How to protect children/vulnerable from Christian emotional abuse?

[ippy]

Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:

"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?

Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.

Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best.  The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.

Re read, no I didn't misunderstand.

I'll give it another try:

Religion is the private business of each individual and that's where it should stay, in private, in what way would that stop you practicing your belief or exposing your children to your beliefs?

Religious freedom and freedom from religion; as far as I know that's the stand of the BHA and the NSS.

Unlike in the past, at this present time I have not heard of any person or organisation that want's you or anyone else to be prevented from practicing your various religions, I don't want to stop you.

Religions including the compulsory parts of it in our schools has to go because it not only lends them undue privilege it also hands out far more more credibility than is due to any religion, it has to go, it has nothing to do with trying to shut down religions outside of our schools, or in our schools, isn't religion a significant part of history? 

I know of people like yourself that seem to have this inbuilt need to grab our young children and ram your beliefs in to their heads, most, if not all of the people you classify as atheists don't want to spread atheism in the way you have this need to spread religion, because atheism, (your term), isn't a belief.

If the religious aren't trying to spread the word via our school system, why's the need for such vice like grip on this particular religious privilege.

All non-religious people want for our children is for them to be taught at school how to think for themselves, free of any kind of dogma, political, religious or any other. 

I would like to protect our children from these ongoing, continual efforts to ding religion into the heads of our vulnerable  youngsters and will do anything I can to prevent these privileges being able to continue any longer.

ippy

[Gordon]

I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.

When is the penny going to drop, Hope, that atheism isn't a belief system: it is simply a lack of belief in gods (all of them).

That I am an atheist has no bearing at all on whether I might think it acceptable to, say, curry cats (yum yum, with some Fava beans and a nice little Chianti), trip up old ladies as they exit the local Tesco or even, and this may shock you, put knives in the fork section of the cutlery drawer.

Your continued attempts to portray atheism as a belief system just reeks of desperation.   

[floo]

A belief system usually implies that people worship some sort of god, what god do atheists worship?

[ProfessorDavey]

The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

No it isn't - I don't think anyone in the NSS or BHA is suggesting that parents should be prevented from teaching their children about their beliefs or exposing them to the parent's religious practices (clearly within reason, e.g. FGM). What the NSS and BHA don't agree with is that state funded schools should also be part of that agenda. That's all - a parent is completely free to bring up their children as christians, but that should be a private activity in their own time. It should not be part of formal schooling. Many other countries, indeed ones that  have a far greater level of religiosity than the UK seems to be perfectly happy with this and it is no way runs counter to basis human rights of freedom of religion. Indeed it actually enhances the right to freedom of religion, because that also includes freedom from religion and you can't have that if state schools promulgate religion.

[Shaker]

Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:

"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?

Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.

Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best.  The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

Which part of the BHA's aims and objectives states that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas? They have a website so I suggest that this time you bother to look at it and tell us all where it says what you claim it says.

I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.

Given your deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of a minor error in a post (#79) by BeRational on the 'Why did Christ Descend into Hades' thread (which you even attributed to bluehillside), what a monumental fucking hypocrite.

[ippy]

Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:

"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?

Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.

Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best.  The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

Which part of the BHA's aims and objectives states that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas? They have a website so I suggest that this time you bother to look at it and tell us all where it says what you claim it says.

I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.

What a monumental fucking hypocrite.

Well quite.

ippy

[Aruntraveller]

C'mon Shaker - don't hold back, tell us what you really think

[Owlswing]

. . . what a monumental fucking hypocrite.

My gods, Shaker, where do you get your amazing ability to go straight to the nub of a situation and provide such a devastatingly accurate description thereof.

[ProfessorDavey]

The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

Given that you have freely admitted that you haven't actually bothered to find out what the BHA think I don't think your views on the matter have any credibility.

But others of us do know what the BHA stand for and it isn't:

'that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas' - as you claim. Indeed this is from their own web-site:

'BHA thinks that learning about other people’s beliefs (including non-religious beliefs like Humanism) is a good thing in a multi-cultural society, and that non-religious children can and should be catered for in RE'

So the BHA thinks that children most definitely should be exposed to religious ideas - they see it as a 'good thing'.

But then Hope has never bothered to allow the facts to interfere with his prejudices.

