"no, I'm actually an athiest"

prinz

koth wrote: »

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

When a school with a particular religious influence accepts a non-baptised kid then the parents should respect the ethos. I know my own ex-primary took in a lot of kids of different religions and unbaptised etc. without prejudice and problems ensued with parents then kicking up a fuss.

Edit: With the effect of the board of management reviewing their policy of accepting such kids.

koth wrote: »

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.

Perhaps they should put as much effort into forcing a political change.

AudreyHepburn

bluewolf wrote: »

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.

Which is why such isn't taught anymore, at least to go by my little brother's (12) religion books from school.

I agree though the first option is of course better and is how secondary schools do it nowadays.

MrStuffins

optogirl wrote: »

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.

Not to mention.... well i won't mention it and perhaaps derail the thread, but you know where i am going with this.

Why someone thinks i should respect an institution like the RCC after all it's CURRENT evils is mind-boggling!

robindch

prinz wrote: »

Respect however should be mutual.

I entirely agree, but you'll understand why I might have no respect at all for a religious outfit with the appalling history and moral views of the RCC and which controls the schools in this country and is prepared to block my child from receiving an education.

They want respect?

They should put their own house in order first, methinks.

prinz wrote: »

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

Would you be saying the same thing if atheists ran the schools and block you from educating your child? Or would you be yelling "Persecution!"?

AudreyHepburn

MrStuffins wrote: »

There might as well be in some cases!

I can just imagine them hurling their collars ninja style!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

I just saw your edit!
It was not an attack, i used strong words but it is not an attack.

You know how I meant it :rolleyes:

MrStuffins wrote: »

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!

In my opinion it is.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Parents should not have the right to indoctrinate their children. The children's rights should be first and paramount. Not the parents'.

Kids should have the right to eat sugar cubes fro breakfast, lunch and dinner too.

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

I entirely agree, but you'll understand why I might have no respect at all for a religious outfit with the appalling history of the RCC and which controls the schools in this country and is prepared to block my child from receiving an education.

They want respect?

They should put their own house in order first, methinks.Would you be saying the same thing if atheists ran the schools and block you from educating your child? Or would you be yelling "Persecution!"?

Again Rob you don't need to respect the idea but you should respect the person. It's everyone's right including yours to be treated with dignity and respect.

Delirium

prinz wrote: »

When a school with a particular religious influence accepts a non-baptised kid then the parents should respect the ethos. I know my own ex-primary took in a lot of kids of different religions and unbaptised etc. without prejudice and problems ensued with parents then kicking up a fuss.

Well that could happen because maybe the parents didn't appreciate exactly what religious instruction would be taught in the school. Maybe a kid comes home upset because they had to hear how non-Christians are doomed to hellfire.

Perhaps they should put as much effort into forcing a political change.

As I said earlier, maybe they do, but political change won't occur in the few years it takes from birth of a child to registering for a school place.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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;)

So would you also support social welfar only for religious people, since religious people also pay taxes?
Tax money is to be used for everyone, and to discriminate in an institution funded by it is deeply immoral.

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?

It's NOT about the rights of the parents.
If a parent didn't want their child to learn to read or write, would you support that? The CHILD has a right to receive an education, and that right is being denied to children based on the beliefs of their parents, just because other parents dislike it. People really need to wake up and realise that children's rights are more important than their own prejudices.

As stated, I've got no problem whatsoever with religious community providing schooling in their own particular faith for the children of their members. But in their own time, and with their own money.

MagicMarker

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.

It's really not.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

You know how I meant it :rolleyes:

Condescending perhaps?

prinz wrote: »

In my opinion it is.

Ah, so instead of dodging this question, perhaps you could answer it

MrStuffins wrote: »

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

prinz

robindch wrote: »

I entirely agree, but you'll understand why I might have no respect at all for a religious outfit with the appalling history and moral views of the RCC and which controls the schools in this country and is prepared to block my child from receiving an education.They want respect? They should put their own house in order first, methinks.

I meant in terms of parents - child - school. Not the wider RCC.

robindch wrote: »

Would you be saying the same thing if atheists ran the schools and block you from educating your child? Or would you be yelling "Persecution!"?

(a) No, I wouldn't. If ther was an atheist school, run on atheist grounds then I wouldn't feel it my right to demand that they include religious classes or anything of that ilk. I accept the conditions when I send my kid there.

(b) It is an issue. But again, how many kids are sitting at home twiddling their uneducated thumbs now because of it?

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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?

But faith can be taught at home and in the church if that's what you want. Religion has no place in schools, just like science has no place in religion.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Again Rob you don't need to respect the idea but you should respect the person. It's everyone's right including yours to be treated with dignity and respect.

