Atheists Target UK Schools

Mickeroo

may be of interest to y'all......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5219687/Atheists-target-UK-schools.html

Genghiz Cohen

Love the ads that google throws up in responce to it...


I'm not sure about the athiest summer camp idea, isn't it just forcing your child into your belifs?

Galvasean

So they are promoting non-religious societies in schools?
Don't see what the hub-bub is about.

Galvasean

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'm not sure about the athiest summer camp idea, isn't it just forcing your child into your belifs?

There was a thread here a while ago. Pretty sure most of us didn't really like teh idea.

coffee_cake

Ugh, I first of all hate the idea of "atheist summer camp" - if you want an alternative have some kind of non-denom. camp, not yet another brainwashing dogmatic one. And the societies "trying to persuade children not to believe in god" - no thanks. Either present facts etc etc or don't, but don't turn it into another belief.

philologos

She expressed concern that Christian Unions could influence vulnerable teenagers looking for a club to belong to with fundamentalist doctrine.

She clearly has never attended one. Fear mongering such as this, only serves to stop positive relations developing between Christians and atheists. Or is it that regular Christian doctrine is now being seen as "fundementalist". Which is interesting, because it seems that there is an attempt to ostracise many Christians who would be considered mainline into the fringes as we will see in the next quote.

In particular, she claimed that some students were being told that homosexuality is a sin and to believe the Biblical account of creation.

Both of these are regular beliefs of the Christian church, although there is contention and discussion on both (such as what exactly Paul was referring to when discussing "exchanging natural for unnatural" in Romans 1:26, or the timescale of the Genesis 1 account). There is nothing that could be considered fanatical or unusual about any Christian who would advocate either of these beliefs.

Although, I actually would advocate people setting up an atheist society at my university, it would allow for positive dialogue between it and the Christian Union if they were open minded enough to allow it.

Genghiz Cohen

Jakkass wrote: »

Although, I actually would advocate people setting up an atheist society at my university, it would allow for positive dialogue between it and the Christian Union if they were open minded enough to allow it.

I would love to believe it wouldn't just degrade into

"Did!"
"Didn't!"
Etc..

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

There was a thread here a while ago. Pretty sure most of us didn't really like teh idea.

I agree,the summer camp idea sounds terrible. Surely they should be spending more time on how to tie knots,build camp fires, use a compass etc. rather than trying to force beliefs of any kind on people. It would be much healthier to just have children of all cultures and backgrounds together rather than creating this divide.

Overheal

Mickeroo wrote: »

I agree,the summer camp idea sounds terrible. Surely they should be spending more time on how to tie knots,build camp fires, use a compass etc. rather than trying to force beliefs of any kind on people. It would be much healthier to just have children of all cultures and backgrounds together rather than creating this divide.

Tell it to the Boy/Girl/Cub/Eagle/Slut(?) Scouts of America. Secular douchebags.

In a way its good, in another way its a total facepalm. I can see the desire to organise but at the same time isnt that the problem? You get people in these groups and then you've instantly got your Insiders and your Outsiders. And therein breeds the secularity.

At the same time, its that belief that I shouldnt join a group that makes me vulnerable - and some of these religious circles actively recruit/convert/pressure people into altering their beliefs. Its pretty much been Divide and Conquer with the Atheists up to now and I could see the obvious benefit for free thinking kids in school to be associated within such a group. I view conversion as bullying.

Unfortunately thats the playing field though, so I guess its time Atheists got into the game and started forming their own "Churches".

Galvasean

Overheal wrote: »

Unfortunately thats the playing field though, so I guess its time Atheists got into the game and started forming their own "Churches".

I dunno how to feel about that. I don't want atheism to be seen as 'another religion'.

darjeeling

Mickeroo wrote: »

may be of interest to y'all......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5219687/Atheists-target-UK-schools.html

The article talks of the 'daily acts of collective worship' introduced under the 1944 Education Act and still required (in modified form) under the 1988 Reform Act.

I remember the '88 legislation alarming people who thought the '44 provision was something for the history books. Still, the only change in my high school was a motivating - and usually secular - quote from someone like Gandhi or Martin Luther King at the top of the daily bulletin. While the law stipulates 'broadly Christian' worship unless inappropriate for a particular school or class, it's hard to see how it could have been applied in a school where the children's backgrounds spanned the spectrum of world faiths.

