Atheist forced to participate in prayer at school

Obliq

Brilliant article. Nice one:-)

MrPudding

al28283 wrote: »

You're a teacher? :eek:

I know. Totes amazeballs.

MrP

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I’m not saying that, and you know I’m not. Don’t be such a drama queen.

The issue here is not whether that he is required to choose between “accepting religious indoctrination” or “ceasing his use of the public school service”. What he is being asked to do is to attend a religious service, and as you yourself have already pointed out there are many publicly-supported schools in Ireland - probably the majority, I’d guess - which would not require him to do this. Borrisokane is 15 mins from Portumna and Nenagh, 20 mins from Birr, 25 mins from Roscrea, and between those three towns there are seven other secondary schools, none of them fee-paying. Realistically, this guy has a choice of schools and the trade-off in front of him is the inconvenience of having to go to the next town versus the distaste he feels in being required to attend an annual service that he considers to be meaningless.

And considering you place the schools freedom of association above the students freedom of religion how many of those secondary schools are non-denominational?

His choices I can see are attend a mono-denom school that doesn't share his belief or a multi-denom school which doesn't share his belief or cease using the public school system. That or we stop allowing state sponsored schools to discriminate on religious grounds as they are not private communities.

Now I may have failed to find a non-denomination secondary school in Tipperary but maybe I overlooked one or one in the county over?

darealtulip

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/11/how-to-shove-atheism-down-peoples-throats-in-10-easy-steps/

thought this was appropriate for this thread

BCCstudent

Katie C wrote: »

Ok, Hi guys.. Im actually loving what yee have wrote so far, but my dear, Tim, who started this thread... You dont really know what youre on about, babe... I actually went to school at BCC.. Was a good member of the school community and took part in everything.. That young man who wrote to the Human Rights peeps.. Well, he actually took part in the service basically every year.. I just done the leaving cert and left the school.. Now he was a lovely child like and his brother was in my class.. they loved school shur.. Like what can I say.. Was a pretty amazing school community.. We went through everything down there.. When it rained outside you would be wet inside due to the leaks.. Borris is not really like any other school in the country.. its good craic like.. And we all still come out with good results.. Pretty good school if you know what I mean.. the principal works terribley hard to make sure we were happy in school so I actually don't know where this young lad is coming from complaining about the place.. In religon class, God wasnt really mentioned and shur there was even an atheist lad in my class and he took part in every class, giving his side to the story.. Then shur, the service every year, EVERYONE was included, doesnt matter what religon you are.. Be graaaand, like.. Shur most people didnt take part, maybe this lad didnt this year but like, all he had to do was sit there and just chat with the lads.. Have a bit of banter... The reason everyone goes is to be suervised.. Like shur the lad could go run off somewhere and hurt himself.. School be blamed like.. Not exactly fair on them if that did happen.. Shur, il finish up now.. Borris is actually a totes amazeballs school and we have the best school community ever so I wouldnt really go saying stuff like that.. thanks, bud..

Okay..... just thought it should be said...Katie C is actually the principal of Borrisokane Community college's daughter.. sooo maybe this post is a bit bias... I also attended this school and no we were never forced into religion in any way but attending the school "service" was compulsory and definitely more like a mass and very religion focused..so understandable if he felt that strongly. Also we don't all speak that way in Tipperary, most of us are able to speak correctly I promise!!

ShooterSF

Could you ask a teacher in the area to do a lesson on the use of ellipses? Please. Other than that thanks and welcome to the forum! Indeed I can't see how a mass service can be non-religious.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

Yes. All that in bold and your suggestion at the end. But the bit underlined in your first paragraph is where the problem arises for sure. Seems a bit like a woman golfer taking a case against a men's only golf club for her right to play on it, seeing as it's the only one that ticks the boxes in terms of location and quality. If the state was running/funding said golf club, it would be contravening it's own laws of equality, even though an organisation has a right to set up a men's only club.

It’s not quite as straightforward as that. Couple of points.

If the state funds an organization which practices some form of discrimination, it’s not necessarily “contravening its own laws of equality”. A women’s hospital or clinic, for example, discriminates on the grounds of sex. A children’s hospital discriminates on the grounds of age. A school, come to think of it, discriminates systematically on the grounds of age, and very often also on sex. But none of those discriminations are unlawful, even though discrimination on the grounds of age and/or sex are unlawful in many other contexts.

You seem to be suggesting that, even if discrimination isn’t illegal in a particular situation, nevertheless it should be a bar to state funding. Well, possibly. But as these examples show, it’s not difficult to think of cases where we do, and should, provide state funding for institutions which practice various lawful forms of discrimination.

At the same time I’ll happily accept the idea that there are situations where we shouldn’t provide public funding to discriminatory practices, even if they’re legal.

So we end up having to draw lines between three classes of discrimination.

1. Discrimination which is simply unlawful, regardless of any question of public funding - e.g. (most) sex discrimination in employment.

2. Discrimination which is not unlawful, but which bars you from receiving any kind of state funding - you offer the example of men-only golf clubs.

3. Discrimination which is not unlawful, and which does not bar you from receiving state funding - a boy’s school, a women’s hospital, the Girl Guides, the ICA.

We’re concerned here with the line between 2 and 3, and it strikes me that that’s a particular difficult line to draw, because there’s a great many competing considerations to go into it.

For example, I’m relaxed if no golf club ever receives a penny of public funding. I can’t see that any great harm to the common good will result. Consequently if you tell me that men-only golf clubs should be barred from whatever funding may be going unless they admit women on equal terms, you’re pushing at an open door. You’ll have to agonise over whether you’re going to apply the same rule to other sporting clubs and associations - rugby, maybe netball - which are either formally or in practice open to one sex only, but that’s for another day.

