Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John Waters v Atheist Ireland

1…1213151718…20

Comments

  • #422
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    In advancing this concept, Nugent did not reference any places where an ethical secularism has succeeded.[/I]
    Sweden and pretty much any country that isn't a theocracy :confused:
    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Poor Mr.Waters sounds a little peed-off, maybe he had to buy his own drinks at the occasion for a change?

    As I've said before, he wrote most of the article before even going to the meeting and just went there to get ammunition


  • #423
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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.

    It changes what congregations collected for and paid money for and built and infringes on their rights.

    its not preferential -its just you want it a la carte.

    the reason i am bringing up literacy rates is that the central government system is fairly crap at doing what they are supposed to do and you want to give them more pwer not less. Get a grip.
    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

    I take your point but can you see the majority agreeing to the change which would further reduce the number of places available. I can imagine politicans in those areas going for the pot with the most votes.

    As in Blah blah sometimes its unfashionable to believe blah blah but i never worry about fashion blah just you my voters.

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

    I cant see why local communities of whatever religion or creed should give up their schools to central government. They bought them. Any more than the GAA should give up their football pitches.
    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

    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.

    But they already are faith schools thats what the communities and congregations did when the built them under the rules at the time.

    Its like a GAA club not having cricket.

    If I go to a lapdancing club I dont want to see irish dancers.

    Its what we paid our money for.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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.

    I am not fearmongering it was an actual programme and it was planned to introduce it in schools and it was already in 40 or 50 schools.

    My point being that local control gives a counterbalance against this.


  • #424
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    its not preferential -its just you want it a la carte.
    Only your views are taught in 98% of schools and people of other views can be excluded. I'd call that preferential.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I take your point but can you see the majority agreeing to the change which would further reduce the number of places available. I can imagine politicans in those areas going for the pot with the most votes.

    As in Blah blah sometimes its unfashionable to believe blah blah but i never worry about fashion blah just you my voters.
    Firstly, the non-catholic students are already in the schools so it wouldn't reduce places, it's just that they currently sit in an empty class while the catholics are being taught and secondly, what you've just said is no different to refusing foreigners or blacks places. Why should catholics be given preferential treatment in cases of overcrowding?

    edit: in fact it's exactly like refusing blacks and foreigners places because blacks and foreigners are more likely not to be catholic
    CDfm wrote: »
    I cant see why local communities of whatever religion or creed should give up their schools to central government. They bought them. Any more than the GAA should give up their football pitches.
    I have no problem with the local community owning the school. The problem seems to be that you think church=community and it doesn't. I'm part of the community and I don't own any schools. Not only that, my child can be refused access to my community's school because I haven't joined their God club
    CDfm wrote: »
    But they already are faith schools thats what the communities and congregations did when the built them under the rules at the time.
    Yeah, when pretty much the entire country was catholic and a black man in the area was big news. Times have changed and the special place of the catholic church has been removed from the constitution
    CDfm wrote: »
    Its like a GAA club not having cricket.
    No it's not, a school is a service used by everyone. It's more like a pub that doesn't accept blacks.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I am not fearmongering it was an actual programme and it was planned to introduce it in schools and it was already in 40 or 50 schools.

    My point being that local control gives a counterbalance against this.

    I know it was an actual program but you're trying to suggest that allowing other religions to teach will make it happen again and that is fear mongering. The curriculum of that course was deliberately kept from the parents and the people who could have put a stop to it. There is no reason why that should happen again. I could just as easily make the same point about a christian curriculum. What if Fred Phelps runs it :eek:


  • #425
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »


    I have no problem with the local community owning the school.

    but you have a problem if its the catholic community,church of ireland community, muslim community or jewish community.

    No it's not, a school is a service used by everyone. It's more like a pub that doesn't accept blacks.

    Its like a pub that doesnt sell beer.

    A tenant doesnt tell the landlord to knock down a house and build one with an extra bedroom. He either rents the house or finds another one.

    The terms of the deal were we will provide the schools etc but we want to teach our religion in them. Thats the deal.


    I know it was an actual program but you're trying to suggest that allowing other religions to teach will make it happen again and that is fear mongering. The curriculum of that course was deliberately kept from the parents and the people who could have put a stop to it. There is no reason why that should happen again. I could just as easily make the same point about a christian curriculum. What if Fred Phelps runs it :eek:

    Why couldnt it happen again. Give the Government department more power and they will get worse.


