"no, I'm actually an athiest"

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 has the right to eat sugar cubes or should have that right. A parent who respects and loves their child should not tell them what they believe, they should say, this is what I believe,this is why I believe it, you are free to come to your own conclusions.

Delirium

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

Secular means a separation between state and church. Not that individuals can't express their own beliefs.

By your example, a secular state might not allow any religious person to own a house or car.

AudreyHepburn

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?

The organisation no, the individuals yes because it is a right we all have.

My name is URL

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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

Only once that agenda is faith orientated though, right? Irish speaking schools have an agenda, as do various other groups which deal with kids.. like the scouts etc. Should parents have no say in whether or not their children are part of those things also?

I fully agree that the connections between state education and religion should be cut. But it's a socio-political issue rather than a religious one.

raah!

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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.

And what do you think a completely secular state based education would be? Do you think they are educating them for the children's sake? That's an extremely naieve view of the government.

Classic sychronised post url :P

c_man

mossyc123 wrote: »

Fair enough, there is a difference between Atheist and Anti-Theist.
You learn something new everyday.

Yeah there is, but that's not the point. Atheists aren't the only people who call for secular education.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

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

Being deliberately obtuse trying to drag this down a dead-end.

AudreyHepburn

koth wrote: »

Secular means a separation between state and church. Not that individuals can't express their own beliefs.

By your example, a secular state migh not allow any religious person to own a house or car.

I know what it means but the impression I get is that people would rather no religion be allowed at all in schools or anywhere near children ie teaching them religion is wrong and bad or whatever and that is just as bad as religious indoctrination.

AudreyHepburn

raah! wrote: »

And what do you think a completely secular state based education would be? Do you think they are educating them for the children's sake? That's an extremely naieve view of the government.

Classic sychronised post url :P

A refusal to allow them to learn about religion?

prinz

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

A parent who respects and loves their child should not tell them what they believe, they should say, this is what I believe,this is why I believe it, you are free to come to your own conclusions.

In practice that's far, far too abstract a line to ever draw. Teaching a kid about your religion is objectionable, but explaining what you believe and why you believe it isn't?

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

robindch wrote:

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.

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.

?? I'm not talking about individuals here.

I'm very clearly talking about the institution. The Church. The Vatican. The half a million or so men and women worldwide who have chosen to devote their lives to propping up this creaking and ghastly edifice. The majority of whom, I must hasten to add, have probably joined up because they sincerely believed, in a sense of good faith which is thoroughly commendable, the atrocious lies that the church tells about itself.

Do remember that I'm not the one running about claiming that gays are suffering from an "intrinsic moral disorder", or that atheists are "not fully human" or that kids from unsuitable families can be denied education.

Once they start treating me with some respect, I'll treat them with respect.

Until then, it's gloves off.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Being deliberately obtuse trying to drag this down a dead-end.

No, not at all.

But since you're trying your best to dodge, i will ask you this.

Children are being discriminated against. Do you not think that 1 child is too many?

Galvasean

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A refusal to allow them to learn about religion?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why people oppose a secular education system. Misconception.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A refusal to allow them to learn about religion?

No.

I do not want my child to hear from people in authority that whatever religion they happen to hold is true.

On the contrary, I want her to learn about religion in an agenda-free environment.

There is a profound difference between the two that you seem to be having a hard time understanding.

AudreyHepburn

Galvasean wrote: »

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why people oppose a secular education system. Misconception.

But isn't that what it is? Taking religion out of schools altogether? Making sure it's not taught?

A serious answer please.

Delirium

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know what it means but the impression I get is that people would rather no religion be allowed at all in schools or anywhere near children ie teaching them religion is wrong and bad or whatever and that is just as bad as religious indoctrination.

Some people say that. But plenty are saying teaching children about a variety of religions wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

It's the religious instruction of a particular faith in schools, which should be done by parents and the local church members outside of school hours, being taught in school that most seem to have a problem with.

At least thats my understanding of reading the thread.

Killer Pigeon

raah! wrote: »

And what do you think a completely secular state based education would be?

T'would be a lot better. I think Ireland should take the stance that the French government took; ban all religious symbolism from schools and not allow students to wear items that symbolise their religion in class (such as crucifixes, burkas, turbans). Then we should unlease a reign of terror upon religion (again, like the French did :P).

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

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

Jebus

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

edifice.

'a complex or elaborate institution or organization'

Cool, I learned something today.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Children are being discriminated against. Do you not think that 1 child is too many?

Except they aren't. Otherwise I could claim discrimination for not being allowed on a Camogie team.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But isn't that what it is? Taking religion out of schools altogether? Making sure it's not taught?

A serious answer please.

NO - religion can still be taught as a subject as it's a major part of world history however religious instruction would not be skewed to favour one particular religion

c_man

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But isn't that what it is? Taking religion out of schools altogether? Making sure it's not taught?

A serious answer please.

Are you serious?? Of course kids should learn about differing religions and cultures. I object to stuff in the Bible, or decreed by the Pope, being taught as fact*.



*edit: just using Catholicism, since it's the main controller of schools. Apply to any, and all, religions.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

Except they aren't. Otherwise I could claim discrimination for not being allowed on a Camogie team.

Bizarre reasoning - you have nothing to back up your arguments except nonsensical rambling.

Galvasean

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A refusal to allow them to learn about religion?

Galvasean wrote: »

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why people oppose a secular education system. Misconception.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But isn't that what it is? Taking religion out of schools altogether? Making sure it's not taught?

A serious answer please.

My answer was very serious. Here's another one:

optogirl wrote: »

NO - religion can still be taught as a subject as it's a major part of world history however religious instruction would not be skewed to favour one particular religion

mossyc123

optogirl wrote: »

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.

The Church and Church based organizations provide a massive amount of free health, education and other services throughout the world. Your personal opinion doesn't change this fact. Designer palaces?! My Parish Priest lives in a fairly functional bungalow.

Osgoodisgood

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.

Actually the comparison was between the largest organisation of peadophiles and child rapists the world has ever seen, who have left no stone unturned in their disgusting attempts to cover up the true horror of their systemic child abuse and who have unbelievably given the CEO job to the cover-up-merchant-in-chief......and the mafia.

Expect defamation suits aplenty from Sicily.

optogirl

mossyc123 wrote: »

The Church and Church based organizations provide a massive amount of free health, education and other services throughout the world. Your personal opinion doesn't change this fact. Designer palaces?! My Parish Priest lives in a fairly functional bungalow.

I'm clearly referring to the HQ

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Except they aren't. Otherwise I could claim discrimination for not being allowed on a Camogie team.

I would facepalm this a million times if i could.

Way to dodge the question, but your support of discrimination against children is already evident in this thread.

I can't be bothered asking you any more without you dodging the question!

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

Bizarre reasoning - you have nothing to back up your arguments except nonsensical rambling.

Bizarre reasoning? A school with a Catholic ethos catering ostensibly for a Catholic education discriminates against others by not accepting them. Then why does a Camogie team, catering ostensibly for women, not discriminate against men by refusing them a place on the team?

Galvasean

prinz wrote: »

Except they aren't.

You believe that denying one child the same educational opportunities as another based on their faith (or lack of) is not discrimination. REALLY?!?!?!!??