But if you tell me that single-sex schools, and schools with a religious ethos, are all to be barred from receiving any public funding, that give me pause for thought. In Ireland, for example, we have two Jewish schools. Were they to be cut off from public funding they would certainly close, making Ireland the first Western European country since 1933 to adopt a government policy which forces its Jewish schools to close. That should give us pause for thought. Will Ireland be made a better, truer republic by the closure of its Jewish schools? Do republican values really require single-sex schools to be all but eclipsed? One of the tests of a true republic, surely, is how well minorities survive and thrive, and having minority schools is pretty important to the health of many minorities.

Or, to widen the discussion a bit, consider Australia (where I live at present). Australia didn’t provide any public funding for its Catholic school system until the mid-1960s, but it started to do so then. The reason was that about 25% of Australian pupils were going to Catholic schools. Because those schools were funded by fees and because they were committed to low fees in order to be accessible, they were pretty badly resourced. Education - particularly scientific and technical education - was becoming more and more resource-intensive. If this situation continued Australia was going to become educationally, and in due course industrially and intellectually, disadvantaged. Although there was considerable anti-Catholic prejudice in Australia at the time, the bottom line, the government came to realize, was that they had to fund the kind of schools that the community wanted, and that it was damaging to the country not to do so. The common good - a core republican value - therefore required Australia to fund its Catholic schools.

I think the equation of republican values with secularism and egalitarianism in every public, or publicly-funded, institution is too simplistic, and could produce distinctly un-republican outcomes. The purpose of state secularism is not to force secularism and egalitarianism on all social institutions, or event to encourage it. It’s not for the state to dictate what values or philosophies society should express. (It’s the other way around, I would have thought, in a republican worldview). I suggest that the role of the state is to protect and foster the capacity of of the citizens, individually and communally, to form and express their (diverse) philosophies; not to impose a uniform philosophy on them. Some parents will want single-sex schools, and the state’s aspiration (even if it’s not always possible to achieve this) should be that they should have them. Others will want mixed schools and the state should aspire that they, too, should have them. Some will want Christian schools, some will want Jewish schools, some will want multidenominational schools, some will want secular schools; they should all have them.

The objection is obvious; they can’t all have what they want. Still, if the state is open to supporting a diversity of schools, the likelihood is that more of them will have a better chance of getting what they want, or some approximation of it, than if the state picks a single school type and supports only that. This is true regardless of whether the single favoured school type is secular, comprehensive and mixed-sex, or denominational, academic and single-sex.

At the same time, I don’t think we ignore the problem created by the fact that the diversity of schools practically available and the diversity of schools desired will not always be a perfect match. It seems to be reasonable for the state to require any school accepting public funding to accept that it has a responsibility not only to the particular community whose educational and philosophical it aims to meet, but also to the wider community that funds it, and that may have little choice but to send its kids there. There’s a tension there, and there has to be a negotiation over how that tension is resolved, which is inevitably going to involve compromises. (Catholic schools in Australia are formally required to admit non-Catholic pupils, for example, if they accept public funding.)

And in the context of the present dispute, part of that negotiation could well be a stipulation that schools in receipt of public funding can’t require students to participate (even by way of simple attendance) in religious services which are offensive to their own beliefs and values.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

His choices I can see are attend a mono-denom school that doesn't share his belief or a multi-denom school which doesn't share his belief or cease using the public school system. That or we stop allowing state sponsored schools to discriminate on religious grounds as they are not private communities.

Now I may have failed to find a non-denomination secondary school in Tipperary but maybe I overlooked one or one in the county over?

He;s not looking for a school that shares his belief, and I know of no theory of human rights which argues that he has a right to be provided at public expense with a school that shares his belief.

He's looking for a school that won't require him to attend a religious service connected with a faith that he does not belong to. As you yourself have already conceded, most schools in Ireland would fit the bill. Borrisokane CC seems to be out on a limb here.

Bannasidhe

BCCstudent wrote: »

Okay..... just thought it should be said...Katie C is actually the principal of Borrisokane Community college's daughter.. sooo maybe this post is a bit bias... I also attended this school and no we were never forced into religion in any way but attending the school "service" was compulsory and definitely more like a mass and very religion focused..so understandable if he felt that strongly. Also we don't all speak that way in Tipperary, most of us are able to speak correctly I promise!!

Please tell us she's not really a student teacher. Please.

darealtulip

Peregrinus wrote: »

Borrisokane CC seems to be out on a limb here.

Not really, many schools refuse to supervise children and demand the parents to do that them self.

The State causes the problem by not making the schools responsible for the supervision. The schools are in their full right to demand this from parents. And the school from my son taught my son prayers against my specific wishes because these were outside the RE classes. They argued that I could only opt my child out of RE classes and therefore they could teach my child prayers.

Atheist Ireland and the IHRC (maybe the HAI as well but I don't know) get many complaints about schools breaching the human rights in these ways.

This is where the problem lays. Lets not forget that the state funds all these schools (over 90% catholic and only around 3% multi-denominational). We cannot trust catholic schools with a priest as head of the board of management to take care of this. The State has to demand this.

BCCstudent

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please tell us she's not really a student teacher. Please.

To be honest I left Borrisokane school a few years before her so Im not too sure what she's doing ....

robindch

BCCstudent wrote: »

Katie C is actually the principal of Borrisokane Community college's daughter

Remember, you heard it here on the internet first, so it must be true!

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

He;s not looking for a school that shares his belief, and I know of no theory of human rights which argues that he has a right to be provided at public expense with a school that shares his belief.

