John Waters v Atheist Ireland

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jakkass wrote:

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.

Now that's an idea

Already been thought of. As part of the original settlement, the church agreed to hand over a number of working schools to the state. I don't know why these were assumed to have some value, since the government can't obviously sell them, but that's what was decided as part of the now-defunct original agreement.

Part of the problem is that many of the schools were signed over to trusts whose articles of organization demand catholic control, and I believe that it requires an act of the High Court to change them. It's an expensive process, something which isn't helped by organizations like the Christian Brothers and the Rosminians who have set up trusts since the agreement was signed which are explicitly designed to make the process of state acquisition more difficult.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

And do you believe that there would be no social cost to your kid if he/she were absented from religion class? What about islamic prayers in the morning and during the day? Would you prefer to have your kid removed from that, or be present? And what about the teaching of history? Would you trust an islamic school to present a balanced view of history, or of the biology dept to teach the islamic version of creationism that's currently doing the rounds?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

And do you believe that there would be no social cost to your kid if he/she were absented from religion class?

I don't think it would have a monumental impact.

robindch wrote: »

What about islamic prayers in the morning and during the day? Would you prefer to have your kid removed from that, or be present?

I'm sure that could be arranged. I don't particularly mind time being left aside for prayer as long as any non-Muslim child would be given the discretion to pray according to their faith, or not to pray at all.

robindch wrote: »

And what about the teaching of history? Would you trust an islamic school to present a balanced view of history, or of the biology dept to teach the islamic version of creationism that's currently doing the rounds?

These schools have to use the Irish Curriculum to be funded. I already made this aptly clear. Bear in mind the teachers have to be able to speak Irish also. In the Islamic school in Cabra they have to have Irish speaking teachers, i.e non-Muslims teaching for this purpose.

If they want to teach an unbalanced version of history, it's quite simple, report them for not teaching the curriculum properly and school inspectors will sort this issue out.

If these schools want to teach the Saudi curriculum that's fine, but they won't be funded with State money, just as International Schools are not funded with State money because they teach a different curriculum.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

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:

Yep can't disagree with you there.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

I don't mind paying taxes under good governance at the moment I'm feel I'm being robbed on many fronts. But then again I didn't vote for the peeps in power.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Thats clear from your "atheism = faith" pov.

HPT

robindch wrote: »

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

I don't have any particular person in mind here which is why I used the word "some".

I was talking about the kind of person who feels the need to berate someone for their religious beliefs. The same sort of person who likes to point out the flaws in religion instead of just being happy in their own atheist bliss.

If someone's decided religion isn't for them, fair enough, but there's no need to try and convince everyone else to think the same way. Just leave them be in their religious bliss

eightyfish

CDfm wrote: »

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.

Don't want to start on about this here as I've debated is endlessly on other threads. Basically I understand how people feel uncomfortable with the kids thing, I know a few gay people who also wouldn't be sure about it. All other aspects of marriage, including the ability to marry someone from another part of the world and have them live with you at home as your spouse, should be available equally to everybody.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Again I ask would it not be easier or "pragmatic" to not pay for any religion?

eightyfish

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Thats clear from your "atheism = faith" pov.

Jakkass - do you agree with this exact statement : "Atheism is a faith."?

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

Jakkass - do you agree with this exact statement : "Atheism is a faith."?

Atheism does require a belief that a God or gods most likely do not exist, in some cases people are more certain than others. It is not factual that God certainly doesn't exist, it is a belief.

Agnosticism doesn't require any belief, it just requires a lack of knowledge, an indecision on a certain issue. We don't know whether or not God exists. It is factual that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist.

Theism requires a belief that a God or gods most likely do exist, in some cases people are more certain than others. It is not factual that God certainly exists, it is a belief.

Both require a belief that goes beyond the current objective standpoint (agnosticism). That's just my take. Most likely people will start squabbling over it now. We've had many threads on this issue before and I'd ask you to consult them first.

Edit: This is the type of belief you get amongst atheists that they have the "truth" about God:

dvpower wrote: »

No. They won't. I don't think that finding out the truth about Santa is ever a eureka moment. A bit like finding out the truth about God - it just eventually seeps in.

CerebralCortex

I consider myself agnostic on what I can't know which makes sense by agnosticisms definition. For example I have no idea why the universe is the way it is and its reasonable to say I never will. I consider myself an atheist because of what I do know.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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????

