Saturday, March 24, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Atheist banned from committee on religious education

by Simon Barrett

Reposted from:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/display.var.1279333.0.atheist_banned_from_committee_on_religious_education.php

Thanks to Scott McGraw for sending this our way.

An atheist has spoken of his dismay after being sidelined from discussions on how religion is taught in schools.

Former teacher Andrew Edmondson attempted to win a place on the West Sussex County Council's advisory committee for religious education but was denied by a majority vote.

Mr Edmondson, a humanist, believes people can lead their lives without religion and use reason to explain the world and solve problems.
advertisement

Despite giving a presentation on humanism to members they voted against allowing him a place on the committee.

Mr Edmondson, of Balcombe, said: "Despite the detailed presentation I gave them, they likened humanism to minority religions such as pagans and scientologists.

"They failed to understand that humanism is the voice of reason, necessary to balance supernatural beliefs. Our children should be given a choice in schools and not railroaded into believing one thing or another.

"It is appalling that children in West Sussex are not taught that there is an alternative to religion. There is nothing stopping any school from teaching non-religious views. Schools should surely try to encourage reason."

Mr Edmondson argued that a humanist representative on the committee would speak for the non-religious people of West Sussex. He said recent polls had shown 62 per cent of people preferred humanist explanations to religious ones and 65 per cent of young people, aged between 12 and 19, were atheist or agnostic.

He said: "This is a missed opportunity for West Sussex and is contrary to the Human Rights Act. Children have a right to learn non-religious views."

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority recommends the inclusion of humanism in order to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.

Only two groups on the committee supported Mr Edmondson's application - the teachers and the Church of England which has a policy of inclusion.

Those who voted against included West Sussex County Council representatives, headteachers and minority religions.

British Humanist Association spokesman Andrew Copson yesterday called the decision "narrow-minded, bigoted and stupid."

He added: "Humanists have made a significant contribution to religious education over the last few decades. It is sad that the West Sussex committee does not seem to have recognised this and has missed an opportunity to take an inclusive approach.

"If religious education is to be a meaningful subject for all then those whose values are not religious must be included."

Committee chairwoman Margaret Collins said: "Following a lengthy debate lasting three meetings including a presentation from Mr Edmondson the committee decided by a majority vote not to include a non-religious organisation within its membership."

A West Sussex County Council spokesman added that secondary schools already included humanist views in the curriculum.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, March 24, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 44 of 44 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #27355 by MIND_REBEL on March 24, 2007 at 8:00 am

Horrible, but not suprising when you consider the religious climate of the UK.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

2. Comment #27357 by justme on March 24, 2007 at 8:02 am

Hate to say it, but he has to show numbers of people who are Humanists to support adding Humanism to the religion course. Just showing that people are curious is not enough; he has to show actual support.

To expand it, he might want to drag in other groups to bolster his numbers. Simply put, he would have a good stance by including the non-Humanist non-theists/atheists including religious non-theists (many Buddhists, for example).

Additionally, he can reference other countries with large atheist populations as evidence that atheism (and Humanism) is a valid topic in any honest review of religion.

Other Comments by justme

3. Comment #27365 by ghostbuster on March 24, 2007 at 8:36 am

Interestingly, when comparative religious studies are included in a curriculum, students start to question the validity of all religions, including their own if they have one. It may not be as important to include humanistic studies after all (although I would like to see it added) since religion in a sort of funny way, might be shooting itself in the foot.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

4. Comment #27368 by DavidMcC on March 24, 2007 at 8:49 am

I guess West Sussex isn't the only offender. Here's a quote from the British Humanist Association website:
"...Many LEAs are plainly discriminating against conscientious unbelievers such as humanists", says Hanne Stinson, executive director of the British Humanist Association.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

5. Comment #27377 by WittyReference on March 24, 2007 at 9:38 am

"He said recent polls had shown 62 per cent of people preferred humanist explanations to religious ones and 65 per cent of young people, aged between 12 and 19, were atheist or agnostic."

Even though the decision is disappointing if not surprising, if the above figure are correct then that is heartening as I am thrilled that these numbers are that high. The majority in fact.

Other Comments by WittyReference

6. Comment #27380 by cnewell on March 24, 2007 at 10:04 am

Next door in Surrey we recently gained a Humanist representative on the equivalent committee, although as yet they do not have any voting rights. I guess they're on probation! Of course, we already have a Sikh representative although Sikhs make up much less than one percent of the UK population.

