abolish rules on Christian assemblies

1141517192023

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    Get a grip. We are talking about the everyday people in this country. Not leaders doing those Un-Christian things you mentioned 1000 years ago.

    You do sound a little ungrateful. Even if you dont believe in God, you must understand this country is built and structured on Christianity. Even if you're not a Christian yourself, the parents / grand parents / great grandparents probably were. Its your heritage and history and what made this country so great. Its the traditions. The architecture, art, literature and much more.

    During WW2 the VAST majority of people were Christian and they fought and defended the freedom of the land from a group of people who actually wanted Christianity wiped out. Over 1000 Churches were destroyed in the blitz. The arms of Christianity have been the sanctuary and and safety for many in the UK.

    People think the grass is always greener on the other side as we see from certain people displaying hysterical delight Christianity is declining in the UK. What we have now is a generation of ungrateful whiny little weasels who sit on there PC to complain about Christianity just for the sake of it.

    Christianity may be on the decline for now but so is the country in general, no coincidence there.

    I am not, and have never denied our country owes a lot of it's history and culture to Christianity, hence the reason I think it's contribution to such things should still be taught in secular schools.

    But you really do have rose tinted glasses on as Christianity has, all through history, committed some very nasty atrocities too. To deny that and try and paint Christianity as some force for good through history is ludicrous.

    And general crime has been falling in the West for many, many years so the country isn't as much in decline as you seem to think. Much of the very recent decline has been as a result of many things, including the banking crisis, increases in poverty due to government cuts and many other factors, including mass immigration yes. But most of that mass immigration has come from the rather Christian Eastern Europe. That must make your head explode I bet.:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »
    That was kinda the point. You are understanding that the line in bold in my post is a fallacy that I am then debunking. ie. the whole "they're trying to ban people from practising their faith in school," is a strawman. People who bring that up are creating a false target to attack.
    You did not state your first bold line was fallacy because it was wrong because that is not what you or anyone else wants to do. You stated it is wrong becaue it is not just a minority or fringe view.
    Helbore wrote: »
    Nobody cares about abolishing school worship except for crazies on the internet

    This clearly indicates that this issue goes beyond a minority or fringe desire to impose their views on the majority.
    Helbore wrote: »
    abolishing school worship

    Christian children are free to pray during break times,

    in their own free time

    Not having a religious service at a school

    It should be treated as we would treat history or social studies as a subject and should take a dispassionate, unbiased look

    Singing hymns and praying to the Christian god is not education, though and has no part in a claim of teaching about religion. There is no need for children to engage in worship at school, because that is not what school is for.
    Helbore wrote: »
    See, like this. This is a strawman. You can't actually argue the fact that a modern British school contains pupils from varying faiths, so instead bring up how some religious leaders have agreed with a statement by David Cameron.

    Irrelevant to the point made. The school remains an institution made up of members of varying faiths and beliefs. That is not a point that can be argued, so instead it is sidestepped around
    Your point was that the collective act of worship was imposing on people of varying faiths. My reply was that those of other faiths are not objecting, anti-religious athiests are. After all those of other faiths parents can have them not attend, the school can opt out, and they even have their own state funded faith schools.
    Helbore wrote: »
    The issue is that our modern-day schools contain pupils of varying faiths.

