We're racist, as we never knew they were coming?

Nevyn

Lil Kitten wrote:

I follow the curriculum, the STATE approved and designed curriculum. Clicky linky

Which installs Christian values and support the christain frame work of it's god and it's mythology and concepts of heaven and sin.

Lil Kitten wrote:

All my kids say prayers at lunch and home time.

How charming :rolleyes: again more indoctrination.

Zambia

Wicknight wrote:

Not if you don't think you will get a asylum in the country you land in.

TBH I never quite understood the logic often used around there that a genuine asylum seeker should/will stop in the first country they enter, only a immigrant would move one, so therefore everyone who ends up in Ireland is faking it.

The genuine asylum seeker moves on for the same reason the immigrant does, to reach some where they have a good chance of being accepted.

Sure the immigrant does it for fraudulent reasons, where as the refugee has genuine reasons, but the motivation for moving is the same.

People talk about genuine asylum application as if it is simply a case that you try again if you don't get it. But you don't, you are deported and sent home.

If someone is fleeing to say Spain, which has very restrictive asylum process, they will want to move on as quickly as possible rather than make there application there because it is difficult to get accepted. That is the same whether they are genuine or not, because even if you are genuine you may be rejected and sent back.

Good Pionts however you could stretch that to they will go to the country where they have the most chance of work , easiest laws on staying in the community, best chance of kids getting education.

So its a small step to becoming just another economic migrant. Which would be fine.

Zambia

djpbarry wrote:

Your first mistake is assuming that most asylum seekers arrive in Ireland by plane - they don't. In fact, less than 10% did last year. As in the rest of Europe, the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive in Ireland by sea.

I am enlightened , I thought different, where did you come across this fact.

djpbarry wrote:

Come on, you know it's not that simple! These people are desperate and they know their chances of being granted asylum in Italy or Spain, for example, are tiny. Although the journey to Ireland is far riskier, they stand a much better chance of being granted asylum if they make it here.

Why is it riskier. Seems to prove the theory we are a soft touch then.

djpbarry

Zambia232 wrote:

I am enlightened , I thought different, where did you come across this fact.

Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner.

Zambia232 wrote:

Why is it riskier. Seems to prove the theory we are a soft touch then.

No, it's because Spain and Italy, for example, receive a massive number of asylum applications - most are not processed properly and most asylum seekers do not receive a fair hearing. Now, as you pointed out yourself, Ireland receives a relatively small number of asylum applications, making it easier to process them properly. Asylum seekers are also given the opportunity to appeal when their application is rejected - I do not believe this is the case in Spain and Italy.
Would you not do the same if you were in the their situation?

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

most of what you say I agree with, but I don't consider economic migration to be fraudulent, its genuine reason to migrate.

Apologies, that wasn't clear. What I meant was making a fraudulent application for asylum for economic migration.

lostexpectation wrote:

I don't consider these reasons fraudulent either.

Neither would I. I see no problem in an asylum seeker passing through countries like Spain or France and attempting to claim asylum in Ireland for the reasons you explain.

I would do the same thing if I was in that persons shoes. Its the same reason I will carefully pick a hospital to go to if either I or someone I know is seriously ill. One might say that if I was genuinely sick I would go straight to the nearest hospital. But the health service is so messed up at the moment that the nearest hospital might have me sitting dying in a trolley for 3 days before I'm seen.

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

So its a small step to becoming just another economic migrant.

Well most economic migrants aren't fleeing the things genuine asylum seekers are fleeing.

But you are right, if I was fleeing I would think about these things along the way. After all once the application is granted you have to live in the country you end up in.

You might say that living in a country where you don't speak the language and cannot find work is still better than being home where you are raped or executed. And I would agree.

But if the option is living in a country where you don't speak the language and cannot get a job and hopping on one more train or plane to make it to a country where you do speak the language and probably can get a job, the option to do this is not so dramatic.

