Atheists target UK schools

[arunma]

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.

If I may offer a friendly correction here, this practice doesn't actually relate to taking God's name in vain. Here's the reason:

Writing the Name of God

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Hei (10-5), is normally written as Teit-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Hei is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.

Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

Interesting rule. I wonder what the convention is for chalkboards?

 

[WhoWee]

I see no reason to defend the Telegraph's mud slingging article.

I will however defend this: http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk/press/releases/3"
The AHS's actual goals.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the atheists want to promote a RE format. Religion should be taught (in full context) in a Church, not in a school system.

 

[robertm]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the atheists want to promote a RE format. Religion should be taught (in full context) in a Church, not in a school system.

Understanding the roles that the many different forms of religious belief have played in human history is, I think, worthwhile to study. Unless you assume that religion is something more than a cultural phenomenon, there is no reason that all its many forms, implications, and preachments should not be laid open for all to see.

However, most religious people want to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. they want a particular brand of culture and belief to be given an understood preference in the classroom.

Oh, by the way, nothing is taught in any church, christian or otherwise, things are simple asserted.

 

[drankin]

Oh, by the way, nothing is taught in any church, christian or otherwise, things are simple asserted.

The there is no such thing as "Sunday School" it's really just "Assertion School"? No, "things" are taught at church.

 

[robertm]

It depends on your definition of taught.

I guess you could learn by being 'taught', without any recourse to the method of teaching or the quality of the material.

I actually quite like the ring of Assertion School. I think it to be very appropriate for my own experience of sunday school in any case.

 

[WhoWee]

Understanding the roles that the many different forms of religious belief have played in human history is, I think, worthwhile to study. Unless you assume that religion is something more than a cultural phenomenon, there is no reason that all its many forms, implications, and preachments should not be laid open for all to see.

However, most religious people want to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. they want a particular brand of culture and belief to be given an understood preference in the classroom.

Oh, by the way, nothing is taught in any church, christian or otherwise, things are simple asserted.

Typically, story telling is the chosen method of teaching in a Church. Often, the presiding person will explain how the story relates to modern life. Most of the stories are chosen to support positive reinforcement and provide a framework for a good life.

As for using religion to teach history...if we can't agree that the Commandments of don't kill, steal or lie/cheat have an influence on our laws...how will religious leaders ever trust (the Liberal Left) educators to focus on historical fact and not "preach" an anti-religion message from the textbook?

The double standard applies both ways.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/us-creationism-teacher-first-amendment
I guess you have to be careful how you teach atheism.

 

[Gokul43201]

As for using religion to teach history...if we can't agree that the Commandments of don't kill, steal or lie/cheat have an influence on our laws...how will religious leaders ever trust (the Liberal Left) educators to focus on historical fact and not "preach" an anti-religion message from the textbook?

Say what?

I'm glad the Commandments are not the basis for the laws, or we'd have laws that demand religious intolerance, censorship of expression, imprisonment one day of every week, and other such doozies! Incidentally, "don't kill, don't steal, and don't defraud" are laws in virtually every country in the world, whether it be Japan, China, India, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sweden or Jamaica.

And what on Earth does this have to do with teaching history and trusting the Liberal Left?

Jesus Christ!

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/us-creationism-teacher-first-amendment
I guess you have to be careful how you teach atheism.

Again, how do you "teach" a belief in no belief? All you can do is attack ALL of the major religions...not just Christianity.

Just out of curiosity...why is it that atheists aren't targeting Muslims...they are much more disciplined.

 

[WhoWee]

Say what?

I'm glad the Commandments are not the basis for the laws, or we'd have laws that demand religious intolerance, censorship of expression, imprisonment one day of every week, and other such doozies! Incidentally, "don't kill, don't steal, and don't defraud" are laws in virtually every country in the world, whether it be Japan, China, India, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sweden or Jamaica.

And what on Earth does this have to do with teaching history and trusting the Liberal Left?

Jesus Christ!

I believe you've made my point obvious to all of the objective people.

 

[BoomBoom]

Again, how do you "teach" a belief in no belief? All you can do is attack ALL of the major religions...not just Christianity.

Just out of curiosity...why is it that atheists aren't targeting Muslims...they are much more disciplined.

Who is being "attacked" or "targeted"? Atheists have been attacked throughout history...whether it be by imprisonment, torture, or even murder. How can a frank discussion of reality possibly be construed as an attack??

 

[drankin]

Who is being "attacked" or "targeted"? Atheists have been attacked throughout history...whether it be by imprisonment, torture, or even murder. How can a frank discussion of reality possibly be construed as an attack??

When is that last time atheists have been "attacked" in recent history?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Again, how do you "teach" a belief in no belief? All you can do is attack ALL of the major religions...not just Christianity.

Just out of curiosity...why is it that atheists aren't targeting Muslims...they are much more disciplined.

I have avoided this discussion since it has already been brought up and beat to death several times. Suffice it to say that I consider atheism a belief system. I know that most of the people here will disagree with me and none of us are likely to change our perspectives so I prefer not to argue the matter with any one.
As for what would be taught? The idea that there are scientific explanations for everything and that they can be just as beautiful and meaningful as godly miracles. The idea that morals/ethics can be determined through logical analysis. Just a couple ideas.

