nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What to tell kids when they ask?

Kenny Bania

Hi all,

I have a kid in her first year in a catholic primary school. She has been opted out of religion class amicably with the teacher & principal - no issues. She does not do the religion book - she does a colouring book instead. So all agreeable there.

However, she is obviously picking up some things through osmosis. I'm not worried about her being indoctrinated, as it's simply not a part of her life or her world outside of overhearing a few things in school - but when she makes (what she considers) throwaway comments to me like "god made all of us" - what exactly should I respond with?
I don't want to get technical, and say we're all star dust, etc - but I do want to correct her as much as appropriate. At the same time, I don't want her shouting out in class that "my daddy says there is no god", etc.

Suggestions? It's a delicate balance. I want to correct any misconceptions she may pick up, but also don't want her correcting other people in the classroom environment.

Thanks in advance.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, he's right. If someone doesn't have faith in their life, they're missing something; they are not the full article. He's not saying they're lesser or inferior, just different.

Yeah, me and my lack of guilt for having natural human urges and reactions are really missing out on something.

Frankly I'd argue the opposite way: if someone needs external validation from a god then they are clearly missing something in themselves: self confidence, self reliance, something.

looksee

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, he's right. If someone doesn't have faith in their life, they're missing something; they are not the full article. He's not saying they're lesser or inferior, just different.

He is just a person, just someone who chose to become a priest, he is not infallible, he could, just possibly, be wrong.

I, and lots more like me, am of the opinion that people who believe in god are somewhat deficient in their thinking. I don't suppose he cares for a minute what I think. The feeling is mutual, except that for reasons grounded in history, superstition and power seeking, he has more clout than me. He has some control over my life, I would prefer at least the opportunity to vote for people who influence how I live my life.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As long as they never have sex ever, because homosexual attraction is "intrinsically disordered."

It's not quite as accepting as that bus company that put Rosa Parks in the back seat.

That racist bus company. But church leaders at the time said it was OK.

I feel compelled to ask, and this is genuine curiosity -

Have comparisons to the LGBT and black civil rights movements, ever worked for atheists? I mean, has anyone, to the best of your knowledge, had a light-bulb moment and thought -

"Y'know what, you're right, you're totally experiencing similar levels of suffering and discrimination as those people at that time in history. We should get on that straight away for middle class white people, your suffering must be intolerable"...

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I feel compelled to ask, and this is genuine curiosity -

Have comparisons to the LGBT and black civil rights movements, ever worked for atheists? I mean, has anyone, to the best of your knowledge, had a light-bulb moment and thought -

"Y'know what, you're right, you're totally experiencing similar levels of suffering and discrimination as those people at that time in history. We should get on that straight away for middle class white people, your suffering must be intolerable"...

The comment in question was nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the attitude of the church to homosexuals, which came from a comment about religious attitudes and tolerance.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

The comment in question was nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the attitude of the church to homosexuals, which came from a comment about religious attitudes and tolerance.

I know where it came from looksee, it was just seeing the mention of Rosa Parks and people who are LGBT that sparked that question, because it's an argument that I've heard a couple of times now from people, and I wonder do they actually have any clue who and what experiences they're comparing themselves to from those times, in Irish society in 2015?

Why not compare themselves to travellers, or people with children with physical and intellectual disabilities who struggle to get into mainstream schools, and then struggle to get them the supports they need?

That would offer perspective though I suppose.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know where it came from looksee, it was just seeing the mention of Rosa Parks and people who are LGBT that sparked that question, because it's an argument that I've heard a couple of times now from people, and I wonder do they actually have any clue who and what experiences they're comparing themselves to from those times, in Irish society in 2015?

Why not compare themselves to travellers, or people with children with physical and intellectual disabilities who struggle to get into mainstream schools, and then struggle to get them the supports they need?

That would offer perspective though I suppose.

And as I said, no one was using those comparisons in relation to atheism. In fact it was comparing the church attitude to gay people to (the church and society's) attitude to black people. Atheism doesn't come into it.

kylith

Apologies. I misread OEJ's initial post

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

And as I said, no one was using those comparisons in relation to atheism. In fact it was comparing the church attitude to gay people to (the church and society's) attitude to black people. Atheism doesn't come into it.

