What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, relax. It isn't segregation. You don't have to be Catholic to go to the Catholic school,

... though (at least in Ontario - don't know about all other provinces) you do need to be Catholic to vote in elections for Catholic school boards or to run as a candidate for trustee. Non-Catholics can send their kids, but they lose a lot of their ability to have a say in their kids' education.

and anybody, including Catholics, can go to the secular school.

... unless they live in certain rural communities where there's a Catholic school but no public school.

And even the so-called secular schools aren't so secular in all parts of the province. I thought you used to live in Alberta. Aren't you familiar with the issues they've had there about religion in public schools?

The idea is that if a family is adamant that their child receive religious instruction and pray at school, they have somewhere to send that child: An institution that is explicitly, overtly religious in character. They don't have to mess with the education of the rest of the neighborhood kids, who follow a diversity of faiths, or lack thereof. Canadian kids have the right to a secular education that treats their spiritual beliefs as a private matter. Only their parents can interfere with that right.

These concerns are accommodated by allowing religious private schools.

 

[Alceste]

... though (at least in Ontario - don't know about all other provinces) you do need to be Catholic to vote in elections for Catholic school boards or to run as a candidate for trustee. Non-Catholics can send their kids, but they lose a lot of their ability to have a say in their kids' education.


... unless they live in certain rural communities where there's a Catholic school but no public school.

And even the so-called secular schools aren't so secular in all parts of the province. I thought you used to live in Alberta. Aren't you familiar with the issues they've had there about religion in public schools?


These concerns are accommodated by allowing religious private schools.

I agree with you - I wish we weren't supporting religious schools. It's not even just Catholic schools any more. Harper has been funneling millions to evangelical schools.

But it is better than having to fend off people who want to see Christian religious observances and education imposed in secular schools. Not ideal, but preferable.

I grew up in Calgary. There was no praying or religious instruction of any kind. At one point they let the Gideons come in and hand out tiny little Bibles for free, but that's it. I think the problems must be out in the sticks. Calgary is exactly like a normal Canadian city, but cleaner and with more SUVs.

 

[crossfire]

First, accept that you cannot live your life without the Glomp. You are powerless without the Glomp.

Second, after recognizing how lost and unrefined and barbaric you were without the Glomp, open your mind and open your heart to the Glomp. Glompism is based on the truth and evidence is all around you.

Third, accept the Glomp.

OK

Finally, go and Glomp everybody you see. If they don't like it, it's because they're just blind to reality.

That would be evangelical Glompism, that wishes to spread the word. What about Fundamental Glompism that can't stand to be around non-Glompists?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rick, I'm pretty sure you know that there are people who have left their family's religion but keep that a secret to avoid potential (and sometimes very likely) negative consequences. In an ideal environment, everyone would be able to act according to what their conscience dictated without worrying about getting chastised for it, but realistically, such an environment is all too rare.

When a school, a public institution (as I take it that we're talking about public schools and not private ones), considers it acceptable for some students to pray while others wait until the ritual has been completed, what kind of situation do you think that puts a student who has left his or her religion in? It is inevitable that, at one point or another, such prayers will happen to be those prescribed by a religion that someone in the classroom has left, especially if it's the majority religion in a given area. So if a student or students sat down and didn't partake in said prayers, it would put them in a situation where they either had to divulge their leaving the religion or make an excuse not to pray if someone asked them why they didn't participate in the ritual.

Do you think that's the sort of thing schools should allow or encourage? I keep seeing arguments against that kind of thing get framed as "atheist preaching," but the actual issue is a far cry from that when you consider certain scenarios that are both very real and very critical for some people.

Perhaps a good way to see the issue from another angle is to imagine yourself in the situation I explained above and think about what that would be like, placing aside your current stance temporarily.

D.S. I am sure you have many issues with your location, your age, and your non-beliefs. I can only imagine how the sound of being called to prayer must be like.

The only thing that comes close was not being allowed to wear a cross while in your country. Being religiously repressed, when I came home I rejoyced at my freedoms.

While this is completely different, I can only imagine what you are going through.

My attitude is, we all should be free. I know right now you are not. Please understand I do not wish to tread on anyone but in the same respect refuse to be tread on as well.

Most of my comments have been tongue in cheek and believe this thread does contain a good deal of hypocrisy.

I believe most of my Atheist friends here at RF knows I respect them and it is nice once in awhile to take the gloves off. If I where to do this every day, I would not be seeking fellowship here.

My motto is, I would fight to the death to support anyone who disagrees with me.

As far as Jeff is concerned, he is a big boy and gives as good as he gets.

While this thread got rough, for the most part a certain element of respect still remained.

Last night while reflecting about this debate I realized that hypocrisy abounds on boths sides.

I pray for the day when you can be open about your non-belief but understand why you cannot.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

OK


That would be evangelical Glompism, that wishes to spread the word. What about Fundamental Glompism that can't stand to be around non-Glompists?

I was presenting that toward the beginning in the thread about how I think the terms become interchangeable.

But back to snark...

