"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But isn't she asking that religion be removed from schools completely thereby denying religion parents the right to have their children taught in schoold of their faith?

Because there is no right that guarantees parents that the state will fun the religious education of their children.
If there was, schools would have a funny old time providing for each and every shade of religious education...

There is however the right of the child to be educated.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

The child's right to education should take preference over any opinion any parents would hold.

But you do realise that parents campaigning for secular only schools are campaigning for what THEY want just as much?

Just to point out though I do think there should be schools for both religion and secular education not one or the other.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Would you be saying that if asked to swear on the Koran or the Torah? I mean this in all seriousness.

If you don't believe it, surely it's only saying words.

It's only lying under oath, but sure it's just words... :eek:

coffee_cake

mossyc123 wrote: »

So one parents anti-theism should take preference over the majority who would like there children educated in a school with a religious ethos?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

prinz wrote: »

See bolded words. What we have here are a number of posters blaming unelected unaccountable religious organisations for not providing secular education. That's a nonsense. Your sights should be set on the government.

I understand that robin clarified he was talking to TDs with little effect also, so I'm not sure why you keep saying this.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Would you be saying that if asked to swear on the Koran or the Torah? I mean this in all seriousness.

I don't understand the question

If you don't believe it, surely it's only saying words.

No Audrey it's committing perjury. I also don't understand why this argument comes up as if there's nothing wrong with lying.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But isn't she asking that religion be removed from schools completely thereby denying religion parents the right to have their children taught in schoold of their faith?

Am I? Please do quote where I asked that?

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If you don't believe it, surely it's only saying words.

Audrey -- after this post last week, I'm not really sure if there's any point in trying to explain any further, but I'll try one last time.

Word are not "just words" -- it's your reputation. If you gain a reputation as somebody who doesn't value what they say, and who is prepared to lie in public, then you're going to have a pretty poor reputation and nobody's going to trust you.

At the moment, it seems you are prepared to lie in public to suit yourself. Is this really the case, or are you actually prepared to act with some honor?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

It's only lying under oath, but sure it's just words... :eek:

Ok I was wrong on that count, I take your point, I apologise:)

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

Audrey -- after this post last week, I'm not really sure if there's any point in trying to explain any further, but I'll try one last time.

Word are not "just words" -- it's your reputation. If you gain a reputation as somebody who doesn't value what they say, and who is prepared to lie in public, then you're going to have a pretty poor reputation and nobody's going to trust you.

At the moment, it seems you are prepared to lie in public to suit yourself. Is this really the case, or are you actually prepared to act with some honor?

I apologised already for being wrong on this but I will apologise again

robindch

koth wrote: »

Children shouldn't be excluded from a place in a public school due to religious reasons.

There is a pervasive public belief that they are, there are instances of where they certainly have been and the reaction from most of the religious in this forum has been to say "Tough ****".

Scanlas The 2nd

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But is that it really? Or people just want the Catholic religion gone from the public sphere and kept hidden at home altogether?

Serious question btw.

I don't care that religion is around, I like some of the architecture it brings. There is even a hidden non supernatural spiritual part of it that I admire. But most religous people aren't really spiritual even though they would say they are because of the beliefs they have. Spirituality has nothing to do with beliefs. Beliefs block spirituality.( See Eckhart Tolle for clarification)

Just don't want children brainwashed by default in a period of their mental development where they believe in such things as the tooth fairy. You can tell them anything and they believe it.

coffee_cake

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But you do realise that parents campaigning for secular only schools are campaigning for what THEY want just as much?

Just to point out though I do think there should be schools for both religion and secular education not one or the other.

I'm sure many atheists would be happy with 50/50 as long as there were enough secular schools to cater for all the students - theist or otherwise - who don't want religious education. Secular caters for everyone of every religion as it doesn't bring religion into it. Any religious education could be given on top.

prinz

koth wrote: »

Children shouldn't be excluded from a place in a public school due to religious reasons.

Indeed they shouldn't. Respect however should be mutual.

Again, IMO, it's an issue blown out of proportion.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

I understand that robin clarified he was talking to TDs with little effect also, so I'm not sure why you keep saying this.

..because Robin keeps returning to blaming the RCC for the state of affairs. It's the 'easy out'. The TD's are elected and accountable.....

AudreyHepburn

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm sure many atheists would be happy with 50/50 as long as there were enough secular schools to cater for all the students - theist or otherwise - who don't want religious education. Secular caters for everyone of every religion as it doesn't bring religion into it. Any religious education could be given on top.

But not if it is the only way of education which I thought a lot of people wanted. I thought from what I read on boards that most people wanted religion gone altogether from education?

If I am wrong though I'm sorry.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm sure many atheists would be happy with 50/50 as long as there were enough secular schools to cater for all the students - theist or otherwise - who don't want religious education..

Personally at primary level I'd go for 100% State run secular. Compulsory. IMO the choice should only come into it at secondary level.

mossyc123

optogirl wrote: »

I said I'm not sure, not that I KNOW that. Based on everyone I know, most would prefer non-religious schooling

Most people I know would prefer a school with some sort of faith-based ethos. The traditions of Irish life continued. Baptism, Communion, Confirmation onto Marriage and Funerals. It may be a la carte nowadays but it's a part of who we are.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Again, IMO, it's an issue blown out of proportion.

I'm sorry but this is a disgusting attitude to have and is part of the problem!

c_man

prinz wrote: »

Again, IMO, it's an issue blown out of proportion.