He's looking for a school that won't require him to attend a religious service connected with a faith that he does not belong to. As you yourself have already conceded, most schools in Ireland would fit the bill. Borrisokane CC seems to be out on a limb here.

Sorry but that's not an acceptable way to run a state school system. To allow schools to discriminate on religious ethos and leave students to rely on them not to take up that discrimination is not on. Your mention of women's clinics etc. should explain how ludicrous it would be. Imagine if the state only funded hospitals that preferred to treat women and allowed it while telling men that a lot of the hospitals probably won't choose to discriminate.

"I know of no theory of human rights which argues that he has a right to be provided at public expense with a school that shares his belief"

Ding Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. Now let's turn all the schools secular and be done with this crap.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

"I know of no theory of human rights which argues that he has a right to be provided at public expense with a school that shares his belief"

Ding Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. Now let's turn all the schools secular and be done with this crap.

So if people have a belief which happens to coincide with yours, it is their human right to be provided at public expense with a school which shares that belief, but if people have a belief which is different from yours, they have no such right?
What, are people who disagree with you subhuman?

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if people have a belief which happens to coincide with yours, it is their human right to be provided at public expense with a school which shares that belief, but if people have a belief which is different from yours, they have no such right?
What, are people who disagree with you subhuman?

No that's the point there shouldn't be atheist schools or christian schools or muslim schools or scientology schools etc. because we can't accommodate every belief under the sun. The only way to ensure equality is to stop teaching religions as true or false. Secularisation is the only fair system available. Otherwise you are mistreating minorities.

ShooterSF

Oh and a couple of points before you tell me my preference is secular education whereas other people's are segregated religious schooling.

First, in a ShooterSF utopian world everyone would not believe in god and schools would teach why such an idea is ridiculous but the difference is not that I don't want my side taught, it's that I can see it for the reprehensible act it is.

Secondly, democracy is meant to be about providing a fair society for everyone not seeing what the majority wants and giving them it. That's why if people in this country decided tomorrow they wanted to segregate hospitals on skin colour we'd fight against it because it would greatly inconvenience minorities that, if living in rural areas might have to move as their density would not be high enough to justify a hospital in the area.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

No that's the point there shouldn't be atheist schools or christian schools or muslim schools or scientology schools etc. because we can't accommodate every belief under the sun. The only way to ensure equality is to stop teaching religions as true or false. Secularisation is the only fair system available. Otherwise you are mistreating minorities.

No, secularity is one more philosophical outlook, one of a range of religious and non-religious philosophies. While a case can be made that the state itself should be secular, it doesn't follow that all social institutions should be secular, or that the state should favour secular institutions over institutions expressing other philosophical standpoints. What you are arguing for is the legal privileging of secularity over competing philosophical standpoints.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, secularity is one more philosophical outlook, one of a range of religions and non-religious philosophies. While a case can be made that the state itself shoudl be secular, it doesn't follow that all social institutions should be secular, or that the state should favour secular instutions over institutions expressing other philosophical standpoints. What you are arguing for is the legal privileging of secularity over competing philosophical standpoints.

No secularity is one of a range of approaches to teaching religion. It's not a religious philosophy in itself. It takes no position on the existence of deities. And the reason I'd promote it over others such as segregated teaching is as above that it is demonstrably better for a democracy as it allows for equal treatment of all students. That doesn't mean they get the education they want, like a white supremacist doesn't get a white only hospital. It's not the states goal to cater to all of societies desires but to do it's best to see everyone gets equal treatment and my belief, your belief, the pope's belief, L Ron Hubbards belief about religion all get equal treatment here which is neutral.

Fair enough if, if we could teach everyone in a school that cater's to their individual religious belief. Then segregation might be a competitive method to secularisation but as you've already noted, we can't. It would almost impossible and would still require people relocating to different religious regions throughout the country. And until you can provide a system where an atheist can be taught his belief is true and a christian the same and someone who believes in Thor the same then favouring the majority will always be wrong.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

No secularity is one of a range of approaches to teaching religion. It's not a religious philosophy in itself. . .

I never said it was either of these things!

ShooterSF wrote: »

It takes no position on the existence of deities. And the reason I'd promote it over others such as segregated teaching is as above that it is demonstrably better for a democracy as it allows for equal treatment of all students. That doesn't mean they get the education they want, like a white supremacist doesn't get a white only hospital. It's not the states goal to cater to all of societies desires but to do it's best to see everyone gets equal treatment and my belief, your belief, the pope's belief, L Ron Hubbards belief about religion all get equal treatment here which is neutral.

Secularism isn’t a philosophy about religion at all, or about religious beliefs. It’s about human actions.

Secularism is the view that human actions should be directed towards well-being in the present life, without regard to any considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state.

I entirely agree that the state’s actions should be secular. It’s not the business of the state to order public affairs on the basis of beliefs about God or a future life which citizens may or many not share.

But it is also not the business of the state to tell the citizens - individually or collectively - that their actions should be decided in disregard of considerations about God or a future life. Citizens get to make these choices themselves.

In other words, the state should be secular, but it has no business promoting secularity. In particular, it has no more business requiring young citizens to have a secular education than it has requiring them to have a socialist education, or a Christian education, or a stoical education, or a humanist education or an education characterized by any other philosophy of human living and human action.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough if, if we could teach everyone in a school that cater's to their individual religious belief. Then segregation might be a competitive method to secularisation but as you've already noted, we can't. It would almost impossible and would still require people relocating to different religious regions throughout the country. And until you can provide a system where an atheist can be taught his belief is true and a christian the same and someone who believes in Thor the same then favouring the majority will always be wrong.

Favouring the minority will be even wronger, though, and the proportion of Irish society which wants a secular education for its children, though I think growing, is still smaller than the proportion which wants a Christian education.

