Letter from school..
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
If by "misgivings" you're asking me if I am perhaps a tad upset and angered that I am forced into such position in the first place, then certainly. There should not be any need whatsoever for this to happen - because a school should not be making kids worship, and indeed not one specific entity out of a million. It is rude, it is bias, it doesn't take into accounts the human rights of the children - but no, I am not caught up in thinking the decisions I make are wrong.
However, yeah.. I thought it would be something interesting to talk about.
I think Snakelord, although an atheist, is more concerned about the bias displayed by the education system. If atheists kids are exposed to Christian ideology then it is only fair that Christian kids are exposed to atheism or Satanism or just pick one.
I would ask someone like Jan Ardena if he/she would allow his/her kid to visit a Satanic cult as part of the education process. Jan's open mind and the resilience of a child wouldn't prevent it.....sure.
I would ask someone like Jan Ardena if he/she would allow his/her kid to visit a Satanic cult as part of the education process. Jan's open mind and the resilience of a child wouldn't prevent it.....sure.
Last edited:
Religious or non-religious indoctrination is not an unevitable constant in a child's life. It's possible to rear a child as an athiest without indoctrinating him/her.
The only way to teach a person religion is through indoctrination. "God exists, Jesus exists, and that's a fact". Yet Athiesm can be taught as a natural implication of Occam's razor. You can also teach and encourage Occam's razor as a neat rule of thumb when trying to figure out anything about the world around us. In other words, teach a kid logic before athiesm.
However, a lot of kids simply aren't smart enough to absorb concepts like Occam's razor et all under they're a lot older than 7.
The only way to teach a person religion is through indoctrination. "God exists, Jesus exists, and that's a fact". Yet Athiesm can be taught as a natural implication of Occam's razor. You can also teach and encourage Occam's razor as a neat rule of thumb when trying to figure out anything about the world around us. In other words, teach a kid logic before athiesm.
However, a lot of kids simply aren't smart enough to absorb concepts like Occam's razor et all under they're a lot older than 7.
Quite correct, and therefore, our parents removing us (as children) from one of them will not cause the dire consequences you'd like to allude to. Typical justification by fear that is in common use by theists and theist organizations worldwide.
The significance is that we're talking about Snakelord's situation, who's an athiest himself.
Rubbish. There's a difference between indoctrination and teaching, especially in this specific scenario.
Then again it might be. It isn't up to the school to decide if he's wrong on religion.
I can only go off his cyber character.
He seems harsh, period.
Seriously, the best thing he can do is put his daughter into a nice secular school.
I tend to agree that secular schooling is by far better.
But Snakelord might seem harsh to you because he's sitting in judgement of something you care deeply about. YOUR beliefs however just might be unimportant to other people. And that's the entire point. Why should any school have the power to robotize Snakelord's daughter into religion?
In his daughter's eyes, yes! In his daughter's friends' eyes, yes! You might not get it, you might not remember it, but kids as a majority dislike the prim and starched vagaries of attending church/temple. By majority, children only do it by force, then as they grow up forget that they used to be made to attend.
Not a clue, all I remember from the report is that their reasons were islamic fundamentalist in nature. Therefore I've cast your claim (that non-theists are the only chaos catalysts) into reasonable doubt
You should since you were using that potentially useless study to try to prove a potentially useless point.
Dude, let him have it!!!! Unleash on that principle. He contradicted himself even in the letter. By the way, where are you from snakelord?
Did I read this correctly?
The public schools are required by law to provide a daily act of Christian worship?
That can't be right.
You live in England, right?
I always thought England was a much less religiously inclined nation than the US.
I'm sorry that I don't have time to wade through much of teh bullshit that unfortunately erupted on the thread, but this comes as a real shock to me, and I just wanted to know if ALL schools in England (and the rest of the UK) have mandatory mass services daily.
Do they not usually allow you to "opt out" and stay at the school in a study period or some such thing?
Enterprise-D;
I said;
This is teenage life in Britain, you would be forgiven for thinking they are indoctrinated to rebel against any type authority.
Why would him being an atheist mean she wouldn't rebel against his denial of Gods authority? Specifically please.
Explain.
Who is it up to then?
Tell that to SL.
Hmmm! No. He's just harsh, period. From my dialougues with him, he doesn't understand what it is I care deeply about, or if he does, he makes a good job of ignoring it.
