denominational schooling?

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

If you wish to ignore what has previously been stated, go ahead.

Your definition of evidence is absurd.

Regarding my points on homosexuality, let me refresh your memory:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarndyce
What do I mean by reject? I mean that their are so many chapters of the Bible that are repugnant to common sense and basic human morality. In particular, as you have mentioned, the books of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Verses of these books do not need to be twisted or distorted in order to appear as malicious and evil as they in fact are.

"I believe that most of these verses when put into adequate context, do not seem as repugnant as one can make them seem. I do understand that the gravity of the punishments for certain crimes can seem difficult for many to understand."

Originally Posted by Jarndyce
So my question is, do you truly reject these passages? By that I mean does your conscience say that "I could never subscribe to such vile filth - that, for example, homosexuals should be killed."?

"I don't reject them, I regard them as being fulfilled."


Wake up and smell the hypocrisy. And the lunacy while you're at it.

recedite

Jakkass wrote: »

one could reasonably assume that more often than not being taught something at childhood doesn't guarantee it will be the case well into adulthood?.

; convoluted language designed to obfuscate something simple. If a child was reared in Iran in a muslim family, it would be quite surprising if it grew into a christian teenager, would it not?

Jakkass wrote: »

Another problem is that if one studies the Genesis 1 account, on the fourth day of Creation, the sun and the moon were created. This most likely was to suggest that what people commonly worshipped, was actually just a Creation of God in itself, and it is to Him that we should give honour and praise. This allows us to question whether or not a day was a 24 hour day, or a period of longer length. The sun is crucial in establishing time, the earth's rotation around the sun determines the number of days in a year. It determines the day and the night.

Again its quite simple; a day can not be more than 24 hours. Even if, as you suggest, the term "day" was defined after the event. For example, suppose two places are 1000 metres apart. They were always that distance apart, even before some french guy defined what a metre is.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the relational aspect of living out a Christian life is also important in convincing others that the Christian life is one that is worthy to live..

I agree.

Jakkass wrote: »

People of faith are in a majority, not a minority in Ireland still. Therefore their taxes should be spent effectively, as well as yours.

You have a point, but there are a few problems with this.
1) the status quo is that most schools are in the hands of the religious. Therefore parents are unfortunately coerced and are often willing to lie and exaggerate about their religious affiliations in order to secure a place.
2) What you propose is educational apartheid, which cannot be good for society. Surely it would be better to educate kids of all races, all faiths and none together.
3)Your system would be sorely tested if the voodoo or scientology religions found the money to build a new school, and then demanded taxpayers money to run it.

Nabber

Playing down the religion like so many people are these days is lead by the idiots. As is most things that say lets not believe in that, lets believe in nothing, it is rather stupid. To move away from faith in favour of theory is in it's nature a foolish thing to do.

I had an interesting conversation with a guy in work. He told me how is was I was 'dumb' for believing in God without any proof. How the church is robbing not just me but him too and everyone for that matter. How Priests are... well you where he went there. That church is for fools...

As always i just listened. So a couple of weeks later i get an invites to his sons christening, but not only that he is getting married now,,, In a church. And I'm thinking to myself... Ok, so when he puts his son into school, the principal asks him his religious views and he gives his speil as he does so well, we wait 5 years and he gets a letter through the door saying 'Dear Mr X, we have excluded you son from the list of children to receive First communion, please fell free to come along for tea and coffee after wards'
I just know he will be on Joe Duffy, telling all who will listen, how his son has been wronged by the church. And it gets me thinking, that most of the loud voices against the church do it to fit in.

So have non-denominational schools. Freedom of religion includes no religion too. See how many take up the offer, so they don't have to play the Christian when signing their child up for school. Even tho 4 years previously they had him/her baptisied...

Night everyone
Nabber.

PS If you are anti Christian or just a non believer, trying to poke holes in some ones faith buy quoting the bible, it doesn't work. It's not called faith for nothing:P plus Jesus by his very being makes the old testament defunct Maybe take the old testament thing up with the Jews :P

philologos

recedite wrote: »

; convoluted language designed to obfuscate something simple. If a child was reared in Iran in a muslim family, it would be quite surprising if it grew into a christian teenager, would it not?

There is a probability, given that most growth in Christianity is now taking place in countries like Iran. China for example, has seen a huge growth. It is for this reason why Christianity will see an increase in it's % share of adherents by 2050. It isn't that unsurprising, although probability is lessened due to lack of access to the Bible, laws against proselytising and so on, that people in Iran could accept Christianity.

recedite wrote: »

Again its quite simple; a day can not be more than 24 hours. Even if, as you suggest, the term "day" was defined after the event. For example, suppose two places are 1000 metres apart. They were always that distance apart, even before some french guy defined what a metre is.

