Say possible goodbye to religious symbols in the classroom. UPDATE: No Joy!

deise go deo

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed. Personally I would have no objection to anyone having some sort of display of ALL the religions represented according to those that are in any one particular classroom.
One symbol for each religion maybe?
If the class room is 100% catholic then to be honest, I don't see a problem with a symbol of their faith being displayed.
It obviously would be different if there was other denominations/religions in the same rooms however.

...Just a thought and open to be corrected...

So what would be done if there were various religious denominations making up a majority and a minority of atheist? Displaying religious symbols would be against the beliefs of the atheists, There really isent a symbol for atheism(for obvious reasons) so should nothing be displayed, in which case the view of the minority is imposed on the majority.

Is this kind of Religious/Non Religious sectarianism really a good atmosphere for kids to be in?

I think there should be either a policy of no symbols at all, or leave it to each individual school to decide.

partyatmygaff

deise go deo wrote: »

Or leave it to each individual school to decide.

That's how it is at present...

Unpossible

jackiebaron wrote: »

Wonder what's going to happen to all the crosses up on the roofs of schools. The janitor better not suffer from vertigo.

Throw a couple of flaming skulls around them and you have a kick ass school of rock :pac:

gbee

Nodin wrote: »

I rarely, rarely, do anecdotes.

You're not a regular listener either to those shows you referenced.

Morlar

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-allows-crucufix-in-classroom-497768.html

18/03/2011 - 15:16:30
Crucifixes can be displayed in state school classrooms, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled .

The ruling will be binding on all 47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, the continent’s human rights watchdog.

In November 2009, the court ruled that the crucifix could be disturbing to non-Christian or atheist pupils.

Several European countries appealed against the ruling, and the final decision by the court’s Grand Chamber came down today.

The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-allows-crucufix-in-classroom-497768.html#ixzz1GxxiDnD7

Nodin

gbee wrote: »

You're not a regular listener either to those shows you referenced.

...source for your claim about nativity plays....?

R0ot

As long as they ban ALL religious symbols I am okay with it. That includes anything worn by individuals that designates a religion.

partyatmygaff

R0ot wrote: »

As long as they ban ALL religious symbols I am okay with it. That includes anything worn by individuals that designates a religion.

That's restricting people's freedom of Religion and expression.

gbee

Jerry MacCarthy!!!! Just as I've taken down all those religious symbols, crosses, statures, swastikas, beads and scarfs, I can now put the crucifix back up?

Wouldn't mind but it's the heaviest one an all ..............

gbee

Nodin wrote: »

...source for your claim about nativity plays....?

Your own references as I mentioned did whole shows on the subject. You clearly didn't have an interest in this aspect of it until now, ask your daughters.

And whilst on this subject, just for yourself like, ask about preparations for First Holy Communion and Confirmation too ~ if you've been shocked already, you better bring a soft cushion with you.

Biggins

Morlar wrote: »

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-allows-crucufix-in-classroom-497768.html

18/03/2011 - 15:16:30
Crucifixes can be displayed in state school classrooms, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled .
The ruling will be binding on all 47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, the continent’s human rights watchdog.
In November 2009, the court ruled that the crucifix could be disturbing to non-Christian or atheist pupils.
Several European countries appealed against the ruling, and the final decision by the court’s Grand Chamber came down today.
The court is based in Strasbourg, France.
Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-allows-crucufix-in-classroom-497768.html#ixzz1GxxiDnD7

Darn. So the arguments will go on about such things and one lot having possible biasness over the other.
Not good.
Just when you think there is hope for the world...

Nodin

gbee wrote: »

Your own references as I mentioned did whole shows on the subject..

.....but you can't reference them by an independent source, provide a link to the show in question?. Nor did it spill over to the papers? No questions in the Dail? Just a wall of silence?

gbee wrote: »

And whilst on this subject, just for yourself like, ask about preparations for First Holy Communion and Confirmation too ~ if you've been shocked already, you better bring a soft cushion with you.

And now moving from anecdote to vague anecdote.....

gbee

Nodin wrote: »

... And now moving from anecdote to vague anecdote.....

Listen, if you had had an interest you'd know. You don't and your nose is out of joint, sorry about that but this issues is at least three years old, maybe four years ago it started.