When is that last time atheists have been "attacked" in recent history?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/...-after-being-harassed-by-local-christians.htm
And there are plenty of similar stories about teachers, american soldiers, and many others that I have heard about in recent years.

 

[drankin]

I have avoided this discussion since it has already been brought up and beat to death several times. Suffice it to say that I consider atheism a belief system. I know that most of the people here will disagree with me and none of us are likely to change our perspectives so I prefer not to argue the matter with any one.
As for what would be taught? The idea that there are scientific explanations for everything and that they can be just as beautiful and meaningful as godly miracles. The idea that morals/ethics can be determined through logical analysis. Just a couple ideas.


http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/...-after-being-harassed-by-local-christians.htm
And there are plenty of similar stories about teachers, american soldiers, and many others that I have heard about in recent years.

Sorry, that doesn't qualify. Not that it doesn't happen both ways, but being an atheist doesn't make a person a target for aggression by the Christian community. There may be heated debates that digress to immaturity but that's about all anyone with a belief system (or lack there-of) will have to endure. As evident on this forum, you are more likely to be attacked (via posts) if you side with anything "Christian" oriented.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sorry, that doesn't qualify. Not that it doesn't happen both ways, but being an atheist doesn't make a person a target for aggression by the Christian community. There may be heated debates that digress to immaturity but that's about all anyone with a belief system (or lack there-of) will have to endure. As evident on this forum, you are more likely to be attacked (via posts) if you side with anything "Christian" oriented.

This is PF where you have many scientists and scientifically minded individuals, a group that is statistically composed primarily of non-religious people. That is likely what you will get here.

You asked about the last time atheists were "attacked". It happens fairly often. People are physically threatened, lose their jobs, and are just generally harassed and derided on a fairly regular basis. When I was a little kid I had other little kids telling me I was going to go to hell when I said that jesus wasn't my savior, and I live in a liberal state.
You didn't ask about them specifically being made targets by the christian community. You don't need a community painting a target on your back for their members to kick you in the pants.

 

[WhoWee]

I have avoided this discussion since it has already been brought up and beat to death several times. Suffice it to say that I consider atheism a belief system. I know that most of the people here will disagree with me and none of us are likely to change our perspectives so I prefer not to argue the matter with any one.
As for what would be taught? The idea that there are scientific explanations for everything and that they can be just as beautiful and meaningful as godly miracles. The idea that morals/ethics can be determined through logical analysis. Just a couple ideas.

Isn't science ...and evolution in particular...already in the standard curriculum?

Your "beautiful and meaningful" description sounds good, but what do atheists actually want to change? If the answer is to "teach" that God doesn't exist...then the debate will continue.

 

[Fredrik]

I believe you've made my point obvious to all of the objective people.

No, he actually refuted your point. If "don't kill" is the law in all the countries where the influence of christianity is very small, then it makes very little sense to claim that the reason why murder is against the law in your country is influence from the commandments.

You asked about the last time atheists were "attacked". It happens fairly often. People are physically threatened, lose their jobs, and are just generally harassed and derided on a fairly regular basis. When I was a little kid I had other little kids telling me I was going to go to hell when I said that jesus wasn't my savior, and I live in a liberal state.

I've heard that from other sources as well, so I don't doubt it, but I have to say that all those things are as strange to me as dressing women in beekeeper suits is to people in your country.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, he actually refuted your point.

Oops! I think you've just joined me (along with jimmysnyder, hans and mgb_phys) in getting kicked out of Whowee's list of "all the objective people".

 

[WhoWee]

Oops! I think you've just joined me (along with jimmysnyder, hans and mgb_phys) in getting kicked out of Whowee's list of "all the objective people".

I do whatever I can to unite people.

(sidenote...Gee, isn't that what Obama is doing?)

 

[Astronuc]

Understanding the roles that the many different forms of religious belief have played in human history is, I think, worthwhile to study. Unless you assume that religion is something more than a cultural phenomenon, there is no reason that all its many forms, implications, and preachments should not be laid open for all to see.

However, most religious people want to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. they want a particular brand of culture and belief to be given an understood preference in the classroom.

Oh, by the way, nothing is taught in any church, christian or otherwise, things are simple asserted.

I would disagree with the last statement. I taught Sunday school classes for several years. The lesson/discussion topics included history, comparative religion, morals and ethics. While the class was at a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship/Church, I did include all the major religions, as well as some not so major. I also served on the Fellowship board for three years.

I'm neither a theist (at least not a traditional one) or atheist, but perhaps more of an agnostic. It's not something I really worry about.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't science ...and evolution in particular...already in the standard curriculum?

Your "beautiful and meaningful" description sounds good, but what do atheists actually want to change? If the answer is to "teach" that God doesn't exist...then the debate will continue.

Science class teaches science. It does not necessarily teach any philosophy or belief system that embraces science and reason as something deeply meaningful. While some so-called "militant" atheists may wish to push the idea that there is no god the general idea really is that answers, inspiration, and a meaningful life can be found outside of gods and holy books.

 

[Evo]

Closed pending moderation decision.