Why should religion have any influence on our lives?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Fidel

The point I was making (obviously a little poorly) is that you can't separate the influence 'religion' from the presence of 'religious people', or at least not in a democratic or remotely free society. Religion is not an abstract construct that exists independently of people. If you want people to be free you must accept religious influence in society. If if you really want to remove the influence of religion then you must somehow remove the religious people (or very heavily suppress them, but then of course you have given up any notion or pretence of a free society).

By suppressing religious education of children you have yourself given up any ideals of a free society. A society with such level of state-control (that seeks to suppress commonly held values and beliefs) is certainly not one I'd want to belong to, but perhaps atheists would all be happy with such totalitarianism.

Totally disagree with all that.

I understand your point, but I think you misunderstood mine. Religion propagates only by convincing people that it is true. It's nothing more than an ideological premise usurping other ideologies to gain the centre ground in people's minds. The actual validity of its claims are irrelevant.

Bracket out for a second that religious people exist, or, more accurately, people who believe in a religion and its practices exist (as this wasn't the point of my post - You can't 'stop' a religious person being religious unless they don't want to be anymore), there would be no more people ascribing to that ideology were nobody to come into contact with it.

I am not advocating that religious expression be forbidden, I am advocating the opposite; an equal playing field for all religions and all religious beliefs to be taught on an equal setting.

The UK is evidence of how not suppressing religious education but indeed highlighting that there are a myriad other religions out there and none of them should be given special preference results in a general trend of diminished religious subscription.

Your response does also rather give the impression that atheism can't hold it's own without always wanting to lurch towards totalitarianism (which of course matches some of the significant and relevant history of atheism in politics).

This makes no sense. Atheism has no political machinations, unlike it has to be said many organised religions.

I not once mentioned atheism, but rather secularism. You don't have to be an atheist if you're a secularist.

Recognise you're speaking to an egalitarian here, as well. equality of opportunity for all.