John Waters v Atheist Ireland

philologos

robindch wrote: »

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?

I'd actually be willing to meet you half way there. In the hypothetical scenario, if I am a Christian parent, I wouldn't mind incredibly much if I could have my child in a RE class studying varying respective traditions and philosophies concerning God as long as the following two conditions were met.

1. There is no bias at all involved in the teaching of religion.
2. Christianity is taught with as much attention as all other philosophies, and due attention is given to it being a foundational block in our culture.

I do think the option of faith schools should be left entirely open though, and I disagree with the funding. However, I'm not opposed to this idea either.

Just a question, if secular schools were set up would atheists be opposed to the possibility of an idea similar to what they had in Russia recently. I saw a thread here about it actually to offer students the choice of religious education in the main traditions, there it was Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, it might be different here, a general religion course, or secular ethics classes.

I would be 100% opposed to taking religion or religious education out of schools entirely.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

Just a question, if secular schools were set up would atheists be opposed to the possibility of an idea similar to what they had in Russia recently. I saw a thread here about it actually to offer students the choice of religious education in the main traditions, there it was Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, it might be different here, a general religion course, or secular ethics classes.

I have no objection to this on first thought. On second though, I do, because you're separating out the kids based on their religion and in effect teaching them that they are different to the others. It should be a world-religions class where they teach about religions in general, the history of them and the different types. Keep the "you are a hindu/christian/muslim" stuff for Sunday school.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Just a question, if secular schools were set up would atheists be opposed to the possibility of an idea similar to what they had in Russia recently. I saw a thread here about it actually to offer students the choice of religious education in the main traditions, there it was Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, it might be different here, a general religion course, or secular ethics classes.

That would be fine, imo, and even better if said classes were offered after hours.

I'm not convinced the segregation thing is such a big deal, myself, unless some certain kids are made wear head scarves or carry ceremonial knives or some-such nonsense.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't mind incredibly much if I could have my child in a RE class [...] as long as the following two conditions were met.

1. There is no bias at all involved in the teaching of religion.
2. Christianity is taught with as much attention as all other philosophies, and due attention is given to it being a foundational block in our culture.

So, given your two reasonable conditions, do you believe it's likely that a school with a patron belonging to one religion (say catholic) is going to teach about another religion (say protestantism or islam) in an unbiased way, either in terms of approach, or in terms of the time spent on it?

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Just a question, if secular schools were set up would atheists be opposed to the possibility of an idea similar to what they had in Russia recently. I saw a thread here about it actually to offer students the choice of religious education in the main traditions, there it was Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, it might be different here, a general religion course, or secular ethics classes.

Sounds reasonable in theory, but in Ireland where the vast majority of people are catholic, it might lead to the same problems we have now. That said, that's the environment that we live in, so there needs to be a certain amount of give and take. In a situation where the overall management ethos of schools didn't follow a particular religion and the school environment itself wasn't overtly religious, the potential problems of exclusion would be mitigated.

pts

I would be extremely happy if modern religion was thought the same way ancient religions (Norse, Greek, Roman etc) are thought. I.e
This is what they beleive,
These are their rituals,
This is the geographical, cultural context of the religion,

etc,
Many have already pointed out that teaching one religion as a philosophy or as a moral compass, while teaching the other religions as mythologies is very disingenuous.

I think Philosopher Dan Dennet's arguments in regards to teaching religion is very good.

dvpower

eightyfish wrote: »

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

I love the bit where he says:

Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, are prohibited from marrying people of their own sex.

John Waters - champion of equality.

Sam Vimes

eightyfish wrote: »

It should be a world-religions class where they teach about religions in general, the history of them and the different types. Keep the "you are a hindu/christian/muslim" stuff for Sunday school.

QFT. Tell the kids about religion just like you tell them about capitalism and communism but don't tell them which one they should pick

Sam Vimes

dvpower wrote: »

I love the bit where he says:

Quote:
Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, are prohibited from marrying people of their own sex.

John Waters - champion of equality.

That should be framed.

HPT

drkpower wrote: »

John Waters seems to be taking a pop at Atheist Ireland. What do people think about his criticisms?

I think he makes some valid points.

Example.
"we have somehow arrived at a situation which enables unthinkingness to masquerade as intelligence."