  • #426
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    but you have a problem if its the catholic community,church of ireland community, muslim community or jewish community.
    In Ireland in the 21st century there's no such thing as a catholic community. If everyone in the community was catholic then not only would there be no problem but there would be no alternative but to have the entire board made up of catholics.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Its like a pub that doesnt sell beer.

    A tenant doesnt tell the landlord to knock down a house and build one with an extra bedroom. He either rents the house or finds another one.

    The terms of the deal were we will provide the schools etc but we want to teach our religion in them. Thats the deal.
    This is not a tenant and landlord situation. I'm just as much a part of the community as you and you have no right to exclude me from community amenities because I don't believe in your particular version of the creator of the universe.


    CDfm wrote: »
    Why couldnt it happen again. Give the Government department more power and they will get worse.
    Why couldn't it happen right now with a catholic religion teacher or with an extremist maths teacher? Answer my question and you'll have the answer to yours


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Actually, on your "it'll let extremists in" post, the teachers of the various religions would only be teaching the children whose parents belong to that religion, not your kids. If they weren't going to learn it in school they'd learn it somewhere else where we have no control over the curriculum. So having it taught in schools makes extremism less likely


  • #428
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Actually, on your "it'll let extremists in" post, the teachers of the various religions would only be teaching the children whose parents belong to that religion. If they weren't going to learn it in school they'd learn it somewhere else where we have no control over the curriculum. So having it taught in schools makes extremism less likely

    It wasnt about letting extremists in -it was more to do with the difficulty in regulating the thing. I picked that event as it was equally harmfull to all and not just atheists or christians.


  • #429
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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 can meet you that far I think.

    I assume this refers to public education as opposed to private education?


  • #430
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    In Ireland in the 21st century there's no such thing as a catholic community. If everyone in the community was catholic then not only would there be no problem but there would be no alternative but to have the entire board made up of catholics.

    I use community in the sense that Catholics are also bound together thru their church membership.So in that sense yes we are a community as part of the wider community.

    This is not a tenant and landlord situation. I'm just as much a part of the community as you and you have no right to exclude me from community amenities because I don't believe in your particular version of the creator of the universe.

    Schools were put together by the resourses and community/congregation of the Church.

    They were built to allow religious teaching and not ban it.



    Why couldn't it happen right now with a catholic religion teacher or with an extremist maths teacher? Answer my question and you'll have the answer to yours

    I am not saying it couldnt but the problem would be localised but this was a programme ready for roll out to all schools not just one class.


  • #431
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    I use community in the sense that Catholics are also bound together thru their church membership.So in that sense yes we are a community as part of the wider community.
    ...
    Schools were put together by the resourses and community of the Church.
    Yeah, you use community in the sense that excludes everyone who isn't in your religion. If the schools were only for catholics then there would be no non-catholics in them. The school belongs to the wider community, not just the ones who go to mass on a Sunday.

    Money doesn't buy the right to break discrimination laws. No other organisation would be allowed say "I paid for the building so I'm going to exclude everyone I want" and schools shouldn't be either. The law prevents them excluding people based on race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, membership of the travelling community and religion

    And even if paying for the building did allow you to break discrimination laws, you didn't pay for them. They may have been "put together by the resources and community of the Church" but they take government money and resources to run them. If you want to have something that's just for your religious community and want the right to exclude everyone else at will then your community can pay for it itself, just like any club that has a membership fee. My taxes pay for schools so I have just as much of a right to them as you.

    And anyway, no one's stopping you teaching your religion in the schools. We're just saying you can't exclude all others or leave them sitting in an empty class when they could be having their constitutional right to religious education provided.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I am not saying it couldnt but the problem would be localised but this was a programme ready for roll out to all schools not just one class.
    I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. That curriculum was bad. It was caught at the approval stage and stopped before it could be implemented. The same would happen to any curriculum whether it was taught by catholics, muslims or pastafarians. Saying "the teacher might be an extremist" is not a reason to have a whole subject excluded from schools. And as I said above, if it wasn't taught in schools it would be taught somewhere else where we have no control so it makes extremism less likely

    edit: In fact the point you're making shows exactly why I don't think any ideologies should be taught in schools and why they should stick to the facts. I think a group that tells you you're going to burn for eternity if you have consensual sex with someone of the same sex is pretty extremist tbh. I'd prefer if it was kept out of schools altogether but as you point out they have a constitutional right to have it taught just as much as you do. It's interesting that you see the point I'm making as long as it's not your particular ideology being taught


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I can meet you that far I think.

