Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

Could Koth please talk to Bannasidhe ... and when you have agreed on whether I'm a closet Secularist ... or an RC Bishop ... please come back and share your answer with us.

Bannasidhe is of the opinion that you are one of those who like to scream 'persecution!!!!!!' when others state that your privileged position is demonstrably unfair and that while you claim to be a supporter of equality you are in fact heavily invested in maintaining the current unequal status quo.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I agree that an internet forum is not the same as a classroom. However, it does give us a flavour for how the Forum participants feel about certain issues and their levels of tolerance and respect for alternative points of view.

Agreed, and on the whole the forum shows a good level of tolerance and respect for alternative points of view. People are given the respect and patience deserving of their posting manner and content.

Irish schools are largely Christian run ... and Secularists want to establish Secular Schools ... mostly by taking over exisiting Christian-run schools.
Some, like swampgas, even want all schools to be Secular ... with no alternative allowed.

It's a good idea, an inclusive secular school system that treats all religious views equally. I fail to see why that is such a bad idea.

... so visiting the two Irish forums representing Atheism/Secularism and Christianity on the Boards is potentially insightful in relation to what is likely to happen if Atheists/Agnostics/Secularists gain the control over our schools, that they desire ... and determining the truth about where Christianity is at, in Ireland
The A & A Forum contains threads that mostly scoff at religion and its practitioners (as distinct from presenting and discussing whatever positive aspects that Secularism and Atheism itself may have). Myself and other Christians who have visited this forum have been called morons or liars and our beliefs have been ridiculed ... not a very positive image to be projecting, from the 'wannabe' educators of our children, if I may say so.

That's not even close to reality. I haven't seen any posters in the forum offering their services as teachers or suggesting an anti-theist lesson plan as you are suggesting. All of which has nothing to do with how a secular class would be run.

If you have been personally abused on a thread (on any forum), report the post as it's against site-wide rules.

Over on the Christianity Forum people help each other to find Churches and the time of church services as they debate the finer and indeed the more controversial points of Christian Doctrine in a relatively civil manner ... until some anti-theist turns up to tell them that religious people are deluded or morons or mad ... or all three.

I would suggest you take it up with the moderators in the Christianity forum as it would be in breach of the charter.

Can you see why Christians, even those with an historical animosity towards Roman Catholocism, (and all its baggage) find the alternative of schools being run by people with the deeply anti-theist attitudes shown towards religion on the Boards, to be an unpalatable prospect ?

Who is suggesting schools be run by anti-theists? Secular schools have no religious (or lack of) requirement for their teachers, unlike Christian schools which have legal protection for religious/homosexual discrimination.

I say this with a heavy heart, as I know many liberal Secularists who have a 'live and let live' attitude to people of faith and their beliefs ... but they don't seem to turn up very often on the A & A (and I wonder why?).

Not reading enough threads in this forum at a guess. Plenty of them here if you pay attention.

... the following is just a tiny example of what I'm talking about in terms of intolerance towards me and my faith ... not a hint of welcoming diversity or Christians here ... and eyescreamcone is certainly not alone when it comes to such pronouncements

Even Christians have problems with creationism. I see nothing wrong with suggesting that it's a lack of scientific knowledge that is at the root of some people lending their support to creationism.

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bannasidhe is of the opinion that you are one of those who like to scream 'persecution!!!!!!' when others state that your privileged position is demonstrably unfair and that while you claim to be a supporter of equality you are in fact heavily invested in maintaining the current unequal status quo.

I don't feel in the least 'persecuted' ... but I don't take my religious freedom for granted ... especially when people are openly expressing the desire to disappear 'me and my ilk'!!!!
... and others want to use the power of the state to favour the beliefs of Secular Humanism whilst banning the beliefs and practices of Christianity.

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

I don't feel in the least 'persecuted' ... but I don't take my religious freedom for granted ... especially when people are openly expressing the desire to 'disappear me and my ilk'!!!!
... and others want to use the power of the state to favour the beliefs of Secular Humanism whilst banning the beliefs and practices of Christianity.

Given that there are Christians who openly advocate that homosexuals should be executed and these people are in positions of considerable power, as a homosexual I find it highly insulting and distasteful that you would dare to try and play the 'the desire to 'disappear me and my ilk' card in a post to me.