    the pupils are not attending school to engage in the worship of a single religion that many of them do not follow. Not having a religious service at a school does not impose a view on Christians. Having a Christian service, however, does impose Christian views.
    Helbore wrote: »
    But the point is that the school has no need to be engaging in daily acts of Christian worship in the first place. It is not a church.
    Collective acts of worship have been a mandated part of the state school experience since 1944 and are part of an ethos of the whole child. Education alone is not the sole purpose of a school, making good decent citizens is also a goal. From sport and team spirt, to cultural enlightenment with art and music, to spiritual enlightment and morality and a sense of belonging to a communtity.
    Helbore wrote: »
    That is why this rule is seemingly being ignored by so many schools according to the article. It would seem that, broadly speaking, even the schools do not want to be doing this.
    Times have changed. Broadly speaking the only schools engaging in collective acts of worship are those that want to.
    While religious education has moved away from studying the bible. We have also seen the introduction of things like mandatory citizenship lessons.
    Helbore wrote: »
    As for faith schools, that's a completely separate topic. But to make things easier, they could always only admit students of their particular faith and openly state in their literature that they will be having faith services as a part of their curriculum.
    What about schools affiliated with relgions or define themselves of having such a character. If they and in fact all schools can choose to have collective acts of worship, then we are on the same page. We do not disagree. I have no problem with all schools being free to choose to have or not have collective acts of worship.
    Helbore wrote: »
    Still with the strawman that this very point you are arguing was trying to debunk. This is NOT about preventing worship, it is about stopping it from being compulsory.
    In the current status quo it is not compulsory is it, if parents can have their children not attend, and schools can choose not to have collective acts of worship. Then it is not compulsory. And if you agree that schools should be able to have collective acts of worship then we are in agreement. It should be down to school and parental choice.

    The powers that be may however disagree. The government's knee jerk reaction to muslim takeover of schools has been to find fault with the schools including citing in ofsted reports failure to have a daily collective act of worship of a Christian nature. This threat to the status quo of actually seeking to not leave the law up to the schools interpretation, or letting schools opt out maybe what motivated the national association of school governors to ask for the law to be changed.
    Helbore wrote: »
    Sorry, calling bullshit on this one. I've studied loads of religions and not had to engage in active worship of that religion in order to become educated about it..
    Are you a believer practicing their faith or a non believer?
    Because saying I understand something like religion if you are not a beliver practicing that religion, is like saying you understand a sport or art or music without ever having played any sport, created any artwork or made any music. Religion is an experience it is a way of being.
    Helbore wrote: »
    In fact, to make such a claim suggests you are, in fact, in favour of forced religious worship. You make statements that children shouldn't be "restricted" from playing football or painting just because they don't like it. You are now claiming that Christian worship actually constitutes education and therefore, just like other subjects, shouldn't be something you can opt out-of. You are actually advocating forced Christian worship on all students by making this claim.

    I don't think you thought that one through before deciding to contest it.
    I am not making an argument for forcing parents to have their children take part in collective acts of worship. I believe in religious freedom and freedom of thought. That means people are free to engage in collective acts of worship including as part of public life, including as part of the school day and other people are free to not do so.
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Probably from the Tony Blair generation onwards this country has been getting shitter every year.

    Tony Blair? The good ole Catholic? Lol. Yeah that bloody atheist. Haha. You bloody idiot!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,899
    Forum Member
    GayAtheist wrote: »
    Tony Blair? The good ole Catholic? Lol. Yeah that bloody atheist. Haha. You bloody idiot!

    Is there really a need to resort to childish insults?
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I used the word crazies as the post I was replying to used the term.
    Crazies is a fine term to use when it involves religious folk, especially christians!
    It is currently the social norm and tradition.
    Ummm, not any more, Thankfully. There is need to subject children to the mental illness of its predecessors.
    Chritianity has been round for a couple of thousand years, and there are a couple of billion Christians on the planet, of the worlds religions it has the largest number. It does not look like it is dying out.
    It has been around for a while, but like many diseases it is dying out. The evidence will show you that.
    I take it you would ban religious practice from schools.
    Definitely. Children need to be taught knowledge based on evidence, not awful fairy tales.
    School time is their time as much as anyone elses. If society wants it to be part of the school experience and the school wants to have collective acts of worship and the parents want their children to attend. Who are you to decide what they can do.
    I have no authority to say what they can do. Thankfully those in charge who wish children to learn facts, not fiction, are seeing christianity for what it is. Good times.

