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?

Not really, but my forehead is getting painful from all the banging on the desk.

It's not a private joke if it's on MN.

A belief that women should be sexually subservient to men has caused untold agony to generations of women and girls and continues to do so.

If you think that's funny, I find it hard to give much credence to your "Super-Christian" credentials TBH.

Disco, insisting three or four times that I ought to set your mind at rest; explain my grimness and relentlessly goading me about what may or may not lie behind it is indeed bullying.

Fear not, however, I won't report you. I'm a grown up.

So you're aggressive
You swing into threads and off the bat tell others to "shut the fuck up"
You question what athiests are up to when giving people lifts to help at a food bank
And you think that the idea of "radical feminists" getting upset about women being forced into sexual slavery by men because "religion" is something to poke fun at

I'm not starting to feel convinced that your way is better than mine TBH.

...and mn usernames cannot be private jokes? Really? Can you point to that instruction within the MN Talk Guidelines? Do I have to be considerate to women who may have felt subservient when giving a man a blowjob??

Blimey.

On MN, the term handmaiden is used by some to describe a woman who, say, does all the night feeds because her husband is the one who goes out to work. Yes, really.

They can be private jokes.

However, if they are dubious, then you need to accept that you are going to be asked to explain them.

And you also have to accept that if you don't explain them, then people are going to make of them what they will.

You are fervently religious and you believe that women should be sexually subservient to men, is my reading of it. Many religions and religious people believe this, and it has caused untold harm. People who complain about this treatment of women (eg current IS treatment of Yaziki women) are "radical feminists" and need to have fun poked at their obviously insane views via your username.

Well OK then, got you.

A handmaiden is a female house servant, whose job is to serve her employer.
One who swallows is one who also serves by giving oral sex, obviously.

What exactly is it that you are trying to say. Because whatever it is, it's not coming across as you intend, possibly.

Re. Christians trying to convert everyone to Christianity. My husband is Christian and I am agnostic. I have been regularly going to church with him for the last 5 years. I love the social side and I have made some great friends. No one has ever tried to convert me or even mentioned me not being a Christian. As niminy said, it's God if there is a god that will convert me. I am open minded, but also too science minded just to change my views!

You know your bible don't you you have been quoting it earlier.

"In the Hebrew Bible, the term handmaid is applied to a female slave who serves her mistress, as in the case of Hagar being described as Sarai's handmaid,[2] Zilpah being Leah's handmaid[3] and Bilhah as Rachel's handmaid.[4] In each of these cases, the mistress "gave" their handmaid to their husbands "to wife", to bear his "seed" (children). The use in the Torah of the prefix "to", as in "gave to wife", may indicate that the wife is a concubine or inferior wife.[5] The text repeats that these people remain handmaids (ie., slaves) of their mistress though they are also the mistress's husband's concubine."

You know this stuff, you said your name is as a jab to "radical feminists" - it's bloody unpleasant and not very funny.

Oh deary me. Please go and look up the words 'irony' and 'sardonicism'. Then take a fresh look at my choice of username and my dislike of radical feminism.

I am now going to have a nap whilst my baby naps (not the one in my tum-tum but the one in her cot next door). I really do suggest you go for that lie-down, too..

A quick site search will enlighten you about how most people use the term.

...I am talking about the supposed 'handmaidens' as described in my previous post (you know, the night-feeding ones who 'allow' their spouse a good night's sleep?) and besmirched by radfems. I am not talking about the real historical handmaidens.

Mostly on the site it's used to describe women who assist in propping up male dominance. At least the bits I visit!

There is also a famous book called the handmaiden's tale which is about female subjugation (which I admit I haven't read).

I don't think it's a very funny "joke" at all TBH.

I don't honestly care how you interpret my username. I'm off for that nap..

Disco, I don't, in all sincerity, believe that you find many things funny in this life.

Many strands of all the main religions see sexual subservience as a key role for women and girls. Some take it further than others, but it's not unusual.

There are certainly plenty of christians who believe that the male head of the household should be obeyed in all things including sex.

If I saw that username in a different context then maybe, but on a thread like this used by someone who has incredibly strong and aggressive religious views, it's jarring and discomfiting.

Well no strangely the idea of women being forced into sexual subservience is something that upsets me. Obviously that makes me a "radical feminist" and therefore someone to be laughed at.

It's not funny.

Christians have to swallow or they are committing the sin of Onan.

Sorry for derail I just reacted really viscerally to that.

The submission of women as a part of christianity is growing in popularity, and it is very unsettling. The inclusion of sexual subservience in that is the elephant in the room really, and that name on a thread like this coming from someone of very extreme religious views, it's just, it stood out and then to not say what it meant for ages, I mean who knows.

There's only one person on this thread being a hateful bully, and they're not an atheist...

Atheism (as apposed to the rational stance of agnosticism when something cannot be proved one way or another) is just as much a belief system as all the rest.

Oh FFS we've got the "atheism is a faith" nonsense again.

NO. IT. ISN'T. atheism is about facts and evidence, not faith. There is absolutely no evidence for gods, so I don't believe. There is no evidence for fairies at th bottom of my garden, so I don't believe. There is no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, so I don't believe.

incredibly strong and aggressive religious views, .... incredibly strong and aggressive religious views ...

Erm...I have only spoken of Jesus on the cross and His message of love. Would you like to enunciate quite how this could be construed as aggressive or..cor blimey! 'extreme'?! I honestly do think you are an hysteric, Disco, and for that reason I shan't be engaging with you further, except to say - one last time; are you listening? - there have been occasions on MN where radfems have accused women of being 'handmaidens' for reasons such as (as in my case) refusing to let their husband share the night feeds because he has to go out to work every day whilst she is on maternity leave.

I have also read on here that swallowing during fellatio (and, according to some radfems, performing fellatio full stop) is to subjugate oneself and can never be a feminist choice.

So...did you get all that? I am not mocking sexual slavery or espousing non-consensual sexual acts. I am extrapolating the absurd accusations of some radfems within my username. Please do get a grip on yourself and your hysteria.

...and whilst you're at it, could you please illuminate the passage in the bible that commands women to swallow her husband's seed? Thank you.

Yeah I'm not sure though.

If it is rational to accept anything that anyone believes as a real possibility, ie give it as much credence as the possibility that whatever they believe is not true, then you have to give credence to a huge massive awful lot of things. I mean, people believe all sorts of things, don't they.

I think that saying, well anything's possible, but from where I'm standing it's pretty bloody unlikely, so unlikely as to be not worth considering, is perfectly rational.

Because while I'm more than happy to accept that people believe all sorts of things, and tell my children "some people believe" about any of those things, I'm not willing to put all of them in the "well it might be this but I need to keep the other thing in mind as it might well be that".

There's a probability thing here isn't there? That, while on the face of it I say "some people believe that God created the universe in 7 days", and that's fine, and I accept (as mentioned upthread) that it is possible that that's the way it worked, the fact that I consider this in fact to be incredibly unlikely, means that fundamentally I don't believe it. I accept that other people do, and that there is a vanishingly small chance they might be right, but actually, no, I don't believe that.

I don't think that's irrational, but then I would say that wouldn't I!