    I assume this refers to public education as opposed to private education?

    Yes of course it only refers to public education. If you're paying for it yourself and not excluding me from something that my taxes pay for you can teach that Mary Harney is the second coming of Christ for all I care


  • #433
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    CDfm wrote: »
    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.
    Well, if you don't trust the school principals, then you mustn't trust the people who put them there -- the school boards and the catholic school "patron".

    Upon this, I think we can agree.


  • #434
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yeah, you use community in the sense that excludes everyone who isn't in your religion. If the schools were only for catholics then there would be no non-catholics in them. The school belongs to the wider community, not just the ones who go to mass on a Sunday.

    Money doesn't buy the right to break discrimination laws. No other organisation would be allowed say "I paid for the building so I'm going to exclude everyone I want" and schools shouldn't be either. The law prevents them excluding people based on race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, membership of the travelling community and religion

    And even if paying for the building did allow you to break discrimination laws, you didn't pay for them. They may have been "put together by the resources and community of the Church" but they take government money and resources to run them.

    No one excludes anyone as far as I know.

    Religion is taught for 20 to 30 mins a day and there is a multi denominational aspect.

    The state guarantees a minimum education - nothing else. Part of what churches do is churchy things for church members. Free Secondary Education was announced by Donagh O'Malley in 1967 without consulting the Cabinet and he had no resourses to do it.

    So its not the churchs fault the thing was in a mess from inception.

    So you want between 88% and 96% of the population to give up their rights to satisfy the others.

    Dont you see how unreasonable that is.

    I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. That curriculum was bad. It was caught at the approval stage and stopped before it could be implemented.

    It took years to get the papers and it was Willie O'Dea handed over his copy so it wasnt just caught. Its just a general point about centralised government thing.


  • #435
    mackerski
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭mackerski


    CDfm wrote: »
    We are not a secular state and do not have a secular constitution.

    (Boy are you the unlucky ones, to have been born in a country where we're in charge. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.)

    Translated that for you. Feel free to tell me if you think I'm being unfair, but I can't quite see the part of this thread where you've provided either:
    • A justification of the current educational status quo as fair to non-Catholics
    • An acknowledgement that we should change some things to make it fair


  • #436
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    CDfm wrote: »
    Schools were put together by the resourses and community/congregation of the Church.

    They were built to allow religious teaching and not ban it.

    The problem is that this initial investment has been leveraged many times over, the 'cost' of the building at say a fair market rent per annum is only a fraction of the cost of the School for a year. Even then, the Church as landlord get the state to pay for the upkeep of their building.

    This is not counting many newer schools which have been paid for entirely by the state and then handed over to the Catholic church to be run.

    A similar thing has happened in the UK recently with Blair's faith schools, whereby a religious group can put up a small fraction of the cost of building a school, virtually none of the cost of running the school, but still run it as their own personal theocratic training centre.


  • #437
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    No one excludes anyone as far as I know.
    If a school is overcrowded non catholics can be refused and people who don't want their children taught your religion are excluded
    CDfm wrote: »
    Religion is taught for 20 to 30 mins a day and there is a multi denominational aspect.
    And if 98% of schools were muslim and they assured you their religion class had a multidenominational aspect you'd be more than satisfied
    CDfm wrote: »
    The state guarantees a minimum education - nothing else. Part of what churches do is churchy things for church members. Free Secondary Education was announced by Donagh O'Malley in 1967 without consulting the Cabinet and he had no resourses to do it.

    So its not the churchs fault the thing was in a mess from inception.
    Exactly, the state guarantees a minimum standard of religious education, not 98% of schools with only one religion being taught

    The fact that the government allowed the church to discriminate up to now and it's not their fault doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue
    CDfm wrote: »
    So you want between 88% and 96% of the population to give up their rights to satisfy the others.
    No, the school will be exactly the same for you, there'll just be some extra classes. I'm asking 88% (an erroneous figure you should stop using) to stop discriminating against me
    CDfm wrote: »
    It took years to get the papers and it was Willie O'Dea handed over his copy so it wasnt just caught. Its just a general point about centralised government thing.

