Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Options
Comments
-
I agree that all children should be taught about all religions too. What I don't believe is that they should be taught - with state funds - that all but one of them is wrong.I agree that children in Christian schools (indeed all schools) should be taught about different religions and irreligion. This is all part of a broad liberal education, to equip the next generation to live in respect and harmony amongst people of all religions and none within our increasingly pluralist society.0 -
The state may not take sides by funding no schools (which I think nobody wants) ... or by funding all schools (which only the illiberal 'secularists' seem to object to, whilst ironically protesting their pseudo-plurailsm).
All schools would be secular, so I clearly want the government to fund those. Not sure how you thought otherwise?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
The Christian ethos of a Christian school would preclude equal time to all faiths and none ... but it wouldn't preclude respect for all faiths and none and their expression within the school.So you have no problem with an imam coming in and actively teaching christian children about Islam for exactly the same hours and in the same way they get taught about Christianity?
Like I have said, everyone is free to set up schools to their particular liking ... or if they don't have the time (or can't get sufficient pupils to attend) ... they can choose the school that most meets their ethos.
None of this implies that people of other faiths or none (or their community leaders/pastors) should be disrespected by any school.0 -
The Christian ethos of a Christian school would preclude equal time to all faiths and none ... but it wouldn't preclude respect for all faiths and none and their expression within the school.
Like I have said, everyone is free to set up schools to their particular liking ... or if they don't have the time (or can't get sufficient pupils to attend) ... they can choose the school that most meets their ethos.
None of this implies that people of other faiths or none (or their community leaders/pastors) should be disrespected by any school.
You're contradicting yourself. The school is teaching more about Christianity at the expense of other groups. Many would see that as disrespectful. And it sounds very like the current Irish system rather than a secular system (which you were claiming to support.).If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
You are not in Stalinist Russia ... you are in a liberal secular pluralist democracy that is respectful of religious/irreligious diversity ... and that respect logically translates itself into respect for religious and irreligious schools, as parental demand decides.All schools would be secular, so I clearly want the government to fund those. Not sure how you thought otherwise?
... and I'm sorry, but if parental demand decides to have only one (or no) irreligious school it is none of the business of the state to co-erce parents who don't want an irreligious school into accepting one.
You guys need to start marketing your irreligious philosphy to your potential parental market ... and insulting over 90% of your potential audience isn't a very sensible route to take IMO ... but that is just my opinion - and I could be wrong.;)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
A Christian (or indeed an irreligious) school has every right to favour it's own ethos. That's what parents sending chidren there expect.You're contradicting yourself. The school is teaching more about Christianity at the expense of other groups. Many would see that as disrespectful. And it sounds very like the current Irish system rather than a secular system (which you were claiming to support.).
This doesn't mean that they should disrespect people of other faiths or none who don't share their ethos (but may be attending their school) ... and again this applies equally to all types of school.0 -
Nope. A secular state should have a secular public school system. I would rather the government not build a school for every religious grouping in every town and village. It's an impossible, and financially wasteful, task.You are not in Stalinist Russia ... you are in a liberal secular pluralist democracy that is respectful of religious/irreligious diversity ... and that respect logically translates itself into respect for religious and irreligious schools, as parental demand decides.
Then those groups that want faith schools can form their own private schools. Nothing to stop them.... and I'm sorry, but if parental demand decides to have only one (or no) irreligious school it is none of the business of the state to co-erce parents who don't want an irreligious school into accepting one.
Yes, you are. For a start, I'm not insulting anyone. How is secularism insulting to Christians? And only Christians it seems btw??You guys need to start marketing your irreligious philosphy to your potential parental market ... and insulting over 90% of your potential audience isn't a very sensible route to take IMO ... but that is just my opinion - and I could be wrong.;)
I'm not marketing any philosophy as I don't want the school system pandering to my personal beliefs, unlike you who wants faiths schools paid out of the public purse.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Never said otherwise. I have said that the state should have its own secular public schools.A Christian (or indeed an irreligious) school has every right to favour it's own ethos. That's what parents sending chidren there expect.This doesn't mean that they should disrespect people of other faiths or none who don't share their ethos (and may attend their school) ... and again this applies equally to all types of school.
And yet you have only just said that priority should be given to Christianity in Christian schools. So you're disrespecting non-Christians by reducing time dedicated to their religion, and possibly worse again if faith formation occurs in the school.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
A Christian (or indeed an irreligious) school has every right to favour it's own ethos. That's what parents sending chidren there expect.
This doesn't mean that they should disrespect people of other faiths or none who don't share their ethos (but may attend their school) ... and again this applies equally to all types of school.
