Safe haven chat thread for non-believers

[technodad]

I thought it would be lovely to start a "safe haven" thread for all the non-believers on mumsnet. It doesn't matter how strong your disbelief is, or if you are agnostic or humanist rather than pure atheist, the important thing is that you believe in the scientific method and the fact that evidence and testing is used properly to grow our understanding of the universe.

The idea is to talk with other non-believers to share ideas, thoughts and evidence or even provable theories.
So come in and relax!

Please can I respectfully ask that this is not a debating thread to challenge people. While I am not the mn police, there are other threads to debate on or please start your own. This is a safe haven.

P.S. It is unfortunate that Starwisher seems to be implying in his/her thread that non-believers do not allow "safe haven" for religious discussion. I am pretty sure that there are no atheists debating in the "Hallelujah He is Here ? Chataway [sic]" thread, the "Pagan interest thread" or the "Christian prayer thread- Easter on the way" thread, we just tend to get involved in threads where clearly the OP intended to provoke debate or is asking for a balanced view. However, since Starwisher has asked for his/her thread to not involve any debate, I felt it was not appropriate to make this comment in the "Safe haven chat thread for believers" thread.

alexpolismum "And how many in the UK too just go along with it all out of a sense of cultural obligation or something like that?"

Based on a quick head count at the communion service that is part of the local primary's obligation connection to the Church more than 50% baptised (and I'm guessing christened). I'm basing this on the number of children in the top two classes who took communion, (which they could only do if they are baptised, you don't have to be confirmed any more), that I have never seen at the family services, they could be regular attenders at the adult services though.

I do wonder if it's this sort of thing that leads to a kind of "just in case"ism in C of E folk? No Baptism no Heaven is Catholic dogma isn't it?

Was the church you went to Greek Othodox?

Sorry, somehow I've lost a paragraph about someone telling my kid that heaven was only for baptised people (we sorted that out quickly) which led onto "I do wonder..."

No Baptism no Heaven is Catholic dogma isn't it?

And more to the point nowadays, no baptism, reduced chance of admission to an RC school

I found [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3354805/Christenings-Have-a-bash-or-make-a-splash.html this]] (from a few years back) which suggests the number of christenings is declining in the UK.

Here is the CofE statistics. Its a falling minority who choose infant christenings.

Great thread, am marking my place for later

Yes, Greek Orthodox church. Extremely long winded. I used my ds2 as an excuse to go back outside after a few minutes and walk around in the square in the sunshine for a bit. I popped back in at the end to offer my congratulations.

Those are the CofE statistics - what about the Catholic church? I bet they get loads of baptisms of non-believers who just want a school place. I wonder what their stats are. Or can you get baptised in another Christian church and then get an RC school place? I really don't know, I'm afraid.

Grimma "And more to the point nowadays, no baptism, reduced chance of admission to an RC school"

alexpolismum The Telegraph - Children baptised to get into Catholic School

Quote "Between 1958 and 2005, the proportion of "cradle" baptisms declined from 85 per cent to 64 per cent, while "late" baptisms rocketed from five per cent to 30 per cent. The proportion of adult conversions also fell.

In 2005, the Catholic Church in England and Wales baptised 20,141 children aged between one and 13, compared with just 6,925 in 1958."

I think you're right

Funny isn't it how its skeptics who get stereotyped as cynical?

I was at a christening in an RC church recently where the parents (inlaws), I am pretty sure, are non believers. This charade took place with a priest who was clearly going through the motions, and who was (I think) sarcastic to the parents, telling them not to lose the christening certificate as he did not want them contacting him in a few years time (i.e. when the kids were trying to get into school).
Why is it that state funded schools are allowed to use the blatently discriminatory practises that lead to the ridiculous farce that I witnessed (cast out the devil etc... wtf). At one parents evening at the CofE school that my kids were at, I suggested that there should be schools where you have to prove that you are an atheist to get your kids in. As you can imagine, that did not go down very well.

I don't automatically ooze sympathy for religous officials but it must be bloody irritating conducting a religous ceremony under those circumstances.

"...I suggested that there should be schools where you have to prove that you are an atheist to get your kids in..." Ha!

They should just refuse to do the baptisms.

Oh wait, bums on seats, numbers to give the government to demonstrate the importance of churches... I think they'll probably be able to push through the irritation

Religious officials who refuse to do baptisms tend to come in for a bit of criticism though. So, they probably can't win on that one.

Well, they could win if they realised the Baptists have the best idea on this particular issue, and left it until the individual was old enough to decide whether they wanted it. Baptists do 'dedication' services for infants, where the adults make their promises.

And then of course not use any of these rituals as a criterion for school admission. Wouldn't it be nice if admissions were soley decided by 'which school is best for this child' rather than anything to do with the parents beliefs or finances.

