John Waters v Atheist Ireland

CDfm

dvpower wrote: »

I would, if you would just provide some evidence that 88.4% of people want their children's education to be provided by church managed schools.

They filed out the census forms and its an offense not to fill them truthfully. They are used to determine public policy and planning. So its part of the process.

Giving the people what they want.

You may be missing the point. I have no objection whatsoever to teaching kids about various religious beliefs. It is teaching that these beliefs are true that I object to.

But thats the point some 96% of households have some kind of religious belief and only 4% dont.

Wouldn't it be better if we had a system where all the children could attend the same schools and the schools could provide their facilities out of teaching hours for religious instruction.

We're not looking for a banishment of religion; just a system where everyone can be accomodated and where no particular group is favoured by the state.

Its just you want the 96% to conform to your beliefs and are unhappy they dont see it your way.So while you have the freedom to have your schools your way -you dont want them to have that. Where is the freedom in that?

EDIT -the system is you organise and do your own schools. Thats what everyone else does.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

They filed out the census forms and its an offense not to fill them truthfully. They are used to determine public policy and planning. So its part of the process.

Giving the people what they want.






But thats the point some 96% of households have some kind of religious belief and only 4% dont.

Its just you want the 96% to conform to your beliefs and are unhappy they dont see it your way.So while you have the freedom to have your schools your way -you dont want them to have that. Where is the freedom in that?

This isn't about my way and your way, this is about the way schools are supposed to be in a secular state. Do you not think it's appropriate and better for the state to provide a school system that everyone can avail of instead of separating kids based on whichever holy book their parents happen to believe in?
No one's stopping you teaching your children religion, just saying that a state run school is not a place to do it. That's not my opinion, that's one of the founding principles of a secular state

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This isn't about my way and your way, this is about the way schools are supposed to be in a secular state. Do you not think it's appropriate and better for the state to provide a school system that everyone can avail of instead of separating kids based on whichever holy book their parents happen to believe in?
No one's stopping you teaching your children religion, just saying that a state run school is not a place to do it. That's not my opinion, that's one of the founding principles of a secular state

But thats not what our Constitution says and it can be changed by plebsicate or referendum. That may be a definition of a secular state but our laws and policies are consistant with our Constitution

Article 42
42.1 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.
42.3.1 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.
42.3.2 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.
42.4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, particularly in the matter of religious and moral formation.
42.5 In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in the 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.

So thats the Irish definition of what it should be and what you have to work within.

Everyone else does.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Isnt democracy great:)

Yeah democracy is great but theocracy is demonstrably not great. You didn't really answer me properly before. Would you support schools where the curriculum is taught in exchange for indoctrinating the kids with any political ideology or should religion only get this special access to impressionable minds?

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

They filed out the census forms and its an offense not to fill them truthfully. They are used to determine public policy and planning. So its part of the process.

There is no such question on the census.

CDfm wrote: »

Its just you want the 96% to conform to your beliefs and are unhappy they dont see it your way.So while you have the freedom to have your schools your way -you dont want them to have that. Where is the freedom in that?

Do you read posts before you reply to them?:(

CDfm wrote: »

EDIT -the system is you organise and do your own schools. Thats what everyone else does.

The state has an obligation to provide an education service. I'm looking for reform of the system. It is crazy that individual groups feel the need to organise education services for their children. It isn't freedom at all; its a sign of a failed system.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah democracy is great but theocracy is demonstrably not great. You didn't really answer me properly before. Would you support schools where the curriculum is taught in exchange for indoctrinating the kids with any political ideology or should religion only get this special access to impressionable minds?

We dont have a theocracy. Iran has a theocracy.

We have a PR Electoral System -the single transferable vote and our politicans are elected and there is no real church involvement in politics.

I dont think you get that its the parents right to decide and its not the states perogative. If the parents want their children to have religious instruction as part of education thats what they get.

On the other hand -if the parents want to send their children to a non-religious school they are free to do so.

Thats the way it is.

CDfm

dvpower wrote: »

There is no such question on the census.

Our government is by Parliment who interpret whats needed -I would say they take both the constition and census into account.

The state has an obligation to provide an education service. I'm looking for reform of the system. It is crazy that individual groups feel the need to organise education services for their children. It isn't freedom at all; its a sign of a failed system.