Unless you take the view that it is the business of the state to mould all citizens into philosophical uniformity, the state both has to and ought to accept the reality that there are diverse philosophies of life within society. And in a free society the role of the state is to defend the space in which diverse philosophies can be expressed.

I accept, of course, that at the moment the Irish educational system is dominated by one particular philosophical perspective, and this is wrong. But replacing it with a system in in which not most, but all, schools express a single philosophical standpoint would be to take the worst feature of the present Irish system and magnify it. And this is not changed if the single philosophical standpoint happens to be the one that you yourself favour.

ShooterSF

Ok then the hangup seems to be what we understand of the word secular so let's leave it aside. If you can give me a word that means an education which restricts itself to teaching as "fact" (in a non scientific meaning of that word) what we understand of the universe whilst only teaching about the beliefs of people outside of that; That means no belief from athiest to theist is taught as being true and no one is being told there is no god and no afterlife or that there is, it's completely outside the scope of the school, then that's the form of education (*whateverism) I prefer and it is wholly equal and fair.

Well that's not 100% true, as I've said I'd love for everyone to be atheist and taught why religion is crap but that's as wrong as people being taught it's true so I'll put aside what I want for what is right.

This does not favour a minority. It might not give the majority the favourtism it demands but just because you don't get what you demand does not mean you are not getting equal treatment. If 80% of the people wanted a country where one could be actually punished for blaspheming against the christian god it is favouring the majority to pass such a law, it is treating everyone equal by not passing it even if it's what the majority want. Same here.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok then the hangup seems to be what we understand of the word secular so let's leave it aside. If you can give me a word that means an education which restricts itself to teaching as "fact" (in a non scientific meaning of that word) what we understand of the universe whilst only teaching about the beliefs of people outside of that; That means no belief from athiest to theist is taught as being true and no one is being told there is no god and no afterlife or that there is, it's completely outside the scope of the school, then that's the form of education (*whateverism) I prefer and it is wholly equal and fair.

Oh, so religious faith replaces sex as That Thing We Don’t Talk About? Well, that’s just guaranteed to inculcate a mature healthy intellectual openness in the students, isn’t it? :-)

There is no word for the education you describe because, I think, no such education is possible. At least, not in a school context.

A philosophy of life, whether it be religions or a-religious, can’t be reduced to a set of theological or quasi-theological propositions of belief. A philosophy of life is not just about what we think, but about how we live - our values, our actions, our relationships.

It would be a caricature of a Christian education (just as it would be a caricature of a humanist education) to say that that it simply consists of teaching that a particular set of philosophical propositions are true. All education involves imparting values and fostering relationships. My daughter, FWIW, went to a secular primary school, and they were very explicit that they did articulate, teach and foster particular values in the students; it never occurred to them that education was simply about teaching anything as “fact”, and if I thought for a moment that they did believe that, I would have taken her out of the school.

A Christian school not only attempt to teach a Christian worldview; it attempt to embody that worldview, to model it in the relationships that constitute the school community, in the activities of the school, in every aspect of school life. And exactly the same is true of a humanist education, or a Jewish education, or a stoic education, or a secular education.

The notion of a value-free education is a contradiction in terms; it’s like a meaning-free language or a colour-free dye. Education is all about formation of character, habits, worldview, understanding. The closest you can hope to approach is an education that pretends to be value-free; an education administered by people who either lie, or delude themselves, in saying that they do not impart values, philosophies, attitudes to the students. And that kind of dishonestly/delusion is not a desirable thing.

So, a secular education imparts secular attitudes and values and beliefs to students, or at least tends to, just as a humanist education imparts humanist values, etc and a Christian education imparts Christian values, etc. There’s nothing wrong with a secular education, but the state has absolutely no business in dictating that my child should have one. That’s my decision, not theirs.

ShooterSF wrote: »

. . . but just because you don't get what you demand does not mean you are not getting equal treatment.

My point exactly. So the claim that those who want a secular school provided at public expense have their human rights denied if they don’t get it, while everyone else can just sod off, is nonsense.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote:

If you can give me a word that means an education which [SNIP] only teaching about the beliefs of people [SNIP] then that's the form of education (*whateverism) I prefer

Oh, so religious faith replaces sex as That Thing We Don’t Talk About? Well, that’s just guaranteed to inculcate a mature healthy intellectual openness in the students, isn’t it? :-)

How exactly do you interpret ShooterSF saying he promotes an education which only teaches about other peoples beliefs, as meaning religion can never be spoken about at all?

You are also misrepresenting secularism on almost a JC level.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How exactly do you interpret ShooterSF saying he promotes an education which only teaches about other peoples beliefs, as meaning religion can never be spoken about at all?

You are also misrepresenting secularism on almost a JC level.

I didn’t say that religion couldn’t be talked about; I said that religious faith couldn’t be talked about. As in, the students can’t explore their own faith on religious matters.

My point was not well-expressed, I concede, but it’s this: if we have school, which (a) teaches as a factual matter that there’s this bunch of people who have such-and-such a philosophy of life, but (b) itself expresses and lives a different philosophy of life, there’s no sense in which that school is “neutral” as between those two philosophies. One of them is clearly being endorsed over the other, in a very powerful way.

And the way this privileged status for one philosophy is maintained is by limiting the students’ engagagement with the other philosophy; the school teaches as a factual matter that Jews believe this and Christians believe that and so forth, but any kind of critical engagement with these beliefs, any kind of assessment of them, is off-limits. And that strikes me as risking closed-mindedness and anti-intellectuallism. (And also as delusional, if this is presented as “neutrality”, when in fact it gives effect to a secular world-view which holds that such beliefs should not affect our actions.)

