John Waters v Atheist Ireland

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you on the funding part. If I am funding schools from my taxes I'd expect that schools of varying ethos be funded rather than just secular schools as I would be a believer in freedom of choice.

All the funding should be distributed to all schools which teach the State cirriculum that aren't fee paying. I don't particularly care whether they are Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Jewish or secular particularly but that's what I expect if the Constitution endows freedom of choice.

I'd be open to the state providing some funding to religious schools after the state has discharged its own obligations to provide a state education service first. It was the state shirking its responsibilities that got us into the unsatisfactory position that we find ourselves in now.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You disagree that atheists wanting people to embrace what they see as reality is being against diversity but you think that a group that aims to do it has no place in a pluralistic society

Political groups which seek to destroy belief in Ireland are dangerous in my opinion by using political measures to suppress religious belief. Just read this aim:

Providing a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.

Their aim is to eradicate other belief systems. I think that is utterly inappropriate for a group of political activists. I don't want that ideology involved in Government. That's more akin to state atheism than secularism.

I think the Humanist Association of Ireland do far better work in ensuring that the rights of non-believers are protected.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If they were using heavy handed methods to force people to reject religion I'd agree with you but that's not what they're doing. All they're doing is putting their case forward the same way you do

I don't think I would support political activism groups which had the claim to support the destruction of opposing religious groups. I support religious freedom and freedom of choice, and if people are going to become Christian it will be through their free choice.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

No don't misunderstand me, my sole gripe here is the idea that somehow the 'truth' can't be bigoted. Clearly those are bigoted actions (by our social norms).

I think we've got a bit side tracked here. People can take bigoted actions based on the truth but the truth itself cannot be bigoted and wanting people to accept the truth is not bigoted. If someone says they won't hire women because they get pregnant, that is bigoted but if he says that he won't hire women because they he has to pay for 4 years off if they get pregnant, I will point out his error and doing so is not bigoted

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Political groups which seek to destroy belief in Ireland are dangerous in my opinion by using political measures to suppress religious belief. Just read this aim:



Their aim is to eradicate other belief systems. I think that is utterly inappropriate for a group of political activists. I don't want that ideology involved in Government. That's more akin to state atheism than secularism.

I think the Humanist Association of Ireland do far better work in ensuring that the rights of non-believers are protected.



I don't think I would support political activism groups which had the claim to support the destruction of opposing religious groups. I support religious freedom and freedom of choice, and if people are going to become Christian it will be through their free choice.

The bolded words are all very emotive and none of them accurately represent the methods of atheist Ireland. They are a lobby group just like any other. They convince through words. They're not destroying, eradicating or suppressing anything


When you talk to people about Christianity, are you trying to destroy, eradicate or suppress secularism?

Rev Hellfire

Yeah I think we're saying the same thing, just differing on the peripheries

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This idea goes against the concept of the separation of church and state, ie it goes against the idea of a secular state. If the state is funding religion, they're not separate

They are funding the schools. Not the religion. They are giving funding because the school is teaching the State cirriculum. If the school is teaching this cirriculum and if the school is not fee paying, and if the school suits the Government guidelines there should be no other restriction apart from that they keep religious instruction to 1 hour a day as the Dept of Education guidelines say.

I.E All schools get equal funding, irrespective of religious ethos. That's perfectly in line with secularism. It's equality. The State does not involve itself in the religious ethos, it merely involves itself in the cirriculum.

If a school wants to teach the Saudi cirriculum they should not receive funding.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Freedom of choice does not mean providing government funding for every political, religious, social and ethnic group in the country, it just means not preventing them from doing it. And keeping the children separate only encourages sectarianism.

It doesn't. However I don't think religious ethos should be discouraged if it is already in the Dept of Education guidelines that this is acceptable.

I don't see how it encourages sectarianism. When I was in a COI school, excluding Anglicans I went to school with Catholics, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals, and probably others. I'm just thinking of what I can remember from it.

At second level again COI ethos, excluding Anglicans I went to school with Catholics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, non-believers, a Sikh, and a Jewish person. The religious ethos was made clear enough though.

How did my education encourage sectarianism?

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think I would support political activism groups which had the claim to support the destruction of opposing religious groups. I support religious freedom and freedom of choice, and if people are going to become Christian it will be through their free choice.

Wouldn't you like to see all non Christians willingly accept Christ and leave their old religions (and athiesm) behind? This would lead to the destruction of opposing religious groups.