Apparently, the Tory councillors on the committee were very wary about having a non-religious representative but were happy to consider Bahai's etc despite their minority status.

People with non-religious viewpoints are not a small minority. However, it's not easy to identify who should represent us. Is it appropriate for us to be represented by a single member of the BHA? (or should we claim to have different denominations ;-)

Other Comments by cnewell

7. Comment #27388 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.

I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."

I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases, without exception. I will not be asking to be heard in a discussion on the comparative merits of the lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

8. Comment #27398 by AJ Rae on March 24, 2007 at 11:40 am

I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.

I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."

Every child is taught religion, and many Atheists want children, even their own, to be taught religion. So Atheists should have a say in how religion is taught, that's education. Many Atheists don't want indoctrination and preaching of the wonders of irrational faith, something children shouldn't have to be subjected to.

Other Comments by AJ Rae

9. Comment #27404 by Yorker on March 24, 2007 at 11:57 am

Does anyone know where these poll figures come from?

If they are correct - and I suspect they may be - then perhaps a good idea would be to appeal to the natural rebelliousness of young people. Maybe this site should set up a special section for youngsters where it could be pointed out that those who back religion want to teach religion because it gives them control over the minds of young people.

Of course, the religious establishment would be up in arms about what they would see as subversion and an attempt by atheists to control the minds of our children, but so what? That's exactly what they're doing. Young people are the key and are also more computer savvy than many adults; within a short time the search engines would pick up on the new section of RDF and curious youngsters would want to take a look. The content and presentation of such a section would have to be carefully thought out and designed, but that's another matter.

This is just a quick idea off the top of my head, deeper thought might prove it unwise, but perhaps it's worth that deeper thought.

What do others think?

Other Comments by Yorker

10. Comment #27409 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Maybe this site should set up a special section for youngsters where it could be pointed out that those who back religion want to teach religion because it gives them control over the minds of young people.

What do others think?

Waste of time, chum. Could even be counter-productive. For many adolescents, anything that comes from adults is there to be rejected. Y'know what I mean?

"the natural rebelliousness of young people" needs to be just that.
Natural.
And according the figures quoted, young people seem to be doing quite well without needing websites to help them along.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

11. Comment #27412 by jonecc on March 24, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Richard Morgan

As ghostbuster said, there are reasons why atheists should want comparative religion to be taught. By pointing out that across the world entirely different ideas are simply asserted to be true, it tends to undermine the idea of belief through divine revelation.

When I was at school religious education just meant going through bits of the Bible. These days, it's much more far ranging.

Can US readers tell me, is there such a thing as Religious Education over there, or is it excluded by the Constitution?

Other Comments by jonecc

12. Comment #27421 by brue68 on March 24, 2007 at 1:42 pm

In my experience, my high school did not have any religious courses (or at least, none mandatory, I have forgotten the course list) and I graduated in 2003. some was covered in world history, but it was extremely limited, almost non-existent, that was saved for college

Other Comments by brue68

13. Comment #27441 by Yorker on March 24, 2007 at 3:47 pm

10. Comment #27409 by Richard Morgan

"For many adolescents, anything that comes from adults is there to be rejected. Y'know what I mean?"

Bollocks, not a good argument.

I think you have too low an opinion of young people. Take a look at the response Richard Dawkins received from young supporters on his US book tour, they loved him and he's as adult as you can get at 65 years old! The Blasphemy Challenge would also seem to refute your argument about needing no help from websites.

Like I said, it was a quick thought but I expected a few more thoughtfully reasoned responses.

Other Comments by Yorker

14. Comment #27443 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Yorker I agree young people can often be less dogmatic than adults, and a section aimed at younger readers on this site might not be a bad idea. Have you any ideas as to what form it might take?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

15. Comment #27444 by cnewell on March 24, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Why should atheists be represented on statutory advisory committees for religious education?

Because if pupils are to be taught about religion in schools then non-religious belief systems should be an important part of the syllabus.

Other Comments by cnewell

16. Comment #27448 by MelM on March 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Teach the controversy. Teach critical thinking skills.

Other Comments by MelM

17. Comment #27455 by Homo economicus on March 24, 2007 at 5:52 pm

There is talk of Dawkins being used in civic studies in the UK and the ID science debate.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

18. Comment #27461 by mmurray on March 24, 2007 at 6:04 pm

I wonder if being on the Advisory Committee for Political Education requires you to be a member of a political party or a believer in some political ideology.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

19. Comment #27462 by Ohnhai on March 24, 2007 at 6:04 pm

I love the delicious parallels with the attempts to crowbar creationism (in all its manifest guises) into the science curriculum.

