Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

PopePalpatine

^ I think I know how:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY

Just replace the economic terms with allegory/metaphor/parable/real. :pac:

Piliger

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So pretty much the same as "old atheism" then.
Well, I suppose there is one big difference: "new atheists" generally don't have to be worried about punishment from theocratic leaders when voicing their disagreements.

Indeed. And we are no longer willing to sit back quietly and invisibly while the religious insult and abuse us and the very idea of a 'godless society' every day. It's time we stood up and showed our pride in our unwillingness to subjugate our intelligence to woo woo.

Frank Lee Midere

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What's a "new atheist"?

A modern embarrassment to old atheism. I am arguing for the retention of good schools despite their Catholicism

If they had more intellectual rigour then they wouldn't be catholic schools.

That's the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion.

Nothing to do with vocational schools being the main provider of adult and/or community education courses?

Nothing as you say. As I am talking about inter and leaving cert results.

Such as?

Lol. Anti-scientism and anti - white male "privileged" world views - specifically science - are attacked every day in the "humanities". Read Dawkins or Pinker. Or Sokal.

Frank Lee Midere

Piliger wrote: »

Indeed. And we are no longer willing to sit back quietly and invisibly while the religious insult and abuse us and the very idea of a 'godless society' every day. It's time we stood up and showed our pride in our unwillingness to subjugate our intelligence to woo woo.

I am not religious and I think you people are if perfectly average intelligence.

I argued here for retaining Catholic schools because they are better, and the new atheist whines about being attacked by the religious. Further you all probably got Catholic education - which in my case and probably yours was perfunctory - and yet complain about the brain washing of others. If the brain washing worked you wouldn't be arguin the case against the schools.

Frank Lee Midere

smacl wrote: »

At a guess, in Ireland, someone who was religious at one point, and no longer is. The type of person the Catholic church might refer to as a lapsed Catholic in a rather futile attempt to keep their numbers up. Some theists suggest that atheists who were brought up without religion are less antagonistic towards their religion, which is understandable. As someone who has never had to go through religious instruction, I guess I feel one degree further removed from it than someone who had to deal with it first hand. Think of it like living in an Islamic country; while you don't agree with Islamic teaching, the people are nice enough, and you don't spend your days attacking Islam. Where it impinges on your own lifestyle, it makes more sense to deal with it pragmatically than dogmatically. Similarly in Ireland, once I'm happy with the education my children receive, an the Christians aren't proselytizing, I'm largely indifferent to their church. I still find much of what the Catholic church is about to be pretty atrocious, but it is not alone in that regard.

I was also brought up by an atheist father and a religiously indifferent mother. The new atheist has adopted the form if not the function of the religious bores they grew up amongst.

Piliger

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I was also brought up by an atheist father and a religiously indifferent mother. The new atheist has adopted the form if not the function of the religious bores they grew up amongst.

Yeah ... imagine ..... proclaiming their atheism !! Shouting about ! Criticising other people ! What cheek !!

Banbh

No, the New Atheist is no longer willing to keep his or her head down and accept discrimination and intimidation.

The New Atheist is no longer, like Rosa Parks, willing to go to the back of the bus.

Piliger

Banbh wrote: »

No, the New Atheist is no longer willing to keep his or her head down and accept discrimination and intimidation.

The New Atheist is no longer, like Rosa Parks, willing to go to the back of the bus.

VERY well said.

smacl

Banbh wrote: »

No, the New Atheist is no longer willing to keep his or her head down and accept discrimination and intimidation.

The New Atheist is no longer, like Rosa Parks, willing to go to the back of the bus.

Right on sister, and good luck with that. Faced with New Atheism and Old Atheism, I think I'll plump for middle aged atheism, lower case, which is no more than a simple statement that I don't believe in a god, afterlife, or any other such mumbo jumbo.

Bannasidhe

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am not religious and I think you people are if perfectly average intelligence.

I argued here for retaining Catholic schools because they are better, and the new atheist whines about being attacked by the religious. Further you all probably got Catholic education - which in my case and probably yours was perfunctory - and yet complain about the brain washing of others. If the brain washing worked you wouldn't be arguin the case against the schools.

Better than what exactly?

ALL 'Catholic schools' are better than all 'not-Catholic schools' - which are what exactly - COI? Muslim??

As for all of this 'new' atheism crap- nowt but a smokescreen and a medjia spin.

Frank Lee Midere

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Better than what exactly?

ALL 'Catholic schools' are better than all 'not-Catholic schools' - which are what exactly - COI? Muslim??

As for all of this 'new' atheism crap- nowt but a smokescreen and a medjia spin.

Better than the existing secular schools. I used Catholic because it was the question here. In general catholic and COI/ Anglican schools are better than vocational
Schools. Eton vs Birmingham comprehensive etc.Belvedere vs The tech. Jesuit or Christian brother schools vs the techs.

Frank Lee Midere

Piliger wrote: »

VERY well said.