ShooterSF

The idea that a school cannot be neutral on religious faith at least in every other subject I can think of is silly. Maths is maths no matter what you believe deity wise as is English, Geography and History.

In certain areas where all we have is speculation then alternative religious views could be explained. As for the notion that by not endorsing a religion the school is somehow suggesting it not to be true that seems equally silly. [Is tesco an atheist shop because it doesn't follow any religion's rules or push them as true?] It would also explain what Atheism was and what it's believers believed (or didn't, before I get a lecture!). State schools would be purely agnostic. Now that's not how any individual should act because we all have varying levels of belief but for a business or a system it's perfectly acceptable and inclusive.

Now you can argue that parents and students might want a gnostic education but as the only difference is whether a religion or none is taught to be true or false I can think of examples of other institutions parents and students can avail of the receive such educations.

And again just to be clear because I didn't notice if you noticed it, secular education is not my first choice but it's the only one I consider fair. I would prefer if the whole world could just teach that religion is nonsense but that's not right and I can accept that.

Bannasidhe

ShooterSF wrote: »

The idea that a school cannot be neutral on religious faith at least in every other subject I can think of is silly. Maths is maths no matter what you believe deity wise as is English, Geography and History.

In certain areas where all we have is speculation then alternative religious views could be explained. As for the notion that by not endorsing a religion the school is somehow suggesting it not to be true that seems equally silly. [Is tesco an atheist shop because it doesn't follow any religion's rules or push them as true?] It would also explain what Atheism was and what it's believers believed (or didn't, before I get a lecture!). State schools would be purely agnostic. Now that's not how any individual should act because we all have varying levels of belief but for a business or a system it's perfectly acceptable and inclusive.

Now you can argue that parents and students might want a gnostic education but as the only difference is whether a religion or none is taught to be true or false I can think of examples of other institutions parents and students can avail of the receive such educations.

And again just to be clear because I didn't notice if you noticed it, secular education is not my first choice but it's the only one I consider fair. I would prefer if the whole world could just teach that religion is nonsense but that's not right and I can accept that.

I agree. I lecture on the Reformation and were I to voice any personal belief or opinion as to who was 'right' I would - deservedly- be hauled over the coals.
I don't know or care what religious beliefs my students have and my (lack of) belief is not relevant to the study of the topic. I can and do discuss what Luther, Calvin, the Papacy said they believed.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree. I lecture on the Reformation and were I to voice any personal belief or opinion as to who was 'right' I would - deservedly- be hauled over the coals.
I don't know or care what religious beliefs my students have and my (lack of) belief is not relevant to the study of the topic. I can and do discuss what Luther, Calvin, the Papacy said they believed.

Sure. I went to a Catholic school, where exactly the same thing happened. Not only did we study the Reformation without being taught that one side was right and the other wrong, but we were explicitly warned against taking such an approach to history. And this was going on for forty years ago, and the school was not regarded as especially progressive.

Anyone who thinks that the difference between a Catholic education and a secular education lies in what facts are taught is woefully mistaken. That’s an enormous red herring.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that the difference between a Catholic education and a secular education lies in what facts are taught is woefully mistaken. That’s an enormous red herring.

Indeed. The difference lies in what non-facts are taught as fact. Whether it be Atheism, Deism or Theism.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn’t say that religion couldn’t be talked about; I said that religious faith couldn’t be talked about. As in, the students can’t explore their own faith on religious matters.

My point was not well-expressed, I concede, but it’s this: if we have school, which (a) teaches as a factual matter that there’s this bunch of people who have such-and-such a philosophy of life, but (b) itself expresses and lives a different philosophy of life, there’s no sense in which that school is “neutral” as between those two philosophies. One of them is clearly being endorsed over the other, in a very powerful way.

And the way this privileged status for one philosophy is maintained is by limiting the students’ engagagement with the other philosophy; the school teaches as a factual matter that Jews believe this and Christians believe that and so forth, but any kind of critical engagement with these beliefs, any kind of assessment of them, is off-limits. And that strikes me as risking closed-mindedness and anti-intellectuallism. (And also as delusional, if this is presented as “neutrality”, when in fact it gives effect to a secular world-view which holds that such beliefs should not affect our actions.)

(1)And how did you get that from what Shooter said? Shooter said that schools should not teach one religious belief as true, not that they can't talk about them, or that students cannot discuss their own faiths.

(2)Your problem is that there are far more than two philosophies being discussed. Every non secularist school will explicitly claim that its beliefs are true and the rest are false (assuming it even mentions the others at all). A secularist school will mention all of them equally, without any putting any claims on the truth of any of them or even itself.

(3)Your third paragraph is another misrepresentation of the situation being proposed. Yes, the schools themselves do not critically assess the belief systems, but nothing is stopping the students from doing it themselves. By purely reporting on what religions actually belief, students are more likely to enter a religion actually believing it, as opposed to have religious declarations hammered into them as truth.
The piece in brackets at the end is wrong also, you are assuming that a school which is secular (because it is an extension of the secular state) will teach personal secularism simply by virtue of not specifying if a specific religions claims are true, which doesn't make sense.

Gbear

ShooterSF wrote: »

And again just to be clear because I didn't notice if you noticed it, secular education is not my first choice but it's the only one I consider fair. I would prefer if the whole world could just teach that religion is nonsense but that's not right and I can accept that.

A foible and a bit of a tangent but that's not really true.

You wouldn't rebuke a school for teaching that Greek or Roman polytheism is nonsense. Saying that religion is nonsense is essentially a statement of fact.


We know why it exists (more or less). We have parallel examples of similarly nonsensical beliefs that are not main-stream.