Humanism and Atheism are not 'religion' per say, and thus probably should not be taught in religious education classes. Same goes for "Creation Science" not being real science and thus having no place in the science class room.

But where the division gets tricky is I believe that religious education classes must be inclusive of all religions and teach the actual historical (not hysterical) facts of all these religions. It should also make it quite clear that not believing in gods and the supernatural is equally a valid out look to take in this world. This can be done without teaching 'Humanism' and should be as humanism is NOT a religion, and religions tend to focus around deistic belief.

If you force humanism into RE classes then you best be willing to admit CS in to the science class room.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

20. Comment #27464 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 6:10 pm

If you force humanism into RE classes then you best be willing to admit CS in to the science class room.

I suggest R.E should be renamed something like Religion, Philosophy and Ethics. In which case you could teach relevant material that isn't necessarily "religion".

Other Comments by BaronOchs

21. Comment #27465 by Zigster on March 24, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Comment #27388 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 10:45 am
I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.

I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."

I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases, without exception. I will not be asking to be heard in a discussion on the comparative merits of the lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair.

I disagree. Religious education should not be about helping children to choose which religion they wish to be a member of (their parents and/or church will have already done that for them) but to make the children aware of all the other religions out there - and that some (an increasing number) reject all religions.

Using your example on capital punishment, I would want to be part of such a discussion to make sure the option of not executing people is discussed otherwise it is taken as read that capital punishment is acceptable.

Similarly, would you want an appreciation of alcohol taught only by alcoholics - some favouring whiskey and some special brew? Or would a teetotaller bring the message that you don't have to drink to have a good time (not that I've ever bought that argument myself! :D)?

Other Comments by Zigster

22. Comment #27468 by catchy_nick on March 24, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Hey it could be worse, you could live in a southern US state.

Other Comments by catchy_nick

23. Comment #27471 by Veronique on March 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Yorker - RD has such a terrifically high profile that many students, kids, young people, have heard of him and the raging debate about ID and Evolution.

I think it would be a good thing to develop a resource website that they can access. There must be some out there already, probably started by them themselves. One more attached to RD wouldn't go astray.

It would need a good moderator but I think the included resource material need not be that different from what is already here. Kids today have access to and know more than you and I ever did at a young age.

Comparative Religion should be included because I think that area is sadly missing in the school curricula. It could stem the hardening of belief before it calicifies.

They would also need threads and forums. Any links to this site would, hopefully, lift our game somewhat.

Let's ask RD and Josh what they think and if they have any practical format suggestions.

Other Comments by Veronique

24. Comment #27505 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 4:04 am

Ohnai - you say that "Humanism and Atheism are not 'religion' per se."
That's like saying "Not playing chess is not a hobby per se". Are you sure you understand the meaning of the expression "per se"?
Because the rest of what you say is ansolutely correct, for example:

Alas, others, particularly Yorker, are completely missing my point. I have worked with adolescents for over thirty years. I have a very high opinion of them, and all that they represent.
I suspect that Yorker, like an increasing number of people these days, gleans too much of his information from the Web, rather from real life.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

25. Comment #27508 by Russell Blackford on March 25, 2007 at 4:33 am

Ah, the stupidity. The people who are most likely to be able to offer something sensible about how religion should be taught are those who are able to look at religion from the outside rather than from inside some religion or other.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

26. Comment #27509 by cnewell on March 25, 2007 at 4:38 am

I would encourage non-religious people to get involved with their local SACRE (Statutory Advisory Committee for Religious Education) and ask difficult questions. Every county and metropolitan area in the U.K. has to have one. The meetings are held in public so anyone can attend but you may also be able to join the committee and have a greater impact.

The teaching of non-religious beliefs is now included in the "Guidelines on Religious Education" issued by the national Qualifications and Curriculum Authority so there is precedent for teaching these beliefs in R.E.

However, there is no precedent or logical reason for teaching Creationism in science classes so I wouldn't worry about that too much!

I think it's very important for the large numbers of children who are non-religious (over 60% ?) to know that their beliefs are shared by many adults and are taken seriously. When I was at school the sheer weight of religious study and worship made me feel like an outcast.