Biggins

More details on the latest outcome here: http://www.thejournal.ie/religious-symbols-permitted-in-classrooms-european-court-of-human-rights-2011-03/

Excerpt:

The European Humanist Federation has described the ruling as “a lost opportunity” saying in a statement released today: “This highly regrettable judgement retreats from the clarity of the initial ruling that the State and its institutions must be impartial, not favouring one religion or belief over another. This principle is particularly important when the State is addressing school pupils, since they are not only immature and impressionable but also a captive audience.”

Nodin

gbee wrote: »

Listen, if you had had an interest you'd know. You don't and your nose is out of joint, sorry about that but this issues is at least three years old, maybe four years ago it started.

Four years ago? Jaysus - thats the time before journalism, history and the internet, when Brian Boru ruled Ireland and we still had them deer with the big antlers. No search engine invented could overcome such a barrier.....

Biggins

After this latest stupid backwards court outcome, all I can say is good job there is Educate Together schools growing in numbers!

TeddyTedson

Biggins wrote: »

After this latest stupid backwards court outcome, all I can say is good job there is Educate Together schools growing in numbers!

I don't think it would have been a good solution Biggi though would it. I mean where will it end if we keep trying to please everyone.

Biggins

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I don't think it would have been a good solution Biggi though would it. I mean where will it end if we keep trying to please everyone.

A lot more people accommodated eventually after a number of attempts of trial and failure, then eventual success with a broad adoption of an equal fairness to all system?

Morlar

Biggins wrote: »

A lot more people accommodated eventually after a number of attempts of trial and failure, then eventual success with a broad adoption of an equal fairness to all system?

Who exactly is 'not accomodated' by there being a cross in a classroom ? Europe has a christian heritage, people moving here from non christian countries know this. There are already dedicated islamic and jewish schools which recieve state funding -so I am curious would you like them forced to remove their religous symbols too /or keep them and have their funding removed instead ?

HellFireClub

The same logic as is evident in this judgement, would ban Christmas decorations in the classroom, is this is where we want to find ourselves, that because someone finds Christmas offensive, we should ban Christmas decorations in schools and any attempt to celebrate Christmas???

Nodin

Morlar wrote: »

Who exactly is 'not accomodated' by there being a cross in a classroom ?

Secularists, Jews, atheists, and a few protestant sects may object. theres no need to drag in the "foreign" bogeyman.

Biggins

Morlar wrote: »

Who exactly is 'not accomodated' by there being a cross in a classroom ? Europe has a christian heritage, people moving here from non christian countries know this. There are already dedicated islamic and jewish schools which recieve state funding -so I am curious would you like them forced to remove their religous symbols too /or keep them and have their funding removed instead ?

I hear what your saying. Europe has HAD a Christian heritage but as we as a planet moves onwards in evolution in thinking, etc, things, times, ideas and attitudes change. Thats just the way of things.

If there came a ruling that all religious symbols were to be removed, I would expect ALL to obey it.
Just as we (some here) argue that Ming be equally held accountable for his open admission of drug use as per according to present laws, we should in equal fairness if such a law came in about religious object in classrooms, treat and use it with the same veracity.

irishconvert

Biggins wrote: »

EU could ban religious symbols in classrooms



Personally (and this is NOT a go at just Rome and its org') I'm glad if this comes about.
One religion should not have preference over another when it comes to displays.
...That path only leads to resentment by some others and the eventual, sometimes deadly effects from that later.

If you want to ban religion from schools, go ahead and do it. Don't pretend it's got something to do with offending other religions. Deadly effects because of a cross in a classroom, total scaremongering.

Biggins

irishconvert wrote: »

...Deadly effects because of a cross in a classroom, total scaremongering.

You have a point but sadly try telling that to the nutjob who uses it to further his/her propaganda so that he/she can convince a suicide bomber to do what we don't want them to do!
..That an opposing religion is trying to shove theirs in to the faces of others and is trying to maintain dominance over another.

...Not disagreeing with you as such, just throwing one point/aspect out there.

Ghost Buster

HellFireClub wrote: »

The same logic as is evident in this judgement, would ban Christmas decorations in the classroom, is this is where we want to find ourselves, that because someone finds Christmas offensive, we should ban Christmas decorations in schools and any attempt to celebrate Christmas???

