mabelode,
As silence implies assent, I take it that you have reconsidered your position on “the thin edge of the wedge” whether assessed as a communist, social democrat, trade unionist, theist, or atheist. I must admit that I do have difficulty reconciling your stated position on personal liberty and liberal democracy with your acquiescence to the French State’s suppression of individual liberties – down to such details as what type of head covering one may and may not wear to class. Rather intolerant I’d say, but then, I’m not French. As a bad law remains a bad law even if applied consistently, I am curious why a law which is described as draconian is one about which no-one should complain.
While it is true that there are countries that do teach its dominant/official religion as fact, it is decidedly not true for all countries. It is not the case that each country teaches its dominant/official religion as fact, unless you are referring to the citizens of a country being inculcated in that country’s culture, a different process than being “taught”. If it is true that there is no country without a culture, and I would argue that case, then it is unreasonable to expect its citizens to grow up within it without absorbing their cultural norms.
Perhaps I can call upon some local expertise; how many of our American Pixies were offered, much less had forced upon them, religious education in state funded schools? For that matter, how many Australian, Canadian or English Pixies were compelled in their state funded educational careers to pass exams on Christian, Muslim, or Hindu theology? I am under the impression that, at least here in the States, very few religious education classes are funded by Federal, State, or Municipal governments.
As for teaching atheism, I don’t think that would be wise at all. Atheism asserts the absence of God, just as theism asserts the presence of God. Are you suggesting that there exists a proof that there is no God? Unless the claim can be objectively substantiated by repeatable tests, such a claim must reside in the realm of other faiths.
Many people, I among them, consider that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Additionally, if one wished to take a scientific approach, one must keep in mind that a hypothesis can only be falsified, not proved. Frankly, given the metaphysical properties of both theism and atheism, I believe both are clearly outside the domain of science. Finally, Kurt Gödel’s paper "
On Formally Undecidable Propositions Of Principia Mathematica And Related Systems" contains a proof that there exist truths which cannot be proved. Replace “truths” with “God” and the sentence remains logically unchanged. We both know that the proof exists only within the limits of formal systems, so I cannot offer it as a proof, but it is persuasive, even if not convincing.
Not, I hasten to conclude, that there is a God, only that those who make blanket assertions that there is no God do so with neither evidence to support their position nor iron clad logic to support their arguments.