Why is secularism seen as such a threat?

[technodad]

Why is secularism seen as such a threat, when the very idea is based around protection of the rights of the individual?

Just to be clear before we start, secularism is about making everyone equal, no matter what their belief - simple as that really. It means that no one group (or individual) has greater rights or power in society than everyone else and that everyone has freedom of expression.

So what is it about this concept that is so difficult for some people to accept and support?

Numiny said: I never said they did. I agree with having acts of worship, and I agree with religious education. But I do not think they are the same thing. If push came to shove, I would say that the latter was the more important, and would rather preserve that, however.

I agree that they are not the same thing. So where in the list of secular agenda items does it say that they plan to stop teaching of religious education to children????

When you say "if push came to shove" do you mean, "If religious groups are forced to make life fair and equal for everyone in the country"?

Nightlurker said: People have a right to discriminate, as long as they aren't abusive about it.

Can you confirm (for the record), that you think it is acceptable to ban a black person from a pub, or not interview them for a job in a company, on the grounds of their skin colour? Because that is what you are saying.

"Religion plays no role in state-funded education, whether through religious affiliation, organised worship, religious instruction, pupil selection or employment discrimination."

From secular society aims.

No, because I see no evidence that people of no religion are in fact being discriminated against because they have no religion. I do see evidence that church schools are being allowed to select pupils on the grounds that parents profess a faith. Of course I do not think that is right. But then I think that everyone should go to their local school, and I think that the 'parental choice' agenda in school admissions is wrong (in great part because it leads to a situation in which it is the school, not the parent that does the choosing). And I think it quite likely that most church schools would rather not select on the basis of parental faith/'faith'.

What I meant was that if they are both under attack I think religious education is a higher priority to preserve than religious worship.

Wow!

My wow comment was to nightlurker

Niminy

"Religion plays no role in state-funded education, whether through religious affiliation, organised worship, religious instruction, pupil selection or employment discrimination."

This is not saying that children can not learn about religion, it is just saying that religion as an activity (i.e. group worship) is not a school activity but a personal one. You have definitely misinterpreted this completely. Like you say, how can you teach children about Star Wars, without understanding the bible story (for "Star Wars", you can also insert other great classics).

if they are both under attack --I think religious education is a higher priority to preserve than religious worship. - they are not and never were BOTH under attack, only religious worship.

You said: No, because I see no evidence that people of no religion are in fact being discriminated against because they have no religion. I do see evidence that church schools are being allowed to select pupils on the grounds that parents profess a faith.

Well surely selection of pupils based upon faith IS discrimination. I have a friend who's 5 year old will have to travel long distances to a school in another town, because the 3 non-faith schools are over subscribed and the remaining 10 schools are all faith schools that have selection criteria. How is this right or fair?

My own DC have to go to a non-selective CofE school and are told off for not praying in assembly. My own desires to allow my children to be exposed to faith so that they can learn for themselves means that they are not allow to express their own views (by sitting quietly and respectfully, but not praying), without being told off! How is this right? This is discrimination without any shadow of a doubt!

Technodad, I do wish you would not quote selectively, and then make me appear to agree with things that I have quite clearly said I do not agree with. In this case, the ommission of 'Of course I do not think that is right' allowed you to twist my words. I do not see any evidence of discrimination of people of no religion apart from this, perhaps I should have said. If the whole of your beef is with faith schools, well, I am sure we will agree that the parental choice agenda is flawed and children should just go to their local school, and there would then be no issues about oversubscription and selection.

I do not see that the words 'religious instruction' cannot be understood to mean 'learning about religion'.

Religious instruction and religious education are completely different things.

nightlurker - actually no people and businesses don't have the right to discriminate.

In many cases discrimination that they used to have a right to do is now against the law.

Employers don't have the right to discriminate against women because they think they should be at home.
Shops don't have a right to discriminate against disabled people because they make them feel uncomfortable.
Lettings agencies don't have the right to advertise 'no blacks, no irish'

Why would it be a good idea to back to the dark days when people had a right to discriminate?

Niminy,

I did not intend to selectively quote, I just wanted to specifically address some of your comments. I did not intend to mis-represent you, merely point out that those two very clear sentences are completely contradictory.

I find it frustrating that you have been arguing against something that is really not the case. If you google "National Secular Society Religious Education" the first item in the list takes you here: www.secularism.org.uk/religious-education.html. And I quote "We recognise that religion is clearly an important political and ideological phenomenon and can appreciate the potential value of a serious academic subject that teaches a variety of worldviews, including ethics"

Your interpretation of "Religion plays no role in state-funded education, whether through religious affiliation, organised worship, religious instruction, pupil selection or employment discrimination." is completely wrong.

"Religious instruction and religious education are completely different things". Are they? And how do we tell the difference? What I think the secular society is getting at is that they are ok with religion being taught as if it had no sacred content and was merely 'an important political and ideological phenomenon'. Except, of course, that without the sacred content it would not have played the role it has in the world.