In practice we can't but eventually schools will teach that religion is nonsense in school, because it is.

ShooterSF

Gbear wrote: »

A foible and a bit of a tangent but that's not really true.

You wouldn't rebuke a school for teaching that Greek or Roman polytheism is nonsense. Saying that religion is nonsense is essentially a statement of fact.


We know why it exists (more or less). We have parallel examples of similarly nonsensical beliefs that are not main-stream.

In practice we can't but eventually schools will teach that religion is nonsense in school, because it is.

It's fascinating that we've swapped sides from the discussion on AI's desire to promote atheism! I agree that religions are nonsense but I think such issues should be outside a schools remit. I don't think I'd mind a brief explanation of the arguments put forth by both sides but I think schools have more important topics to deal with than getting stuck into the finer details of the theistic debate.
I don't think schools should teach that greek or roman polytheism is nonsense but perhaps focus on why they fell out of favour including covering where they made falsifiable claims if any.
Now as you know I have no problem with the idea of arguing religion is wrong and I think debate on the topic is healthy but I think a school has a position of authority and it would be abusing that position to argue the truth or falsehood of any belief.

Gbear

ShooterSF wrote: »

Now as you know I have no problem with the idea of arguing religion is wrong and I think debate on the topic is healthy but I think a school has a position of authority and it would be abusing that position to argue the truth or falsehood of any belief.

But non-religious beliefs aren't treated that way.

There's no "teach the controversy" in maths. While science might be revised over time, at the time of printing it isn't "this is what some scientists believe". It's generally definitive.

I see no reason why religion should be free from that kind of scrutiny other than practical reasons that religious people would throw a bitch-fit.

We're not arguing for gnostic atheism here. We're saying the entirely correct statement that there is no evidence for religious belief xyz so it's irrational, and often insane (see young earth creationism and magic underpants), to believe it.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

But non-religious beliefs aren't treated that way.

There's no "teach the controversy" in maths. While science might be revised over time, at the time of printing it isn't "this is what some scientists believe". It's generally definitive.

I see no reason why religion should be free from that kind of scrutiny other than practical reasons that religious people would throw a bitch-fit.

We're not arguing for gnostic atheism here. We're saying the entirely correct statement that there is no evidence for religious belief xyz so it's irrational, and often insane (see young earth creationism and magic underpants), to believe it.

In history - at least in 3rd level - we do teach the historiographical 'controversies' (aka historian handbags at dawn.)

Gbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In history - at least in 3rd level - we do teach the historiographical 'controversies' (aka historian handbags at dawn.)

Again though, History at least deals in fact or an element of it. There's degrees of accuracy but nobody is proposing that the Holocaust didn't happen or that the Vikings never left Scandinavia. You might argue over what sort of shoes Marc Anthony liked to wear but nobody is trying to claim he walked on water.
While there might be controversies they are firmly based within the realm of reality.

You could of course have the merits of certain religious traditions in a philosophy class - "thou shalt not kill" doesn't become bull**** just because christians believe it, after all, but the specific beliefs relating to real world occurrences should be dealt with using facts.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

Again though, History at least deals in fact or an element of it. There's degrees of accuracy but nobody is proposing that the Holocaust didn't happen or that the Vikings never left Scandinavia. You might argue over what sort of shoes Marc Anthony liked to wear but nobody is trying to claim he walked on water.
While there might be controversies they are firmly based within the realm of reality.

You could of course have the merits of certain religious traditions in a philosophy class - "thou shalt not kill" doesn't become bull**** just because christians believe it, after all, but the specific beliefs relating to real world occurrences should be dealt with using facts.

No - Irving's work is discussed.
We discuss how interpretations of events and evidence can widely differ and look at instances where this happens. Now, WWII and 20th C. totalitarian regimes aren't my area but I do know the lecturers who specialise in that look at Holocaust denial in detail.

I discuss the historiography of the Early Modern Conquest of Ireland and the likes of Hugh O Neill, Gráinne Ní Mháille, Oliver Cromwell etc and we examine widely differing interpretations of them all. Any discussion of Cromwell, in particular, is always heated and historians have taken very divergent sides on that topic.

Gbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - Irving's work is discussed.
We discuss how interpretations of events and evidence can widely differ and look at instances where this happens. Now, WWII and 20th C. totalitarian regimes aren't my area but I do know the lecturers who specialise in that look at Holocaust denial in detail.

While they may discuss it I'd be astonished if there's even a token level of respect offered to it. I'd imagine the substance of those lectures is "this is how you don't do history".

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I discuss the historiography of the Early Modern Conquest of Ireland and the likes of Hugh O Neill, Gráinne Ní Mháille, Oliver Cromwell etc and we examine widely differing interpretations of them all. Any discussion of Cromwell, in particular, is always heated and historians have taken very divergent sides on that topic.

Right, the questions about Cromwell are whether he was a force for good or evil - how brutal he was in Ireland, if at all. It's still within the bounds of reality. You don't have anyone suggesting that he destroyed Drogheda with lasers.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

While they may discuss it I'd be astonished if there's even a token level of respect offered to it. I'd imagine the substance of those lectures is "this is how you don't do history".

I don't know if 'respect' is the word I'd use but it is taken seriously. Many people, for their own reasons, believe Irving and co's work so it is treated the same as any other historian's meaning their methodology, use of sources and interpretations will be examined to see if their conclusions stand up.
Attack the 'post' - not the 'poster' applies. Take their argument apart by using the evidence and so make people think - but dismiss it as 'bat **** crazy' out of hand and it feeds the conspiracy theories.
Might be thinking 'bat **** crazy' but will never say so.