If some 'people of your ilk' had their way they would express their desire to disappear me and my ilk in a very literal way.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I don't feel in the least 'persecuted' ... but I don't take my religious freedom for granted ... especially when people are openly expressing the desire to disappear 'me and my ilk'!!!!
... and others want to use the power of the state to favour the beliefs of Secular Humanism whilst banning the beliefs and practices of Christianity.

Yeah, it's outrageous that a poster suggested that cracking open a book might change creationists opinions on evolution.

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that there are Christians who openly advocate that homosexuals should be executed and these people are in positions of considerable power, as a homosexual I find it highly insulting and distasteful that you would dare to try and play the 'the desire to 'disappear me and my ilk' card in a post to me.

If some 'people of your ilk' had their way they would express their desire to disappear me and my ilk in a very literal way.

Who are these 'Christians' that you speak of?
Bannasidhe, you are a soverign and much loved child of God and I would be the first to defend you from anybody who threatened you in any way because of your sexual orientation.

Nobody has expressed the desire to 'disappear' you or your beliefs ... but somebody has expressed the desire to 'disappear' me (or at the very least my beliefs).

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

Who are these 'Christians' that you speak of?
Bannasithe, you are a soverign and much loved child of God and I would be the first to defend you from anybody who threatened you in any way because of your sexual orientation.

Nobody has expressed the desire to 'disappear' you or your beliefs ... but somebody has expressed the desire to 'disappear' me (or at the very least my beliefs).

Look up the Kill The Gays Bill Uganda or what is happening in Russia and then ponder where to stick your platitudes and defend me then. Because what is happening is under the banner of Christianity - Christian, put your own house in order before slinging stones at us.

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look up the Kill The Gays Bill Uganda or what is happening in Russia and then ponder where to stick your platitudes and defend me then. Because what is happening is under the banner of Christianity - Christian, put your own house in order before slinging stones at us.

I'm not familiar with the detail of what you say. Perhaps you should set up a thread on this topic.
... but the fact that Hitler killed both Born Again Christians and Homosexuals (as well as, of course, Jews and other minorities) means that you and I have common ground and common cause where threats are made to any vulnerable person or group of persons.

... and I have no desire to 'sling stones' at anybody ... I just want to extend Christian love to everybody.

If its unrequited ... I can accept that too.:)

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the detail of what you say. Perhaps you should set up a thread on this topic.
... but the fact that Hitler killed both Born Again Christians and Homosexuals (as well as, of course, Jews and other minorities) means that you and I have common ground and common cause where threats are made to any vulnerable person or group of persons.

Familiarise yourself then and don't dare claim common ground with me unless you are vocally condemning in public the actions of your fellow Christians.

You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Familiarise yourself then and don't dare claim common ground with me unless you are vocally condemning in public the actions of your fellow Christians.

You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english

Quote Wikipedia:-
"A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held in which three American Christians asserted that homosexuality is a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. Several sources have noted endemic homophobia in Uganda has been exacerbated by the bill and the associated discussions about it.[citation needed]

The bill, the government of Uganda, and the evangelicals involved have received significant international media attention as well as criticism and condemnation from many Western governments and those of other countries, some of whom have threatened to cut off financial aid to Uganda."

This legislation seems to be most draconian ... but please don't make accusations that it is Christian-inspired based on an article that says that three (un-named) 'Christians' and (indeterminate) 'evangelicals' are behind it.

... and I do have common ground with you in condemning unreservedly such illiberal Ugandan legislation ... and its potentially horrific follow-on effects on a vulnerable minority.

I'm still trying to work out what the Russians are up to. I'd have thought it was illegal for adults to promote all types of sexual activity to minors TBH.

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

Quote Wikipedia:-
"A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held in which three American Christians asserted that homosexuality is a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. Several sources have noted endemic homophobia in Uganda has been exacerbated by the bill and the associated discussions about it.[citation needed]

The bill, the government of Uganda, and the evangelicals involved have received significant international media attention as well as criticism and condemnation from many Western governments and those of other countries, some of whom have threatened to cut off financial aid to Uganda."