This is assuming that the Bible was originally written in English. The Hebrew word is yom and it can mean a period longer than 24 hours. Although, as I've already asked, how does one determine the length of an hour without the sun?

recedite wrote: »

I agree.

You agree?

recedite wrote: »

You have a point, but there are a few problems with this.
1) the status quo is that most schools are in the hands of the religious. Therefore parents are unfortunately coerced and are often willing to lie and exaggerate about their religious affiliations in order to secure a place.
2) What you propose is educational apartheid, which cannot be good for society. Surely it would be better to educate kids of all races, all faiths and none together.
3)Your system would be sorely tested if the voodoo or scientology religions found the money to build a new school, and then demanded taxpayers money to run it.

I've suggested very clearly, by now that there should be alternatives to the education system. This means an increase in secular schools, a decrease in RC schools, and a minor increase in faith schools for other faiths.

That is just as reasonable a solution as any. Indeed, as I've already mentioned it is how they deal with it in the UK.

Edit: Nabber - the love - hate relationship that lapsed Catholics / apostates from RCC have with the Roman Catholic Church is interesting indeed. We really seem to be just a nation of talkers. I find it interesting to observe from the outside.

philologos

Nabber wrote: »

PS If you are anti Christian or just a non believer, trying to poke holes in some ones faith buy quoting the bible, it doesn't work. It's not called faith for nothing:P plus Jesus by his very being makes the old testament defunct Maybe take the old testament thing up with the Jews :P

I thought I should pick up on this. Jesus' coming doesn't nullify the Old Testament, much in the Old Testament is still useful for Christian faith today. What Jesus did do, was fulfil the Old Covenant, and bring in the New Covenant, this is what Jesus meant by saying "It is finished" on the cross.

The Old Testament serves as a "shadow of what was to come" according to the book of Hebrews. The moral concepts remain the same, how they are exercised is different. Where the decree for much of mans behaviour was death in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant God has offered mercy through Jesus Christ, which we can accept and rebuild a relationship with God before the end of all time.

Colossians 2:17 wrote:

These [Sabbath and other ceremonies] are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Hebrews 10:1 wrote:

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.

I think the Hebrew Scriptures can provide much inspiration for faith, and the Old Testament is valuable in a lot of respects.

recedite

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a probability, given that most growth in Christianity is now taking place in countries like Iran. It isn't that unsurprising, although probability is lessened due to lack of access to the Bible, laws against proselytising and so on, that people in Iran could accept Christianity. .

You are the eternal optimist

Jakkass wrote: »

You agree?.

Yes, by your actions are ye judged.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've suggested very clearly, by now that there should be alternatives to the education system. This means an increase in secular schools, a decrease in RC schools, and a minor increase in faith schools for other faiths.

That is just as reasonable a solution as any. Indeed, as I've already mentioned it is how they deal with it in the UK.
.

The first thing here is that this apartheid propagates the divisions in society, but if thats what the majority still want.....

The second is that most parents are primarily concerned with getting their offspring into a "good" school, preferably in their area. "Good" means having a proper building (not pre-fabs), an established reputation, reasonable facilities, access to a sports ground. If they are luke warm about their religion, preferring a lie-in on a sunday morning, they won't be too bothered by what religion runs the school. They will see the religious indoctrination part as either a harmless waste of time, or a necessary evil in getting a good education.
Can you envisage RCC or C of I handing over such a school, lock stock and barrel, to an agnostic board of management/ trustees? I didn't think so.

Shield

Nabber wrote: »

PS If you are anti Christian or just a non believer, trying to poke holes in some ones faith buy quoting the bible, it doesn't work.

To me, anti-Christians and non-believers are worlds apart. In my experience, anti-Christians prey on the fact that nothing can be proven and if it can't be proven, they seem to feel entitled to mount a personal attack on the person rather than the concept that person might believe in. Usually after a bit of digging, there's a deep resentment of how the concept was taught to them as children, or simply that it was taught at all.

By extension, one would have to wonder is it correct to label anti-Christians as antichrists? That is to say, even if Christ appeared (if he does exist!) and did a slip jig before their eyes, they would still deny it happened and write it off as a trick of the mind?

The non-believers that I have met just don't seem to give a s**t. Even if you had solid proof they still wouldn't care!

recedite

psni wrote: »

The non-believers that I have met just don't seem to give a s**t. Even if you had solid proof they still wouldn't care!

This is a very unenlightened argument. The whole agnostic thing is due to the lack of any evidence.

philologos

recedite wrote: »

The first thing here is that this apartheid propagates the divisions in society, but if thats what the majority still want.....

I've not seen any basis for this given my own education. I went to primary school with people of many denominations, CofI, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and Pentecostal being the bulk of them. I then went to secondary school with people of those denominations described, non-believers, a Sikh, and a Jew.

In all of these cases I attended faith schools. I don't think anything I learned reinforced division between myself and others. In fact the teaching in respect to faith wasn't all that robust.