    You know what, you're right and the only way to catch this is to only teach facts to children and not ideologies. Not mine, not theirs and not yours. There is no justification for why your ideology is ok but everyone else's is too dangerous because it can "lead to extremism"


  • #438
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm, it used to be that only rich white men had the right to vote but they then gave that right to others because it was the right thing to do. The only right you're being denied is the right to deny my rights


  • #439
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    mackerski wrote: »
    Translated that for you. Feel free to tell me if you think I'm being unfair, but I can't quite see the part of this thread where you've provided either:
    • A justification of the current educational status quo as fair to non-Catholics
    • An acknowledgement that we should change some things to make it fair

    I do think there should be change but the changes being put forward here are a polarised extreme.

    I grew up with neighbours who werent catholic who went to one school and I another. I didnt see anything strange about it or that they went to a different church.

    pH wrote: »
    The problem is that this initial investment has been leveraged many times over, the 'cost' of the building at say a fair market rent per annum is only a fraction of the cost of the School for a year. Even then, the Church as landlord get the state to pay for the upkeep of their building.

    the church is not a property business its in the propagation of the faith business so it wont be interested in your god free school proposal

    on what do you base this assertion?

    I have often seen this posted do you have a source?
    This is not counting many newer schools which have been paid for entirely by the state and then handed over to the Catholic church to be run.

    can you provide more details of these please
    A similar thing has happened in the UK recently with Blair's faith schools, whereby a religious group can put up a small fraction of the cost of building a school, virtually none of the cost of running the school, but still run it as their own personal theocratic training centre.

    We are not as wealthy as the UK - interestingly enough Blair sent his own kids to private schools.

    Well why cant atheist groups do the same.Build a few schools - as Cerebal Cortex said there is apathy.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If a school is overcrowded non catholics can be refused and people who don't want their children taught your religion are excluded

    Can you quote your sources here - I cant see whether this is anecdotal or if there is real evidence.
    And if 98% of schools were muslim and they assured you their religion class had a multidenominational aspect you'd be more than satisfied

    Exactly, the state guarantees a minimum standard of religious education, not 98% of schools with only one religion being taught

    Of course there are historical issues here. Your beef is with the state and not the Church.
    The fact that the government allowed the church to discriminate up to now and it's not their fault doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue

    Feminist groups are allowed to discriminate too by not leaving men join.

    The fact that the church is vin the faith business seems to be a major problem for you to grasp.

    That non practicing Catholics choose catholic schools over their non denominational or denominational equivalent seems to be a problem for you.
    No, the school will be exactly the same for you, there'll just be some extra classes. I'm asking 88% (an erroneous figure you should stop using) to stop discriminating against me

    I cited the US State Department and the source of the data and 88% is the 2002 Irish Census figures. These will be the figures the Government use for Public Policy Planning not any spurious surveys.

    You know what, you're right and the only way to catch this is to only teach facts to children and not ideologies. Not mine, not theirs and not yours. There is no justification for why your ideology is ok but everyone else's is too dangerous because it can "lead to extremism"

    I used that as an example - I would assume that atheist schools would be under similar pressure. I am just illustrating that central government control is not always best. Of course, I am not trying to say you have cookie ideas but that the value systems of those you want to control the schools may not be what you want either.


  • #440
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Zillah wrote: »
    Because being strongly convinced of falsehoods leads to dangerous and/or bigoted behaviour.

    Not at all. There is no evidence that not believing in God is protection against dangerous and/or bigoted behaviour. As sink said, placebos work. There is evidence that believing falsehoods also leads to good and charitable behaviour as well as "the bad stuff".

    You are confusing what is true with what is good. Thousands of groups throughout history have been convinced that they have the truth and if only everyone else agreed with them, then there would be less dangerous and/or bigoted behaviour. What makes you different?
    Dades wrote: »
    It's not about expecting everyone to have the same beliefs, it's about wanting everyone to embrace reality. There are innumerable ways to assert one's humanity through arts, culture, altruism etc. Your statement implies that without 'religion' humanity merges into one, which suggests to me you need a little more 'faith' in individuality.
    I don't quite mean like that. Obviously there is more to humanity than religion. But it would be a significant reduction in diversity if everyone became an atheist humanist because of all the cultural baggage that comes with that.

    If most people were failing to embrace reality then there wouldn't be seven billion of us. People quite clearly do not need atheism to make their way through life.
    The funny thing is, would you not be happy if the entire planet were to embrace Christianity? Or would you rather there were other religions too? So what if four billion non-Christians don't get to heaven - at least there's some religious diversity, right?!
    No, and that would not mesh with the Bible either. The scary thing is, a lot of atheists seem to think their vision is actually possible and worth working towards.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'd be happy if everyone embraced reality, but I would not be happy if people lost their individuality through it.

