Superstitious crap-peddling in non-church school, how to deal with it?

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

DS (6, in Year 1) came home from school today talking about what he's going to give up for Lent. I asked him if he understood why he was supposed to be giving up things for Lent (of course he had no idea) and made sure he knew that he didn't have to and I would be doing no such thing, and we had a little talk about superstitions.
I am seriously pissed off with this and want to speak to the school about it. We live in a very multicultural area and I want to know A) if all the 6 year old Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and whatever else are trotting home stuffed with this crap and if not, how can I get DS exempt from it? Just because we are English does not mean we are CofE, I am a hardline atheist and DS dad and I have been raising him with as little superstition as possible.
I do not think it's appropriate for a group of culturally-mixed 6 year olds to be fed this sort of bullshit (which is going to be beyond most of them anyway) - I have no problem with DC being taught about the various mythology brands but the actual practicing of this nonsense should not be suggested to them at school.

I don't understand what your point is vodka

a. The Christian parents in the school are not helping out on the PTA, so therefore they are not really altruistic

b. There are no/ few Christian parents at the C of E school (since there is no choice in the area)

c. something else and I am thick (quite possible)

If a. then it is possible they are doing other altruistic things (don't be too hasty to judge!).

I think it's quite well known that a lot of parents at CE faith schools aren't active Christians? Isn't that what people complain about? Why would that mean they wouldn't be active and involved?

"I actually find the implication that as an "atheist" I won't "have the social conscience and the commitment and the altruism [to] do it anyway, not out of ambition." It is possible to pass on good values to children and be an involved parent without having any belief in "God".

I didn't say it wasn't.

Bunbaker, I didn't see this earlier, directed at the OP:

"Your prejudice, intolerance and bigoted views are far worse than anyone of any religious persuasion I know."

I agree with you. Not even my homophobic vicar (not a nice guy, I left that church) made accusations like "they're all child abusers". I mean, he thought they were all going to hell. But he didn't sink as low as the OP.

Is it worse to make a generalised accusation of child abuse than to believe they'll go to hell?

Yes definitely.

Are we reading different threads? It's quite obvious to me that what SGB says is true; if you stop being offended by some perceived slur on Xtianity and open your eyes to the cults she mentions, you'll find plenty of sexually-abusive cults.

If the hat fits, and all that.

Perhaps because you didn't read this?

"The people who make the biggest fuss about wanting legal protection for their superstitions ie blasphemy laws, are usually the ones who are up to no good (like abusing women and children or fiddling their taxes) and want to silece their critics."

I'm sorry -- "if the hat fits?" What is that supposed to mean?

Are you suggesting that because people here are defending legal protection for their faith, they are "up to no good" including child abuse and tax fiddling?

Which ones? Just the most vocal? Or all of us?

How on earth the OP gets away with this bigotry is beyond. And you are actually defending it?

How about this:

"The Muslims who make the biggest fuss about wanting legal protection for their faith are usually the ones who are up to no good (like abusing women and children or fiddling their taxes) and want to silence their critics."

Acceptable?

or this

"The ethnic minorities who make the biggest fuss about wanting legal protection for their traditions are usually the ones who are up to no good (like abusing women and children or fiddling their taxes) and want to silence their critics."

Acceptable?

' open your eyes to the cults she mentions, you'll find plenty of sexually-abusive cults.'

I didn't think that we were talking about cults . I thought we were talking about Christianity in schools.

A percentage of Muslims do start claiming that it's religious persecution when they are criticized for homophobia and misogyny, as it happens. A play written by a woman about abuse within a Sikh temple was forced off stage by men protesting it was 'blasphemous'.
Religion is full of horrible views and opinions - it's not regarded as bigotry to call someone on their political beliefs or laugh at their hobbies (trainspotters, historical re-enactors, caravanners, whatever) - why should people's superstitions be protected from either mockery or criticism.

I think that you should treat everyone's opinions with respect-whether they are train spotters, caravanners or Muslims.
For someone who doesn't believe in God you seem to be setting yourself up as one! The World according to SGB -if she thinks it is nonsense -it is nonsense-the oracle has spoken-we must all agree and DCs all over the world mustn't be told otherwise!!

Gooseberrybushes: no, you didn't say it - but given that I wasn't the only person to pick up on it, the implication (read the dictionary), which is what I complained about, was there.

"Religion is full of horrible views and opinions"

Yes it is, and so is atheism. It is people who are horrible not religion.

There you go again, tarring all people with a faith with the same brush. I don't agree with a lot of practices that religions/cultures get away with, but unlike you I don't make the assumptions based on the few that get reported in the media. There are just as many wicked people in the world who have no faith at all.

