The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Delirium · 11-02-2014 10:04pm

J C wrote: »

In a Secular State where 90% of the taxpayers are Christian ... (and with 90% of the States revenues coming from Christians) I see no problem (and every reason) that such taxes could be used to fund schools set up by Christians to educate their children.
... as well as being used to subsidise irreligious schools for anybody who wishes to send their children to such schools also.

A secular state should not be funding faith schools. We need a proper secular school system where no one is pressed into any religious worldview.

J C · 11-02-2014 10:04pm

SW wrote: »

Of course. A religion class would touch on Genesis as Christianity would be one of the religions that's part of the study plan.

Likewise students should be able to discuss evolution in the science class.

Discuss evolution ... including its shorcomings?

Delirium · 11-02-2014 10:08pm

J C wrote: »

Discuss evolution ... including its shorcomings?

As long as they keep it out of theology (e.g creationism), they should be able to ask questions of the teacher. The course material should be able to give the students a good understanding of the science behind evolution.

J C · 11-02-2014 10:18pm

SW wrote: »

A secular state should not be funding faith schools. We need a proper secular school system where no one is pressed into any religious worldview.

Atheists may 'need' such a system ... to try and get their numbers up beyond the 0.01% of the population declaring themselves to be Atheists in the last Census ...
... but the 90% of the Irish population, who self-declared themselves to be Christian in the same Census, would seriously object to their children attending schools that are set up to promote irreligion and the banning of the Christian Faith within them.
By all means set up such irreligious schools, if you want (and if you can find more children than would fit into a phone box to attend them) ...
... but please stop advocating the suppression and financial isolation of schools that are already to the liking of 90% of the population.

J C · 11-02-2014 10:24pm

SW wrote: »

As long as they keep it out of theology (e.g creationism), they should be able to ask questions of the teacher. The course material should be able to give the students a good understanding of the science behind evolution.

Isn't it amazing the power of Creationism ... that it's the only fear you express in relation to the questioning Evolutionism.

... and with good reason ... as Creation Science has completely invalidated Spontaneous Evolution as capable of anything ... except mutagenesis ... and the destruction of genetic information.

Delirium · 11-02-2014 10:24pm

J C wrote: »

Atheists may 'need' such a system ... to try and get their numbers up beyond the 0.01% of the population declaring themselves to be Atheists in the last Census ...
... but the 90% of the Irish population, who self-declared themselves to be Christian in the same Census, would seriously object to their children attending schools that are set up to promote irreligion and the banning of the Christian Faith within them.

So Christians (such as yourself) object to a secular school system? I think we can safely remove you from the list of secularists on this thread.

By all means set up such irreligious schools, if you want (and if you can find more chidren than would fit into a phone box to attend them)...
... but please stop advocating the suppression and financial isolation of schools that are already to the liking of 90% of the population.

Don't want irreligious schools, want secular schools. And you're taking out your hat regarding 90% being happy with current RCC school system. That's just an assumption on your behalf.

Delirium · 11-02-2014 10:26pm

J C wrote: »

Isn't it amazing the power of Creationism ... that it's the only fear you express in relation to the questioning Evolutionism.

Not fear. Creationism is religious expression. Not appropriate for the science class.

... and with good reason ... as Creation Science has completely invalidated Spontaneous Evolution as capable of anything ... except mutagenesis ... and the destruction of genetic information.

Yes, that's why we don't teach evolution in science classes....... oh, wait.

J C · 11-02-2014 10:51pm

SW wrote: »

So Christians (such as yourself) object to a secular school system? I think we can safely remove you from the list of secularists on this thread.

I distinguish between Liberal Secularism ... that is tolerant of religious diversity and expression ...
... and some kind of deeply irreligious 'secular' movement that is determined to 'stamp out' Christianity, starting in schools ... and 'progressing' to declaring the transmission of the Christian Faith to be a form of 'child abuse'.

SW wrote: »

Don't want irreligious schools, want secular schools.

Seems to be one and the same thing under your (illiberal) definition of 'Secularism'.

SW wrote: »

And you're taking out your hat regarding 90% being happy with current RCC school system. That's just an assumption on your behalf.

... you guys are losing the plot ... when even Saved Christians ... who historically have favoured Secular Schools, are running in the opposite direction.

Can ye not see that your hardline anti-Christian rhetoric is turning-off any Christian who is reading it?

... and calling on the state to remove funding from Christian Ethos Schools as a means of co-ercing Christian children into attending state-funded irreligious schools that will disrespect everything their parents believe about God is so counter-productive (from the point of ever achieving anything ye may want to achieve in relation to schooling) as to be unbelievable ... if I wasn't reading it on this thread.

Do ye honestly believe that Christian parents are going to send their children to a school that disrespects their faith to the point of banning it (and their pastors) from its premises?

