It's actually a requirement to hold a 'broadly Christian' act of worship every day in all state schools. They must do it.

A lot of people don't bother complaining because they don't see anything wrong with it, but yes, if one does see something wrong with it one can complain.

nunnington wrote:I thought that in the UK, it is now illegal to teach any religion as fact in the class-room. I guess this excludes religious assembly, and the like. Thus religion must be discussed like anything else, in the neutral 3rd person.

Is this wrong? What's the situation in other countries?

I know there are approximately 7000 "Faith schools" in the UK, how they operate I admit to being clueless about.

Here is a link that you might find useful though.

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/faithschools/

Religious education and collective worship: in VA faith schools the syllabus is decided by the governing body in accordance with the trust deeds of the school, so the school will usually teach denominational religious education in accordance with the tenets of the faith of the school. Foundation and VC faith schools follow the locally agreed syllabus, although parents may request that their child receives religious education in accordance with the tenets of the faith.

That does seem to suggest that religion is taught as fact though.

Fallible

Yeah, they must do it, but some of them don't.

How do you know that?

Fallible

"More than 230 schools have applied to councils for exemption from the legal requirement to hold a daily act of collective worship of a "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"." Daily Telegraph 9 Jan 2010

I also talk to teachers who tell me that their schools have not applied for exemption, but have what is in effect a secular assembly or multi-faith one.

In addition, the law was changed so that 51% of assemblies must be Christian, but I think some heads interpret this as 1%.

Nunnington, there are nearly 25,000 schools in England alone. 230 of them may have applied for exemption - not, by the way, all in favour of secular assemblies, but largely in favour of Islamic and 'multi-faith worship' - but it is still an obligation as laid down in the Education Act , and most comply; the vast majority in fact, going by the number you provided.

Collective worship

(1) Subject to section 389, all pupils in attendance at a maintained school other than a maintained special school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.

(2) The arrangements for the collective worship in a school required by this section may, in respect of each school day, provide for a single act of worship for all pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups...

..(2)The collective worship required in the school by section 385 shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), collective worship is of a broadly Christian character if it reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief without being distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.

(4) Not every act of collective worship in the school required by section 385 need comply with subsection (2) provided that, taking any school term as a whole, most such acts which take place in the school do comply with that subsection.

It happens at my daughter's school, it happened in my schools (I went to a lot of schools), it happened in every school my husband ever taught in. It happens in the one he teaches in now. Since the vast majority of people who are theists in this country are Christians, and since many people never bother to question this, the vast majority of schools have a daily act of broadly Christian worship the majority of the time, and I would not be surprised if most of them had that most, if not all, of the time.

Fallible wrote:It's actually a requirement to hold a 'broadly Christian' act of worship every day in all state schools. They must do it.

A lot of people don't bother complaining because they don't see anything wrong with it, but yes, if one does see something wrong with it one can complain.

No, you misunderstand the law as it applies to the UK. Technically (which means in practice) only 51% of school days each term need to have an act of worship which is broadly christian in nature. At my daughter's primary school there is NO daily assembly, religious or otherwise because there is NO requirement to hold a such a daily assembly. An assembly is held once a week and is secular in nature simply referring to the ethical dimensions of faith and this practice is within the law and has been approved by OFSTED. In any case teachers of no faith are exempted from having to participate and/or conduct any religious assembly in school. Therefore any school with no teachers of faith are not able to have a religious assembly. Further, parents have the right to withdraw their child from a religious assembly. AFAIK most primary schools in my LEA (except those which are faith based) follow the same practice as my daughter's school.

"The law is clarified by non-statutory guidance in the Department for Education's Circular 1/94 (or Welsh Office Circular 10/94).

The BHA has received further government guidance to expand on this: "Although the collective worship ... should be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" only a majority of acts in each term must meet that requirement. Moreover, any act of worship can contain non-Christian material." (Letter from Cheryl Gillan MP, then Minister of State at the DfEE, November 1996, referring to guidance in paragraph 55 of Circular 1/94.)

