taxizen wrote:non-religious education for all children.
....ever more anti-religious provision
Non-religious does not mean anti-religious.
That's a narrative I have heard before but I don't buy it. The great rise in atheism occurred in countries where atheist teaching was propagated on a massive scale through compulsory, totally tax subsidised universal education.
What hogwash! Public schools haven't been teaching atheism. Not mentioning religion does not mean opposing it. Parents are free to teach religion to their kids; the State does not object. This is so silly and paranoid--if public schools were really teaching atheism, instead of being neutral, there would've been such an outcry so long ago...the public schools would've long ago lost the bulk of students.
Btw the rise of atheism does not correlate with the advent of public education. As recently as 1964, long after public education began, the number of catholic priests peaked. The precipitous decline since has been due largely to increased scientific awareness of the kind fostered by Sagan and Dawkins.
What religious institution using voluntary, fee or donation funded education could compete with that?
They don't have to compete because public schools are neutral on the religion issue.
Atheism scored because it managed to buy or otherwise win the backing of the state.
More paranoid garbage. How many politicians have run on an atheistic platform...many have claimed to be religious....
Atheism is defacto state religion for many countries.
It hasn't been since the fall of communism, though that may change greatly at some point in the future.