This legislation seems to be most draconian ... but please don't make accusations that it is Christian-inspired based on an article that says that three (un-named) 'Christians' and (indeterminate) 'evangelicals' are behind it.

... and I do have common ground with you in condemning unreservedly such illiberal legislation ... and its potentially horrific follow-on effects on a vulnerable minority.

I believe I said that was just the starting point in your journey into what is going on in the name of Christianity. I am disappointed that you seem to wish to quibble about the contents of a wikipedia article rather than investigate deeper.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

Not all you guys personally ... but how can we have any assurance that your anti-theist views won't dominate the running of these schools?

Because atheists aren't legally allowed to practice religious discrimination, but religionists are? Provided it's within the 'ethos' of their school of course.

And of course all state funded schools are legally obliged to teach religious education (as opposed to religious instruction.)

If you want to find out what a secular school is like, pop into your local ET - provided you live near one of the few places that has one.

Why am I not sure that this is a joke?

CONTEXT!

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I believe I said that was just the starting point in your journey into what is going on in the name of Christianity. I am disappointed that you seem to wish to quibble about the contents of a wikipedia article rather than investigate deeper.

I don't need to investigate it further to condemn it at face value, as not in line with Christian morality to kill or jail people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
... and I'm only quibbling with your contention that it is Christian inspired legislation.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

Because atheists aren't legally allowed to practice religious discrimination, but religionists are? Provided it's within the 'ethos' of their school of course.

And of course all state funded schools are legally obliged to teach religious education (as opposed to religious instruction.)

If you want to find out what a secular school is like, pop into your local ET - provided you live near one of the few places that has one.

It could be a very interesting encounter ... if the children started asking me about my Creationist beliefs!!!:)

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

I don't need to investigate it further to condemn it at face value, as not in line with Christian morality to kill or jail people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Are you publicly condemning these things?

Obviously not as you were not even aware they are happening yet you were quick to come in here and speak of what all Christians believe and play the I am being persecuted by you people card as if we are all one hive mind.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

It could be a very interesting encounter ... if the children started asking me about my Creationist beliefs!!!:)

It would result in a lot of children laughing at your ignorance.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

I don't need to investigate it further to condemn it at face value, as not in line with Christian morality to kill or jail people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
... and I'm only quibbling with your contention that it is Christian inspired legislation.

That's funny, the people who do the killing and jailing say that what they are doing is to protect Christian morals - and they can quote you bible chapter and verse all day long.
So, how are we supposed to use a book as the basis for morality (or to shape an 'ethos' for a school) when differing groups of believers can come to diametrically opposed positions based on this book?

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the detail of what you say. Perhaps you should set up a thread on this topic.
... but the fact that Hitler killed both Born Again Christians and Homosexuals (as well as, of course, Jews and other minorities) means that you and I have common ground and common cause where threats are made to any vulnerable person or group of persons.

... and I have no desire to 'sling stones' at anybody ... I just want to extend Christian love to everybody.

If its unrequited ... I can accept that too.:)

Did you really just try to Godwin to make it seem like Christians and Homosexuals are easily persecuted?

And how can you possibly claim this? I'm still shocked you seem to be completely unaware of the goings on in the world and the outright hatred and threats aimed towards the LGBT Community by Christianity of various backgrounds.

What do you do with your time that seems to completely and utterly cut you off from all forms of News? No BBC, RTE, or papers in your world?

Even Fox News reports this stuff!

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you publicly condemning these things?

I have just done so on the Boards ... how much more public do you want my condemnation to be?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Obviously not as you were not even aware they are happening yet you were quick to come in here and speak of what all Christians believe and play the I am being persecuted by you people card as if we are all one hive mind.

I'm not omniscient of every issue ... and ironically, sometimes you guys do behave in such a very cohesive way that it could amount to 'group think' on certain issues.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

That's funny, the people who do the killing and jailing say that what they are doing is to protect Christian morals - and they can quote you bible chapter and verse all day long.

We are now in the period of God's Grace ... so, if they want to jail or kill Homosexuals, they have no basis for it in Jesus Christ or His teaching ... to love one another.

ninja900 wrote: »

So, how are we supposed to use a book as the basis for morality (or to shape an 'ethos' for a school) when differing groups of believers can come to diametrically opposed positions based on this book?

