Halloween and Muslims

Zombrex

Just My View wrote:

This is not a seperation of Church and State topic.
Nobody ever objected to this celebration before so that is not the issue.
Now the muslims come along and we are all to dance to their tune.
Thanks, but no thanks.

"Jumping to their tune" would be celebrating Ramadan in Irish national schools for a month (including the pre-sunset fasting).

I would imagine most Christian parents would have an serious objection to that.

It funny that people have serious objections to traditional Irish religious celebrations being dropped from public schools, but I also notice that they have serious objections to traditional non-Irish religious celebrations being included in public schools. The "if they don't like it they can f**k off" attitude.

Zombrex

the_syco wrote:

I view Halloween like going to mass. You can go and enjoy it, or you can stay at home, and not integrate with the community.

You have to go to mass to integrate with the community? that is news to me, considering I'm an atheists and haven't been to mass in 15 years.

Just My View

Wicknight wrote:

"Jumping to their tune" would be celebrating Ramadan in Irish national schools for a month (including the pre-sunset fasting).

That would be one tune all right, being prevented by them, here in Ireland, from doing what we have done for centuries is another.

Zombrex

Just My View wrote:

That would be one tune all right, being prevented by them, here in Ireland, from doing what we have done for centuries is another.

Well last time I checked we aren't celebrating the month of Ramaden in public schools, so how exactly are we jumping to "their" tune?

JC 2K3

Thaedydal wrote:

My children are nominally pagan,
thier classes did discuss hollow'een and it's tradiations and historys and touched on the different harvest festivale from around the world.
Thier classes did not dress up this Hollow'een, there are no muslim children in thier classes but there are born again christians, mormon and jevovah's witnesses children in thier class who would not have been able to take part so
none of the children dressed up this year.

That has achieved nothing but eliminate some fun from kid's lives due to political correctness.

Thaedydal wrote:

But there should be even handedness and fair play, the turn about being my children are being taughts christmas carols.

Have you complained? I'm sure complaints from other parents got Halloween celebrations in school to stop.

Thaedydal wrote:

As for being a victim of democracy I would love a referendum on the rights of the child to include the making illegal the indoctrination of children which happens due to the lack of non demonintioal or multidenominational school in this country.

I'd support that.

Thaedydal wrote:

We are a multicultral society and it is somthing that we should have faced up to long before now.
We should have christmas/yule/diwali/hanukkah cards in our shops.
We should not expect everyone to have the same traditions and beliefs.

What's the point of the Irish nation state then? What's the point of political divisions of countries? Integration like this doesn't work. It's all very well to say celebrate it privately, but what about trick or treating? That's a community based thing. Should people stop doing this? Should all community-based celebrations be banned? Or should people with the same customs simply live beside each other? But wait, isn't that the whole point of countries?

Every country has to have a majority culture. That's how they work. There's no problem with minority groups living in other countries. But they shouldn't be catered for just because they've chosen to come and live here. Multiculturalism doesn't work. Acceptance of minority cultures within another does.

A country's culture does need to evolve with time though. I think it is indeed time to seperate church and state. In school, traditional holidays can be celebrated and learned about without a religious bias.

Just My View

Wicknight wrote:

Well last time I checked we aren't celebrating the month of Ramaden in public schools, so how exactly are we jumping to "their" tune?

I didn't say we were, did I?
They are trying to get us to reject our traditions to suit them.

InFront

Just My View wrote:

They are trying to get us to reject our traditions to suit them.

Who? Give us some evidence. Real evidence.

Hobbes

JC 2K3 wrote:

What's the point of the Irish nation state then?

Being Irish is not based on what your religion is.

But they shouldn't be catered for just because they've chosen to come and live here.

What about those that have always been here? You do know there are Irish Muslims, Jewish for example that were born and raised in Ireland and aren't even first generation. They are just as much Irish as anyone else born here.

And you need to look more into what a democracy is. It isn't majority rule. It is also looking after your minorities to ensure that everyone in the country has equal rights.