Delirium · 11-02-2014 11:01pm

J C wrote: »

I distinguish between Liberal Secularism ... that is tolerant of religious diversity and expression ...
... and some kind of deeply irreligious 'secular' movement that is determined to 'stamp out' Christianity, starting in schools ... and 'progressing' to declaring the transmission of the Christian Faith to be a form of 'child abuse'.

you oppose secularism by virtue of wishing to distort science classes with religious expression.

Seems to be one and the same thing under your (illiberal) definition of 'Secualarism'.

Nope. It's due to your confusion regarding secularism.

... you guys are losing the plot ... when even Saved Christians ... who historically have favoured Secular Schools, are running in the opposite direction.

By "Saved Christians" I presume you mean Christian Creationists that oppose secularism, i.e. you.

Can ye not see that your hardline anti-Christian rhetoric is scaring the life out of any Christian who is reading it?

What anti-Christian rhetoric? It's anti-Christian to oppose religion in the science class??

... and calling on the state to remove funding from Christian Ethos Schools as a means of co-ercing Christian children into to attending state-funded irreligious schools that will disrespect everything their parents believe about God is so counter-productive (from the point of ever achieving anything ye may want to achieve in relation to schooling) as to be unbelievable ... if I wasn't reading it on this thread.

So secularism is anti-Christian and disrespectful to Chrisitans? More evidence that you really don't understand the topic.

Do ye honestly believe that Christian parents are going to send their children to a school that disrespects their faith to the point of banning it within its premises?

No. I believe that the average Christian understands secularism, unlike yourself.

J C · 11-02-2014 11:41pm

SW wrote: »

you oppose secularism by virtue of wishing to distort science classes with religious expression.

I oppose anti-religious 'secularism' ... and I support liberal secularism.

SW wrote: »

By "Saved Christians" I presume you mean Christian Creationists that oppose secularism, i.e. you.

I mean Christians who historically didn't attend Roman Catholic Schools because of theological differences ... which now looks like 'sweating the small stuff' when compared with the proposals by you guys to suppress all religious expression in schools.

SW wrote: »

What anti-Christian rhetoric? It's anti-Christian to oppose religion in the science class??

You guys are opposing the expression of religion in school and not just in science class.

SW wrote: »

So secularism is anti-Christian and disrespectful to Chrisitans? More evidence that you really don't understand the topic.

Liberal Secularism is respectful of all religions and none. You guys want to ban all religious expression.

SW wrote: »

No. I believe that the average Christian understands secularism, unlike yourself.

If they come onto the Boards and look at your writings and those of your fellow supporters they will clearly understand what you mean by your version of 'secularism' allright.

Delirium · 11-02-2014 11:45pm

J C wrote: »

I oppose anti-religious 'secularism' ... and I support liberal secularism.

anti-religious secularism is an oxymoron. You don't support any form of secularism.

I mean Christians who historically didn't attend Roman Catholic Schools because of theological differences ... which now looks like 'sweating the small stuff' when compared with the proposals by you guys to suppress all religious expression in schools.

Well I can't help what fantasies some folk will dream up when they see their religion treated the same as other worldviews.

You guys are opposing the expression of religion in school and not just in science class.

Wrong. Already stated multiple times that I don't object to a religion class as part of the learning plan for students.

Liberal Secularism is respectful of all religions and none. You guys want to ban all religious expression.

Wrong again. I don't want to ban religious expression.

If they come onto the Boards and look at your writings and those of your fellow supporters they will clearly understand what you mean by 'secularism' allright.

I'm okay with that seeing as you're the only person I've seen that struggles with the concept.

oscarBravo · 12-02-2014 1:10am

J C wrote: »

... but the 90% of the Irish population, who self-declared themselves to be Christian in the same Census, would seriously object to their children attending schools that are set up to promote irreligion and the banning of the Christian Faith within them.

I want Irish schools to "promote irreligion" in the same way most of them currently "promote irRussian" - by omitting it completely. I know it suits your oppressed Christian mindset to believe that not actively ramming your pet religion down children's throats is "promoting" something other than the absence of indoctrination, but what it suits you to believe and what's actually true are almost entirely non-overlapping magisteria.

By all means set up such irreligious schools, if you want (and if you can find more children than would fit into a phone box to attend them) ...

It shouldn't be necessary to set up separate schools to avoid indoctrination. The state pays for the schools; the state should get to decide what religious dogma is taught in those schools, and a secular state should only decide that the answer to that question is "none".

If you want a school to teach your delusions to children, pay for it yourself.

... but please stop advocating the suppression and financial isolation of schools that are already to the liking of 90% of the population.

The majority of the parents I know go through the motions of Christianity in order to blend in. I don't know one single parent of a child in a "Catholic" school who actually believes in transubstantiation.