I don't think it serves any useful purpose for any side to use the other side's beliefs or lack of beliefs as the starting place from which to launch an attack of some sort.

I've no problem with atheists at all but I question the need for some of them to constantly challenge and mock the religious beliefs of others. It's like "ok, so you're an atheist, but do you have to keep going on about it?"

philologos

robindch wrote: »

So, given your two reasonable conditions, do you believe it's likely that a school with a patron belonging to one religion (say catholic) is going to teach about another religion (say protestantism or islam) in an unbiased way, either in terms of approach, or in terms of the time spent on it?

Faith schools are intended to promote a particular religious lifestyle. That's the difference between it an secular schools. If parents want to bring their children to a faith school I have absolutely no problem with that at all.

Mind you, I did learn about other faiths (I chose Judaism and Islam to specialise on as well as Christianity) and secularism for Leaving Cert RE in an unbiased manner so I'm pretty sure it can happen.

I personally would have no problem with sending my hypothetical child to a secular school if the 2 requirements I have set were there for teaching it.

The only disagreement I have with you is in respect to funding. I want all schools which teach the State curriculum to be funded equally if I am going to be paying taxes towards it.

robindch

HPT wrote: »

"we have somehow arrived at a situation which enables unthinkingness to masquerade as intelligence."

A situation with which Mr Waters is no doubt personally familiar.

HPT wrote: »

I've no problem with atheists at all but I question the need for some of them to constantly challenge and mock the religious beliefs of others.

Other than Christopher Hitchens (who's at least quite funny and can be turned off with teh flick of a switch) I can't think of any atheists who constantly challenge and mock the religious beliefs of others. Whom exactly do you have in mind here?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally would have no problem with sending my hypothetical child to a secular school if the 2 requirements I have set were there for teaching it.

In a secular school, that's pretty much what happens as far as I'm aware -- the major religions are given roughly equal time, and none are dissed.

However, bearing in mind that there are only 90 or so secular schools in Ireland, and several thousand which are controlled by one religious group or another, do you believe it's likely that a school with a patron belonging to one religion (say catholic) is going to teach about another religion (say protestantism or islam) in an unbiased way, either in terms of approach, or in terms of the time spent on it?

ie, if you're a member of the protestant religion, would you be happy to send your kid to a school with an islamic patron?

Sam Vimes

HPT wrote: »

I think he makes some valid points.

Example.
"we have somehow arrived at a situation which enables unthinkingness to masquerade as intelligence."

I don't think it serves any useful purpose for any side to use the other side's beliefs or lack of beliefs as the starting place from which to launch an attack of some sort.

I've no problem with atheists at all but I question the need for some of them to constantly challenge and mock the religious beliefs of others. It's like "ok, so you're an atheist, but do you have to keep going on about it?"

Stay on topic, this isn't about John Waters :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The only disagreement I have with you is in respect to funding. I want all schools which teach the State curriculum to be funded equally if I am going to be paying taxes towards it.

The point is that teaching the state curriculum should not be used as an excuse to pass on their agenda to children as true. You acknowledge this yourself when it's not a religious agenda being passed on. It's not social and moral values being passed on, it's your social and moral values which not everyone shares. Someone with a political agenda could argue just as easily that all they're doing is teaching social values

philologos

Sam, that's fine if not everyone shares them. Faith schools are primarily for people who want to go to a school with a particular ethos. There should be alternatives for those who don't. I disagree with you clearly on this, and I think the State funding these schools is fine. We've been through this for the last few pages without getting anywhere.

We have some common ground in respect to how RE should be thought. I'm not opposed to bringing my hypothetical child to a secular school as long as the two conditions have been met. I personally feel that I am confident enough in my Biblical knowledge to be able to share my faith relatively effectively. I mean it's not perfect, but I'm getting there.

I would want any child I had to be able to live according to religious values instead of non-religious values. I feel that religious morality is superior to non-religious morality. Many people do, and as such I feel that some people might want to have their children educated about these in school. I think that's okay, at the same time though, I think I could do this myself too.

I'm an advocate of full choice, I just don't go as far as you do on funding and I don't see any reason why I would. I've met you half way in saying that there should be an effort made by the Government to promote secular education alongside religious education in Ireland.