Schuhart

Is it fair to say that part of the problem is identifying what is a ‘public’ school in Ireland. We might expect that VEC schools should be secular, but a fair portion of publicly funded schools are denominational and owned by the Churches – with the bulk of those presumably being in the hands of the Catholic Church.

I had a quick look at the Department of Education website but could not find any readily available information setting out exactly how many schools there are and how many are denominational. However, I take it that intuitively we know this is the case.

That raises a practical problem. It’s fair enough to expect that secular schools ignore religious festivals. But how do you reasonably maintain that a school that regards itself as having a Catholic ethos should ignore them? Alternatively, how can you expect it to give equal time to other faiths?

On the other hand, if we suddenly decide we want to stop funding denominational schools, then a fair portion of our educational infrastructure is left blowing in the breeze as (so far as I know) typically the actual school property is owned by the local Bishop or a religious order or whatever. Hence, to bring about a smooth transition you would actually need to negotiate some kind of handover arrangement with the various religions.

I honestly don’t know if the relevant religious authorities have any feelings in this space. Maybe they cherish their last little bit of control over education. Alternatively, maybe they simply don’t have the human resources any more to manage schools in any kind of meaningful way and would be glad to be shut of the responsibility. But if the decision is to take religion out of education, it would look like some significant effort (and possibly money) is involved in actually bringing that about.

JC 2K3

Hobbes wrote:

Being Irish is not based on what your religion is.

True, but it was a big factor in Irishness up until recently.

Hobbes wrote:

What about those that have always been here? You do know there are Irish Muslims, Jewish for example that were born and raised in Ireland and aren't even first generation. They are just as much Irish as anyone else born here.

And I'm sure they all celebrated Halloween without a fuss. Constitutionally you could argue that they are not fully Irish due to the inclusion of a Christian God in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Hobbes wrote:

And you need to look more into what a democracy is. It isn't majority rule. It is also looking after your minorities to ensure that everyone in the country has equal rights.

Emm... no. All democracy essentially means is majority rule. There are lots of different forms, but I'm afraid this idea of looking after your minorities is simply your personal philosophy. Not that I disagree though. Everyone should have equal rights within Irish cultural restrictions.

Lord Suave

Hobbes wrote:

And you need to look more into what a democracy is. It isn't majority rule. It is also looking after your minorities to ensure that everyone in the country has equal rights.

What a strange thing to say. Majority rule is exactly what a democracy is.

for example Merriam-Webster define it as :

government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

InFront

JC 2K3 wrote:

And I'm sure they all celebrated Halloween without a fuss. Constitutionally you could argue that they are not fully Irish due to the inclusion of a Christian God in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Do you want to expand on that? It seems like an absolutely baseless, rubbish theory if you ask me and the first Ive heard of it (and probably the last).

Humanities is seemingly the home of the 'political Islamic debate' (whatever that means) on boards.ie. While some of the debates are excellent with very well read regular contributors (who probably know themselves who they are), sometimes the debates descend into pointless mudflinging by unthinking, transient contributors. I think that this debate has a lot of that. some choose to simply ignore the Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and others respective inputs (including conservative Christians) that Thaedyal mentioned earlier who may have a problem with Hallowe'en.
One hint of Muslims (apparently) complaining about something and you get the same old complaint about us not integrating and wanting to force our way of life upon you.
Sit yourself up the bandwagon there, Josephine, between the shotgun and the shamrocks.

JC 2K3

InFront wrote:

Do you want to expand on that? It seems like an absolutely baseless, rubbish theory if you ask me and the first Ive heard of it (and probably the last).

It was a dig at a flaw in the Irish constitution, nothing more. Considering the large amount of people who are not Christian yet consider themselves fully Irish I believe God should be taken out of it.

Captain Trips

Thaedydal wrote:

We are a multicultral society and it is somthing that we should have faced up to long before now.
We should have christmas/yule/diwali/hanukkah cards in our shops.
We should not expect everyone to have the same traditions and beliefs.

