Do you feel it is important to share your views on faith or atheism?

[gingerdodger]

This is a genuine question, I am not asking to promote a faith vs atheism debate as we have plenty of those.

My question is whether people feel that it is part of their faith to share those beliefs with others? How far do you take this and how do you approach it? Similarly for those who are atheist, do you feel it is important to share your opinions and in what ways do you do this?

I know some faith groups see this as absaloutely fundamental to their faith whilst others are more relaxed. I also see that those who do not believe in God(s) also often wish to share their opinions widely. It interests me to think about what this achieves in terms of sharing opinions, understanding of each other etc.

From my point of view I strive to be open about my faith, I like to listen to other's perspectives as this makes me think (providing they are listening, I tend to bow out when it starts to feel adversarial and not inquisitorial). I don't feel compelled to actively knock on doors (metaphorically or otherwise) to share my faith but rather subscribe to the view that I hope my approach to life and openness about faith allows me to discuss my faith openly and honestly. I do believe actions speak louder than words and the best form of 'preaching' is to live Christian values of love (not saying I am good at this).

BigDorrit the history of medicine has it's darker side. Lobotomies, ECT, enforced abortions and sterilisations, Thalidomide, the neglectful and cruel treatment of the most vulnerable of patients, to name but a few instances. You cannot cannot blame people for being cautious.

But again it is not me you have to convince.

There are still controversial areas BigDorrit but the risk can take years to fully quantify, as can ascertaining causal links. Time will tell.

One example I can think of off hand is the almost blanket prescription of statins to the over 60s, even though they cause serious side effects such as altered brain and liver function and increased risk of diabetes, if I remember correctly.

I don't disagree medical decisions involve a belief systems, like religion. It is why I made the comparison.

I don't judge (as in moral judgement) either way because I do not revere other belief systems over my religious faith. It would be like asking me whether accidentally choosing the wrong dress to wear was morally wrong. I do not believe receiving mainstream medical treatment conflicts with religious faith.

My choices regarding medical treatment are not that wild either. My child received inoculations, numerous medical treatments, I had him in hospital, I have received numerous medical treatments.

""Some of these treatments can be controversial"

Only to the religious..."

No, this is not true. There is a lot that is controversial about medical treatment.
Routine use of drugs, indefinitely, with significant side effects, to treat not-that-serious complaints that can be ameliorated with life style changes, for instance.

This is an interesting example for me because I believe that the profit motive (in drug companies) has a lot to do with this, and is (in medicine as in many other contexts) being allowed to erode the principle of the value and dignity of every human being. For me, this is not necessarily a religious view of humanity; but in many cultures its position, such as it is, in the mainstream, is derived from the relgious heritage of this culture (so in the UK our human rights language comes out of Christianity, though you need not be christian to buy into that view now)

However; it seems to be the case that the organisations who most effectively and directly oppose the degradation and destruction of people for profit, seem to be religious. And that individuals who have that backing, seem to be the ones who are strongest and have the most clarity in attempts to apply these principles in daily life.

Where does this strength and clarity come from? They may say they feel their strength of purpose flowing from God. It may also be that this is because the act of collective worship, of optimistic and honest fellowship with other people, is good for all communities who are attempting anything.

So. If you are buying into the sort of Christianity that I can see any point in, it is not a matter of believing in fairies as an individual. It is a matter of living Christianity in your life and using your faith as the life force that guides you - your "breastplate" as St P had it. So you can't say "just be christian at home" or "just be christian in church". That is just entirely missing the point.

and yes there is a tension there. but the thing is, some things are worth something, and as the example above about having to put up with burglary being illegal - I think society is better for it still being common and mainstream that people get together and consider non-commercial and overtly spiritual values that place the sacredness of the human at the heart of who we are. If we did not do this and feel this I think we would have seen the end of the NHS a long time ago; forget about food banks; etc. I think that the exercising of this part of the self is a large part of what makes life worth living at all

So - sorry if not clear - I suppose I am trying to say that I do recognise that there is a tension between those who want to exercise Christianity (including, by definition, in day to day life and in public) and those who want nothing to do with it, but I honestly think it is better for us all if the religious view "wins" and sometimes you have to just say.... sorry, you lose guys. Just as I would if I had to mediate an argument between those who wanted to ban ball games in the park and those who wanted to keep them up. If it looked like the right thing to do I would say "you can stay at home if you don't like balls, but the ball players have nowhere else big enough to go, and it is better for us as a society - all of us - if we are the kind of society where people can go out and kick a ball. sorry if you hate the occasional ball on your picnic rug. but you can't shut this down, or you shut down too much"

It's clear to me mab, well put IMO.

I think that, in the same way that early Christianity borrowed the most useful and popular aspects of the paganism local to where it was, we have now reached a time where ethical secularism would, if it had any sense, borrow from Christianity. Non-religious people who are committed to social justice have an appallingly high burn out rate. Christianity protects you (mentally, emotionally, socially) in the here and now, even as it makes demands on you. I think the terrible personal toll on those who attempt to give a shit without a religious backing, is a huge part of the terrible state that our society is in now

I so wanted to contribute to this thread, I read it all and am moved to share my views.

But sadly my brain exploded at the point that capsium equated incompetence with atheist (though I would be interested to know how she is so sure that any of the three examples were not just incompetent christians).

I might be back when I can find all the bits and glue them all back together.