CDfm

dvpower wrote: »

John Waters - champion of equality.

And Ivana Bacik Miss Andry 2009 :P

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

there should be an effort made by the Government to promote secular education alongside religious education in Ireland.

OK, so your solution to the problem is to build perhaps 2,000 schools in the country in order to satisfy the 70% or so of the population who are unhappy with religious control.

Do you think this is a reasonable solution?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...I'm an advocate of full choice, I just don't go as far as you do on funding and I don't see any reason why I would. I've met you half way in saying that there should be an effort made by the Government to promote secular education alongside religious education in Ireland.

Which is effectively saying that tax payers money regardless of their theological position or lack thereof has to go towards others RE? Thats ridiculous. Real choice would be to say that instead of paying taxes I send my kid to a private school that teaches just the cirriculum plus whatever else I want in the presence of your system. In your proposal I have less choice not more. Why should the government be concerned with providing religious education? Is it because perhaps you think that some religious adherents can't afford it? Well then the religion and its institutions have a serious problem. The Catholic church showed a stroke of genius in this country in that respect by hijacking education when the nation was weak.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

OK, so your solution to the problem is to build perhaps 2,000 schools in the country in order to satisfy the 70% or so of the population who are unhappy with religious control.

Do you think this is a reasonable solution?

If those statistics are accurate, I would suggest that the State buy some of the schools from the Catholic Church instead of building brand new ones in return for the abuse settlement. That's just my opinion though.

However, if that is not true, we would need to review other options. The State would have to get it's own statistics instead of trusting a newspaper poll.

CerebralCortex: I think people should pay for schools of all religious viewpoints as long as they teach the curriculum. I.E part to the secular schools, part to the Christian schools, part to the Islamic schools and so on based on number and how many students there are in them. If there aren't enough to suit the demand, more need to be got.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I feel that religious morality is superior to non-religious morality

Which is really the point. It's easy to find reasons why your ideology should be taught and others shouldn't when you're predisposed to thinking it's superior. Sure why would anyone object to religion in schools, it's better than all the alternatives????

Bear in mind that I'm not saying mine should be taught, I'm saying that ethics should be taught that apply to everyone without being told that they're only valid if they came from the Christian God. As you can see here, the "golden rule" of morality, which is all that's required imo, is shared by Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology. Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, that's fine if not everyone shares them. Faith schools are primarily for people who want to go to a school with a particular ethos. There should be alternatives for those who don't. I disagree with you clearly on this, and I think the State funding these schools is fine. We've been through this for the last few pages without getting anywhere.

We have some common ground in respect to how RE should be thought. I'm not opposed to bringing my hypothetical child to a secular school as long as the two conditions have been met. I personally feel that I am confident enough in my Biblical knowledge to be able to share my faith relatively effectively. I mean it's not perfect, but I'm getting there.

I would want any child I had to be able to live according to religious values instead of non-religious values. I feel that religious morality is superior to non-religious morality. Many people do, and as such I feel that some people might want to have their children educated about these in school. I think that's okay, at the same time though, I think I could do this myself too.

I'm an advocate of full choice, I just don't go as far as you do on funding and I don't see any reason why I would. I've met you half way in saying that there should be an effort made by the Government to promote secular education alongside religious education in Ireland.

And I've met you half way by saying that I don't mind the government funding religious education as long as it's kept separate to the rest of the curriculum, all religions are accommodated in the same school and it's not taught within school hours because they have nothing to do with each other. There should be an ethics class in school which everyone attends and a separate religious class where the believers of each religion are taught that these curiously similar ethics come from their respective Gods.

Why is it so important to you that maths, science, geography and technical drawing are taught with a religious ethos? The state curriculum has nothing to do with religion, I don't see why a religious ethos is relevant in science class and I don't see why people should be forced to take all or nothing. It's all well and good to say the government should promote secular education but that's easy to say when 98% of schools belong to your God. We have plenty of schools for our children already, they're just allowed discriminate against all but one religion and they shouldn't be, as the Equal Status Act 2000 says

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If those statistics are accurate, I would suggest that the State buy some of the schools from the Catholic Church instead of building brand new ones in return for the abuse settlement. That's just my opinion though.