Teaching children that bronze-age fairy tales are true, and that they have to believe in them on pain of eternal damnation is a pretty nasty thing for a parent to do, but it's something I strongly object to my taxes being used to fund.

gaynorvader · 12-02-2014 1:52pm

J C wrote: »

{...}

If they come onto the Boards and look at your writings and those of your fellow supporters they will clearly understand what you mean by your version of 'secularism' allright.

J C, with all due respect, could you stop using this offensive language? Will you stop lumping all posters on this forum into one category and assuming they all feel the same way about everything? It's a corollary of saying all Muslims are terrorists or all Christians are child abusers.

Thanks in advance.

J C · 12-02-2014 8:59pm

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
If they come onto the Boards and look at your writings and those of your fellow supporters they will clearly understand what you mean by your version of 'secularism' allright.

gaynorvader
J C, with all due respect, could you stop using this offensive language? Will you stop lumping all posters on this forum into one category and assuming they all feel the same way about everything? It's a corollary of saying all Muslims are terrorists or all Christians are child abusers.

Thanks in advance.

I was only talking about SW and his/her fellow supporters ... and if you don't belong in that category, why do you take offense?
Indeed, if you don't support SW, why don't you present your alternative view of what Secularism means.
... and what is offensive about pointing out that SW and his/her supporters present a clear description of their version of 'secularism'?

Delirium · 12-02-2014 9:05pm

J C wrote: »

I was only talking about SW and his/her fellow supporters ... and if you don't belong in that category, why do you take offense?
Indeed, if you don't support SW, why don't you present your alternative view of what Secularism means.
... and what is offensive about pointing out that SW and his/her supporters present a clear description of their version of 'secularism'?

'their version'? You're opposing secularism and labelling that as secularism. The definition of secularism is:

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should remain uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.

You oppose this, so you oppose secularism.

gaynorvader · 12-02-2014 9:07pm

J C wrote: »

I was only talking about SW and his/her fellow supporters ... and if you don't belong in that category, why do you take offense?
Indeed, if you don't support SW, why don't you present your alternative view of what Secularism means.
... and what is offensive about pointing out that SW and his/her supporters present a clear description of their version of 'secularism'?

It's because you refer to anyone offering a dissenting view to yours as belonging to SW and their "fellow supporters".

Secularism is the separation of state and religion. Meaning no state funding should go towards religious projects. It does not mean that religious expression would be suppressed, just that it would have no more validity than any other form of expression.

J C · 12-02-2014 9:15pm

SW wrote: »

The definition of secularism is:

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should remain uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.

You oppose this, so you oppose secularism.

I fully support the right to be free from religious (including irreligious) rule and teachings as well as the imposition by government of religion (including irreligion) upon people.
However, none of this prevents religious (or indeed irreligious) people organising schools and/or expressing their religious (or irreligious) beliefs. Indeed, if a state is truly neutral on matters of belief they shouldn't interfere with the expression of religion or irreligion ... and that includes equality of treatment by the state towards schools set up by different religious / irreligious patrons.

PopePalpatine · 12-02-2014 9:21pm

J C, where did you get your definition of "liberal secularism" from?

J C · 12-02-2014 9:23pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's because you refer to anyone offering a dissenting view to yours as belonging to SW and their "fellow supporters".

I said no such thing ... but now that you mention it, I haven't seen anybody dissociating themselves from what SW had to say.

I directed my comments to SW and his/her supporters ... and if the cap fits you may wear it ... and if it doesn't you don't have to wear it. The choice is up to you.

gaynorvader wrote: »

ISecularism is the separation of state and religion. Meaning no state funding should go towards religious projects. It does not mean that religious expression would be suppressed, just that it would have no more validity than any other form of expression.

If state funding is to go towards the support of irreligion ... then equality demands that state support should also go to religion.
If schools are to be set up and supported by the state that are anti-religion to the point of banning religious expression within them ... then equality of treatment demands that religiously-tolerant schools should also be supported by any state that is truly neutral on matters of religion/irreligion.
We live in a liberal secular democracy respectful and supportive of religious equality and diversity ... not some kind of anti-religious atheistic state (like North Korea or a latter-day version of Stalin's Russia) where religion and religious people are suppressed by the state.

Delirium · 12-02-2014 9:23pm

J C wrote: »

I fully support the right to be free from religious (including irreligious) rule and teachings as well as the imposition by government of religion (including irreligion) upon people.
However, none of this prevents religious (or indeed irreligious) people organising schools and/or expressing their religious (or irreligious) beliefs. Indeed, if a state is truly neutral on matters of belief they shouldn't interfere with the expression of religion or irreligion ... and that includes equality of treatment by the state towards schools set up by different religious / irreligious patrons.

