(assuming it doesn't involve human sacrifice to make the sun come back or something), and let everyone else safely observe the phenomenon.

What the fuck is the problem?

The school could have offered an accommodation for those who chose not to participate.

Forcing everyone to do it and not allowing anyone to do it would both be problems.

Letting individuals make personal choices, even if those choices are based on their beliefs, is the progressive thing to do.

Let's say you are the principal and some parents have expressed concern that a planned activity is contrary to their religious beliefs. The beliefs are pretty harmless and the activity not critical.

What would you do?

You just said so yourself.

decide to give it a thought.

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded. It's not just for the religious.

You have a nice day now.

It's one thing to have these 'beliefs', it's quite another to insist on fucking it up for everyone else.

at all, let alone a solution.

It's just another of your phony, BS accusations.

But prove me wrong...show us ANYONE here who is dogmatically repeating "Religion is the fucking problem", as opposed to people quite properly pointing out specific instances where religion DOES cause a problem and saying why it's a problem

We both know you can't.

obvioud.

One can believe the moon is made of green cheese, and this should not be encouraged, sanctioned, or respected.

...the school did this "for religious reasons"...please explain how religion was "not really in this case"...

Or the patriarchy.

if the story is accurate, which it might not be.

The principal could have accommodated the parents who objected while allowing the activity.

This did actually happen in schools across the country for all kinds of reasons, most of them having nothing to do with religion.

....

their children to participate based on their religious beliefs.

The Head responded to that by not allowing any of the children to participate, but he had other options.

So religion was a factor in this scenario for sure, but I don't agree that "religion is the fucking problem". There was an issue and there were options for resolving it.

I asked the highly dogmatic replier what he would have done and he refused to answer.

What would you have done?

The one where religion is never to blame.

I post articles critical of religion frequently and often express strong objection to religion, religious practices and some religions in general.

Yes you do sometimes post articles critical of religion, then you fill the thread with excuses for religion and find blame in whatever you can grasp onto.

I wasn't aware of a playbook, perhaps you should disseminate your copy.

You read me through your own filters and while I am not doubting that this is your perception, it bears little resemblance to the reality of who I am.

I mean, you think I am a troll because I typed something incorrectly. That right there should tell you something.

A thing that must, evidently, be avoided at all costs. And the cost here only exemplifies the greater loss of our overall scientific understanding at the hands of ancient, fearful superstition.

deem "backward thinking", but that's another discussion.

The school is apparently in a predominantly Hindu community, so it could have a decision just based on numbers, but that's not clear.

They should have accommodated the families that objected and let the others carry on.

But they didn't. Because imagine the logistics. Send home a permission slip with everyone? To view a simple, common celestial event?

Nope, this is a direct result of the agenda you push. Respect religion and religious beliefs first and foremost.

Really? Because that is weak sauce.

I think it is a religious belief that is pretty freaking harmless.

Do you not have any things you do or don't do that someone might feel are backwards?

For you:

Our waitress admits
the town has its share of ghosts.
We sleep with lights on.

My argument with and opposition to the anti-knowledge, anti-curiosity aspect of various religions remains adamant. And it won't stop, ever, without some push back. Ask Galileo.

see as a regressive trait but that you not only see as harmless, but embrace.

It is possible to learn everything one needs to know about a solar eclipse without looking directly at it. This particular belief is probably born of something real, like people going blind after looking directly at them.

There is absolutely nothing here to suggest that the families that wanted to opt out of this were anti-knowledge or anti-curiosity. Nothing.

Galileo was a devout believer who saw no conflict between science and religion.

"God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

His ideas were suppressed and he was imprisoned, regardless of his belief.

I am taking issue with one specific aspect of religion. If someone can demonstrate to me that I am the victim of backwardness, I'll happily rid myself of that detritus. I have no god fear driving me to hold on to it. If it's impolite to call stupidity by it's own name, consider me boorish.

There are those among us today who would persecute a religious scientist for his religiousness and vice versa.

"Backwardness" is a very subjective idea. I'm not interested in calling anything you do "backward". If it doesn't harm any one else or yourself, who cares?

I feel the same about religious beliefs. There are some that I do think are harmful, and I object to those.

But I feel strongly that things like this should be within the rights of the individual and I find those that judge them much more objectionable.

If you call people with harmless religious beliefs stupid, then that's the shoe you will wear.

Some ideas that wrap themselves in religious cloaks are harmful. Ignorance because God is just not fine with me. Your insistence that religious beliefs should be tolerated because they are religious is outrageous.

Talk to women about how harmless religious beliefs are because some think these ludicrous ideas are holy. Really. Talk to atheists or homosexuals in Saudi Arabia about just how harmless those ideas are. There is a point at which tolerance is simply destructive. Imo, you are there.