A letter from a DfEE official in the Curriculum and Assessment Division to BHA (dated 16.9.98) re-states that, "no single act [of collective worship] need contain only Christian material", and that "secular assemblies may be held as well" [as well as broadly Christian acts of collective worship, acts broadly following other religions, or acts based around several religious traditions, on other days] – so long as the majority is broadly Christian.

Technically, this means that only 51% of school days each term need have an act of worship of a broadly Christian character.

The law is clarified by non-statutory guidance in the Department for Education's Circular 1/94 (or Welsh Office Circular 10/94)."

http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/pa ... our-rights

Seth wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:I'm showing that persistence does not mean "more useful", which you seemed to be getting at. By necessity, if I want to show that line of thinking to be in error as I have, I have to give an example of a useless or bad thing that has persisted as religion has. I think you recognize this.

But has it persisted "as religion has?" I think not. You are conflating persistence with utility and beneficial purpose.

It absolutely has persisted "as religion has". The past two hundred hears have seen revolutions in refining and institutionalizing racism. Nationalism is one of the most advanced forms of racism the world has ever seen, and it's a relatively recent invention.

Your last line accusing me of "conflation" is an odd duck, given that my sentence in bold clearly contradicts it. For that matter, the entire paragraph you yourself quoted contradicts it. You're in an odd position now, given that you made the "useful/persistent" connection that my rebuttal--that, again, you quoted and then queerly misconstrued--was aimed at. You are literally arguing against yourself at this point:

Seth wrote:That's why religion persists in human society worldwide and throughout human history. It's simply more useful than atheism to real, live human beings.

Seth wrote:You are conflating persistence with utility and beneficial purpose.

Once you've straightened yourself out I'll be happy to rejoin this conversation. As it is right now, I have no idea where you stand.

aspire1670 wrote:

Fallible wrote:It's actually a requirement to hold a 'broadly Christian' act of worship every day in all state schools. They must do it.

A lot of people don't bother complaining because they don't see anything wrong with it, but yes, if one does see something wrong with it one can complain.

No, you misunderstand the law as it applies to the UK. Technically (which means in practice) only 51% of school days each term need to have an act of worship which is broadly christian in nature. At my daughter's primary school there is NO daily assembly, religious or otherwise because there is NO requirement to hold a such a daily assembly. An assembly is held once a week and is secular in nature simply referring to the ethical dimensions of faith and this practice is within the law and has been approved by OFSTED. In any case teachers of no faith are exempted from having to participate and/or conduct any religious assembly in school. Therefore any school with no teachers of faith are not able to have a religious assembly. Further, parents have the right to withdraw their child from a religious assembly. AFAIK most primary schools in my LEA (except those which are faith based) follow the same practice as my daughter's school.

"The law is clarified by non-statutory guidance in the Department for Education's Circular 1/94 (or Welsh Office Circular 10/94).

The BHA has received further government guidance to expand on this: "Although the collective worship ... should be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" only a majority of acts in each term must meet that requirement. Moreover, any act of worship can contain non-Christian material." (Letter from Cheryl Gillan MP, then Minister of State at the DfEE, November 1996, referring to guidance in paragraph 55 of Circular 1/94.)

A letter from a DfEE official in the Curriculum and Assessment Division to BHA (dated 16.9.98) re-states that, "no single act [of collective worship] need contain only Christian material", and that "secular assemblies may be held as well" [as well as broadly Christian acts of collective worship, acts broadly following other religions, or acts based around several religious traditions, on other days] – so long as the majority is broadly Christian.

Technically, this means that only 51% of school days each term need have an act of worship of a broadly Christian character.