[Shaker]

The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

Given that you have freely admitted that you haven't actually bothered to find out what the BHA think I don't think your views on the matter have any credibility.

But others of us do know what the BHA stand for and it isn't:

'that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas' - as you claim. Indeed this is from their own web-site:

'BHA thinks that learning about other people’s beliefs (including non-religious beliefs like Humanism) is a good thing in a multi-cultural society, and that non-religious children can and should be catered for in RE'

So the BHA thinks that children most definitely should be exposed to religious ideas - they see it as a 'good thing'.

But then Hope has never bothered to allow the facts to interfere with his prejudices.

So in view of the preceding would I be correct in saying that out of sheer ignorance Hope made an assertion which is in fact not merely untrue but the polar opposite of what is explicitly the case for all to see on the very website that Hope couldn't be bothered to look at?

[Owlswing]

The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

Given that you have freely admitted that you haven't actually bothered to find out what the BHA think I don't think your views on the matter have any credibility.

But others of us do know what the BHA stand for and it isn't:

'that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas' - as you claim. Indeed this is from their own web-site:

'BHA thinks that learning about other people’s beliefs (including non-religious beliefs like Humanism) is a good thing in a multi-cultural society, and that non-religious children can and should be catered for in RE'

So the BHA thinks that children most definitely should be exposed to religious ideas - they see it as a 'good thing'.

But then Hope has never bothered to allow the facts to interfere with his prejudices.

So in view of the preceding would I be correct in saying that out of sheer ignorance Hope made an assertion which is in fact not merely untrue but the polar opposite of what is explicitly the case for all to see on the very website that Hope couldn't be bothered to look at?

Pretty much

[Shaker]

. . . what a monumental fucking hypocrite.

My gods, Shaker, where do you get your amazing ability to go straight to the nub of a situation and provide such a devastatingly accurate description thereof.

Hey, it's a gift 

[ippy]

Come on Hope where are you now?

ippy

[Shaker]

Why are you all picking on Hope?

Because he's a hypocritical bastard, in a nutshell. By his own admission he couldn't be bothered to look at the BHA website but nevertheless went ahead and made a bald assertion about the BHA (in #77) which in next to no time was demonstrated (by Professor Davey in #89) to be the very opposite of the truth. He gives other people shit for allegedly not having evidence for their opinions, throws out questions but never deigns to answer any put to him and then pulls a stunt like that - and true to form disappears when he knows damned well he's going to be called on it.

As I said: a rank, festering hypocrite of the first water.

[Owlswing]

Why are you all picking on Hope?

Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.

I have looked at their web sites.

I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p

From the link

The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society

Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO

Now, Rose, tell us what the religious affiliation of the person that you quoted is!

[ProfessorDavey]

Why are you all picking on Hope?

Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.

I have looked at their web sites.

I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p

From the link

The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society

Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO

Now, Rose, tell us what the religious affiliation of the person that you quoted is!

Scroll down to the comments section and there are plenty of people thinking the guy who wrote this article is a a bit or an over the top, ranty loon.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why are you all picking on Hope?

Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.

I have looked at their web sites.

I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p

From the link

The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society

Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO

Actually the NSS don't really aim any of their activities at school children - they are more of a campaigning organisation aimed at influencing the adult public population and politicians.

On the other hand the BHA do have educational material available that schools, teachers and students may access should they wish (entirely up to them of course). These cover humanism broadly, plus other topics of ethical interest.

Here are links to a few perhaps most relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/does%20god%20exist.pdf

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/jesus.pdf

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf

Of course there is a focus on bringing across the humanist point of view (what else would you expect) but the pamphlets bend over backwards to be respectful to others with different view points. They couldn't be further from the suggestion of bigoted propaganda that Rose seems to suggest comes from the organisation.

[Owlswing]

Why are you all picking on Hope?

Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.

I have looked at their web sites.

I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p

From the link

The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society

Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO

Actually the NSS don't really aim any of their activities at school children - they are more of a campaigning organisation aimed at influencing the adult public population and politicians.

On the other hand the BHA do have educational material available that schools, teachers and students may access should they wish (entirely up to them of course). These cover humanism broadly, plus other topics of ethical interest.