Just because these people are fleeing their past doesn't mean they have abandoned their future.

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

Seems to prove the theory we are a soft touch then.

Well you say soft tough, others say fairer and more exact assessment process.

Jackie laughlin

I don't mind the prayers and the God stuff. I worry about the values. Many of the progressive, decent, tolerant values, which we now hold, could be hi-jacked and said to be exclusively Christian - even Catholic - values. Again, I won't bother complaining but when the old inequality and intolerant stuff starts, then we have to put a stop to it.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I don't mind the prayers and the God stuff. I worry about the values. Many of the progressive, decent, tolerant values, which we now hold, could be hi-jacked and said to be exclusively Christian - even Catholic - values. Again, I won't bother complaining but when the old inequality and intolerant stuff starts, then we have to put a stop to it.

It's interesting you mention values because many of the values imprinted by religions (any of the major religions) are actually not a bad thing. After all these are the values that children are taught to allow them to differentiate right from wrong - or more correctly the social from the antisocial.

Remove religion as the source of such values and you really need something to replace it and so far you've not really suggested any workable alternative. Of course, we could become a stalwart of secular-atheistic teaching, is one option - like that bastion of progressive, decent, tolerant values; Russia.

I think you need to think through what you're proposing a little more.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

It's interesting you mention values because many of the values imprinted by religions (any of the major religions) are actually not a bad thing. After all these are the values that children are taught to allow them to differentiate right from wrong - or more correctly the social from the antisocial.

Remove religion as the source of such values and you really need something to replace it and so far you've not really suggested any workable alternative. Of course, we could become a stalwart of secular-atheistic teaching, is one option - like that bastion of progressive, decent, tolerant values; Russia.

I think you need to think through what you're proposing a little more.

I have to agree, plus nothing stops the child deciding when there older what they choose to believe.

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

I have to agree, plus nothing stops the child deciding when there older what they choose to believe.

When children are developing they are like sponges and when you teach them only christian values when they are young you are shaping their belief system. Thinking back when I was in primary school (about 15 years ago) we were brainwashed into believing the Catholic religion was the only proper religion that was right. We were not told that directly but that is the impression a child gets when they are only thought about one religion.

Why can't the children be thought about all the different religions and not pray in class? Practicing a specific religion is not something a teacher should impose on children in a public school.

Zambia

Wicknight wrote:

Well you say soft tough, others say fairer and more exact assessment process.

This is also addressing some of your other pionts and we may possibly have to start another thread. As we are dangerously on the topic verge.

Firstly Spain could argue its process is fair as ours. I couldnt say.

Secondly if the official figures are to be trusted and all these refugees are spread over Ireland. Then we should hardly notice the difference in the diaspora.

Its obivous we do so who are all these foriegners and how did they get here? I think perhaps the goverment should be doing more to explain the situation rather than having the population assuming they are all freeloading. Because the papers will simply report the bad aspects of the increase in ifferent nationalitys.

Zambia

axer wrote:

When children are developing they are like sponges and when you teach them only christian values when they are young you are shaping their belief system. Thinking back when I was in primary school (about 15 years ago) we were brainwashed into believing the Catholic religion was the only proper religion that was right. We were not told that directly but that is the impression a child gets when they are only thought about one religion.

Why can't the children be thought about all the different religions and not pray in class? Practicing a specific religion is not something a teacher should impose on children in a public school.

While seeing your piont you went through it and seem to have estabilished your own values afterwards. What would be the value system you would replace it with as I believe there has to be a value system instilled into kids.

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

While seeing your piont you went through it and seem to have estabilished your own values afterwards. What would be the value system you would replace it with as I believe there has to be a value system instilled into kids.

I did establish my own values but I believe it took longer because a) I wasn't thought about all my options i.e. all about the different religions and beliefs b) I was being told indirectly that what the Catholics believe is the right way which made me feel like there was something wrong with me for questioning that.