I think we all fall in that category, don't you?
I don't know that she is being robotized into religion, and there was no way of telling from the exerts of dialogue put foreward by SL. Even his seemingly paranoid rant didn't give the impression that she was being robotised.
Kids like what they like. If something tickles their fancy, then they like it. If it doesn't, then they don't, and it could all change by tea-time.
Can you elaborate, I must have missed that part?
I claimed no such thing, but I would be surprised if there were theists at the heart of the drunken behavior which adorns every city and town, in Enland, when it comes to the weekend.
If I remember, I posed it as a question. The official results do not matter to me, as it is obvious that faith-based schools (currently) would be more effective than secular schools.
Jan.
I said;
This is teenage life in Britain, you would be forgiven for thinking they are indoctrinated to rebel against any type authority.
Why would him being an atheist mean she wouldn't rebel against his denial of Gods authority? Specifically please.
Explain.
Who is it up to then?
Tell that to SL.
Hmmm! No. He's just harsh, period. From my dialougues with him, he doesn't understand what it is I care deeply about, or if he does, he makes a good job of ignoring it.
I think we all fall in that category, don't you?
I don't know that she is being robotized into religion, and there was no way of telling from the exerts of dialogue put foreward by SL. Even his seemingly paranoid rant didn't give the impression that she was being robotised.
Kids like what they like. If something tickles their fancy, then they like it. If it doesn't, then they don't, and it could all change by tea-time.
Can you elaborate, I must have missed that part?
I claimed no such thing, but I would be surprised if there were theists at the heart of the drunken behavior which adorns every city and town, in Enland, when it comes to the weekend.
If I remember, I posed it as a question. The official results do not matter to me, as it is obvious that faith-based schools (currently) would be more effective than secular schools.
Jan.
This was what I didn't understand, particularly coming from SnakeLord:
Not having the benefit of a first admendment that excluded religion, the 1944 act was hijacked by Christians (not particularly fundamentalist ones either, in those days) who ensured that there would be a daily act of Christian worship, and furthermore that Religious Education would be the only subject that every school must teach compulsorily. (This was before the days of the Core Curriculum).
EDIT: one raven I hope this explains the dilemma you posed. I have read a theory that stated that it was precisely the removal of state support from Christianity which has ensured not only its survival and high uptake in the United States, but also its substantial wealth - since every church had to compete with other sects/religions, and competition helped them grow. ETA (sorry) conversely in the United Kingdom, the inclusion of the Church within the actual machinery of the State has left them somewhat powerless to influence the actual citizenry (just as the nationalised car manufacture industry was apparently unable to influence the citizenry to buy their cars). The Anglican church is currently in considerable crisis, facing competition from the Toronto Blessing-influence Alpha course, and common or garden happy-clappy Evangelicals (missions from the American churches).
But the guy said that the school had no bias, which might well be true (particularly if it is, as he says, a "community school", not one attached to a particular religious institution), and the law dictates that there be a Christian worship. SnakeLord himself is quite concerned that for the purposes of proper skepticism, that things be read and understood correctly. The law he speaks of I assume is the 1944 Education Act, and if it says that there must be an act of worship and that must be Christian based, maybe it means that if the school has no religious bias, then the "daily act of worship" should be Christian.SnakeLord said:
Not having the benefit of a first admendment that excluded religion, the 1944 act was hijacked by Christians (not particularly fundamentalist ones either, in those days) who ensured that there would be a daily act of Christian worship, and furthermore that Religious Education would be the only subject that every school must teach compulsorily. (This was before the days of the Core Curriculum).
EDIT: one raven I hope this explains the dilemma you posed. I have read a theory that stated that it was precisely the removal of state support from Christianity which has ensured not only its survival and high uptake in the United States, but also its substantial wealth - since every church had to compete with other sects/religions, and competition helped them grow. ETA (sorry) conversely in the United Kingdom, the inclusion of the Church within the actual machinery of the State has left them somewhat powerless to influence the actual citizenry (just as the nationalised car manufacture industry was apparently unable to influence the citizenry to buy their cars). The Anglican church is currently in considerable crisis, facing competition from the Toronto Blessing-influence Alpha course, and common or garden happy-clappy Evangelicals (missions from the American churches).