    Cameron described the UK as a Christian country, that is not promoting Christianity that is stating a fact. And the people who objected were anti-religious atheists, not the majority of the population. There was no mass protest.
    If I had meant terrorists I would have used the word terrorists.
    The CofE by the way is not in to bombing others, and athiests as well as those with faith have committed acts of terrorism in the name of faith or ideologies.
    Lol. Really? Please share your evidence........
    I do not comprehend you sentence. Beyond you see no problem with restricting the freedoms of people you disagree with. Like stopping other people participating in collective acts of worship at school.
    Are you simple? Religion has no place in school. Keep in churches, synagogues, etc. We will keep education out of such backward institutions too!
    Unfortunately for you society has learnt the lessons of history. And religious freedom is a basic human right protected by national and international law. That includes freedom to practice in public not just private.
    Indeed it has. Hence why religion is not so public any more. Feel free to practice in public, don't surprised if you are rightfully arrested or sectioned.
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ramo1234 wrote: »
    Is there really a need to resort to childish insults?

    Feel free to allow Incognito to reply instead of getting involved (just for a change!)
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You do sound a little ungrateful. Even if you dont believe in God, you must understand this country is built and structured on Christianity. Even if you're not a Christian yourself, the parents / grand parents / great grandparents probably were. Its your heritage and history and what made this country so great. Its the traditions. The architecture, art, literature and much more.
    I can safely say my parent/grandparents/great grandparents were ALL atheist - thank f**k. Lets not pretend that the good ole days of christianity ruling were, in fact, good at all! The fact that we had two world wars from this generation says it all! The British Empire, whilst powerful was not good, but oppressive. Thankfully for humanity it no longer exists, although its reminents still do........
    During WW2 the VAST majority of people were Christian and they fought and defended the freedom of the land from a group of people who actually wanted Christianity wiped out. Over 1000 Churches were destroyed in the blitz. The arms of Christianity have been the sanctuary and and safety for many in the UK.
    Are you suggesting the Catholic Hitler wanted Christianity wiped out? Get your history sorted!
    People think the grass is always greener on the other side as we see from certain people displaying hysterical delight Christianity is declining in the UK. What we have now is a generation of ungrateful whiny little weasels who sit on there PC to complain about Christianity just for the sake of it.
    How very tolerant and christian of you! Lol.
    Christianity may be on the decline for now but so is the country in general, no coincidence there.
    Any evidence for this? I doubt it.......
  • Incognito777Incognito777 Posts: 2,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GayAtheist wrote: »
    Tony Blair? The good ole Catholic? Lol. Yeah that bloody atheist. Haha. You bloody idiot!

    I never said he was an atheist and I said that generation as a time period.
  • Incognito777Incognito777 Posts: 2,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GayAtheist wrote: »
    I can safely say my parent/grandparents/great grandparents were ALL atheist - thank f**k. Lets not pretend that the good ole days of christianity ruling were, in fact, good at all! The fact that we had two world wars from this generation says it all! The British Empire, whilst powerful was not good, but oppressive. Thankfully for humanity it no longer exists, although its reminents still do........


    Are you suggesting the Catholic Hitler wanted Christianity wiped out? Get your history sorted!


    How very tolerant and christian of you! Lol.


    Any evidence for this? I doubt it.......

    Feel free to allow captainkremmen to reply instead of getting involved (just for a change!)
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Feel free to allow captainkremmen to reply instead of getting involved (just for a change!)
    I don't need anyone to reply for me. What are you on about? Have you had a brain fart or something?! Perhaps you don't want to reply properly, hence your evasive "reply"?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 53
    Forum Member
    About time. Having children who aren't Christian, religious or of a different religion sit through a Christian assembly isn't fair. I remember having to sit through them in primary school and was just expected to put up with it. I couldn't opt out because my parents identified as Christian and didn't see what the problem was.

    I believe it should just be a regular assembly for all pupils and inclusive so that no one is made to feel that their beliefs are "wrong" or are sidelined. Learning about Christianity is fine so long is it is from a neutral and balanced point of view. R.E is where this should take place and other religions and non-religious beliefs should also be included.

