Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are teachers allowed to push religious ideas on pupils? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wtf are you people veering off and talking about theists vs atheists vs agnostics. That wasn't even the damn question...

    I don't think the headmaster should be including religious references as it is a non-religious school. If the headmaster was preaching atheism in a religious school, there would be some sort of uproar, I'd assume. Just because MOST of the school population happen to follow Christianity or whatever doesn't mean it should be preached, and it certainly doesn't prove that it is the one 'true' and 'right' religion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    It's not a cop-out, it's like a core principle of critical reasoning. Burden of proof is on the proposition. I'm a weak atheist, I'm not proposing anything, I'm just rejecting things without proof.

    Incidentally, it's entirely possible to reject religion without totally accepting Big Bang theory and evolution. You do yourself a disservice when you tie the two immutably to atheism.
    To reject religion is to propose that atheism is right, thus it is up to you to prove that atheism is right.

    Moreover, where did I tie them immutably to atheism? It's an argument that you are failing to answer. Stop dodging the bullet and bite it. Either argue how the Big Bang Theory is more logical than a higher being, or argue how any scientific theory on creation, if you prefer, is more logical than a higher being, or admit that it's not, that you can't and deal with it. I am asking you, as the proposer that your view is more logical, to prove it. Now, hop to it!

    I raise those two ideas specifically because they are the two most people have any general knowledge about. Much like how many athiests bring up the 6000 year argument for how Christianity is flawed.

    However, I tire of you evading my arguments. I have grammar class in the morning so I am off. Hope to see some decent arguments out of you tomorrow, as opposed to this semantics-game we've got going on at the moment.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Calling it nonsense is bigotry, since there is no conclusive proof that it is nonsense, no matter how much the proponents of science might wish otherwise. Science has yet to disprove the existence of a higher being, though it hasn't proven it either, so "nonsense", "rubbish", etc. are all highly prejudicial words. You would call me a bigot if I started calling the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory rubbish, despite the flaws in the former and the lack of any proof whatsoever for the latter.

    Athiests who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that they do not know and have no way of disproving the existence of a higher being and attack, even passively as is this case, the beliefs of thiest are bigots and as bad as any religious fanatic who attacks non-believers.
    The redshift?

    And it's extremely bigoted of the school to assume everyone wants to listen to the same preaching; religion is a choice and noone, of different faith or of no faith should be forced to be preached at.

    Nor should the state be paying for the religious indoctrination of children.

    :clip:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    it's a state school, we have a state religion. where's the surprise?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Hylean)
    To reject religion is to propose that atheism is right, thus it is up to you to prove that atheism is right.

    Moreover, where did I tie them immutably to atheism? It's an argument that you are failing to answer. Stop dodging the bullet and bite it. Either argue how the Big Bang Theory is more logical than a higher being, or argue how any scientific theory on creation, if you prefer, is more logical than a higher being, or admit that it's not, that you can't and deal with it. I am asking you, as the proposer that your view is more logical, to prove it. Now, hop to it!

    I raise those two ideas specifically because they are the two most people have any general knowledge about. Much like how many athiests bring up the 6000 year argument for how Christianity is flawed.

    However, I tire of you evading my arguments. I have grammar class in the morning so I am off. Hope to see some decent arguments out of you tomorrow, as opposed to this semantics-game we've got going on at the moment.
    I am a weak atheist. I do not propose anything, I merely reject propositions which are unfounded. I do not claim that deities could not exist. I do not claim to know with absolutely certainty that deities do not exist. I merely de facto know that deities do not exist as there is no definitive evidence which proves their existence with no alternative explanations. Were I a strong atheist, I would be proposing that deities do not exist, and thus I would have a burden of proof on me, but I am not, so that is not an issue.

    As a theist, you are directly proposing that deities do exist. You are not claiming that it is possible that they exist, but saying that, not only do they exist in general, but you know with absolute certainty that one or more specific ones exist while no others do. This is a position of proposition, thus the burden of proof rests on you, rather than people who reject your claim as unproven, as they they are not asserting anything but rather rejecting an unfounded assertion.