Then they'll ban Thursday just to piss off the Thor worshippers.
Christmas is just the latest title on a festival with as many links to pagan festivals as to Christian ones.

MagicMarker

irishconvert wrote: »

If you want to ban religion from schools, go ahead and do it.

irishconvert

Biggins wrote: »

You have a point but sadly try telling that to the nutjob who uses it to further his/her propaganda so that he/she can convince a suicide bomber to do what we don't want them to do!
..That an opposing religion is trying to shove theirs in to the faces of others and is trying to maintain dominance over another.

...Not disagreeing with you as such, just throwing one point/aspect out there.

Let me get this straight, we should ban christian religious symbols in schools in case some nutjob blows themself up becuase of it?

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

I hear what your saying. Europe has HAD a Christian heritage but as we as a planet moves onwards in evolution in thinking, etc, things, times, ideas and attitudes change. Thats just the way of things.

But Biggins, that's not right.

Heritage is practices or culture that have been passed down through tradition.

Heritage takes hundreds of years to change and as of yet and for quite a few years to come Europe still has and will continue to have a Christian heritage.

Biggins

irishconvert wrote: »

Let me get this straight, we should ban christian religious symbols in schools in case some nutjob blows themself up becuase of it?

No, but maybe the removal of them - no matter what religion - might take also by effect, the sting and daft claims out of a scumbags excuse, to use such prior existing hanging class material for his own ends?

Its just another aspect.

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

You have a point but sadly try telling that to the nutjob who uses it to further his/her propaganda so that he/she can convince a suicide bomber to do what we don't want them to do!

Islamic Extremists don't base their ideology on Christian symbols being hung up on the walls of schools in European countries.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But Biggins, that's not right.

Heritage is practices or culture that have been passed down through tradition.

Heritage takes hundreds of years to change and as of yet and for quite a few years to come Europe still has and will continue to have a Christian heritage.

Very true but things are indeed changing. If we like it or not.
As Bob Dylan once sang about "Times are a changing...". Its the natural order of things.

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Very true but things are indeed changing. If we like it or not.
As Bob Dylan once sang about "Times are a changing...". Its the natural order of things.

Yeah things are changing and they've always been changing and they'll never cease to change.

That doesn't change Europe's heritage though. At least not for a few hundred years in which the trend may continue or even reverse.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yeah things are changing and they've always been changing and they'll never cease to change.

That doesn't change Europe's heritage though.

Again true - but we shouldn't be beholden to it either.
That way limits the way/chance of possible progress.

Just as Northern Ireland (the vast peace loving/desiring majority) wishes to move away from its history of religious divides and in-fighting, elsewhere other people wish to do similar based on other historic pre-goings on. Thus we get movements away from what has gone on before, in hopefully to the betterment to all.

ScumLord

HellFireClub wrote: »

The same logic as is evident in this judgement, would ban Christmas decorations in the classroom, is this is where we want to find ourselves, that because someone finds Christmas offensive, we should ban Christmas decorations in schools and any attempt to celebrate Christmas???

What has Christmas or any other religious symbol got to do with schools though? A religious classroom could be full of religious iconography because it's relevant but why does a maths room or a science room need it?

I can only think of one reason for the iconography at schools and that's to enforce the propaganda message that the previous generation bought into.

If it's a part of the building it has a heritage reason for being there and I wouldn't be opposed to it but introducing little crosses and such is just to enforce a message.

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Just as Northern Ireland (the vast peace loving/desiring majority) wishes to move away from its history of religious divides and in-fighting, elsewhere other people wish to do similar based on other historic pre-goings on.

History isn't always the same as heritage though.

Europe has a terrible history of wars and interstate conflict. Both WW1 and WW2 were fought primarily in Europe as well as the hundreds of other wars that preceded them.

That doesn't mean that Europe has a heritage of war or fighting though.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

History isn't always the same as heritage though.

Europe has a terrible history of wars and interstate conflict. Both WW1 and WW2 were fought primarily in Europe as well as the hundreds of other wars that preceded them.

That doesn't mean that Europe has a heritage of war or fighting though.

Ongoing history creates heritage(s). Simple as...

Irish Guitarist

I liked it when human rights meant things like the right to have food to eat, not being tortured and children not being forced to work in sweat shops or fight in wars.

Anyone who complains about their human rights being violated because there's a cross in their childs classroom is just looking for something to whinge about.

