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.

You're quibbling, seriously do you want me to say defenders of legal protection for their faith? Ok such as that enshrined in equality laws, such as that enshrined in the establishment of the Protestant Church.

It's even worse, really, when you say that. That encompasses everyone who campaigns for equality of protection under the law, and everyone who wants the Church of England to remain the Church of England. At least.

OP were you only talking about blasphemy? Would you like to admit that?

And, OP, who is stamping their little foot and throwing their toys out of the pram because their child learned about Lent? This is one big, nasty, self-indulgent, abusive, bigoted tantrum.

Are you proud?

Gooseberrybush

You keep stating equivalence between different kinds of things and it is leading you up the garden path of analogies.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it has not been proven conclusively, but is a good working assumption for thinking about things that can be observed and thought about rationally. It something similar to the assumption that the laws of physics are uniform, which has prooved itself the most reliable assumption for understanding the known universe to date but of course could be disproved tomorrow (actually, they are the same assumption)

A religion is many things -a belief system with no basis in evidence (like homeopathy) a set of ideas and teachings about the way to live (like socialism) an institution with a business model to keep it going and attracting and retaining adherents (like Walmart) For many people it is an important part of their way of life and identity (like the Justin Bieber fan club).

An ethnic group is a group of people who share a degree of common lineage and elements of culture (with much fuzziness around the edges, there is really no such thing as race) you cannot generally choose your ethnic group.

So atheists don't seek 'respect for their beliefs' anymore than we seek respect for the view that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Atheists can't meaningfully 'respect' explanations for the world that involve bending the laws of physics - gods, ghosts, immortal souls and such like. Of course they can be polite about delusional beliefs when it's called for.

Not respecting beliefs that contradict the laws of physics is not bigotry. It's really hard to be bigoted about the laws of physics.

Athiests can respect purely metaphorical religious practices where people do it because they enjoy it. But this is more like the Justin Bieber fanclub - whatever works for you, just don't inflict it on others or expect extra protection for it beyond normal freedoms. Few religions are able to stick to the purely metaphorical practice, particularly in relation to impressionable young minds.

Atheists don't defend the Chinese gulags, the Stalinist labour camps etc... because atheism isn't a club or institutions.

Saying something considered offensive by people who chose to identify with a religion is not the same as saying something pegorative about all the people who happen to be considered as an ethnic group.

You're quibbling, seriously do you want me to say defenders of legal protection for their faith? Ok such as that enshrined in equality laws,

Equality laws are equality laws - not protection of a faith, they are (or should be) protection of all faiths or none. No-one has to shout extra loud for that.

such as that enshrined in the establishment of the Protestant Church.

eh? as someone brought up as a nonconformist protestant, the establishment of the CofE , I'm aware of how that used to trample the rights of other protestants as well as catholics. But nonconformists and RCs survived - nope, didn't need the establishment of the CofE to 'defend faith.' Only to defend one particular institution.

Gooseberrybushes - you are of course right to say that terrible things have been done by non-religious cults and societies.

But they weren't done in the name of 'atheism'.

Terrible things are usually done because of tribalism - when one lot of people believe that other human beings 'aren't like them', or that a particular group are a threat in some way. It's a part of human nature. Believing that the might / will of god is behind your particular tribe just exacerbates it.

Why do should people get respect for their views? I wouldn't respect a view of someone telling me that woman are second class citizens or that sons are more prized than daughters. It is insulting. I don't have to respect a view I disagree with, regardless of whether it is a political or religious view or just plain stupid view

Terrible things get done by atheists people who don't beleive in the tooth fairy.

Ridiculous when you put it like that.

You can't define people by what they don't beleive in.

"Why do should people get respect for their views?"

It depends on what they are and how they are voiced. If someone told me they were atheist and that was that then fine. If someone said they were atheist and said that all people who believed in a God were stupid and deluded then it isn't. Same goes for people who say that they know that God exists and that all non believers were damned and should go to hell. Basically it would be better for all of us if we could be a little more open minded and just accepted people for what they are and what they believe and don't belive in - it's called tolerance.

I couldn't care less whether people believed in God or not. I do care that both extremes think that they are right and won't listen to other points of view.

If someone told me that all woman are f*cking scum and second class citizens then I wouldn't respect them - if they try to sugar coat the statement and tell me that all woman are lovely and men are more equal - I still wouldn't respect their view.

And if someone says politely to you 'excuse me, do you mind if my child pushes ahead of yours in the queue for a place in the only decent state school for miles around - only we're churchgoers and I know you aren't' then 'respect for their views' doesn't really come into it, does it.

I wonder how people would feel if all non-faith or community schools started the school day by reading out everyone's horoscopes? And part of the curriculum involved teaching the DC about the characteristics of each star sign etc. Lots of people take that crap seriously, after all - look at how nearly every newspaper and regular magazine has a resident astrologer. Most people who read and take notice of their own horoscopes tend to be harmless enough, but you do get one or two who take it excessively seriously - would you want your DC coming home saying 'Never trust a Scorpio' or 'Acquarians are more stupid than Geminis'?

Noone seems to think that a DC has a mind of their own. The general feeling seems to be that anyone can fill it. (quite often they are more sensible than their parents!)