    Keep in mind, though, that simply reasons why your deities might exist is not proof of their existence. Take creation, which you cited, for example. While it is possible that your deity had a hand in it, is is equally possible that it was caused by the Big Bang, or another entirely different cosmological creation theory, or it was the work of the Titans, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodley appendages. As there is no definitive proof that one of these occurred above all others, it is not rational to choose one and claim that it occurred while none of the others did.

    And yes, it is true, for example, that science has yet, as far as I am aware, to answer exactly what started the Big Bang process, but the key point is that science does not claim to have an answer, because it does not know of one. Religion, on the other hand, claims to have certain answers without a basis for choosing the specifics of those answers over others, which is illogical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iheartbugmenot23)
    Ok, saying they are being pushed on pupils is a strong way of putting it, but my school is making me absolutely livid.

    For instance, in our rememberance service yesterday, the first line of our headmasters address was "We are gathered here in the presence of god to pray for his forgiveness, and for the memory of those killed.. blah blah.. repentance this and that.. readings from the bible.. lords prayer.. hymns.."

    My favourite line was "We ask you [god] to guide world leaders and statesmen in their decisions.." :eek:

    I felt like standing up, throwing something at our bloody headmaster and letting him know that I WASNT THERE TO PRAY FOR ANY FRIGGING GODS FORGIVENESS, I WAS THERE TO PAY MY RESPECTS FOR THOSE WHO DIED FOR THIS COUNTRY :mad:

    </ caps lock off>

    It's not a Christian school, or an independent, just a state school, and we get their religious lectures twice a week. When I asked if I could miss these assemblys so I would not have to hear this religious rubbish (im an atheist myself), I was told I have to attend as the purpose is not religious at all, but to celebrate and spread a sense of community.

    Can I object?

    Move to a different country. This is a Christian one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    I am a weak atheist. I do not propose anything, I merely reject propositions which are unfounded. I do not claim that deities could not exist. I do not claim to know with absolutely certainty that deities do not exist. I merely de facto know that deities do not exist as there is no definitive evidence which proves their existence with no alternative explanations. Were I a strong atheist, I would be proposing that deities do not exist, and thus I would have a burden of proof on me, but I am not, so that is not an issue.

    As a theist, you are directly proposing that deities do exist. You are not claiming that it is possible that they exist, but saying that, not only do they exist in general, but you know with absolute certainty that one or more specific ones exist while no others do. This is a position of proposition, thus the burden of proof rests on you, rather than people who reject your claim as unproven, as they they are not asserting anything but rather rejecting an unfounded assertion.

    Keep in mind, though, that simply reasons why your deities might exist is not proof of their existence. Take creation, which you cited, for example. While it is possible that your deity had a hand in it, is is equally possible that it was caused by the Big Bang, or another entirely different cosmological creation theory, or it was the work of the Titans, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodley appendages. As there is no definitive proof that one of these occurred above all others, it is not rational to choose one and claim that it occurred while none of the others did.

    And yes, it is true, for example, that science has yet, as far as I am aware, to answer exactly what started the Big Bang process, but the key point is that science does not claim to have an answer, because it does not know of one. Religion, on the other hand, claims to have certain answers without a basis for choosing the specifics of those answers over others, which is illogical.
    that -2 neg rep KILLED me...
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    that -2 neg rep KILLED me...
    I call it like I see it. Seriously, "We're a Christian nation"? That's your argument for forcing religious ceremony on the unbelieving and the unwilling? It's not even an actual argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Move to a different country. This is a Christian one.
    What happened to freedom of expression? Or the international declaration of human rights?

    EDIT: Oh btw, i'll be calling a VoNC on you in the socialist party in a moment. Those views are ridiculous and not appropriate to our party, why don't you just form the TSR BNP?

    :clip:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    What happened to freedom of expression? Or the international declaration of human rights?

    :clip:
    If a school wants to briefly mention God, it shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Young people can make their own decision about whether or not to believe in God.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    If a school wants to briefly mention God, it shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Young people can make their own decision about whether or not to believe in God.
    They should also be able to make the decision to opt out of religious ceremony - reading extracts from the bible and so on.

    :clip:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    They should also be able to make the decision to opt out of religious ceremony - reading extracts from the bible and so on.