Atheists aren't seeking to force people out of religion; just like I'm sure you wouldn't seek to force someone into Christianity.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

They are funding the schools. Not the religion. They are giving funding because the school is teaching the State cirriculum. If the school is teaching this cirriculum and if the school is not fee paying, and if the school suits the Government guidelines there should be no other restriction apart from that they keep religious instruction to 1 hour a day as the Dept of Education guidelines say.

If a school wants to teach the Saudi cirriculum they should not receive funding.



It doesn't. However I don't think religious ethos should be discouraged if it is already in the Dept of Education guidelines that this is acceptable.

I don't see how it encourages sectarianism. When I was in a COI school, excluding Anglicans I went to school with Catholics, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals, and probably others. I'm just thinking of what I can remember from it.

At second level again COI ethos, excluding Anglicans I went to school with Catholics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, non-believers, a Sikh, and a Jewish person. The religious ethos was made clear enough though.

How did my education encourage sectarianism?

Your argument now is that it's ok because it's in the Dept of Education guidelines. Our point is that it shouldn't be in the guidelines of a secular state.

I'm not saying you can't have your God club, just that the state shouldn't pay for it any more than they should pay to support atheist Ireland or the stamp collectors association. What's the problem?

Jakkass wrote: »

How did my education encourage sectarianism?

Sectarianism arrives through misunderstanding of other people. What better way to promote misunderstanding than to keep them separate for their whole childhood? And what better way to promote understanding than to throw them all in together? If someone says "black people are lazy" in a school of white people they might just believe it but if you say the same thing in a class that's half black people they say "Hey, this guy isn't lazy, nor is this one, or this one. You're full of sh!t"

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

However I don't think religious ethos should be discouraged if it is already in the Dept of Education guidelines that this is acceptable.

As long as it's your religion, right?

Bottom line - schools are to educate kids, not with opinions, but with languages, maths, sciences etc.
Plenty of other hours in the day for parents that way inclined to work (or outsource) their magic.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you talk to people about Christianity, are you trying to destroy, eradicate or suppress secularism?

No, I amn't. Christianity and secularism aren't mutually exclusive.

The State should operate freely from religion. People should have the freedom of conscience and belief. Religious groups should set up their own stall, and if people wish to find belief they should search for it of their own accord.

I'm a skeptic of secularism only because people misuse the concept constantly. My view of secularism is that religious belief should by no means decide policy on an issue, however people of faith and of no faith are free to contribute their opinion to the discussion.

This is the view of the PM of Australia.

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.

When I talk to people about my faith, it is usually people out of curiosity asking me why I believe the things that I do in a calm and light manner. I talk about how my faith operates in my daily life, and the importance of concepts such as salvation and so on. I don't seek to destroy secularism, I seek to promote acceptance or at least knowledge of Christianity or to clear up misconceptions.

Atheism != secularism.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

They are funding the schools. Not the religion. They are giving funding because the school is teaching the State cirriculum. If the school is teaching this cirriculum and if the school is not fee paying, and if the school suits the Government guidelines there should be no other restriction apart from that they keep religious instruction to 1 hour a day as the Dept of Education guidelines say.

I.E All schools get equal funding, irrespective of religious ethos. That's perfectly in line with secularism. It's equality. The State does not involve itself in the religious ethos, it merely involves itself in the cirriculum.

If a school wants to teach the Saudi cirriculum they should not receive funding.

It goes a little further than that. There is also the question of discriminatory enrolment policies and the issue of religious imagery in schools.

But a simple compromise would go much of the way to solving the problem. Take that one hour of religious instruction out of the normal school hours and provide the school facilities to the religious organisations to provide religious instruction to those who want it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I amn't. Christianity and secularism aren't mutually exclusive.

The State should operate freely from religion. People should have the freedom of conscience and belief. Religious groups should set up their own stall, and if people wish to find belief they should search for it of their own accord.

I'm a skeptic of secularism only because people misuse the concept constantly. My view of secularism is that religious belief should by no means decide policy on an issue, however people of faith and of no faith are free to contribute their opinion to the discussion.

This is the view of the PM of Australia.

The state should operate freely from religion but the state should fund people in teaching their religion?

If you want the state to fund things "to promote diversity", do you think that non-religious groups such as the stamp collectors association or canoeing clubs should receive significant government funding and staffing?