But thats the constition and the way its done. Our health system used to have a lottery to fund investment in them as we couldnt afford the capital expenditure.

It isnt crazy that groups organise -its their right to as is home schooling.Authority to do0 so derives from the parents vand not the state.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

We dont have a theocracy. Iran has a theocracy.

We have a PR Electoral System -the single transferable vote and our politicans are elected and there is no real church involvement in politics.

We have numerous religiously motivated laws, we apparently recognise the duty of the parents to teach religion, we have a law saying I'm not allowed offend you, contraception was banned until the 80's and our children are even denied school places based on their religion. Only 30 years ago we were run directly by a certain Bishop McQuaid. Books and movies even used to be banned for religious reasons under this constitution which is absolutely shameful. Yeah, I think we have a theocracy alright

CDfm wrote: »

On the other hand -if the parents want to send their children to a non-religious school they are free to do so.

Yeah, if I move to one of the tiny few non-religious schools in the country. Non-religious schools aren't just for atheists you know. Ireland is very much the exception in having a lot of religious schools and religion survives just fine in those countries. They simply recognise that "1+1=2" and "the christian god exists" should not be taught together. Religion is not just another school subject, it's your personal unproven hypothesis and it should not be taught as if it's just another subject

Would you support religious hospitals where if the hospital was overwhelmed they could decide who to treat based on their religion? If not, what level of consequences must there be before religious discrimination isn't ok anymore?

CDfm wrote: »

That's the way it is

Which is why we're trying to change it

CDfm wrote: »

42.1 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.


So thats the Irish definition of what it should be and what you have to work within.

Everyone else does.

Firstly, the state acknowledges the family as the primary educator, not a state paid teacher. I absolutely agree.

I know that Irish law allows for the state to fund religious schools. I know this because 95% of the schools in the country are state run religious schools. We're making the point that that law is not compatible with the concept of a secular state, just like much of our constitution which at one stage recognised "the special place of the catholic church" in the country. We're gradually working on removing all the backwards theocratic laws from our books so that we can get to where America was in 1776.

But you know what, I can make allowances for the government to provide funding for people to teach their kids their religion if changing the constitution is too much hassle. What it doesn't say is that it has to be taught alongside the factual subjects as if it's just another subject that the children should accept to be true. If religious people or any group want to teach their children their ideology as true they can set up a school where they teach it like Sunday school, or maybe they can even use school buildings after hours.

That way everyone's happy. You get to teach your religion as if it's fact to your kids only, without excluding the non-believers and you even get state support for it. And everyone, including you, gets what they want because our children can all be educated together instead of segregated. Religion would not be taking up school time that should be spent learning facts and religion would not be taught alongside all of the other subjects to kids whose parents are of varying religions and none when kids can't tell the difference between what's fact and what's not.

That way we have an all inclusive government funded educational system where anyone can go regardless of race, creed or colour as a secular state should have and you still get to teach your religion, supported by the state, on your own time. Sound good?

Sam Vimes

Here's why state run schools should not have religious ethos':

1. Schools are for teaching facts, not for teaching unproven hypotheses as if they were facts before the children are old enough to tell the difference. People should not be allowed to use schools to pass on their agenda to children regardless of whether that agenda is religious, political or social.
   
2. It segregates children based on whichever deity their parents happen to believe in. There is no reason to separate children who are learning 99% the same curriculum and are only separate because of one subject that doesn't belong there in the first place. We should be doing as much as we can to promote tolerance and understanding of others in our children and the best way to do that is to educate them all together. There is no need to teach kids the same maths curriculum in different schools
   
3. Having separate schools teaching 99% the same curriculum is also a waste of time, money and resources
   
4. If I don't want my child to be segregated away from his friends I either have to allow him to be taught an unproven hypothesis as fact or have him excluded from part of the school day, singling him out as different and affecting his education because he cannot learn about ethics without being told that all good comes from God and not from within him where it actually comes from
   
5. If I don't happen to live near one of the tiny few schools where other people's religion is not taught as fact, I have to send my child to one of these schools where my right to freedom from religion is being denied. People from other religions in the same situation are also having their right to religious instruction neglected. It's easy to say build your own school when your religion owns 98% of the schools in the country and I shouldn't have to build my own school because there's a state run school around the corner that teaches the curriculum
   
6. I mightn't even get to send my child to the school that neglects my rights because this state run institution can refuse to accept my child. If any other state run institution or any institution treated people differently based on their religion there would be equality tribunals and fines. There would be uproar and the most insane thing is that this discrimination does not cause uproar when it's inflicted on children. The Irish consciousness needs to be raised to this legalised discrimination, the Equal Status Act 2000 already states "As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:...(e)that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the ‘‘religion ground’’)"
   
7. A religious ethos can affect the education for everyone such as an example I heard where the reproduction chapter of the science book was skipped over. This also means that just excluding my child from religion class, as well as singling him out as different, doesn't protect him from your ideology.
   