Other Comments by cnewell

27. Comment #27510 by stephenray on March 25, 2007 at 4:44 am

I dunno.

If we want to keep religion out of the science classroom, isn't this the other side of the coin?

I think we would all accept that atheism isn't a religion, so why should the religious let us in the RI classroom?

We have to challenge the unquestioning acceptance of the unchallenged position of religion in education, but attempts such as this may make a rod for our own backs...

Other Comments by stephenray

28. Comment #27511 by cnewell on March 25, 2007 at 4:59 am

R.E these days does not concern worship (something we should all oppose) but involves learning factual information about religions (anathema to some but could be argued to be useful - better the devil you know).

If we can't get rid of R.E. then it's important that non-religious beliefs are given equal weight to religious beliefs.

I think we should trust pupils to make up their own minds if presented with all the information in an unbiased way. Recent surveys show current pupils to be refreshingly sceptical. Has anyone got the statistics to hand?

Other Comments by cnewell

29. Comment #27545 by h2g2bob on March 25, 2007 at 8:37 am

I'm from the UK, and this doesn't worry me. Local councils are basically lunatic asylums anyway :D

In fact, I learned two very uplifting things from the article:
1. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority - the people who write the national curriculum, which sets out what should be taught in schools - recommends the inclusion of humanism. Huzzah!
2. The Church of England - our "official" church - has a policy of inclusion. This isn't really surprising, but is good news.

Having a humanist on the advisory committee would be nice, but just raising the issue is good. Besides, they may simply be worried that he can't effectively represent the atheist community - I imagine concerns filter up through this group from the wider community.

So very little bad news, and some good news. Be happy!

Other Comments by h2g2bob

30. Comment #27561 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 9:35 am

Russell Blackford - I have come to expect more sensible stuff from you!

Ah, the stupidity. The people who are most likely to be able to offer something sensible about how religion should be taught are those who are able to look at religion from the outside rather than from inside some religion or other.

Obviously!!
You know that.
I know that.
But you're still missing the point of this whole debate!

It is na�ve to imagine that an atheist should be admitted onto a committee that decides policy for Religious Education. Unless atheism is a religion.
I live in a country (France) where "religions" are part of the programme "Histoire/Géographie" at school, since religious behaviour and attitudes have always had an significant impact on the history of human societies.

Discussions of a "religious" nature are forbidden by law in French classrooms, more particularly since the Law passed in 1905 separating the State and the Church.

One of the consequences of this law was to create a society in which atheism has become absolutely banal.

Another beautiful example of what has been called "le paradoxe fran�ais" is a statistic recently published by the highly respectable Le Monde in their monthly magazine "Le Monde des religions" :

Fifty per cent of the population declare themselves "Catholic", and fifty per cent of these Catholics are self-declared atheists!!!

That's what you call "free-thinking"!!

But the 1905 Law recognised that affairs of State and religious affairs are separate questions. A similar law in the UK would put an end to this silly question about how religions should be taught in State schools.

The shameful policy of encouraging faith-based schools in the UK is, clearly, another subject, for a different discussion.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

31. Comment #27576 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 11:18 am

My name is Richard MORGAN.

Henceforth I have to decided that I will read and reply to comments by people like;
Russell Blackford.
And ignore the various "Yorkers", "Catchy_nicks" and "justmes".
Why would one need to hide behind a pseudonym on this site?
What are you ashamed of, or frightened of, Zigster and BaronOchs?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

32. Comment #27675 by Philip1978 on March 26, 2007 at 4:54 am

I am Philip yet I had to put 1978 on the end cos there are a few Philips on this earth! I would imagine the pseudonyms are there for originality and the fact no-one is going to have the same name! Chin up Richard, its only an internet forum!

By all means teach religion in school, I learned a load about the Norse gods and Greek mythology amongst other things and it was amazingly interesting. During my A Levels we actually debated in the religious education class, there were atheists, muslims, catholics, protestants and the teacher was the school chaplain! Kids should grow up with the choice, they look to adults for guidance and a chance to make their own minds up, give them a full education. Teaching creationism in science class is pathetic and wrong because it is not science, it is a point of view that kids should know about in a religious education class. Because that is what it should be, education of the worlds religions and the views that agree or disagree with it

Other Comments by Philip1978

33. Comment #27693 by padster1976 on March 26, 2007 at 6:42 am

Crikey!

West Sussex is my blimin' council!

I have written a stiff letter asking them to explain in greater detail as to the reasons why this has happened.