Very badly said. The new atheist is probably the intolerant son or daughter or religious parents - in this thought experiment the people who banned rosa parks. Because you can change your religion but not your race the claim of new atheism to previous discrimination is ludicrous.

smacl

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Better than the existing secular schools. I used Catholic because it was the question here. In general catholic and COI/ Anglican schools are better than vocational
Schools. Eton vs Birmingham comprehensive etc.Belvedere vs The tech. Jesuit or Christian brother schools vs the techs.

Better is an entirely ambiguous metric. You really need to qualify what you're talking about here using more specific terms. If we're talking about grades achieved per euro (or pound sterling) invested in education, I think you'll find Birmingham is better than Eton in this narrow regard. If we're talking about preparing someone for a vocation in a trade, the techs achieve their stated goals quite well. If we're talking about scoring points in exams, the Jesuits do very well. You can't ignore context.

I was lucky enough to have gone to Newpark Comprehensive back in the day, a non-denominational school providing an excellent child centred secular education. I don't doubt that the Jesuit educated children got better grades in the final exams and went on to become the politicians, accountants, board members and similar men in suits of the day. At a 25th reunion for my year held recently, we had actors, artists, authors, a jockey, a geneticist, a couple of musicians, a mathematician, and an CoI priest among others. The notion of better simply doesn't apply, as it in turn implies a homogeneous scale from bad to good, where one doesn't exist. Are apples better than oranges?

Bannasidhe

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Better than the existing secular schools. I used Catholic because it was the question here. In general catholic and COI/ Anglican schools are better than vocational
Schools. Eton vs Birmingham comprehensive etc.Belvedere vs The tech. Jesuit or Christian brother schools vs the techs.

You cannot compare the English educational pedagogy - never mind system - to the Irish model so you are making a false comparison from the word go.

There are no publicly funded 'secular' schools in Ireland as the Dept. of Education insists on a religious component so the 'best' one can get is so-called Multi-Denominational which still have an overwhelmingly Christian ethos if not downright Catholic.

I went to a secular school - in Ireland- and it cost my parents a bloody fortune as the school received zero State funding.

My son went to what used to be a COI secondary school which re-branded itself as 'multi-denominational' ...strangely, Christianity turned out to be the only religion to qualify as worthy of 'study' or respect and he had to listen to Islam being denigrated by the 'Religion' teacher despite the presence of many Muslim students and Hinduism being called a 'cult' - his protests at this so-called 'teacher's' outrageous level of ignorance about her subject - 'Comparative Religion' and constant bigotry earned him many a detention slip.

So, given that it is currently impossible for a secular school to receive State funding in Ireland how can you say 'Catholic' schools are better - it is hardly a level playing pitch now is it?

Corkfeen

The Catholic Private schools in the UK are well known for the large amounts of discrimination that occurs in terms of selection of students. It's very much so a class based system and the underprivileged are under-represented. To suggest that the religious ethos of a school is what leads to better performance requires some proof.

MrPudding

Corkfeen wrote: »

The Catholic Private schools in the UK are well known for the large amounts of discrimination that occurs in terms of selection of students. It's very much so a class based system and the underprivileged are under-represented. To suggest that the religious ethos of a school is what leads to better performance requires some proof.

I think the guardian did a piece on this some time ago. I seem to recall the consensus being any better grades were more due to the schools selective fewer poor, money and ability wise, students than them being academically better.

One interesting stat to look at is the percentage of pupils that qualify for free school meals. The catholic schools tend to have a smaller percentage of free school meal pupils, which indicates that they have less pupils from poorer deprived backgrounds. The type of background that tends to produce pupils that underachieve and bring down the school average grades. Funny that.

MrP

Corkfeen

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the guardian did a piece on this some time ago. I seem to recall the consensus being any better grades were more due to the schools selective fewer poor, money and ability wise, students than them being academically better.

One interesting stat to look at is the percentage of pupils that qualify for free school meals. The catholic schools tend to have a smaller percentage of free school meal pupils, which indicates that they have less pupils from poorer deprived backgrounds. The type of background that tends to produce pupils that underachieve and bring down the school average grades. Funny that.

MrP

This relates to a piece which I read about it earlier actually. It goes into the free school meal aspect, another interesting aspect is that they always have a lower proportion of Special Needs students. Any higher performance rates seem to be fairly negligible overall when considering the selection process.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04405.pdf%E2%80%8E

Mark Hamill

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

A modern embarrassment to old atheism.

Thats not an answer, please try again.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

That's the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion.

It's not an assumption. Catholicism fails even basic intellectual examination.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Nothing as you say. As I am talking about inter and leaving cert results.

VOCs make up a smaller proportion of inter and leaving cert course giving institutions in this country, plus they dont give those courses to all their students (as they give adult/community courses as well). So it makes sense that they give a smaller amount of scientists than schools that concentrate on the courses that will actually get you into universities where you can train to become a scientist.
Of course that's all academic, as VOC schools are not secular.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Lol. Anti-scientism and anti - white male "privileged" world views - specifically science - are attacked every day in the "humanities". Read Dawkins or Pinker. Or Sokal.

