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

Nope Claig. I know I am vitriolic, and I'm OK with it. It is a rational reaction to blind observance.

Russian orthodoxy gives the highest allegiance to God, not the czar. The czar is not above God, and if the czar carried out evil deeds then priests could challenge the czar, and the people would follow the priests and not the czar. The peasants always preferred priests like Rasputin to the czar.

Lenin as the one who wanted to keep the peasants in line, that's why he wanted to destroy religion and set himself and the party up in the place of God.

Lenin was the one

I thought that my opinions were fairly tolerant-live and let live.
Would you prefer it if I changed them since they all seem to be 'wrong'?

1.The govenment can just change it in one fell swoop and the churches will just hand over their schools as a gift to the nation, the consititution of the country doesn't need to change.

2.The Head teacher is a wimp for not putting their head on the block and breaking the law.

3.The secular society don't need support.

1. The churches are full because school assemblies get them young and by the time they are 7 they are fully fledged Christians. They can tell you word for word what was said in assembly by the time they get home.

5.All school assemblies tell the children they are facts and they must believe them.

6.You are right, you gave birth and your child must believe what you believe. Mummy has spoken and Mummy knows the truth!

6.(sorry had 2 6's last time) All teaching of RE and history should stop-we don't need to understand the world or the arts.

7.The poor man should know his place in 2010 and Noah built an ark-the lions were best friends with the zebras.

8.The fact that religion changes is a weakness and disproves it. We should still think the Earth is flat to have any credence.

There is no vitrol on this thread. People should tell the misguided what they have to believe. Religion has never been perscuted or suppressed.My DCs must go to church because I tell them to. Atheist parents must refuse to speak to DCs who follow a faith until they come back to the 'correct' way of thinking.
My thinking is rigid, because I believe in God I know that I will believe in 10 yrs time.
Tinnitus will change the whole policy of collective worship in schools by moaning on mumsnet!

I think that my first version was much better! Some of it was opinion but some was fact. An opinion can't be wrong-there are no right or wrong opinions.
My post had about 9 points that were all different-it wasn't padded.

SolidGoldBrass, what happened in the 13th century is a world away from our world now. The mores and customs have changed beyond recognition. If we look at the modern world of the twentieth century, we see that religions were not responsible for mass slaughter. On the contrary it is systems that are so determined to expunge all traces of religion that are the ones who instigate slaughter as soon as they have destroyed the restraints of religion.

I love the idea that without religion the world would be a wonderful peaceful place and we would always have lived in harmony! No one would want power over others and no one would think their view had to be the accepted one.
I am quite happy for there to be atheists-even among those I gave birth to-I can't see why there is such intolerance for those who think differently.

I would suggest that people read Animal Farm by George Orwell if you want to understand the Tsar and Lenin.

I said it was padded with repetition because we have discussed most of those point earlier, not because they were repetitions of each other. without wishing to make any comment on the points you raise (again). I would say you have been accused of repetition and misrepresentation before. running off the same old point again and again as though they haven't or can't be countered.

Not all the points you raise are without merit, but I'm not going to keep arguing against the same old point again and again. that is not debate, that is madness.

sorry claig, wrong again. I know it is a chicle and there are rules again using him in debate,
(godwins law) but Hitler used catholic resentment of the Jews to whip up anti-semitic fervor.

So tell Me again about the benign effect of religion in the modern world.

Most of Germany was protestant rather than Catholic. I don't think it was a religious thing that he used. The WWI stab in the back argument had nothing to do with religion.

Or we could discuss The former Yugoslavia, The Taliban, Iran, Israel, The Sudan, Americas recent jollies in the middle east, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, The Kurd region, or Glasgow.

When you say "If we look at the modern world of the twentieth century, we see that religions were not responsible for mass slaughter." are you sure you were really thinking it through?

I think most of these conflicts are about power, control, identity and access to resources. I think the religious differences are coincidental. For example, the people in the former Yugoslavia lived happily together, with their religious differences, intermarrying etc., until power interests sought to change the balance of power in the country.

Wrong again. Germany has a sizable number of Protestants. But the indelible imprint of catholic teachings echoed down the years.

Any way, are you saying protestant can't be anti semitic?

And yet the divisions are ALWAYS along religious lines. Either religion played a part in these peoples lives to the point they would kill people they had never met. or it is just freak chance that they always split up that way?

Or maybe you are conceding that religion is just a tool to keep the masses in line and off to war. How holy is that?

No I am saying that the ant-semitism was primarily racial rather than religious. I don't think it was about the religion of Judaism.

yes I am conceding that powerful forces use religion in order to exacerbate the differences between people in order to set them against each other and achieve their objectives of gaining power. It is the old divide and conquer strategy used by the powerful.

So you do concede that religion is nothing more than a tool to extend power bases for the powerful?

no I think religion is about the search for a meaning to existence and an attempt to understand and explain our lives, the beauty of nature, death and suffering. However, it is also used by powerful forces to increase their power and control. But other powerful forces seek to destroy religion altogether in order to increase their power even further. There is no trick in the book that the powerful will not try.

And you can't deny the effect of catholic influence throughout history to create those tensions in Germany. The Jews were (wrongly) blamed for killing Jesus bar Joseph and I believe he figures quite highly for protestants too. the notion of it being racial is based on the Jews being set apart as a race and despised for their "crime". Who did that?

But if religion is in itself a powerful force then you can see that they are at the beginning and end of the cause for most war.

What you describe as religion is in fact a mix of Philosophy and science. I can see you are looking but you might have misunderstood the answers.

yes of course the Catholic church played a part in creating tensions. But the Nazis didn't spare Jewish atheists, they didn't care if they believed in Judaism or not. All churches and religions have done evil things in the name of God. But that is not an argument against religion or God, that is because these churches are human institutions sometimes run by corrupt individuals.

Of course the Nazis killed "atheist Jews". but the argument they used was based on religious hatred. And to say the church "played their part" is a masterstroke of understatement.

I don't think religion is at the beginning and end of the cause for most war. I think powerful individuals create wars for their own ends. They whip up hatred of an enemy by using nationalism, lies, fear, a sense of injustice, religious differences etc. They use anything they can in order to achieve their objectives. Getting rid of religions will not get rid of wars. Communist countries got rid of religion but still engaged in wars.

To me religion is the belief in a power greater than myself, a power which has some sort of intent for our lives. I haven't got the answers, I am still looking.

" All churches and religions have done evil things in the name of God. But that is not an argument against religion or God,"

Then what would constitute an argument against them? Seriously, I've been accused of being one eyed on this thread but i'm genuinely shocked to read this.

You could say that is not a definitive or conclusive argument. but you didn't.

I'm really not so arrogant as to think there is nothing in the cosmos greater or more powerful than myself. but I doubt it cares if I'm praying, or singing, or taking every seventh day off, or masturbating, or washing my feet, or killing my neighbor, or advocating the Burqa. in fact I doubt it is very much aware of me at all.

I mean how much interest do you take in the morals of the bacteria in you gut?