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.

Thanks Adele. Actually I was describing the situation more as it is, rather than as it should be. Earlier I posted about the potential benefits to removing faith from state education, although I like having it there myself.

More later, must go to dinner.

These threads again... ! I have often seen SGB's anti-religious views starting a tirade on the "most active" threads of the day.

SGB - of course religion is opinion and others are entitled to disagree. However, I (christian by the way, but that's kind of beside the point) am very very wary of any fundamentalist-type language and views (you know what I mean... all this "crap" and "bullshit" stuff in the OP) on either side of the debate.

As others have said, the nat curriculum requires some christian input in the classroom - I seriously suggest you write to your LEA. I am a Christian and I actually think that if you choose a non-church school you should expect religions presented in a "this is what people think" or cultural way too. I should have thought though that you can explain that lent is a christian thing and its not obligatory to your child... school is just the starting point really.. most of our education happens at home.

But seriously, I would be very wary of maintaining such fundamentalist views in a public forum... It is very destructive from a religios person and equally unecessary from an athiest. Calling other people's views crap etc just isn't nice. From anyone.

Re SGB's 'bigotry' - I may be wrong but the way I read her comments were that 'the criminal element within religious institutions are often the ones who aggressively demand the most respect'.

Not that 'religious people who demand respect for their religion are more likely to be criminals' - which is different. (If I've got this wrong then SGB is more than capable of correcting me.)

I'm not SGB's bessie mate by the way, and I'm certainly not broadly agreeing with her in case she beats me up!

Incidentally Adele, do you have any views on the OP's assessment that vocal people of faith are more likely to be child abusers and tax dodgers?

She said the most vocal defenders of faith are more likely to be tax dodgers and child abusers. It's difficult to misread.

If she meant it the other way round she could have said so. She could still say so now, but refuses to withdraw her earlier statement.

Anyone extreme sends me off in the other direction. Evangelical Christians make me run in the opposite direction and SGB makes me want to go to church on Sunday! I hope that your DCs are a very different personality to mine SGB or you might get the opposite of what you intend!

I'm not going to defend SGBs language on MN, and yes, I'm afraid 'bigot' does seem to fit.

However I also don't like peoples words getting distorted:

She said the most vocal defenders of faith ...
Actually, she said 'The people who make the biggest fuss about wanting legal protection for their superstitions ie blasphemy laws,...'

That's really not the same thing as 'defenders of faith', is it? Thats about defence of a privileged position.

House of Bamboo: thank you that's it.
Misogyny and homophobia are deeply inbedded in all the mainstream superstitions, that's the toxic shit that needs watching out for eg it shouldn't be peddled in schools and the privileging of superstition allows room for it to happen.
Something that often gets the mainstream-brand superstitious stamping their little feet is when their brand of belief is compared to either minority cults (vaudun, wicca, rastafairanism) or belief in ghosts, horoscopes, homoeopathy or pixies. The latter group of beliefs are held by many people and have been for an awfully long time, yet calling those beliefs a crock of shit doesn't get people trying to have you arrested or killed. Erm, except maybe homoeopathy, which does seem to have a worrying amount of political clout when scientists can be sued for pointing out that it's bullshit, but that's another matter.
Those of you demanding that other people pretend deference towards this fundamentally ridiculous idea that there are invisible all powerful beings that take an interest in your affairs: just where do you draw the line? Do you think people should be compelled not to laugh at Scientologists? Satanists? Fairy-spotters?

It feels like The Emperor's New Clothes sometimes, like everyone is pretending to believe so that their child can go to a particular school.

Here (Glasgow) your religion determines so much of your life, it provides an identity which influences what friends you make, football team you support, where you live to some extent, what pub you drink in, whether someone decides to stab you or not, whether you get sent a pretend nail bomb in the post.

To me, an atheist, with no investment in religion, no sectarian prejudices (I grew up in England), can't you see that it all seems to like a kind of madness?

This situation is very different to the cosy Church of England school next to the village green that, really, are chosen by a few who are wealthy enough top live in these desirable areas.

The upshot of this is, I don't think you can talk about faith schools without looking at the societal and cultural context in which they operate. This isn't about an individual's private beliefs, it is about us as a society.

"I posted quite early on in this thread and made a comment on the OP's abusive and rabid language... She is bigoted and fundamentalist. She foams at the mouth and hurls abuse and spiteful rantings at anyone who entertains any religious feelings of any sort and , weirdly, cannot see that it is abuse and spite. But then I guess that is the rationale of any fundamentalist - they can't tolerate any point of view but their own. "

Well said.

"Anyone extreme sends me off in the other direction. Evangelical Christians make me run in the opposite direction and SGB makes me want to go to church on Sunday!"

LOL. They really are two sides of the same coin! Although I profess to be a Christian I steer clear of evangelical types and I am not homophobic. Chritianity IMO is not an all or nothing religion. I think the OP just sees things in black and white and religion isn't like that.