I suspect many high schools are paying lip service to the law to this day (primary schools sing 'Kum ba yah' or 'Morning has broken', if my experience is anything to go by). I wonder if the law has ever been enforced in cases of non-compliance.

.

philologos

Overheal: I know this question is incredibly clichéd. Why do you have to get into the game at all? I mean how is it likely to affect you as an atheist if people continue to believe? Or why should it concern you?

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

Overheal: I know this question is incredibly clichéd. Why do you have to get into the game at all? I mean how is it likely to affect you as an atheist if people continue to believe? Or why should it concern you?

As has been answered many many times on this forum, the reason why atheists concern themselves with the religious is that habit the religious have of trying to have rules based around their beliefs enforced on us all.

b28

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

This is a great Idea to encourage this advert:

Yes Genghiz Cohen I do agree

Overheal

Jakkass wrote: »

Overheal: I know this question is incredibly clichéd. Why do you have to get into the game at all? I mean how is it likely to affect you as an atheist if people continue to believe? Or why should it concern you?

Well not only for the reason Galvasean mentions but also constitutional protection. You've got a lot of nutty groups out there attacking atheists saying that since we aren't technically religious or practicing a religion that we do/should not have protections afforded to us under the First Amendment.

I've also already mentioned to you a few times in the last week that I am not a Militant Atheist/Fascist Nazi Monster despite what you seem to think. I am not about stamping out the belief in god. I only ever said I wish they would shut up about it and leave me to do my own fcuking thing so they can go and do their own thing.

Also as you seem to have missed in my last post its about rallying Atheists to defend the point of view, not to go out and attack other points of view.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Overheal: I know this question is incredibly clichéd. Why do you have to get into the game at all? I mean how is it likely to affect you as an atheist if people continue to believe? Or why should it concern you?

Parts of the US are rather different to here.

philologos

Overheal wrote: »

Well not only for the reason Galvasean mentions but also constitutional protection. You've got a lot of nutty groups out there attacking atheists saying that since we aren't technically religious or practicing a religion that we do/should not have protections afforded to us under the First Amendment.

Fair enough, that is crackers, and I will concede that to you. Atheists have every right to defend their First Amendment rights (freedom of assembly, and free speech?). Religion or lack of religion does not afford or deny you any rights.

Overheal wrote: »

I've also already mentioned to you a few times in the last week that I am not a Militant Atheist/Fascist Nazi Monster despite what you seem to think. I am not about stamping out the belief in god. I only ever said I wish they would shut up about it and leave me to do my own fcuking thing so they can go and do their own thing.

Fair enough. I didn't intend to insinuate that you were by posting this post, I was just curious to see what intentions you had behind what you said, and now you have clarified them for me. Unfortunately for you, people have the right to speak about their respective religions. We wouldn't want to deny them their First Amendment rights would we?

Overheal wrote: »

Also as you seem to have missed in my last post its about rallying Atheists to defend the point of view, not to go out and attack other points of view.

Okay. However I have another question for you. Is it to defend the point of view you have when it is being directly attacked, or is it to defend it when other people are speaking about their religion? Actually I wouldn't consider the second category defence, but rather advocacy.

Dades

Overheal wrote: »

Unfortunately thats the playing field though, so I guess its time Atheists got into the game and started forming their own "Churches".

I think this is one situation where "if you can't beat 'em - join 'em" shouldn't apply.

They should stick to just beating them (i.e. worship out of schools).

Goduznt Xzst

Overheal wrote: »

its about rallying Atheists to defend the point of view, not to go out and attack other points of view.

while initially it seems like a bad idea, fighting fire with fire and all that, I can't help but feel that some pushing back has to occur. I don't see this as forming Atheism into it's own belief, rather teaching children that it's okay not to believe. I think the subject needs to be broached.

It reminds me of that video on open mindedness recently. You can't just leave a childs mind open to every opinion having equal weight, otherwise a lot of garbage is going to get let in. I'd see these camps as assuring children that it is perfectly fine to not believe in spirits and gods and teaching them to always assume a neutral position on a subject if there is no compelling evidence to form an opinion either way (i.e not saying that God can't exist, just that his existence has no relevance to humans existence) and that the largest deciding factor in their opinions should always be governed by the idea that all freedoms should be allowed an individual as long as they do not adversely affect the freedoms of any other individual.