I explained why I was asking though? I hadn't said anyone in the thread had used those arguments, I was asking a question based on something that the posts had reminded me of.

I thought it was relevant given the actual subject of the thread, and the forum it's in. Nothing to do with atheism though?

So a question about how atheists perceive discrimination, in a thread where atheists perceive discrimination, in a forum of atheists who perceive discrimination, is considered irrelevant...

I'm reminded of the comment recedite made earlier when they quoted my post and said it was one of the most insensitive and offensive they'd ever read on this forum. No explanation as to why they found it insensitive or offensive, and if it was actually the most offensive and insensitive comment they'd ever read on the forum, I have to wonder about their sense of perspective.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Does it matter if no-one has been convinced?

I wouldn't have asked tbe question if I wasn't interested in having it answered. I don't just ask questions for the sake of it or to be smart. I asked because I genuinely wondered what is the point in using those comparisons when IME they have failed to convince anyone and only serve to have me take the person making the comparison less seriously, because IMO they lack context and perspective.

Were any racists ever converted by someone comparing the civil rights movement to sufferage? The fact remains that the two are comparable: in each case people are being discriminated against on the basis of something that they cannot change - either race or sexuality. There is not much comparable to the travelling community (a traveller can become a member of the settled community, a gay person cannot become straight), and nothing comparable to the disabled.

Oh sure, I'm not denying they're comparable, but I was just wondering has the "hierarchy of discrimation" and identity politics stuff ever worked for people who identify as atheist, and have they ever been taken seriously?

The Bishop Basher

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I disagree - they're doing whats easiest for themselves. It's called being lazy - taking the path of least resistance. Because if they're not practicing Catholics, then why are they happy with their children taking religion classes? Because it's easy; that's why.

Same as yourself then...

Have to say your posts are riddled with hypocrisy...

You chose to have children, you chose to bring them up in your current location, you knew there were no secular schools in the area, you had years to plan yet you went ahead, had kids, stayed in the same location, enrolled your child in the local religious school and then suddenly it becomes an issue...:rolleyes:

Your argument that you had no other option is absolute nonsense. Protestants and other minority religious groups have been successfully finding ways around this problem for eons. I myself travelled 4 hours each day to attend a protestant school. Personally I wouldn't have cared either way but it was important to my parents so they and I made it work. Many others I knew went to boarding schools, some moved house altogether and others lived with relatives during the school term.

Another example of taking action was a group of parents in my local area with similar, albeit more mature and less militant views then you, got together and started planning an ET school. While it took many years of planning, fundraising and battling with the DoE, the school is now built and thriving.

Point being, you can choose to post pointless rants on boards if you wish, they may help you burn off some of that pent up rage your clearly holding, they may even start some interesting discussion and who knows you might even learn a thing or 2 but it will never ever ever solve the actual problem. To do that would require action..

The same kind of action you could have taken but chose not to as you're far too busy labeling every other parent in the same position as you as hypocrite.

But here's the kicker...

Your posts actually come across every bit as judgemental and intolerant as i've ever witnessed from those of a religious faith who you seem to detest so much. You may not accept this and you may not be able to see it but if even one person has that perception of you it's probably worth some consideration on your part..

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Sorry I annoyed you with my facts. I'm open to correction on any of my statements. I've bullet pointed them for you:
cult

riddled with systematic abuse

hides & moves around paedophiles

abuses unmarried mothers

buries babies in mass graves

hates gays

hates women

endorses slavery

denies contraception

preaches against materialism whilst wearing Versace shoes & living in a palace full of gold

lies about the origin of our species

fundamentally full of dumb ideas like virgins being able to have babies & people rising from the dead

So you really believe all of these are rife in the local school yet you still chose to send your child there

You remind me a lot of myself when I was an angry teenager. I understand your frustration with these things. I personally agree with you on a lot of what you say, but you're allowing your anger and rage to permeate through your thinking and it's not helping you formulate a well thought out, mature and rational argument.