It does occur to me that anyone who thinks that religious people should always be addressed with respect has forgotten how Jesus habitually spoke of the Pharisees.

Respect has to be earned. Some religious people I respect mightily. Others - certainly not!

I think all people should be addressed with respect, religious or otherwise. Although I find it difficult when the other person has been particularly rude to me.

OP: if someone makes a remark which shows clearly how bigoted they are about black people, one doesn't listen to anything else they say about black people. One doesn't even care what they think.

I think it's easy to see the parallels.

Grimma: I feel like saying thank you, but it sounds wrong.. Anyway the independence of thought is respected I suppose. I'm sure you know what I mean.

"The people who make the biggest fuss about wanting legal protection for their superstitions ie blasphemy laws."

Anyone who wants the Protestant Church to remain an established church wants legal protection for their faith. In fact, equality of protection for faith and ability to worship is enshrined in law. So that's a very large group of people supporting that. Do one deserve to be described as more likely to be a child abuser if you are more vocal in that support?

And still she stands by it -- really shameful.

Are vocal people of faith more likely to be child abusers and tax dodgers?

Have to remain agnostic on this-can find no survey of criminality of 'vocal people of faith' compared to other groups.

But the onus would be on those who believe to prove surely, not on those who disbelieve to show untruth?

You're agnostic on that? And how do you think that would be proved, Adele?

I could show you a study of educational achievement that would "prove" that certain ethnic minorities are stupider than any other ethnic or gender group.

Wouldn't you still think I was rather bigoted if I did that?

Can you really not see that the point of the last comment was to point out that you can't be annoyed at religion for peddling unproven bigoted myth and then peddle it yourself?

Has this debate really got so angry that we have stopped thinking about anything because we've resorted to discussing who's a child abuser?

Maybe you should direct that question at the OP.

I don't understand your first sentence. Are you saying that I'm peddling unproven bigoted myth?

I keep raising it so that the OP can have a chance to withdraw it. I don't want the bigotry that informs her posts to be forgotten.

Is that what you're talking about? That because I'm repeating the accusation, I'm repeating the bigotry?

Then..you wouldn't be allowed to criticise anyone by mentioning the criticism for fear of "repeddling" it.. sounds a bit twisted to me.

Can you explain what you mean by that first sentence?

Anyway quite apart from that I found our earlier exchanges interesting. I hope you saw that I have actually seen that there could be benefits to maintaining an entirely secular system.

I like it in there myself -- but the main point is I understand why Christians are defensive. I think it's less to do with secularity and more to do with fear of dominance by other religions. I have no evidence for this except a sense of the zeitgeist.

FFS it doesn't take very much of a leap of the imagination to be able to label a whole lot of religious organisations as condoning or even promoting the abuse of children and women; as institutionally abusive (paedophile priests, the Magdalene Laundries, the Taliban, the religious right anti-abortionists who use terrorist tactics against women attending health clinics and murder doctors...). Athiests do not routinely cut bits off their children's genitals for no reason, either.

And all the crimes committed by atheists, the Chinese gulags, the Stalinist labour camps, the child abuse, the torture, the theft, the corruption, murder, cruelty -- do they all make the more vocal defenders of atheism more likely to commit these crimes?

Try to understand your own claims. You have said that the most vocal defenders of faith are more likely to be child abusers.

No one, not Christian, not Muslim, no one of any faith would deny that terrible things have been done by religious people. But by no leap does this mean that vocal defenders of faith are more likely to be child abusers.

No no no. 'You' as in 'one', sorry.

In other words, the OP should be careful not to resort to unproven (or unprovable) statements if her essential gripe is the importance given to another set of such statements.

Sorry for the confusion.

But is there really any point posting and posting when you have made the point that it is unacceptable, and any future readers can see that?

You have said that the most vocal defenders of faith are more likely to be child abusers.

No, she didn't - you keep saying that but I can't see it anywhere except in your interpretation. It was more like, those who most vociferously demand legal protection eg blasphemy laws.

That is not defending faith. Its defending the right to restrict other peoples freedom of speech. I inferred that she might also be thinking of the churches who (in the past, at least)try to deal with child abuse internally and keep the police out. Not defending 'faith' at all - defending a privileged position.

Gooseberry, Grimma is right too. People who stamp their little feet and go 'Waa waa how dare you insult my imaginary friend, he's REAL!' are not necessarily up to no good. They are just expressing an opinon. People who insist that it be illegal to criticise any aspect of their superstition, it's organisation or its practices are more likely to be up to something. Just like all those corporate crooks who used lawyers to silence critics (Robert Maxwell for instance) - because they were up to something.

'LOL. They really are two sides of the same coin!'

Of course they are-which is why I steer clear of both.
Something for both sides to consider, if they want people to pay attention, moderate your own language and don't be so forceful-or the majority of the population walk away.