    Why would you be any happier? I can see why Jakkass would like everyone to be a Christian: it would satisfy his instinct for compassion to think that everyone was going to get saved.

    Atheism offers no pretence of salvation, so what's the big deal? Is it an ego thing, to prove to yourself that you're right?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You are doing exactly the same thing that makes Hurin accuse us of being against diversity. We would both be happy if everyone accepted what we think is reality

    If you are against diversity I don't think you should shy away from my claim. It wasn't meant as an "accusation". I don't care if everyone embraced my idea of reality (whatever that is!), because I don't assume that they would function better for it.


  • #441
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Húrin wrote: »
    If you are against diversity I don't think you should shy away from my claim. It wasn't meant as an "accusation". I don't care if everyone embraced my idea of reality (whatever that is!), because I don't assume that they would function better for it.

    I'm not against diversity. But wanting diversity doesn't mean I should applaud people for believing nonsense. Reality is better than fantasy regardless of any perceived placebo effect that fantasy might have.

    Also, if religion only had a placebo effect I might just let it go but it demonstrably doesn't


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    I do think there should be change but the changes being put forward here are a polarised extreme.
    LOL. Asking for some extra classes and equal treatment in a public school is a polar extreme :D
    CDfm wrote: »
    I grew up with neighbours who werent catholic who went to one school and I another. I didnt see anything strange about it or that they went to a different church.
    I don't have a school anywhere near me that I can go to without my children being taught that your God is real

    CDfm wrote: »
    We are not as wealthy as the UK - interestingly enough Blair sent his own kids to private schools.

    Well why cant atheist groups do the same.Build a few schools - as Cerebal Cortex said there is apathy.
    If you want to break discrimination laws then you can send your kids to a private school. There's a public school around the corner from me thank you very much. I am a member of the public and therefore entitled to use public amenities and I have a constitutional right to have my religion (although I personally don't have one) taught to my children in a public school. Your point would be valid if the church paid the entire cost of the school but they don't, they're only required to pay 15% of the cost. My taxes pay for my local school so you have no right to tell me that only your beliefs are allowed past the door.

    Your question about whether schools are allowed refuse non-catholics and several others are answered here: http://www.countmeout.ie/faq/#question20
    CDfm wrote: »
    Of course there are historical issues here. Your beef is with the state and not the Church.
    You're absolutely right. My beef is with the state allowing this discrimination in public schools and I want it to stop
    CDfm wrote: »
    Feminist groups are allowed to discriminate too by not leaving men join.
    They're actually not. Men can join if they want but none do because it would hold no interest other than to antagonise people. Although I'm sure if a man wanted to help the feminist cause he'd be more than welcome.
    CDfm wrote: »
    The fact that the church is vin the faith business seems to be a major problem for you to grasp.
    No, the fact that it has usurped the countries schools as an excuse to push their faith and suppress all others is my major problem
    CDfm wrote: »
    That non practicing Catholics choose catholic schools over their non denominational or denominational equivalent seems to be a problem for you.
    The vast majority don't have any other option.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I cited the US State Department and the source of the data and 88% is the 2002 Irish Census figures. These will be the figures the Government use for Public Policy Planning not any spurious surveys.
    My mother put me down as catholic so I know it's wrong by at least one. I'm sure you'll find this is far from unusual. And even if it was accurate, that figure doesn't mean 88% would object to other religions being allowed teach too. Even Jakkass wouldn't object to it
    CDfm wrote: »
    I used that as an example - I would assume that atheist schools would be under similar pressure. I am just illustrating that central government control is not always best. Of course, I am not trying to say you have cookie ideas but that the value systems of those you want to control the schools may not be what you want either.

