Atheist Banned from Religious Education Committee
In West Sussex, former teacher Andrew Edmondson was the humanist who sought a seat on the county council's advisory committee for religious education. A majority voted to keep him out — because he's a humanist.
Mr Edmondson, a humanist, believes people can lead their lives without religion and use reason to explain the world and solve problems. Despite giving a presentation on humanism to members they voted against allowing him a place on the committee.
Mr Edmondson, of Balcombe, said: "Despite the detailed presentation I gave them, they likened humanism to minority religions such as pagans and scientologists. They failed to understand that humanism is the voice of reason, necessary to balance supernatural beliefs. Our children should be given a choice in schools and not railroaded into believing one thing or another. It is appalling that children in West Sussex are not taught that there is an alternative to religion. There is nothing stopping any school from teaching non-religious views. Schools should surely try to encourage reason." ...
Committee chairwoman Margaret Collins said: "Following a lengthy debate lasting three meetings including a presentation from Mr Edmondson the committee decided by a majority vote not to include a non-religious organisation within its membership."
Source: The Argus
According to Edmondson, a little over 60% of people prefer humanistic explanations of events over religious explanations — and that this percentage is even higher among young people. Edmondson argues that a humanistic, non-religious viewpoint on how religious education is handled is thus both appropriate and vital. Andrew Copson, spokesman for the British Humanist Association reacted to the decision to reject Edmondson by saying that it was "narrow-minded, bigoted, and stupid."
It's difficult to find fault with Copson's reaction — it might be legitimate to reject Edmondson's application if, in theory, he were simply unqualified to contribute to decisions about religious education, but not because he's not religious himself. Why should students only be taught about religious perspectives as if there only existed religious alternatives to religion — why shouldn't they learn about non-religious perspectives on what have been traditionally discussed solely from religious perspectives?
Comments
They will start every meeting with a prayer. This sort of noise will guarantee the absence of God, since no one can hear him over the din.
I don’t believe there’s enough information here about this situation to make a valid judgment. For one thing, I’d like some details about this committee, its composition—in other words, what are the religious beliefs or viewpoints of the rest of its members—purpose, and authority. If its mandate is principally how to teach students religion, then I’m not surprised a humanist would be considered persona non grata, as he’d likely be more interested in addressing the question of whether they should be teaching students religion at all.
Also, it would be helpful to know under what auspices the teaching would be carried out: Is it in a formal religion class, or something like a social studies class? A humanist’s exclusion from the former would be more understandable; not so much from the latter. In fact, the humanist perspective certainly ought not be excluded from a general religious studies course.
I would be prepared to consider the humanist’s exclusion from a teaching-religion class, if only for the sake of logical consistency: After all, I don’t want them teaching religion in science classes, so it’s hard for me to insist that they teach the possible validity of unbelief and in religion classes.
Finally, I think a more fundamental question, in the event this committee’s raison d’etre is to teach students religion, is whether such a committee should even exist at all.