I personally think that Christian ethics are superior. However, I don't feel the need to stop atheists learning about secular ethics, or Muslims learning about Islamic ethics. If I was only proposing that Christian faith schools should exist, you might have a point. Since I don't only propose this for Christianity, you don't.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

If the Golden Rule was the only moral guideline that I thought was great in the Bible, I might agree with you. This is horribly simplistic though. I think that Christian ethics in general are superior to secular ethics. That's my opinion from discovering them for myself. You are entitled to disagree.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

You haven't really. If people are willing to accomodate you in finding alternatives, you should be equally willing to accomodate others in finding alternatives with equal funding for both. I don't see how that is either unfair or unreasonable.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

I don't think that Science, Maths, Geography or History are taught with a religious ethos. I sometimes strive and wonder if you know what a religious ethos is.

Science, Maths, Geography and so on should be taught as they are. All a religious ethos means is that a certain belief system is taught within a limited designated time per day. I find this fine if believers want to raise their children in a particular faith. If you don't like that particular faith that's fine, but to dictate how other parents should educate their children in morality and religion is rather haughty.

My line that I have given on this thread is the final line. I believe in choice for everyone. You disagree, that's fine. I'm not asking you to agree, but I don't see any proper reason why I should change my viewpoint on it. I support a fair society with equal opportunities for religious and non-religious in terms of education. I also support our constitution in respect to what CDfm has quoted from it.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism does require a belief that a God or gods most likely do not exist, in some cases people are more certain than others. It is not factual that God certainly doesn't exist, it is a belief.

It's no more a belief than saying Xavian Honduramonas don't exist because there's isn't any evidence. I don't have a "belief" that Xavian Honduramonas don't exist, I just don't have any evidence that they do.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it would have a monumental impact. [...] I don't particularly mind time being left aside for prayer as long as any non-Muslim child would be given the discretion to pray according to their faith, or not to pray at all. [...] If they want to teach an unbalanced version of history, it's quite simple, report them for not teaching the curriculum properly and school inspectors will sort this issue out.

Well, I think you're quite misplaced in your open faith that this notional islamic school will treat your religion fairly and that the other people in the school will respect your decision not to have your kid present during the prayers appropriate for their religion.

While I can't speak for the school you went to, my own ones, and the schools and students and teachers that I've subsequently come into contact with, lead me to believe that the idealistic situation that you expect is, unfortunately, not what happens in the real world where religion certainly does influence people's thoughts and actions.

robindch

HPT wrote: »

I don't have any particular person in mind here which is why I used the word "some". I was talking about the kind of person who feels the need to berate someone for their religious beliefs. The same sort of person who likes to point out the flaws in religion instead of just being happy in their own atheist bliss.

Can't speak for you, but I've never seen nor heard any non-religious person berate anybody -- unprompted -- for their religious beliefs. That's why I was asking you to say who was doing this; it's certainly unknown in my experience.

The only people I've seen who habitually and openly refer to other people's beliefs as stupid and closed-minded are religious people, in which case a reply-in-kind might not be very pleasant, but it certainly isn't unprompted and in a certain light, can even be well-deserved.

philologos

robindch: Can't the same be argued if you have a Muslim history teacher in a secular school? Or an atheist teaching RE? They could well also be biased. It's no different wherever you go. Or maybe you should examine your own idealism? :pac:

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch: Can't the same be argued if you have a Muslim history teacher in a secular school?

Yes, it certainly can. And that's why some countries -- Italy, for example -- require teachers to inform parents and kids of their political and religious views, so that some kind of compensation can be made.

As above, I'd like people to leave their religious and political biases at home and concentrate on teaching what we can all agree is true.

Wouldn't you?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Golden Rule was the only moral guideline that I thought was great in the Bible, I might agree with you. This is horribly simplistic though. I think that Christian ethics in general are superior to secular ethics. That's my opinion from discovering them for myself. You are entitled to disagree.

What other moral guidelines are in there that can't be derived from that rule?

Jakkass wrote: »

You haven't really. If people are willing to accomodate you in finding alternatives, you should be equally willing to accomodate others in finding alternatives with equal funding for both. I don't see how that is either unfair or unreasonable.

I just said that I would accept the government funding religious instruction. Accommodating you does not equal accepting the situation where my child can be refused a place in a state school

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think that Science, Maths, Geography or History are taught with a religious ethos. I sometimes strive and wonder if you know what a religious ethos is.