Last edited:
Been listening a little too much to media hype I see.
please, give it a rest. I am and can be quite "harsh" I suppose, such is my nature - but I never 'ignore' anything. I always go out of my way to answer any question posed to me while I find the majority of theists do anything they can to 'ignore' anything I pose back at them. (I notice in saying that you've seemingly 'ignored' my last post to you). You'll find I don't do that.
Are you angry with me because we don't often agree on things? Well, that's what happens a lot between theists and atheists - get used to it.
Now please, there's one thing you've seemingly 'ignored' that I really would like to see answer to: If your childs school did "daily worship of a purely satanic character" would you be ok with it? If not, why not? Upon answering that you might finally understand where I am coming from.
Yes, yes, it is, and yes
Basically when it comes to 'education' the school claims to have no bias, (i.e they will teach christianity, judaism etc etc). When it comes to daily worship it is of a 'wholly or mainly christian character' and is 'worship', not education.
Thx. i was about to go on a freedom of religion and seperation of church and state, but i presume there are different laws there? I should be more informed on this subject matter reguarding other governments, any links yall know of that might help?
I'd counter with a question. Why do you think she'd rebel at all against a denial of your god's authority? From his posts Snakelord's daughter seems to be quite content with watching cartoons than being bored in a worshippy place. She doesn't even have the notion of being attracted to a forbidden fruit. From what I gather you're applying psychological explanations where they do not apply.
Simple. And Snakelord said it. Indoctrination entails unquestioned acceptance of an utterance by an authority figure as truth. Teaching encourages challenge, true learning and understanding. In teaching even a lecturer can be wrong AND challenged on it.
Snakelord. Then his daughter when she gets older. NOT the school.
All athiests can academically understand faith based beliefs. Many of them regard such beliefs as unimportant and even childish.
Oh I know what she's going thru. I remember being forced to be confirmed. Less than a year after I finally had enough, and let the 'rents know once and for all that I would not be tolerating any further church attendance.
Kids like what they like. If something tickles their fancy, then they like it. If it doesn't, then they don't, and it could all change by tea-time.
True that. However, like I said, by majority, children do not like stuffy procedure. They'd much rather be watching tv or playing football or tea-time
Sorry, I can't remember the specific London incident, however here is an article that should show you that precious theism is quite the chaos creator
Europe losing faith in Islam
Really Jan darling? By statistics alone, only 16% of those people have a chance of being athiest or agnostics. That means there's an 84% chance that you'd be very surprised if I (well someone a little closer to England) did a quick survey of London's Friday night.
On a totally unrelated note...completely out of the blue here...why would Christianity need "the confessional"?
No...you posed it as a rhetorical question. Now that I've called you on it, you are changing your tone. A rhetorical question is great strategy if you want to place an idea in your audience's mind(s) without actually claiming anything. I debunked your idea so you've backpedalled into your own opinion. The fact is that your statement has no proof or basis in reality.
SnakeLord;
To be honest I never realised that was the case, and as such you may have a point in terms of human rights.
No more than the next man, including yourself.
Anger doesn't come into it, its fun discussing these types of issues.
In light of the revelation that worship is a legal requirement in public schools, you really have no argument from me.
But for me to answer your question from a general point of view, you must define what is a satanic character. If we start at the root, Satan, then my next question would be, what do you regard as "worship" of the judeo-christian-islamic character of Satan? Otherwise the question is way too broad for a simple answer.
I thought that schools could opt out of religious commitments if they so chose, hence the need for faith-schools, for those parents who require it.
I fail to see why it is a law, when everything else with this country is anything but religious. I find it mind-boggeling and contradictory.
Does the worship somehow extend into the lessons, or is it only in assemblies?
Jan
To be honest I never realised that was the case, and as such you may have a point in terms of human rights.
No more than the next man, including yourself.
Anger doesn't come into it, its fun discussing these types of issues.
In light of the revelation that worship is a legal requirement in public schools, you really have no argument from me.
But for me to answer your question from a general point of view, you must define what is a satanic character. If we start at the root, Satan, then my next question would be, what do you regard as "worship" of the judeo-christian-islamic character of Satan? Otherwise the question is way too broad for a simple answer.
I thought that schools could opt out of religious commitments if they so chose, hence the need for faith-schools, for those parents who require it.
I fail to see why it is a law, when everything else with this country is anything but religious. I find it mind-boggeling and contradictory.