    Your value system is one of the things I don't want controlling the schools. Unfortunately you pointed out that all religions have a constitutional right to state support and yours is specifically not given a special place anymore so your xenophobia of other religions is irrelevant I'm afraid. They have a right to teach it just as much as you do. If you want your religion in schools you cannot present a legal argument for why others shouldn't be. "My church provides a small fraction of the funding" is not a reason I'm afraid. Their churches could provide funding too. It's the beauty of a public school system and if you want to deny other people's right to religious education you can pay for your own private school. It's called a public school not a catholic school and if you want a catholic school you can go ahead and set one up

    I love the irony of this btw. You're fighting me because I want religion taught in schools and this thread started with you fighting me because you want religion taught in schools. :D

    You can see exactly why I don't want religion taught in public schools when it's not your religion being taught and I'm not even trying to run the whole school with the ethos of those religions or exclude your children from classes. I just want the religion taught to the followers of those religions and you think that's more radical than leaving people all over the country with no option but to send their children to schools with an ethos of a religion that is not their own......as long as the religion being taught is yours

    Honestly CDfm, it's amazing that you can't see that what you're doing is no different to the racial segregation of schools in America. You are discriminating against everyone but your own religion, denying us our rights because there's more of you and you're richer, and that's not a very christian thing to do


  • #443
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »

    My mother put me down as catholic so I know it's wrong by at least one. I'm sure you'll find this is far from unusual. And even if it was accurate, that figure doesn't mean 88% would object to other religions being allowed teach too. Even Jakkass wouldn't object to it

    The current CSO figures are 85% Catholic, 5% Protestant (Church of Ireland, Methodist, Pentecostal, Apostolic, Baptist and general Christian), and roughly 4% no religion from 2006. CDfm is using figures from 2002.

    I don't see why I would object. If Christianity is as good as I say it is, it should stand up in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not all that staunch or uncompromising :pac:


  • #444
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    CDfm wrote: »

    on what do you base this assertion?

    I have often seen this posted do you have a source?



    can you provide more details of these please

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0606/1224248154873.html

    "THE MOST SPECTACULAR case in point is the primary school system. Ireland is one of the very few countries in the developed world that does not have a national system of primary education. The church controls 2,899 of the 3,282 primary schools in the State, catering for 92 per cent of pupils. This situation didn’t just happen, and nor did it arise because the church undertook a task that the State was shirking. The overwhelming church control of the system of primary education results not from charity but from the exercise of power."

    After the Famine, however, the Catholic Church began to recreate itself as an institutional structure with power over the civil and intimate lives of the majority of the population. As part of that process, it set about destroying the national schools and replacing them with a specifically Catholic system. Its leader, Cardinal Paul Cullen, declared the national school system to be “very dangerous when considered in general because its aim is to introduce a mingling of Protestants and Catholics.”

    Far from providing what the State would not, the Church increasingly set limits to the State’s capacity to provide social services. The Catholic hierarchy bitterly opposed the idea of compulsory attendance at primary school (a crucial protection for children who were otherwise obliged to work) as an infringement on parental rights. Partly as a result, attendance levels slipped well below international standards. In the early years of the 20th century, daily attendance was only about 70 per cent. Instead of bringing poor children into the educational system, the church helped to keep them out.


  • #445
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The current CSO figures are 85% Catholic, 5% Protestant (Church of Ireland, Methodist, Pentecostal, Apostolic, Baptist and general Christian), and roughly 4% no religion from 2006. CDfm is using figures from 2002.

    I don't see why I would object. If Christianity is as good as I say it is, it should stand up in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not all that staunch or uncompromising :pac:

    The CSO figures are still wrong and we both know they are. The number who are catholics in anything more than name is far lower and the number who would object to other religions in schools is lower again

    The great thing about my proposal is that there would be no marketplace because all the religions would be taught separately. No one's religion would be inflicted on anyone else

    Also, why does whether it's good for your life matter? Surely the only thing that matters is if it's true? You could spend your whole life as a christian and have a great life but still be doomed if you're wrong

    And be honest Jakkass, you not objecting to this has at least a little to do with the fact that you went to a private school and it wouldn't effect you? I ask because you asked that question before saying you didn't object


  • #446
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The CSO figures are still wrong and we both know they are. The number who are catholics in anything more than name is far lower.......

    For a person who believes in factual information you sure have no problem rejecting the facts you dont like
    The great thing about my proposal is that there would be no marketplace because all the religions would be taught separately. No one's religion would be inflicted on anyone else

    Thats not to different to what happens now. What are you going to do with the non -religious kids put them in the school hall doing yoga or meditating.


