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

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at by
"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."

fine then you believe in God, you are religious. You don't believe in an intervionist God. Many worshippers agree with you. You are asking religious, philosophical questions.

Actually I believe in aliens. And if Von Daniken is to be believed, so do you.

I'm off to take DD2 for her shots. Back later.

ok bye

Pisces:

many thanks for reminding people that moaning on MN doesn't get us very far. For those of you who are dissatisfied with the status quo who haven't yet done so, do consider joining any or all of the BHA, The National Secular Society and the Accord Coalition. The last of these is for people of faith as well as the non-religious - anyone interested in fairness and against discrimination.

If you have the time and inclination, you may also wish to investigate 'faith forums' operating in your area. My DH has been to a couple (moe relevant to raising questions more about the unfairness of admission to faith schools than the issue of secularization)

I'm more dubious about the value of the YouGov petitions. The response to one from last year was linked to earlier in this thread; I'd signed it and when I received the reply it was like a slap in the face with a wet fish. The petition specifically said how unacceptable it was to exclude children from assemblies; the response was basically: we're not planning on changing anything oh, but if you don't like it you can exclude your child! well whoopee do, totally didn't answer the issue.

Writing to MPs may or may not help - DH has had a stab of it and received some bland fob-offs.

I'm sorry for the vitriol which sometimes seems to get splashed about. Unfairness and a feeling of impotence generated by such fobbing off as above unfortunately can lead to anger. I'm more cynical than angry (dunno if that is conveyed in posting tone) - my DH is at times incandescently angry. More at schools admissions than anything, but its part and parcel of the current state of anachronistic deference to religion.

(just realised I've missed reading the whole of the last page!)

Claig: >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.

I think you're absolutely right about that. If religion is actually not supernaturally powered, merely a type of evolved human behaviour/system, there's nothing inherently special or evil about it. Non-theistic dogmas such as fascism, communism, apartheid are very similar. The difference, it seems to me is that introducing the idea of God makes religions run deeper in peoples psyches, makes these systems last longer.
Adding god increases the fitness of the meme, if you like (probably you dont ).

I think the difference is that religions believe that life is sacred. They don't believe in euthanasia etc., they try to protect life at all costs. They care for people, and think it is a sin to take a human life.

Fascism, communism etc. don't care for life, they happily believe that the end justifies the means, even if this means millions of people being wiped for their ideals. Communism seeks to destroy religion in order to be able to treat humans as mere ciphers, who are only useful if they serve the party's goals. Throughout history it has often been religious martyrs who have stood up to tyranny. Faith in God has been more powerful than fear of the tyrant. That is why all tyrannies seek to undermine religion and remove any opposition.

I think that there is a lot that you can do GrimmaTheNome, but you have to get actively involved. I think that my links were useful-even if you don't like my ideas.

'but I'm not going to keep arguing against the same old point again and again. that is not debate, that is madness. '

I listed all my points again because people don't read the whole thread or they forget the start. I think that I made some very fair points. I could point out Tinnitus, that you are equally to blame for going over and over the same points.

I think that claig has some excellent posts.

If religion has started wars, which I dispute because it is about wealth and power, then it is because of intolerance against those who are perceived to be different. Those who are passionately atheist have no toleration (on this thread)-I can't understand the anger about other people's belief system and I can't understand why children have to be sheltered from the idea that 'we are all different'.

Just a question-I don't think that it is one that I have raised before-if atheist parents 'tell it as it is' to their DCs i.e. responsible for the world's problems, mumbo jumbo little green fairies etc-are Christians, Jews, Muslims and other faiths allowed the same freedom? Are they allowed to tell their DCs 'the truth as they see it'? Or must all religions be suppressed because they are deluded? If they are to be wiped out, surely that is down to power of one group imposing their beliefs on everyone? If they are not then it must be pure luck which 'truth' a child gets depending on birth. Is this static-do they have to follow or can they opt out? If they can opt out, do the DCs of atheists get the same freedom? At what age can they exercise the freedom? What do you do with the 8yr old who has already decided their parent's views are not for them? What happens to the DC who feels that they were born into the wrong family and that they 'don't fit'.

These are genuine questions-could someone try and answer them, without fobbing me off that I am boringly saying the same thing or 'manipulating the thread'.

Just as an aside-I would say that things continue the way they are in schools for the following reasons:

1. Many people are happy with it.
2. Many people don't realise that it even happens in school.
3. People couldn't really care either way-they are not interested.

4.People don't like it but are apathetic.

It is fairly clear to me that although this thread has a lot of posts and has aroused great passions, it has relatively few posters, the same ones over and over again- so I would surmise that it isn't something that interests the majority or that they don't discuss religion.