I will keep you all in touch.

Other Comments by padster1976

34. Comment #27754 by Old Coppernose on March 26, 2007 at 2:24 pm

My name is Peter Watts, as I have made public. I chose a nickname solely as I assumed my real name would not be available. I do wonder, however, if there is a possibility I might be risking harassment or worse from those who might be offended by my opinions.

Other Comments by Old Coppernose

35. Comment #27790 by justme on March 26, 2007 at 6:03 pm

#27576 by Richard Morgan:

"Why would one need to hide behind a pseudonym on this site?"

Is your reaction an emotional response, or do you have more detailed reasons for your stance?

From my point of view, using a pseudonym in a public forum is a damn good practice on many levels. If you haven't noticed, it is the norm across the net not just here.

That said, just because it's popular doesn't make it good or right. So, why is it more correct to use a pseudonym than your real name?

First, let's get this out of the way;

http://www.epatric.com/funstuff/dog/internet_dog.jpg

Second, by using an obvious pseudonym, there's no doubt that the name is made up.

Third, unless you know the person on some level, use of a real name or even a photo gives details that are unimportant to the discussion and can be a distraction.

For example... say, my name was Kiko Ono ... you may have one reaction. If my name was Hans Bovier, your reaction may be quite different. In either case, a non-trivial number of people will react differently depending on nationality, ethnicity, and gender -- even if they think they are without bias.

Finally, using real names opens up the chance that stalkers, abusive individuals, or even job discrimination can occur. This is a real personal concern to me since I have to go through security clearances on a regular basis, and the people doing those reviews may not live up to the ideals of the profession when they do my review. It only takes one, and it is very hard to protest a bad or rejected investigation.

This last reason -- abuse by others -- is not a trivial concern, and is one of the reasons why most of the Rational Response Squad (no cowards or weak minded folks there) use psudonyms;

http://www.rationalresponders.com/our_team

Having said all that, there was a time on the old Usenet and -- GASP! -- BBS forums where I'd use my real name. I was quite prolific, talked about many of the same subjects that come up here as well as others, and chastised others for using pseudonyms.

Since then, I thought it through and I realized that I was wrong.

If you think I'm wrong now for not using my real name, you need only convince me with the power of your argument and I'll be glad to post using my real name.

Till then, if you want, you can call me Jack.

Other Comments by justme

36. Comment #27799 by Priapus on March 26, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Hmmm... Perhaps it is time to adopt a more dexterous and Machiavellian approach to these matters. Surely one could get a great deal more done by pretending to be a 'believer' in order to get elected, only to use the position as a trench from which to unleash a fusillade of subtle measures that gradually erode the seemingly implacable grasp of religious backwardness on our education system.

Other Comments by Priapus

37. Comment #27809 by Richard Morgan on March 26, 2007 at 9:47 pm

#27790 by justme : When you say

Finally, using real names opens up the chance that stalkers, abusive individuals, or even job discrimination can occur. This is a real personal concern to me since I have to go through security clearances on a regular basis, and the people doing those reviews may not live up to the ideals of the profession when they do my review. It only takes one, and it is very hard to protest a bad or rejected investigation

...All I can reply is :
OK, Jack, I can appreciate, understand and respect that.
Excuse me for shooting my mouth off like that, but, living in a country where one's being an atheist is of no interest to anyone, I do tend to forget that this is not the case elsewhere.
Clearly, the fact that you need to conceal your identity in this way is a very powerful argument for the need for books like TGD!

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

38. Comment #27818 by crabsallover on March 27, 2007 at 12:04 am

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/display.var.1279333.0.atheist_banned_from_committee_on_religious_education.php
Posted by: Andrew Edmondson, Balcombe on 8:10pm Fri 23 Mar 07
The BHA quotes are genuine apart from this one: British Humanist Association spokesman Andrew Copson yesterday called the decision "narrow-minded, bigoted and stupid."

Edmondson says he added above quote in error.

Other Comments by crabsallover

39. Comment #27856 by Russell Blackford on March 27, 2007 at 4:10 am

On the tangential point, I think it's a matter of personal choice whether or not to use a pseudonym.

On this site, I've chosen to post under my own name - I'm not likely to be harassed, or whatever, over anything I say here. The worst I can do is say something sufficiently stupid to harm my credibility with a potential future employer - or something like that. In some other forum where flame wars are more apt to break out, or if I really wanted to let off steam here (as some people like to do), or if I lived in the US Bible Belt, I'd probably take a different attitude.