As I understand it from a RC point of view baptism is where the parents make their own promises and on behalf of the child and is the first half of the ceremony. This is consolidated when the child chooses to be confirmed (which used to be around secondary school age and deemed that the child was making their own choice). Or at least that's how it was explained to me.

I don't know much about Baptists but maybe they kept the whole thing as one ceremony which was done at a later age.

RC baptism

Its supposed to actually do something which affects the child. 'Since baptism removes both the guilt and the punishment due to Original Sin, delaying baptism until a child can understand the sacrament may put the child's salvation in danger, should he die unbaptized'. The promises by the parents aren't a fundamental part of the rite at all.

The baptists believe baptism should only be performed on someone who is actually a believer - when the person is 'born again'. This is in line with what happened in the gospels. Children were blessed, consenting adults were baptised.

Juule,
I have no sympathy at all for the religious officials, they are just playing the game. Why should my inlaws have to get their child baptised to get him into their local school? Perhaps the religious officials should protest that this practise is blatently discriminatory and very divisive for our society. In no other area of public life would this sort of discrimination be tolerated. If someone set up a school that excluded pupils on racial grounds, it would be illegal, but somehow it is ok for religion. I can't understand why this is not a bigger issue.

Maybe because politicians, who want to avoid sending their kids to a private school because that's unacceptable to too many voters, find faith schools too damned convenient?

Grimma it is true that some people believe that baptism removes original sin. Anyone can baptise a baby in an emergency. While the baptism is the fundamental part of the ceremony, the promises of the parents/godparents are important in that they are promising to encourage the baby/child to live in a christian way until it reaches an age that it can decide for itself at confirmation (I know the argument against that is that by then the child is pretty much indoctrinated anyway).

For people who believe that a child can't go to heaven with original sin, then infant baptism is a must. The adult makes the initial decision for the child (similar to vaccinating babies and not waiting until they are old enough to decide themselves, I suppose).
Some people get their children baptised because they believe the whole thing, some 'just in case', and some to give their child eligibility for a place at the local school. But not all are done just for the school place.
No doubt some priests would prefer to only baptise true believers, some to get 'bums on seats', and some out of compassion for the wider family and maybe a host of other reasons.
As regards the christening ElBurro went to, the child's parents may not have believed but they might have been under pressure from relatives or maybe it was just for the school place. Whatever their reason they presumably went ahead with it in what they thought were the best interests of their family.

Elburro While the whole state school system might need revising, at the present time the only way to get what you want for your child is to 'play the game'. Fortunately?, most religious officials are happy (although I'm sure some are not) to play along too. Farcical maybe but until major changes are made to the school system probably the best we can do at the present time.

At secondary school level I thought a percentage of the intake of faith schools had to be set aside for other faith/non-faith children.

Juule,

As regards the christening of children, I was under the same pressure as my inlaws, being part of the same family. However, I resisted the pressure as a point of principle - but I am lucky that school places issue did not arise. I do not believe that my (or any) children need to have 'original sin' removed from them. I did go to one RC christening where the priest actually said (to a baby mark you) 'Cast out the devil'. I feel that these ridiculous practices should be exposed for the nonsense that they are. To me my inlaws christening was solely about one thing - school places - and everyone knew it.

I cannot believe that you, seemingly rational, can defend this absurd status quo. I am, as you may have guessed, an atheist with fairly strong views on religion. I pay my share of taxes and should be able to expect equal treatment under the law, just as any other citizen. Clearly, in the case of state funded education, I do not receive equal treatment which is blatently discriminatory. Surely we should be campaigning for a secular state.

Incidentally, (like Grimma) I think that the system that we have has more to do with the middle classes wanting to obtain privilidges for their kids than belief.

Elburro I'm not sure why you see my posts as defending the status quo.

And now genuine questions. Why are faith schools seen as a better option? And if they are a better option, why is that? Just wondering.

Farcical maybe but until major changes are made to the school system probably the best we can do at the present time.

That looks like a defence of the status quo to me - sorry if I have misunderstood.

I have already partly answered your genuine question above - any sort of selective school (not just religious) is usually better than the average. A selection process of any sort gives motivated (mainly middle class) parents a way of obtaining priviledge or exclusivity for their children.

No it wasn't meant as a defence. It was a statement of fact of how things are (at present).

Yes I understand the selective thing but as has been shown there are ways around that. Not that I'm saying that is right or for everybody. And as I've said I don't think it applies at secondary level.

Thought-provoking stuff though.

OK Juule, just venting.
Why I don't understand is why people aren't more outraged about this? I even had a pipe dream of setting up a school for the children of atheists with a fairly rigourous selection procedure. It is probably a little bit more possible now with the advent of the so-called 'free' schools.