Just because Christians don't seem to be as united around every dogma as Secularists seem to be, is no reason to discriminate against them.

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

I have just done so on the Boards ... how much more public do you want my condemnation to be?

I'm not omniscient of every issue ... and ironically, sometimes you guys do behave in such a very cohesive way that it could amount to 'group think' on certain issues.

Posting under an anonymous name on Boards hardly qualifies as public condemnation - those who call themselves Christians openly and publicly call for homosexuals to be executed.

You are a Christian - condemn them in the same media they use and reclaim your religion if you really hate what they are doing that much - I suspect you won't, - either way don't you dare try and tell me you are being persecuted by us.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Did you really just try to Godwin to make it seem like Christians and Homosexuals are easily persecuted?

Neither groups are 'easily persecuted' ... but it has happened in the past ... and the price of freedom (including freedom from persecution) is eternal vigilence.

Sonics2k wrote: »

And how can you possibly claim this? I'm still shocked you seem to be completely unaware of the goings on in the world and the outright hatred and threats aimed towards the LGBT Community by Christianity of various backgrounds.

I'm unaware of any hatred personally ... but all kinds of 'stuff' undoubtedly happens to all kinds of people and groups ... but this doesn't make it right ... and there are laws and police there to deal with them.

Sonics2k wrote: »

What do you do with your time that seems to completely and utterly cut you off from all forms of News? No BBC, RTE, or papers in your world?

Even Fox News reports this stuff!

Don't watch much TV ... too many factoids for my tastes.

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

Neither groups are 'easily persecuted' ... but it has happened in the past ... and the price of freedom (including freedom from persecution) is eternal vigilence.

Homosexuality is far more openly persecuted across the world than Christianity is.

I'm not denying the existence of persecution in a few places towards Christians, but it pales in comparison to what happens to homosexuals.

When was the last time a woman was raped "fúck the Christian out of her".

J C wrote: »

I'm unaware of any hatred personally ... but all kinds of 'stuff' undoubtedly happens to all kinds of people and groups ... but this doesn't make it right ... and there are laws and police there to deal with them.

Quite often, those laws are put in place against homosexuals, making it a crime punishable by jail or death.

J C wrote: »

Don't watch much TV ... too many factoids facts for my tastes.

Fixed.

I'm sorry JC, I'm all for freedom of religion and expression, but you are honestly plain loopy if you truly think Homosexuals and Christians are just as persecuted and hated as eachother.

Cop on, lad.

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Posting under an anonymous name on Boards hardly qualifies as public condemnation - those who call themselves Christians openly and publicly call for homosexuals to be executed.

Who are these people?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are a Christian - condemn them in the same media they use and reclaim your religion if you really hate what they are doing that much - I suspect you won't, - either way don't you dare try and tell me you are being persecuted by us.

I haven't claimed persecution ... its more of an irritation ... and the disrespect that I object to.
Can we not all treat each other with respect ... and a little bit of love and understanding?

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

Just because Christians don't seem to be as united around every dogma as Secularists seem to be, is no reason to discriminate against them.

What discrimination?
Protecting children of atheist (And minority religion) families from forced indoctrination by the majority religion isn't discrimination.

Anyway, go visit that ET school - they do have religious instruction on the premises - but attendance is entirely voluntary according to the parents wishes, takes place outside the normal school day and is funded by the appropriate parish/faith community.
During school hours, there is religious education which does not promote any particular belief/non-belief as superior to others.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Homosexuality is far more openly persecuted across the world than Christianity is.

I'm not denying the existence of persecution in a few places towards Christians, but it pales in comparison to what happens to homosexuals.

When was the last time a woman was raped "fúck the Christian out of her".

I don't know who is most persecuted?
... but if you happen to be the one abused because of your sexual orientation or religion, in a sense, it doesn't really matter that some other minority may be suffering even more than yours.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Quite often, those laws are put in place against homosexuals, making it a crime punishable by jail or death.

... but more often, thankfully, the law protects rather then persecutes. Christians always pray for such just protective laws for everybody.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Don't watch much TV ... too many factoids facts for my tastes.