There are harmful ideas. I agree. This just isn't one of them.

I insist that ideas, ways of being, personal habits, and on and on should be tolerated when they are harmless.

What I find outrageous is the judgmental attitude that religious beliefs should not be tolerated because they are religious.

What does looking at a solar eclipse have to do with women, atheists or homosexuals. I openly and adamantly object to all religious belief that harms others.

My tolerance in this matter is not at all destructive, but the intolerance towards the religious or non-religious no matter who is expressing it, is very destructive.

You, dear LAP, are exactly there and it's not at all liberal or anything to be proud of.

I maintain that that ignorance is bondage. Always. One dark alley leads to an even darker one. We'll not agree on this, cbayer. Not ever.


As for your personal aside, I'll ignore it, lest I say something I will regret. And with that, I have reached the end of my tolerance for this exchange.

Ken Miller, noted biologist, expert cited by the people of reason and sanity in the Kitzmiller/Dover school district trial, is a roman catholic. He keeps his religion separate from his everything else, particularly his role as a TEACHER.

Miller can be a roman catholic till pigs fly for all I care, because I trust him to keep his faith out of everything else. If he injected his faith into his work as a teacher, as a biologist, THEN I would have cause to pillory him.

It would look something like this

You called a belief "backward," that means you're calling all believers stupid. If you don't fold soon, the next thing she'll do is accuse you of basically proposing genocide.

The school is in "Little India" where there are a lot of Hindus, and if there were specific parents who wanted to not have their children participate, then I would be in favor of accommodating them.

But to not let anyone participate is ridiculous.

When respecting religion and religious beliefs becomes priority #1, as it is for yourself given your continual admonishments of DUers who don't adhere to that, you end up with situations like the one in the article.

* - From the wisdom of George Takei himself. https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/588142217881902

because of high levels of air pollution and fog ... The Duke of York’s staff ... released a picture showing the slate grey sky over Buckingham Palace ..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11485604/Solar-eclipse-huge-power-surge-as-disappointed-Brits-headed-indoors-for-a-cup-of-tea.html

were allegedly told not to watch the eclipse for fear of offending religious parents, according to the Evening Standard ... Ealing Council confirmed that pupils were not allowed outside of their classrooms to watch the eclipse, but said that they were able to watch the event on television screens inside. The alleged incident comes as pupils at Paignton school in Devon were also told not to watch the eclipse outdoors out of fears that some of the 700 children may look directly at the Sun and damage their eyes, according to the BBC ..."
http://descrier.co.uk/news/uk/london-primary-school-pupils-banned-from-looking-at-eclipse-for-religious-reasons/

meant they would not have been able to see it live ...”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11485958/Solar-eclipse-schoolchildren-banned-from-watching-on-religious-and-cultural-grounds.html

because of fears they could damage their eyes by looking at the sun ..."
Will you let YOUR child watch the solar eclipse? Parents' fury at schools forcing children to witness tomorrow's once-in-a-decade event on TV due to safety fears
By RICHARD SPILLETT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 06:38 EST, 19 March 2015 | UPDATED: 13:05 EST, 19 March 2015

on health and safety grounds ... All staff were sent a live link so classes could see the eclipse as it happened from the safety of the classroom ..."
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/eclipse-kings-norton-girls-school-8884367

on health and safety grounds. In a letter sent to parents, Paul Rooke claimed New Machar school in Aberdeenshire would not take 'risks around pupil safety and wellbeing' during this Friday's rare cosmic event. Parents have spoken out about the overzealous measures, suggesting the children should be given the chance to see the phenomenon - but the school says the protective glasses are not suitable for children under ten ... Mr Rooke referred to an online report which suggested the protective glasses may be too big to be worn securely by children, and that children under ten should only watch the eclipse on TV or with an indirect viewer ..."
Primary school headteacher bans pupils from watching this Friday's solar eclipse after health and safety fears they will be blinded
By JACK CRONE FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 11:39 EST, 16 March 2015 | UPDATED: 17:47 EST, 16 March 2015

that they will hurt themselves by staring at the sun. Pupils at Oldway Primary School in Paignton, Devon, will have to watch live film of the eclipse inside instead, according to the BBC ..."
School pupils are banned from watching rare celestial phenomenon
ANDREW GRIFFIN
Thursday 19 March 2015

to look at the solar eclipse on the barbs of ‘health and safety gone mad’. But the schools are showing admirable common sense. ... If being a little over-cautious means every child in their care walks out of the school gates at 3.15pm without tapping a white cane then who can criticise? ..."
Seeing the light on watching eclipse