    To be honest I was horrified by an earlier comment in this thread. The majority of non-religious people in Britain were born here and should not be expected to "move to another country" if they disagree with Christian assemblies. We're just as British as Christians and people of other religions are.
  • Incognito777Incognito777 Posts: 2,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GayAtheist wrote: »
    I don't need anyone to reply for me. What are you on about? Have you had a brain fart or something?! Perhaps you don't want to reply properly, hence your evasive "reply"?

    But I wasn't talking to you, it was debate I was having with captainkremmen and butted in as usual.
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But I wasn't talking to you, it was debate I was having with captainkremmen and butted in as usual.

    Then sort out who you quote, then it would make it clearer. Or carry on being a martyr if you wish...
  • Incognito777Incognito777 Posts: 2,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GayAtheist wrote: »
    Then sort out who you quote, then it would make it clearer. Or carry on being a martyr if you wish...

    I quoted captainkremmen, are you confused as to who you are?
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AWT42 wrote: »
    To be honest I was horrified by an earlier comment in this thread. The majority of non-religious people in Britain were born here and should not be expected to "move to another country" if they disagree with Christian assemblies. We're just as British as Christians and people of other religions are.
    Indeed. If we suggested that Christianity returned to its roots in the Middle East and told them to move back there, they would soon kick off, but they are just pathetic, intolerant, cult followers who need to feel oppressed it seems!
  • SJ_MentalSJ_Mental Posts: 16,138
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    We as a family do not follow a religion, Our child's primary school claims to be Non-denominational and yet this week reading her school report it is quoted various times that in RE she is learning about other religions and that she is christian.

    I am not against her learning about religion and making her own decisions about religion but I felt that was quite presumptuous as we have never been asked about our religious stance.
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You did not state your first bold line was fallacy because it was wrong because that is not what you or anyone else wants to do. You stated it is wrong becaue it is not just a minority or fringe view.

    Then you misread my entire post.

    My very first statement was that this thread needs a FAQ - a list of Frequently Asked Questions - to deal with the numerous fallacies that were being presented. I then presented my entire post as if it were a FAQ. ie. here is the question - or in this case, the fallacy - and this is why it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

    It is irrelevant BECAUSE it is a fallacy. Almost all of the fallacies are Strawman arguments - people replacing what is actually under discussion with a completely different premise and then rebutting or attacking that.

    eg. rather than arguing against the position that religious services should not be made mandatory in state schools, the debater instead claims that the discussion is about repressing religious freedoms.

    Its no wonder you reacted in the way you did to my post. You have completely missed the entire point.
    Your point was that the collective act of worship was imposing on people of varying faiths. My reply was that those of other faiths are not objecting, anti-religious athiests are. After all those of other faiths parents can have them not attend, the school can opt out, and they even have their own state funded faith schools.

    Wrong. The point is that the national body representing school governors are recommending it should be changed, not anti-religious atheists. Again, you are constructing and attacking a strawman - unless you believe that school governors all over the country are anti-religious atheists.

    Again, this is indicative that you have failed to understand the structure of my post and how it was in direct response to specific fallacies that have been repeated in this thread.

    Collective acts of worship have been a mandated part of the state school experience since 1944 and are part of an ethos of the whole child. Education alone is not the sole purpose of a school, making good decent citizens is also a goal. From sport and team spirt, to cultural enlightenment with art and music, to spiritual enlightment and morality and a sense of belonging to a communtity.

    So many things wrong here that I'm sure I won't be able to list all of them.

    1. Already discussed the fallacy of "its tradition, so should just carry on."

    2. Whether it should be a mandated part of state education is the whole point of the article being discussed. Claiming that "it should be because it is," is a circular argument because it suggests the point of discussion shouldn't be discussed.

    3. The position that Christian worship brings about "good, decent people," is open to discussion and anyone of a different religious persuasion would actively disagree. A school is not there to force a particular religion as morally correct and absolute.

    4. This claim, once again, suggests the religious worship should be forced, as it is clearly the right thing to make good people.
    Times have changed. Broadly speaking the only schools engaging in collective acts of worship are those that want to.
    While religious education has moved away from studying the bible. We have also seen the introduction of things like mandatory citizenship lessons.

