting the feeling that it had been devaulued.

3 a : high or special regard : esteem b : the quality or state of being esteemed c plural : expressions of respect or deference

I don't think any of us actually need to respect other people's beliefs by that definition. Tolerate, sure; accept their right to believe what they wish and act upon it in any way which doesn't infringe another person's rights, absolutely. But hold in 'special regard'? 'Esteem?' Show deference to?

Good chat on JV about The Bible.

I have read the thread, I've posted several times and it's not a belief in God that caused those things but a blind adherence to the what other humans said. Did God tell them to do those things? No, other humans did and 99% of the time they had an agenda. There is no fundamental belief that says you have to kill people for your religion, in fact most religions say you shouldn't. As do most sane people's own moral code. Besides, maybe I'm mad but sometimes I've done what I know to be the right thing more out of guilt than any personal code or interest. Sometimes it even helps people to know that I'm praying for them. Sometimes even non-religious people appreciate the offer (and I would never pray for someone if they didn't want it) so it's a tiny bit of good.

I do see what the original issue is. Yes, faith should be personal - if I can stop myself evangelising to the people I teach why can't others? And why should we take it to the opposite extreme and ban all discussion of religion? Or all manifestation of religion for that matter?

There's a difference between being bothered by a belief and respecting a belief that others hold and observe. What's coming across here is that religion shouldn't have any place where other people might see it or be inconvenienced by it. The flip side of that is it inconveniences those who wish to practice a religion. Yes, it occasionally inconveniences me that people are unavailable because of their religion or religious commitments but I respect that. I guess what I'm asking is how is it right to inconvenience some people so others aren't bothered by something? I am bothered by my neighbours dog yet I respect their right to have one and I respect it. You can think it's idiotic all you want, it's not respectful to go round rubbishing it and saying it's idiotic and it's not setting a good example either.

By telling children that other people's beliefs are guff and twaddle you're actually telling them the beliefs and the people don't need to be respected, that they can rubbish whatever they want and that people with a faith are somehow less than those without.

And for future reference I am half Irish, I've lost several of my fathers side of the family to sectarian violence in NI, some of whom I was denied the chance to know and so other peoples twisted interpretation of a belief in God has lost me something by your logic but it hasn't by mine.

Non-belief isn't new, it's acceptance as a belief system equal to other religions (which it is IMO) is relatively new.

Gah. Pressed post.

There is a recognised movement known as New Atheism which is relatively new and is very similar to some views on this thread, which is what I was commenting on. It's largely found in Western culture and one key person is Dawkins who's been credited already.

I'll accept the definition of respect but my dictionary says:

n 1 consideration, 2 deference or esteem, 3 point or aspect 4 reference or relation, 5 polite greetings, v 6 treat with esteem, 7 show consideration for.

So I'm going for the secondary definition of the verb and say we need to show consideration for/respect other people's beliefs.

And why should we take it to the opposite extreme and ban all discussion of religion?

Has anyone suggested that? I don't think so.

Religion should be discussed. A bit less one-sidedly would be nice. You don't get people coming into schools telling the kids that religion is guff. You do get people coming in saying that what they believe is True (so by implication all the rest is false).

But do religious people not see that to everyone else, everyone who has actual hard evidence that refute religious claims, when you are sounding off about God etc and how so and so is going to Hell - you sound like maniacs!

It's not sane to believe in things that have never either been seen, perceived or calculated to exist in any way. Why does the shadow of the cross protect you from psychological assessment?

Coldtits, I used to be a believer and I'm pretty sure I was asi sane then as I am now. I was deluded, but thats not the same thing.

Frak - 'consideration for' is appropriate.

It's entirely sane to believe in things that have never been seen, perceived or calculated. If something has not been disproven, then some degree of faith is required to believe it. But faith is not the same as insanity.

Plus, of course, there is no evidence to refute the principal claim of most religions, i.e. that there is one or more God.

But every piece of 'evidence' detailed in various holy books that point to the existence of one or more god has been refuted by science.

People made of clay? No. People made of DNA. Sorry.

World 4000 odd years old? Um, no. Carbon dating versus biblical hearsay says otherwise.

Two of each animal taken onto the arc to protect them from massive worldwide flooding? AN exaggeration at best. What do lions eat, seriously? The world would have been entirely full of two lions for about 2 weeks until they starved to death. It simply cannot have happened.

It's not a matter of faith to believe in the above events, it's a total suspension of logic and reasoning. Is that not the working definition of insanity?

I'd absolutely agree that religion should be discussed in school - it's pretty fundamental to understanding the way the world is, and its history, geography and politics.

Also in analysing human behaviour at an individual and cultural level.

Grimma I was referring to

By WebDude Tue 30-Mar-10 08:46:49

who seemed to want to ban RE for under 16s because clearly exposing them to religious teaching in any form including learning about religion is brainwashing.

I was being slightly overdramatic I will admit but some people honestly do want that.

RE should definitely NOT be banned. It is a fascinating subject, both culturally and psychologically.

Religion based teaching should be banned.

God As Truth should be banned.

I had my six year old coming home last year declaring that "Someone called Jesus died by having nails put in him so that we could be happy"

That's NOT religious education. That is NOT being taught about a religion, that is being taught that religion as truth.

One person out of everyone else, and only relating to children. And with a name like 'WebDude'

Fortunately most people are much more of Cider's view.

Coldtits, I don't think there are many Christians (in the UK at least) who actually believe in the counterfactual elements of the OT you've picked on.

Insanity is mental disorder. I don't think faith quite falls in there. Our brains have evolved, and part of what's evolved is - oddly it may seem - the capacity to believe, to 'feel presences' etc. Religiousity is a natural evolved trait, with some survival benefits. As such its not insane to be religious - its quite natural. Irrational yes; insane, no.