Sonics2k
Fixed.

... so you watch Fox TV then!!!:)

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry JC, I'm all for freedom of religion and expression, but you are honestly plain loopy if you truly think Homosexuals and Christians are just as persecuted and hated as eachother.

Cop on, lad.

I never saw a bad word spoken about Homosexuality on the A & A ... but I have observed plenty of bad language, to say the least, being used about Creationists!!!

Corkfeen

JC you'll find the vast majority of posters on this forum if not all, Support one's right to practise their faith. However I draw a line at the state making a specific religion the primary faith for the majority of schools. The state exists to serve the people however providing specified religious education is up to parents and the religious institutions. They should not form law or education around a religion.

Nobody has proposed that they teach that Christianity or any other religion is a load of bollocks that's just you jumping to conclusions. I think you may dislike the fact that they would be teaching about religions on equal footing rather than prioritising a specific deity.

Dades

Can we drop the homosexuality tangent? There's a megathread for that somewhere.

J C, maybe you'd scan ninja's post and tell us the problem with this system:

ninja900 wrote: »

Anyway, go visit that ET school - they do have religious instruction on the premises - but attendance is entirely voluntary according to the parents wishes, takes place outside the normal school day and is funded by the appropriate parish/faith community.
During school hours, there is religious education which does not promote any particular belief/non-belief as superior to others.

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

Can we drop the homosexuality tangent? There's a megathread for that somewhere.

J C, maybe you'd scan ninja's post and tell us the problem with this system:

Apologies Dades - that was my fault. I was just irked by the playing of the persecution card once again.

Dades

Hey no bother. There was baiting going on, to be sure.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

What discrimination?
Protecting children of atheist (And minority religion) families from forced indoctrination by the majority religion isn't discrimination.

... so how do we 'protect' Christian children from forced indoctrination by Secular Humanism in Secular Schools?
You are proposing to replace one form of indoctrination (that is roughly in line with the faith position of 90% of the population) with another form of indoctrination (that is in line with less than 1% of the population) ... and you think that this is progress?

ninja900 wrote: »

Anyway, go visit that ET school

There is no ET school near me - so I know nothing about them.

ninja900 wrote: »

- they do have religious instruction on the premises - but attendance is entirely voluntary according to the parents wishes, takes place outside the normal school day and is funded by the appropriate parish/faith community.
During school hours, there is religious education which does not promote any particular belief/non-belief as superior to others.

Is this to be the model for the new Secular schools??
I'm sure that all of this sounds eminently reasonable to an anti-theist ... but to a Theist, like me, it doesn't.
What you are saying is that Christians can bring their children to church on their own time (which isn't any sort of concession anyway). You're also saying that all forms of religious expression and practice aren't tolerated during school hours ... but crucially the basic beliefs of Atheistic Humanism are given free reign.

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

JC you'll find the vast majority of posters on this forum if not all, Support one's right to practise their faith. However I draw a line at the state making a specific religion the primary faith for the majority of schools. The state exists to serve the people however providing specified religious education is up to parents and the religious institutions. They should not form law or education around a religion.

... what is the problem with the expression of religion in school and attending religious events anyway?
I have known Christians in my time who would never set foot in the church of a different denomination ... and they were rightly called bigoted and sectarian for making a point of not doing so.
... so why shouldn't the same descriptor be applied to people who won't allow their children attend religious services ... or even be in the same room when children of a different faith are praying or practicing their faith?
If Secularists want to set up special schools then so be it ... but they shouldn't claim that while banning religious expression from these schools that they are somehow inclusive or indeed liberal and pluralist.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... so how do we 'protect' Christian children from forced indoctrination by Secular Humanism in Secular Schools?
You are proposing to replace one form of indoctrination (that is roughly in line with the faith position of 90% of the population) with another form of indoctrination (that is in line with less than 1% of the population) ... and you think that this is progress?

You're worried about indoctrination but are still arguing against secularism. Talk about your mixed messages.

There is no ET school near me - so I know nothing about them.