So what does one have to do with the other? Why must they all be taught together? Why can't we have a state school where the children learn science, maths, geography and history all together and then have separate schools or separate classes where they learn their religion? What place does the church have owning schools when 99% of what they're teaching has nothing to do with their church?

Jakkass wrote: »

but to dictate how other parents should educate their children in morality and religion is rather haughty.

Then it's a good thing I'm not doing that. All I'm saying is I don't want other parents to dictate to mine in a form of legal discrimination

Jakkass wrote: »

My line that I have given on this thread is the final line. I believe in choice for everyone. You disagree, that's fine. I'm not asking you to agree, but I don't see any proper reason why I should change my viewpoint on it. I support a fair society with equal opportunities for religious and non-religious in terms of education. I also support our constitution in respect to what CDfm has quoted from it.

Please stop saying I disagree with choice. At no stage did I say I disagree with choice. All I've said is that your choice doesn't have to be funded by the government to the detriment of everyone else's choice.

And again, it's easy to say you believe in choice for everyone when 98% of the schools in the country are taught the way you want. I have the choice to drive 20 miles a day, try to squeeze a school out of a government that's €400 million a week in the hole when there are already plenty of schools or have my kids learn your morals because the church has usurped the state curriculum so it can pass on its agenda. Some choice

Sam Vimes

How about this Jakkass and CDfm?

I don't think the church should own schools because the state curriculum has nothing to do with them and I don't want their beliefs being pushed on people who don't want it and don't have any other option than to drive 20 miles a day.
Currently the situation is you have a 98% monopoly on schools and I'm supposed to lobby a bankrupt government to build a school that won't be finished until my child is too old even though there are plenty of schools, because I can't get my values taught to my child in a state school

At the same time I don't want to deny people choice and the constitution says the state has a responsibility to fund religious education so a referendum is a lot of hassle.

So the state takes the schools back from the church, either by buying them or by taking them in compensation for you know what, and for an hour (or whatever) a day all the children are separated according to their parents' religion and taught that religion's morality. Atheists and secularists will have a class that teaches ethics without a God perspective.

This situation is the same as the current one except that the focus is not being given to one type of morality because they bought the land, leaving all the outcasts to sit in a room on their own until the ethical teaching is finished.

This way seems the easiest, fairest and best to me because all the children are being educated together as they should be and everyone's right to religion is being satisfied without the need to cause segregation, waste and discrimination by building separate schools just for one subject. And very importantly, if a school has a good reputation no one has to discount it because of something that has nothing to do with the curriculum. Everyone has the choice of every school in the country as they should because the curriculum is the same in every school and all religious perspectives are taught equally instead of just the land owner's one.

So what do you think? Are you willing to allow freedom of choice by teaching all moral and ethical perspectives equally instead of just your own? I might even consider it acceptable for the church to stay as the owner as long as controls are put in place to ensure the other perspectives are getting equal status

CDfm

eightyfish wrote: »

Don't want to start on about this here as I've debated is endlessly on other threads. Basically I understand how people feel uncomfortable with the kids thing, I know a few gay people who also wouldn't be sure about it. All other aspects of marriage, including the ability to marry someone from another part of the world and have them live with you at home as your spouse, should be available equally to everybody.

I dont want to argue about it either.

But generally, I have no probs with it at all "gay" marriage/civil partnerships as you outline it.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How about this Jakkass and CDfm?

I don't think the church should own schools because the state curriculum has nothing to do with them and I don't want their beliefs being pushed on people who don't want it and don't have any other option than to drive 20 miles a day.

But they do own the schools and they evolved as part of the community and ties that bind a community together.

Currently the situation is you have a 98% monopoly on schools and I'm supposed to lobby a bankrupt government to build a school that won't be finished until my child is too old even though there are plenty of schools, because I can't get my values taught to my child in a state school

Its more than just lobbying a group of individuals get together with a plan for a building fund raising etc buy the land and have the commitment to follow it thru.

At the same time I don't want to deny people choice and the constitution says the state has a responsibility to fund religious education so a referendum is a lot of hassle.

I do think that communities should have rights indep-endent of the state and that includes atheists. Schools are part of the wider community.

So the state takes the schools back from the church, either by buying them or by taking them in compensation for you know what, and for an hour (or whatever) a day all the children are separated according to their parents' religion and taught that religion's morality. Atheists and secularists will have a class that teaches ethics without a God perspective.

I am not so sure I would want that BTW - there was a controversial program Exploring Masculinities a pilot study that defined masculinity as a social construct http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/35-1/boys.pdf .

