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
Comments
-
I don't think the Government has a Christian ethos. Read the quote that I gave from Kevin Rudd the Prime Minister of Australia. Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists and agnostics should all have a say in public debate, but the Government will not give favouritism to any single point of view, but will weigh it up and decide based on these views.
A Christian view should be heard, but it should not be the deciding factor in politics in a pluralism. Likewise an humanist view should be heard, and an Islamic view should be heard but by no means should it be regarded as the deciding factor.
I think the Australian and American model of dealing with religion is far better than the European model of dealing with religion. One encourages free enterprise, and the other encourages suppression and a forcing of religion as merely a private manner against the will of it's adherents.
Right. Your point in this thread is that a christian ethos does not effect governance because the government are supposed to be impartial. Being told that the christian God exists and that his type of morality is superior to others apparently does not effect that impartiality or give any bias whatsoever to the christian lobby.
But if a child is told that any other non-religious ideology is the best that impartiality will go completely out the window and he will be unable to make decisions without that earlier ethos being a factor and this type of teaching is so effective and so damaging to governance that it should be kept out of schools.
Nonsense. If someone's impartiality can be affected by being told that Karl Marx was a top bloke it can just as easily be effected by being told that Jesus was0 -
Right. Your point in this thread is that a christian ethos does not effect governance because the government are supposed to be impartial. Being told that the christian God exists and that his type of morality is superior to others apparently does not effect that impartiality or give any bias whatsoever to the christian lobby.
The Government is to decide based on it's own discussion, but input from Christians to the debate isn't to be seen as unwelcome. Likewise input from atheists and agnostics isn't to be seen as unwelcome. Of course this goes by extension to people of all other faiths too.But if a child is told that any other non-religious ideology is the best that impartiality will go completely out the window and he will be unable to make decisions without that earlier ethos being a factor and this type of teaching is so effective and so damaging to governance that it should be kept out of schools.
It will not adversely affect democracy on the same scale as directly telling people how to vote.
You seem to think that because Christians are taught Christianity that they will automatically vote the same way. That's absurd to the highest degree. I know Christians who vote for all the major political parties in Ireland. It doesn't really affect how people vote in a general election here in the same way that there might be an Evangelical lobby in the US, or a pro-Israel lobby.
It is people who do this, not religious tenets.Nonsense. If someone's impartiality can be affected by being told that Karl Marx was a top bloke it can just as easily be effected by being told that Jesus was
Marxism is associated with leftist political politics. Whereas as a Christian one can be on the left as well as on the right.
You seem to forget that Marxism is a political ideology. Christianity is not a political ideology at all.0 -
@CDfm, the way I see it, people with a good case argue and people without one get offended when this fact is pointed out to them.
Maybe so but maybe if a friend of yours bought a new car and you told them it was junk or you told your wife or girlfriend their new outfit made them look plump they would be offended.
Why should it be any different to have your beliefs ridiculed- people get offended by lessor things all the time?0 -
AgreedThe Government is to decide based on it's own discussion, but input from Christians to the debate isn't to be seen as unwelcome. Likewise input from atheists and agnostics isn't to be seen as unwelcome. Of course this goes by extension to people of all other faiths too.
No I don't think that "because Christians are taught Christianity that they will automatically vote the same way". I am arguing with you saying it has no effect when it clearly does. Someone who absolutely believes in the Christian god will be reluctant to, for example, legalise abortion, promote homosexuality, allow prostitution, legalise drugs, accept promiscuous lifestyles, etc etc etc. I know you look on all of those as bad things but the whole point is not everyone does. Your mindset has been effected by your christian ethos just like it would be effected by being taught from a communist point of view and to suggest that you could be completely impartial but no one else could is nonsense.It will not adversely affect democracy on the same scale as directly telling people how to vote.
You seem to think that because Christians are taught Christianity that they will automatically vote the same way. That's absurd to the highest degree. I know Christians who vote for all the major political parties in Ireland. It doesn't really affect how people vote in a general election here in the same way that there might be an Evangelical lobby in the US, or a pro-Israel lobby.
It is people who do this, not religious tenets.Marxism is associated with leftist political politics. Whereas as a Christian one can be on the left as well as on the right.