He wasn't talking about a person, he was talking about an institution.... does the Mafia deserve to be treated with respect and dignity?

mossyc123

c_man wrote: »

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

Fair enough, there is a difference between Atheist and Anti-Theist.
You learn something new everyday.
Fair amount of Boards.ie contributors would, however, come under the latter category:

Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, states "while atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god."

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Condescending perhaps?

No, I meant it more light-heartedly than you took it up as.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Ah, so instead of dodging this question, perhaps you could answer it

Completely different issue. As such it would be fruitless to even touch on it.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

Kids should have the right to eat sugar cubes fro breakfast, lunch and dinner too.

You really don't do yourself any favours. Being flippant about it is insulting to everyone who has severely limited options in how their children are educated

mossyc123

Shenshen wrote: »

He wasn't talking about a person, he was talking about an institution.... does the Mafia deserve to be treated with respect and dignity?

Your comparing one of the largest charitable organisations in the world with the Mafia. Don't think you or your opinions deserve much respect.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Completely different issue. As such it would be fruitless to even touch on it.

How is it a different issue? it's discrimination both ways!

You're dodging the question here i'm afraid!

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

Being flippant...

Why not be flippant to an line of argument that supposese parents should have no role in eh, parenting..

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

How is it a different issue? it's discrimination both ways! You're dodging the question here i'm afraid!

Accept that it's not. It is not a public service open to everyone. You may as well argue it's discrimination that a Catholic can't be a Rabbi. Your argument would have merit if the school was already secular. What we are taking about are schools with a religious ethos which our State allows. What are State doesn't allow is apartheid.

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

But faith can be taught at home and in the church if that's what you want. Religion has no place in schools, just like science has no place in religion.

So if you were the principle of a secular school would you stop a Catholic child from entering your school? Because you know that child could start talking publically to others about his/her faith.

Athiesm can taught at home too you know.

Scanlas The 2nd

prinz wrote: »

You know how I meant it :rolleyes:



In my opinion it is.



Kids should have the right to eat sugar cubes fro breakfast, lunch and dinner too.

No one should have the right to eat sugar cubes. Who should be obliged to pay for sugar cubes.

Children shouldn't be fed biased education by people with an agenda.

optogirl

mossyc123 wrote: »

Your comparing one of the largest charitable organisations in the world with the Mafia. Don't think you or your opinions deserve much respect.

Largest charitable organisations in the world! They are fúcking loaded - swanning around their palaces in designer robes on collection money donated by the faithful. Disgusting.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

Why not be flippant to an line of argument that supposese parents should have no role in eh, parenting..

That is absolutely NOT what the argument was. It was that religious instruction should not be scewed in favour of one religion in schools because we do not have the right to force these kinds of beliefs on children. Wilfully destroying a child's health by feeding them sugarcubes for breakfast is nothing to do with this.

prinz

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Children shouldn't be fed biased education by people with an agenda.

Are you deciding that for them? I thought you said kids should decide for themselves?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

So would you also support social welfar only for religious people, since religious people also pay taxes?
Tax money is to be used for everyone, and to discriminate in an institution funded by it is deeply immoral.

It's NOT about the rights of the parents.
If a parent didn't want their child to learn to read or write, would you support that? The CHILD has a right to receive an education, and that right is being denied to children based on the beliefs of their parents, just because other parents dislike it. People really need to wake up and realise that children's rights are more important than their own prejudices.

As stated, I've got no problem whatsoever with religious community providing schooling in their own particular faith for the children of their members. But in their own time, and with their own money.

I agree with all your points and they were exactly mine as well.

We all pay tax so we all get a say not just the athiest sector or the religious sector.

Of course I don't agree with discrimination on a religious basis.

Education is about the child not whether the parent agrees with the school's ethos or not.

And yes I think would be in everyone's interest to provide both faith and non-denominational schools.

AudreyHepburn

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Children shouldn't be fed biased education by people with an agenda.

The most sensible thing I have read on this subject and it applies to both sides of the argument.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Accept that it's not. It is not a public service open to everyone. You may as well argue it's discrimination that a Catholic can't be a Rabbi. Your argument would have merit if the school was already secular. What we are taking about are schools with a religious ethos which our State allows. What are State doesn't allow is apartheid.

So, what you're saying is, discrimination isn't good, unless it's state sponsored?

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

That is absolutely NOT what the argument was. It was that religious instruction should not be scewed in favour of one religion in schools because we do not have the right to force these kinds of beliefs on children. Wilfully destroying a child's health by feeding them sugarcubes for breakfast is nothing to do with this.

No it wasn't. it was that parents should have no input into what type of educational facility their child should attend.