8. In a secular state, the religious majority does not get to put their religion everywhere at the expense of others. Religion is supposed to be a private matter between your and your God, not a matter for public policy. I realise our constitution says the government has a responsibility to help parents teach their religion but that does not mean we should just accept the status quo. Until 30 years ago this country was run directly by the catholic church, legislation was run by them before being passed, and we're working on removing all the legacy theocratic legislation from our books. If we were building a school system now we wouldn't dream of doing it the way it is, the status quo is not ok. The entire state school system should be open to people of all races, creeds and colours, this should go without saying in the 21st century
   
9. Your constitutional right to government support for the religious instruction of your child can be satisfied perfectly well by separate Sunday schools or by extra classes at the end of the school day. I'm being told to build a school for my child if I don't want him taught religion but there's a state run school that teaches the state curriculum around the corner from me. If you want to teach your religion then you build a school to do it just like all the other religions. Again, there is no reason to teach children entirely separately because of one subject that doesn't belong there in the first place and having the one thing that separates the parents (note, not the children who are too young to understand) taught separately solves all of the above problems and everyone is happy.

togster

I agree but i think children should be thought philosophy instead of religion.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We have numerous religiously motivated laws, we apparently recognise the duty of the parents to teach religion, we have a law saying I'm not allowed offend you, contraception was banned until the 80's and our children are even denied school places based on their religion. Only 30 years ago we were run directly by a certain Bishop McQuaid. Books and movies even used to be banned for religious reasons under this constitution which is absolutely shameful. Yeah, I think we have a theocracy alright

Cmon Archbishop McQuaid was a control freak and resisted Vatican II and would have if he could. He had a close friendship with DeValera in part as a result of them being neighbours and his pastoral care of the family during a time when Devs son was dying as a result of an accident. Essentially, he was a lobbyist and very able. He was not the only one - you had FGs right wing TD Oliver J Flanagan who called for the routing of the Jews from Ireland.

One of the most influencial lobbygroups at the moment is the Womens Movement and they have a huge budget.

Farmers Groups lobby too.

So people lobbying on the basis of their religious preference is wrong.

Atheist Ireland is another lobby group.

Yeah, if I move to one of the tiny few non-religious schools in the country. Non-religious schools aren't just for atheists you know. Ireland is very much the exception in having a lot of religious schools and religion survives just fine in those countries. They simply recognise that "1+1=2" and "the christian god exists" should not be taught together. Religion is not just another school subject, it's your personal unproven hypothesis and it should not be taught as if it's just another subject

I hate to Labour the point but the religious ethos of schools does not stop maths and science being taught according with rational maths and science so where is your beef.

Non religious schools are entitled to funding just like all other schools -your gripe is that they are tiny -does that suggest to you that there isn't a huge demand. Lots of people do not share your vision.

The 4% Atheists and others also want places at the best schools. A friend who teaches in a public school in England which is Catholic tells me of the muslims who go there for the educational standards. So isnt it probable that Atheists want access to the best schools.

Would you support religious hospitals where if the hospital was overwhelmed they could decide who to treat based on their religion? If not, what level of consequences must there be before religious discrimination isn't ok anymore?

School places are available but it may not be the school of your choice. I have news for you. A local secondary school to me has entrance by entrance exam for available places after they take in kids from their primary school. Funnily enough quite a few non Catholics go there and the local kids have to travel elsewhere.

Firstly, the state acknowledges the family as the primary educator, not a state paid teacher. I absolutely agree.

I know that Irish law allows for the state to fund religious schools. I know this because 95% of the schools in the country are state run religious schools. We're making the point that that law is not compatible with the concept of a secular state, just like much of our constitution which at one stage recognised "the special place of the catholic church" in the country. We're gradually working on removing all the backwards theocratic laws from our books so that we can get to where America was in 1776.