Does the worship somehow extend into the lessons, or is it only in assemblies?
Jan
Enterprise-D;
It wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with God's authority, as opposed to the fact that dad is a strong atheist. That particular point was to stress a possible, worst scenario.
Like I said, kids like what they like, religious background or not.
Then he has no need to worry, if she doesn't like it then she won't adhere. Its the same for every kid, although all have been put through school, all have not become religious.
Then indoctrination is the wrong word, because you may well find that the teachers only enforce the (so-called) worship, because they are required by law, not because they themselves are religious. As I have said, England is not a religious country.
Are you suggesting that all they do at SL's daughters school is worship?
I know for a fact, one faith school, where academic results are extremely high, among an extremel high ratio of pupils, compared the surrounding non-faith-school counterparts, and the reason for this was not because of special-selection, but a high standard of dicipline. For one, it does not tolerate, under any circumstances, bullying.
You can understand, what you're capable of understanding, I agree with that. And as you say, some faith-based beliefs can be regarded as unimportant and even childish, and some aren't. It is my experience that some atheists tend to focus on the beliefs that are as you say.
But it didn't increase your faith in christianity, so in essence, it meant nothing to you, and this is common throughout. So the fear of being indoctrinated, could be seen as an irrational one.
However, the idea of forcing religion on a person, is not right, so I agree with you in principle.
That's fair enough.
Based on my own experience, and others who I have witnessed growing up, I am in total agreement. But children do have a tendency to, do, say, eat, etc, things which is not in their own best interest, which is why they have parents.
Maybe it doesn't matter, but I am of the male species.
I can only imagine how the statistitians came up with that figure.
They say confession is good for the soul.
Why do you choose to thow an accusation my way?
It is clearly written in black and white that I posed it as a question, with no evidence of any foul-play, other than that which was conjured up in your mind.
It's a question, not an idea.
Statistics are a good source for a general, ball-park, understanding of the scale of things, but in so many cases they are sexed-up, so who do we believe.
Jan.
It wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with God's authority, as opposed to the fact that dad is a strong atheist. That particular point was to stress a possible, worst scenario.
Like I said, kids like what they like, religious background or not.
Then he has no need to worry, if she doesn't like it then she won't adhere. Its the same for every kid, although all have been put through school, all have not become religious.
Then indoctrination is the wrong word, because you may well find that the teachers only enforce the (so-called) worship, because they are required by law, not because they themselves are religious. As I have said, England is not a religious country.
Are you suggesting that all they do at SL's daughters school is worship?
I know for a fact, one faith school, where academic results are extremely high, among an extremel high ratio of pupils, compared the surrounding non-faith-school counterparts, and the reason for this was not because of special-selection, but a high standard of dicipline. For one, it does not tolerate, under any circumstances, bullying.
You can understand, what you're capable of understanding, I agree with that. And as you say, some faith-based beliefs can be regarded as unimportant and even childish, and some aren't. It is my experience that some atheists tend to focus on the beliefs that are as you say.
But it didn't increase your faith in christianity, so in essence, it meant nothing to you, and this is common throughout. So the fear of being indoctrinated, could be seen as an irrational one.
However, the idea of forcing religion on a person, is not right, so I agree with you in principle.
That's fair enough.
Based on my own experience, and others who I have witnessed growing up, I am in total agreement. But children do have a tendency to, do, say, eat, etc, things which is not in their own best interest, which is why they have parents.
Maybe it doesn't matter, but I am of the male species.
I can only imagine how the statistitians came up with that figure.
On a totally unrelated note...completely out of the blue here...why would Christianity need "the confessional"?
They say confession is good for the soul.
Why do you choose to thow an accusation my way?
It is clearly written in black and white that I posed it as a question, with no evidence of any foul-play, other than that which was conjured up in your mind.
It's a question, not an idea.
Statistics are a good source for a general, ball-park, understanding of the scale of things, but in so many cases they are sexed-up, so who do we believe.
Jan.
It's being fought but I guess there are some that don't see the inherent bias and disrespect that it displays.
You're most likely right.
I would concur, it is.