On the substantive point, if the kids are supposed to be learning about religions and their social role, history, etc., rather than receiving indoctrination into some religion, surely what we want is simply expertise, not commitment to the value or truth of religion, and not some kind of democratic representation of religious stakeholders. I put the point rather crudely, but it still seems to be right.

But maybe I misunderstand the process or what the subject is supposed to be about. It's not actually clear from the article and I'm not British.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

40. Comment #27891 by justme on March 27, 2007 at 6:18 am

#27809 Richard Morgan:

"OK, Jack, I can appreciate, understand and respect that.
Excuse me for shooting my mouth off like that, but, living in a country where one's being an atheist is of no interest to anyone, I do tend to forget that this is not the case elsewhere."

Thanks for your consideration. The unfortunate thing is that it may take a few more generations where I am in the USA before the irrational biases against atheists are largely gone.

Think of how long in Europe Jews were thought to have horns just because of a single word mistranslated in the Bible and you can get some idea of what we're up against here. That bias is largely gone because of secularization and the events around WWII.

I'm not saying the situations are equal, though the bias is quite strong none the less.

If I did not have any job concerns, I would be more vocal. As the homosexual advocates have shown, having a we-are-here-and-not-leaving attitude can cause people to accept reality and deal with others as acceptable and that all discrimination is not acceptable. They still have a way to go.

(While atheists don't have the sex taboo problem that riles up the religious, the homosexuals can claim to be believers in God and get some sympathy just as the Jews and Moslems do.)

Other Comments by justme

41. Comment #27898 by justme on March 27, 2007 at 6:43 am

Richard Morgan, also keep in mind my first few points.

As I deal with security issues on an ongoing basis, these are really the core of the problem with using claimed real names vs. pseudonyms.

Point: Because you don't know that the other person is using a pseudonym at all, you should assume that all names are pseudonyms

As a general rule, you should only treat names as real names once you have some reason to do so. Exchanging email or going into a private chat would be fine in most cases. After all, we tend to believe someone who introduces themselves in person and we don't demand ID or run blood tests. (Once case where a higher concern about someone's identity would be needed would be with children. While the media have wildly exaggerated the chance that pedophiles will stalk any individual child, these folks do exist. Avoiding them isn't hard, but does take some care. That said, older folks get suckered in too. I had to lecture and scold my father over not responding to spam a few years ago. He gets it now, but he did respond to some of these folks early on and completely trusted them to be above board and honest business owners.)

It is not uncommon for one person to use multiple accounts to make it look like they have support for a specific issue. The religious fanatics tend to do this quite a bit. I've caught a few people doing this in the past, though those were only the ones I've caught. When the charge is raised, they usually deny it and leave quickly when they aren't believed.

Other Comments by justme

42. Comment #27948 by Richard Morgan on March 27, 2007 at 11:28 am

JUSTME - Thank you for your remarks which have taught me a lot.

This question of concealing identities could become even more important for us if we decide to take Priapus's advice:

Perhaps it is time to adopt a more dexterous and Machiavellian approach to these matters.

I had thought about trying to get admitted on religious policy-deciding committees as a sort of "infiltrating the enemy" strategy.

Immoral? Apparently not because my Bible tells me that I may need to be "as wily as a fox".
Oh shit, I've given the game away. I confess, I'm a fundie triple agent. But I do truly believe that I don't believe in....
Who's banging on the toilet door?
I'll be out in a minute.
Anybody fancy going out for a pint?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

43. Comment #28127 by MagratGarlick on March 28, 2007 at 5:15 am

- I suggest R.E should be renamed something like Religion, Philosophy and Ethics. In which case you could teach relevant material that isn't necessarily "religion" -

It already is. It hasn't been 'RE' for years, it's 'Religious Studies and Philosophy'.

Other Comments by MagratGarlick

44. Comment #28130 by MagratGarlick on March 28, 2007 at 5:27 am

"It is na�ve to imagine that an atheist should be admitted onto a committee that decides policy for Religious Education. Unless atheism is a religion."

The school subject that these commitees regulate is 'Religious Studies and Philosophy'. Atheism is not a religion, but it is arguably a philosophy, and humanism defines itself as a philosophy right from the start.

All these people talking about 'RE' clearly haven't had much to do with UK schools recently. :o)

Other Comments by MagratGarlick

Reload Comments | Back to Top