Here are links to a few perhaps most relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/does%20god%20exist.pdf

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/jesus.pdf

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf

Of course there is a focus on bringing across the humanist point of view (what else would you expect) but the pamphlets bend over backwards to be respectful to others with different view points. They couldn't be further from the suggestion of bigoted propaganda that Rose seems to suggest comes from the organisation.

Rose's reaction to this topic is so abnormally violent for her I would appreciate it if she would post exactly and in detail why this matter gets her so riled up.

Fot instance did a humanist/secularist boil her pet cat to feed their dog or what!

[Owlswing]

They think one set of religious definitions/ ways of living  can apply to all religions and in doing so degrades all religions.

Just as the Abrahmic religions do for those who are not religious.

You are lumping all secularists into one mould - and that is as unfair as lumping all religionists into one mould.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why are you all picking on Hope?

Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.

I have looked at their web sites.

I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p

From the link

The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society

Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO

Actually the NSS don't really aim any of their activities at school children - they are more of a campaigning organisation aimed at influencing the adult public population and politicians.

On the other hand the BHA do have educational material available that schools, teachers and students may access should they wish (entirely up to them of course). These cover humanism broadly, plus other topics of ethical interest.

Here are links to a few perhaps most relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/does%20god%20exist.pdf

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/jesus.pdf

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf

Of course there is a focus on bringing across the humanist point of view (what else would you expect) but the pamphlets bend over backwards to be respectful to others with different view points. They couldn't be further from the suggestion of bigoted propaganda that Rose seems to suggest comes from the organisation.

Rose's reaction to this topic is so abnormally violent for her I would appreciate it if she would post exactly and in detail why this matter gets her so riled up.

Fot instance did a humanist/secularist boil her pet cat to feed their dog or what!

You are right, I detest them!

I detest them because they put everyone's religious belief and life in a box, label it, and then expect those who belong to that religion to conform to their simplistic version of said religion.

They are the opposite of what they claim to be.

It isn't that they want to get rid of the Christian or any religious  input into the House of Lords but it's because they have a simplistic understanding of what religion means to many people in religions, so their ideas don't fit anyone.

For a start, they have made the mistake that the things important in Christianity matter across the board. ( emphasis on belief for example and not religious practice)

They think one set of religious definitions/ ways of living  can apply to all religions and in doing so degrades all religions.

They offend because they choose what things matter in other people's religions, because they have pigeon holed them and are expecting everyone else to conform to what is only their ideas.

As far as they are concerned religion can only effect your private life in ways they have dictated....

Doing away with faith schools is one example and expecting ALL children's religious life to fit happily side by side.

It might work in Christianity, but it doesn't when you try and make other religions fit in.

I detest the NSS because their aim is to degrade and make everyone the same, which IMO is a form of oppression.

Then there is their constant whining about " thought for the day" a religious programme for religious thought.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/thought-for-the-day.html

I don't like or watch football, or reality TV  but I accept others like it, IMO the NSS need to get a life and stop moaning about the BBC catering for some different marginal groups.

It's supposed to.

Songs of praise has to be one of the most boring of programmes ever, but quite a number of people watch it and enjoy it. ( I'm not one of them, but then I find eastenders boring as well)

The NSS wants to spread their inaccurate and very narrow understanding of different religions, they want to paint everyone the same, whereas we are all equally different.

We don't all fit into their little boxes.

I can see why many religious people of various sorts, see secularism as a dirty word.

It's because they don't think they fit into the NSS little boxes either.

I really don't like their wishey washy inaccurate, sanitised version of what they think having a religion means. ( for everyone, they generalise)

They are patronising, and seem to cause a storm in a teacup at the slightest excuse should anyone not conform to their ideas.

I find them obnoxious.

So just the NSS Rose. Remember my post that you were replying to was about the BHA.

Just a few posts ago you were putting the NSS and the BHA into the same pigeon-hole (hmm and now castigating the NSS for pigeon-holing - irony meter alert). Maybe having actually been given some real information about the BHA you realise you can't actually make the kind of accusations you were, so your irrational ire now seems focussed on the NSS.

Your post is so full of prejudiced, frothing nonsense it is difficult to know where to start, but perhaps with one of the most glaring inaccuracies. The NSS do not want to ban faith schools - they do not want STATE funded schools to be affiliated with a religion, which is of course obvious if you believe in a secular society. They have no issue with schools that aren't funded by the state to have a religious affiliation. There is no attack on religion, merely a focus on mixing of religion and the state. Oh and by the by, the view that there should not be state funded faith schools is popular, supported by a strong majority in the country.