Hmmmmm what's that you said about sectarianism earlier? :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes. And those parents should pay for that school. If they want taxpayer funds to pay for it, they need to accept that it's not OK for a taxpayer-funded school to teach myths as fact.A Christian (or indeed an irreligious) school has every right to favour it's own ethos. That's what parents sending chidren there expect.
Except by claiming that their faiths are untrue.This doesn't mean that they should disrespect people of other faiths or none who don't share their ethos...0 -
Equality means treating people with equality and respect.Originally Posted by J C View Post
The Christian ethos of a Christian school would preclude equal time to all faiths and none ...oscar
Bravo
This is directly at odds with your earlier bleating about equality.
It doesn't mean surrendering your beliefs in favour of somebody else's or some kind of 'lowest common denominator'.
You are quite entitled to respect for your beliefs ... and so am I.
When it comes to establishing or choosing schools you are quite entitled to set up or choose a school whose ethos is closest to your beliefs ... and so am I.0 -
-
so now secularism is 'surrendering your beliefs'??
If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
There is nothing sectarian about respecting people of faith and none with whom you disagree.
There is nothing sectarian about having your children taught in an environment that closest matches your beliefs.
pretty sure that's almost a perfect dictionary definition of sectarian.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
There have been many myths taught as fact down the years ... and they weren't all taught in religous schools.oscarBravo wrote: »Yes. And those parents should pay for that school. If they want taxpayer funds to pay for it, they need to accept that it's not OK for a taxpayer-funded school to teach myths as fact.
Except by claiming that their faiths are untrue.
... and just because I don't share all of your beliefs (or you mine) doesn't mean that we can't agree to differ ... and respect each other for our sincerely held beliefs.0 -
"Class, this is Jamal. He's a Hindu. Let's all respect his religious beliefs, even though he hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as his personal saviour and is therefore doomed to eternal damnation."Equality means treating people with equality and respect.
When it comes to things the government pays for, beliefs shouldn't come into it. The government shouldn't be funding a school that teaches Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Satanism... it's not a question of "lowest common denominator", it's a question of distinguishing between education and indoctrination. Teaching religious beliefs isn't education, and shouldn't be paid for by a liberal secular state.It doesn't mean surrendering your beliefs in favour of somebody else's or some kind of 'lowest common denominator'.
Sure. What I'm arguing with is the idea that you have the right to set up a school to indoctrinate your children at my expense.When it comes to establishing or choosing schools you are quite entitled to set up or choose a school whose ethos is closest to your beliefs ... and so am I.0 -
-
True. Would you agree that that's a bad thing, and that it's a practice that should be eliminated completely?There have been many myths taught as fact down the years ... and they weren't all taught in religous schools.
I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you choose. I won't agree to your insistence that my taxes should fund the teaching of that nonsense to children.... and just because I don't share all of your beliefs (or you mine) doesn't mean that we can't agree to differ ... and respect each other for our sincerely held beliefs.0 -
Sectarianism is religious/irreligious hatred ... and that certainly doesn't apply to a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other chidren attending the school.pretty sure that's almost a perfect dictionary definition of sectarian.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sectarianism is religious/irreligious hatred ... and that certainly doesn't apply to a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other chidren attending the school.
that's extreme sectarianism.
Sectarianism is beliefs pertaining to a sect, e.g. Christianity. So you are a supporter of sectarian schools.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Myths are simply ways of people expalining their worldview to themselves and to others. One person's myth is often another person's deeply held belief.Originally Posted by J C
There have been many myths taught as fact down the years ... and they weren't all taught in religous schools.
oscarBravo
True. Would you agree that that's a bad thing, and that it's a practice that should be eliminated completely?
For example, people are quite entitled to believe in the myth that abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... and any other myths that flow from this. It's all part of the cultural diversity of Mankind that also encompasses religion/irreligion.
You have no right to determine what is taught / not taught to my children. As a parent, I have that right in relation to my children ... and you have it in relation to yours.oscarBravo wrote: »I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you choose. I won't agree to your insistence that my taxes should fund the teaching of that nonsense to children.
If I choose a religous school for my chidren, because of the intolerance and disrespect shown to me and my beliefs on this thread ... then I'm quite entitled to do so ...
... and as a taxpayer, I'm quite entitled to expect a religion/irreligion neutral state to fund the education of my children to the very same extent as it funds the education of your children ... and it shouldn't be a condition of such education that me or my children must deny our faith just like you or your children shouldn't be forced to deny or suppress your atheism either.0 -
... so 90% of parents in this state are now 'extremely sectarian' as well as 'child abusers' just because they choose to send their children to Christian ethos schools that teach the love of Jesus Christ ... and respect for all persons and their beliefs.Originally Posted by J C
Sectarianism is religious/irreligious hatred ... and that certainly doesn't apply to a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other chidren attending the school.