The law is clarified by non-statutory guidance in the Department for Education's Circular 1/94 (or Welsh Office Circular 10/94)."

http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/pa ... our-rights

I know that, I quoted the section of the act which said that over a term, the majority of days should have had an act of Christian worship myself. Where I live, the situation is very different from yours. Even the non-faith schools are full of Christian teachers, and they use the opportunities they have (that it is stipulated that schools have a daily act of broadly Christian worship - that's what it says - 'daily') to have daily Christian assemblies, and also to blur the lines between truth and opinion at other times. My daughter's school has daily Christian assemblies. My husband's school in a neighbouring LEA has daily Christian assemblies (except rarely when he takes an assembly, then he focuses on 'respect' or 'empathy' or something similar). His last school had daily Christian assemblies. What the Act means is that as long as 51% of the time there's an act of broadly Christian worship that will do as a bare minimum. And that last part is embraced around here. Since most of the people here are unthinking CofE or Catholic drones, you won't find many schools in a position where they need to be worrying about whether they've only provided 50% Christian-flavoured assemblies this term. My daughter's lot have been celebrating Easter for what seems like an eternity already, and as I said previously, this is just a normal, run of the mill county primary school.

Loren Michael wrote:

Seth wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:I'm showing that persistence does not mean "more useful", which you seemed to be getting at. By necessity, if I want to show that line of thinking to be in error as I have, I have to give an example of a useless or bad thing that has persisted as religion has. I think you recognize this.

But has it persisted "as religion has?" I think not. You are conflating persistence with utility and beneficial purpose.

It absolutely has persisted "as religion has". The past two hundred hears have seen revolutions in refining and institutionalizing racism.

I'd say this is a fallacious and unsupported claim. I'd say that the last 200 years has seen revolutions in eliminating racism worldwide. That societal conscience that racism is a bad thing is why it's persistence is not the same as the persistence of religion, which is a beneficial societal practice. The persistence of a "bad" gene is not the same thing as the evolution of beneficial genes in evolution.

Nationalism is one of the most advanced forms of racism the world has ever seen, and it's a relatively recent invention.

Nonsense. Nationalism is not inherently racist. Tribalism is, and nationalism evolved from tribalism precisely in order to provide wider social acceptance of different cultures, creeds, beliefs and yes, races. Nationalism is the reduction of racism, not the perpetuation of it.

Does anyone know what's happened with maynard? Why has he been banned?

Fallible wrote:

Once again, no one is arguing against teaching about different religions. I, like many others, am against the indoctrination of children with beliefs as truth which they cannot possibly examine critically and make up their own minds about, because they are too young and do not have the necessary tools to be able to do that. Religious parents don't give them the chance - because they themselves believe, from the moment their children arrive they are immersed in that environment. It is fed to them before they can choose to accept it or reject it so that by the time they are old enough to do that it's too late. What they have been told is true, they now believe is true.

Well, it's rather important to realize that children are, by their nature, incapable of making rational decisions and "deciding for themselves" until quite late in childhood, and some would argue not until they're about 24. Any parent knows that giving children unrestricted choices simply leads to them making bad choices that can cause them harm. One of the factual necessities of raising children is that parents must impose boundaries upon children if they are to grow up to be competent adults with well-formed personalities.

You are quite right in saying that religious parents don't give children the chance to make up their own minds about religion. This is completely intentional and purposeful. But the fallacy of your statement is the implication that it is rational, reasonable, prudent or good parenting to not make decisions and impose rules of conduct and ethical behavior on children in favor of letting them eventually make up their own minds.

The problem with this method of parenting is that it usually leads to uncontrollable children who make bad choices, usually related to hedonistic, selfish, childish pleasure-impulses, that permanently harm the child and his/her personality to the degree that they will become incompetent adults.

The reason that religious parents raise their children in their religion is because they know that their religion provides well-tested moral and ethical structures that will guide the child in proper behavior and personality formation, allowing them to become adults with well-formed and sociable personalities, rather than becoming narcissistic, deluded, selfish, incompetent adults.