If the worst violation of your human rights is having to look at religious symbols then you really should be thankful.

gbee

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If the worst violation of your human rights is having to look at religious symbols then you really should be thankful.

Truly. Can't disagree but once we do have easy food, shelter and so on, our expectations rise.

Mankind evolved philosophy because he did not have to hunt and or farm and fish 20 hours a day.

Biggins

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I liked it when human rights meant things like the right to have food to eat, not being tortured and children not being forced to work in sweat shops or fight in wars.

Anyone who complains about their human rights being violated because there's a cross in their childs classroom is just looking for something to whinge about.

If the worst violation of your human rights is having to look at religious symbols then you really should be thankful.

No disrespect but in the ever evolving hierarchy of needs (See: Maslow) in humans, when one gains some basic of food and water, to others their needs and desires differ.
What you see as a necessity, to others might have different value - ans as such your imposing your values of bread and water across to theirs who think different.

Example (JUST an example): those religions (Jehovah's) that don't allow blood transfusions. They see those as basic inalienable rights - and their's just don't involve bread or water. Now our state has officially disagreed recently with that thread of religious thought for the betterment of all under such dire consequences.

To some, having to be forced to stare at another religious symbol is in fact a VERY basic insult and infringement of right they consider to be basic - according to their values, not yours!

Would you stick a Jewish religion symbol up on a class wall and think that its right to do so while all but one are actually Arabs (...and considering their heritage too)?

The last above bit is worded wrong - it should read to be accurate (thanks to omega666 for pointing it out):

Would you stick a Jewish religion symbol up on a class wall and think that its right to do so while all but one are actually Jewish

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

No disrespect but in the ever evolving hierarchy of needs (See: Maslow) in humans, when one gains some basic of food and water, to others their needs and desires differ.

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is not absolute.

To some, having to be forced to stare at another religious symbol is in fact a VERY basic insult and infringement of right they consider to be basic - according to their values, not yours!

If you went to the middle east and decided to work there would you take such grievous offence at being "forced to stare" at a Qur'anic verses on the wall? No one's "forcing" anyone to look at anything.

Would you stick a Jewish religion symbol up on a class wall and think that its right to do so while all but one are actually Arabs (...and considering their heritage too)?

Biggins, sorry but you seemingly are misinformed on the Arab-Israeli situation. Arabs as a general rule do not have any issue with Jews. They take issue with Zionists and Israelis. Not all Jews are Zionists or Israeli.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is not absolute.

Indeed, its ever evolving, like everything else and no one ever reaches its peak. So you adapt and move with the desires and needs.
Not stay hamstrung just to "heritage".

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you went to the middle east and decided to work there would you take such grievous offence at being "forced to stare" at a Qur'anic verses on the wall?

I would as by I going there have (if I have any kop on) know about life there, their laws and beliefs. If I wanted to be there, I would have to acknowledge their ways and their values.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No one's "forcing" anyone to look at anything.

Case in point: tell that to the lady that took the legal case in Italy.

Biggins, sorry but you seemingly are misinformed on the Arab-Israeli situation. Arabs as a general rule do not have any issue with Jews. They take issue with Zionists and Israelis. Not all Jews are Zionists or Israeli.

You know exactly the point I was making. Don't be pedantic.

ScumLord

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I liked it when human rights meant things like the right to have food to eat, not being tortured and children not being forced to work in sweat shops or fight in wars.

Anyone who complains about their human rights being violated because there's a cross in their childs classroom is just looking for something to whinge about.

If the worst violation of your human rights is having to look at religious symbols then you really should be thankful.

I'd agree to a certain extent, I wouldn't be hell bent on having them banded or interested in dedicating much of an effort into banning them but in my opinion they have no place in schools with impressionable children (not they pay any attention to them anyway religious iconography is background noise in Ireland at this stage).

Would it be ok for a communist to put their iconography around schools? Would that be seen to be just as harmless?

omega666

Biggins wrote: »

Would you stick a Jewish religion symbol up on a class wall and think that its right to do so while all but one are actually Arabs (...and considering their heritage too)?

except thats not the suitation here as the vast majority of children in schools in ireland would be catholic so would have no problem with it.
so your example would be more accurate to this seanario if you said,
Would you stick a Jewish religion symbol up on a class wall and think that its right to do so while all but one are actually Jewish

Biggins

omega666 wrote: »

except thats not the suitation here as the vast majority of children in schools in ireland would be catholic so would have no problem with it.