Fundamentalist Glompists are to feel bad about the fake glompists and continue to freely discuss "true" Glompism to our fellow citizens. For without us to Glompsplain (rather like mansplaining things to wimmin) everything, people would be unaware of what Glompism actually is and what to put on billboards, flyers, and what to say on talk radio.

You know, Glompist Truth movements.

This is a free country. I should be able to glomp freely. Especially to people who really don't want to get a glomp. They need it the most.

 

[Debater Slayer]

D.S. I am sure you have many issues with your location, your age, and your non-beliefs. I can only imagine how the sound of being called to prayer must be like.

The only thing that comes close was not being allowed to wear a cross while in your country. Being religiously repressed, when I came home I rejoyced at my freedoms.

While this is completely different, I can only imagine what you are going through.

My attitude is, we all should be free. I know right now you are not. Please understand I do not wish to tread on anyone but in the same respect refuse to be tread on as well.

Most of my comments have been tongue in cheek and believe this thread does contain a good deal of hypocrisy.

I believe most of my Atheist friends here at RF knows I respect them and it is nice once in awhile to take the gloves off. If I where to do this every day, I would not be seeking fellowship here.

My motto is, I would fight to the death to support anyone who disagrees with me.

As far as Jeff is concerned, he is a big boy and gives as good as he gets.

While this thread got rough, for the most part a certain element of respect still remained.

Last night while reflecting about this debate I realized that hypocrisy abounds on boths sides.

I pray for the day when you can be open about your non-belief but understand why you cannot.

I don't mind the sound of the call to prayer, actually. Heck, I've even been to places of worship early on purpose to help set up the place for receiving people (though I didn't find much to do and ended up sitting idly for nearly a couple of hours ). It's not about suppressing expression of beliefs; it's about not imposing any particular religion or worldview on people who don't share it.

The way I see it, public institutions like schools should be as neutral as possible in this regard. A street ad or a billboard on a highway is different because it's not directed at people who are forced to give it attention. Trying to equate that to imposing specific rituals on people in official settings seems to me like blowing things out of proportion and missing the whole point about what public institutions should be like to accommodate people of different views as much as possible.

I don't take this thread personally either. I also consider you a friend, but that doesn't mean we can't argue the heck out of each other. Because I'm weird like that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with you - I wish we weren't supporting religious schools. It's not even just Catholic schools any more. Harper has been funneling millions to evangelical schools.

But it is better than having to fend off people who want to see Christian religious observances and education imposed in secular schools. Not ideal, but preferable.

I think you're trying to set up a false dichotomy. We have other choices... for instance, having secular public schools while letting people send their kids to private schools if they choose to do so.

And even if you were right, I think the approach is wrong-headed. When confronted with aggressive anti-secularists, the solution isn't to hand over the keys to government schools to them... not even if they only get some of them. If they're really as bad as you suggest, then they're something to be combatted, not placated.

You're talking about Dane-geld for religions. Well, you know what they say about Dane-geld, right?

I grew up in Calgary. There was no praying or religious instruction of any kind. At one point they let the Gideons come in and hand out tiny little Bibles for free, but that's it. I think the problems must be out in the sticks. Calgary is exactly like a normal Canadian city, but cleaner and with more SUVs.

Well, things are different in Glendon:

Sun News : Alberta mom who wanted to end Lord’s Prayer at son’s school says she feels threatened

And Taber:

Alberta Primetime - Religion in Alberta

And Morinville:

In an Alberta town, parents fight for a secular education - The Globe and Mail

 

[Alceste]

I think you're trying to set up a false dichotomy. We have other choices... for instance, having secular public schools while letting people send their kids to private schools if they choose to do so.

And even if you were right, I think the approach is wrong-headed. When confronted with aggressive anti-secularists, the solution isn't to hand over the keys to government schools to them... not even if they only get some of them. If they're really as bad as you suggest, then they're something to be combatted, not placated.

You're talking about Dane-geld for religions. Well, you know what they say about Dane-geld, right?



Well, things are different in Glendon:

Sun News : Alberta mom who wanted to end Lord’s Prayer at son’s school says she feels threatened

And Taber:

Alberta Primetime - Religion in Alberta

And Morinville:

In an Alberta town, parents fight for a secular education - The Globe and Mail

No, I'm not setting up a false dichotomy. On a scale of "worst possible scenario" to "ideal scenario", including all possibilities, tax funded public schools being completely secular is "ideal". I agree with you, in other words. But having a separate school board for Christians is still BETTER than the worst possible scenario. The worst scenario would be public schools being overwhelmed by and succumbing to pressure from religious groups so non-Christians have no other option but to go to a school that makes them pray instead of teaching science. That's what's happening in parts of the US. Letting them set up their own school board is better than fighting to retain secular control of ours, though still not as good as eliminating taxpayer support of religious institutions altogether.

The only one of those towns I've even heard of is Taber, and that's because we used to get our corn from there. It's damn fine corn. As I assumed, they're out in the sticks. God knows what goes on out there. In Alberta's cities, it is not an issue, but it's a big province. We've got Hutterites and Weibo Ludwig and a stuffed gopher museum and all sorts of weirdos out in the sticks. I certainly hope the families out there who are fighting for secular education win their battles.