Is this to be the model for the new Secular schools??
I'm sure that all of this sounds eminently reasonable to an anti-theist ... but to a Theist, like me, it doesn't.
What you are saying is that Christians can bring their children to church on their own time (which isn't any sort of concession anyway). You're also saying that all forms of religious expression and practice aren't tolerated during school hours ... but crucially the basic beliefs of Atheistic Humanism are given free reign.
... and what is the problem with the expression of religion in school and attending religious events anyway?
I have known Christians in my time who would never set foot in the church of a different denomination ... and they were rightly called bigoted and sectarian.
... so why shouldn't the same descriptor be applied to people who won't allow their children to attend religious services ... or even be in the same room when children of a different faith are praying or practicing their faith?

It's unreasonable to suggest that Christian parents bring their kids to church on their own time? I would think it a small sacrifice to try ensure eternal salvation for their children.

Secular schools have religious education classes so you are incorrect by stating that religious expression is banned from schools. You compound this error by incorrectly claiming that atheism is given free reign.

Why should state schools be lumbered with the religious upbringing of Christian parents who lack the sincerity of their beliefs?

J C

koth wrote: »

You're worried about indoctrination but are still arguing against secularism. Talk about your mixed messages.

I'm not worried about indoctrination ... all faith positions (including the Secular Faith Position) engage in it ... what I want is equal time devoted to each form of indoctination ... or no indoctrination (including Secular indoctination).

koth wrote: »

It's unreasonable to suggest that Christian parents bring their kids to church on their own time? I would think it a small sacrifice to try ensure eternal salvation for their children.

What I said it that it is no concession at all to tell Christian parents that they can do something that they will be doing anyway. Its an empty gesture ... like giving them all the Rabbits in the country ... only they have to catch them themselves!!!

koth wrote: »

Why should state schools be lumbered with the religious upbringing of Christian parents who lack the sincerity of their beliefs?

Why should the state be encumbered with the promotion of Secular Humanism either?

koth wrote: »

Secular schools have religious education classes so you are incorrect by stating that religious expression is banned from schools. You compound this error by incorrectly claiming that atheism is given free reign.

The orthodoxy of these programmes could be questioned, if it is Secularists who are drawing them up and delivering them ... and especially if they don't allow Christian pastors to visit the premises.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'm not worried about indoctrination ... all faith positions (including the Secular Faith Position) engage in it ... what I want is equal time devoted to each form of indoctination ... or no indoctrination (including Secular indoctination).

No indoctrination is secularism as it give no special place to any belief/religion/atheism etc. To continue to fight against it while continually proposing the very thing you're fighting against as a solution is self-defeating.

What I said it that it is no concession to tell Christian parents that they can do something that they will be doing anyway. Its an empty gesture ... like giving you all the Rabbits in the country ... only you have to catch them yourself!!!

Why should the state be encumbered with the promotion of Secular Humanism either?

It wouldn't be encumbered with the promotion of humanism. It would be teaching about various worldviews/religions, i.e. an inclusive and pluralist teaching plan. It would not be promoting any ideology. It would just be providing information about each of them.

It would be up to the students (and their parents to some extent) to decide what one is for them.

TheChizler

You are aware that there exist secular Christians, Muslims, Hindus...

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The orthodoxy of these programmes could be questioned, if it is Secularists who are drawing them up and delivering them ... and especially if they don't allow Christian pastors to visit the premises.

"Especially if they don't allow Christian pastors to visit the premises"? Pastors, rabbis, imans etc. should have no special privilege to call into schools, much like any other citizen.

If the religious education lesson plan allows for a visit by a religious leader then I see no reason why they wouldn't be asked to visit. Much like the police are sometimes called to speak to a civics class about illegal drugs.

I presume that seeing as the pastors are allowed in to speak about Christianity, you would have no problem with an atheist speaking to the class about atheism?

J C

TheChizler wrote: »

You are aware that there exist secular Christians, Muslims, Hindus...

I'm fully aware ... but there is the stubborn fact that 90% of the Irish population still define themselves as Christians.

J C

koth wrote: »

"Especially if they don't allow Christian pastors to visit the premises"? Pastors, rabbis, imans etc. should have no special privilege to call into schools, much like any other citizen.