    :clip:
    But how can that be offensive to anyone? With what kids are like, none of them would turn up for assemblies anymore (where important announcements are often made and the school gets to share a feeling of community). I know if assembly had been optional when I was at school I would have skipped it (and so would everyone else), meaning important announcements could never be made.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    If a school wants to briefly mention God, it shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Young people can make their own decision about whether or not to believe in God.
    This is more than briefly mentioning religious belief. This is actively forcing people who do not believe to take part in religious ceremony and attaching penalties for refusal. I would think that that is what people who would oppose this are actually opposing, not speaking about gods.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    But how can that be offensive to anyone? With what kids are like, none of them would turn up for assemblies anymore (where important announcements are often made and the school gets to share a feeling of community). I know if assembly had been optional when I was at school I would have skipped it (and so would everyone else), meaning important announcements could never be made.
    Then have two assemblies, one for christians one for everyone else, why is a page from the bible needed for an assembly? The taxpayer shouldn't be paying for religious indoctrination. Students shouldn't be forced to listen to something which may offend their religion (you're just saying to a person of another religion "this religion is more important, so we'll read from here").

    :clip:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    This is more than briefly mentioning religious belief. This is actively forcing people who do not believe to take part in religious ceremony and attaching penalties for refusal. I would think that that is what people who would oppose this are actually opposing, not speaking about gods.
    But you have to wonder why someone would so strongly want to oppose. Petty teenage "rebellion"? Certainly nothing offensive is being said, babies with harlequin fetus syndrome are not being shown, men are not being hanged on stage, 90 year olds' vaginas are not being displayed on an HD screen. What's the problem exactly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Then have two assemblies, one for christians one for everyone else, why is a page from the bible needed for an assembly? The taxpayer shouldn't be paying for religious indoctrination. Students shouldn't be forced to listen to something which may offend their religion (you're just saying to a person of another religion "this religion is more important, so we'll read from here").

    :clip:
    Well in every other country they read out their religious texts in schools so why should our country's be less important?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Well in every other country they read out their religious texts in schools so why should our country's be less important?
    Why should we be different from any other country? :confused:
    So you support mindless conformity?
    Maybe because we should be aiming to advance human rights, maybe because we're a lot more diverse. Remember, some countries still don't teach evolution in schools, our state obviously values open minded-ness, why not let people choose their religion?

    :clip:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    poor guys
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    But you have to wonder why someone would so strongly want to oppose. Petty teenage "rebellion"? Certainly nothing offensive is being said, babies with harlequin fetus syndrome are not being shown, men are not being hanged on stage, 90 year olds' vaginas are not being displayed on an HD screen. What's the problem exactly?
    I would say two things; Firstly, I think that freedom of conscience is important to uphold by virtue of its own importance even if the actual violation is trivial. I'm well aware that I don't actually have a very strong foundation in arguing that though, so I wouldn't really attempt to, I'm just putting it out there as an explanation for why I'd oppose such things.

    Secondly, and obviously this isn't the case for everyone, but for some people, myself being included, being lectured on and made to take part in rituals exalting something you know to be untrue on a regular basis over an extended period of time really is (I do exaggerate but in all honesty I'm not sure quite how much) soul-crushing. I imagine this will sound silly to the people who don't feel that way, but it is nonetheless the case. Given that you can avoid that suffering, however petty it may seem, for a minority by simply allowing them not to do the rituals and hear the lectures while pleasing the majority by continuing to do them for those that consent, I don't see why this is even a question, unless people actually think that compulsory religious assembly saves souls.

    I'm not saying no religious assemblies, I'm just saying no forced prayer and a secular option (perhaps still examining philosophical issues of significance; I was part of one in my last year of school and it was much, much nicer and even some Christians came over the regular Christian assembly) for those that want to take one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Why should we be different from any other country? :confused:
    So you support mindless conformity?
    Maybe because we should be aiming to advance human rights, maybe because we're a lot more diverse. Remember, some countries still don't teach evolution in schools, our state obviously values open minded-ness, why not let people choose their religion?

    :clip:
    People can and do choose their own religion. My friends and I have been to Catholic primary and secondary schools with quite high emphasis on religious education (I know the Bible inside out etc). Despite this we're mostly atheist, with a muslim and a couple of catholics in the group. I see nothing wrong with mild promotion of the state religion like referring to God in an assembly as young people make their own minds up about things.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.