For the record, I was raised in a religious home, son of a protestant vicar. It was never rammed down our throats and my father is a very free thinking and liberal man however I never accepted christianity and it has taken me many many years of soul searching, reading, learning and studying to figure out where I was comfortable. It would have been much easier and lazier to just label myself as an atheist and indeed I did for a number of years but I now know I consider myself spiritual, nothing more nothing less. Weird thing is I can now have theological discussions with my father and we actually agree on many of our theological beliefs. I just came round to them the hard way:)

So be careful of labeling yourself too quickly. In order to evolve you must first learn and understand but the anger you're demonstrating in every post here will hold you back and that understanding will be near impossible.

Lighten up, live and let live, be responsible for yourself and your family and stop worrying about everyone else. They're all fighting their own battles and they have nothing whatsoever to do with you...

Kenny Bania

Swanner wrote: »

Same as yourself then...

Have to say your posts are riddled with hypocrisy...

You chose to have children, you chose to bring them up in your current location, you knew there were no secular schools in the area, you had years to plan yet you went ahead, had kids, stayed in the same location, enrolled your child in the local religious school and then suddenly it becomes an issue...:rolleyes:

Your argument that you had no other option is absolute nonsense. Protestants and other minority religious groups have been successfully finding ways around this problem for eons. I myself travelled 4 hours each day to attend a protestant school. Personally I wouldn't have cared either way but it was important to my parents so they and I made it work. Many others I knew went to boarding schools, some moved house altogether and others lived with relatives during the school term.

Another example of taking action was a group of parents in my local area with similar, albeit more mature and less militant views then you, got together and started planning an ET school. While it took many years of planning, fundraising and battling with the DoE, the school is now built and thriving.

Point being, you can choose to post pointless rants on boards if you wish, they may help you burn off some of that pent up rage your clearly holding, they may even start some interesting discussion and who knows you might even learn a thing or 2 but it will never ever ever solve the actual problem. To do that would require action..

The same kind of action you could have taken but chose not to as you're far too busy labeling every other parent in the same position as you as hypocrite.

But here's the kicker...

Your posts actually come across every bit as judgemental and intolerant as i've ever witnessed from those of a religious faith who you seem to detest so much. You may not accept this and you may not be able to see it but if even one person has that perception of you it's probably worth some consideration on your part..

So you really believe all of these are rife in the local school yet you still chose to send your child there .

No - rife in the church. But don't let that stop you moving the goalposts then arguing against something I never said.

The Bishop Basher

Kenny Bania wrote: »

No - rife in the church. But don't let that stop you moving the goalposts then arguing against something I never said.

But that same church sets the ethos and runs the school that your child currently attends. Yeah ? Can we agree on that wording ?

Hotblack Desiato

You didn't go 4 hours a day at junior infants, did you?

You were also a member of the second most privileged religious group in the country. One which already had a significant number of schools around the country, at least at primary level. One which actually for many years was more favoured than RC - extra support was given for boarding pupils, pupils were allowed a school bus while not attending the nearest school. The latter is still in place and non-christians receive no such benefit, they must attend the nearest school if using the school bus scheme.

Check your privilege. And how dare you tell parents they should move, or not have children, or solve a problem that governments refuse to deal with. It doesn't matter what parents do where I live. The Dept of Ed will not fund another school here.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You didn't go 4 hours a day at junior infants, did you?

You were also a member of the second most privileged religious group in the country. One which already had a significant number of schools around the country, at least at primary level. One which actually for many years was more favoured than RC - extra support was given for boarding pupils, pupils were allowed a school bus while not attending the nearest school. The latter is still in place and non-christians receive no such benefit, they must attend the nearest school if using the school bus scheme.

Check your privilege.

The use of this phrase always makes me laugh more than it should, especially when it's coming from someone I assume is well-educated, middle-class and white.

And how dare you tell parents they should move, or not have children, or solve a problem that governments refuse to deal with. It doesn't matter what parents do where I live. The Dept of Ed will not fund another school here.