North Primary is Southall is not a religious school but it is proudly multicultural. Students there were given, as homework assignments, construction of pinhole devices for eclipse viewing. There was some controversy in the UK prior to the eclipse, about whether young students could safely use viewing equipment. Various schools therefore decided the eclipse would be viewed live on monitors instead. On the day of the eclipse, much of the UK was so overcast and foggy, that most people could not view the eclipse from their own location. This may be the fault of French, because smog that happens in Paris does not stay in Paris. Across the UK, many people therefore just went back inside to sip tea and watch the eclipse on the telly, causing a surge on the national electric grid. The children at North Primary were able to watch the eclipse on screen and could not possibly have viewed it outside

The head of North Primary allegedly stated the decision, not to allow North Primary students to watch the eclipse outside, was based religious and cultural considerations. It is, of course, quite likely that someone expressed concerns about his or her child viewing an eclipse, since there was controversy across the country about whether children could safely use viewing equipment; and it entirely possible that a parent at North Primary expressed such concern using religious or cultural language. If the head of North Primary is in the habit of emphasizing the multicultural sensitivity of the school, then he is likely to have some well-rehearsed stock phrases regarding religious and cultural considerations, that he uses regularly. So it is entirely possible that head of North Primary made an advance decision, based (say) on weather forecasts or safety concerns or both, that students at his school would view the eclipse on-screen; and it is also quite possible that, when he set out to explain the decision, he spoke carelessly, so that what came from his mouth were those well-rehearsed stock phrases regarding religious and cultural considerations. In any case, since North Primary students wouldn't have been able to view the eclipse except on-screen, this exercise in noisy outrage seems pointless

This incident has turned into a full blown hate fest against religion just because it is religion. Without knowing the facts, some saw an opportunity to just go on the attack and somehow relate this to atrocities against gays, women and atheists.

This kind of broad brush attack on anything that even smells like religion is no different than what religious fundamentalists do when it comes to groups they find different.

It about as anti-liberal as it gets.

"Full blown hate fest"? "Against religion just because it is religion" Hyperbole much, cbayer? It's a few people on an Internet chat board criticizing one backward belief of one religion, because it promotes ignorance. And then pointing out that other such backward thinking, if tolerated, defended and even praised (as people like you are constantly doing here) has the potential to cause great harm.

And I know you have some little demon on your shoulder who always reminds you to insert the accusation of "broad-brushing" wherever possible, but you just end up looking silly when you do it without any thought.

Although, it adds the amusing anecdote of the British blaming the French for it being overcast.

That's actually pretty LOL

online advertisers can measure clicks, so they encourage click-bait reporting

I wonder if this story shouldn't really have been reported somewhat as follows:

Mr Belman usually likes the school his daughter attends. But today he is angry, after cloudy weather prevented her from watching an eclipse with the pin-hole camera she had made as a homework assignment. His daughter was forced to watch the event on-screen inside, and Mr Belman blames the school head, who now he says is suddenly promoting religiously-based anti-scientific views from the dark-ages. The school head was unavailable for comment when he called, and his wife refused to tell us whether he was currently in Orkney, sacrificing virgins to the cloud gods, as some townsfolk have speculated. She did say that she had been quite disappointed to be able to see the eclipse through the fog but felt better after a nice cup of tea

"There was some controversy in the UK prior to the eclipse, about whether young students could safely use viewing equipment."

There was some controversy about whether pupils would look directly at the Sun, not whether they "could safely use viewing equipment."

"The head of North Primary allegedly stated the decision"

It's a direct quote from him. If your italicised 'allegedly' means you wonder if the story was made up, then don't be coy - just come out and say you think the papers are making it up, rather than spamming the thread with links about how cloudy it was.

"It is, of course, quite likely that someone expressed concerns about his or her child viewing an eclipse, since there was controversy across the country about whether children could safely use viewing equipment"

Speculation on your part. Since there wasn't "controversy across the country about whether children could safely use viewing equipment", it's unfounded speculation.

" it entirely possible that a parent at North Primary expressed such concern using religious or cultural language."

Speculation.

"If the head of North Primary is in the habit of emphasizing the multicultural sensitivity of the school, then he is likely to have some well-rehearsed stock phrases regarding religious and cultural considerations, that he uses regularly."

Speculation.

"So it is entirely possible that head of North Primary made an advance decision"

Speculation. Given the children were making pinhole cameras - the equipment needed to view the eclipse outside - the decision does not seem to have been made much in advance.

"when he set out to explain the decision, he spoke carelessly, so that what came from his mouth were those well-rehearsed stock phrases regarding religious and cultural considerations"

Speculation, but you assume an astounding level of incompetency that I have never seen in any head teacher. If he meant to say 'health and safety' or 'too cloudy' but said instead "religious and cultural concerns", he is unable to communicate, or think, to the extent that he is unable to do his job. Since the article says 'he refused to say which religions and cultures have concerns about observing eclipses directly', it seems incredibly unlikely that his inability to communicate was the problem, unless it struck him twice, and he was not struck by how unusual it was that he was asked about religions and cultures when he thought he had been talking about health and safety.