SW
that's extreme sectarianism.
Sectarianism is beliefs pertaining to a sect, e.g. Christianity. So you are a supporter of sectarian schools.
Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.
That's not how things work guys!!!;)
... and, if you keep insisting on banning religious expression and religious leaders from schools, ye are going to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory' when it comes to setting up schools that offer greater choice to parents and children ... including atheist parents and their children.
Like most things in life, people who insist on getting it all their own way ... very often end up getting nothing!!!0 -
90% of parents in the State don't send their children to schools that teach religious/irreligious hatred. You seem to be confusing your own argument?... so 90% of parents in this state are now 'extremely sectarian' as well as 'child abusers' just because they choose to send their children to Christian ethos schools that teach the love of Jesus Christ ... and respect for all persons and their beliefs.
I think you're mistaken in assuming that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other children attending the school. The census didn't report that. It would be more accurate to assume that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a school where they will receive a good education in factual information, and would be happy for the school to ignore their religious beliefs entirely, safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time.Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.
Firstly, banning the teaching of religious dogma is not the same as banning religious expression.... and, if you keep insisting on banning religious expression and religious leaders from schools, ye are going to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory' when it comes to setting up schools that offer greater choice to parents and children ... including atheist parents and their children.
Secondly, when the level of 'choice' is only increased by teaching additional non-factual information, there's no actual gain to students. Better to choose from a limited range of educational establishments than to have to select from a broad range of educational and non-educational establishments.0 -
I didn't say they did ... I said that they sent their children to religious ethos schools that taught children about the love of Jesus Christ and respect for the faith or none of other children attending those schools. It was SW who deemed such an attitude to be 'extreme sectarianism' when it is actually 'extreme respect' for diversity of religion and none.90% of parents in the State don't send their children to schools that teach religious/irreligious hatred. You seem to be confusing your own argument?
How can anybody be at all safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time ... if their children are in a school environment that is so hostile to their Christian beliefs that they dare not open their mouths to pray or speak of Jesus Christ and where their pastors are unwelcome ... which seems to be the type of 'secular' school model being advocated for the future, on this thread.I think you're mistaken in assuming that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other children attending the school. The census didn't report that. It would be more accurate to assume that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a school where they will receive a good education in factual information, and would be happy for the school to ignore their religious beliefs entirely, safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time.
Religious ethos schools already provide a very good factual education ... indeed, many of the very best schools in Ireland (in terms of exam results and entry to high point University courses) are religious ethos schools ... so please don't try the 'old chestnut' that religious ethos schools waste too much time on religion - or somehow perform poorer from an academic or exam point of view ... because this simply isn't true.
Firstly, there is little practical difference between banning what you term religious dogma or religious expression ... and both would be banned if most of the contributors to this thread have their way.Firstly, banning the teaching of religious dogma is not the same as banning religious expression.
Secondly, when the level of 'choice' is only increased by teaching additional non-factual information, there's no actual gain to students.
Secondly, there is considerable gain to students in studying the spiritual and theological dimensions to our existence (what you seem to be calling 'non-factual information') as well as 'ordinary' school subjects.
... and, like I have said, most of the very best and academically highest performing schools in Ireland have a religious ethos.
What do you mean by 'non-educational establishments'?Better to choose from a limited range of educational establishments than to have to select from a broad range of educational and non-educational establishments.
... some of the very best schools in Ireland have a religious ethos ... are you saying they are 'non-educational establishments' ... even though they are consistently within the top tenth percentile of schools in terms of exam results?
... but why am I surprised ... ye guys also 'rubbish' eminently and conventionally qualified scientists simply because they are Creationists.0 -
Hmm. I would dispute that 90% of parents in the State send their children to religious ethos schools that teach children about the love of Jesus Christ and respect for the faith or none of other children attending those schools. You've provided no evidence that faith schools, or schools with a religious ethos, actually do any of that, even if that 90% specifically chose such a school, which frankly, they don't. Certainly my 13 years with the Christian brothers didn't include lessons in 'extreme respect' for any kind of diversity, quite the opposite.I didn't say they did ... I said that they sent their children to religious ethos schools that taught children about the love of Jesus Christ and respect for the faith or none of other children attending those schools. It was SW who deemed such an attitude to be 'extreme sectarianism' when it is actually 'extreme respect' for diversity of religion and none.