What happens if a muslim or some other religion goes to school and is told to believe one thing in school and another thing at home? Would that not confuse a child? School is not the place for telling people what to believe - it is for facts, creativity and sport. Being thought beliefs is for outside school - at home and other places not in the classroom.

Nevyn

axer wrote:

When children are developing they are like sponges and when you teach them only christian values when they are young you are shaping their belief system. Thinking back when I was in primary school (about 15 years ago) we were brainwashed into believing the Catholic religion was the only proper religion that was right. We were not told that directly but that is the impression a child gets when they are only thought about one religion.

Why can't the children be thought about all the different religions and not pray in class? Practicing a specific religion is not something a teacher should impose on children in a public school.

That is what multi denominational school ie Educate Together schools work.

Religious beliefs esp one set of beliefs should not be taught as fact in schools
and given the same weight as facts like 2+2=4.

Zambia

axer wrote:

What happens if a muslim or some other religion goes to school and is told to believe one thing in school and another thing at home? Would that not confuse a child? School is not the place for telling people what to believe - it is for facts, creativity and sport. Being thought beliefs is for outside school - at home and other places not in the classroom.

I can see where your coming from and in this case its clear a secular option is needed. However I would still feel comfortable sending my child to a Christian School. However I have no issue with the belief system adhered to within.

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

Secondly if the official figures are to be trusted and all these refugees are spread over Ireland. Then we should hardly notice the difference in the diaspora.

Its obivous we do so who are all these foriegners and how did they get here? I think perhaps the goverment should be doing more to explain the situation rather than having the population assuming they are all freeloading. Because the papers will simply report the bad aspects of the increase in ifferent nationalitys.

I agree, I think the way to combat racism and xenophobia is through education, and the government should lead the way

People are scared of what they don't understand, and it is easier to demonize people when there is a "them and us" attitude going on. If a person cannot put themselves in the shoes of say and asylum seeker they will be far more likely to view with distrust and suspicion the actions of that asylum seeker. The classic example is the question "So why did they not stop in the first EU port they found themselves in" If someone cannot see a legitimate reason for moving on they are likely to conclude that the reason was illegitimate.

The more people see that asylum seekers or economic migrants are just like the rest of us, as imperfect as the rest of us, with the same fears and desires as the rest of us, it will be easier to view how they act and react in terms of reality.

Liam Byrne

Thaedydal wrote:

Religious beliefs esp one set of beliefs should not be taught as fact in schools and given the same weight as facts like 2+2=4.

While I'd agree in general, this post got me thinking......history is generally written by the winners, so should religious beliefs and history be taught in the same manner ?

I do think that instilling proper ethics and standards is more important than whatever religion is preferred.

Once upon a time, we were taught "civics" and it included how to treat people, etc......some of was naff and outdated (almost Elizabethan) but we'd be a better society today if it was still followed, even allowing for the archaic stuff.....

Given what you see and hear every day on the streets and in the buses, respect and politeness are in serious short supply.....a scumbag on the Luas in Dublin "f'd-and-blinded" an old couple the other day because they wouldn't move out of his way.....the lady in question was using a walker support and couldn't move - I could see how he'd be annoyed, given that the Luas was overcrowded, but there was no call for the abuse.

If schools are non-denominational and non-religious and politically-correct and secular, where will we teach respect and decency ?

axer

Liam Byrne wrote:

If schools are non-denominational and non-religious and politically-correct and secular, where will we teach respect and decency ?

You do not need religion to teach respect and decency. I believe most of the respect and decency that people learn comes from the home. I cannot see how religion has anything to do with it.

Zambia

Wicknight wrote:

I agree, I think the way to combat racism and xenophobia is through education, and the government should lead the way

People are scared of what they don't understand, and it is easier to demonize people when there is a "them and us" attitude going on. If a person cannot put themselves in the shoes of say and asylum seeker they will be far more likely to view with distrust and suspicion the actions of that asylum seeker. The classic example is the question "So why did they not stop in the first EU port they found themselves in" If someone cannot see a legitimate reason for moving on they are likely to conclude that the reason was illegitimate.