Jakkass wrote: »

When I talk to people about my faith, it is usually people out of curiosity asking me why I believe the things that I do in a calm and light manner. I talk about how my faith operates in my daily life, and the importance of concepts such as salvation and so on. I don't seek to destroy secularism, I seek to promote acceptance or at least knowledge of Christianity or to clear up misconceptions.

Atheism != secularism.

And atheist Ireland does not seek to destroy religion. Such emotive language is emotive and unhelpful. These are the current goals of the organisation:

- opposition to the blasphemy law
- campaigning for the removal of religion from state education


I don't see anything about eradicating, destroying or suppressing religion there.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

As long as it's your religion, right?

Bottom line - schools are to educate kids, not with opinions, but with languages, maths, sciences etc.
Plenty of other hours in the day for parents that way inclined to work (or outsource) their magic.

If the State is truly secular it should apply to all religious groups. Not just my own. I don't think people would be too happy if 100% of the schools had a religious ethos of 2% of the population :pac:

I don't see how that is the bottom line though Dades, and I don't think that atheists and agnostics if they are a minority should be dictating to the Government how to distribute the funds of the majority of people who do believe to suit their way. Secular schools should be considered, but religious schools should also exist to provide for people of faith without financially penalising them.

I take the middle road.

View 1: All schools should have religious ethos X.
View 2: All schools should not have a religious ethos.
Middle: Schools can have a religious ethos or not, the main concern of the State is to teach the cirriculum, but 1 hour a day can be used by religious groups for purposes of instruction.

We should aim to facilitate as many people as possible. That's the reasonable way to deal with it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

View 1: All schools should have religious ethos X.
View 2: All schools should not have a religious ethos.
Middle: Schools can have a religious ethos or not, the main concern of the State is to teach the cirriculum, but 1 hour a day can be used by religious groups for purposes of instruction.

We should aim to facilitate as many people as possible. That's the reasonable way to deal with it.

those are not the two options, that is a false dichotomy. Here's number 3:

View 3: The state funds secular schools as it's supposed to and religions set up their own schools.

No one's stopping you setting up a school, just not paying you to do it

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The state should operate freely from religion but the state should fund people in teaching their religion?

The State should fund all schools equally. Whether they are religious or not they should receive the same funding. The State should be concerned with the cirriculum, not with the religious ethos. However allowance of 1 hour a day is given for the ethos. That is it. No more, no less.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want the state to fund things "to promote diversity", do you think that non-religious groups such as the stamp collectors association or canoeing clubs should receive significant government funding and staffing?

I want the State to fund education. I do not want the State to restrict schools who teach the cirriculum merely because they have a religious ethos.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And atheist Ireland does not seek to destroy religion. Such emotive language is emotive and unhelpful. These are the current goals of the organisation:

- opposition to the blasphemy law
- campaigning for the removal of religion from state education

Their long term aim seems very adamant that they want to destroy everything they deem to be superstition and supernaturalism.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't see anything about eradicating, destroying or suppressing religion there.

I don't see it in the opposition of the blasphemy law. However, looking at their longer term goal, it is certainly there. I think John Waters was spot on about Atheist Ireland and Michael Nugent in his article.

DapperGent

So Jakkass would you support the notion that if a school wishes to promote a particular religious ethos that it should not be in reciept of state funding?

[edit]Obviously not. Sigh.[/edit]

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one's stopping you setting up a school, just not paying you to do it

If I and other people of faith are to pay taxes to the State, I would sincerely hope that my taxes and the taxes of other people of faith would be used for schools with religious ethos also.

It shouldn't matter whether or not a school has an ethos, but rather it should matter that they are teaching the cirriculum. Any school which teaches this cirriculum and is not fee paying should receive this funding.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The State should fund all schools equally. Whether they are religious or not they should receive the same funding. The State should be concerned with the cirriculum, not with the religious ethos. However allowance of 1 hour a day is given for the ethos. That is it. No more, no less.

The government curriculum has nothing to do with religion and should have nothing to do with religion. I don't mind school buildings being used after hours by religious people if they want to instruct their children in their religion but in a secular society the school should not be funding peopel to teach their religion any more than it should be funding people to teach stamp collecting. It's not their responsibility.

Jakkass wrote: »

I want the State to fund education. I do not want the State to restrict schools who teach the cirriculum merely because they have a religious ethos.