F***** if I know
The example was used merely because it would be something a christian would (most likely) disagree with and would not like forced upon their child. Of course I'm sure most parents don't like anyone forcing anything on their children and so I could have used a different example. Given the context of discussion though I used the example I did.I dunno, I would assume that satanists have some kind of worship principles and rituals etc. I could be wrong but it wasn't really all that important to the example, (or so I thought). I can certainly look into it.
No, according to BHA, (British Humanist Assoc.), the very reason 'faith schools' crop up is because of the bias rampant in the law - from the one highlighted to the governments refusal to understand that this is not a "christian country". The argument is that schools should make time and space available for those that do want to pray/worship as opposed to forcing it on everyone for the benefit of one group.
It is strange, yes.. But then christianity still has a very large say in matters, (assisted death for instance).
Apparently not.
Again...a typical fear analysis tactic used by those of the religious persuasion
This statement is impotent. I've told you, that despite this...children do NOT like anything rote, procedural and boring. By and large. Most of them can't handle the rigors of church life. Therefore, your alarmist prediction most likely WON'T happen if Snakelord keeps his girl from a church.
He has every right to worry. He's Daddy.
Actually, I believe (no way to prove it) that these folks are using the letter of the law to promote christianity. I suggest to Snakelord that this issue be brought up in PTA or a similar forum. I'm sure he's not the only athiest parent who had the oversight. Heck I'm sure hindu and islamic parents would have a lot to say about their children being indoctrinated too.
Who suggested that?
Where's your proof of what you "know for a fact"? Discipline can quite well be metted out sans the help of nuns with rulers and with the correct dispensation and variance of religious instruction if required by law (which is stupid). In my alma mater for example, all major and even some minor denominations were represented (hindu, rc, islam, baptist, pentecostal etc etc). It was ridiculous. So I loafed in the library
Because they're right....ALL faith based beliefs are crutches and started out just as small and insignificant as the ones you deign to dismiss including all forms of christianity. Why theists hold
them as valuable is because of the group effect that it has (the crutch).
It could be assumed, but
1. MY parents thought they were doing the best for their child, them being RC,
2. Who's to say that another child may be as strong willed as I was and
3. Who's to say that other RI instructors won't be any better at hypnotic persuasion than mine were?
Snakelord is completely correct to be concerned about what his daughter picks up in school.
Therefore you agree that this child need not be forced to go to any worship procedure. And since she is seven, her parents can wield this right on her behalf. NOT the school.
CORRECT, and that's why Snakelord (and wife if applicable) are the ones who can tell the school to shove it.
LOL I'll leave this question to the philosophers
I imagine it is the collection of consensus results of the majority of countries in the world. Or at least a coverage of people where those that are left out can be fairly extrapolated to fall into the
statistical findings.
Not really. I'm quite familiar with debating tactics, so I assume that in any argument where I do not know my opponent, he will use them. The rhetorical question is an excellent way to plant an idea into an audience mind without having to prove anything.
This is your question. If it were an innocent question why would it have followed another assumption that chaos is wrought upon the nation by 'non-religious' citizens? And why would it start "is it not a fact" (argumentative rather than inquisitive)?
Even if it was a question with no hidden agenda, so what? It is still an assumption that has no basis in reality. In this case though, to answer your question: no, it is not a fact. Albeit the only way this can be misconstrued as fact is simply that 16% of the world is non religious, therefore there's an 84% maximum chance that a successful person will SAY it's because of his schooling in a faith based institution...which is not necessarily the case, and so not the same thing that you're asking.
PS...Who's sexed up? Why are those of the religious persuasion so worked up about what goes on in beds?
Last edited:
Even though my school wasn't particularly religious I was forced to pray, sing hymns in assembly and participate in nativity plays from the age of 4-11, then suffered 3 years of compulsory 'religious education' from the age of 11-14, until I was finally presented with the opportunity to drop it like an hot brick - which I seized on like a cold beer (even then I liked a drink).
Beyond boring me senseless (even at age 4, I think) it never did me any harm, and hasn't influenced my religious outlook (I haven't got one) in any way. Maybe I'm more resilient than most but I don't think so.
If anyone feels that religious education has had any lasting influence on their opinions... please speak up now.
Beyond boring me senseless (even at age 4, I think) it never did me any harm, and hasn't influenced my religious outlook (I haven't got one) in any way. Maybe I'm more resilient than most but I don't think so.
If anyone feels that religious education has had any lasting influence on their opinions... please speak up now.