I'm talking about state schools. If religious groups want to open faith schools, fire ahead but the state shouldn't be involved with those schools.

And the state must take a stand against any group that would interfere with the secular stance of those schools.

oscarBravo · 12-02-2014 9:25pm

J C wrote: »

...religious (including irreligious)...

How can something include its antonym? If I said that I wanted all relevant (including irrelevant) information, wouldn't you agree that that would be a stupid thing to say?

oscarBravo · 12-02-2014 9:26pm

J C wrote: »

If state funding is to go towards the support of irreligion ... then equality demands that state support should also go to religion.

If the state funds justice, then equality demands that the state also fund injustice.

Nope, that's a stupid thing to say too.

J C · 12-02-2014 9:37pm

SW wrote: »

I'm talking about state schools. If religious groups want to open faith schools, fire ahead but the state shouldn't be involved with those schools.

And the state must take a stand against any group that would interfere with the secular stance of those schools.

Interfering between religion and irreligion (to favour irreligion and suppress religion) is not the action of a state that is neutral in matters of religious belief.
It is the action of an Atheocracy.

J C · 12-02-2014 9:39pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

How can something include its antonym? If I said that I wanted all relevant (including irrelevant) information, wouldn't you agree that that would be a stupid thing to say?

Equality of treatment of people groups demands that people with opposite beiefs (and the beliefs themselves) must be treated with equality.

... indeed to do anything else is inequitable.

Delirium · 12-02-2014 9:42pm

J C wrote: »

Interfering between religion and irreligion (to favour irreligion and suppress religion) is not the action of a state that is neutral in matters of religious belief.
It is the action of an Atheocracy.

Wrong.

Now pay attention, it's time you let this get to the grey matter.

Secularism is the separation of religion and state.

The state is not allowed suppress religion. So that's first part of your post addressed.

The state is not allowed promote atheism. So that's the second part of your post.

To try and explain this at a level you might understand.

Religious folk say apples are the best fruit and atheists say pears are best.

The state makes no statement either way. The schools can teach students about the reasons for liking apples or pears but cannot say either is better.

It's your contention that by not saying apples are best that the state is saying pears are best.

Do you see how silly that reasoning is?

Delirium · 12-02-2014 9:43pm

J C wrote: »

Equality of treatment of people groups demands that people with opposite beiefs (and the beliefs themselves) must be treated with equality.

... indeed to do anything else is inequitable.

so why then do you support creationism in schools and the current RCC dominated school system?

J C · 12-02-2014 9:46pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the state funds justice, then equality demands that the state also fund injustice.

Nope, that's a stupid thing to say too.

That's effectively what you guys are suggesting ... that equality demands that the state should in justice, fund irreligious schools and in injustice, it should not fund religious schools.

Justice applies to all persons equally ... and equality of treatment of people of all beliefs and none ... must not favour atheism over theism or vice versa ...
... and if a religiously neutral state supports irreligious schools it must also in equality support religious schools.

oscarBravo · 12-02-2014 9:48pm

J C wrote: »

Equality of treatment of people groups demands that people with opposite beiefs (and the beliefs themselves) must be treated with equality.

Yes. All religious beliefs should be excluded equally from being taught in a state-funded school curriculum.

Delirium · 12-02-2014 9:49pm

J C wrote: »

That's effectively what you guys are suggesting ... that equality demands that the stateshould in justice fund irreligious schools and in injustice should not fund religious schools.

Justice applies to all persons equally ... and equality of treatment of people of all beliefs and none ... must not favour atheism over theism or vice versa ...
... and if a religiously neutral state supports irreligious schools it must also in equality support religious schools.

Please provide evidence of posters demanding that the state should only fund atheist state schools or withdraw the comment.

J C · 12-02-2014 9:54pm

SW wrote: »

Wrong.

Now pay attention, it's time you let this get to the grey matter.

Secularism is the separation of religion and state.
... and also the separation of irreligion and state.

The state is not allowed suppress religion. So that's first part of your post addressed.
Then it must not suppress religion by not funding religious schools while funding irreligious ones.

The state is not allowed promote atheism. So that's the second part of your post.
Then it must not suport irreligion by funding irreligious schools while not funding religious ones.

To try and explain this at a level you might understand.

Religious folk say apples are the best fruit and atheists say pears are best.

The state makes no statement either way. The schools can teach students about the reasons for liking apples or pears but cannot say either is better.
The state should stay out of the argument over apples and pears entirely ... and should fund schools teaching students about the benefits of apples or pears equally.

It's your contention that by not saying apples are best that the state is saying pears are best.
It is my contention that a state that is neutral on the benefits of apples or pears should stay out of the argument ... and should fund both sides using equitable objective criteria.

Do you see how silly that reasoning is?

I do.

.:)

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Comments