So science is a "white male privileged" world view now?
I've heard of Dawkins (mostly talks about evolution and atheism doesn't he?), but I dont know Pinker of Sokal. You will need to be more specific.

Brian Shanahan

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nothing to do with vocational schools being the main provider of adult and/or community education courses?

I remember back in '93 (yes I'm old, kiddies) going to the CBS* I eventually entered and a relatively local Tech, and being astonished by the difference in science equipment (especially) between the two, with the tech being far superior (for a school only "meant" to teach carpenters and other trades). While the difference in staff eventually settled it, I know I would have gotten a proper education in the Tech.

*Aside from a retired brother who'd randomly take students aside to cut wood for the poor of the local town, there wasn't much religious in the CBS.

Brian Shanahan

Corkfeen wrote: »

The Catholic Private schools in the UK are well known for the large amounts of discrimination that occurs in terms of selection of students. It's very much so a class based system and the underprivileged are under-represented. To suggest that the religious ethos of a school is what leads to better performance requires some proof.

Catholic public schools are just as bad. It is perfectly ok for state religious schools in the UK to practise selective admittance.

Strangely enough, if your child is clever or athletic enough, you can lie in Sundays. But woe betide if your child is not, and you decide to take the extra hour you deserve.

Mark Hamill

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am not religious and I think you people are if perfectly average intelligence.

I argued here for retaining Catholic schools because they are better, and the new atheist whines about being attacked by the religious. Further you all probably got Catholic education - which in my case and probably yours was perfunctory - and yet complain about the brain washing of others. If the brain washing worked you wouldn't be arguin the case against the schools.

But we can see that the brainwashing worked. Here you are, not religious, yet defending a specific religion in schools. Using transparent, facetious reasoning to attempt to justify it. And you are far from alone.

Your mistake is in thinking the brainwashing is in trying to make to a rigid christian of some sort out of people. It's not, people as a whole in ireland have moved away from the rigid teachings of the church as they subconsciously recognised how moronic it was and how they wanted to do the innocent things that where always restricted from them (like have sex before marriage, eat meat on good friday and not get molested by a priest).
The brainwashing is actually very simple - sure its just an extension of what every long lasting religion always does to survive - just make yourself seem non-specifically integral to a few key aspects of life. Make yourself seem like you just inherently belong. Change almost whatever it is you do so as to be as non-threatening as possible, of course. Whatever you do, if the prevailing culture has moved away from some teaching you must abandon it, or at the very least play down its importance or meaning (but only in that specific culture: in the west homosexuality is a condition that can be cured, in Africa it is a capital crime). Change almost any detail to make them happy, hell, put a kangaroo in the nativity if that makes them smile :pac:.

You see, if you do that successfully, you will create a situation where you are seen as just there, and having always been there. Especially, by concentrating on schools and hospitals, you will become a non threatening security blanket most will just accept. And any that don't will be met by those afraid to lose that security blanket, those simply afraid of change. People will defend with "sure, what's the harm, it didn't work on you".

Yes. It didn't work on me. But it worked on you.

Mark Hamill

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the guardian did a piece on this some time ago.

Here it is: Church schools shun poorest pupils

I had it bookmarked from the last time someone referenced in this forum. I just knew it would come in handy some day :pac:.

Gordon

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am not religious and I think you people are if perfectly average intelligence.

I argued here for retaining Catholic schools because they are better, and the new atheist whines about being attacked by the religious. Further you all probably got Catholic education - which in my case and probably yours was perfunctory - and yet complain about the brain washing of others. If the brain washing worked you wouldn't be arguin the case against the schools.

Firstly:

Further you all probably got Catholic education

'you all', 'probably'? As in, everyone posting and reading this forum? ie - you and me? I didn't get Catholic education.

Secondly:

I am not religious and I think you people are if perfectly average intelligence.

'you people'? As in, everyone posting and reading this forum? ie - you and me? Well thanks, I guess, I'm not actually sure what you mean by 'if perfectly average intelligence', I guess it's a typo, but either way, I guess it's a compliment? Er.. cheers.

Thirdly:

If the brain washing worked you wouldn't be arguin the case against the schools.

That's just bad logic. If the argument is about brain washing, then perhaps some people are either stronger willed at not being brain washed, or worse at brainwashing. It's like you're sitting in South Korea, talking to a load of North Koreans that have just fled across the border from North Korea saying 'it obviously wasn't bad if you've managed to make it across here'.

Turtwig

Gordon wrote: »

like you're sitting in South Korea, talking to a load of North Koreans that have just fled across the border from North Korea saying 'it obviously wasn't bad if you've managed to make it across here'.

This is one analogy I'm stealing for my memory bank!:)