"this exercise in noisy outrage seems pointless "

Not as pointless as spamming a thread with links about the weather on Friday. Or coming up with loads of baseless speculation.

You dispute there was "There was some controversy in the UK prior to the eclipse, about whether young students could safely use viewing equipment." But see my links #38, #39, #40, #41, and #46

"The head of North Primary allegedly stated the decision." See my link #36: the word "allegedly" occurs in that article; it is not my addition

You think that wondering, if "when he set out to explain the decision, he spoke carelessly, so that what came from his mouth were those well-rehearsed stock phrases regarding religious and cultural considerations," assumes an astounding level of incompetency ... If he meant to say 'health and safety' or 'too cloudy' but said instead "religious and cultural concerns", he is unable to communicate, or think, to the extent that he is unable to do his job. In my universe, perfectly competent people do sometimes say things other than what they intend to say. The person who reportedly heard the comments, parent Mr Belman says (in an article I have already linked) “It is a very diverse school with kids from a lot of backgrounds including our own. They take a balanced approach as a whole, so this is completely out of the blue.” This indicates Mr Belman's report doesn't coincide with Mr Belman's general impression of the school

You regard "it entirely possible that a parent at North Primary expressed such concern using religious or cultural language" as speculation. Again (in an article I have already linked) Mr Belman reportedly said he had asked the head teacher to specify which religions and cultures objected to viewing the eclipse but was told such information was confidential

"see my links #38, #39, #40, #41, and #46 "

They're not about whether children could safely use viewing equipment; they're about whether children would stare directly at the sun. And no report says safety was an issue at North Primary School anyway; it's a red herring you've invented and thrown in. Just because you've googled 'school' and 'eclipse' and found those articles, it doesn't mean they're relevant in this thread. Your spam is really annoying - but I'm sure you know that, because we see it strategically deployed in threads like this.

""The head of North Primary allegedly stated the decision." See my link #36: the word "allegedly" occurs in that article; it is not my addition"

You italicised it. I said you italicised it (see? I put that in bold. Both are for when the writer, on DU, want to emphasise a point. Don't try to weasel out of what you wrote).

"The person who reportedly heard the comments, parent Mr Belman"

The quote is given directly in the article, inside quotation marks. This indicates that the Evening Standard either heard Mr. Johnstone say it, or received it as a written message.

"This indicates Mr Belman's report doesn't coincide with Mr Belman's general impression of the school "

So what? He is complaining about this specific incident. That in no way means that the headteacher would be such a moron that he is incapable of saying or writing what he meant, but instead gave some standard pablum about 'religious and cultural concerns' without thinking. A headteacher who reflexively shifts the blame to 'religious and cultural concerns' when that wasn't true would be a really shitty person.

And since the direct quote ends with "however, the overcast conditions in West London today meant they would not have been able to see it live in any case", it is clear that the headteacher did mean to communicate a different excuse than the weather in the sentences before that.

"You regard "it entirely possible that a parent at North Primary expressed such concern using religious or cultural language" as speculation. "

Of course it is - it starts "it entirely possible". And you have not in any of your spamming posts (some of which just repeat the information in the OP, some of which just treat the reader like a 2 year old - do you really think we needed a picture of a cloudy sky to help us understand what 'overcast' means? For fuck's sake ...) found anything that backs up your speculation that a parent expressed "whether children could safely use viewing equipment" "using religious or cultural language". That's a bizarre claim.

If you'd concentrated on putting more relevant links into your trademark wall-of-replies, you might have found this article in a local paper, containing information that, contrary to your speculation above, the decision to ban was not made in advance, and that the headteacher gave the same quote to the local paper too:

not directly related to the statement in the OP, as if it spoke for itself, but when forced to confront the plain words of the headmaster that religious objections were behind his ban, you come up with endless and groundless rationalizations why THAT statement can't be taken at face value.

Typical...as is the knee-jerk adherence to anything that validates her agenda.

And it's so much more comfortable to take religion out of the equation.

/sardonic

I give a shit what he prayed for. What I care about and what you should care about, being from Kansas, is the interference of religious sensibilities in the education of other people's children.

Dammit! Leon Czolgsz shot William McKinley with a .32 Iver Johnson Revolver! That's no coincidence! This man's responsible for assassinating our president!

or not.

it is a clear signal that The Defenders of The Faith have had their hull breached.

Some folks are in a huge fit over it, trying to find any excuse but the one that the responsible party stated.

I think I'm getting cruise-heimers.

If there were parents who did not want their children to see the eclipse, they could have been permitted to withdraw their children but not dictate what everybody else in the school could do.