Yes,

(a) no we are not. We are a pretty much monocultural and monoethnic society. The vast majority of immigrants are also a) of european origin and b) catholic.

We are a *consumerist* society, and if there was a market for cards/gifts for other religions, I'm sure someone would be selling them. What are going to do, force pubs to sell equal amounts of non-alcoholic beer even though 99% of people want alcoholic?

Force people to use Meteor even though most people have Vodafone or O2?

Where does this communist idea of everyone being ultra correct to each other? And why should I change? I'm not asking to go on Hajj; well, I would if the Saudi police didn't shoot me or cut my arms off or something for daring to suggest any changes be made to any of their culture.

But here in Ireland, we should say feck it, Christmas might offend some small group of people so we have to cancel it? This is a bunch of marxist nonsense.

I ask no country, people or culture to change for me; to expect it to do so is arrogant and against any hope of a non-violent society.

InFront

Cant people just stop exaggerating this? One report of one letter being overheard on the radio alledging that immigrants cancelled Hallowe'en does not mean that Muslims plan to cancel Christmas Get over it!

Zombrex

Just My View wrote:

I didn't say we were, did I?
They are trying to get us to reject our traditions to suit them.

No, we are scrambling to remove all religion from our schools so we don't have to institute their religion at all. The idea of no religion celebrations in school is a lot more acceptable to some people than starting to integrate Muslim culture and religion into school. If it is a choice between celebrating Halloween but also Ramadan, or simply celebrating neither, a lot of people would take the neither (since all Muslims are terrorists and Islam preaches violence, obviously).

I would imagine the Muslims would be quite happy to have any Christian celebration they like in school so long as they also have all the Islamic ones. They (Muslims groups) have even said this a few times

Zombrex

Lord Suave wrote:

What a strange thing to say. Majority rule is exactly what a democracy is.

Yes but I think most people would agree (I hope) that the majority cannot vote to oppress the minority.

I can't remember the last time someone said that the Holocaust was acceptable because the Germans were the majority and the Jews were the minority.

(and before anyone says it, yes I'm aware of Goodwins law )

Lord Suave

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but I think most people would agree (I hope) that the majority cannot vote to oppress the minority.

Depends what you define oppress as, if it’s when the majority imposes a set of rule/conditions on the minority contrary to their wishes; well that’s exactly what a democracy is by definition.

Hobbes

Lord Suave wrote:

What a strange thing to say. Majority rule is exactly what a democracy is.

It may be the rule of the majority, however it does not mean that you automatically ignore the wishes of the minority in the country. That's the difference between a good and bad democracy.

Remember 49% is also a minority.

Hobbes

InFront wrote:

Cant people just stop exaggerating this? One report of one letter being overheard on the radio alledging that immigrants cancelled Hallowe'en does not mean that Muslims plan to cancel Christmas Get over it!

As infront mentions the thread wasn't directed at Muslims directly nor was it about Muslims, it was more for "Thier take on it".

So take that into account that there is more then one demographic being discussed here.

Zombrex

Lord Suave wrote:

Depends what you define oppress as, if it’s when the majority imposes a set of rule/conditions on the minority contrary to their wishes; well that’s exactly what a democracy is by definition.

But everyone has to abide by those rules. If the majority vote that a person has rights A,B,C they have to apply to everyone, not just the majority.

Which is why some are quickly realising that if we don't want Islamic religious practise in our schools (personally I despise Christianity as much as Islam, but a lot of Christian people don't like the idea of Islamic celebrations being taught in schools ) we need to get religious practise out of our schools, since saying that one childs religion is more important than another childs religion isn't going to work.

Lord Suave

Wicknight wrote:

But everyone has to abide by those rules. If the majority vote that a person has rights A,B,C they have to apply to everyone, not just the majority.

Which is why some are quickly realising that if we don't want Islamic religious practise in our schools (personally I despise Christianity as much as Islam, but a lot of Christian people don't like the idea of Islamic celebrations being taught in schools ) we need to get religious practise out of our schools, since saying that one childs religion is more important than another childs religion isn't going to work.

Not true, it’s perfectly acceptable within a democracy for the majority to specify that their religion is taught. It’s as hobbes stated earlier that it might not be a 'good' democracy but it remains one none the less.

We're kind of getting off the topic in hand. The interesting thing in this is that it seems to me that it’s not the Islamic section of society which are pushing for the removal of Christmas from schools but secularists using the notion of inclusiveness to push their agenda, the removal of religion from schools.

Zombrex

Lord Suave wrote:

Not true, it’s perfectly acceptable within a democracy for the majority to specify that their religion is taught. It’s as hobbes stated earlier that it might not be a 'good' democracy but it remains one none the less.

Well it depends on what you mean by "perfectly acceptable". It is perfectly within the political definition of "democracy", but then so was the USA before the Civil War when they had slaves and that certainly was not an "acceptable" or "good" form of democracy.

To me a "perfectly acceptable" democracy is a "good" democracy, and in a good democracy the rights of an individual holds equal even if that individual is in a minority. Everyone has the right to religious freedom, and that includes that they are not put in a system that requires, formally or informally, that they particpate in religious practise foreign to their own religion.

So technically you are correct, that is not necessary for a democracy, but I would feel it is necessary for a "good" democracy.

Lord Suave wrote:

but secularists using the notion of inclusiveness to push their agenda, the removal of religion from schools.

But the agenda of secularists is the removal of religion from public institutions. What other reason would they have?

There are 3 factors here

1 - The minority religions, though most of the time they are not the ones making the fuss, and are often the first to comment that they don't actually mind things like Christmas or Easter.

2 - The Irish Christians who are scared of Islamic celebrations being brought into the schools, and would rather get rid of religion in schools altogether than have to share time with foreign scary religions down the line.

3 - Secularists who think it is ridiculous that any particular religious tradition or practise is held in higher regard by the State, and who think that a secular society is the only way to bring all people together as equals (an easier option that attempting to accomedate all religions equally).

4 - The people who want everything to stay the way it is, and all 3 above to just f**k off.

So it is a bit of a complicated mess. Personally I would fall into category 3, I think the best way to avoid mess like this is the American idea of seperation of church and state. Otherwise you are just treating every case on a case by case basis and it gets very confusing.

Lord Suave

I think you missed out the fifth group (and what I suspect the majority group) which is the one with the people who really don't care. Most people are happy with the status quo and are not bothered by religion in schools.
I think its fair to say that most irish people (and as shown by the last census) identify themselves as catholic (they may not be practising catholic I agree) and as such have no problem with seeing it taught the schools which cater for the majority.

I also suspect that the majoroity of people (myself included) also think along the lines of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' with it comes to schools/religion.

What we have are very vocal minorities on both sides of the debate tring to force their agenda on others, but I guess thats the way it always is.

Nevyn

We are ment to have separation of church and state we are a republic and have no state offical religion;
but we all know this does not translate on the ground and does not reflect the truth of the matter in regards to many things, the ficasco that is the way school are set up and run in this country being one of them.

I don't agree with taking all religion out of school, there should be a relgious program that gives children an over view and an understanding of all religions;
but specfic indoctrination and instruction should be left to parents and the community that is the church/mosque/synagog/meeting place/prayergroup/grove or what ever that family is a memeber of.

I don't think we will see the likes of Hollow'een not being celebrated anymore just because children don't dress up in school,
I don't think we will see christmas not being celebrated anymore just because children are not having carol service or nativity play in school any more.

Nevyn

Lord Suave wrote:

I also suspect that the majoroity of people (myself included) also think along the lines of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' with it comes to schools/religion.

I disagree, and there have been several threads already both here and in legal discussion and in parenting about how broke the system is.

Lord Suave wrote:

What we have are very vocal minorities on both sides of the debate tring to force their agenda on others, but I guess thats the way it always is.

Change does not happen for minorities other wise, this has been the case from
women's right to vote, the making of contraception legal in this country, to
the decriminalsation of homosexuality.

It is not agenda pushing, it is about being able to live your life to your own standards and religious beliefs.

The only place for islamic teaching as part of school is to my mind in the 2 islamic primary schools in this county.

IF there were more multidemoninational schools we would not have such changes in catholic/christain ethos school.
There should be catholtic schools teaching what they want but they should not be the default and only option for parents and children.

Jackie laughlin

There are lots of narrow definitions of democracy. Most admit the importance of freedom of expression. "Offence" has become our new censors' favourite word. Making fun of beliefs, treating them as daft is part of the way that issues are discussed in western democracies. I will have fun celebrating Christmas. Some of the most fun discussions will involve jokes about nutty papal teaching, e.g. gender inequality, contraception, homosexuality, and perhaps jokes about Christianity itself. Don't worry, I've spoken to God and She likes to laugh.

I have no problem with lines of people touching their foreheads to the floor in prayer several times a day. However, the absence of women rings alarm bells: it signals "Here we go again! and we thought we had this issue licked. This extends into other issues. Islam is even more wrong than Catholicism when it comes to homosexuality. Shariia law is "intrinsically evil".

Tolerance rests on criticism and ridicule is part of criticism. There are Islamic comedians but they are few. One, whose name I forget, joked that she was retaliating against the covered-face brigade by talking to them through the letter box! That's DEBATE in our society.

What we need urgently is a list of Islamic holidays. Let's then pick the most sacred and give everyone the day off work. We can celebrate Islam in song, eating, drinking, merriment, banter.

Raise your glasses! Let's hear it for the Prophet! And praise be his ("His"?)name!

(By the way, for the nutter above who confused Marxism and political correctness, I should that Marx is a major influence on my thinking.)

(By the way eile, there is no place in schools anywhere in this country for unfortunate children to be taught intolerant nonsense. Teach them to pray, teach them about God, teach them about anything as long as it doesn't let them grow up thinking that iconoclasm is bad.)

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

4 - The people who want everything to stay the way it is, and all 3 above to just f**k off.

I’d put myself in a subdivision of 4. Before committing to change, I’d want to have some idea as to how much it’s going to cost. I’m not convinced the issue is much more than symbolic, and I don’t see a need to give it that much priority when it comes to parting with shillings.

Do we build a network of alternative publicly funded secular schools, leaving the existing properties in religious hands? Do we make an offer to buy the existing denominational schools off their current owners?

Faced with a blank sheet of paper, there would be no problem. But I don’t see how any change from the present system is possible other than incrementally. That means, for the foreseeable, publicly funded denominational schools who obviously teach and observe whatever goes with their faiths.

Lord Suave

Thaedydal wrote:

I disagree, and there have been several threads already both here and in legal discussion and in parenting about how broke the system is.

While it may be true that perhaps you and the others on the two forums you refer to feel differently, the lack of a popular uprising on the subject seems to show that majority remain indifferent. Thats not to say that you don't have a point, but I still hold to the believe that people on the whole are happy with the status quo, I guess we agree to disagree.

Nevyn

I would ask how much research you have done into this matter Lord Suave many people don't consider ti to be an issue until they have to deal with the broken system.

Lord Suave

Can't say I've done a huge amount of research on the matter, I did refer to it as my own opinion. I and a few of my friends have found ourselves in a situation common to a lot of other parents in that while we may profess to no faith we (I) see no problem sending our kids to schools with ties to christian orders.
I for example had my son baptised for no other reason than a) it would make it handier to get him into the local school (which is overssubscribed), and b) for an easy life.
Talking to others in my estate it seems I've a pretty common outlook. There is a educate together school, but its not handy to get to and certainly doesnt offer anything better in the education stakes compared to the nearer school he now attends.

Perhaps you'd like to give us a overview of your own research and how it leads you to believe that majority feel otherwise.

Hobbes

Your comment is funny in that you signed your kid up to a religion for the simple reason it would make life easier for you.

Showing a clear sign of why the system is screwed up.

Zombrex

Lord Suave wrote:

I think you missed out the fifth group (and what I suspect the majority group) which is the one with the people who really don't care. Most people are happy with the status quo and are not bothered by religion in schools.

Well I was assuming this would only involve people who cared either way. If you don't care what happens then you probably wouldn't involve yourself, as it would be hard to do so without putting forward and opinion.

Lord Suave wrote:

I think its fair to say that most irish people (and as shown by the last census) identify themselves as catholic (they may not be practising catholic I agree) and as such have no problem with seeing it taught the schools which cater for the majority.

What is "it"?

Religion in general, or Catholism. Because I know quite a few Catholics who would have a big problem with Muslim celebration being celebrated in their school, even along side traditional Christian celebrations.

It's all very well for someone to say that religion in school is fine, but the people who normally say that, or at least say that the loudest, do so because their religion is already being taught.

And they also, strangely enough, tend to be the ones with the biggest issue with other "foreign" religions being introduced to schools.

You also run into a problem where it is not practicle to follow all religions in school, which is where the secular argument that a seperation is needed. Each religion, including Christanity, should be give a few days in an R.E class, no more no less.

Nevyn

Lord Suave wrote:

I for example had my son baptised for no other reason than a) it would make it handier to get him into the local school (which is overssubscribed), and b) for an easy life.

Well I am glad things are working out for your in your apaethic life.
People who do just that are proping up a system that needs to be changed
and while people put up with such things for an easy life there will never be change.

Lord Suave wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to give us a overview of your own research and how it leads you to believe that majority feel otherwise.

You don't have to try that hard if you look at the number of primary school being founded and the requests for schools that are either multidenominational or non christain you can see there is a demand and a growing demand for alternatives so that people don't have to live a sham life as sham catholics and disrespect other peoples religions by making a mockery of the vows that a parent swears to up hold when they have thier child baptised.

Lord Suave

Hobbes wrote:

Your comment is funny in that you signed your kid up to a religion for the simple reason it would make life easier for you.

It’s just been pragmatic about it. It assisted him getting into the school we wanted, not the sole reason mind you but one of bigger ones. Yes in an ideal world it might be nice if it wasn’t the case, but its not and it doesn’t bother me to so.

Wicknight wrote:

What is "it"?

Religion in general, or Catholism. Because I know quite a few Catholics who would have a big problem with Muslim celebration being celebrated in their school, even along side traditional Christian celebrations.

A fair point you make there, I’d say the majority would prefer a catholic tinted education since that’s what they/we’re used too.
As for having Islamic celebrations performed in non-Islamic (ostensibly Christian) school I can see why some people might be upset. But if you go to a vegetarian restaurant and want to order a blue steak, can really be that surprised if people get upset.

Hobbes

Lord Suave wrote:

But if you go to a vegetarian restaurant and want to order a blue steak, can really be that surprised if people get upset.

Probably not a great analogy. A better one would be going to the vegetarian restaurant only to find they won't let you in because you haven't signed up to their "Why Meat is Murder" newsletter 4 years ago.

Fair enough on being pragmatic but it is still an issue. What if the family were Pagan? Jewish? Mormon. They end up getting pushed to a school outside thier district.

Religion shouldn't be a prerequisite for an education in your own community.

Lord Suave

Thaedydal wrote:

Well I am glad things are working out for your in your apaethic life.

I'm glad for me too

Thaedydal wrote:

You don't have to try that hard if you look at the number of primary school being founded and the requests for schools that are either multidenominational or non christain you can see there is a demand and a growing demand for alternatives so that people don't have to live a sham life as sham catholics and disrespect other peoples religions by making a mockery of the vows that a parent swears to up hold when they have thier child baptised.

While I'm aware that the majority of primary school getting founded these days are multifaith based ones or those of non-christian faiths, but they still represent a minority of the overall number of primary schools. I don't see how that proves the majority feel different about it. After all its not as if the existing schools are exactly experiencing falling numbers due to the arrival of the multifaith schools.

I do agree though that having the choice is preferable though.

Zombrex

Lord Suave wrote:

A fair point you make there, I’d say the majority would prefer a catholic tinted education since that’s what they/we’re used too.
As for having Islamic celebrations performed in non-Islamic (ostensibly Christian) school I can see why some people might be upset. But if you go to a vegetarian restaurant and want to order a blue steak, can really be that surprised if people get upset.

No, but if the only restaurants the state provided were vegetarian I might (assuming the state provided restaurants).

The state has a duty to provide schooling to every child in Ireland. Providing schools where Catholism is the only option and saying "well just don't send your kids there" isn't really an option, as I'm sure most people would be upset about having to sent their child to a Muslim school.

Since providing a public school in every area for every religion, or providing universal schools where every religion is catered for, isn't really an option, a better solution, put forward by secularists, is to simply not have religion in state schools. It works quite well in the USA.

I understand that because of our history most schools have some link to the church, so this can't happen over night. But the State does not owe the Catholic church anything, and has no obligation to continue the status quo just for the sake of it.

Lord Suave

Wicknight wrote:

No, but if the only restaurants the state provided were vegetarian I might (assuming the state provided restaurants).

But isn't it closer to say that the state provides funding to schools (or restaurants to use the example above), its up to the community to determine the ethos of the school.

Wicknight wrote:

But the State does not owe the Catholic church anything, and has no obligation to continue the status quo just for the sake of it.

It has a duty to reflect the wishes of the majority and the majority have yet to request a change.

Nevyn

If that were the case then women would have never gotten the right to vote and we would still be locking up homosexuals.

Lord Suave

Thaedydal wrote:

If that were the case then women would have never gotten the right to vote and we would still be locking up homosexuals.

err ?

Nevyn

If only the democratic majority have the right to request change in our society then women would not have gotten the vote and homosexuality would still be criminalised.

Lord Suave

Thaedydal wrote:

If only the democratic majority have the right to request change in our society then women would not have gotten the vote and homosexuality would still be criminalised.

Are you suggesting that the majorities at the time that relevant legislation for both parties was carried where explicitly against the granting of it?

I'm not sure how its even relevant, the state is not denying anyone the right to practice or be educated in their faith. The facilities might not be convenient but no school can turn away a pupil for reason of religion (or lack there of), but they do have the right to take those which match in preference.

Nevyn

In the case of the decriminalistaion of homosexuality it took a case being taken against the government to have the law changed,
the majoriy do not make/change the laws here.
Elected repasentives to do a point and then it is interpted and tested in the judical system.

But in many cases this does not happen until the minority that is being effect does speak out, this has always been the way in this country, if the attitude of 'ah sure tis grand' until someone takes a court case is allowed to go on we will remain a backwards country and not a forward thinking one.

Contraception would still be illegal in this country if one brave woman and her husband had not took thier gp and the health board to court.

Do we have to wait for a child and thier parents to take the government and Dept of education to court before we have inclusive not biased schools for everychild to attend instead of being told make do with the local christain school if there is not an educate together school in reasonbile distance or well you can home school your child.

Zombrex

Lord Suave wrote:

It has a duty to reflect the wishes of the majority and the majority have yet to request a change.

The State was given a duty to the education of all citizens of Ireland, a long time ago, by the wishes of the people.

If someone want to argue that that should be overturned they can, but ironically they would have to get the majority to change their mind back again.

Until then the State has a duty to all citizens of the state when it comes to providing at least primary education, be they in the majority or minority.

Nevyn

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/constitution_and_education.html

The Constitution and education in Ireland
Information

The Constitution of Ireland has a number of articles that are relevant to the law on education.