If a religious parent isn't confident in their ability to pass on their faith without the assistance of a state education system then perhaps their faith isn't all that strong to begin with? No one has posited an education system that is hostile to religious belief, only one that doesn't include religion.How can anybody be at all safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time ... if their children are in a school environment that is so hostile to their Christian beliefs that they dare not open their mouths to pray or speak of Jesus Christ and where their pastors are unwelcome ... which seems to be the type of 'secular' school model being advocated for the future, on this thread.
Yes the vast majority of schools in Ireland were founded with a religious ethos, even if that ethos has grown less prevalent. It's no surprise then that they're amongst the top performing schools; and no reflection on the religious ethos either. Nor is education about religions a waste of time; it's state sponsorship of education in religion that is at issue here. A secular state simply shouldn't pay for the advancement of any religious perspective.Religious ethos schools already provide a very good factual education ... indeed, many of the very best schools in Ireland (in terms of exam results and entry to high point University courses) are religious ethos schools ... so please don't try the 'old chestnut' that religious ethos schools waste too much time on religion - or somehow perform poorer from an academic or exam point of view ... because this simply isn't true.
There is enormous practical difference. Encouraging and leading children in prayer in the context of educating them is a million miles from permitting children to pray whilst they are not being educated if they choose.Firstly, there is little practical difference between banning what you term religious dogma or religious expression ... and both would be banned if most of the contributors to this thread have their way.
There is an educational gain there; but philosophy is a factual subject and can be studied without resorting to a requirement of belief in the supernatural.Secondly, there is considerable gain to students in studying the spiritual and theological dimensions to our existence (what you seem to be calling 'non-factual information') as well as 'ordinary' school subjects.
Like I said, their performance position doesn't necessarily correlate with their religious ethos.... and, like I have said, most of the very best and academically highest performing schools in Ireland have a religious ethos.
I mean that an establishment that presents non factual information in a fashion intended to convey the appearance of education is a 'non-educational establishment'. I may be coining an unwieldy term here, but I think you understand.What do you mean by 'non-educational establishments'?
No. As above.... some of the very best schools in Ireland have a religious ethos ... are you saying they are 'non-educational establishments' ... even though they are consistently within the top tenth percentile of schools in terms of exam results?
Personally, I only rubbish their creationist claims, I have no quibble with their conventional qualifications, particularly when they're eminent.... but why am I surprised ... ye guys also 'rubbish' eminently and conventionally qualified scientists simply because they are Creationists.
Indeed, and whilst myths and beliefs can be examined in an educational context, their content cannot be taught as facts.Myths are simply ways of people expalining their worldview to themselves and to others. One person's myth is often another person's deeply held belief. For example, people are quite entitled to believe in the myth that abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... and any other myths that flow from this. It's all part of the cultural diversity of Mankind that also encompasses religion/irreligion.
As a taxpayer, I have every right to contribute an opinion on what the educational curriculum should be. And if the vaunted 90% flex their democratic muscle, we could have a religiously biased curriculum. Forgive me if I find that unlikely to happen.You have no right to determine what is taught / not taught to my children. As a parent, I have that right in relation to my children ... and you have it in relation to yours. If I choose a religous school for my chidren, because of the intolerance and disrespect shown to me and my beliefs on this thread ... then I'm quite entitled to do so ...
Nobody's suggesting children deny their faith, only that the state shouldn't pay, or act, to reinforce it.... and as a taxpayer, I'm quite entitled to expect a religion/irreligion neutral state to fund the education of my children to the very same extent as it funds the education of your children ... and it shouldn't be a condition of such education that me or my children must deny our faith just like you or your children shouldn't be forced to deny or suppress your atheism either.0 -
I would appreciate if you could stop misrepresenting me, JC. I said that schools are sectarian if they divide along religious lines. I did not say it was extreme sectarianism. I also have never said that faith formation is child abuse.... so 90% of parents in this state are now 'extremely sectarian' as well as 'child abusers' just because they choose to send their children to Christian ethos schools that teach the love of Jesus Christ ... and respect for all persons and their beliefs.
I'm not in the business of advocating for faith schools. I want secular schools. I don't see how that is insulting anyone.Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.
That's not how things work guys!!!;)
Who is suggesting banning religion from schools? I have repeatedly said that religion classes are fine by me.... and, if you keep insisting on banning religious expression and religious leaders from schools, ye are going to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory' when it comes to setting up schools that offer greater choice to parents and children ... including atheist parents and their children.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
-
Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.
That's not how things work guys!!!
I live in a nice cul de sac 8 of houses, I am not Christian, My friend across the road Malik is a Muslim and of the families on either side of me one is jewish and the other like me is an atheist. Not sure about the other 4 families but for sure 50% of my neighbours are not christian so your 90% comments (along with many others) are wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement