Are Atheists Shaping UK School Curriculums?

[phyzmatix]

Atheists are targeting schools in a campaign designed to challenge Christian societies, collective worship and religious education.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5219687/Atheists-target-UK-schools.html"

NOTE: For the sake of easier posting, I'd like to loosely re-define the term "atheist" to include human secularists, agnostics and any other belief system or philosophy that doesn't conform to doctrines taught by known religions.

Now to get to my point. This move by the AHS has validity in that in modern society I believe we can no longer exclude based on existing "monopolies" imposed by tradition. What I'm trying to say is that I fully support their argument that as long as Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) is taught at schools, then atheists should have the right to "promote" their own beliefs at these same institutions.

However, having said that, what do you think the chances are that atheism will join the ranks of known religions through promoting their beliefs in this manner? I was always under the impression that most atheists became atheists through thought and consideration of the facts in their possession. That not adhering to a particular faith was a conscious decision and that this process of analysis and choice formed the very foundations of atheism to start with.

Won't teaching atheism have a similar effect on open-minded thought to that of teaching any other religion? In short, don't you think this move by the AHS might be counter-productive? Producing yet another type of mindless drone blindly following ideas not fully grasped and regurgitating arguments not fully understood?

 

[misgfool]

No. The concept of atheism is really simple. Just don't believe in fairy tales. How could that possibly create drones?

 

[Moridin]

I love how Christians are blame that "atheist indoctrination" (= more education in rationality) is somehow indoctrination when Christians have been doing the indoctrination for thousands of years.

http://img.golivewire.net/ib/294459_f.gif

 

[cristo]

The (compulsory) religious education classes I experienced in school were predominantly focused on promoting tolerance of the views of others. It should be noted, firstly, that Christianity takes a major part of the timetable because the UK is a Christian country. Whether one likes it or not, the Queen whilst being the ruler of the country is also the governor of the church of england. Thus, I fully appreciate why Christianity takes up a large proportion of the timetable.

However, I also had classes on Buddhism, Judaism, Islam (and probably some others I can't remember) as part of a wide curriculum aimed at instilling some cultural and religious knowledge in the students. Atheism isn't really a religion in the same sense that the main religions are, thus I don't see how it could be taught in a similar way. I guess a lesson or two could be included to gain a knowledge of peoples who do not believe in theism, but I don't know how much can be taught here that will be of any benefit. After all, isn't that what science classes are for?

 

[Jack21222]

I love how Christians are blame that "atheist indoctrination" (= more education in rationality) is somehow indoctrination when Christians have been doing the indoctrination for thousands of years.

http://img.golivewire.net/ib/294459_f.gif

[/URL]

A little off topic, but that graph reminds me of

 

[siddharth]

Won't teaching atheism have a similar effect on open-minded thought to that of teaching any other religion? In short, don't you think this move by the AHS might be counter-productive? Producing yet another type of mindless drone blindly following ideas not fully grasped and regurgitating arguments not fully understood?

And what are the AHS actually trying to do?

The AHS does not and would never seek to challenge religious education in the manner that article predominantly suggests. The AHS strongly believes in the importance of a balanced, impartial and full religious education and would support the introduction of a national RE curriculum to ensure standards are met.

In brief, here is a summary of the purpose of helping students found their own atheist, humanist and secularist groups:

* To teach students how to debate and create dialogue between school faith groups.
* Provide the school with fun and educational events and activities, including two student-led courses: ‘Perspectives’ in which a speaker from a faith group gives a talk followed by Q&A, and our ‘One Life’ course, which considers moral and ethical issues without god. Many events will also support the scientific curriculum.
* Encourage charity volunteering.
* Give students the experience of running a group and managing events.
* Show students that it’s ok not to believe in god and encourage critical thinking.
* Bring out issues concerning religious privilege in schools such as collective worship and incomplete or biased religious education.

http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk/press/releases/3


Not so bad now, eh?

 

[mgb_phys]

The (compulsory) religious education classes I experienced in school were predominantly focused on promoting tolerance of the views of others.

I went to a catholic school in the UK in the 80s where RE was taught by Irish nuns.
I was taught that:
Jews were responsible for killing Jesus.
Indians were starving because they refused to eat cows (although starving Africans was somehow my fault if I ate sweets?)
The church of england was responsible for killing millions of catholics. We had to learn the names of 40 of them by heart - it was only years after leaving school I discovered the Thomas Moore wasn't a very nice man.

I would welcome Atheists targeting UK schools (I would also welcome apache attack helicopters targeting nuns - but's that's just a personal thing).

 

[cristo]

I went to a catholic school in the UK in the 80s where RE was taught by Irish nuns.

Well that's your fault for going to a catholic school! I doubt things are taught like that nowadays, though.

 

[WhoWee]

The (compulsory) religious education classes I experienced in school were predominantly focused on promoting tolerance of the views of others. It should be noted, firstly, that Christianity takes a major part of the timetable because the UK is a Christian country. Whether one likes it or not, the Queen whilst being the ruler of the country is also the governor of the church of england. Thus, I fully appreciate why Christianity takes up a large proportion of the timetable.

However, I also had classes on Buddhism, Judaism, Islam (and probably some others I can't remember) as part of a wide curriculum aimed at instilling some cultural and religious knowledge in the students. Atheism isn't really a religion in the same sense that the main religions are, thus I don't see how it could be taught in a similar way. I guess a lesson or two could be included to gain a knowledge of peoples who do not believe in theism, but I don't know how much can be taught here that will be of any benefit. After all, isn't that what science classes are for?

The rules...10 Commandments...are the basis of our laws.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm

Off the top of my head...don't kill, don't cheat on spouse, don't steal, don't lie...all things I want to teach my kids.

 

[mgb_phys]

Well that's your fault for going to a catholic school!

Yeah - they never seem to ask the kids which school they want to go to.

I doubt things are taught like that nowadays, though.

Well not now that the church is run by a bunch of multicultural ecumenical questioning liberals. And I think all the nuns died off (they don't breed well in captivity)

 

[rootX]

The rules...10 Commandments...are the basis of our laws.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm

Off the top of my head...don't kill, don't cheat on spouse, don't steal, don't lie...all things I want to teach my kids.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

This looks very vague. It tells me to be a pacifists? and vegetarian*

 

[mgb_phys]

This looks very vague. It tells me to be a pacifists?

No it doesn't count if they are people God doesn't like.

 

[WhoWee]

No it doesn't count if they are people God doesn't like.

Which religion are you referring to...it's not Christianity...or Islam, or Judaism, or anything else I can think of?

 

[phyzmatix]

Not so bad now, eh?

Not at all...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The rules...10 Commandments...are the basis of our laws.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm.

I don't agree that they are the basis for our laws. Only 2 of the 10, don't murder and don't steal, are laws in the US. Well 2 and a half, bearing false witness is illegal in some circumstances. We even have laws specifically allowing some commandments to be broken.

US law is actually based on English Common Law which is itself based on the various Lex Romana codes of the Germanic peoples. These were laws for people of the old Roman Empire living under various Germanic dominance. Those laws are based in turn on Roman law which goes back in time at least to Lex Julia of 90 BC.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't agree that they are the basis for our laws. Only 2 of the 10, don't murder and don't steal, are laws in the US. Well 2 and a half, bearing false witness is illegal in some circumstances. We even have laws specifically allowing some commandments to be broken.

US law is actually based on English Common Law which is itself based on the various Lex Romana codes of the Germanic peoples. These were laws for people of the old Roman Empire living under various Germanic dominance. Those laws are based in turn on Roman law which goes back in time at least to Lex Julia of 90 BC.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html


The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


It seems to me God had some influence...how does your interpretation differ?

 

[mgb_phys]

Which religion are you referring to...it's not Christianity...or Islam, or Judaism, or anything else I can think of?

Well obviously - none of those have ever killed anybody because God said so

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

The Declaration is not US law, the Constitution is. I said that the 10 commandments are not the basis for US law. I did not say that G-d did or did not have "some influence".

 

[WhoWee]

The Declaration is not US law, the Constitution is. I said that the 10 commandments are not the basis for US law. I did not say that G-d did or did not have "some influence".

It's spelled GOD.

 

[WhoWee]

Well obviously - none of those have ever killed anybody because God said so

None of them prescribe murder. It's the gun argument...guns don't kill people...people do. The religions don't kill people...

I'm not saying religion isn't used as an excuse.

 

[mgb_phys]

It's spelled GOD.

It's spelt הֹוָה

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's spelt הֹוָה

I decline to write it correctly, but what you have written is incorrect. Who wee, I decline to write that word correctly as a matter of respect, not as an effort to raise your blood pressure. Please allow me this conceit.

 

[Evo]

It's spelled GOD.

Most of our founding fathers were deists.

Deism is a philosophical belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason, and observation of the natural world alone. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth and religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian,[1] Islamic and Judaic teachings.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe which that Architect does not alter either by intervening in the affairs of human life or suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

see also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States

 

[WhoWee]

I decline to write it correctly, but what you have written is incorrect. Who wee, I decline to write that word correctly as a matter of respect, not as an effort to raise your blood pressure. Please allow me this conceit.

As a young man told me Sunday, as I returned a shopping cart to the designated area, "knock youself out".

 

[WhoWee]

Most of our founding fathers were deists.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

see also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States

Evo...you quoted Wiki. That's all.

 

[Evo]

Evo...you quoted Wiki. That's all.

Yes, I do when I'm busy. Of course an hour from now it could be an article about telepathically visiting Alpha Centauri.

 

[Moridin]

The rules...10 Commandments...are the basis of our laws.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm

Off the top of my head...don't kill, don't cheat on spouse, don't steal, don't lie...all things I want to teach my kids.

Yet the old testament supports genocide after genocide after genocide and the new testament supports taxation (theft)! :)

Cognitivie dissonance at it's best.

 

[kasse]

Won't teaching atheism have a similar effect on open-minded thought to that of teaching any other religion?

No, atheism is not a religion. What Dawkins wants, is not to indoctrinate children, but to teach them some critical thinking.

In short, don't you think this move by the AHS might be counter-productive?

No. Why would it?

 

[kasse]

Christianity takes a major part of the timetable because the UK is a Christian country. Whether one likes it or not, the Queen whilst being the ruler of the country is also the governor of the church of england. Thus, I fully appreciate why Christianity takes up a large proportion of the timetable.

You appreciate Christianity because the UK is a Christian country? Is that an argument? What if the UK were a Nazi country?

 

[phyzmatix]

No. Why would it?

Before siddharth posted this link

http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk/press/releases/3

I wasn't sure what their intentions were, which is why I started this discussion in the first place. For whatever reason, my initial perception of the AHS (based on the newspaper article only) was that they were "fanatic" in their approach. Had that been the case their MO could easily have been that of simply spewing out "counter-religionist" type slogans in an automated, "quote it from the book" type scenario, which is why I asked the questions I did in the OP.

On hindsight I should've done more research first

 

[Moridin]

Richard Dawkins is so militant in his atheism. He writes articles, holds talks and get this, even writes books on occasion. This militancy could very well rival fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics or Islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings... and now he is trying to indoctrinate our children into this way of thinking. Sacrilegious!

 

[Raizy]

They should replace religion class with basic philosophy or basic psychology starting from elementary school.

 

[cristo]

Is that an argument?

I wasn't aware I was arguing against anyone: I was merely saying why I appreciate that christianity takes up a large proportion of the religious education in the UK.

Naziism isn't a religion, thus your point is moot.

 

[Doc Al]

Richard Dawkins is so militant in his atheism. He writes articles, holds talks and get this, even writes books on occasion. This militancy could very well rival fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics or Islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings... and now he is trying to indoctrinate our children into this way of thinking. Sacrilegious!

Good one.

 

[phyzmatix]

Richard Dawkins is so militant in his atheism. He writes articles, holds talks and get this, even writes books on occasion. This militancy could very well rival fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics or Islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings... and now he is trying to indoctrinate our children into this way of thinking. Sacrilegious!

Thanks for the introduction to Poe's Law!

 

[mgb_phys]

Thanks for the introduction to Poe's Law!

Brilliant - I never knew there was a name for that.

 

[WhoWee]

This post is my opinion.

I believe the old saying is..."If a void exists in the heart...eventually something will fill it".

As a parent, I want a balanced and positive message reinforced in the schools. I don't think religion should be taught in the public school system.

However, a general message of tell the truth, be nice and courteous to other people, be honest, never cheat, be respectful of others, be faithful to your friends, family and mate, help other people when you can, have a strong work (and study ethic), think for yourself (and be aware of the people that want you to worship them or what they tell you), protect other people and their property, and life is sacred - never murder anyone are all acceptable and positive. Kids need guidance and structure.

These ideas don't need to be labeled religious. But if you don't teach these positive ideas...what would you propose they be replaced with...lie when it's convenient, don't get caught cheating, steal a little if you need to - just don't get caught?

My point is this, when you water something down or compromises are made with respect to rules...the rules are weakened. We shouldn't care where the rules come from...if they are generally accepted as positive and teach humanity.

An anti-religion message, overall, is negative, restrictive and suggests that the rules (again -the 10 Commandments - 1 or all) are wrong...that is a slippery slope.

Just because someone beats a murder charge doesn't mean they were right.

Again, this post is my opinion.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God . . . .

It seems to me God had some influence...how does your interpretation differ?

It looks like Nature had a prominent influence. It seems that Nature has primacy.

Out of respect for G_d, many Jews, particular observant Jews, write G_d so as not to take name of G_d in vain, or to protect the intrinsic holiness.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

My point is this, when you water something down or compromises are made with respect to rules...the rules are weakened. We shouldn't care where the rules come from...if they are generally accepted as positive and teach humanity.

An anti-religion message, overall, is negative, restrictive and suggests that the rules (again -the 10 Commandments - 1 or all) are wrong...that is a slippery slope.

I don't hold any beliefs but I wouldn't say I'm anti-religion. To be honest, I'm happy to have people believing in whatever they want if they keep it to themselves - and that's where the problem enters for me with religion. There have been too many instances throughout the ages where religion has forced itself into areas it doesn't belong and as a result has, many times, been counter-productive for the progress of humanity - as recently as the suggestions from the Pope that use of condoms actually spreads AIDS.

I'm happy for people to do and think whatever they want in the comfort of their own home - free thinking and belief is one of the great things in the world, but when I see baseless ideas that are actively promoting information that contravene scientific fact, I can't help but feel that it is dangerous. Not everyone in the world has access to the same education and resources that we do - thus many people aren't in a position to come to sensible conclucison about certain topics, in these cases there will be people that will believe whatever they are told and I feel that some religions take advantage of this to promote their own adgenda.

(I will just say as well, that I feel the teachings of some religions can be useful in showing certain elements of morality - stories are a good way to do that but I would say however that these are by no means necessary so for me, it isn't a good enough argument for preaching.)

Back to WhoWee, I also think that the 'it is just my opinion' is somewhat unnecessary - we can see that by virtue of the fact that you wrote it! :), I would like to think that the community that exists here wouldn't attack anyone for personal thoughts anyway.

 

[Astronuc]

However, a general message of tell the truth, be nice and courteous to other people, be honest, never cheat, be respectful of others, be faithful to your friends, family and mate, help other people when you can, have a strong work (and study ethic), think for yourself (and be aware of the people that want you to worship them or what they tell you), protect other people and their property, and life is sacred - never murder anyone are all acceptable and positive. Kids need guidance and structure.

Absolutely, I agree. That's morality and ethics (values) - and that doesn't require a formal religious or theistic position.

These ideas don't need to be labeled religious. But if you don't teach these positive ideas...what would you propose they be replaced with...lie when it's convenient, don't get caught cheating, steal a little if you need to - just don't get caught?

I'm not aware that atheists are proposing not teaching positive ideas. On the other hand, I've seen people who claim to be religious engage in such behavior as "lie when it's convenient, don't get caught cheating, steal a little if you need to - just don't get caught".

My point is this, when you water something down or compromises are made with respect to rules...the rules are weakened. We shouldn't care where the rules come from...if they are generally accepted as positive and teach humanity.

I don't see where atheists are try to water down or compromise on respect for rules, or ethics or morality. I do see common ground among atheists and theists in this regard.

 

[rootX]

None of them prescribe murder. It's the gun argument...guns don't kill people...people do. The religions don't kill people...

Does that exclude human/animal sacrifices or witchcraft?
I would love the idea of teaching the importance of religions, manipulations in them, religious dogma, and why they shouldn't be trusted blindly.

 

[jobyts]

It's spelled GOD.

Evo has automatic parsing for keywords like "GOD", "religion". If it hits, she wakes up even at 3:00 in the morning, and locks the thread. Better not to mention the exact spelling

Let's see how long my post lasts...

 

[mgb_phys]

Evo has automatic parsing for keywords like "GOD", "religion".

with her record she really can't risk any thunderbolts on top of life's other little adventures.

 

[Moridin]

Brilliant - I never knew there was a name for that.

There is even something called Poe's paradox -- there is at least one fundamentalist who will think that a statement by another fundamentalist is indistinguishable from a parody. This was made most obvious in the conservapedia issue; as a liberal you could easily be banned from editing because of your position, but holding a conservative position could give you a ban as well because it could be viewed as parody. An even more (outrageous) example is that some conservatives think that Fred Phelps is a deep cover liberal who tries to put real conservatives to shame for their "rational" homophobia.

 

[Moridin]

I wasn't aware I was arguing against anyone: I was merely saying why I appreciate that christianity takes up a large proportion of the religious education in the UK.

Naziism isn't a religion, thus your point is moot.

The Nazism that was prevalent in Germany at the time shares many core features of a religion -- an omnipotent leader, infallible literature, the belief in themselves as chosen or superior, the preference of ideology over evidence, specific rituals, anti-scientific mythology and signs and so on to the extent that Nazism and Stalinist communism has been referred to as "political religions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion

The "missing link" between political religions and "real" religions like the world religions is of course things like earlier emperors of Japan, for instance, who actually was considered as gods by the populace.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Does that exclude human/animal sacrifices or witchcraft?

Witchcraft? Do you know anything about witchcraft? Or even the actual prevelence of human and animal sacrifice in religion?

The Nazism that was prevalent in Germany at the time shares many core features of a religion -- an omnipotent leader, infallible literature, the belief in themselves as chosen or superior, the preference of ideology over evidence, specific rituals, anti-scientific mythology and signs and so on to the extent that Nazism and Stalinist communism has been referred to as "political religions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion

The "missing link" between political religions and "real" religions like the world religions is of course things like earlier emperors of Japan, for instance, who actually was considered as gods by the populace.

I believe Cristo's point (and I could be wrong of course)is that the UK has a history of separatism and oppression primarily in regards to various sects of the chirstian faith. From a historical stand point and due to the incredibly large number of christians from various sects in the area it makes sense that a class regarding religion and tolerance/acceptance of others beliefs would focus greatly on christianity.
Your bringing Nazism into the equation... I have no idea what that's all about really.

 

[Moridin]

I did not bring Nazism into the discussion -- that was made by kasse, I simply responded to a short remark made by cristo.

 

[cristo]

I did not bring Nazism into the discussion -- that was made by kasse, I simply responded to a short remark made by cristo.

A short remark? Naziism is a political viewpoint, whereas this thread is discussing the teaching of religion in schools. The whole point I was trying to make is that the UK is fundamentally a Christian country. This has nothing to do with the political party that is in power. In fact, if you look at the structure of the country, the monarch is at the top of the tree, as head of state and defender of the faith; below her comes the political leader and parliament.

The comparison to Naziisim is moot for several reasons. The UK is not a Nazi country, and even if it were, this makes no difference to my point, since (as mentioned above) politics comes second in the set up of the country. [Of course, one could argue that because of this set up, the UK would never become a Nazi country anyway, but that also isn't too relevant here].

Note that I'm not religious in any way, but I'm merely saying that I respect why christianity is taught as the major part of religious education: namely because it is one of the foundations of the country!

 

[signerror]

Note that I'm not religious in any way, but I'm merely saying that I respect why christianity is taught as the major part of religious education: namely because it is one of the foundations of the country!

Then shouldn't it belong in a history class? Monarchs cutting each others' throats is also one of the foundations of that country, but I don't see schools making a class out of it.

 

[cristo]

Then shouldn't it belong in a history class?

Certainly the political/historial side should be taught in history classes, but the religious side should be taught in religious education classes (along with all the other religions which, as I said early on in this thread, were taught in my religious education classes).