As long as things are in your favour right? Otherwise, it would no doubt be classed as religious repression.

mossyc123 wrote: »

So one parents anti-theism should take preference over the majority who would like there children educated in a school with a religious ethos?

Heh, never heard of someone claiming a person advocating secular education as an anti-theist. Good 'ol rabble rousing.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is a disgusting attitude to have and is part of the problem!

Really? So just how many Irish kids have gone uneducated for religious reasons? Ignoring thr fact of course that personally I think all primary should be state run and secular... let that slide by, and attack the above.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But you do realise that parents campaigning for secular only schools are campaigning for what THEY want just as much?

Just to point out though I do think there should be schools for both religion and secular education not one or the other.

I have always wondered that, to be honest... why on earth would anybody be so desperately in need of having their children instructed in their religion at the cost of all tax payers?
Surely if it was that important to them, they could go the French and American way and offer Sunday schools, run by the church, and simply send their children there? Why this insistence that the state pay for it?

Yes, parents campaigning for secular only schools are campaigning for what they want... they wouldn't campaign for something they don't want, would they?
But "secular" means open to all, and not limited to one religion, guaranteeing every child its right to get educated. I fail to see how and why parents would object to that...

AudreyHepburn

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is a disgusting attitude to have and is part of the problem!

I agree that is making too little of the issue but on the other the way some people go on you would swear there are picket fences and armed priests standing outside schools stopping non-catholic children in.

Delirium

prinz wrote: »

Indeed they shouldn't. Respect however should be mutual.

I'm sorry but I don't follow what you mean by this

Again, IMO, it's an issue blown out of proportion.

I would say the high numbers of parents baptising their kids to try and guarantee a place in their local school proves that it's a big issue.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Really? So just how many Irish kids have gone uneducated for religious reasons?

Well a few i know personally at least.

You don't think that 1 is too many?

Would you think one was too many if they were excluded for being Black?

optogirl

mossyc123 wrote: »

Most people I know would prefer a school with some sort of faith-based ethos. The traditions of Irish life continued. Baptism, Communion, Confirmation onto Marriage and Funerals. It may be a la carte nowadays but it's a part of who we are.

Well it's not part of who I am and I don't want it to be a part of who my children are. Being a catholic does not define you as an Irish person or vice versa. That is an insult to all people of other religions and the non-religious. Religion is not and should not be a national tradition. If we really want to get traditional we should be pagan.

prinz

mossyc123 wrote: »

Most people I know would prefer a school with some sort of faith-based ethos. The traditions of Irish life continued. Baptism, Communion, Confirmation onto Marriage and Funerals. It may be a la carte nowadays but it's a part of who we are.

An ethos doesn't need to be faith based, and one of the major issues with the Catholic Church in particular in Ireland is the stupid nature of it's disemination through primary schooling.

coffee_cake

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But not if it is the only way of education which I thought a lot of people wanted. I thought from what I read on boards that most people wanted religion gone altogether from education?

If I am wrong though I'm sorry.

Comparative religious studies class would be valuable enough. "This is your religion and this is correct and there is no room for disagreement" is not.
I imagine most would welcome the former.

mrstuffins wrote:

I'm sorry but this is a disgusting attitude to have and is part of the problem!

I have to admit it puts me in mind of women complaining of genuine day to day sexism issues and men showing up saying "no of course there's never any sexism it's not a problem" :pac:

prinz wrote:

Indeed they shouldn't. Respect however should be mutual.

It's not looking mutual from the religious POV or from "stop blowing problems out of proportion just because children can't get an education" side either

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Ignoring thr fact of course that personally I think all primary should be state run and secular... let that slide by, and attack the above.

I just saw your edit!

It was not an attack, i used strong words but it is not an attack.

I saw your points about secular schools. But it does not change the fact that you have stated that people's anger over discrimination of children in our schools has been "blown out of proportion".

Ridiculous!

Scanlas The 2nd

I think all scools should be Secular. Perhaps when the child is old enough, maybe 13 or so, they should be asked if they would like to participate in any extra curriclur religous classes which discuss all religions. This choice should be the choice of the pupil. Not the parents. Parents should not have the right to indoctrinate their children. The children's rights should be first and paramount. Not the parents'.

MrStuffins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I agree that is making too little of the issue but on the other the way some people go on you would swear there are picket fences and armed priests standing outside schools stopping non-catholic children in.

There might as well be in some cases!

optogirl

Again this issue of respect - but in all honesty, WHY should I respect a religion that teaches values that are morally reprehensible to me? I want no part of it.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

I have always wondered that, to be honest... why on earth would anybody be so desperately in need of having their children instructed in their religion at the cost of all tax payers?
Surely if it was that important to them, they could go the French and American way and offer Sunday schools, run by the church, and simply send their children there? Why this insistence that the state pay for it?

Yes, parents campaigning for secular only schools are campaigning for what they want... they wouldn't campaign for something they don't want, would they?
But "secular" means open to all, and not limited to one religion, guaranteeing every child its right to get educated. I fail to see how and why parents would object to that...

Many of those taxpayers are religious and probably quite happy to have their children educated in faith schools. Athiests aren't the only ones paying taxes you know;)

To answer your second section surely forcing your child into an non-demoninational based on your beliefs (which is what I feel might be the reason many (not all) athiest parents want secular education, not to be inclusive but to keep religion away from their children) rather than theirs or what they want is as bad as forcing him or her into a faith school?

Why should the parent who wants their child educated in a secular school have more right than the one wants to send their child to a faith school?