The more people see that asylum seekers or economic migrants are just like the rest of us, as imperfect as the rest of us, with the same fears and desires as the rest of us, it will be easier to view how they act and react in terms of reality.

Agreed. In time I will have a look for some figures and re-ignite this on a different thread

ArthurDent

Liam Byrne wrote:

If schools are non-denominational and non-religious and politically-correct and secular, where will we teach respect and decency ?

My kids attend an ET school (multidenominational - not non-denominational - there aren't any non-denominational schools at primary level),they don't receive any doctrinal teaching and dy'a know what they're respectful and decent - go figure!
I plain don't get people who think that the only moral code that exists is one ditacted by a particular faith system. Do you honestly believe that people that don't have a particular (or any faith) are amoral?

OH and by the way It's MY job (and my husbands) to teach or kids to be respectful and act with dignity - I don't rely on anyone else to do this.

seamus

Liam Byrne wrote:

While I'd agree in general, this post got me thinking......history is generally written by the winners, so should religious beliefs and history be taught in the same manner ?

Actually, the Simpsons had a great quote for the religion debate.

A religion wouldn't like us teaching science in church, so why should we tolerate them teaching religion in our schools? Schools are places for teaching facts and discussing theories and philosophies. I have no problem with an unbiased class on religious theory, but teaching religion as a factual or literal subject is plain wrong.

The Corinthian

ArthurDent wrote:

I plain don't get people who think that the only moral code that exists is one ditacted by a particular faith system. Do you honestly believe that people that don't have a particular (or any faith) are amoral?

Morality is something that is learned, typically before the age of ten. Religions are simply effective ways of imparting such values. Without it you need to replace it with some other form of moral framework, be it ideological, cultural or whatever. If you do not, then yes, the child will grow up to be amoral.

OH and by the way It's MY job (and my husbands) to teach or kids to be respectful and act with dignity - I don't rely on anyone else to do this.

Whether you realize it or not you do rely on others to do this. If parents did not, Society would be pretty screwed given the level of parenting out there.

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote:

Whether you realize it or not you do rely on others to do this. If parents did not, Society would be pretty screwed given the level of parenting out there.

Society IS pretty screwed up because of the level of parenting out there. Kids get there moral values from the home - nowhere else. This is why, for example, if someone has racist tendencies, it is quite likely at least one of their parents does too. I myself obtained my sense of what is right and wrong from my parents, not my teachers. A teacher (regardless of religion) cannot discipline a child the same way a parent can. Besides, do you really think a disobedient child is going to listen to anything a teacher has to say? Parents are responsible for bringing up their own children and they can blame no-one else if they have not done a good job.

Liam Byrne

Don't get me wrong, guys - I don't believe that anyone or any religion has a monopoly on teaching morals.......in fact, while I was brought up a Catholic, I couldn't help admire the extra work ethic that I saw in some of the Protestants that I knew growing up.

And there were some good extra points made in this regard - given the level of thuggery and disrespect, it's pretty obvious that the current system isn't working, and the general failure in society is that so many parents are either (a) ****e parents or (b) decent folk working their asses off to pay their mortgage, without the time and energy to bring up their kids, so maybe the people who posted that morals and ethics are only instilled in the home are right.....

Then again, maybe it's not black or white, maybe some of the good that is being done in the schools is being undermined when the kids go home - maybe in an ideal world the home life simply reinforces what's instilled at school ? Either way, it's definitely a big factor in the equation.

Anyways, regarding the main topic, the facts are that there aren't enough school places/resources for everyone......and I don't think it's solely the immigrants that have caused this, since the Government doesn't seem to allow for roads, jobs, infrastructure, shops, recreation or schools when allowing housing developments....