True in our case but as the numbers of other religions are increasing (besides those of non-faith), those growing numbers (families) see the present state of affairs as something possibly that might have to be addressed eventually.
If we stick to our guns (NO pun intended) of heritage, we will get nowhere eventually in resolving this issue.

omega666 wrote: »

...so your example would be more accurate to this seanario if you said,
Would you stick a Jewish religion symbol up on a class wall and think that its right to do so while all but one are actually Jewish

True, I worded my thoughts wrong.
Thankfully you got what I was trying to say in my stumbling, arse about way.

gbee

omega666 wrote: »

Jewish religion symbol up on a class wall and think that its right to do so while all but one are actually Jewish

It's very unlikely to happen to a Jewish child at national school level.

But certainly I've seen other religious symbols in classrooms containing children of mixed religion, and this in a convent school too.

Biggins

gbee wrote: »

...I've seen other religious symbols in classrooms containing children of mixed religion, and this in a convent school too.

I mentioned it earlier and I do so again, I personally don't have a problem with that.
Indeed in some cases, it can help one another to appreciate, understand and question aspects of others faiths. Educational in itself while being equally fair across the board (or wall!).

In fairness, if this had passed, it would have played right into the hands of "the EU is so stupid with its straight banana laws we should get out" brigade.

I don't think crosses should be on walls of state schools, but it would be something very far down the list of things to change from religious to secular.

geetar

what about schoold emblems on uniforms? if they have crosses on them, does that mean they change a crest?

i agree with SeaSlacker, very very far down on the list of things to be changes with the church in ireland....

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed, its ever evolving, like everything else and no one ever reaches its peak. So you adapt and move with the desires and needs.
Not stay hamstrung just to "heritage".

That's not what I meant. The theory doesn't evolve. Maslow is dead and he has no method of developing his theory further. What I meant is that you can't apply his hierarchy of needs to everyone as no two people are exactly the same. Van Gogh for example valued self-actualisation far higher than his own personal health and safety.

I would as by I going there have (if I have any kop on) know about life there, their laws and beliefs. If I wanted to be there, I would have to acknowledge their ways and their values.

That's their heritage. It doesn't do either you or them any harm and there's no need to try and erase heritage to try and make the world a bland "one size fits all" pseudo utopia.

You know exactly the point I was making. Don't be pedantic.

It's not pedantry. Arab people have no issue with Judaism as a religion or Jews as a people. They have issue with Israelis and Zionists and only them.

Italia

I realise that I'm probably going to be attacked / flamed about this, but I really don't give a rats a$$. My 2c counts just as much as anyone else's .

Having followed this issue (it actually started in the same local authority as my home town) right from the start when it hadn't made it to the press, all I can say is I'm glad the decision was overturned.

This issue had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a person (the mother) who has never fitted into the community, trying to impose her will and lifestyle over the vast majority. She (and her husband) chose to fight an 8yr battle, funded by lobby groups, against the local community.

The crucifix is part of the Italian heritage and culture and has been for hundreds of years. It is found just about everywhere. That does not mean that it is being foisted onto anyone. There are atheists, Jews, Muslims etc living in Italy who have no issue with it.
I can accept that some people new to Italy might have a problem with it. If that is the case, don't go /come to Italy. If you do decide to come - respect the majority, traditions, culture and heritage.

2-3 yrs ago, there were ugly scenes in northern Italy when an Islamic school was closed. The problem was not that it was Islamic, but that it refused to teach Italian language in classrooms, which is required by law. Only Arabic medium was used and taught.
It is like a school in Ireland deciding that it will no longer teach Gaelige even though it is a required subject (as far as I know) for Leaving Cert.

I'm not a 'crusader' (apt term) or activist by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm sick and tired of people coming to a country (in this case mine) and trying to change it because it does not suit their traditions.
Quite simply, if you don't like it - feck off back to where you came from. No one asked you to come.

Oh - Based on past results, I'm not exactly a big fan of EU either.

Biggins wrote: »

After this latest stupid backwards court outcome, all I can say is good job there is Educate Together schools growing in numbers!