  • #447
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    LOL. Asking for some extra classes and equal treatment in a public school is a polar extreme :D

    Your proposal is the tail wagging the dog

    I don't have a school anywhere near me that I can go to without my children being taught that your God is real

    Well Sam - build one

    If you want to break discrimination laws then you can send your kids to a Honestly CDfm, it's amazing that you can't see that what you're doing is no different to the racial segregation of schools in America. You are discriminating against everyone but your own religion, denying us our rights because there's more of you and you're richer, and that's not a very christian thing to do

    Who is discriminating - show me where. I dont believe there is anything near the demand you say or the schools would be set up like the Gaelscoil were.


  • #448
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    CDfm wrote: »
    For a person who believes in factual information you sure have no problem rejecting the facts you dont like



    Thats not to different to what happens now. What are you going to do with the non -religious kids put them in the school hall doing yoga or meditating.
    Extra science classes. ;)

    I'd actually prefer to see all kids educated in all religion. I was lucky to go to a proto-EducateTogether primary and in our once weekly religion class we learned about Sikhism, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaeism, Christianity, Animism and so forth. I'll always credit "Pat" my 5th class teacher with the wtf moment that set me to thinking about religion in a non passive way.

    I think if more people learned more about all the world religions at an early age, we'd actually see less religious extremism full stop.


  • #449
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    pH wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0606/1224248154873.html

    "THE MOST SPECTACULAR case in point is the primary school system. Ireland is one of the very few countries in the developed world that does not have a national system of primary education. The church controls 2,899 of the 3,282 primary schools in the State, catering for 92 per cent of pupils. This situation didn’t just happen, and nor did it arise because the church undertook a task that the State was shirking. The overwhelming church control of the system of primary education results not from charity but from the exercise of power."

    After the Famine, however, the Catholic Church began to recreate itself as an institutional structure with power over the civil and intimate lives of the majority of the population. As part of that process, it set about destroying the national schools and replacing them with a specifically Catholic system. Its leader, Cardinal Paul Cullen, declared the national school system to be “very dangerous when considered in general because its aim is to introduce a mingling of Protestants and Catholics.”

    Far from providing what the State would not, the Church increasingly set limits to the State’s capacity to provide social services. The Catholic hierarchy bitterly opposed the idea of compulsory attendance at primary school (a crucial protection for children who were otherwise obliged to work) as an infringement on parental rights. Partly as a result, attendance levels slipped well below international standards. In the early years of the 20th century, daily attendance was only about 70 per cent. Instead of bringing poor children into the educational system, the church helped to keep them out.

    God help us for this tranch of historical revisionism

    The Famine of 1845 -49 was not the only one there was also a mini famine in 1879 and food shortages in 1877-78, 1885 and 1889-90. Subsistance farming on potatoes.

    Even preceeding this in the 1700s Jonathan Swift the satirist and pamphletteer coomented on it and there were famines preceeding the Great Famine.

    The population fell by 20% between 1841 and 51 and from 8m to 3m between 1840 and 1900.

    You had mass evictions.

    In 1890 10% of the population lived in mudhuts made of sods and urban population in tenements.

    I respectfully suggest to you that this piece is so error ridden and biased that you should delete it as a source. When people are worrying about food and shelter they are hardly enroling in school.


  • #450
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    For a person who believes in factual information you sure have no problem rejecting the facts you dont like
    That's not a fact
    CDfm wrote: »

    Thats not to different to what happens now. What are you going to do with the non -religious kids put them in the school hall doing yoga or meditating.

    Teach them ethics without saying they can't be good without the threat of hell
    CDfm wrote: »
    Your proposal is the tail wagging the dog
    I'm lost again


    CDfm wrote: »
    Well Sam - build one
    no thanks. There's a public school around the corner, religious discrimination is illegal and your religion has no special place in this country




    CDfm wrote: »
    Who is discriminating - show me where. I dont believe there is anything near the demand you say or the schools would be set up like the Gaelscoil were.

    The discrimination is that your religion and only your religion is taught in 98% of state schools. Also the fact that my child can be refused from a public amenity because of my religious (lack of) beliefs


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Nevore wrote: »
    Extra science classes. ;)

    I'd actually prefer to see all kids educated in all religion. I was lucky to go to a proto-EducateTogether primary and in our once weekly religion class we learned about Sikhism, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaeism, Christianity, Animism and so forth. I'll always credit "Pat" my 5th class teacher with the wtf moment that set me to thinking about religion in a non passive way.

    I think if more people learned more about all the world religions at an early age, we'd actually see less religious extremism full stop.

    Im a big fan of the Educate Together schools as it is very positive and in mainstream education this has crept in.


Advertisement