They should have (and currently do have) every right to do so ... because the vast majority of parents (of all faiths) want them to have such access.

koth wrote: »

If the religious education lesson plan allows for a visit by a religious leader then I see no reason why they wouldn't be asked to visit. Much like the police are sometimes called to speak to a civics class about illegal drugs.

Pastors have every right to inspect what members of their faiths are being taught and whether it is in line with their faith. Parents, as members of churches, fully support their church leaders in this, as it is a key part of church governance.

koth wrote: »

I presume that seeing as the pastors are allowed in to speak about Christianity, you would have no problem with an atheist speaking to the class about atheism?

No problem whatsoever. This would be desirable IMO for a full liberal education.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

They should have (and currently do have) every right to do so ... because the vast majority of parents (of all faiths) want them to have such access.

To what end? They're not teaching staff.

Pastors have every right to inspect what members of their faiths are being taught and whether it is in line with their faith. Parents, as members of churches, fully support their church leaders in this, as it is a key part of church governance.

As do the parents, but that does not give them the right to randomly wander into classes as if they were inspectors from the department of education. They (the parents) can talk to their kids about their lessons and inspect the learning materials if they are concerned. If they are unhappy about it, they can bring it up with the school staff and/or board.

State schools should not have to tailor information to suit a religious group. If one group said it was okay to beat your wife or kill homosexuals, should kids be taught such things in the classroom? They can go jump as far as I'm concerned. The classroom is no place to imposing a religious dogma. It's a place of learning.

No problem whatsoever.

That makes it all the more confusing as to why you oppose secularism.

Cabaal

J C wrote: »

No problem whatsoever. This would be desirable IMO for a full liberal education.

What about Scientology or Mormons?

J C

koth wrote: »

To what end? They're not teaching staff.

As do the parents, but that does not give them the right to randomly wander into classes as if they were inspectors from the department of education. They (the parents) can talk to their kids about their lessons and inspect the learning materials if they are concerned. If they are unhappy about it, they can bring it up with the school staff and/or board.

Pastors are representatives of the local church with full power accorded to them in Church governance. As they are the leaders of the local church, that have much more authority than any individual parent.

koth wrote: »

State schools should not have to tailor information to suit a religious group. If one group said it was okay to beat your wife or kill homosexuals, should kids be taught such things in the classroom?

What religion says such outrageous things?
If state schools are irreligious ... don't be surprised if small numbers of children attend these schools.

koth wrote: »

They can go jump as far as I'm concerned. The classroom is no place to imposing a religious dogma. It's a place of learning.

You're quite entitled to your point of view ... and so am I.

koth wrote: »

That makes all the more confusing as to why you oppose secularism.

I support the provision of information on all religions and none ... but I don't support schools that disrespect local church leaders and ban the expression and practice of religion in school. I'm not a 'turkey voting for Christmas'!!!!

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

What about Scientology or Mormons?

No problem again ... Christian children will have to live in the world and with people of all beliefs and none.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Pastors are representatives of the local church with full power accorded to them in Church governance. As they are the leaders of the local church, that have much more authority than any individual parent.

I'm afraid with regards to state schools, you're entirely wrong. The government refers to the parents, not their pastor/iman/rabbi, on how best to educate children.

What religion says such outrageous things?
Its fine for state schools to be irreligious ... but don't be surprised if small numbers of children attend these schools.

Some branches of Islam and Christianity, and no doubt other religious groups have the equivalent.

You're quite entitled to your point of view ... and so am I.

You're not actually attempting to defend the indoctrination of children with such a disgusting perspective?

I support the provision of information on all religions and none ... but I don't support schools that disrespect local church leaders and ban the expression and practice of religion in school. I'm not a 'turkey voting for Christmas'!!!!

Again, you're pro-secularism but stating that you're anti-secularism.

Secular schools do not disrespect local church leaders or ban religious expression. I already corrected that misunderstanding once today for you. It would be nice if you could actually criticize things a secular school actually do rather than misrepresent those schools.

Morag

J C wrote: »

I support the provision of information on all religions and none ... but I don't support schools that disrespect local church leaders and ban the expression and practice of religion in school. I'm not a 'turkey voting for Christmas'!!!!

That is no different to what most parents want.