I don't think anyone ever said that tbh (though now I get what recedite may have meant about my comment). Nobody is telling anyone they should move, or they should not have children. I've said that time and again people make choices, and they are ultimately responsible for those choices, and parents make sacrifices and trade-offs of all sorts every day so they can give their children the best start in life or look out for their welfare.

Do you honestly think you're any different from anyone else?

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I explained why I was asking though? I hadn't said anyone in the thread had used those arguments, I was asking a question based on something that the posts had reminded me of.

OK, then. The answer is, for me at least, maybe... It is going to depend on the person and the source and depth of their belief. This is one of the places where religion is quite dangerous. If a person's opinion on something is based on their religious belief, some which by its very nature, that of a "revealed truth" does not really allow questioning, then it seems unlikely that they will change their view. You see this with creationist, though I suspect mental illness might also play a part in creationism. Those that believe in creationism simply will not accept any evidence that contradicts it. And this brings us, quite nicely, to why one might make those comparisons you are talking about. Look at the creationism threads, the one on the other forum has been going for over a decade, and I suspect that no creationists have been converted, but we do it because those that are on the fence, or not quite sure what to believe might be influences. Those arguments are not an attempt to convert the creationists, they are an attempt to educate the bystanders.

Another type of person is where their view is informed by religion, but they are not so tied to the belief that they can't change their view. This would be the typical a la carte religious typical of Ireland. These people might be convinced by this type of example. This type of person tends to go with the flow and can often be quite unthinking in their opinion in certain matters, particularly matters which don't seem to impact them directly, or don't seem to be particularly relevant. So, for example, homosexuality for catholics. Most people simply won't think about it, as it does't actually mean anything to them. They might happily tow the party line because that is the path of least resistance. But then, when they actually take time to look at it, as they did in the run up to the same sex referendum, then we see the divergence from the party line. Those people might be influenced by those examples.

The other type of person is the type where their view is not informed by a religious belief. These can be split into two, those willing to change their view in the face of evidence of good argument, and those not willing to change their view.

So, really, whilst we might not know for sure if those arguments do change anyone's view, it does seem reasonable to assume that this type of argument will be effective on at least some of those that read them. And that makes it worth it, in my view.

MrP

The Bishop Basher

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You didn't go 4 hours a day at junior infants, did you?

No but my parents chose to relocate to an area that had a good CoI national school. It was a priority for them.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You were also a member of the second most privileged religious group in the country. One which already had a significant number of schools around the country, at least at primary level. One which actually for many years was more favoured than RC - extra support was given for boarding pupils, pupils were allowed a school bus while not attending the nearest school. The latter is still in place and non-christians receive no such benefit, they must attend the nearest school if using the school bus scheme.

None of that negates the original point that CoI families across the country did not have CoI schools in their localities (with good reason) and as a result they had to make an extra special effort to have their kids attend one.

Exactly the same as an atheist family living in an area without a secular school will have to make an extra special effort if attending a secular school is a priority for them.

It's all comes down to your priorities and what you are prepared to compromise on...

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Check your privilege.

No idea what you mean by this. Maybe you could elaborate ?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And how dare you tell parents they should move, or not have children, or solve a problem that governments refuse to deal with. It doesn't matter what parents do where I live. The Dept of Ed will not fund another school here.

I couldn't tell parents that even if I wanted to.. Not sure why you think I would.. I did make the point that having kids is a choice, where you decide to live is a choice, what religion if any you subscribe to is a choice. In fact most things in life are choices. So by all means make your choices but no point blaming everyone else when it doesn't work out exactly how you wanted.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

or solve a problem that governments refuse to deal with. It doesn't matter what parents do where I live. The Dept of Ed will not fund another school here.

Ah I see. You're one of these people that identifies a problem and then sits and moans about said problem wishing it would resolve itself. Doesn't happen. Especially with Governments. You want to fix things go do it. Start lobbying, start getting groups together, off the top of my head you could set up a resource to help guide people who want to build a secular school in their area. Lots of opportunity, lots of challenges and lots of rewards should you chose that path.

The other option as you know, is to continue to sit and whine that the government won't listen to you and refuses to build a school that caters for you and your childs beliefs. Good luck with that. You'll be still disappointed and whining 20 years from now.