You seem to forget that Marxism is a political ideology. Christianity is not a political ideology at all.
Oh but it is. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "christian right" come out of America a lot these past few years. Christianity is a whole way of living, it gives a set of social values as I'm sure you'll agree. These social and moral values represent a political ideology just as much as those of Marxism0 -
The church won't get all its money back, it has got what it paid for up to now but as I said at the start of the thread three things would be acceptable to me:- Buy them back but the government doesn't really have the money
- Have the church hand them over as compensation for raping large sections of our country
- Keep the church as the owner but remove any discrimination against people of other religions and no religion, ie if they want religion/ethics class then everyone gets their own. Public schools belong to the whole community and not just the catholics. This is probably the easiest option. Btw, this option would include other religious groups also paying some cost
Then the church can spend its money supporting the community instead of paying for school related things that have nothing to do with their religion and are the responsibility of the state to provide
Sam - the sexual abuse issues were criminal matters and the state did not act. I think thats an argument for another forum and I would bring hanging back for the guilty parties - a friend who is now dead was deeply affected by it.
I personally believe there should be the Current faith school model and the ET model as it encourages both integration and diversity.
I am against central government or even local government control of eductation and against handing it over to them.
When they have had total control they have made a dogs mickey of it.( no offense to dogs intended here)0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe so but maybe if a friend of yours bought a new car and you told them it was junk or you told your wife or girlfriend their new outfit made them look plump they would be offended.
Why should it be any different to have your beliefs ridiculed- people get offended by lessor things all the time?
If my friend bought a new car and it was junk, I would politely say it to him and explain myself, just as I have in the past politely explained to Christians the ridiculousness of the argument "you can't prove God doesn't exist" by saying "you can't prove anything doesn't exist but that doesn't mean you should believe in it".
In the case of the car, if my friend ignored me and continued to proudly parade his piece of junk around, telling everyone how great it was, my capacity for politeness would wear thin and I would begin to take the piss out of him. Basically I've tried being polite to Christians who think that "you can't prove he doesn't exist" is enough reason to believe in one and only one of the infinite number of things whose non-existence cannot be proven and it hasn't worked so I've moved over to making the same argument in a light-hearted way in the hope that they'll see how silly they're being.
Of course, if the car actually wasn't junk my friend could point to the good aspects of it, explain my error and the issue would be sorted and in the same way christians could point out the error in the FSM argument and it would not be used anymore. But they can't say why it's wrong - because it's not - so instead they resort to ad hominem arguments and call us arrogant for the way the argument is phrased because they can't attack the argument itself. If christians don't want their arguments ridiculed, they should not hold onto ridiculous arguments and constantly restate them as if that makes them any less ridiculous
Also, one of the major problems here is that these beliefs are held so closely so arguments that in any other area would be seen as a bit of light heated banter are taken to be deeply offensive. These two cartoons illustrate the point nicely:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/07/24/irish/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/06/26/aback/0 -
And the church was not responsible?the sexual abuse issues were criminal matters and the state did not act.
So, you don't want the country's schools under the control of the elected government which pays for them?I am against central government or even local government control of eductation and against handing it over to them.0 -
the church is paying compensation so it could be paid partially in the form of school deeds.Sam - the sexual abuse issues were criminal matters and the state did not act. I think thats an argument for another forum and I would bring hanging back for the guilty parties - a friend who is now dead was deeply affected by it.
I'm afraid the current faith school model breaks discrimination laws and a specific exception has to be made to the law for them. I see no reason why there should be one law for public schools and another for everyone else.I personally believe there should be the Current faith school model and the ET model as it encourages both integration and diversity.
You're telling me that your group should get the public schools and anyone who's not happy with that should lobby for their own schools. I'm sorry to tell you but that's not how it works. Public schools are for everyone and if you want one just for your group you can start one just like you think everyone else should.I am against central government or even local government control of eductation and against handing it over to them
When they have had total control they have made a dogs mickey of it.( no offense to dogs intended here)
You're against anyone but your religion having control of the schools. Putting community members from other religions on the board of management and allowing them to have classes is not going to destroy the school. The catholic church does not have some magical school administration method that no one else can match. Also, to be blunt, leaving the church in charge resulted in them making a priest's mickey of it.0 -
It is possible that Jesus Christ didn't want his notions to turn into a political ideology -- he was an itinerant rabbi and would, no doubt, have been familiar with the level of civil strife that radical judaism was causing in first-century Palestine. But unfortunately, the NT is as unclear on this, as it is on most of Jesus' other thoughts.Christianity is not a political ideology at all.