We are not a secular state and do not have a secular constitution.
The reality is that we are not America. Our nearest neighbour Britain excludes Catholics as Head of State.

But you know what, I can make allowances for the government to provide funding for people to teach their kids their religion if changing the constitution is too much hassle. What it doesn't say is that it has to be taught alongside the factual subjects as if it's just another subject that the children should accept to be true. If religious people or any group want to teach their children their ideology as true they can set up a school where they teach it like Sunday school, or maybe they can even use school buildings after hours.

That way we have an all inclusive government funded educational system where anyone can go regardless of race, creed or colour as a secular state should have and you still get to teach your religion, supported by the state, on your own time. Sound good?

You lament the lack of non religious schools and want all schools to be non religious. Thats kind of imposing your view. There is nothing wrong with non religious parents taking the initiative and home schooling or setting up their own schools. They have the numbers too but probably not the inclination or the will. The Gaelscoil Movement did it. So why not.

CDfm

togster wrote: »

I agree but i think children should be thought philosophy instead of religion.

I hear Atheists want to abolish Santa Claus too.

Bah humbug.Say it aint so.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Cmon Archbishop McQuaid was a control freak and resisted Vatican II and would have if he could. He had a close friendship with DeValera in part as a result of them being neighbours and his pastoral care of the family during a time when Devs son was dying as a result of an accident. Essentially, he was a lobbyist and very able. He was not the only one - you had FGs right wing TD Oliver J Flanagan who called for the routing of the Jews from Ireland.

One of the most influencial lobbygroups at the moment is the Womens Movement and they have a huge budget.

Farmers Groups lobby too.

So people lobbying on the basis of their religious preference is wrong.

Atheist Ireland is another lobby group.

Archbishop McQuaid was not a lobbyist, he was the final word on everything that happened in this country.

CDfm wrote: »

I hate to Labour the point but the religious ethos of schools does not stop maths and science being taught.

No it doesn't but it means I can't get maths and science taught to my child along with ethics, which is equally important, without the child being told that ethics only come from your God.

CDfm wrote: »

Non religious schools are entitled to funding just like all other schools -your gripe is that they are tiny -does that suggest to you that there isn't a huge demand. Lots of people do not share your vision.

No my gripe is that the state school system should be open to all races, creeds and colours just like every other institution in the country. Discrimination based on religion is illegal.....except when its children being discriminated against. I see a conflict in our law that needs to be solved.

CDfm wrote: »

School places are available but it may not be the school of your choice. I have news for you. A local secondary school to me has entrance by entrance exam for available places after they take in kids from their primary school. Funnily enough quite a few non Catholics go there and the local kids have to travel elsewhere.

And why should my religious beliefs or lack thereof affect where I can send my child to school in a country where discrimination based on religion is illegal?

CDfm wrote: »

We are not a secular state and do not have a secular constitution.
The reality is that we are not America. Our nearest neighbour Britain excludes Catholics as Head of State.

The situation is England is that the head os fatte appoints people in the church of England so it's not a specific bar on catholics, it's about professing the Anglican faith, and Gordon Brown does not profess the Anglican faith. They may have the rules on their books but they don't enforce them

Are you suggesting that Ireland should not be a secular state?

CDfm wrote: »

You lament the lack of non religious schools and want all schools to be non religious. Thats kind of imposing your view. There is nothing wrong with non religious parents taking the initiative and home schooling or setting up their own schools. They have the numbers too but probably not the inclination or the will. The Gaelscoil Movement did it. So why not.

And there's nothing wrong with religious people taking the initiative and home schooling or setting up their own schools to teach their religion and leaving the state run school system to teach the state curriculum as it's supposed to, eliminating this discrimination and respecting everyone's rights

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

I hear Atheists want to abolish Santa Claus too.

Bah humbug.Say it aint so.

Agreed.

Things would be much better if the taxpayer funded a few school hours a week promoting Santa's life and works.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here's why state run schools should not have religious ethos':

I see it now the Sam Vines Primary School based on his beliefs -religion free full of mighty happy people in the burbs. Copycat schools springing up with the same ethos.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

I see it now the Sam Vines Primary School based on his beliefs -religion free full of mighty happy people in the burbs. Copycat schools springing up with the same ethos.

