You'd think, but when I've suggested that religious beliefs are different from other types of beliefs, which might include which sport a child should play at school, and should therefore be subject to a different set of rules, I've basically been subjected to ridicule. 'But Mightyboosh' people say, 'you teach your children speak your language, so really you're just promoting your personal belief there, why can't the religious do the same?'

So now I'm trying to understand how other people see it and I'd like to start with why children at school are protected from a teacher promoting a specific religious belief. Why is that the case, when Base 10 is promoted, or Evolutionary biology... Why is religion different?

Sure. But you can understand that the letter would attempt to frame things in the starkest terms possible, regardless of whether those terms are necessarily factually accurate. Again, this is the broader point I've been making.

Your claims were structured around the claim that religious beliefs were formed via different mechanisms than other beliefs, so that other beliefs were insulated from the types of criticisms you were raising.

There is no necessary reason for there to be separation of church and state. That's just how the government was established. So in that sense, this is an arbitrary declaration.

Right. The thing I quoted.

Yes on both counts. But how they deal with the book will be more interesting, as there is no request for a judgment that the the book itself presents a constitutional violation.

The entire focus on the complaint is centered on the interactions with the student group.

Yeah, if you look at the cause of action, they only plead the involvement with the student group.

They plead, the facts - not sure why they would not claim the activities outside the group as well.

If you are gonna go for litigation go all the way... A wise man once said, no half measures.

You've made a number of kitchen utensils very sad today.

Historical reasons. Wars have been waged and people persecuted in the name of religion. Sports or languages not so much.

I do sympathise with you a bit, because the actual nature of the criticism you receive on this subject is subtle and hard to grasp. I'll try to illustrate it with an example.

If someone is walking around believing that they are the current president of the USA, they have a serious delusion. With the exception of Barack Obama. Why should his belief be treated differently? Because he IS the current president of the USA.

If someone is walking around believing they are the reincarnation of Napoleon, they have a serious delusion. But now it will not be enough to say that Barack Obama is an exception due to the fact that he is the president of the USA. Sure, it is a difference between him and everyone else, but it is no longer a relevant difference.

So it goes with you. While you frequently want to treat religious beliefs completely separate from non-religious beliefs, you almost as frequently fail to provide reasons for why the difference between religious and non-religious beliefs is germane.

What is the relevant difference between the type of maths we teach our children and the religious beliefs that we prevent teachers from 'promoting' to them?

The onus is on the person who claims that religious beliefs shouldn't be taught to children while maths should to justify the difference. I haven't claimed that so it's no good asking me.

If I did want to make such a claim I would probably go with "mathematical propositions are true and religious propositions are false". But of course, this would be a global model for the criteria necessary for a belief to be appropriate to be taught in schools, and I would therefore not be treating religious beliefs as fundamentally and intrinsically different from non-religious beliefs (i.e. plenty of non-religious beliefs are false).

In the US setting, the relevant difference is that the government has arbitrarily* declared that religious promotion is off limits. (*Arbitrary in the sense that it is not a logical necessity to distinguish religious teachings from other types of teaching. It would be the same reasoning if the government had declared that schools *MUST* promote religions.)

This is pretty the opposite of the reason why there is an Establishment. They thought it was a necessity to distinguish religion from the function of the government.

Yes. It was decided that separating the two elements would enhance the function of government.

But (relevant to MB's confusion) it's not because the structure of religious beliefs (how they are formed and perpetuated) are different in kind than other beliefs.

If the official language of the US were English, this would be an arbitrary decision under the same sense of the word. One could make arguments about how it would impact the functioning of government, but it would not follow out of some sort of logical imperative. (See also "checks and balances.")

I'm not asking for a justification, I'm simply trying to figure out what the difference is. There clearly is one, since one is permitted and the other isn't.

It's not about the truth of what is being taught, it's the choice of what to teach and how to teach it. A teacher can educate children about religion, but can't promote one. But, are we not promoting all the other subjects that are taught in schools? We have decided (experts empowered by us have decided) that children will benefit from learning History, Maths, Biology etc etc, and within those subjects, various views and approaches are 'promoted'. Games clubs are permitted, sports activities, various other 'extra-curricular' activities are allowed to be promoted.

Why not a religion?

Yes. we are.

Yes. Students are urged to learn science, math, history, and other subjects, as well as develop "soft skills" by participating in other activities.

Because it has been decided that religion is not part of the fundamental curriculum. There are literally millions of things that we *could* teach in schools. But we only teach a relative few as the standard expectations. For example, California schools teach California history, but not Georgia history. US students usually don't have an in depth unit on Parliamentary governance. It's unlikely that US students learn how to use an abacus.

These are just the arbitrary* decisions that have been made. (See above for clarification on the word arbitrary.)

I'm not interested in this topic. What I responded to was your complaint that people tell you off for treating religious beliefs as different to other beliefs. My point is that a) unless two things are identical (A=A) then those two things are - by logical necessity - different (A!=~A). People complain when you don't justify why the difference between religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs should be treated differently in a given situation. They don't just complain that you think religious beliefs are different from non-religious beliefs... of course they are different.

fwiw, I think that a little bit of comparative religion IS a subject that is worth pulling out of the millions of possibilities and integrating a little somewhere in the english/socials/history curriculum. This is simply a function of its cultural import, much as teaching To Kill a Mocking Bird or The Dairy of a Young Girl shed light on important historical issues that frame our cultural and provide a common grounding, so too is religion.

I dont know if this is what you are saying, but my gripe is that MB uses something about religious beliefs, that can also be applied to other beliefs, but then denies that it has any applicability for the non religious beliefs. So its like he would say

All husbands are male, therefore they should be jailed.

And then I point out that batchelors, divorced etc are male, and therefore by his logic, should be jailed. And he goes " nononono thats totally different"

So it seems that its not the fact that they are male that is bothering him at all, but rather the fact that they are husbands that he dislikes/disagrees with. Or to put it back into RGT parlance, its not the fact that religions use X, Y, or Z, its the fact that they are religions that he dislikes/disagrees with

Yes. But for clarity, what I am saying he's doing is more like saying "nonono, husbands are currently married, so they are totally different to widowers and batchelors". Well, sure, that is a difference, but it doesn't justify treating them differently.

what about if there are two husbands in this scenario, what would MB think then?

Ok, I thought you might help me understand why they are treated differently in this given situation. Perhaps you think I'm attempting an argument here, I'm not.

To use Neeel's favourite example, why is teacher allowed to promote the idea that children should do homework, but not to promote a religious idea to them? How are those two things different?

Am I? I thought I was doing the opposite and always treating religious beliefs differently and not varying how I treat them depending on circumstances, and that's the position that I've been accused of holding unreasonably.

What is the difference between 'you should do your homework' and 'you should believe in X god'?

It doesn't seem like you are attempting an argument ITT. As I said, I am just responding to your complaint. You feel you are being criticized unfairly by (myself and) other regs here, and I am trying to help you understand the nature of that criticism.

As I said, I have little to no interest in this topic. However, here in the UK, as you know, schools ARE allowed to promote religious ideas. So you really need to be asking the American regs, not me.

1) That isn't the opposite of what I said.
2) I have actually not said that you always treat religious and non-religious beliefs differently. You treat them differently when it suits your anti-theist agenda ("it is always wrong to promote religious beliefs to children") but treat them the same when it suits a different argument ("studies on non-religious beliefs show cognitive biases, therefore religious beliefs suffer from cognitive biases").

I last presented you with these observations less than a month ago:

You still dont get it.

You are saying X is bad cos Y. I point out that Z is also Y, and therefore by your logic, is bad, and you go "nononono thats different"

So its not that you are differentiating between beliefs, its that you hold up something as a reason or standard to judge something, but then refuse to judge other things by the same standard.

So it follows from that , that its not the Y that is causing you the problem, but the X.


This wasnt my example. My example was of how you interact with your children, and unconsciously push beliefs and ideas on them. After probably 10 times of asking you the question, you still didnt answer. Why?



What do you mean by difference? difference in what sense ? truth value?

What you seem to be asking is WHY do we promote doing homework and not (a specific) religion? And there could be a large number of answers. Perhaps the people who decide these things think that achieving good grades is more important than spiritual matters. Perhaps they think that religion is a load of hooey. Perhaps they want to be fair to all religions, and realise that there isnt enough time in the day to cover all religions and also teach other subjects.

why do YOU think we should promote doing homework , and not religion?

And I want to know why you think X = Y where X is a religion and Y is homework. I don't think X=Y, I think they're different. I'm saying 'nononono that's different', and you're saying 'nononono it's not". OK, why aren't they different?

You think I'm being hypocritical because I think it's wrong to urge religious/secular beliefs on my children whilst I'm busy urging on them the belief that they should do their homework. That's fine with me to do that because I think that they're entirely different types of belief and it's ok to urge the latter on children and it's not ok with the former. I'm entirely consistent in the application of that logic, what I can't explain to your satisfaction is the difference between the types of belief. Fine, you explain to me why they're not different.

I've answered it multiple times, you won't accept my answer. In any case, I'm now stepping back and trying to rethink my answer.