However, since Jesus' day and particularly since christianity became Roman Empire's state religion, christianity has operated just like most other religions have -- as a paid agent of central government which legitimizes the state itself in return for cash and resources. This may not be what some religious believers want, but this is what happens in reality.0 -
It is possible that Jesus Christ didn't want his notions to turn into a political ideology -- he was an itinerant rabbi and would, no doubt, have been familiar with the level of civil strife that radical judaism was causing in first-century Palestine. But unfortunately, the NT is as unclear on this, as it is on most of Jesus' other thoughts.
However, since Jesus' day and particularly since christianity became Roman Empire's state religion, christianity has operated just like most other religions have -- as a paid agent of central government which legitimizes the state itself in return for cash and resources. This may not be what some religious believers want, but this is what happens in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.0 -
Advertisement
-
the church is paying compensation so it could be paid partially in the form of school deeds.
I have no probs with the institutions responsible doing that.
I am more concerned with the smaller local areas and villages where the village or town school and church community is a major part of community life.I'm afraid the current faith school model breaks discrimination laws and a specific exception has to be made to the law for them. I see no reason why there should be one law for public schools and another for everyone else.
You're telling me that your group should get the public schools and anyone who's not happy with that should lobby for their own schools. I'm sorry to tell you but that's not how it works. Public schools are for everyone and if you want one just for your group you can start one just like you think everyone else should.
I am not against change but radical change and taking resourses hurts communities. A communities resources are finite.
.You're against anyone but your religion having control of the schools. Putting community members from other religions on the board of management and allowing them to have classes is not going to destroy the school. The catholic church does not have some magical school administration method that no one else can match. Also, to be blunt, leaving the church in charge resulted in them making a priest's mickey of it
Thats not so - I am more concerned with the local community issues then anything else. I happen to believe that church communities happen to be good things and if the schools go fair enough but the resouses should be released back to the church communities to reinvent themselves.They are just 1 part like the local GAA team etc.0 -
I'm confused. The school will still be in the area, it will still provide community support, the only difference is that one part of the community won't be given preferential treatment anymoreI have no probs with the institutions responsible doing that.
I am more concerned with the smaller local areas and villages where the village or town school and church community is a major part of community life.
No one's saying anything about taking resources, just allowing equal access to them. The school isn't going to pick up and leave just because some extra classes are being put onI am not against change but radical change and taking resourses hurts communities. A communities resources are finite.
What exactly do you mean by resources?Thats not so - I am more concerned with the local community issues then anything else. I happen to believe that church communities happen to be good things and if the schools go fair enough but the resouses should be released back to the church communities to reinvent themselves.They are just 1 part like the local GAA team etc.
Also, you might think that church communities are good things but do you think it's fair for your community to keep for itself a resource that everyone in the wider community pays for?0 -
Agreed
End of line for me: Arguments should be assessed for validity, not accepted just because who people are, and likewise not rejected just because who people are in Government and politics.Someone who absolutely believes in the Christian god will be reluctant to, for example, legalise abortion, promote homosexuality, allow prostitution, legalise drugs, accept promiscuous lifestyles, etc etc etc.
It's our prerogative to hold whatever beliefs we wish to hold. These are the type of arguments that Christians should be free to put forward, to be assessed by their validity. This by no means means that they will automatically be accepted by the Government, but they will be assessed for the validity and their cognitive content. Likewise atheists and agnostics, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims are entitled to do the same.I know you look on all of those as bad things but the whole point is not everyone does. Your mindset has been effected by your christian ethos just like it would be effected by being taught from a communist point of view and to suggest that you could be completely impartial but no one else could is nonsense.