ABC101

In years to come.... education could.... and perhaps will move to online learning courses.... where the child will sit in front of a TV or computer and carry out lessons online.

MOOC I think it is called.....Massive Online Open Courses... or is it Massive Open Online Courses.... several universities are doing it.

Think of the benefits... non believers would not have to send their children to a building which has a certain ethos. Children would be safe at home, no Chelsea tractors taking children to school (pollution + traffic issues), dept of education would save a fortune in NOT having to provide a teacher (+ salary and pension savings), no school building to heat / repair and other ancillary savings i.e. insurance.

Obviously there would be some drawbacks... ie.. Plays / drama groups / sports activities... these would have to be provided for normally etc.

Hotblack Desiato

Swanner wrote: »

It's all comes down to your priorities and what you are prepared to compromise on...

It doesn't matter where I move to, if I could move. My kids are bottom of the enrolment list at all religious schools, and would be the bottom of the list at any ET as they go by application date. You just don't get it do you?

No idea what you mean by this. Maybe you could elaborate ?

You had then, and still have now, because of a lucky-for-you accident of history, far more CoI schools than there are ETs or other non-RC options. The government gives CoI families assistance to attend these schools it gives to no other group. You are at the top of the enrolment list at any CoI school, and in most RC schools would be second. My kids are at the bottom of the enrolment list in most schools.
We were lucky enough to get child 1 into the nearest local school (CoI, as it happens) when it was still undersubscribed. It's now oversubscribed but child 2 got in on the sibling rule. That made him second-bottom on the list instead of bottom.

So by all means make your choices but no point blaming everyone else when it doesn't work out exactly how you wanted.

I can and I will complain about being discriminated against in the delivery of a state service simply because of my religion or lack of.

Ah I see. You're one of these people that identifies a problem and then sits and moans about said problem wishing it would resolve itself.

You don't know a thing about me.

you could set up a resource to help guide people who want to build a secular school in their area.

Not going to happen, as I've already explained, and it would be a complete waste of taxpayers' money to build another school here if it did happen. There are already enough places in the area as a whole, but they are all religious ethos schools.

The other option as you know, is to continue to sit and whine that the government won't listen to you and refuses to build a school that caters for you and your childs beliefs. Good luck with that. You'll be still disappointed and whining 20 years from now.

What I want first and foremost is a change to ban discrimination in enrolment on the grounds of religion, and I'm involved with groups working on this and making it an election issue.

eviltwin

I used to do a 40km round trip to bring my daughter to school. Its all very well saying I was prepared to do it for the sake of my daughter's education but it wasn't very fair on her. She had to get up at 6:30 every morning, miss out on seeing her friends after school or at weekends, missed out on making friends with local kids etc because of me. Parents shouldn't be forced to do this but most importantly children shouldn't be forced to do this. Its not fair.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

I used to do a 40km round trip to bring my daughter to school. Its all very well saying I was prepared to do it for the sake of my daughter's education but it wasn't very fair on her. She had to get up at 6:30 every morning, miss out on seeing her friends after school or at weekends, missed out on making friends with local kids etc because of me. Parents shouldn't be forced to do this but most importantly children shouldn't be forced to do this. Its not fair.

Those are fair points and well-made eviltwin, I can certainly empathise with your situation and relate to it a lot easier than simply being told to check my privilege, and no disrespect meant HB, but you can't have failed to see the irony in demanding that someone else "check their privilege", and in the next post pointing out that they know nothing about you?

Seems somewhat of a contradiction there. That's why the "check your privilege" phrase annoys me, because the person who uses it to my face has no idea about me and cannot see their own "privileges".

It's the reason I asked has the whole identity politics thing ever worked and had anyone take them seriously, because I genuinely couldn't understand why anyone would use it as it made no sense to me, but cheers Mr. P for the explanation at least. I understand it better now, but I'm still unlikely ever to take someone seriously who uses it.

The Bishop Basher

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not going to happen, as I've already explained, and it would be a complete waste of taxpayers' money to build another school here if it did happen. There are already enough places in the area as a whole, but they are all religious ethos schools.

So what would you like the Government to do ?

If you live in an area that is unviable for a school of your preference you have a few options.

1. Move
2. Get enough people to move there to make it viable.
3. Any of the options I mentioned above

In other words, no one is going to come and sort it for you.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What I want first and foremost is a change to ban discrimination in enrolment on the grounds of religion, and I'm involved with groups working on this and making it an election issue.

Best of luck with it. I don't have an issue with removing discrimination in enrolment as long as the Government or somebody else takes over the funding currently provided by the church, the parents and the wider community.

It's a complicated issue and really for another discussion but it certainly needs to be tackled one way or another.

The Bishop Basher

eviltwin wrote: »

I used to do a 40km round trip to bring my daughter to school. Its all very well saying I was prepared to do it for the sake of my daughter's education but it wasn't very fair on her. She had to get up at 6:30 every morning, miss out on seeing her friends after school or at weekends, missed out on making friends with local kids etc because of me. Parents shouldn't be forced to do this but most importantly children shouldn't be forced to do this. Its not fair.

This is where it all comes down to priorities, choices and compromises. You can only do what feels right to you at the time. There's no right or wrong answer.

You made sacrifices and took tough decisions to give your daughter the education you wanted her to have. That's to be commended.

I was that kid in a way and there were definitely pros and cons. Overall i'd say it was positive.

I agree that no one should be forced to make these kinds of decisions but it's not possible to please everyone so it's always going to be the case for minority groups in the population.

eviltwin

Swanner wrote: »

This is where it all comes down to priorities, choices and compromises. You can only do what feels right to you at the time. There's no right or wrong answer.

You made sacrifices and took tough decisions to give your daughter the education you wanted her to have. That's to be commended.

I was that kid in a way and there were definitely pros and cons. Overall i'd say it was positive.

I agree that no one should be forced to make these kinds of decisions but it's not possible to please everyone so it's always going to be the case for minority groups in the population.

The irony is Swanner where we live I have three schools she could have walked to and another few within a short bus or car journey. Our situation was nothing to do with religion, we had moved to a new area and she wanted to stay in the same school so we made the sacrifice but I can see the impact it made so I can completely appreciate where parents are coming from. It was a pain in the hole tbh especially in winter. It only worked because was an only child at the time. I could never have made it work with more than one child to worry about. I would much prefer a child has access to their local school, not just from a practical point of view but from a sense of community. Its only right that every child gets the same opportunity.

The Bishop Basher

eviltwin wrote: »

The irony is Swanner where we live I have three schools she could have walked to and another few within a short bus or car journey. Our situation was nothing to do with religion, we had moved to a new area and she wanted to stay in the same school so we made the sacrifice but I can see the impact it made so I can completely appreciate where parents are coming from. It was a pain in the hole tbh especially in winter. It only worked because was an only child at the time. I could never have made it work with more than one child to worry about. I would much prefer a child has access to their local school, not just from a practical point of view but from a sense of community. Its only right that every child gets the same opportunity.

Your reasons may differ but you still made sacrifices to give your daughter what you felt was best.

And I hear you.. It was a pain in the hole travelling through town on a dark winters evening in the pissing rain at 12 years old getting a bus and 2 trains home.

I wouldn't put my own kids through it tbh.

They get brought to school in one of these magic buses Hotblack talks about. Costs €650 a year which is hard found so I certainly don't feel overly privileged

melissak

My daughter is not catholic but goes to a Catholic school. It is the local school and I wanted her to have friends in the area. I had started her in a gaelscoil partially because of the non denominational aspect but it was too hard on her and my Irish is not good enough. She loves this school and the teacher is wonderful.She does not opt out of religion class but will not be making her communion etc. I have some belief in God but not the Catholic Church, her father has no belief in God.one granny would be a bit traditional and the other not atall and we have a lot of friends with different customs and beliefs. We say some people believe.this. I believe that or daddy believes the other, rather than saying one view is right. I think because she has been exposed to different ways and cultures from small she accepts it as normal that people choose different belief systems. At least I hope so...

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh sure, I'm not denying they're comparable, but I was just wondering has the "hierarchy of discrimation" and identity politics stuff ever worked for people who identify as atheist, and have they ever been taken seriously?

Oh right, I see. You are saying that LGBT and black people consider themselves, and have (had to) to prove themselves, on the 'hierarchy of discrimination' and they do engage in identity politics. Your language seems to suggest where you stand on this 'stuff'. And you are asking do atheists see themselves as being on this hierarchy.

Ok. Well, if you are going to get nit picky about precise effects, of course gay people have never been enslaved because they are gay. There again black people have been enslaved because they were sold (literally) by their own people, which gays were not. Just 'being' gay was illegal of course, whereas being black created risk of being accused of doing things that were illegal, but not just simply being black.

So lets remove the supposition that we are comparing like with like here.

Now, as to atheists. There was an assumption (and still is in some people) that being gay was a choice, they could stop being gay if they wanted to. In the same way there is an assumption, a lot of the time, that atheists are atheist by choice, they could be religious but for some perverted reason they are not.

Yes, they could pretend to be religious, just as gays could pretend to be straight, for a quiet life, but now, hooray, gays do not have to, they have been recognised as wholly human and having rights. As we have seen, some religious do not regard atheists as entirely human, and thus their rights to equality in education can be dismissed, just as gay's rights to marriage were dismissed, again by mostly religious people.

In the same way, black people were regarded as sub-human - and there are still plenty of people around who would argue that races are not equal. Yes they suffered for their deficiency human-ness, if we go back a bit further a lot of people died for denying god or refusing a specific interpretation of him. But in both cases this is history, so there is not a lot of point pursuing it here.

Atheists do not choose to not believe in god, it is simply something that is. It is not a matter of not believing, it is a certain knowledge that there is nothing to believe in. Similar to a Christian not believing in unicorns or fairies or any of the myriad Indian gods, say. Note, I am not saying that the Christian god is like a unicorn or fairy, I am trying to demonstrate that the total non-involvement a Christian would feel towards these supernatural beings is similar to the total non-involvement an atheist would feel towards any god.

So we seem to have established that black people should not be denied rights because of their skin colour, and gays should not be discriminated against because of an aspect of their gender identity and something in their make-up that we do not entirely understand yet, but accept. Indeed we can throw women into the argument and say that it has been agreed that they should not be discriminated against (in all the above ways I would add) because of their gender (except of course in the Catholic church).

So if atheism is a genuine state of mind that cannot accept the imposition of religious ideas, how much battling has to be done to grant 'full human status' and a right to independent thought?

So far, the church's view that homosexuality was 'wrong' and women were inferior has been largely overturned in the wider population's attitudes, and rights have been achieved. We cannot expect the church to make any progress on attitudes to atheism as it is even more threatening than gays or women, but inevitably the wider population will realise that following the dictates of authority from Rome is not as necessary as it appears to be.

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

So what would you like the Government to do ?

If you live in an area that is unviable for a school of your preference you have a few options.

1. Move
2. Get enough people to move there to make it viable.
3. Any of the options I mentioned above

In other words, no one is going to come and sort it for you.

Best of luck with it. I don't have an issue with removing discrimination in enrolment as long as the Government or somebody else takes over the funding currently provided by the church, the parents and the wider community.

It's a complicated issue and really for another discussion but it certainly needs to be tackled one way or another.

I presume there is no point in pointing out the idiocy and complete unreasonableness of your solutions? Move house or get more people of the same view to move to you area? Seriously? Have a word.

I am interested in your second last sentence. This is something that has been mentioned before, and something many have ask for clarification on. Could you provide details of what funding is currently provided by the church?

Also, perhaps you might explain why if schools were no longer discriminatory parent and the wider community would stop funding them...? While you are at it, perhaps you could explain what you mean by funding in this context. Surely if parent were "funding" a school, by definition the school their kids go to, they would not stop "funding" that school simply because it no longer discriminated on the grounds of religion in its admissions policy.

That does no make any sense at all. You will need to explain it to me as I simply can't see where that mindset would come from. So, kid is at a school and I provide funding (you need to define this funding). The admission policy of the school changes, I assume my kid still goes there, but for some reason, because of an administrative change in the admissions policy I stop funding it...? Why? If I was funding my kids school before why would I stop funding it now? That seems like a bit of a dick move, and certainly not something I would do.

Are you suggesting the parents might stop funding to protest against the school stopping discrimination? I hope not cos that would mean were not actually very nice people. Dicks, in fact. Oh nos, the school no longer discriminates against innocent children that just happen to be the offspring of parent of the wrong religion. This is unacceptable, we must protest. Really?

Seriously, you need to explain your reasoning here cos my imagination is running riot with how much of a not nice person you must be.

MrP

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

Now, as to atheists. There was an assumption (and still is in some people) that being gay was a choice, they could stop being gay if they wanted to. In the same way there is an assumption, a lot of the time, that atheists are atheist by choice, they could be religious but for some perverted reason they are not.

Interesting angle but not sure about that comparison...

For starters, environment and upbringing will have a significant impact on your religious beliefs or lack of. It will have no impact on your sexual preference.

As to whether it's a choice or not is an interesting point...

If i'm a child of an atheist, who identifies as atheist, am I atheist by choice ?

The Bishop Basher

MrPudding wrote: »

I presume there is no point in pointing out the idiocy and complete unreasonableness of your solutions? Move house or get more people of the same view to move to you area? Seriously? Have a word.

I am interested in your second last sentence. This is something that has been mentioned before, and something many have ask for clarification on. Could you provide details of what funding is currently provided by the church?

Also, perhaps you might explain why if schools were no longer discriminatory parent and the wider community would stop funding them...? While you are at it, perhaps you could explain what you mean by funding in this context. Surely if parent were "funding" a school, by definition the school their kids go to, they would not stop "funding" that school simply because it no longer discriminated on the grounds of religion in its admissions policy.

That does no make any sense at all. You will need to explain it to me as I simply can't see where that mindset would come from. So, kid is at a school and I provide funding (you need to define this funding). The admission policy of the school changes, I assume my kid still goes there, but for some reason, because of an administrative change in the admissions policy I stop funding it...? Why? If I was funding my kids school before why would I stop funding it now? That seems like a bit of a dick move, and certainly not something I would do.

Are you suggesting the parents might stop funding to protest against the school stopping discrimination? I hope not cos that would mean were not actually very nice people. Dicks, in fact. Oh nos, the school no longer discriminates against innocent children that just happen to be the offspring of parent of the wrong religion. This is unacceptable, we must protest. Really?

Seriously, you need to explain your reasoning here cos my imagination is running riot with how much of a not nice person you must be.

MrP

It's all about choices Mr Pudding. You have choices. Take them or leave them I don't care. i'm only concerned with my own choices and the sacrifices needed to make them happen. What you do is totally up to you.

And with respect, discrimination in enrolment policies is a a separate topic and I'm not going to get into it here.

I do have sympathy with all sides of that discussion and as i've already said it, it will need to be tackled and some kind of compromise found but any solutions will cost money and I don't see anyone clambering to cough up for the time being.

Shrap

Swanner wrote: »

If i'm a child of an atheist, who identifies as atheist, am I atheist by choice ?

Hmm. Well, being just that person, I would still say yes as I was indeed given the choice as a child. I really wanted to believe in god at age 8 approx. It seemed to me that church looked fun, and all my friends were going, so I tagged along with first a Catholic friend and then a Protestant one. Sadly for me (at the time), it didn't take.

I tried very hard to believe that there was a man in the sky, and a devil, and that if we were good we'd go to heaven......but somehow it was like reading a story about a leprachaun and a pot of gold under the rainbow and trying to believe in it. Try as I might, I couldn't switch off the rational part of my mind (that you may think was forced on me, but I rather think just wasn't tampered with in the first place), even age 8, and couldn't get past the fiction to the belief.

So I don't really think you can say atheists (born and raised by atheist parents) have been forced/indoctrinated not to believe as if there was a choice in the matter. You can't teach a child what you don't believe. That would be like saying that a child was forced into a language or indoctrinated if they grew up learning their parent's language rather than the language of the country they were born in.