I think that there is a lot that you can do GrimmaTheNome, but you have to get actively involved.

absolutely (though I'm mostly delegating to DH - he's going to meetings while I look after DD)

I think that my links were useful-even if you don't like my ideas.

they were useful and I do like them

piscesmoon, the majority want to continue with the cultural traditions of their ancestors. They are not fervent believers but they want the possibility of church weddings, religious funerals, Christmas carols and some instruction about the birth and death of Jesus etc. In a referendum they would want a continuation of the current system. They are the silent majority, but there is a vociferous minority who want to remove these things from society.

if atheist parents 'tell it as it is' to their DCs i.e. responsible for the world's problems, mumbo jumbo little green fairies etc-are Christians, Jews, Muslims and other faiths allowed the same freedom? Are they allowed to tell their DCs 'the truth as they see it'?

Yes - though IME atheist parents take their kids to science museums etc to show them the real world and remain fairly silent on religion rather than actively denigrate it.
The issue starting thread was what happened in schools. Which should be that they provide a balanced presentation of religions and other worldviews, so that children do have a hope of deciding for themselves.

Isn't that what most of us want?

Claig - 'a referendum they would want a continuation of the current system.'

Thats your assertion - I'd be really interested to know if you're right. Obviously, I'm not so sure. A while ago there was a thread about whether non-faith state schools should be secular (RE but no collective worship) and the overwhelming majority of people who participated were in favour. Obviously a self-selecting group but there were hardly any defenders of the status quo.

most people want to bring their kids up to have some knowledge of their own history and culture. They want them to understand British history rather than having it balanced out with the history of Indonesia. Similarly they want them to gain an understanding of the major faiths of this country, rather than balancing it out with equal time given to Zoroastrianism.

I think the difference is that religions believe that life is sacred. They don't believe in euthanasia etc., they try to protect life at all costs. They care for people, and think it is a sin to take a human life.

Seriously? I know thats whats written in the books, and the clergy love sticking their moralistic noses into the end of other peoples lives, but have you really not noticed that religions make people think they are right and that may make them more likely to take life 'In Gods Name' even to the extent of suicide bombing? Or there's (fortunately few) like this lot ?Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment?

Similarly they want them to gain an understanding of the major faiths of this country, rather than balancing it out with equal time given to Zoroastrianism.

That would accord with my view of 'balanced'. Most time on what the children are most likely to meet, with a bit of a mention of some of the more esoteric. Thats roughly what happens already, the main deficiency is the omission of non-religious stances.

I think that you get back to the fact that the silent majority never say anything and so wouldn't participate on the thread.

'The issue starting thread was what happened in schools. Which should be that they provide a balanced presentation of religions and other worldviews, so that children do have a hope of deciding for themselves.

Isn't that what most of us want? '

I would say that this is what most people want-I most certainly do ,but Tinnitus, when she comes back, will tell me to shut up as I keep saying it-the logical conclusion is that your DC may not make up their mind in the way that you, as the parent wish. The reason that I keep repeating myself is because no one has answered it! Mine have chosen differently from me, the world has not fallen in, it has made no difference to our relationship and I don't see that it matters. They were young, but how old do you have to be 6, 10, 12, 16 or do you have to wait until 18yrs? Is the thought that they might think differently be too horrifying to contemplate?

(If you have a school where they are not giving a balanced view-then take it up with the school and keep on taking it up with the school) . I can't complain-mine went to one where the words were always 'Christians believe' and I got the impression that the assumption was that most of the families were not Christian.

those people are a handful of nuts, they are not representative of the more than a billion Christians.

One day a time may come when you are old and in hospital and the state decides that you are no longer of much use and that a do not resuscitate policy should be carried out. Then you will be glad that there is one organisation that will fight for your rights, whether you are Christian or not. That organisation is the church and its brave members will be fighting for you against the might of the state.

I don't go to church, I don't read the Bible, but I am glad that there still are some people who do.

Is the thought that they might think differently be too horrifying to contemplate?

Certainly not! So long as they've thought for themselves not been told something different.

II can't speak for Tinnitus, but for me there's a world of difference between a child coming home interested in a religion on the basis of what they've learned about it in RE versus coming home saying that something is true because the vicar/teacher/whoever said so in assembly.

Claig - I think it far more likely that I will one day be old and in pain and desperately wish that someone could give me a bloody big dose of morphine without risking prosecution. Neither the church nor the state should have the say over resucitation or euthanasia.

(and yes, that militia group were an unrepresentative bunch of nuts - I was being naughty there. But then again, so doubtless were the 9/11 bombers)

Yes, but Grimma see what they say further down in the article: "I won?t blame this one on religion; to do that, you?d have to assume that if there were no faith, these people would be law-abiding citizens. I doubt it."

I think the Church cares more about people than the state does, because for the Church taking life is a sin. But we get the society we deserve. If we want to abolish religion, then we'll reap what we sow.

piccolina - to be sure, I had seen that. However, claigs point was that religious people hold life sacrosanct. Religion doesn't seem to have had that effect on those guys. 'Thou shalt not kill' is universal to most moral codes (including humanist ethics) but it seems to be honoured in the breach rather too often to give religion any particular high ground.

GrimmaTheNome you are taking individuals who say they are religious, and are prepared to take life, and using these people to discredit religion as a whole. It's like saying that because a Labour MP has his hand in the till, that the whole Labour party is a bunch of crooks.