You said it House of Bamboo - faith when used to get your child a better education than your neighbour...wouldn't that make Jesus proud!
Wouldn't Jesus love this debate, that his philosphy was used to sort the wheat from the chaff. See this is the thing I don't get about faith schools - you would think faith schools would be interested in helping the poorer members of society rather than climbing their way up the league tables using selection by the back door.

Had I known nothing of Christianity the scrabble over popular faith schools would say enough to make me walk away and that scrabble is supported and endorsed by the Church!

Obviously a lot of thought has gone into those posts but it amounts to a great deal of effort for the purpose of little more than squirming.

Obviously some of you find it impossible to disown with the bigotry contained in this statement:

"The most vocal defenders of legal protection for their faith are more likely to be involved in child abuse and tax dodging."

Grimma: not you ..but to go back to my accusation of quibbling. That would include all those who wish the church to remain established and, of course, all those who want protection to worship, protection by equality.. The OP has been undiscriminating: the most vocal religious people, any legal protection. Unless she does just mean blasphemy? Then perhaps she would be happy to say: the Muslims who are most vocal about blasphemy are more likely to be involved in child abuse, for example. Would the OP be happy to say that?

Himalaya: I'm not in the least bit confused or led up the garden path. Religion is often viewed as little more than an advanced form of tribalism. As for atheists not demanding respect: I think some people seem to think that not having intellectual respect for (what you would regard as) an opinion is not the same as being disgustingly rude to people and an abandonment of the natural conventions of respect in human exchange.

When people complain of a "lack of respect" on threads like this, these two things become conflated - because atheists like the OP deliberately conflate them. "I have no respect for religious belief" becomes "I am going to be extremely and violently rude about people like you, which obviously indirectly includes you, and I'm going to excuse it by saying I have no intellectual respect for your belief." Others accept this conflation and use it in defence of the OP.

Prettybird I asked earlier about your view on the OPs bigotry: you ran away then and you are avoiding it now. "You can't define people by what they don't believe in." Talk to the OP. "I am a hardline atheist". I'm sure she defines herself by that as much as a Christian does.

"If someone told me that all woman are f*cking scum and second class citizens then I wouldn't respect them." This is what the OP is doing with religious people.

"disown with"? some mistake surely

gooseberry - I think you're overanalysing one sentence in an MN post. Reading more into it than intended. That's partly SGBs fault for habitually painting too-broad tar brush strokes. But I really doubt she was in any way implying that people who want to keep the CofE established are likely to be child abusers. That would be absurd.

I don't think she was saying much more than, some people who shout for a special legal status for their faith have ulterior motives. That's the way I read it - while some of what SGB says does appear bigoted, I don't think this particular sentence you've got a bee in your bonnet about qualifies.

gooseberry, I don't respect your views and you have shown you don't respect my views - we have to tolerate each other but respect isn't a given

A little aside:

DD's school had their C of E Ofsted on Monday and the bloke got them into little groups and then asked each child what was their belief.

DD (9) sat there and striaght as you like said
"I'm an Atheist".

He looked a bit shocked she said and then said she did very well to remember the word that mummy and daddy had told her. Then her friend said "I'm one of those ones that she is" I would loved to have seen his face

No, respect (either for a belief or a person) isn't a given.

But its generally both more civilized and effective to express oneself politely - up to a point, there are certain people (e.g. blatant racists, homophobes, extreme misogynists) who don't even merit that courtesy.

Ivy -- you don't even know what my views are.

Grimma: not at all the OP has had plenty of opportunity to withdraw, or say oh my God I really didn't mean that. She has chosen not to, in fact she's chosen to justify it. Yes, I'm focussing on that. Like I said, if someone - let's say Nick Griffin - said something bigoted about black people you wouldn't listen to much else he had to say about black people until he'd dealt with his bigoted comment, would you?

He looked a bit shocked she said and then said she did very well to remember the word that mummy and daddy had told her.

Like those who said 'christian' or 'muslim' hadn't been told it by a parent (or worse, a teacher)

How have I shown I don't respect your views? I have specifically said: I respect atheist and agnostic thought, if someone declares themselves to be such, it's generally because they've considered it deeply. I give people the benefit of the doubt: I assume they've given their belief system some thought. Until they show they haven't.

doesn't matter what the fuck your views are - I don't respect them

Gooseberrybushes - I hadn't realised that you were addressng me when you asked about the OP's bigotry, as it wasn't relevant to the posts I had made (as the disucssion had moved on).

I had not discussed it - I had been responding to the annoyance I felt from a post you had made, (even if had not been your intention) where you had implied that those without faith were not as "committed" or "altruistic" as those with faith .

I had however had made it clear in an even earlier posting that I disliked the bigotry - or sectarianism - that separate religious schooling perpetuates here in the West of Scotland. I do think that people in the name of religion have done many terrible things (and many good things) - but also think that the language that the OP uses is inflammatory and does not help her (very valid) case.

However, I had not been debating her language - rather the principle she raised of whether a child should be indoctrinated against a parent's clearly stated will.

Oh well, I thought she clarified sufficiently - in her own inimitable style - at 16:43:23

We'll just have to agree to differ - my interpretation is different to yours.

Gooseberrybushes, I wonder if you are so obsessed by 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.'
WHich I completely and utterly stand by, by the way and have clarified repeatedly -

Is it because you have done something mildly unreasonable and stupid like trying to get a play/Tv programme banned on the grounds of it being 'blasphemous' and think that I am implying that you are a crook or a child abuser?