The Department of Education wouldnt release the course notes to parents

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0526/D.0526.200011280267.html

This situation is the same as the current one except that the focus is not being given to one type of morality because they bought the land, leaving all the outcasts to sit in a room on their own until the ethical teaching is finished.

As above

This way seems the easiest, fairest and best to me because all the children are being educated together as they should be and everyone's right to religion is being satisfied without the need to cause segregation, waste and discrimination by building separate schools just for one subject. And very importantly, if a school has a good reputation no one has to discount it because of something that has nothing to do with the curriculum. Everyone has the choice of every school in the country as they should because the curriculum is the same in every school and all religious perspectives are taught equally instead of just the land owner's one.

It diminishes the community to put the schools in "foreign " hands. Its like your local football team.Local ownership means a lot.

So what do you think? Are you willing to allow freedom of choice by teaching all moral and ethical perspectives equally instead of just your own? I might even consider it acceptable for the church to stay as the owner as long as controls are put in place to ensure the other perspectives are getting equal status

I dont think its as extreme as you make it out to be and I dont like a homogeneous approach.

That said -I have some sympathy for your position and disagree with baptism of convenience to get kids into schools.

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

I am not so sure I would want that BTW - there was a controversial program Exploring Masculinities a pilot study that defined masculinity as a social construct http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/35-1/boys.pdf .

The Department of Education wouldnt release the course notes to parents

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0526/D.0526.200011280267.html

One of us is losing the plot here.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But they do own the schools and they evolved as part of the community and ties that bind a community together.

I know they own the schools, I'm saying they shouldn't because what's taught in the school should be what's approved by the state and not the beliefs of whoever happened to be rich enough to buy the land. Being rich does not give anyone the right to exclude or neglect the rights of whoever they want, especially when receiving state funding


And it binds the catholic part of the community and excludes everyone else. All I'm asking is that the schools be run by a neutral body and that equal time be given to the constitutional rights of the entire community to religious education, not just one part. Surely that's better for the community and who owns the deeds shouldn't matter? There is no reason why the church has to be involved in the teaching of maths and science and there's nothing stopping them getting involved in the community because they'll still be in the schools,
they just won't be able to use the fact that they own the land to keep all ideologies but their own out anymore

CDfm wrote: »

I am not so sure I would want that BTW - there was a controversial program Exploring Masculinities a pilot study that defined masculinity as a social construct http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/35-1/boys.pdf .

The Department of Education wouldnt release the course notes to parents

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0526/D.0526.200011280267.html

I'm lost.....

CDfm wrote: »

It diminishes the community to put the schools in "foreign " hands. Its like your local football team.Local ownership means a lot.

The state is entirely Irish and the church is based in Italy. It would actually be locally owned for the first time. How about if it was owned directly by the local council and if the board of management was made up of people from the community?

And how does not giving you preference over everyone else in the community diminish it?

CDfm wrote: »

I dont think its as extreme as you make it out to be and I dont like a homogeneous approach.

It's not homogeneous, it's inclusive. The students are all learning the same state curriculum so I see no reason why there should be one school with 20 in the class then 10 more with only a few all learning the same thing. It's wasteful and harmful because it discriminates against minorities who can't afford their own schools to teach what's already being taught around the corner and because it separates children who are supposed to be learning tolerance of others so it therefore diminishes the community. You can't have a community when everyone is separated down religious lines and especially when one group is given preferential treatment. It breeds resentment.
Sure there are already students from other religions in the school so there would be no more homogeneousness, they'd just be taught their own religion too instead of sitting in an empty class while the catholics get taught

CDfm wrote: »

That said -I have some sympathy for your position and disagree with baptism of convenience to get kids into schools.

But not enough to completely solve the problem by allowing the teaching of other religions and ethical systems in the 98% of schools where one religion is given preference even though "the special place of the catholic church" was removed from our constitution decades ago?

To be honest CDfm, this sounds to me like someone who knows he's in an unfair privileged position over everyone else in the community trying to find excuses to justify denying everyone else's constitutional rights. The government has the responsibility to support and fund religious education and your school receives state support and funding. Who are you to say they can't fulfil this responsibility in your school as long as you're taking their money and resources? Imo all religions should be allowed or none. Anything else is discrimination. You'd never hear of a school being allowed refuse white people because the owner was black because it's illegal and religious discrimination is banned under the same act

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know they own the schools, I'm saying they shouldn't because what's taught in the school should be what's approved by the state and not the beliefs of whoever happened to be rich enough to buy the land. Being rich does not give anyone the right to exclude or neglect the rights of whoever they want, especially when receiving state funding

What Im saying is that the centralised proposal you make irrespective of the merits of your argument is bollox. From a practical point of view you get 25% functional illiteracy as an output from Irish schools and cant fire ineffective teachers. The part the state provide and monitor is a crock.