If there's a bias towards "looking after our own", then it's partially understandable, not acceptable or desirable, but understandable.

But - like the traveller who - in his mind - is chucked out of a pub "because he's a traveller", and not "because he's drunk and rowdy and is treated like everyone else would be if they were", or the "single mom with 3 kids from different dads", it seems like some of the immigrants may have discovered that if you scream "minority" or "victim" then the tabloids, "representative organisations" and PC brigade come a-running.

ArthurDent

The Corinthian wrote:

Morality is something that is learned, typically before the age of ten. Religions are simply effective ways of imparting such values. Without it you need to replace it with some other form of moral framework, be it ideological, cultural or whatever. If you do not, then yes, the child will grow up to be amoral. .

Which brings me back AGAIN to the point that you do NOT need a religious frame for morality

The Corinthian wrote:

Whether you realize it or not you do rely on others to do this. If parents did not, Society would be pretty screwed given the level of parenting out there.

I'm not saying that others do not influence my children (for good or bad) , but I don't rely on anyone else to pass on morality, respect or dignity to them - that's my responsibility (and one which I take very seriously ta all the same)

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote:

Society IS pretty screwed up because of the level of parenting out there. Kids get there moral values from the home - nowhere else.

Children certainly are strongly influenced by their family environment and it is probably the single biggest determinant of social conditioning on them, buy I do think you're being a little naive if you think that schooling plays no part.

To quote the Jesuit maxim "give me the child for his first seven years and I’ll give you the man".

ArthurDent wrote:

Which brings me back AGAIN to the point that you do NOT need a religious frame for morality

I think you missed my point.

I'm not saying that others do not influence my children (for good or bad) , but I don't rely on anyone else to pass on morality, respect or dignity to them - that's my responsibility (and one which I take very seriously ta all the same)

Unfortunately not all parents are like you and the moral influence external to the family home in many cases is significant.

I'm not suggesting that you should not remove religion from the school system, but that if you do, you will need to replace it with something. Otherwise you're simply relying upon good parenting. Bad mistake that.

Nevyn

Like having proper civics and humanities programs in schools and about being a good citizens; but really we could not have that for they may actually start voting at the age of 18 and keep voting making a big difference to the country.

Paulj

Unfortunatly society can't rely on all parents to be responsible. Its evident from the way some kids act today that the kids could do with some extra moral guidance. Since religion is in decline in ireland then i think that some form of "civics" classes should be provided in schools to give kids a moral framework and teach them whats right and wrong in society. Hopefully that will be complimented by good parenting also at home.

If the parents want to bring up their child with a specific faith then this can be done seperatly outside of the school.

I think this whole debate once again highlights the governments amazing inability to plan for things effectively. These problems should have been predicted years ago and steps taken to prevent them from happening. Instead we have the usual case where we wait for the problem to occur, and then try and fix it. In the mean time its the kids that suffer from a lack of education.

But the problem remains:
-i think the governement needs to ensure that future housing developments are accompanied by appropriate development of services such as schools and public transport that are provided by the developers.
-the state needs to setup more state run school from scratch (of no religion). Perhaps deals can be done with the RCC. Either way we need more school places, and fast.

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote:

I'm not suggesting that you should not remove religion from the school system, but that if you do, you will need to replace it with something. Otherwise you're simply relying upon good parenting. Bad mistake that.

I don't mean to offend, but it is you who is being very naive if you think that a little bit of religious study in school is going to miraculously turn little tearaways into moral, upstanding citizens! Some children have absolutely no respect for anyone, their teachers included, no matter what the teacher is trying to teach, whether it be maths, history, or religion. This results from the fact that their parents never taught them to respect other people. So, I come back to my original point; if a child/teenager is behaving in an immoral fashion, it is their parents who are to blame and it is their parents who should face the consequences. Religion has nothing to do with it.