The lessons of religion go far beyond mere belief in god, they go to the core of what it is to be a competent, functioning adult capable of making rational, moral judgments and controlling one's behavior so that one can be part of an adult community.

Now, do not mistake me, religion is not the ONLY way that such adult competence can be achieved, it is merely one of the BEST ways to do so. This is true because the process of educating children in proper behavior is well established and time-tested for its efficacy. There are other methodologies as well, but unfortunately, most people who are not involved in religion, and who were themselves not raised in a religion, are ill equipped to provide a comprehensive moral and ethical training program for their children. Too often they become wrapped up in their own interests and they neglect the moral and ethical training of their children, to their immense detriment. There's only one chance to teach a child, and if you miss that opportunity because you're more worried about your promotion and buying that new Beemer than you are about the moral education of your children, your children will suffer for it their whole lives.

Religion offers structure and direction both to adults and their children to make sure that the children get proper (or at least some) moral training. That's why it's so effective.

I also think it's funny that some atheists talk about indoctrination and how religion is bad, when they often themselves are perfect examples of people who have shaken off indoctrination, which proves, as if proof were needed, that if the person is willing enough to think for themselves, they'll eventually come to their own conclusions.

Some of us were exceptionally lucky and were never brought up in religion to begin with.

And many others were permanently and irrevocably damaged by NOT being brought up in religion, but instead brought up by neglectful, selfish, narcissistic parents who were unprepared to provide for their children's moral education because they themselves have no moral education to build from.

I consider myself to have had a head start over those who had to find their own way to non-belief. I greatly admire them. One could just as easily say 'the fact that there are so many religious people is proof, if proof were needed, that it is damned hard to get out of it and come to one's own conclusions'. I don't though, because there are only a very few tiny areas in which proof is possible. This isn't one of them.

The question, of course, is whether non-belief is better or more useful in a society comprised of a vast majority of believers than religion is, or does non-belief actually harm the social opportunities of the child. A corollary question is whether it is in the best interests of the child to be raised in non-belief, given the "oppression" many atheists claim their non-belief has caused them, or is it merely a narcissistic exercise on the part of the parents that fulfills their personal vision of moral rectitude at the future social expense of their children?

I just think people should be allowed to be exposed to whatever they're exposed to, and if they have what it takes to say "hey, wait a minute", they'll do that sooner or later. In fact, they'll be better off for having gone through the indoctrination, because it means that they'll have a good understanding of it. What better way to debunk religion than to have experience of it?

This seems to be arse-backwards. I think that people should be allowed to grow up in an environment free from the pushing of unfalsifiable beliefs. Why should they need to 'have what it takes' to fight their way out of it? Why should they have to do that? Why should they not be allowed to simply be exposed to all sorts of different ideas and just be given the tools for ctitical thinking, so that in time, they can weigh everything up and decide for themselves?

Because it may harm them socially and negatively affect their ability to function in a society that is overwhelmingly religious.

and they need to maintain civilized communication with them, otherwise no one will understand the other. I've spent the last ten minutes reading a few posts here and unfortunately there's a lot of aggression, and tit for tat going on. There's no need for it.

I'm sure you realise that tit for tat requires two opposing sides. Perhaps you should tell all those religious believers who try to impose their views on others with not just aggressive words on an internet forum, but violence and oppression, that they need to maintain civilized communication with non-believers, or even those of other religious beliefs.

This is an example of the broad-brush, black-and-white thinking fallacy wherein atheism is painted as a virtue and religion as a vice, without any room for recognition of the simple fact that most religious people do nothing of the kind.

It just seems like a load of old fuss about nothing. Aswell as having faith in god, I have a lot of faith in the ability of people at some point in their lives to question what they've been told.

Why the hell should children have to suffer grown men and women filling their heads up with unfounded nonsense before they are old enough to even understand the concepts they're trying to push on them? A load of fuss about nothing? Great Thor's hammer!

