Sells

How "outrageous" would you find the practice of religious study or the provision of chaplains in schools if the religion was, oh say, Muslim or Hindi?

Just a thought.

There is no such thing as a “private prerogative”; this view buys into the secular doctrine that there is such a thing as a private self. Every individual is of a culture; notions of autonomy within it are pure fantasy. By nurturing “individual integrity” in children we engender elitism/egoism/alienation at the individual level and perpetuate secular doctrine; primarily that the “free” individual may prosper by her own wits—such freedom is effectively a commodity rather than an ontology and leads to delusion, narcissism or disillusionment. Secularism can not claim to be “objective” or “rational”; its tenets rest on Enlightenment dogma, or positivism: a shallow and discredited materialism.
If secularism is to compete as an ideology, it will have to revise its corrupted humanist credentials and set about promulgating something more “meaningful”.

We often find the word "secular" and the word "atheist" badly defined or defined in a way to boost the argument of the definer.

According to my online dictionary:
Secular is:-
.....a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

"Secular" is NOT "atheist" and "atheist" is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.
A good secular education system should neither instruct in religion or promote atheism. What it should instruct in is rational and logical thought processes based on evidence. This is what upsets most of our religious friends for religious belief and rational thought are uncomfortable bedfellows.

Priscillian said, "What it should instruct in is rational and logical thought processes based on evidence. This is what upsets most of our religious friends for religious belief and rational thought are uncomfortable bedfellows."

No, religious belief and rational thought are very compatible. What our secular friends don't wish to accept is that religious belief is rational to those who hold by those beliefs. The non-existence of God is just as unprovable as the existence of God. What makes secular humanism any more superior to any other religious 'rationality'? Where humanism falls short is in its non-acceptance of a God who can intervene in the 'logical' laws of nature. Without wishing to engage in intelligent conversation about such, they would rather focus on Sunday School-level arguments about bombs and war in the name of God as if it somehow proves that God is a nonsense. In that sense, theists are on a higher level of intellectual thought because they are able to think through those issues unemotionally and still manage to reconcile the idea of a Good God in the presence of (hypocritical) evil. This sort of 'critical thinking' is exactly what our students need to be trained in.

"..religious belief is rational to those who hold by those beliefs."

O dear!

Is it any wonder that Richard Dawkins unkindly termed this kind of thinking "delusional".

.....and by the way I have never attempted to argue the non existence of god/s. Similarly I avoid arguing against the existence fairies and UFO's

ausdag wrote: Where humanism falls short is in its non-acceptance of a God who can intervene in the 'logical' laws of nature.

Dear ausdag,

Humanism does not accept that for which there is no evidence. It is that simple. There is no evidence for any entity which can bypass what science has determined are the constraints which operate on the basis of the actions of matter.

The non-acceptance of assertions for which there are no proof is characteristic rational thought.

The acceptance of assertions for which there are no proof is characteristic of religion.

One can accept an assertion without any evidence to support the assertion. However, that is not rational.