I have to lecture on Race Theory - which I think is both bat **** crazy and dangerous but I never actually say that. I do discuss it's effects on society and how it was employed to justify colonialism and slavery. I also do not say either colonialism or slavery were 'bad' just that they happened, how/why they happened, arguments for/against, repercussions for all concerned. Then students are free to draw their own conclusions.

Right, the questions about Cromwell are whether he was a force for good or evil - how brutal he was in Ireland, if at all. It's still within the bounds of reality. You don't have anyone suggesting that he destroyed Drogheda with lasers.

'Good' and 'evil' have no place in the teaching of the discipline of History as it is not the role of the historian to judge but to explain. So as part of a module on how history can be employed as part of a myth making/propaganda machine I examine his record in Ireland - what he said/what he did and what has been written about him by historians from all perspectives across the ages and see if what they say is backed up by the available evidence (which by the way does not support the popular Irish view of Cromwell).

It is an incredibly controversial topic and one of the historians I discuss has received death threats for pointing out verifiable facts about Cromwell in Ireland which contradict the Irish popular portrayal of him as rabidly anti-Irish /Anti-Catholic.

No, no-one is saying Drogheda was attacked by lasers, that would be absurd as they had not been invented - but many are pointing out that it was, in fact, an English Royalist garrison not an 'Irish' town (there were no 'Irish' towns- all the urban areas were Anglo) and prior to Cromwell the role of Drogheda was the military suppression of the local Gaelic Irish peoples.
It is also pointed out that prior to Cromwell's arrival The Independent Irish Catholic Confederacy which controlled about half the island sent thousands of soldiers to England to support the Royalist cause so technically it was the Irish who launched the first strike against Cromwell's forces forcing him to respond and act against Royalist forces in Ireland.

This does not sit well with Irish nationalist historiography or popular Irish culture and, trust me, people get very worked up by these 'controversial' statements and I have, myself, received abusive and threatening emails calling me a traitor.

As a historian I have a choice - I can 'go with the flow' and conform to the popular view of Cromwell or I can examine the evidence and discuss what I find there rather than what people want to believe is there.

In the same way as I can conform to Cultural Catholicism and go with that flow or I can look at the RCC's record and discuss what I find there. I have learned that it is safer in Ireland to criticise the RCC and the Papacy then to say that Cromwell was not the monster we have been led to believe by our history.

I think it is important that controversies are discussed and controversial viewpoints examined. To ignore/dismiss them out of hand just drives them underground and feeds them or worse - allows misinformation to seep into popular culture and become part of the national fabric. Much as Irish = Catholic has done.

Gbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't know if 'respect' is the word I'd use but it is taken seriously. Many people, for their own reasons, believe Irving and co's work so it is treated the same as any other historian's meaning their methodology, use of sources and interpretations will be examined to see if their conclusions stand up.
[...]


I think it is important that controversies are discussed and controversial viewpoints examined. To ignore/dismiss them out of hand just drives them underground and feeds them or worse - allows misinformation to seep into popular culture and become part of the national fabric. Much as Irish = Catholic has done.

If you're going through holocaust deniers evidence, surely it doesn't take that long? I presume that you can have an opinion on the merits of the individual pieces of evidence?

If a piece of their evidence was, as is so often the case with crazies, totally made up, I would think that you could be fairly dismissive of it, no?


You are, as I understand it, a lecturer, rather than a teacher.
I would argue that the teaching environment needs to be slightly different for children than for adults in 3rd level. I think it's perfectly acceptable to be more or less taught that the holocaust was a factual occurrence in secondary school. Teaching what are the established facts is the only way we can fit enough in to that kind of broad education. When you're specialising in 3rd level there's more room for an in depth look at all sides of an argument.

Someone posted a Hitch video on another thread about why holocaust denial should not be illegal and it ties in what you're saying. Everything needs to be questioned in society. I agree with that.
In school though, a more practical approach is needed to educate the largest number of people with the most amount of facts, I would think.

The laser-equipped-Cromwell point is important. If a historian came along with that sort of theory, because of the physical impossibility, then you could dismiss it, no? Surely at some point Historians decide "we don't have time for this sh*t".
Good and evil was bad word choice but at the very least in history, you're dealing with things that are physically possible. Although there can often be a wide range of arguments and explanations, they all fall within the realm of reality.
We shouldn't be teaching our children that magic happens any more than we should be presenting them with Cromwell laser theory.



If you're being truly dispassionate about a lot of religious stories and you aren't being biased by the culture of reverence we have for them, then you're doing an awful lot of "this is what people believe however there's no evidence to support that/it's a biological impossibility/lost tribes of Jews in the US? Srsly?".

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

If you're going through holocaust deniers evidence, surely it doesn't take that long? I presume that you can have an opinion on the merits of the individual pieces of evidence?

If a piece of their evidence was, as is so often the case with crazies, totally made up, I would think that you could be fairly dismissive of it, no?


You are, as I understand it, a lecturer, rather than a teacher.
I would argue that the teaching environment needs to be slightly different for children than for adults in 3rd level. I think it's perfectly acceptable to be more or less taught that the holocaust was a factual occurrence in secondary school. Teaching what are the established facts is the only way we can fit enough in to that kind of broad education. When you're specialising in 3rd level there's more room for an in depth look at all sides of an argument.

Someone posted a Hitch video on another thread about why holocaust denial should not be illegal and it ties in what you're saying. Everything needs to be questioned in society. I agree with that.
In school though, a more practical approach is needed to educate the largest number of people with the most amount of facts, I would think.