Edit: A few teachers at my secondary school were also openly atheist or agnostic and were given the freedom to say so when appropriate. For example we had a discussion about faith and science between the Applied Maths and Religion class when we were in 5th year.

recedite wrote: »

The second is that most parents are primarily concerned with getting their offspring into a "good" school, preferably in their area. "Good" means having a proper building (not pre-fabs), an established reputation, reasonable facilities, access to a sports ground. If they are luke warm about their religion, preferring a lie-in on a sunday morning, they won't be too bothered by what religion runs the school. They will see the religious indoctrination part as either a harmless waste of time, or a necessary evil in getting a good education.

For many parents, an intrinsic part of a good education is the ethos of the school. Personally, I think that many parents would be capable of teaching their children about their faith at home. I think the option should remain open as it is in many other countries.

I don't believe teaching a child about your values is indoctrination at all. Both believers and non-believers share their values with their children.

recedite wrote: »

Can you envisage RCC or C of I handing over such a school, lock stock and barrel, to an agnostic board of management/ trustees? I didn't think so.

The problem is that of imbalance, there are 92% Roman Catholic schools, with 86% of the population identifying as Roman Catholics. That is 6% too much even by the census figures. I think we need more schools going into the future, and more likely than not these should be given to non-denominational entities, or other faiths. I don't think there are an excessive amount of CofI schools at the minute.

It's a case of regulating future growth, rather than insisting that schools be handed over, although I think the State is arranging for this to happen at the moment. They have suggested reducing RCC schools to 60%.

Shield

recedite wrote: »

This is a very unenlightened argument. The whole agnostic thing is due to the lack of any evidence.

Always open to correction, but is there not a distinct difference between someone who is a non-believer and someone who is agnostic?

To explore it even further, the flat earth society still exists despite scientific evidence. It's not too far a stretch to suppose non-believers would remain so, even if presented with hard proof.

Perhaps you just haven't met any yet?

recedite

psni wrote: »

is there not a distinct difference between someone who is a non-believer and someone who is agnostic?

No

Shield

recedite wrote: »

No

Right well eh... thanks for that. Even though pretty much every dictionary I've looked at would disagree, the word of an anonymous internet forum user is good enough for me.

I can't top such a rebuttal so I'll back out of this one.

looksee

Originally Posted by recedite
The second is that most parents are primarily concerned with getting their offspring into a "good" school, preferably in their area. "Good" means having a proper building (not pre-fabs), an established reputation, reasonable facilities, access to a sports ground. If they are luke warm about their religion, preferring a lie-in on a sunday morning, they won't be too bothered by what religion runs the school. They will see the religious indoctrination part as either a harmless waste of time, or a necessary evil in getting a good education.

What an incredibly patronising statement.

You are starting from an assumption that religion is a given, and that people who don't subscribe to the same beliefs that you do are 'luke warm in their religion' Can you not understand that many of these people are not 'luke warm', they do not have an attitude towards religion at all, except to the extent that they do not want it foisted on them.

What people do with their sunday mornings is their own business. We could ask why Mass was moved to Saturday evening. Nothing to do with people turning up to Mass on Sunday morning with a hangover, or not wanting to get out of bed at all! 'Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy' sounds like a clear enough instruction, so where does going to Mass on a Saturday come from?

philologos

I think recedite is an atheist?

looksee

well then its patronising irony...

coletti

psni wrote: »

To me, anti-Christians and non-believers are worlds apart. In my experience, anti-Christians prey on the fact that nothing can be proven and if it can't be proven, they seem to feel entitled to mount a personal attack on the person rather than the concept that person might believe in. Usually after a bit of digging, there's a deep resentment of how the concept was taught to them as children, or simply that it was taught at all.

By extension, one would have to wonder is it correct to label anti-Christians as antichrists? That is to say, even if Christ appeared (if he does exist!) and did a slip jig before their eyes, they would still deny it happened and write it off as a trick of the mind?

The non-believers that I have met just don't seem to give a s**t. Even if you had solid proof they still wouldn't care!

I wonder. The Pope claims to be Gods representative on earth, and claims that all other christian religions are bogus. He has presided over a church which has been responsible for turture, murder and rape, and his response has been to preside over a church which covers up torture, murder and rape which facilitates the torture, murder and rape to continue.

What is the definition of the anti-christ again?

eblistic

The topic of this thread is of such crucial importance. It's depressing to see the extent to which it's been derailed.

Back on topic: I wonder if the religious apologists here could state how you'd feel about:
1. Your children being taught in the same school as children of parents with different faiths and children of non-religious parents.
2. Subjects such as history, geography, maths, english, science being taught in a religiously neutral way (facts only).
3. Subjects such as religious education being taught in a pluralistic, factual manner (dealing with as many major religions as practical).
4. Their children being encouraged to discuss their own traditional beliefs and each others' in a reasoned, thoughtful, rational, critical manner.
5. All of the above being the norm in national schools funded by the state.