They're not restricting them, they're just not funding them. I don't approve of the mentality of "I'll teach the curriculum as long as you let me teach the kids my religion". They should teach the curriculum because they're being paid to teach the curriculum

Jakkass wrote: »

Their long term aim seems very adamant that they want to destroy everything they deem to be superstition and supernaturalism.

No, it doesn't and continuing to use such emotive language will not make it so. They do not want to destroy religion any more than you want to destroy Islam.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see it in the opposition of the blasphemy law. However, looking at their longer term goal, it is certainly there. I think John Waters was spot on about Atheist Ireland and Michael Nugent in his article.

I was at the meeting. John Waters is an idiot who wrote about the one idiot at the meeting who made everyone uncomfortable and whom many people openly disagreed with. I see he didn't mention that

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If I and other people of faith are to pay taxes to the State, I would sincerely hope that my taxes and the taxes of other people of faith would be used for schools with religious ethos also.

It shouldn't matter whether or not a school has an ethos, but rather it should matter that they are teaching the cirriculum. Any school which teaches this cirriculum and is not fee paying should receive this funding.

Would you support a group who wanted to set up a school in order to teach that foreigners are inferior? I ask because you say "it shouldn't matter whether or not a school has an ethos", please don't say I'm comparing christianity to racism.

Sam Vimes

I want to expand on this point because it's very important:

I don't approve of the mentality of "I'll teach the curriculum as long as you let me teach the kids my religion".

That's really the crux of the matter. The government curriculum is for teaching children factual information. It should not be used as a bargaining chip for people who want to teach their own political, social or religious ideology to children.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The government curriculum has nothing to do with religion and should have nothing to do with religion. I don't mind school buildings being used after hours by religious people if they want to instruct their children in their religion but in a secular society the school should not be funding peopel to teach their religion any more than it should be funding people to teach stamp collecting. It's not their responsibility.

If the Government is giving equal funding to all schools. No more is being received due to religious ethos. The same is given whether religious or not. Their religious ethos is not benefiting them in any way. The funding is there because they are a school.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They're not restricting them, they're just not funding them. I don't approve of the mentality of "I'll teach the curriculum as long as you let me teach the kids my religion". They should teach the curriculum because they're being paid to teach the curriculum

The mentality isn't there. The Government guidelines allow for 1 hour a day for religious instruction should any school want to use that time for that purpose. It isn't a mentality the Government already allows for this. The funding isn't there because it is a school of religious ethos, the funding is there because they teach the cirriculum.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, it doesn't and continuing to use such emotive language will not make it so. They do not want to destroy religion any more than you want to destroy Islam.

Read the aim again Sam. I've even quoted and bolded the section. I aim to convince people of the truth of Christianity personally, I don't get involved in political activism to get the Government to do the same. That's the difference between me as an individual, and Atheist Ireland as a group.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I was at the meeting. John Waters is an idiot who wrote about the one idiot at the meeting who made everyone uncomfortable and whom many people openly disagreed with. I see he didn't mention that

His article was accurate from the footage I've seen from the meeting itself. I didn't see the bit concerning the "one idiot" however. Just because John Waters happens to disagree with you doesn't make him an idiot though

DapperGent

Why not teach your Jesusery outside school like in some kind of sunday school Jesus fest? How can it possibly be a good idea to maintain a system of sectioning off children by their parent's religion. Leaving aside the inefficiency of attempting to provide seperate schools in every catchment area for every religion and none, how is it good for children to be hived off from each other and segmented like that? And for what? An hour a day of the particular jibber-jabber close to your heart?

If you want your asinine magic club to have it's own schools fine, pay for them yourself.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would you support a group who wanted to set up a school in order to teach that foreigners are inferior? I ask because you say "it shouldn't matter whether or not a school has an ethos", please don't say I'm comparing christianity to racism.

We've had hate speech laws in existence in Ireland since 1989. I'm quite sure that it would fall under this.

It's a fallacious example mind. I don't believe talking about faith is the same as hate speech. As for "please don't say X", I will if you bring up bad examples.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Government is giving equal funding to all schools. No more is being received due to religious ethos. The same is given whether religious or not. Their religious ethos is not benefiting them in any way. The funding is there because they are a school.

The government should not be giving any funding to religious schools because they are teaching the curriculum so they can get the opportunity to pass their ideology onto children. Would you support a socialist party school, where they teach that socialism is the best ideology and the problems with capitalism?