But if someone asks a teacher, who is teaching them, say, about the resurrection (as a political and ideological phenomenon, natch), 'did this happen?', and the teacher believes that it did, and the teacher says 'yes, I believe it did', then is that religious instruction? Are you saying that the teacher should tell a lie in that situation, and not answer a direct question?

You see, under the aim that 'no emanation of the state' should be able to profess religious belief, that would not be allowed, would it not? And that teacher might be found to have crossed the line from religious education to religious instruction.

These matters are not as simple and clear cut as the NSS and its apologists make out.

Teachers have always shared their private lives and opinions with their pupils as they see fit. Nobody is suggesting that this will change.

Personally, I don't see a problem with answering a direct question with an honest answer.

If the teacher says "I believe it did", then that is fine. If the teacher says "Definitely, it did happen and it is proven and if you don't start praying you will get a detention" then that has crossed the line.

Some sensible rules can easily be drawn up. You seem to be arguing that my kids should continue to be taught religion as a fact even when their parents are not part of that faith (as they are currently), because "it might be a bit tricky to police", or any other lame excuse. Your arguments are getting very very thin. Why don't you just give the real reason why you are against it?

Fundamentally, it will only be difficult because people try to block it. They will block it because they are selfish and discriminatory (twats like Pickles may wrap it up in some agenda that pretends that it is the best for us, but that is just his twatish polarised opinion).

What do you mean by sacred content?

I do think children should leave school with a basic familiarity with the mythologies, histories and practices of the world's main religions. Enough to be able to navigate culture, history and current affairs.

But I guess this could be taught over the course of a year. Surely it doesn't need 10 years of repeated study?

I think kids should be taught about religious cultures (especially those common in the UK) from an early age, and that it should be reinforced throughout their schooling. But it should be taught as life choices and not as fact.

TD you sound very suspicious of me! What 'real reasons' do you suspect me of harbouring?

I am sure you, and seeker, and everyone else on this thread, are very reasonable people. I believe you when you say that in that situation you could not see a problem. That does not mean that no-one could see a problem. Sensible rules are, in fact, very hard to draw up. (This is one of the major problems with legislating over assisted death, because it is very hard to draw up rules that will mean that the vulnerable are completely protected.) So just because you are reasonable, it does not follow that everybody is as reasonable as you. When you make up rules, they have to cover not just cases where everybody is acting reasonably, but also - and especially - cases where they are not.

Himalaya, I think it would take more than one year to learn about the beliefs, history and culture of the world's major religions, especially as there are lots of other things going on in the curriculum, no? unless you think it is adequate that children arrive at adulthood with the most superficial knowledge and understanding of the world?

Seeker, what I mean is that you can certainly teach religion as a series of stories. But in order to understand why the world's faiths have had, and continue to have, such a huge number of adherents, you also would have to say something about the sacred, and the experience of the divine that is at the centre of religion. Or else you would have to say that vast numbers, both now and historically, have been stupid and deluded. Which would be untrue, not to mention insulting to anybody in the room who has a religious faith.

A secular society would not ban all mention of religious faith. Of course any education about religion would have to talk about the nature of belief.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am "suspicious" of anyone who does not accept that a secular society is the best possible way forward because, to me, the only reason is a desire to shore up the privileged position that religion, specifically Christianity, has in our society.

I also think, since you mention it, that the supposed impossibility of building safeguards into a policy on assisted death is a smoke screen put up by people of faith to hide their real agenda.

your secular society would not ban all mention of religion. But can we be certain that people as reasonable as you would be in charge?

Well, we would have to assume that they know what "secular" means.

And we would also have to assume that we haven't fallen under an atheist dictatorship.

But then we have to assume that fundamentalist Christians aren't going to take over and impose their beliefs on the population either.

Niminy - I think it is probably only possible to have superficial knowledge of the world's religions and this will do for most people unless they are particularly interested.

I know the basic difference between Sunni and Shia, and in which countries each sect predominates, but not A) the detail of the theological disagreements between them, or B) what it feels like to be an adherent. I know enough to get by, and if I ever need to find out A I can read a book, while B is probably impossible.

I think that 10 years of RE is overkill and it is mainly waffle. There are lots of important things that are not on the curriculum at all, or get much less time. Economics, philosophy, politics, any history/culture out of the Romans/Tudors/WWorld Wars timeline, psychology, critical thinking, evolution (beyond a cursory couple of weeks at GCSE).

The fact that RE is mandatory from R to Yr 9 is not because someone has sat down and worked out what it is that children need to know to be religiously literate and how long it would take to teach them that. It is because Scripture lessons used to be a core part of education alongside the three Rs.

There are other options for explaining/understanding why people adhere to religions other than 'the experience of (something perceived as) the divine' or 'they are all stupid'. I just don't think you can study those reasons in the same subject that it is trying to impart religious general knowledge. It is a topic for psychology.

Himalaya, agree about the waffle. Perhaps what might make for a defence of - say Hebrew School is that to know one religion thoroughly is ot understand all of them rather better?

Psychology is pretty clueless about religion in general.