And it binds the catholic part of the community and excludes everyone else. All I'm asking is that the schools be run by a neutral body and that equal time be given to the constitutional rights of the entire community to religious education, not just one part. Surely that's better for the community and who owns the deeds shouldn't matter? There is no reason why the church has to be involved in the teaching of maths and science and there's nothing stopping them getting involved in the community because they'll still be in the schools, just with a lot of other religions too.

I am saying the church acted as a vehicle or trustee for local catholic communities and provided land guaranteed loans etc at a time when the capital wasn't there. Communities have a dynamic -like in a go us we build a school did all the fundraising and got there or woohoo look at our football pitch - isnt it great. Maybe you dont see the community the way I do and I think you are too hung up on the religion side and can't see the wood for the trees.

I'm lost.....

I just was highlighting a very controvercial Dept of Education programme that was put together by some extreme gender feminists with a very negative stereotype images of men taught to boys. So secretive was the programme that parents were for the first time in the history of the state refused syllabus and teaching materials. The stuff in the course material was really extreme and I saw the stuff.

So what I am saying is that if you take this as an example centralised isnt better and who knows what type of random pop ideologies and wacko theorists will be involved in putting together the moral instruction stuff.

Personally I think the current system is balanced and the religion elements are not extreme.

The state is entirely Irish and the church is based in Italy. It would actually be locally owned for the first time. How about if it was owned directly by the local council?

Henry VIII would have loved you.Home Rule is Rome Rule.

Ownership of the schools are vested in trustees - nowdays I think its the local diocese.Nothing to do with Italy.

You already have parish councils and parents councils

And how does not giving you preference over everyone else in the community diminish it?

I dont think the central government model improves anything for a variety of reasons and it also gets rid of choice and diversity.

Its not just a religious thing and while i see some merit in your arguments - for several other reasons I disagree with you just on issues totally not religion based.

To be honest CDfm, this sounds to me like someone who knows he's in an unfair privileged position over everyone else in the community trying to find excuses to justify denying everyone else's constitutional rights. In fact, the government has the responsibility to support and fund religious education and your school receives state support and funding. Who are you to say they can't fulfil this responsibility in your school as long as you're taking their money and resources?

I do not agree totally with the system and its not perfect. I see the alternative as being worse. In my hometown you had three schools amalgamated into one superschool and it got rid of choice.in fact any kid who is expelled is fairly messed up eductionally. I do agree that the system isnt perfect but the alternative as I see it is much worse.

I am fairly relaxed with my beliefs and dont impose them on others.

Can you outline and quantify for me the numbers affected by this that are excluded. We have 88% of the country catholic -8% other religions and 4% others.

So its the 4% or 160,000 people we are talking about.

CDfm

dvpower wrote: »

One of us is losing the plot here.

No plot loosing - I was just pointing out that when central government come up with social ideological programs to be taught in schools they can come up with some weird crap.

To make my point I am giving an example of something that actually happened. It wasnt an atheist programme but it was an example to show how weird it could be using one that actually became a pilot programme.

It wasnt religion based and was extreme.

So my question stands -how do you control it.

CDfm

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?

Where are you getting 70% from ?

A poll from the readers of the Sunday World would be a tad more informative than an Irish Times survey.

You can get the result you want in a Survey by framing the questions. surveys.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Where are you getting 70% from ?

From a survey carried out by the Irish Primary Principal's Network (and not the Sunday World ). More here:

http://www.ippn.ie/index.php?view=article&id=642:28th-june-2008-parents-want-to-reduced-role-for-church-in-primary-schools&option=com_content&Itemid=50

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

What Im saying is that the centralised proposal you make irrespective of the merits of your argument is bollox. From a practical point of view you get 25% functional illiteracy as an output from Irish schools and cant fire ineffective teachers. The part the state provide and monitor is a crock.
..
I dont think the central government model improves anything for a variety of reasons and it also gets rid of choice and diversity.
...
I do not agree totally with the system and its not perfect. I see the alternative as being worse. In my hometown you had three schools amalgamated into one superschool and it got rid of choice.in fact any kid who is expelled is fairly messed up educationally. I do agree that the system isnt perfect but the alternative as I see it is much worse.
...
Can you outline and quantify for me the numbers affected by this that are excluded. We have 88% of the country catholic -8% other religions and 4% others.