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the aim again Sam. I've even quoted and bolded the section. I aim to convince people of the truth of Christianity personally, I don't get involved in political activism to get the Government to do the same. That's the difference between me as an individual, and Atheist Ireland as a group.

Their aims are to remove religion from schools, which is a secular goal and to get rid of the blasphemy law, which is a secular goal. Both are perfectly acceptable in a secular society. Anything else you think they might want to destroy is your own prejudice against athiests.

Jakkass wrote: »

His article was accurate from the footage I've seen from the meeting itself. I didn't see the bit concerning the "one idiot" however. Just because John Waters happens to disagree with you doesn't make him an idiot though

No, disagreeing with me doesn't make him an idiot, being an idiot whose article has been torn apart on this thread for its idiocy and inaccuracy makes him an idiot

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We've had hate speech laws in existence in Ireland since 1989. I'm quite sure that it would fall under this.

It's a fallacious example mind. I don't believe talking about faith is the same as hate speech. As for "please don't say X", I will if you bring up bad examples.

So it does matter what the ethos is. I said "please don't say X", because X is your normal response to any form of analogy and it's never valid

philologos

DapperGent wrote: »

If you want your asinine magic club religion to have it's own schools fine, pay for them yourself.

Edit: Fixed your post. I'd like if we could have respectful discourse instead of condescension, but if you want to continue that's fine.

I fund the educational system already through my taxes. I personally feel that schools should exist for people of faith. They are currently a majority in this country. The State should be focused on teaching the cirriculum instead of stripping schools of a religious ethos.

If I had children though, I probably would teach them about the Bible and all myself, and I would not be overly opposed to sending them to a secular school. However I think people should have the choice.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I fund the educational system already through my taxes. I personally feel that schools should exist for people of faith. They are currently a majority in this country. The State should be focused on teaching the cirriculum instead of stripping schools of a religious ethos.

If I had children though, I probably would teach them about the Bible and all myself as well as in school and I would not be overly opposed to sending them to a secular school. However I think people should have the choice.

Again, would you support a socialist party school, where they teach that socialism is the best ideology and the problems with capitalism?

Would you support a school set up by any political party where they teach that their ideology is the best or do you think that children should be taught objectively and not led towards one political ideology?

Dades

Jakkass, the problem is that religion is so ingrained in our system that people can't see beyond what we're used to. This is all that secularism requires:

School = Education
Church/Home = Religion

Your attitude of "sure it's only an hour a day what harm" is quaint but frustrating to those who don't subscribe to YOUR religion, and pay their taxes to fund it.

If religion was a necessary part of school life, then there might be a case to maintain a large amount of catholic schools to satisfy RC parents, but religion is not necessary in schools. There is no reason why parents shouldn't use all the other hours (that God gives them) to instill whatever ethos they want, be that at home or at Sunday school.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Jakkass, the problem is that religion is so ingrained in our system that people can't see beyond what we're used to. This is all that secularism requires:

School = Education
Church/Home = Religion

I disagree that religious education is not education or that it shouldn't be given due consideration considering that so many people in the world are motivated by it.

I think the Government should fund schools irrespective of ethos. You think we should remove ethos from every school. That's where I have a problem. Apart from the funding issue, I'm entirely in agreement that there should be alternatives.

Dades wrote: »

Your attitude of "sure it's only an hour a day what harm" is quaint but frustrating to those who don't subscribe to YOUR religion, and pay their taxes to fund it.

Eh, Dades. I don't subscribe to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so on. I don't have a problem with my taxes going to fund these schools if it facilitates the freedom of choice for parents.

You don't seem to understand that I am not promoting the funding of merely Christian schools here.

Dades wrote: »

If religion was a necessary part of school life, then there might be a case to maintain a large amount of catholic schools to satisfy RC parents, but religion is not necessary in schools. There is no reason why parents shouldn't use all the other hours (that God gives them) to instill whatever ethos they want, be that at home or at Sunday school.

People might disagree with you on the importance of religion in school. I personally towards the end of my education valued the fact that my school valued its ethos. I didn't really appreciate religious ethos too much up until that point.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

People might disagree with you on the importance of religion in school. I personally towards the end of my education valued the fact that my school valued its ethos. I didn't really appreciate religious ethos too much up until that point.

What does 1+1=2 and Julius Cesear was a Roman emperor have to do with Jesus dying on the cross? I don't see how one has anything to do with the other.