I wouldn't attribute my position on these to my education. A lot of people with whom I was in school with differ with me on certain issues. Rather I attribute it to my reading and what I have grasped from Christianity on a personal level. If I had gone to a non-Christian school, I have no doubt if I had read the Bible as I did, I would come to the same conclusion as I have.Oh but it is. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "christian right" come out of America a lot these past few years. Christianity is a whole way of living, it gives a set of social values as I'm sure you'll agree. These social and moral values represent a political ideology just as much as those of Marxism
Do you wonder why the word "right" is necessary after "Christian" there. Surely that implies that not all Christians are right wing. Many Christians would argue with many on the "Christian right" about their interpretation of Biblical scriptures or in relation to approach.0 -
Of course they are, this is not about that. You are saying that having a christian ethos has no effect on governance but any other ethos does.It's our prerogative to hold whatever beliefs we wish to hold. These are the type of arguments that Christians should be free to put forward, to be assessed by their validity. This by no means means that they will automatically be accepted by the Government, but they will be assessed for the validity and their cognitive content. Likewise atheists and agnostics, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims are entitled to do the same.Do you wonder why the word "right" is necessary after "Christian" there. Surely that implies that not all Christians are right wing. Many Christians would argue with many on the "Christian right" about their interpretation of Biblical scriptures or in relation to approach.
Yes, christians can hold somewhat different values just like there are many different forms of socialism, communism, marxism etc. Christian views are as diverse as those of any ideology. No more, no less. My point here is that if someone who was a member of the "christian right" became president, his method of governance would be effected by that political leaning just like anyone else would. Christians do not have some special "impartiality power" that no one else does. This isn't even a hypothetical situation because we've just finished up 8 years of such a person in the white house.
You wouldn't attribute your position on these to your education but that does not translate to "a christian ethos does not have an effect on governance but all other ethos' do"I wouldn't attribute my position on these to my education. A lot of people with whom I was in school with differ with me on certain issues. Rather I attribute it to my reading and what I have grasped from Christianity on a personal level. If I had gone to a non-Christian school, I have no doubt if I had read the Bible as I did, I would come to the same conclusion as I have.0 -
This argument will go around in circles for ever unless you can get the religious posters to come out and say what they believe the core principals are, or should be. At the moment, they are avoiding doing so, and it is telling that they do not.I'm confused. The school will still be in the area, it will still provide community support, the only difference is that one part of the community won't be given preferential treatment anymore
As we sit today, the elected government of this country does not control the schools that it pays for.
Religious posters should come out and state clearly whether or not they think this is a good thing, and if so, why it is better that control is exercised by an unelected, undemocratic organization which has exercised violent, criminal negligence over many decades in its care of children.
And finally, as moderator, I have to say that a lot less waffle and wind would make for a much better debate...0 -
Of course they are, this is not about that. You are saying that having a christian ethos has no effect on governance but any other ethos does.
Let me put this straight. Teaching Christianity does not affect Governance and is certainly not comparable to teaching someone that political party X is better than political party Y. Christians don't generally vote for the same party. However teaching people that X is better will probably cause people to vote for X instead of Y, or Z, directly impacting on who is in Government and thus affecting Governance.
I would have thought that was rather obvious, that's the reason why I don't think it is in any way comparable.Yes, christians can hold somewhat different values just like there are many different forms of socialism, communism, marxism etc. Christian views are as diverse as those of any ideology. No more, no less. My point here is that if someone who was a member of the "christian right" became president, his method of governance would be effected by that political leaning just like anyone else would. Christians do not have some special "impartiality power" that no one else does. This isn't even a hypothetical situation because we've just finished up 8 years of such a person in the white house.
I don't see your point here. That's irrelevant and has nothing to do with education. If someone was an atheist and elected there would also be a bias.
From what politics I've looked at. Even if a president was promoting his or her Christianity through the political system even in the USA, there are checks and balances in the House of Representatives and the Senate. If either of these do not approve of the actions of the president they can outvote his proposals it's rather simple. The Supreme Court also has a function for checking how constitutional legislation is. There is no way in which the President could exert an overriding bias without these check and balances in the political system coming in.
I personally support parlimentarianism in comparison to presidentialism. Presidentialism is quite arguably dangerous because 1 person cannot ever represent a microcosm of people, whereas a parliament can. Of course a parliament with a PR system (6% of the vote 6% of the seats) can represent minorities effectively, in comparison to a First Past the Post System (35% of the vote 50% of the seats in the case of Labour in Britain) where minority politics are rarely represented (mind you it also keeps the BNP out of Westminster).