So its the 4% or 160,000 people we are talking about.

All I'm saying is your religious group shouldn't be given preferential treatment and some extra classes should be put on. I don't see any connection between that and literacy rates. The number of schools available for your children wouldn't decrease at all, I'm not talking about one super school or closing schools at all, it would just mean that minority groups wouldn't have to set up their own small ones because they wouldn't be discriminated against anymore. You wouldn't be sending your children to these minority schools anyway so your choice would not decrease.

My way doesn't exclude anyone, it includes everyone and puts a stop to the practice of excluding everyone but catholics. I'd be given the choice of 100% of the schools in the country where I now have 2% and your choice would increase from 98% to 100%. Right now in overcrowded areas anyone who hasn't joined your club is pretty messed up educationally. And you really need to stop using the 88% figure, it's not accurate. It's a symptom of Irish Mammy syndrome

CDfm wrote: »

I am saying the church acted as a vehicle or trustee for local catholic communities and provided land guaranteed loans etc at a time when the capital wasn't there. Communities have a dynamic -like in a go us we build a school did all the fundraising and got there or woohoo look at our football pitch - isnt it great. Maybe you dont see the community the way I do and I think you are too hung up on the religion side and can't see the wood for the trees.

And not owning the schools prevents them doing that how exactly?

CDfm wrote: »

Henry VIII would have loved you.Home Rule is Rome Rule.

Ownership of the schools are vested in trustees - nowdays I think its the local diocese.Nothing to do with Italy.

You already have parish councils and parents councils

Right, so have the same thing but prevent them from breaking the law by discriminating on religious grounds and put non-catholics on the board

CDfm wrote: »

I just was highlighting a very controvercial Dept of Education programme that was put together by some extreme gender feminists with a very negative stereotype images of men taught to boys. So secretive was the programme that parents were for the first time in the history of the state refused syllabus and teaching materials. The stuff in the course material was really extreme and I saw the stuff.

So what I am saying is that if you take this as an example centralised isnt better and who knows what type of random pop ideologies and wacko theorists will be involved in putting together the moral instruction stuff.

Personally I think the current system is balanced and the religion elements are not extreme.

They'll prevent extremists the same way they prevent extreme maths teachers teaching communism, through controls and monitoring. This to me is very telling, you don't want other religions taught in your school for fear they will be extremists. Now that's discrimination if ever I've seen it.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

No plot loosing - I was just pointing out that when central government come up with social ideological programs to be taught in schools they can come up with some weird crap.

To make my point I am giving an example of something that actually happened. It wasnt an atheist programme but it was an example to show how weird it could be using one that actually became a pilot programme.

It wasnt religion based and was extreme.

So my question stands -how do you control it.

No one's talking about the government coming up with the programs, each religion and ethical group would come up with their own and have it approved by whatever means curriculums are currently approved. Whatever stops extremist programs now will still stop them then. All you're doing here is fear mongering based on xenophobia.

DublinWriter

Last Saturday, I attended the agm of Atheist Ireland, in Wynn’s Hotel in Dublin. The objectives of this organisation, as outlined by meeting chairman Michael Nugent, include a secular Constitution and “an ethical Ireland free of superstition and supernaturalism”. In advancing this concept, Nugent did not reference any places where an ethical secularism has succeeded.

...and of course unethical non-secularism has done a really bang-up job in this country in the last 80 years, hasn't it John?

Poor Mr.Waters sounds a little peed-off, maybe he had to buy his own drinks at the occasion for a change?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

From a survey carried out by the Irish Primary Principal's Network (and not the Sunday World ). More here:

http://www.ippn.ie/index.php?view=article&id=642:28th-june-2008-parents-want-to-reduced-role-for-church-in-primary-schools&option=com_content&Itemid=50

I have quite a low opinion teachers at the best of times and a group of them will be lower in my estimation particularly school principals.

I am not a fan of surveys and would like to see details of the survey methodology sample size etc and how they arrived at their conclusions.

I guarantee you if I took a survey outside my local church tomorrow of all people with children I would get a different result. You can stack a survey to get the answers you want.

Now when the IPPN can solve the illiteracy crisis where 1 in 4 going thru the school system is functionaliy illiterate then they will be worth listening too.