If you wouldn't be comfortable with some of these could you explain why?

Thanks.

philologos

eblistic wrote: »

1. Your children being taught in the same school as children of parents with different faiths and children of non-religious parents.

The question isn't about who you are being taught with, but whether or not there is an opportunity for faith development in school. Personally, I believe if I were to have children that I could well teach them for themselves, but I find it reasonable that some parents want this option for their children.

eblistic wrote: »

2. Subjects such as history, geography, maths, english, science being taught in a religiously neutral way (facts only).

Not an issue.

eblistic wrote: »

3. Subjects such as religious education being taught in a pluralistic, factual manner (dealing with as many major religions as practical).

It can be and is, but I also think that there should be the opportunity for people to learn more about certain faiths if their parents wish for them to.

eblistic wrote: »

4. Their children being encouraged to discuss their own traditional beliefs and each others' in a reasoned, thoughtful, rational, critical manner.

No issue with this in the slightest. I always hold these kinds of points with scepticism, as people generally only include religions in this critical manner, rather than extending irreligion, atheism and agnosticism to the same criticism.

eblistic wrote: »

5. All of the above being the norm in national schools funded by the state.

All of the above can be done, but I also think that faith schools should exist to allow people to develop in faith while at school.

looksee

I want my children to learn to play the harp at school
I want my children educated through Swedish at school
I want my children to have 2 hours hurling practice at school, every day
I want my children to learn Latin in primary school
I want my children to study Greek classical poetry at school
I want my children to do horse riding at school

Well yes, they could do any of these on a Saturday, but I want them to do it at school - I'm paying taxes, I have a right.

philologos

^^ Not really much of a comparison. One has constitutional basis, the others do not.

looksee

The argument is whether schooling should be denominational, not what it is at the moment according to the constitution. If that were the starting point then there would not be any argument.

It could easily be just as important to me that my child had 3 hours of music teaching as religious teaching is to you. I am prepared to accept that education has to accommodate all children, and that for me to demand something as specialised as that is not realistic, so I make my own arrangements for music classes.

philologos

So, you would consider music to be the equivalent of an entire life philosophy or worldview?

looksee

It could be to some people.

You are looking at this from a position where the default is belief. Many people do not subscribe to that, their default position is not disbelief, but lack of belief. Lack of belief is not negative, it is neutral. In most situations from a neutral position you opt into things rather than having to opt out.

The only reason we have the current situation in schools is the power of the Church historically. Many people have moved away from that position and it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify basing education on religion.

Just because you believe does not mean that everyone does, or should. I grew up as a church member and through my teens and early 20s was fully involved. I gradually realised though that I did not actually believe what I was involved with. It was satisfying from a social and emotional perspective, but at bottom I did not actually believe that there was any basis to it.

Leaving the church was a loss to me, it would be easier and pleasanter if I could believe, but I don't, and I know there is not the smallest hope that I might 'find Jesus'. There is a better chance that I could 'find God', but I don't feel inclined to clutter up my ideas with other people's rules and regulations.

eblistic

Jakkass wrote: »

The question isn't about who you are being taught with, but whether or not there is an opportunity for faith development in school. Personally, I believe if I were to have children that I could well teach them for themselves, but I find it reasonable that some parents want this option for their children.

The problem there is that one person's "faith development" is another person's indoctrination. (Other fluffy terms now being bandied about are "faith formation" and "belief nurturing" apparently). It's a right of parents to pass on their culture and traditions to their kids but why should the state be obliged to do it for them?

Jakkass wrote: »

I always hold these kinds of points with scepticism, as people generally only include religions in this critical manner, rather than extending irreligion, atheism and agnosticism to the same criticism.

Absolutely, they should be discussed, but what would you be critiquing? Atheism and Agnosticism make no claims other than that the evidence is not convincing. To deal with that you have to discuss the various religious claims so it'd be covered, no?

Jakkass wrote: »

All of the above can be done, but I also think that faith schools should exist to allow people to develop in faith while at school.

I'm not suggesting a ban but are they a really a good idea in principle, and should the state fund them? Faith schools have the potential to completely isolate kids from critical analysis of their traditionally held beliefs. Also, I'm told that such schools are allowed, and encouraged, to let their ethos permeate the entire school day. This is why I mentioned the other lessons. To what extent can the state then prescribe a curriculum that leaves religious biases aside? I guess it must attempt to already which is why I find it hard to reconcile the ethos thing.

roosh

I would agree in principle, with the idea of teaching kids about different religions in school, but I'm not sure about the practicality or the true benefit.

I personally believe that time would be much better spent teaching them the practice of meditation and spirituality, which underpins (or at least used to) all of the wolrds religions.