From a purely political point of view, even if people abuse their power according to ideologies there are checks to prevent these things from happening in most modern democracies.
However, it is impossible to remove bias from parliament entirely, and I think you will agree with this much. The only way we can do this is to force people to recant their faith, and recant their atheism. That is in violation of Western virtues of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. I agree with Hurín in that you cannot have a fully secular society, and it's absurd to expect such.
Point is, in pluralisms it is rare to have a faith based agenda affect governance, although their views will be heard in public, and if necessary debated in the respective houses of parliament.You wouldn't attribute your position on these to your education but that does not translate to "a christian ethos does not have an effect on governance but all other ethos' do"
I don't think in a pluralism that it does have much effect. I think Christianity isn't a political ideology at it's heart. Rather it is a social ideology as to how we should conduct ourselves as people, and how we should aim to live together and what we should value.0 -
You believe the system and society should be religion free. I believe religious Communities should have the right to have schools with a religious ethos and thatrecent changes in society are not homogenous across the state and have wider community implications and dynamics which define a community.
Why do you insist on attributing beliefs to me that I haven't expressed?
I've already said that I would support a system where religious instruction could be done outside school hours. I even said that I could possibly support a system with religious instruction inside school hours as long as the management and ethos of the schools isn't specifically religious.Fundraising was done for a specific purpose how dare you question the intentions or beliefs of donors.
That's rich coming from the person who said that the existing system was a result of the government just giving the people what they want, and you based this on census figures.Excuse me but the state recognises the right for people to be educated with reference to their religious ethos and has developed mechanisms of funding education like that.
You still gloss over the church communities bit as it it doesn't exist and is insignificant and I am saying to you that it isn't insignificant.I am saying they have real value.
...
So what about the other religious denominations C of I , Jewish etc that put a value on education and on their "communities" do you want to get rid of them too? The value of those services to society is intangible.
I wouldn't want to prevent anyone from setting up their own school. I do think that a segregated system isn't as good a model as an integrated one. And I think the government should primarily be supporting an integrated system.
The idea that the current solution for every group to set up their own schools is a good one is nonsense in my opinion. The fact that we even have groups like ET isn't the sign of a system that allows for choice. It is the sign of dissatisfaction with the system.
I want my children to go to a local school with local Christians, Jews, Muslims et al.You have the same rights as everyone else to raise capital and do the exact same things. Will supporters pledge money and give guarantees?
Property has just gotten cheaper with the recession so there has never been a better time to do it.
What you are saying is you want what you want but don't value it sufficiently to use your time and own money to achieve it.
It pretty weak to suggest that if someone doesn't like the shape of a government service, funded out of the public purse that they should go and set up their own. I want the state to provide an inclusive service, that religious and non religious alike can sign up to.0 -
It's really not obvious but I think I finally know what you're saying, you're drastically over simplifying my point. I'm not talking about just saying "party x is better than party Y", I'm talking about instilling the children with the values of those particular political leanings. All of the parties and all political and religious groups have their own particular social values and if the children are brought up with them, their political leanings and decision making process will tend to be directed by them. Of course simply repeating "vote Fianna Fail" over and over would directly effect governance but that's not what I'm sayingLet me put this straight. Teaching Christianity does not affect Governance and is certainly not comparable to teaching someone that political party X is better than political party Y. Christians don't generally vote for the same party. However teaching people that X is better will probably cause people to vote for X instead of Y, or Z, directly impacting on who is in Government and thus affecting Governance.
I would have thought that was rather obvious, that's the reason why I don't think it is in any way comparable.
It has something to do with education if their education influenced which one of these positions they took. And if you don't think the education can influence them then you should not care whether a school has a christian ethos or notI don't see your point here. That's irrelevant and has nothing to do with education. If someone was an atheist and elected there would also be a bias.From a purely political point of view, even if people abuse their power according to ideologies there are checks to prevent these things from happening in most modern democracies.