What would you like me to say? That all atheists are wicked? They aren't. Most of my friends are atheists, but I don't judge them for that. I like them because they are good and kind people. Believeing in God doesn't automatically make you a good person.

Exoticfruits - then surely we should treat SGB's opinions with the same respect though?

Or stop worrying about respecting opinions, whatever that means and instead respect individuals - that they can engage with or ignore as they choose the full range of differing opinions on a web forum ( even strongly worded ones) and not be harmed.

"Exoticfruits - then surely we should treat SGB's opinions with the same respect though?"

You are right, except when she calls Christianity superstitious crap and bullshit she can hardly expect her views to treated with respect. Other atheists have rsponded on here in a thoughtful and unpatronising manner without pouring scorn on those who believe in God. Those are the ones who views I respect.

Each to their own.

I agree with Bunbaker though SGB, you have been a bit sloppy with eliding people with a religious identity and religious leaders and institutions. Of course religious leaders make the exact same 'mistake'... -'by publishing this cartoon you have offended x million Muslims etc... '

oops. x post.

Just to clarify - I don't agree with Bunbaker's latest post though.

'you are right [we should respect everyone's opinion] except for [the ones we don't respect].'

How does that work then?

"A percentage of Muslims do start claiming that it's religious persecution when they are criticized for homophobia and misogyny, as it happens. A play written by a woman about abuse within a Sikh temple was forced off stage by men protesting it was 'blasphemous'.
Religion is full of horrible views and opinions - it's not regarded as bigotry to call someone on their political beliefs or laugh at their hobbies (trainspotters, historical re-enactors, caravanners, whatever) - why should people's superstitions be protected from either mockery or criticism."

And you are still defending it.

What you are saying now amounts to no more than "some people use religion to defend unpleasant beliefs". That's true.

You very bigoted statement said:

those most vociferous in defending faith are more likely to be child abusers or tax dodgers.

It's the same as saying:

The most vocal defenders of the established church in the UK are more likely to be child abusers or tax dodgers.

Now you are trying to wriggle out of it, or defend it, I don't know what. But that's what you said, and that bigoted. It's not calling anyone on their religious beliefs. It's bigotry about religious belief.

If you want to withdraw it now -- perhaps you already are, in a roundabout way, with this squirming and saying - oh I didn't really mean that - well that would be fine by me.

Like I said

I do respect atheist and agnostic thought. People have generally considered it deeply if they declare themselves atheist.

I don't respect the view that atheists and agnostics have a monopoly on reason and an entitlement to ridicule.

"a bit sloppy"? this is nauseating

tis prejudice, bigotry, nastiness pure and simple

but you know, go ahead and defend it

Prettybird why do you have to be so rude? I know what implication means. It's not me that's misunderstood something, it's you.

Actually, I haven't considered it deeply - becasue I don't think there is anything to consider because I have no beleif in God. Therefore there is no need to consdier it deeply.

That's why I don't like the term "atheist" - it assumes you have thought about and then denied the existence of God.

You could just as well say I am a "aYeti-est" because I don't beleive in yetis or an "aLochNessMonster-ist" becasue I don't beleive in the Loch Ness Monster.

As UQD said (and got pilloried for it): it is an irrelevance (to me).

The point was you implied something: you didn't need to say it (which was your defense). That may not be what you meant - but it was certainly the result - and wasn't me being over-sensitive as I wasn't the only person to think that.

gooseberrybushes.Everyone has an entitlement to ridicule.

The point yet again (becuase you have clearly missed it) is that people who want special status for their religious beliefs and make a huge big deal about it ie calling for exectuions, prosecutions, banning of things that criticise their imaginary friend or mock it usually are the ones whose actual behaviour is questionable. The children abused by Catholic priests were told not to criticise the Church's authority, for instance.
But then if you are so obsessed with your imaginary friend that you want anyone who dosen't take this nonsense seriously arrested and punished, then you usually are up to no good. (Hypothetical you, of course).

No, I didn't. I didn't say it and I didn't imply it. It's not my fault you can't understand. You're very quick to pick up on what I'm supposed to be implying -- any comment on the OP's extraordinarily bigoted statement? Not so far? Is that because you agree with it?

Himalaya: "Everyone has an entitlement to ridicule". That's true and I forgot it. But then, if you're abusive and scornful and ridiculing, you're not really that interested in an exchange of views I suppose. Just stormtrooping your own views. And you, Himalaya? Any comment on the bigotry?

Very sad silence on that. How depressing.