It could also touch on topics of morality, mortality... etc. Things religion claim there Gods are the source of when they aren't.

Overheal

Jakkass wrote:

Is it to defend the point of view you have when it is being directly attacked, or is it to defend it when other people are speaking about their religion? Actually I wouldn't consider the second category defence, but rather advocacy.

I don't think you can seperate the two, really. When you're defending your beliefs from ideological assault that assault is coming from others speaking out about their religion. And by that I mean calling Atheists sinful little bastards and scaring children into joining a faith, not from people speaking out aka. Gospel/Christian Rock Ballads.
To contrast, you don't often see a Christian* try to aggressively convert Jews. On the other hand you do see Christians aggressively try to convert Atheists. Its a double standard and thats the point I think is being addressed.

*Im most familiar with dealing with Christianity so forgive if I refer to it in my examples a lot. Not saying theyre the only guilty party - though they can be an especially huge part of the problem in the states with such a large majority.

I'd see these camps as assuring children that it is perfectly fine to not believe in spirits and gods and teaching them to always assume a neutral position on a subject if there is no compelling evidence to form an opinion either way

Thats an interesting point to make and absolutely I agree that sentiment has been an important foundation for how I go about things.

Perhaps this is a question for another thread but does religion teach a habit of Bias? Often you'd hear in some masses (or on the radio Sunday Mass) how it is The Way, and similarly The first commandment that says I am your God and there is no other. Does that set a precedent that slows/stops people from trying to interpret the opposing sides of the issue?

Either way, interesting point.

I also approve of other measures - Religion as a subject in the Junior Cert: I missed that wagon but doesnt the course teach students about religions from the observer's viewpoint? I think thats how it should be approached, so that we can decide for ourselves what we choose to believe.

pts

Overheal wrote: »

I also approve of other measures - Religion as a subject in the Junior Cert: I missed that wagon but doesnt the course teach students about religions from the observer's viewpoint? I think thats how it should be approached, so that we can decide for ourselves what we choose to believe.

I think so too, Dan Dennett makes some good points in regards to teaching religion at TED. Well worth a watch.

philologos

Overheal wrote: »

I don't think you can seperate the two, really. When you're defending your beliefs from ideological assault that assault is coming from others speaking out about their religion. And by that I mean calling Atheists sinful little bastards and scaring children into joining a faith, not from people speaking out aka. Gospel/Christian Rock Ballads.
To contrast, you don't often see a Christian* try to aggressively convert Jews. On the other hand you do see Christians aggressively try to convert Atheists. Its a double standard and thats the point I think is being addressed.

I'm surprised that in America you haven't heard of evangelism to Jews. Theres a rather big group called "Jews for Jesus", of Jews who have converted to Christianity but still practice Jewish rites. Likewise you might have heard of Messianic Jews. Christians aim to reach out to people of all nations, creeds, colours, and so on. There is also quite a lot of controversy with the Israeli authorities about it.

You also have the assumption that all evangelism has to be aggressive. Mind you, the incidents that you have described, are appalling. I don't think anyone has to abuse atheists to get across the message.

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps this is a question for another thread but does religion teach a habit of Bias? Often you'd hear in some masses (or on the radio Sunday Mass) how it is The Way, and similarly The first commandment that says I am your God and there is no other. Does that set a precedent that slows/stops people from trying to interpret the opposing sides of the issue?

If you are to enter a church, you are going to realise that they will advocate Christianity. It is their belief. I also don't think that any non-Christians have a right to change the way that Christians do church. Of course there is a bias in the church, they seek to promote Christianity as the truth. As such I think they promote Christianity in a way that would seek for people to accept it. Which is fair enough if you voluntarily attend church.

Overheal

I dont mean that. I mean programming people to believe there is only one Answer. "Only Sith deal in Absolutes."

lostexpectation

not sure secondary schools should have 'societies'

Mena

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute wrote:

"Many parents will also be anxious at the thought of militant atheists targeting their children."

Don't worry Simon, we can assure Ma and Pa that we won't be teaching your kids to fly planes :pac:

the_syco

Overheal wrote: »

Unfortunately thats the playing field though, so I guess its time Atheists got into the game and started forming their own "Churches".

Reminds me of the game. You have lost the game, because you remembered the game. You have 30 minutes to forget about the game, so that you can win the game.