However, it is impossible to remove bias from parliament entirely, and I think you will agree with this much
The above is the sole point I was making so it's not me agreeing with you, it's you finally agreeing with me.I don't think in a pluralism that it does have much effect. I think Christianity isn't a political ideology at it's heart. Rather it is a social ideology as to how we should conduct ourselves as people, and how we should aim to live together and what we should value.
Just because it's not always directly involved in governance doesn't mean it's not a political ideology. A social ideology is a political ideology. Anything that a group uses in their decision making process is a political ideology. If a christian says something like "divorce should be illegal" (as 49% of the population did in the 90's) and is motivated to say this by christian values as the vast majority would have been, that is their social ideology manifesting itself in a political position0 -
The idea that the current solution for every group to set up their own schools is a good one is nonsense in my opinion. The fact that we even have groups like ET isn't the sign of a system that allows for choice. It is the sign of dissatisfaction with the system.
It's the solution when your group already controls 98% of the existing schools that everyone pays for. When you're not from this group and you'd like equal treatment in these schools that you're paying for it's not as good a solution however.0 -
I'm confused. The school will still be in the area, it will still provide community support, the only difference is that one part of the community won't be given preferential treatment anymore.
No one's saying anything about taking resources, just allowing equal access to them. The school isn't going to pick up and leave just because some extra classes are being put on
What exactly do you mean by resources?
We differ here.
I believe that the schools are owned by the Church Communities for their parishes. I believe they were built with 2 aims education and faith aims.
If the education aim is taken over by the state then the parish should get the resourses to set up youth clubs ,community centres, drug rehabilitation centres senior citizen centres or whatever it needs to provide pastoral care and a presence in the community.
You seem to assume always that there are unlimited resources but that is not nor ever has it been the case.Also, you might think that church communities are good things but do you think it's fair for your community to keep for itself a resource that everyone in the wider community pays for?
I didn't devise the structures but they are more positives than negatives yes.
I am not saying the situation is perfect and do believe to formation of Educate Together and the Gaelscoil was a positve. Given that the catholic faith is by far the largest and its members have votes I believe those members have rights too.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is there any particular reason you're avoiding the core issue?Given that the catholic faith is by far the largest and its members have votes I believe those members have rights too.
Which is whether or not it's a good legal principle that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for?0 -
You can believe that all you want but the state provides the bulk of the funding and if it was only for the catholic parish, there would be no non-catholics in themWe differ here.
I believe that the schools are owned by the Church Communities for their parishes. I believe they were built with 2 aims education and faith aims.
In most schools the education aims have already been taken over by the state.If the education aim is taken over by the state
Of course if the state takes over the school then the church will not be expected to pay for its running anymore. What exactly do you mean by resources?then the parish should get the resourses to set up youth clubs ,community centres, drug rehabilitation centres senior citizen centres or whatever it needs to provide pastoral care and a presence in the community.
You seem to assume always that there are unlimited resources but that is not nor ever has it been the case.
And what exactly do you mean by "presence in the community"? All I'm saying is everyone will have equal access, not that the catholic part of the community will have no accessI didn't devise the structures but they are more positives than negatives yes.
I am not saying the situation is perfect and do believe to formation of Educate Together and the Gaelscoil was a positve. Given that the catholic faith is by far the largest and its members have votes I believe those members have rights too.
You're not saying it's perfect but you're fighting to keep it the way it is because the imperfection benefits you.
I know you have rights but those rights do not include the right to deny my rights and neither do your rights include the right to put only your beliefs into a building that is paid for by people from all walks of life.
I honestly cannot understand why you're not getting this. I pay for my local school just as much as you do. It's not your school. It's a public school, a community school and everyone has an equal right to it regardless of which part of the community they come from.
If you want a school just for catholics, then build one0 -
Why do you insist on attributing beliefs to me that I haven't expressed?
I've already said that I would support a system where religious instruction could be done outside school hours. I even said that I could possibly support a system with religious instruction inside school hours as long as the management and ethos of the schools isn't specifically religious.
My mistake and I am happy to say sorry.That's rich coming from the person who said that the existing system was a result of the government just giving the people what they want, and you based this on census figures.
That wasn't my point. My point was that the government and public figures use the census figures in arriving at public policy as primary data.I wouldn't want to prevent anyone from setting up their own school. I do think that a segregated system isn't as good a model as an integrated one. And I think the government should primarily be supporting an integrated system.
