h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As an atheist, coming from a family of non-believers, I say we should encourage the Americans in this foolishness.For many years, certainly during my 14 years of state education, the one compulsory subject in English schools was religion. We had "an act of corporate worship" every morning. Everyone crowded into the school hall, one (usually) dreary hymn, one irrelevant prayer plus the Lord's Prayer and the notices eg who's got detention, who won the hockey match etc. Since I left school - a very long time ago - I have been to church for 2 carol services (my sons'school) two funerals and two weddings. The vast majority of my fellow citizens behave the same way - see the church attendance figures for the UK published last weekend.

There is a difference between assemblies in schools and church services. Both bring together a community, but school assemblies need not have a religous element in order to do this, whereas Church services are there for the sole purpose of bringing together followers of a certain faith, so that the community of that faith is formed.

Forcing people to go to an act of worship is madness, because in the majority of cases it just puts people off thinking about what they believe. I think that schools need to somehow give people the opportunity to think through what they believe, and then give them a certain amount of time to practise whatever faith they have chosen. This is of course impossible in the real world, because for those who do not want to use the time, there would be nothing to do.

Having school gatherings in churches may be a good idea, because it may encourage people to think about their own faith, but it may exclude people from the school who do not share those beliefs.

As for encouraging the Americans to have prayers in school, I think schools need to encourage children to think for themselves and make their own decision about what they believe. I think prayers in school are a good idea, but as long as they are not compulsory.

In both my Primary and Secondary Schools I was usually forced to attend Christian religious Ceremonies (Church of scotland is the exact denomination) My family never told me anything about god or anything else and instead left it up to me to work taht stuff out. While in my secondary school teh Religious ceremonies were about three times a year (Christmas easter and summer) and most kids didn't attend for the last day anyway it wsn't a problem. My problem was with my primary school who insisted on having a weekly assembly, with hymns and prayers and usually a religious message. It was (in those days) generally not considered that there are Athiests, humanists, progressive agnostics out there let alone other faiths. It was almost funny when my primary two teacher paniced when I presented her with this other theory about the creation of teh earth that i'd read in a book called an Encyclopaedia. In secondary we were taught a minimum of 4 years religious studies. However, this was literally studying religions, without any preaching. What I'm saying is teach people about other faiths and what they're all about but don't shove christianity down our throats. Remember, pound for pound people with no religion have done much less damage than those who have god.

I agree...most people who study many religions end up choosing none. But I also agree with the original point of this forum, that if the kids are forced to do it, they will reject it all the more.

Old boys of church schools, who had their religious gatherings in church as opposed to the school hall (at least it didn't semell of school dinners) are no more likely to be regular church attenders than those of us who went the ordinary primary/secondary state route.The idea of prayers in a _classroom_ is really abhorrant.
That said, I shall probably attend the open-air carols in the village square again if I'm in England in time.This is because (a) the nosh afterwards is good (b) I know all the words from those dismal hymn practices (c)it's bonding with my village community and (d) most of the carols are pagan anyway

I was at a carol service in my uni yesterday. it was actually because one of my friends was doing a reading and I showed up for support. It was fun belting out old carols (Even though only christian ones because they're now getting touchy on tehir adopted ceremony) but it got bored when it started getting very preachy with one bloke doing a big long speech by teh end of which there was an almost audible whisper of "Shut Up" from teh entire audience. The whole of Christmas is pagan. It was moved to winter to coincide (And compete) witha pagan ceremony and alot of that remains. Christmas trees are a sign of rebirth (Lights representing buds) and christmas cards often show pictures of robins and other wintery life. The feast (Or christmas dinner) is also very pagan.

The dates of Christmas match up to a pair of pagan birthdays. December 25 is also the birthday of the Egyptian goddess Isis' son, Horus. January 6, the date Christmas is celebrated in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, is the birthday of Isis' son Aion.