I really don't get why you are railing against Secularism as it includes freedom of religion and from religion and respects the human rights of everyone. I think this is ideally what should be the base line for all schools instead of my children being told they are not fully human unless the have a relationship with the christian god.

J C

koth wrote: »

I'm afraid with regards to state schools, you're entirely wrong. The government refers to the parents, not their pastor/iman/rabbi, on how best to educate children.

... and if parents delegate their authority to their local church leader then they become key stakeholders in all of this.

koth wrote: »

Some branches of Islam and Christianity, and no doubt other religious groups have the equivalent.

The equivalent of what?

koth wrote: »

You're not actually attempting to defend the indoctrination of children with such a disgusting perspective?

I'm also disgusted that you should suggest that local church leaders should 'go and jump' ... but it was you who said it.

koth wrote: »

Again, you're pro-secularism but stating that you're anti-secularism.

Secularism is one of those 'weasel words' that can mean almost anything ... it can start out meaning respect for people of all religions and none (which I would support) ... and it can end up as some type of anti-theist construct, that deems the religous eduction of children as some form of 'child abuse' (which I would obviously vigorously challenge and deny).

koth wrote: »

Secular schools do not disrespect local church leaders or ban religious expression. I already corrected that misunderstanding once today for you. It would be nice if you could actually criticize things a secular school actually do rather than misrepresent those schools.

You have already said that local religious leader have no place in Secular schools during the school day ... and you have even suggested that they should 'take a running jump'. This doesn't sound like either you ... or secular schools would respect them very much, if at all.

robindch

Morag wrote: »

I really don't get why you are railing against Secularism as it includes freedom of religion and from religion and respects the human rights of everyone.

That's because religious people are told that secularism (the freedom to believe what one wants to about deities without state interference) and atheism (the assertion that there is no deity) are the same thing -- and religious people are not taught to question what they're told -- hence the confusion.

J C

Morag wrote: »

That is no different to what most parents want.

I really don't get why you are railing against Secularism as it includes freedom of religion and from religion and respects the human rights of everyone. I think this is ideally what should be the base line for all schools instead of my children being told they are not fully human unless the have a relationship with the christian god.

They're not told that in Christian schools ... we're all too Human when we don't have a relationship with God actually ... but, in any event, telling them that they are deluded because they believe in God certainly isn't a viable alternative.
The bottom line here is, if secularists aren't prepared to meet Christians half way (and with full respect) ... then they will need to seriously consider setting up their own schools themselves ... and with the expectation that these schools will be left to them ... with few Christian children attending them.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and if parents delegate their authority to their local church leader then they become key stakeholders in all of this.

Not in the eyes of the dept. of Education they don't.

The equivalent of what?

Equivalent of religious leaders that promote domestic violence or killing homosexuals.

I'm also disgusted that you should suggest that local church leaders should 'go and jump' ... but it was you who said it.

I absolutely did not. Please do not misrepresent what I have posted. I stated that I would have no tolerance for a religious that promoted domestic violence or homophobia in a classroom. I will put down your error to a misreading of my post rather than something malicious.

Secularism is one of those 'weasel words' that can mean almost anything ... it can start out meaning respect for people of all religions and none (which I would support) ... and end up as some type anti-theist construct that deems the religous eduction of children as some form of 'child abuse' (which I would obviously vigorously challenge and deny).

No, you're still wrong. Secularism is a separation of church and state. That means it can't be either pro or anti-theist, otherwise it isn't secular.

You have already said that local religious leader have no place in Secular schools during the school day ... and you have even suggested that they should 'take a running jump'. This doesn't sound like either you ... or secular schools would respect them very much, if at all.

No. As stated above, you misunderstood/misread my post. I refer you to the clarification above.

J C

robindch wrote: »

That's because religious people are told that secularism (the freedom to believe what one wants to about deities without state interference) and atheism (the assertion that there is no deity) are the same thing -- and religious people are not taught to question what they're told -- hence the confusion.

What amazes me is how such liberal-sounding ideals actually end up with the banning of religious expression and practice in school ... and refusing local church leaders access to these schools during school hours.
... and I find your suggestion that religious people are not taught to question what they're told to be both wrong and patronising in the extreme.