While I broadly agree with you in principle I believe in choice and parents are known to move area to get to their school of choice.
My point is that government reacts to voters as opposed to ideal solutions and I believe radical changes that some put forward would not have political support.The idea that the current solution for every group to set up their own schools is a good one is nonsense in my opinion. The fact that we even have groups like ET isn't the sign of a system that allows for choice. It is the sign of dissatisfaction with the system.
I want my children to go to a local school with local Christians, Jews, Muslims et al.
That is your choice but others want schools that reflect their faith and groups like ET represent a constituency that wants that. There are others that want faith schools and equally they have the right to have their views taken into account.
It pretty weak to suggest that if someone doesn't like the shape of a government service, funded out of the public purse that they should go and set up their own. I want the state to provide an inclusive service, that religious and non religious alike can sign up to.
Believe it or not there wasn't always big government and communities did used to organise. Its fairly sad that in our modern society we do not get to know our neighbours.0 -
As robindch says, what exactly are you afraid will happen if other religions are allowed to have classes and if catholics no longer get discriminatory preferential treament? What do you think will change exactly?0
-
That is your choice but others want schools that reflect their faith and groups like ET represent a constituency that wants that. There are others that want faith schools and equally they have the right to have their views taken into account.
You need to stop saying this. Of course their views should be taken into account but not in a public school. If you want a faith school then build one. You don't seem to understand the concept of a public service, you might as well be saying that only catholics are allowed use the buses and anyone else who wants a bus can build their own
edit: or to use a previous analogy, other people can use the buses but only catholics can sit at the front. They're not your buses and they're not your schools0 -
Is there any particular reason you're avoiding the core issue?
Which is whether or not it's a good legal principle that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for?
It pays to provide teachers but the capital funding for lots of schools was originally local church communities.
I know of one school which on closure went to a foreign peer and another whre it went back to a farmer.
Your view is that the purpose was purely educational where as mine is that the objectives were educational and pastoral.0 -
You need to stop saying this. Of course their views should be taken into account but not in a public school. If you want a faith school then build one. You don't seem to understand the concept of a public service, you might as well be saying that only catholics are allowed use the buses and anyone else who wants a bus can build their own
LOL we already have them.
Thats the extreme position and the position as it exists now is because the government did not have the resourses.The people donating land buildings and money did so for schools with a Catholic ethos.
I dont know why you want to bury your head in the sand at that one.
Sam - you seem to prefer the polarised view.0 -
It provides a lot more than teachers. And the people who put that money forward have more than gotten their investment back. If they wanted to keep it all for themselves they should have paid for it all themselves. They are public schools for the use of the public, not the catholic part of the publicIt pays to provide teachers but the capital funding for lots of schools was originally local church communities.Your view is that the purpose was purely educational where as mine is that the objectives were educational and pastoral.
Please take heed of what I'm about to say. I've said it several times but you don't seem to be reading it:
Your religion class will be exactly the same, if not more focussed towards catholicism. The catholic part of the community will still be allowed use the schools for events etc. The only difference is that they will no longer be able to exclude everyone else from having their own religion classes or holding events. You will lose your preferential position but you will not completely lose access to the school. What exactly do you think will be lost?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It provides a lot more than teachers. And the people who put that money forward have more than gotten their investment back. If they wanted to keep it all for themselves they should have paid for it all themselves. They are public schools for the use of the public, not the catholic part of the public
Societies change and you seem to be blinkered by your views and not everyone has your view.
I am seeking the most equitable and progressive route.
The situation that is there came about because of the Constitution.
Please take heed of what I'm about to say. I've said it several times but you don't seem to be reading it:
Your religion class will be exactly the same, if not more focussed towards catholicism. The catholic part of the community will still be allowed use the schools for events etc. The only difference is that they will no longer be able to exclude everyone else from having their own religion classes or holding events. You will lose your preferential position but you will not completely lose access to the school. What exactly do you think will be lost?
But why would I want to loose ownership and control when the ethos f the school could be eroded by political or public service influences that cannot be safeguarded that way. Pure nuts IMHO.0
Advertisement