No matter whether christmas is seen be people as a pagan festival or a Christian one the overal feeling of community is the same.
Christmas is a time to bring familys and friends together, to eat lots of food and to spend lots of money.
As long as the underlying message of joy and peace remains then the origin of christmas doesn't matter.
If people wish to believe that christmas is entirely pagan then let them. On the other hand if, like me, christmas occurs as a celebration of the birth of christ then that's cool to!
Respecting other peoples beliefs is what life is about and I know it's a cliche but christmas is a time if giving and it doesn't matter why you belive that is, it just is!

I agree that one should accept other people's beliefs. If they want to follow the path of Christianity, let them. If they want to follow the path of Buddhism, then let them.
History has proved, though, that the religion that accepts other religions the least is Christianity.

I will not, however, try to start a brawl of religious beliefs.
I agree that Christmas is a time of the year where one should try to find joy in just being alive and not try to turn it into a matter of whether it's pagan or Christian.

I would also just like to point out that I find it rather interesting that both Christianity and Buddhism are religions based on the teachings of a person that was of a religion other than the one their followers started. After all, Jesus was a jew and Buddha was a hindu, right?

That's all I've got for now.
LinS out.

I'm not too sure about Jesus being a Jew. I've read quite a bit on the subject, and there's ample reason to believe he was an initiate in one of the many mystery schools floating around in his time. One in particular that he could have brought back with him from Egypt is that of Osiris. His death on the cross and subsequent ressurection is a reenactment of the fate of Osiris.

This

This forum is not treating me good.
Anyways, is it not true that Christianity is based upon the Jewish beliefs? After all, the Jewish belief is that one day, the son of God will come and save us all from evil. The Christians believe that this has already happened, which basically means that Christianity is merely a branch, although a big one, of Judaism.

Just an early morning thought.

LinS out.

If Jesus was the Messiah the Jews were looking for, he was a terrible failure. The Messiah was supposed to lead the Jews out of Babylon, win for them their independence, cast out all unbelievers, and rule a reunited Israel as king and high priest, just as David, Saul, and Solomon did. Several centuries after Jesus, the Romans were still in Jerusalem. That is why the Jews are still looking for the Messiah, since nobody who fits the above description has yet appeared.

To be fair to Jesus, teh romans were a pretty tricky bunch to get rid of, peacefully anyway. And Jesus was always a pacafist wasn't he?

I wouldn't bet on it. Aside from the moneychangers episode, and the "I come not to bring peace but the sword" line, Jesus had two members of the Sicarii as disciples, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot. The Sicarii were an ultraviolent, radical group dedicated to the Israelite independence movement. And the charge for which Jesus was crucified was insurrection. Too many 'coincidences' for me.

Whatever his personal views (and can we trust accounts written up to a hundred years later?), his followers have put too many non-believers to the fire and sword. In this they are not unique:no religion, even the supposedly pacifist ones, does anything to discourage violent followers on the rampage. We atheists are relatively harmless (mostly)

It could be argued that Jesus cannot be held responsable for the actions of those who follow him. But thats just hearsya and conjecture. What we do know from his readings is that he wasn't a power mad despot. Or at least, he didn't seem to want to run a city or countrey or start a war. So what does this mean? Well, not alot. On teh face of it we coudl surmise that he wasn't the messiah all along and every christian is wrong but, lets face it. That would be a stupid thing to do. So all i've done is waste everybodys tiem talking nonsense. Yipee.

And if athiests don't hurt anyone mostly, imagine how little damage agnostics do. Maybey its because both athiests and agnostics don't really go in for the holy war thing.

Well said researcher. After all, it's hard to raise rabble when your battle cry is "Just leave us alone!"

That

Once again, the forum keeps bugging me with sending off one-word entries.
As I was trying to say:
'Just leave us alone!' sounds like a really good war cry.
Maybe if one should use something from today's featured pick of 'Handy Latin Phrases" as a war cry instead?
'VESCERE BRACIS MEIS!'