    Which is exactly why it shouldn't be a part of law. Should schools have to break the law because times have changed, or should the law change to mirror those changed times?

    Your statement agrees with the idea that this law should be changed.
    What about schools affiliated with relgions or define themselves of having such a character. If they and in fact all schools can choose to have collective acts of worship, then we are on the same page. We do not disagree. I have no problem with all schools being free to choose to have or not have collective acts of worship.

    As I said, the whole point of my post was to disprove the fallacy that this is about forcing people to not engage in religious worship. It is not. It is about not forcing people to have to engage in religious worship.

    If a school clearly spells out that it is a religious school and will include time dedicated to religious service, then parents are free to choose whether to send their children to that school or not. A school that does not want to conduct religious services should not be forced to by an Act of Parliament, even if said Act isn't being generally enforced by the overseeing body.

    Again, I think you have obviously misinterpreted the entire point of my initial post.
    In the current status quo it is not compulsory is it, if parents can have their children not attend, and schools can choose not to have collective acts of worship. Then it is not compulsory. And if you agree that schools should be able to have collective acts of worship then we are in agreement. It should be down to school and parental choice.

    The powers that be may however disagree. The government's knee jerk reaction to muslim takeover of schools has been to find fault with the schools including citing in ofsted reports failure to have a daily collective act of worship of a Christian nature. This threat to the status quo of actually seeking to not leave the law up to the schools interpretation, or letting schools opt out maybe what motivated the national association of school governors to ask for the law to be changed.

    Schools cannot legally choose to not have "acts of worship." That is the point. Many do not comply with the legislation and OFSTED seem to have stopped enforcing it broadly. But it is still law and it can (and is) enforced on occasion.

    Currently they're all breaking the law, but no-one is enforcing it. So what is the point in maintaining the legislation? Its pointless.

    But, again, you are obviously missing the point of my post. There ARE people here arguing that it should not be rescinded and therefore, any school ignoring the legislation should remain breaking the law. There is a clear agenda behind those expressing such views and it is obvious by the amount of fallacies being presented to try and twist the argument into something it is not.

    Hence my FAQ to debunk the false claims.

    Are you a believer practicing their faith or a non believer?
    Because saying I understand something like religion if you are not a beliver practicing that religion, is like saying you understand a sport or art or music without ever having played any sport, created any artwork or made any music. Religion is an experience it is a way of being.

    Are you claiming then that religious worship should be made a part of the curriculum in the same way as sport, music or art? If so, which religions should be engaged in worship?

    You see in Sport, we will play football, basketball, cricket, netball, hockey, athletics, rounders, tennis, badminton and so on.

    In art, we will study things such as expressionism, realism, surrealism and abstract, as well as technique like perspective and how to mix colours.

    In music we will learn about classical, contemporary and rock music, whilst also learning multiple different instruments.

    This doesn't apply to religious worship, though, does it? We don't spend a term doing Christian worship, then next term its Islam, then after Christmas we're on to a term of immersing ourselves in the Aboriginal dreamscape.

    Sorry, but religious worship in schools has NOTHING to do with education about the religions. None. At. All.
    I am not making an argument for forcing parents to have their children take part in collective acts of worship. I believe in religious freedom and freedom of thought. That means people are free to engage in collective acts of worship including as part of public life, including as part of the school day and other people are free to not do so.

    I don't think you are, either. I think you've massively misinterpreted my post and on deciding it was an opposing viewpoint, gone about dismissing points it wasn't making. Even more, gone about dismissing points that my post was dismissing itself.

    The final point where you have openly stated that religious worship is an integral part of religious education, I believe is simply a result of you assuming you need to oppose all my viewpoints. Because if you truly believe in religious freedom, then you cannot believe that religious worship should be integral to all children's education - as the only way that would work would be to either remove all religious education from schools, or to force religious worship on all children just as maths or English lessons are forced on all students.