Because it's good for them. The lessons of religion are about morality and ethical behavior, not just god.

The question is, do we want to spend that existence turning what should be a friendly and heated discussion into a war? I get the impression that some people just want a reason to exercise their imagined intellectual superiority over others. To them, it probably wouldn't matter what the topic is, as long as they get to do that. I see it as destructive.

Yes - the fact that some people see the indoctrination of young minds before they even have a chance to form as immoral is an indication that those people are just silly know-it-alls who want to feel superior. Proof if proof were needed that religious indoctrination does no harm whatsoever.

The real harm is NOT indoctrinating young minds into moral and ethical beliefs and practices. Too many children grow up being indoctrinated into nothing by way of morals or ethics, and they grow up to be dangerous, incompetent adults who have less, not more reasoning ability.

Religion is not the only answer for proper moral and ethical indoctrination, it's just the best and most effective method of doing so that provides the most reliable results. That's why it persists in human society.

katja z wrote:Does anyone know what's happened with maynard? Why has he been banned?

feedback/permanently-banned-members-list-t2022.html

armageddo Troll (Sock puppet: maynard)

Evidently a sock puppet of a troll, incidentally I had reported him for possible trolling earlier.

tytalus wrote:

katja z wrote:Does anyone know what's happened with maynard? Why has he been banned?

feedback/permanently-banned-members-list-t2022.html

armageddo Troll (Sock puppet: maynard)

Evidently a sock puppet of a troll, incidentally I had reported him for possible trolling earlier.

Oh, thanks for clarifying. I did have a look at the permanently banned members list but I must have missed him (or maybe it hadn't yet been updated.) Well, some people just never tire of the same stupid tricks ...

Seth-

Atheism, again, is simply the lack of belief in a deity/deities. This does not mean that morals are thrown to the way-side, or lack of morals can be blamed on one not believing in said deities. Theistic Religion is in fact very effective in implementing morals in society, but it often does so in a manner that also doesn't promote critical thinking or questioning, not to mention the dogmatic beliefs in said deities, that often more than not are going to "punish" the individual in some way for not following the morals funneled via that theistic religion's philosophy and practices. This is fear and non-thinking that is keeping the individuals within a moral system and social cohesion. The fact that you seem to be saying religion (assuming theistic) is the BEST way to promote morals and cohesion amongst society is to me an insult to the intellectual capability and ability for human's to operate in a functional way without such. Many of the practices taught in various religions are indeed healthy and effective, but these can be taught in a way that does not include stories of God(s) or metaphysical punishments for swaying from the morals or rewards for being a good boy and girl.

Sincerely,
JWG

JWG wrote:Seth-

Atheism, again, is simply the lack of belief in a deity/deities.

That's the dictionary definition, but it's not necessarily how atheism is practiced by atheists in the real world.

This does not mean that morals are thrown to the way-side, or lack of morals can be blamed on one not believing in said deities.

Of course it doesn't mean that they "are," merely that religion provides a well-tested, detailed, effective and historically useful method of inculcating and supporting moral practice in large populations.

Theistic Religion is in fact very effective in implementing morals in society, but it often does so in a manner that also doesn't promote critical thinking or questioning, not to mention the dogmatic beliefs in said deities, that often more than not are going to "punish" the individual in some way for not following the morals funneled via that theistic religion's philosophy and practices.

Could it be that "critical thinking" is not necessarily all it's cracked up to be, from the societal order perspective?

Certainly the Democrats proved this week that critical thinking is not a necessary component of lawmaking. Nancy Pelosi insisted, in fact, that the lumpen proletariat simply shut the fuck up and not bother Congress with their critically-thought-out objections to the health care bill until after the non-thinking Democrats and Progressives rammed through a law they didn't even bother to read.

Socialism and Progressivism are all about suppressing critical thinking in the proletariat. Progressivism proceeds from the fundamental assumption that the proles are simply too stupid to be involved in government.