Article 42 of the Constitution deals with education. Other articles also have a bearing on education law, in particular the articles dealing with the family and religion (Articles 41 and 44). You can read the full text of the Irish Constitution (pdf) here.
Education

This is the full text of Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland:

"42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."
The Family

This is the relevant part of Article 41:

"1.1°: The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

1.2°: The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State."
What these articles mean

These articles have been the subject of a number of court decisions. In simple terms, the essential points about these articles are:

* The family is the main source of education for the child. Parents are entitled to provide education outside the school system if they wish.
* The state may not force parents to send their children to any school or any particular kind of school. Parents may decide the school to which they wish to send their children but there is no constitutional obligation on a particular school to accept individual children.
* The state may require that the children receive a certain minimum education. This certain minimum has not yet been defined in legislation or in official policy. Many of the court cases have been about the precise meaning of that phrase.
* The state is obliged to provide for free primary education. It is not obliged to provide that education directly. In practice, there are some state schools but the majority of primary schools are privately owned and largely state funded.See Ownership of Primary Schools
* The state is not obliged to directly provide schools but it is not prevented from doing so either.

This is very much still a grey area and needs to be resolved but will we as people get our public repasentives to address this or shall we ignore the needs of children and parents until some one takes a court case ?

Jackie laughlin

Of course the state has no business either teaching religion, supporting the teaching of religion or even facilitating the teaching of religion. In fact where religion encroaches into morality, the state - it might be argued - should put a stop to teaching nasty things to children like Sharia Law or myths about women or homosexuals.

However, we have inherited a system. Like the Lord Suave I too many years ago allowed my sons attend the local Catholic school. They were taught religion and as long as it didn't frighten them, I wasn't worried. The overbearing power of the Catholic Church has been broken. They no longer teach too much weird and immoral stuff in school and where they persist, other ideological institutions, like the family, often counteract it. Catholic schools could be allowed to go the way of the Do Do were it not for the arrival of Islam.

Now we have a new breed of authoritarianism demanding the "traditional" rights of faith schools. However, there is no shortage of clerics or misguided parents and Irish children need to be liberated from the "values" of Islam.

Many of these "values" resemble those of the 1950s Catholic church. Battles won now have to be ought over again.

Perhaps there is a middle way and it is time to say, "No further faith schools will be permitted."

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

In fact where religion encroaches into morality, the state - it might be argued - should put a stop to teaching nasty things to children like Sharia Law or myths about women or homosexuals.

It then becomes a question of how one defines "nasty things". Some could, rightly or wrongly, state that what is being taught in your local school qualifies.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Like the Lord Suave

He isn't really a lord ... i hope

Jackie laughlin wrote:

They no longer teach too much weird and immoral stuff in school

Again that is a matter of degrees. Most non-religious people in Ireland don't care what nonsense is taught to their children in religious primary and secondary schools because we don't care since religion is not important to us. If on the other hand some tried to creep even a tiny tiny bit of Creationism into a science class room I would be up in arms. For someone who does take religion seriously they might be equally annoyed that their children are being exposed to an environment where something counter to their fundamental beliefs is being taught. It could be argued that it is harmless, but I wouldn't let "harmless" Creationism into a biology class room.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Now we have a new breed of authoritarianism demanding the "traditional" rights of faith schools.

Who is this exactly?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Perhaps there is a middle way and it is time to say, "No further faith schools will be permitted."

No public faith schools. Pretty simple really. There is no justificable argument as to why our faith schools were grand, but by god we don't want the Muslim ones. The Islamic community would (rightly) consider that nonsense and hypocritical.

neoB

When I was in school, all the kids that couldn't/wouldn't celebrate certain holidays could all go into a differnt room grouped together and we'd have our own little party. We would pop popcorn and watch some disney movie or something. It was nice and I didnt feel segregated at all. I know why I was there along with everyone else. I didn't mind that I coudln't participate in making pumpkins, or colouring turkeys and what not. In fact, didn't want to be bothered.
I know I wouldn't be happy if I expressed that my child is unable to participate due to religious reasons and they still make her do stuff. I have no problems keeping her home. I don't see it as something little, b/c in fact if it was something you were against and they made your child do it, you wouldn't be too happy about it either. What is small to you may be big to others.

Lord Suave

Wicknight wrote:

He isn't really a lord ... i hope

On your knee peasant.