As indeed I think you will find most of their views are - their desire for a more secular society chimes with most people in the UK.

Sure there are those who will jump up and down and stamp their tiny little feet in rage at the suggestion that their special privileges might be removed. By hey there have always been people like that, and guess what, they have tended to write the same kind of frothing nonsense about those campaigning for a more equal society on other grounds. Just think about the way in which campaigners for equal rights for women, or for non white people or for gay people are often treated by those (man, white people, straight people) who are in a privileged position within society, just as religions and those with a religious affiliation are in today's society.

[ProfessorDavey]

The NSS are like the BNP.

What planet are you on Rose.

The BNP want to make our country less equal, to ensure that some groups in society are afforded special privilege due to certain attributes while by inference others who do not have those attributes are discriminated against. In their case that attribute is largely race, but also nationality and religion to an extent.

The NSS stand for exactly the opposite, campaigning for a society where all are treated equally in society regardless of the possession of an attribute (in this case a religious belief). The NSS is about creating a level playing field where there currently isn't one, the BNP are about making the playing field less level.

Sure some vested interest, special privilege-benefiting religions don't like it, but nor did a lot of men when groups were campaigning for equal rights for women etc.

[Outrider]

The NSS are like the BNP.

In some ways - you don't appear to like them being one of them, it seems.

Both claim to know what is best for Britain, both have a grudge ......... And a dodgy agenda.

Well, both claim to think their philosophy is broadly beneficial - most people think that. As to a 'grudge' there are areas of public policy that both disagree with, again that's not unusual. The question is, do they have a case?

Both want to dictate to others how to live and how British society should be.

Actually, no, I'm not sure either do. The BNP don't want to dictate to people how they live, they just want the right to dictate to certain people where they live - if you're 'British' they're perfectly fine with you living how you want, if you're not they're perfectly fine with you living how you want, just somewhere else.

The NSS aren't interested in telling you how to live, either, they just don't want the state paying you for the privelege, especially when it disadvantages others who aren't part of your group.

Secular does not mean atheist. There are religious secularists, many of them, and from a range of religious viewpoints.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The NSS are like the BNP.

Both claim to know what is best for Britain, both have a grudge ......... And a dodgy agenda.


Both want to dictate to others how to live and how British society should be.

And the BHA.

Remember just a few posts ago you were pigeon-holing them with the NSS (before complaining about the latter pigeon-holing ) - have you read the material on the links I posted. What is there to complain about in that material given that earlier you were suggesting that it is important for children to learn about a range of religious and other philosophical positions. Surely there material (although focusing on humanism as you'd expect) is highly respectful of others with differing views and is largely focused on getting students to think about big issues, prompted by open ended questions that don't drive to a single agenda answer.

So for example on the 'Golden rule' the following questions for thought are suggested:
'Why do you think so many different cultures have come up with something so similar?'
'Do you think the Golden Rule is enough on its own?'
'What are rules for?'
'If you ruled the world for a day, what rule or rules would you
establish to make the world a better place?'

These aren't questions where the obvious answer is 'humanism' - not at all, people could answer these and conclude that other moral codes (e.g. those from religion) are necessary. There is no bigotry here, nor anything that could be considered propaganda - merely thoughtful information and questions to prompt further diverse thinking and discussion.

[floo]

The NSS are like the BNP.

Both claim to know what is best for Britain, both have a grudge ......... And a dodgy agenda.


Both want to dictate to others how to live and how British society should be.

The NSS are nothing like the evil BNP!

[ProfessorDavey]

Secular does not mean atheist. There are religious secularists, many of them, and from a range of religious viewpoints.

O.

Indeed, and actually in a highly pluralist society where no religion dominates and non religious and religious people (to their greatest extent) are broadly equivalent in numbers the only may to create a fair society that is equal to all (and supports both freedom of religion and freedom from religion) is to make the state scrupulously neutral with regard to religion, which is of course secularism. You cannot have genuine freedom of religion if the adherents of some religions are afforded privileges that aren't extended to the adherents of another religion. And you cannot have freedom from religion is adherents of some (or even all religions) are afforded privileges that aren't extended to those in society who chose not to be religious.