George - correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you said once you were a maths teacher. How then could you say now that you're not an educator?

I thought that too, but assumed I must've been mistaken.

CJ Morgan
I used the term “educator” in the given context. I indeed never taught maths at a primary or secondary level. I just lectured in Pure Maths (and in service courses for science and engineering students) at the Uni.

AJ Philips,
Let me repeat, we are not talking about university level maths but about primary and secondary schools. There maths and ethics courses (within, or without, a religious context) are both about rules (of algebra, geometry or acceptable conduct) that the student has to be persuaded are not arbitrary (like chess or football rules) but that he/she has actually “subconsciously” always known them to be “reasonable”.

Of course, there are differences between maths and ethics, and I used the maths example firstly because the situation there is much simpler (there are no quarrels about what are the “right rules”) and secondly because I was more familiar with it.

>> No one blows themselves up based on the absolute belief in the accuracy of pi.<<
There are many other things that a fanatic cannot base his action on, in distinction to distorted patriotism, distorted religion, ideology, lust for power, hallucinations, etc.

>> No one shoots-up abortion clinics<<
Well, a couple of lunatics did, and other lunatics assassinated (or attempted to) other public figures they did not like. This has nothing to do with any mainstream ethics, only an insane interpretation of some.

>>leaders don’t base their decisions on, or declare war in the name of mathematics <<
Again, there are many things that you cannot proclaim war in the name of, in distinction to (as before).

>>Nor can I see how ethics could inspire the hatred and violence we see from religous radicals.<<
I don’t know what you call ethics (“moral principles that govern a person's or group's behaviour” in my dictionary). Do you call ethics only those moral principles your world-view approves of? Didn’t the nazis have their own ethics?

I do not know what your political preferences are, but your second last paragraph is “totally unacceptable” not only to “most Theists” but also to most democrats.

George:"I do not know what your political preferences are, but your second last paragraph is “totally unacceptable” not only to “most Theists” but also to most democrats."

I think not. Democracy implies protection for the vulnerable, as well as assertion of the rights of those able to make their own decisions.

Children are vulnerable and profession of a belief in an imaginary creator is delusory. It is within the most basic remit of a democracy to protect the young and impressionable from being subjected to indoctrination of any kind other than that associated with living in a civil society.

The Abrahamic religions rely on a suspension of disbelief and a rigid form of "approved" delusion for the very existence, so it is critical for them to indoctrinate the young, before the ability to think critically and to analyse the merits of an argument are developed. As the Jesuits were fond of saying (paraphrased):"Give us the boy and we'll give you the man".

The US model of "freedom of worship" is fatally flawed, based as it is on the dissatisfaction of a group of malcontents forced out of the England of their day because they preferred their version of their imaginary creator to the officially-approved one and were prepared to cause civil strife to get their way. By entrenching religion in the national polity, the US has had and will have enormous problems to face in future as crackpots of all sorts use their "right" to do as their imaginary creator demands.

Let's face it, religions are a primitive form of explanation for the inexplicable. Since we now have better explanations, those who seek to use indoctrination of the young to proselytise their delusions should be constrained. Their behaviour constitutes an assault.

Democracy 'implies' that all individuals are equal to all other individuals; at least before the law (in theory). This means the beliefs of all individuals must also be equal. If one man believes in God, and one does not, who can say which is right?
The invidious aspect of Christianity is the notion that a child cannot enter Heaven without embracing Jesus as his/her saviour. This strikes at the very core of parenthood. What Christian believer would jeopardise the eternal life of their children?
The Bible offers a supposedly offers a clear choice between two 'opposites'. But does it?
Two or three millenia ago it might have been obvious that God was Good, and Satan was bad; even if only because God entered into a legal, binding contract with his chosen people. In this age, God's supposed 'goodness' is rather less obvious; the Bible depicts a rather brutal, ruthless patriarch determined to have his own way at any cost, and more than willing to sacrifice the innocent.
The choice then comes down to Heaven and Hell; a much more black and white decision.
For those determined to believe in an afterlife, indoctrinating their children becomes a matter of some urgency.

Grim:"This means the beliefs of all individuals must also be equal"

Not in the slightest. Some beliefs are not to be encouraged, however fervently believed. They are dead ends on the road to understanding the world, not a way to greater knowledge.

Grim:"For those determined to believe in an afterlife, indoctrinating their children becomes a matter of some urgency."

Thus perpetuating the delusion. How far do we go in asserting their right to assault their child in the name of their delusion? We saw recently the case of the couple who allowed their belief in the delusion of homeopathy to cause them to avoid seeking easily-available treatment for their baby child, who died of an infection brought on by severe eczema. They were jailed.

Delusions are dangerous. Democracy does not imply the freedom to hold dangerous delusions. Our State regularly locks people up for doing so. Belief in an imaginary creator can also be dangerous, as a glance at the US or any part of the Middle East will clearly show, while belief in an afterlife has created the suicide bomber.

As a secular democracy we should not be permitting the indoctrination of our children with such delusions. If they come across them later in life, let them decide then, just as people do with all their hobbies.