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

For the state, taking life is a crime. You go to a real jail, not a theoretical hell. I'll take my chances with a democratic state.

Anyway, whoever said anything about wanting to abolish religion? Maybe someone did but it wasn't me. Abolishing its preferential status would be good, but freedom of thought and action (provided it does not harm others) is something I would defend to the hilt.

Its those individuals who are discrediting their religion.

@ Methanxiety

the humanists may have 'Thou shalt not kill' as a moral code, but they don't take it as seriously as the Church does. Most humanists are in favour of voluntary euthanasia. The danger with voluntary euthanasia is that once that door has been opened, it becomes uncertain where the line will be drawn and the state will put to sleep some people who never wanted to die.

Religion is diminishing in importance in our society, so those who think it is a bad thing are winning the battle.

Claig - voluntary euthanasia really is a whole other issue. Sweeping generalisations that humanists don't take 'thou shalt not kill' as seriously as the Church has induced a mild choking fit - maybe not as seriously as the Quakers, but really most of us live in a world of shades of grey. The army has chaplains - because quite rightly, people of most faiths see the need for defence forces which may entail killing. Similarly I'm pretty sure there are sincerely Christian doctors who've compassionately given that bit of extra morphine.

I guess the army has chaplains to give religious comfort to soldiers who are wounded or who may be about to die in battle. Christian doctors who give that extra morphine are making their own decisions, I don't think that that is official church policy.

To be honest when it comes to matters of life and death, the sanctity of life and the value of human beings, I am glad that there is one organisation that sees no greys, and insists on black and white. An organisation that cannot be bought out, an organisation that won't compromise, an organisation that will not bow down to the current holder of power.

CLaig, you;re not doing very well at all in trying to suggest that intelligent people believe in gods. Your posts are getting steadily more ludicrous and further away from actual evidence _ the immense damage that is being done in the name of various superstitions is not something you can ignore, whether it's justifications for war, the suppression of women's rights (Don't forget the disgusting Mother Theresa, an arrogant fantasist who actively campagined against women's access to birth control) and of course the irrideemably corrupt house of kiddy-fiddlers, mafiosi and scumbags that is the Cathlic CHurch. The only example of a nominally non-religious tyrant you can come up with is Lenin (you forgot Stalin, obviously). Did you think adding in Pol Pot and Mao was overstressing your example or have you not actually heard of them? That does make, ooh, four people opposed to some of the major myth systems who happened to commit some admittedly serious crimes against humanity. But when you start doing a headcount of the recent atrocities committed in the name of superstitions, you stack up far more examples - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, the Serbs and the Croats, and don't forget the shitbag George W Bush and his gang of deranged neocon superstitous brain donors....

SolidGoldBrass, I said nothing about intelligent people. I don't categorise people as intelligent or ignorant as you do. I respect all people and their beliefs whatever their IQ is. I am like the church, I think that none of us are superior to anyone else.

Is there nobody good in the Catholic Church or is every last one of them a scumbag? Thanks for reminding me about Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin, that strengthens my case.

"when you start doing a headcount of the recent atrocities committed in the name of superstitions, you stack up far more examples - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, the Serbs and the Croats, and don't forget the shitbag George W Bush and his gang of deranged neocon superstitous brain donors"

I think you need to take a few classes in geopolitics. Whoever convinced you that religion was the cause for these wars has badly misinformed you.

SGB, you're beginning to sound like the thought police. Can you admit that people have a right to be 'wrong'? Who elected you the arbiter of what people may or may not have in their heads and on what grounds they may hold their opinions? I'm going to do you the favour of ignoring your continued embarrassing assertion that people who believe in a god or gods are lacking in intelligence. Clearly some sort of self-serving thing going on there.

And the four dictators you mentioned who ditched religion (let's not forget Hitler), so 5, were responsible for how many millions of deaths? (Or 'admittedly serious crimes against humanity' as you delicately put it.) So their impact was disproportionate to their numbers.

Essentially, your point seems to be that all people who believe or have ever believed in any god are 1) stupid, and 2) responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened since the dawn of history. And those who actively persecuted religion and religious people were, in fact, setting up some sort of religion of their own (Lenin; Leninism, Bolshevism, Communism, whatever), so they count as religious people too.....

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

We have agreement then! That is all that I am saying.You just have to allow for the fact that they might not agree with you. I would bet that if a poll was held on mumsnet to see how many posters held the same view as their parents it would show that it was very few! If you had a poll on how many agree with MIL it would be practically nil! Those of us with boys are to be specially reviled-the DS may have gone along with Mums views but then along comes DIL who doesn't see the world according to DH's mother!!