Now that's an idea

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....CerebralCortex: I think people should pay for schools of all religious viewpoints as long as they teach the curriculum. I.E part to the secular schools, part to the Christian schools, part to the Islamic schools and so on based on number and how many students there are in them. If there aren't enough to suit the demand, more need to be got.

Unbelievable why on earth would I want would I want top pay for other peoples religious education that makes no sense? Whats wrong with doing it themselves? If they can't well thats religions problem not mine, not yours.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

In a secular school, that's pretty much what happens as far as I'm aware -- the major religions are given roughly equal time, and none are dissed.

However, bearing in mind that there are only 90 or so secular schools in Ireland, and several thousand which are controlled by one religious group or another, do you believe it's likely that a school with a patron belonging to one religion (say catholic) is going to teach about another religion (say protestantism or islam) in an unbiased way, either in terms of approach, or in terms of the time spent on it?

ie, if you're a member of the protestant religion, would you be happy to send your kid to a school with an islamic patron?

My kids Catholic School did stuff on all religions. The religion teacher had a very Fr Dougal approach and teenagers being teenagers have fun at her expense.

I dont think I would be comfortable with an Islamic Patron in a kind of a would not know their values way.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Unbelievable why on earth would I want would I want top pay for other peoples religious education that makes no sense? Whats wrong with doing it themselves? If they can't well thats religions problem not mine, not yours.

I think you'll find you already pay for other peoples education through the taxation system. I do too. I mightn't like the idea, yet the taxes are still paid. :pac:

Do you pay taxes because you want to or because you have to?

As I say, I agree with most of you on most issues concerning this. I do not agree on the funding aspect and I probably won't reach an agreement with you on that.

CDfm

eightyfish wrote: »

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

But what have gays ever done to anyone to inflict marriage on them.

Really I get the civil partnership inheritance as spouse pensions and all that and have no probs with it.

But when it comes to stuff like wanting to be families with kids I am not so sure and thats not being an extremist. Lots of people dont dig that bit and think that its lack of acceptence that children dont go with the orientation. Its more like men going to coffee morning and whingeing society has to change.

Hasnt the civil partnership bill been used for all sorts of social policy issues on unmarried couples that have muddied the debate.

Anyway I think its a different issue.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

If those statistics are accurate, I would suggest that the State buy some of the schools from the Catholic Church instead of building brand new ones in return for the abuse settlement. That's just my opinion though.

So your solution is to remove control of the schools from the churches -- grand, I think we can agree on that.

And to return (again) to the question I've asked several times, if you're a member of the protestant religion, would you be happy to send your kid to a school with an islamic patron, if that school were the only convenient one?

Or do you think that the government shouldn't be paying for one religion at expense of another one?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I dont think I would be comfortable with an Islamic Patron in a kind of a would not know their values way.

Well, their "values" boil down to (a) what are generally referred to as "traditional family values" (ie, highly socially conservative) and (b) propagation of the islamic religion.

So, bearing in that in mind, do you think it's ok for the government to fund this?

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

I dont think I would be comfortable with an Islamic Patron in a kind of a would not know their values way.

And yet you would want Muslims (or Jews or Buddhists or Atheists or Protestants ...) to either put up with the current system that has a Catholic priest as patron in the vast majority of cases or to get into the education business themselves and set up their own schools.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

So your solution is to remove control of the schools from the churches -- grand, I think we can agree on that.

No, to remove control from a portion of the schools owned by churches. The Catholic Church should continue to operate faith schools but if 70% really want secular schools this needs to be arranged between the State and the Catholic Church if they have too much of the schools in their control. The abuse settlement puts the Government in a position to be able to do so financially.

Rather pragmatic I would have thought.

robindch wrote: »

And to return (again) to the question I've asked several times, if you're a member of the protestant religion, would you be happy to send your kid to a school with an islamic patron, if that school were the only convenient one?

I'd bring them to that school and opt out of religious education. Rather simple. I wouldn't allow my child to suffer education wise just because I didn't agree with Islamic theology.

robindch wrote: »

Or do you think that the government shouldn't be paying for one religion at expense of another one?

The Government don't pay for one religion at the expense of another one. It's dealt with by demand.