Yes quality education for all!

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I see it now the Sam Vines Primary School based on his beliefs -religion free full of mighty happy people in the burbs. Copycat schools springing up with the same ethos.

The Sam Vimes school is not based on my beliefs, the Sam Vimes school is based on the state curriculum. As point number 1 said, people should not be allowed to use schools to pass on their agenda to children regardless of whether that agenda is religious, political or social. Atheism shouldn't be taught in schools any more than christianity should. The state curriculum should be taught in state schools and religion should be taught in religious schools. One has nothing to do with the other.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Archbishop McQuaid was not a lobbyist, he was the final word on everything that happened in this country.

LOL

The situation is England is that the head os fatte appoints people in the church of England so it's not a specific bar on catholics, it's about professing the Anglican faith, and Gordon Brown does not profess the Anglican faith. They may have the rules on their books but they don't enforce them

I wanna be King -can I count on your support.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

LOL

My parents lived through that period of repression from the church where nothing happened that they didn't approve of. You couldn't even buy a condom in this country ffs

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The Sam Vimes school is not based on my beliefs, the Sam Vimes school is based on the state curriculum. As point number 1 said, people should not be allowed to use schools to pass on their agenda to children regardless of whether that agenda is religious, political or social. Atheism shouldn't be taught in schools any more than christianity should. The state curriculum should be taught in state schools and religion should be taught in religious schools. One has nothing to do with the other.

Is there the will and support for them?

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Is there the will and support for them?

In an inclusive, democratic, secular state there should be an incompatability with sectarnianism. Plus I don't think support is the problem rather apathy.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My parents lived through that period of repression from the church where nothing happened that they didn't approve of. You couldn't even buy a condom in this country ffs

And Sam was born. It wasnt nesscessarily a bad thing:D

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Is there the will and support for them?

The system I'm suggesting satisfies everyone, promotes tolerance and understanding and eliminates discrimination. I see no reason why there wouldn't be support for it

CDfm wrote: »

And Sam was born. It wasnt nesscessarily a bad thing:D

Actually I was an unplanned pregnancy and adopted. I might not have existed had Ireland not been a theocracy

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

In an inclusive, democratic, secular state there should be an incompatability with sectarnianism. Plus I don't think support is the problem rather apathy.

I think you have nailed it.

dvpower

CDfm wrote:

They filed out the census forms and its an offense not to fill them truthfully. They are used to determine public policy and planning. So its part of the process.

Giving the people what they want.

CDfm wrote: »

Our government is by Parliment who interpret whats needed -I would say they take both the constition and census into account.

It would be a lazy interpretation indeed to conclude that 88.4% of people who profess a faith want their children's education to be provided by church managed schools.

Everyone knows the history of the education system in Ireland; to suggest that it is the result of the government giving the people what they want is just silly.

eightyfish

OT, but - Waters has just come out against gay marriage.

Genghiz Cohen

eightyfish wrote: »

OT, but - Waters has just come out against gay marriage.

Thor forbid an on topic post, we must lobby against this!

philologos

togster wrote: »

I agree but i think children should be thought philosophy instead of religion.

Philosophy instead of religion doesn't work. They aren't mutually exclusive.

There's a rather big part of philosophy that deals with "The Philosophy of Religion". It would be disingenuous to teach philosophy without teaching this. Also most philosophers that I have encountered thus far have believed in some form of theos or higher power and indeed most deemed it rational to believe in such.

The influence of believers such as Augustine, Aquinas, Moses Maimonides, Avicenna, Al Ghazali of the Medieval Abrahamic philosophical tradition to more modern figures such as René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Soren Kierkegaard and others on philosophy has been something extraordinary.

Non-believers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Voltaire, David Hume and others have also been important in philosophy, but they have influenced it to a lesser extent.

Just for clarifications sake, it would be impossible to have in any way a decent entry into the world of philosophy without referring to peoples views on God and religion.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Just for clarifications sake, it would be impossible to have in any way a decent entry into the world of philosophy without referring to peoples views on God and religion.

Just to reiterate what I said yesterday -- nobody is saying that religion cannot be taught, as a philosophical approach. What people like me object to is having is taught as true.

Can you appreciate the difference?

eightyfish

By the way - good debate guys. Been reading. Massively text-heavy, but good nonetheless.