What changes did you make/try to make as a governor Combust?

kewcumber my point was not quite as you put it. I equated the incompetence with beliefs that were not Godly in origin hence I said they could be term atheist, that is without God. Yes, it is quite possible that a Christian could hold the same ungodly, hence atheist, beliefs and still be Christian, just as it is possible for an atheist to hold beliefs that are the same as Christian ones, hence they hold some Godly beliefs, and yet still are atheist.

I expect you experienced the metaphorical exploding because it is not a pleasant thought, and one that is highly emotive, that your beliefs from particular belief set could lead to incompetence. However it does not mean an atheist is more or less likely to be incompetent since Christians can hold negative, which are IMO ungodly beliefs too.

I made the point because someone had asked me how atheism impinges in my life negatively, probably in the assumption you cannot pin down a cohesive set of atheist beliefs. I chose to actually answer the question, open question that it was, detailing how negative beliefs that were atheist, in that they conflicted with Christian beliefs, could impinge negatively. The fact that not all atheists hold these beliefs was stressed by me on numerous occasions.

No the reason my head exploded was because thats without doubt the most bizarre definition of atheist I've ever come across in my life.

Or are you saying that incompetence = ungodly and therefore necessarily atheistic?

Why is the decision not to look at a proper blood test result which shows all types of Cholesterol atheistic? If the HCP prayed for guidance first and god didn;t tell them to order the proper test would that then make it a christian incompetence?

Still confused.

And collective worship in schools should be on an opt in basis not an opt out. Then everyone is happy.

Assembly in teh mornings with thought for the day, announcements, happy song etc. Group worship after lunch with prayer and hymns to be opted into.

Perfect whats wrong with that as a starting point.

Be very interesting to see how many people actively want Christian worship in schools enough to opt in.

Kew nothing is 'atheistic'. However since I believe God is good, any belief which is wrong, is also without God. Atheist literally means without God. From my perspective an atheist would in most probably still hold a lot of beliefs that I also considered Godly. However their central belief, that there is no God is what makes them atheist.

Neglecting to look at a proper blood test result IMO could result from an atheist (in the sense of misplaced priorities, which would be ungodly IMO) belief that reveres normal medical procedure and professional status over patient care and actually listening and being concerned over individual patient wishes / history.

Surprisingly, or not, the Bible teaches about what our priorities should be.

And collective worship in schools should be on an opt in basis not an opt out. Then everyone is happy.

Why?

Not many people don't want worship enough to opt out. Plenty of parents literally strive to get their children into Faith schools, even when they are non believers themselves.

I am thinking Dorrit. It is probably more likely that they want the extra funds the school receives from the church, if they are voluntary aided, which many faith schools are. However they are prepared to 'put up with' a significant amount of 'worship' to benefit from this.

^ want to benefit from the extra funds that should say.

Ha ha that's a laugh capsium- you think parents strive to get their kids into religious schools for the religious aspect of teaching?

"What changes did you make/try to make as a governor Combust?"

dione you seem insistent in your pursuit to somehow blame me for the continuation of worship within my school.

Of course I brought up the subject at governor meetings- the head would not allow the topic to be discussed. He ruled the school with an iron hand.
He was on the whole a benevolent and caring man, but did have pupil favourites and took active dislikes to some children and their families.
Many other parents did object to the christian worship but did not want to rock the boat. Many other parents had no view - they were the nominal unthinking majority that allows the church to hold the power that it enjoys within the UK. The LA were not interested- they said the head had the right to uphold the law on active worship

Ha ha that's a laugh capsium- you think parents strive to get their kids into religious schools for the religious aspect of teaching?

No, as I said above, they probably want their child to benefit from the extra school funds the school receives from the church, if it is a voluntary aided church school as many are.

Whatever the reason they obviously aren't bothered about collective worship hugely. Many are prepared attend the church, as non believers in order to get their child into the school.

Not that I think they should have to do this, as I believe State Faith schools should not be selective, as I believe in inclusion. I also think it good that their children can benefit from the funds the church pays to the school.

combust I also think the governor meetings at the school you describe sounded flawed if the head had such control on the agenda. Although I know this us not out of the ordinary. I'm not actually naive as you think.

It does not sound you had a lot of parent support either for changing the way collective worship was organised at the school. Maybe not as many parents as you think are concerned about their children participating in collective worship.

As I have said, if you are in a minority concerning your beliefs, you really have to decide how you can happily live among people who believe differently to you. I suspect you have found a way. I have had to do this too, on some school issues. The primary my DC attends is no where near as inclusive as I would like ideally. I have learnt to pick my battles and play the long game though.

" I have learnt to pick my battles and play the long game though."

Exactly. Beacuse apart from the ollective worship my kid's school was excellent. A fantastic stance of bullying, had a number of children with special needs, the head made a big effort to be as inclusive as possible to make sure those children were an important part of the school community to such an extent that all the pupils were fiercely protective and supportive of the children that needed additional help.

I did not want to push the issue on collective worship because I wanted to remain on good terms with the head, for my own sake because I did a lot of extra work around the school and for the sake of my children who were having a happy school experience.

Talking of the minority- I live in rural Scotland- Halloween is a huge thing here- our village is transformed at Halloween, children take weeks planning their outfits, practicing their songs for guising. hallloween seees masses of people adults and children alike dressing up and taking to the streets.
Children are very excited.
Such a cultural event should be mentioned in school imo.

Our head won't allow any mention of Halloween in school. No talk, no stories, no pictures. Anyone cought weating a spooky headband or spider cake in the lunchbox has it confiscated. The head insists that Halloween is anti-christian and will not tolerate it.

So much for supporting the majority.