I don't find claig's posts more ludicrous and departing from evidence-I find them very tolerant a pleasant change from the ranting and vitrol. At least Christian's try and see good in all-they don't write them off! A little kindness and understanding would go a long way. You have to understand that people are a product of their time. Mother Theresa was born about a hundred years ago in Albania, I imagine that most people with her upbringing had similar views on birth control (not one that I agree with) this doesn't negate the fact that she worked with the untouchables in Calcutta. You may have enlightened views about birth control SGB but you haven't devoted your whole life to helping the homeless and destitute.

I really think that you ought to read your last rant SGB before you accuse people of getting more ludicrous. I would be inclined to agree with some of your statements but the language and sheer vitrol turns me off completely. I don't agree with a lot of Grimma's posts, but she presents them in a well balanced way and they are easy to follow and pick out the parts that make perfect sense. I don't think that living with such a level of hatred is healthy.

MathAnxiety - oh not 'Hitler was an atheist' again. No he wasn't. Hitler was into all manner of superstitious twaddle, including hunts for religious relics that may or may not have existed, astrology and assorted Nordic superstitons as well as various cherry-picked bits of Christianity.
And people who have had the benefit of a good education and still believe in imaginary friends in the sky are either not that bright, or lacking in some way. Because religion is not just a toxic tool of social control but inherently idiotic.

Hitler was inherently idiotic, among many other characteristics, but he was not religious or pious in any sense of the word.

SGB, you're trying to say that atheists = good and intelligent, while religious/ believers = bad, often on a grand scale (hiss, boo) and stupid; a set of teflon-coated rigid absolutes seems to be the sort of thing you rail against.

Demagoguery is not argument.

I think SolidGoldBrass must be high up in Opus Dei. She is the best advert for Catholicism that I've ever seen.

And people who have had the benefit of a good education and still believe in imaginary friends in the sky are either not that bright, or lacking in some way.

Based on people I know, that ain't necessarily so. I can quite easily imagine an alternate life for myself in which (having been brought up a Christian) I then didn't meet the same people, didn't have the same discussions, avoided the churches that made me go and consequently never reached the point of the leap of unbelief, the realisation that I'd been deluded.

Well, maybe I'd have been lacking an external kick up the backside but I'm not sure I'd have been internally lacking in some way. If you've never been there I'm sure its hard to understand, but if you have faith it has its own internal 'logic'. If you're in a nice warm community of like-minded folk, with no external kick inertia will tend to keep you there.

Now, have you all been playing nicely while I was away?

OK, I'm going to concede one point. there is no point in the atheists here trying to get agreement from the religious ones. Faith doesn't require proof and sadly all we have is proof, and logic, and reasoning, and inquisitive minds, and an ability to change opinions when our assertions are sufficiently challenged.

I mean, what good is that against faith?

We have to accept that growing up in what you zealots describe as a Christian culture, it is, by definition, we atheists who have been open minded, as we are the ones who have changed our minds, or rejected the cultural norm. So could you stop accusing us of being closed to other views as that just doesn't make sense.

@ Picesmoon.

I would, and have, never even asked you to shut up, that would be rude.

I have only asked that you don't run out the same old points again and again, if they have been adequately countered. Please feel free to run out some new ones.

SGB - it is your opinion that people who have a religious belief cannot be intelligent. There isn't evidence for that, and there is evidence against it. Which is a bit ironic really...

Its an article of her faith, it seems.
Sorry SGB, it weakens your valid points when you come out with that particular line. For your acerbic style to work optimally it really has to be 100% accurate.

GrimmaTheNome, if it was 100% accurate, there'd be very little left

That sounds like a challenge....

'We have to accept that growing up in what you zealots describe as a Christian culture, it is, by definition, we atheists who have been open minded, as we are the ones who have changed our minds, or rejected the cultural norm. So could you stop accusing us of being closed to other views as that just doesn't make sense.

Lots of people have rejected the cultural norm-a lot of people who would call themselves Christian and use the church for weddings and funerals don't go to services. I am seriously thinking of trying a Quaker meeting-the more I hear about them the more appealing it seems.
It isn't just atheists who have changed their minds-there are actually lots of people who are brought up by atheist parents who find a faith. Alpha Courses are very popular with those who are looking for answers. I know lots of people who have only found a church as an adult.
I think that everyone should be open minded to new experiences. I don't know that I will always feel the same about things-I might change my views completely. I would want something that gives me inner peace-I wouldn't want to live with hatred for people that I don't know-or hatred for people that I do know.

Not sure if I ever said that faithfulls couldn't change their mind. in fact I was moaning not to long ago about you constantly changing your mind. but atheist by definition must be open to new things or they would all be stuck in a religious mindset and putting CofE on census forms out of habit.