The laser-equipped-Cromwell point is important. If a historian came along with that sort of theory, because of the physical impossibility, then you could dismiss it, no? Surely at some point Historians decide "we don't have time for this sh*t".
Good and evil was bad word choice but at the very least in history, you're dealing with things that are physically possible. Although there can often be a wide range of arguments and explanations, they all fall within the realm of reality.
We shouldn't be teaching our children that magic happens any more than we should be presenting them with Cromwell laser theory.



If you're being truly dispassionate about a lot of religious stories and you aren't being biased by the culture of reverence we have for them, then you're doing an awful lot of "this is what people believe however there's no evidence to support that/it's a biological impossibility/lost tribes of Jews in the US? Srsly?".

I do spend a lot of time saying 'this is what people believed/said, however the available evidence would suggest they are bat **** crazy that belief/contention is flawed. When we examine the evidence it indicates they are bat **** crazy have interpreted events according to a particular religious/political ideologiy which has led them to reach a biased conclusion as the evidence clearly contradicts their bat **** crazy interpretation'

Yes - lecturer rather than teacher but there is no reason that 3rd level standards/techniques could not be applied in 5th/6th year for Leaving Cert. In fact I would argue that they should be as our current 'learn by rote' system is doing a huge disservice to Leaving Cert students who learn it all off (and a lot of that it is frankly demonstrably incorrect - so much so that Leaving Cert text books are not acceptable as sources for 3rd level assignments) so 1st year in Uni is spent trying to get them to unlearn what they were taught in school.

Now I know that this is slowly happening as the core Leaving cert history texts are being rewritten by university lecturers - the Early Modern component was written by a colleague - who was also my thesis supervisor - but we need to change how it is taught as well.

Give students the information - all the information, even the bat **** crazy -educate them in critical analysis then allow them to draw their own conclusions based firmly in the evidence. Penalise them only when they have failed to support their argument by providing 'proof' - not because they contradict the text books or make a controversial statement.

Currently, we fail to allow Leaving cert students to think about and critically analyse (we don't even teach them how) and then expect them to pick it up in 3rd level.

Bat **** crazy system in my humble.

Gbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do spend a lot of time saying 'this is what people believed/said, however the available evidence would suggest they are bat **** crazy that belief/contention is flawed. When we examine the evidence it indicates they are bat **** crazy have interpreted events according to a particular religious/political ideologiy which has led them to reach a biased conclusion as the evidence clearly contradicts their bat **** crazy interpretation'


Currently, we fail to allow Leaving cert students to think about and critically analyse (we don't even teach them how) and then expect them to pick it up in 3rd level.

Bat **** crazy system in my humble.

You wouldn't cover much history in secondary school then.
A history major might have 12+ hours of history a week and be expected to do at least as much again in study. In secondary school they have 2-6 hours a week.

It's about what you want from education: I agree that how to think is most important but to a large extent you only need to learn that skill once.
On the other hand, I think that History is an important subject and all children should be acquainted with it, at least in broad terms. To be doing both simultaneously would be difficult.

(Tangent city here but I'll plow on)
Perhaps a good class to have would be history/geography/politics/civics all mixed together in a blender. That way you don't have redundant learning of research methods for any subject where they are similar. It would essentially be a research class with a variety of topics.

If a student presented a thesis in history and it had a flawed methodology I presume that would go strongly against them? How could you grade something favourably if it endorsed Holocaust denial, for example?

Similarly, if they presented work that deals with factual occurences and they said that evolution was a scam and the earth is 6000 years old, how can you not punish that with a bad grade when it's flawed?

PopePalpatine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Currently, we fail to allow Leaving cert students to think about and critically analyse (we don't even teach them how).

Would I be a conspiracy theorist in suggesting that may be due to the legacy of Church-run schools? :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Would I be a conspiracy theorist in suggesting that may be due to the legacy of Church-run schools? :rolleyes:

I would say that there is compelling evidence to support that interpretation.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

You wouldn't cover much history in secondary school then.
A history major might have 12+ hours of history a week and be expected to do at least as much again in study. In secondary school they have 2-6 hours a week.

But those hours are not all spent on one topic - a Fresher will do 15 credits total in History. Where I work 10 of those will be in the 'Core' (compulsory)- this in turn is split into two components: Modern and Medieval. Each has 2 x 1 hour lectures p.w. Examination is by exam and continuous assessment (final marks for both overseen by an external examiner). It is do-able but the will has to be there.

It's about what you want from education: I agree that how to think is most important but to a large extent you only need to learn that skill once.
On the other hand, I think that History is an important subject and all children should be acquainted with it, at least in broad terms. To be doing both simultaneously would be difficult.

(Tangent city here but I'll plow on)
Perhaps a good class to have would be history/geography/politics/civics all mixed together in a blender. That way you don't have redundant learning of research methods for any subject where they are similar. It would essentially be a research class with a variety of topics.

Or perhaps a separate class on research, critical analysis, various methodologies - and bloody essay writing, which seems to have become an extinct skill.

[QUOTE[ If a student presented a thesis in history and it had a flawed methodology I presume that would go strongly against them? How could you grade something favourably if it endorsed Holocaust denial, for example?

Similarly, if they presented work that deals with factual occurences and they said that evolution was a scam and the earth is 6000 years old, how can you not punish that with a bad grade when it's flawed?[/QUOTE]

Basically they need to meet the burden of proof and if they fail to do that, they fail.

One of the things that people who come to history writing from other disciplines find hard to get their heads around is that it is very unwise to try and ignore evidence - better to deal with information that does not support one's interpretation and convincingly explain why one contends it is not relevant.

It would be impossible to construct an argument for either Holocaust denial or Creationism without ignoring a massive amount of evidence and employing factual inaccuracies - this, in itself, will result in a fail.

But the lecturer will read these essays in exactly the same way as every other essay - just use the old red (I prefer green) marker a lot.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.