    I think if you actually re-evaluate that point, you will change your position on why religious worship is integral to religious education.
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I quoted captainkremmen, are you confused as to who you are?

    Not at all. Feel free to look at your previous posts and see who the confused one is......
  • dragonzorddragonzord Posts: 1,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SJ_Mental wrote: »
    We as a family do not follow a religion, Our child's primary school claims to be Non-denominational and yet this week reading her school report it is quoted various times that in RE she is learning about other religions and that she is christian.

    I am not against her learning about religion and making her own decisions about religion but I felt that was quite presumptuous as we have never been asked about our religious stance.
    WTF a school has no right to class a child as Christian or any other religion, its the parents decision to say what religion if any a child is.
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dragonzord wrote: »
    WTF a school has no right to class a child as Christian or any other religion, its the parents decision to say what religion if any a child is.

    No it isn't - its up to the child, if they are mature and educated enough to make such a decision. We shouldn't become part of a religion (or no religion) because our parents said so. How ridiculous!
  • dragonzorddragonzord Posts: 1,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GayAtheist wrote: »
    No it isn't - its up to the child, if they are mature and educated enough to make such a decision. We shouldn't become part of a religion (or no religion) because our parents said so. How ridiculous!

    Up to 11 years old it should be the parents decision.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GayAtheist wrote: »
    Are you suggesting the Catholic Hitler wanted Christianity wiped out? Get your history sorted!
    Hitler repeatedly stated in private that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not "co-exist with religion". Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler's long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany

    The Nazi party had tried to reduce the influence of Christianity in society since the 1930s, and encouraged Nazi party members to leave their religion. In 1937, the Nazis banned any member of the Hitler Youth from simultaneously belonging to a religious youth movement. Religious education was not permitted in the Hitler Youth and by 1939, clergymen teachers had been removed from virtually all state schools. By 1939 all Catholic denominational schools had been disbanded or converted to public facilities. While in elite Nazi schools, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship. Hitler eliminated political Catholicism, closed all Catholic organisations that weren't strictly religious, and conducted the Kirchenkampf (lit. church struggle). While wary of open conflict with the churches, Hitler generally permitted or encouraged anti-church radicals such as Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann to conduct their persecutions of the churches.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »
    if you truly believe in religious freedom, then you cannot believe that religious worship should be integral to all children's education - as the only way that would work would be to either remove all religious education from schools, or to force religious worship on all children just as maths or English lessons are forced on all students.
    I can believe something without wanting to forcibly impose my belief on everyone else. I can believe something and think it is right, but not want to forcibly impose my belief on everyone else. I can respect others right to religous freedom and freedom of thought.

    The idea is rather intrinsic to modern Christianity, where people are not converted at the point of a sword, and with the threat of burning on a stake. That you cannot force people to become Christians. That God gave humanity the freedom to choose.
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dragonzord wrote: »
    Up to 11 years old it should be the parents decision.

    Because.....?
  • GayAtheistGayAtheist Posts: 1,484
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hitler repeatedly stated in private that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not "co-exist with religion". Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler's long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany

    The Nazi party had tried to reduce the influence of Christianity in society since the 1930s, and encouraged Nazi party members to leave their religion. In 1937, the Nazis banned any member of the Hitler Youth from simultaneously belonging to a religious youth movement. Religious education was not permitted in the Hitler Youth and by 1939, clergymen teachers had been removed from virtually all state schools. By 1939 all Catholic denominational schools had been disbanded or converted to public facilities. While in elite Nazi schools, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship. Hitler eliminated political Catholicism, closed all Catholic organisations that weren't strictly religious, and conducted the Kirchenkampf (lit. church struggle). While wary of open conflict with the churches, Hitler generally permitted or encouraged anti-church radicals such as Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann to conduct their persecutions of the churches.

    Anyway to those who like facts feel free to read Mein Kampf and look at the belt buckles worn by Nazis during the war, neither show Hitler as a secularist.
Sign In or Register to comment.