So, the question becomes, "what is the social utility of critical thinking," and it's corollary question "is a society filled with critical thinkers easier or harder for the government to control and keep satisfied?"

And then there's the fact that some of the greatest critical thinkers of history were devoutly religious, which impeaches somewhat the presumption you state that people of faith cannot think critically.

This is fear and non-thinking that is keeping the individuals within a moral system and social cohesion.

True enough. So what? Is social cohesion and moral suasion not a valid objective of society?

The fact that you seem to be saying religion (assuming theistic) is the BEST way to promote morals and cohesion amongst society is to me an insult to the intellectual capability and ability for human's to operate in a functional way without such.

If I saw more evidence that atheistic morality was socially beneficial I might agree with you. But most of the evidence that I see about atheistic morality demonstrates that it's a very, very bad idea to found a system of social order upon atheistic notions. Josef Stalin alone is adequate proof of the dangers of religion-free society.

Many of the practices taught in various religions are indeed healthy and effective, but these can be taught in a way that does not include stories of God(s) or metaphysical punishments for swaying from the morals or rewards for being a good boy and girl.

True enough, but are they? I say they aren't. I say that when religious education is suppressed, the result is an acute lack of moral education, and worse, political indoctrination masquerading as moral teaching.

Seth wrote:I'd say that the last 200 years has seen revolutions in eliminating racism worldwide. That societal conscience that racism is a bad thing is why it's persistence is not the same as the persistence of religion, which is a beneficial societal practice. The persistence of a "bad" gene is not the same thing as the evolution of beneficial genes in evolution.

Nationalism is not inherently racist. Tribalism is, and nationalism evolved from tribalism precisely in order to provide wider social acceptance of different cultures, creeds, beliefs and yes, races. Nationalism is the reduction of racism, not the perpetuation of it.

The past two hundred years have seen the rise of the nation-state, and with it, the rise of restrictive immigration policies. This is a relatively novel development in human history, and its inception in many (if not all) countries is steeped in racism. You are correct that nationalism has "provided wider social acceptance of different cultures" in a sense, insofar as it has melted them together to form larger, more pervasive ethnic identities. In France for example, Basque, German, Italian and Normandy areas combined to form the modern nation, creating a novel ethnic identity. People also started being concerned with being "French". Other nations have undergone similar changes, and nationalism has provided new and exciting ways for even larger groups of people to declare themselves "us" and all others "them". As I noted, it has created and legitimized policy tools to further segregate people in restrictive immigration laws, effectively creating large privileged areas and a southern archipelago of unprivileged areas, with a set of laws keeping people chained to the latter.

You have yet to show how religion has persisted because it's beneficial. I have noted that persistence is not indicative of utility.

Seth wrote:

JWG wrote:Seth-

Atheism, again, is simply the lack of belief in a deity/deities.

That's the dictionary definition, but it's not necessarily how atheism is practiced by atheists in the real world.

Yes it is. If they don't practice it via not believing in gods, it's not atheism.

tytalus wrote:

katja z wrote:Does anyone know what's happened with maynard? Why has he been banned?

feedback/permanently-banned-members-list-t2022.html

armageddo Troll (Sock puppet: maynard)

Evidently a sock puppet of a troll, incidentally I had reported him for possible trolling earlier.

There is one thing that I noticed. Each one of Trowbridge's assumed personalities is somewhat different that the other. "Armageddo" was this hyperactive excitable kid, jumping up and down, inviting people to fight him. "Maynard" was a neutral (seemingly elderly) pacifist, philosophical and respectful of other peoples opinions.
I'm thinking that he does this sockpuppet thing just for the thrill he probably derives by assuming these different identities having different shades of personality. He also probably derives some extra thrill from the perceived danger of assuming the role of a "theist" in a den of atheists. I won't be surprised if he assumes the role of an "atheist" on christian forums.
Any psychologists here?

Batshit crazy?