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

[wanderings]

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?

red the assumptions made in educational provisions includes beliefs which are as equally beliefs (as involving belief) as religious belief is. When is a belief less or more than a belief? There is no quantifying belief.

Parents can make their own educational provision through home schooling, tutors or through private education.

right. if you are not christian, go find your own school. Sounds like christian privilege to me.

the assumptions made in educational provisions includes beliefs which are as equally beliefs (as involving belief) as religious belief is.

just false. plain false. not even remotely true. there is no equivalence.

"Parents can make their own educational provision through home schooling, tutors or through private education."

while relying on benefits to keep their children fed? You're having a laugh!

"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."

why not remove it and then see how many parents object?

red

just false. plain false. not even remotely true. there is no equivalence

Please explain why.

Abe

why not remove it and then see how many parents object?

I'll leave that up to you and others who think the same as you, this is not my battle to fight.

the assumptions made in educational provisions includes beliefs which are as equally beliefs (as involving belief) as religious belief is."

Name some.

right. if you are not christian, go find your own school. Sounds like christian privilege to me.

I was just rightfully pointing out attendance at state school is not mandatory as you implied it was.

Yes, Christianity, as a state supported religion, does have a certain amount of privilege in this country and will do unless the law is changed. This country has had Christianity as a state supported religion for centuries. It is the way laws work, they can be enforced until they are changed.

I don't particularly want a change in law. I think it would signify a move towards not being allowed to worship in public at all ... which would severely compromise religious freedoms. Sharing beliefs require being able to share them in public.

Please explain why.

you made the assertion. You tell me.

Bertrand I did name some beliefs implicit within educational policy, such as early intervention being preferable, up thread.

I don't particularly want a change in law.

I guess the golden rule really is a secular value.

I think it would signify a move towards not being allowed to worship in public at all ... which would severely compromise religious freedoms.

religion is absolutely thriving in my home country, more so than here, and no religion has state privilege.

Sharing beliefs require being able to share them in public.

I don't think any secularist (humanist) would disagree, and in fact we are usually the biggest supporters of free speech, free thought and freedom of religion. Name one thing I have said that doesn't support free speech.

But that's not what's at issue, and free speech isn't your concern. As you said, you want Christianity to have a privileged position, which is a completely separate point from freedom of religion.

red

This is getting silly.

I said belief is simply belief, if it belief. There is no more or less, thus beliefs are equivalent, in this sense. Belief is non quantifiable. So I explained my reasoning up thread.

Now why can you not explain your assertion this is 'false'? Are you saying you can quantify it?

early intervention being preferable

you think that is the same as a preferred religion?

wow.

red yet you do not apply the 'golden rule' by allowing me to have freedom to believe what I do concerning the provision of Christian worship within schools?

Would you support me fighting to keep this provision? Because I would be unhappy to lose it?

red early intervention is the same, as preferred religion in terms of this policy involving a belief. The implications of early intervention, before significant evidence has been collected, can potentially be huge. Early intervention by it's very nature involves acting upon beliefs, namely suspicion of dysfunction, not evidence. The 'early' precludes time for sufficient evidence to be collected.

Now why can you not explain your assertion this is 'false'? Are you saying you can quantify it?

you are making the assertion that all beliefs are equivalent "in this sense" (what sense I don't really know, so it's hard to counter). Beliefs are different in content, and different beliefs are held with different strengths. I held some beliefs very weakly, and some strongly, and other beliefs are in between.

Certainly, however, different beliefs are viewed differently in both our society, and globally. My belief that red shirts look nice, even if held strongly, isn't a protected characteristic in UK law. However, my religions beliefs (or lack of) are a protected characteristic. In that sense, UK law is makes a very big distinction between beliefs.

So, you seem to be the only one making the odd, very vague, assertion that "beliefs are all equivalent", when it appears that no one, including the law, agrees.

"Bertrand I did name some beliefs implicit within educational policy, such as early intervention being preferable, up thread."

Please explain how this has the remotest relevance to compulsory Christian worship in state funded non faith schools.

yet you do not apply the 'golden rule' by allowing me to have freedom to believe what I do concerning the provision of Christian worship within schools?

do you really not see the difference? Really? Suppose both of our kids are at a school. You are asking for extra provision for your religion. I am not. Hindus are not. It's a very simple distinction.

Bertrand both involves acting upon belief and not evidence. This is how they are the same. There was a discussion up thread criticising people of the Christian faith 'imposing' their beliefs upon others, who do not share them. I was just pointing out this happens in the secular arena too. Secular / 'cultural' beliefs affect people on widespread level too. I think we just have to accept that anyone, religious or not, holds beliefs and the impacts of belief rarely are limited to individuals.

Please explain how this has the remotest relevance to compulsory Christian worship in state funded non faith schools.

the link, of course, is that they are both based on beliefs and all beliefs are "equal" (quotes because I don't know what equal means here).

if all beliefs are equal, how do we decide what to teach in schools?

red I am not asking, this is the point, I already have. If things were as you wanted I would not expect you to support me to change them.

red we don't decide. It already has been decided what to teach in schools. We can decide to take actions to change this, if we choose. I don't choose but I respect anyone else's right to fight for change, within the law.

BigDorrit 'not seen' and Ganesh and Zeus are not synonymous...although they cannot be seen it does not mean everything that is not seen is Ganesh and Zeus...