Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Is being pubicly atheist a recent thing, especially re. collective worship?

691 replies

wanderings · 01/10/2015 15:34

Firstly, I'm taking no sides - I had strong atheist views when I was younger, but gradually changed my mind.

There are many threads on MN about this, especially annoyance by atheist parents about collective worship in schools, and I have been wondering if it's recent that people have felt so strongly about it. I find it hard to imagine buses in the 1980s and 90s saying "there probably is no God", or parents taking their children out of assembly, or people muttering and sneering in the back row when attending baptisms (under duress): if it happened I was blissfully ignorant.

Speaking for myself, I rebelled with my heart and soul when my parents suddenly dragged me to catholic church every Sunday when I was 9. I saw the whole thing as utter nonsense, and a waste of valuable weekend time. However, I gradually changed my mind as an adult, but went CofE rather than catholic. I took the view that you did not have to take a literal view of the Bible and the church's teachings; as a child I was very literal-minded. I also love the sense of community in church.

Does anyone think it is because a generation of young adults are remembering being forced to obediently sing hymns, hear prayers from their school days, had to learn "impossibilities" such as the great flood, and are now making sure their children won't have to do the same, now that they have the right to say something which they didn't as a child?

OP posts:
redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:05

Not every educational policy has evidence for and against efficacy. Educational policy has a dogma all of it's own.

I retract that then. Of course it has a dogma of it's own. But questions of policy have tangible applications. we can discuss them and theoretically look for proof for how well they work.

But don't get side tracked. These aren't the same things and you know it.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:06

Any 'shoving down throats' would be futile. You cannot force true faith.

excellent. Progress.

So, why do you support preaching it to young captive children against their parents' wishes?

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:11

red because it remains to be seen whether it is against all arent's wishes. It is not against my wishes, as a parent, nor many of the parents' wishes that I know.

By law parents can withdraw their children from collective worship, not many do. We can speculate as to why but this is only speculation. Until enough parents do actually 'fight the fight' all the available evidence points to parents being happy with this.

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:12

Parents not arents. Typo.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 12:17

OK.

The position as it stands is that in order to take a full part in the life of any state, tax payer funded school in England, you have at least to be a nominal Christian.

Nobody with any sense of justice could think this anything but outrageous.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:23

It is not against my wishes, as a parent, nor many of the parents' wishes that I know.

yes, if we want to change the law we (secularists) need to convince people like you that we don't like our children being preached at. I see it's an uphill battle, as you seem to agree it would be unpleasant to be in my situation. I think the CofE could certainly use a little more of the golden rule in it's teachings, as if that was applied here we might make some headway.

This is a different question from the truth of religion. You can very easily be a religious secularist (I am not religious, but my parents are (not christian), but all of us are secularists).

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:25

You have to be nominally lots of things, Bertrand, to take a full part in the life of any state, since the state is not exclusively everything Christian. I'm happy just to take my part..

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:28

red the 'golden rule' applied, I happily accept you expressing your beliefs within the law. I agree with the right to religious freedom, within our law as it stands.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:29

You have to be nominally lots of things, Bertrand, to take a full part in the life of any state, since the state is not exclusively everything Christian. I'm happy just to take my part.

really? you have to be nominally hindu? when? My kids are in a state primary school and I can guarantee that hinduism has no special platform in her school.

you are shifting the focus outside of religion in this conversation. Religion is different, and recognized legally so. As I said, belief in educational policy is not a protected characteristic here.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:32

the 'golden rule' applied, I happily accept you expressing your beliefs within the law. I agree with the right to religious freedom, within our law as it stands.

That's the question! we are questioning the law!

no, the golden rule hasn't been applied. you said that you be unhappy to be in position, but continue to support the law which would make you unhappy in my position. Seems rather anti-golden rule to me.

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:37

red religious tolerance and consideration needs to be given to Hindus (as per your example) or any other religion, within our education system. And when we talk about Christianity in schools we are talking about our education system. This means having a nominal understanding and appreciation of Hinduism and other religions in order to be able to do this adequately.

How do you see religious belief as being different from other belief? Non religious belief systems do exist such as certain forms of Budhism and witchcraft...

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:38

^ or should I say non theist?

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 12:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 12:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:42

red

no, the golden rule hasn't been applied. you said that you be unhappy to be in position, but continue to support the law which would make you unhappy in my position. Seems rather anti-golden rule to me.

You seem to be conflating a feeling of happiness with what is right...I can suffer with what is right.

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:45

It is only the claim. I'm pretty sure most people would say that faith constitutes evidence of anything. Do you consider it evidence of Ganesh

No, I consider faith to be evidence of 'things which are not seen'.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:46

religious tolerance and consideration needs to be given to Hindus

yes, of course. I didn't say otherwise. What I said was that hinduism doesn't have the same privilege as christianity. You said you have to be nominally lots of things. You don't. The only religion you are forced to participate in is christianity, or suffer the stigma of being yanked out of class.

How do you see religious belief as being different from other belief?

I don't see them as different, but they are legally different. Anyway, they are not the same as disagreeing with educational policy. educational policy is a necessity in an educational setting to deal with the logistics of education. Christianity isn't. And you certainly aren't being forced to pray to the educational policy makers.

stop making false equivalences.

I'm not getting into this with Cap yet again. She is happy with her privilege and is happy that it's forced on others.

I am realizing that. Everyone loves special privileges, but I think it takes a big person to support the removal of those privileges when it benefits you.

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:49

stop making false equivalences

I am not. I asked you a question.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:51

You seem to be conflating a feeling of happiness with what is right...I can suffer with what is right.

It's not unhappiness; that's the wrong word. It's unjust.

so you think it's right to preach at kids in a school where attendance is mandatory, against the wishes of the parents? Actually, you don't. You think it's right to preach christianity at kids in a school.

that's just appalling. Religious bullying is what it is, and I hope to see the end of it here and everywhere (I am not holding my breath).

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:53

but I think it takes a big person to support the removal of those privileges when it benefits you.

...or not to speak out in order to remove the provision of something which others see the benefit in but you don't...

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:54

I am not. I asked you a question.

you said everyone is in that position because everyone disagrees with various parts of schooling, implying that religion and educational policy are equivalent in this regard.

capsium · 07/10/2015 12:55

red attendance is not mandatory. Parents can make their own educational provision through home schooling, tutors or through private education.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 12:56

"You have to be nominally lots of things, Bertrand, to take a full part in the life of any state, since the state is not exclusively everything Christian. I'm happy just to take my part.."

That post makes no sense.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 12:57

...or not to speak out in order to remove the provision of something which others see the benefit in but you don't...

of course you see the benefit! it benefits you. It doesn't benefit me. that's why you support it. that's why people support unjust laws. If the law benefits no one, it wouldn't have any support.

this law benefits you and people like you at a cost to others. Of course you support it. That's my point. It takes someone to look above the privilege and realize the cost to others to see the injustice.

Jellytussle · 07/10/2015 12:57

I have studied the history of the early church quite extensively

You're a historian as well as a scientist! Gosh.

In that case do you think that historians operate with a 'scientific' idea of evidence? Or do that have a somewhat different idea?

Swipe left for the next trending thread