Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

J C

koth wrote: »

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

There is no Christian leader (or indeed true Christian of any description) that advocates domestic violence or killing Homosexuals ... and your suggestion is totally outrageous.

koth wrote: »

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.

That's an equally outrageous suggestion ... as domestic violence and homophobia are condemned by the first rule of Christianity to love our fellow Humans as ourselves.

koth wrote: »

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.

The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively an anti-christian phrase as the only target for 'separation' ... is Christianity ... and no other faith community.

If secularism was as even-handed as you claim, they would be campaigning for the separation of 'all faiths and none from the state'.
... but I can see that this wouldn't be a good idea, if you were a Secularist and you wanted the state to set up schools for you!!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

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.

Schools, JC, are paid for by everybody for the benefit of everybody.

If the religious want to indoctrinate the trusting, innocent children they control with religious stories from the Bronze and Iron Ages, then -- though I detest that they are dishonest enough to do it -- they are free to do so in their own time, at their own expense, and in a place they've paid for.

Out of interest, as you appear to approve of religious men having unhindered access to young children, would you be happy to have your kids (assuming you have kid(s)) indoctrinated with Satanism, just because the nearest school happened to be controlled by Satanists?

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

... so how do we 'protect' Christian children from forced indoctrination by Secular Humanism in Secular Schools?

There is no such thing as 'indoctrination into secular humanism'. That phrase is a contradiction in terms.

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

No. Don't indoctrinate kids at all would be my choice.

There is no ET school near me -

Me neither. It's rather a shame there is so few of them. They have a rather good website though. You should look it up.

so I know nothing about them.

Well your posts are making that increasinly clear, if nothing else.

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.

They have no authority in schools of which they are not patron. Nothing, zip, nada.

What religion says such outrageous things?

Not this again. I tell my five year old daughter that it's rather rude to ask a question, get an answer, ignore it, then ask the same question again.

If state schools are irreligious ... don't be surprised if small numbers of children attend these schools.

There are a small number of ET schools because it's so difficult for parents - cash-poor, time-poor parents, worried about getting a school place for their child at all - to be expected, as we are frequently told here by yourself and others, that we should just just go off and 'suck it up or set up our own schools if we don't like it.' It's a very difficult thing to do and it takes years of sustained effort or even decades.

Not helped at all by the established churches of course - even where they have empty school properties they'd rather let them rot. The Department of Education is usually hostile.

But the ET schools which do exist have strong demand and there is strong demand for many more of these schools.

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

Points of view which are backed up by evidence are so much more worthwhile though.

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'!!!!

You say this but frankly I don't believe you. You do not want the overwhelming Christian dogmatic monoculture in our schools to change. 'Tell the kids about other religions if you must, so long as they know they're wrong', perhaps?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Schools, JC, are paid for by everybody for the benefit of everybody.

If the religious want to indoctrinate the trusting, innocent children they control with religious stories from the Bronze and Iron Ages, then -- though I detest that they are dishonest enough to do it -- they are free to do so in their own time, at their own expense, and in a place they've paid for.

Very illuminating on the views of Secularists about their religious neighbours ... that they are indoctrinating 'trusting innocent children they control' (a loaded phrase if ever I heard one) ... that they are stuck in the Bronze Age ... and they are dishonest.
Anyway, if you think that religous people are a load of lying cretins who are mentally abusing 'trusting innocent' children ... then perhaps you should set up your own school for like minded people like yourself ... and leave the education of Christian children to Christians and other Theists.

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, as you appear to approve of religious men having unhindered access to young children,

Another outrageous loaded phrase. I said that religious leaders should have access to schools ... and could I point out that some religious leaders are women ... and these people are already child-protection vetted, just like everybody else who works with minors.

robindch wrote: »

would you be happy to have your kids (assuming you have kid(s)) indoctrinated with Satanism, just because the nearest school happened to be controlled by Satanists?

I wouldn't send my children to such a school ... wherever it was located.
Why did you introduce this point about Satanists?
Are you trying to suggest that another reason to close Christian Schools is to not cause offense to Satanist parents who are sending their children to these schools?
This might explain why there is such an issue over Christian prayers and practice in these schools. I can see why a Satanist might be offended ... but I can't see why a liberal Atheist would be.

robindch

J C wrote: »

[...] that they are stuck in the Bronze Age [...]

No, I didn't say that. I did say that the most common religious stories come from the Bronze (~3000BCE - 1000BCE) and Iron Ages (1000BCE - 500CE). Are you saying that they weren't written down during that time?

J C wrote: »

Anyway, if you think that religous people are a load of lying cretins who are mentally abusing 'trusting innocent' children

Didn't say that either. I said that religious people are lying to kids and that I detest their doing this.

J C wrote: »

[...] and leave the education of Christian children to Christians and other Theists.

As above, if christians want to indoctrinate their kids, then they can do so in their own time, with their own money and in their own place. It's not like they're short of large premises designed for mass indoctrination to start with.

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't send my children to such a school ... wherever it was located.

I'm a bit confused -- above you said that you approve of the religious control of schools. Now you say that you don't.

Which is it?

J C

robindch wrote: »

No, I didn't say that. I did say that the most common religious stories come from the Bronze (~3000BCE - 1000BCE) and Iron Ages (1000BCE - 500CE). Are you saying that they weren't written down during that time?

Your use of the phrase 'bronze and iron age' was clearly a 'put down' ... the Christian New Testament was written long after the so-called Bronze Age ... and the Old Testament was written by the same people who built the Pyramids in Egypt and at the same time as other monliths were erected around the World, that modern engineers wouldn't even be able to emulate.

robindch wrote: »

Didn't say that either. I said that religious people are lying to kids and that I detest their doing this.

... so you think that erroneously accusing Christians of lying to children is somewhat less offensive than just accusing them of lying???

robindch wrote: »

As above, if christians want to indoctrinate their kids, then they can do so in their own time, with their own money and in their own place.
It's not like they're short of large premises designed for mass indoctrination to start with.I'm a bit confused --

I see ... Christians can educate their children for an hour on a Sunday ... and you guys will undo everthing they are taught for the rest of the week in school ... funded by the (largely Christian) taxpayer.
You must think that we all came down in the last shower!!!

robindch wrote: »

above you said that you approve of the religious control of schools.
Now you say that you don't.

Which is it?

... can I point out that Satanists are, by their own definition anti-christ, ... so why do you think any Christian could countence sending their children to any schools they control?

Morag

J C wrote: »

They're not told that in Christian schools

They were.

J C wrote: »

but, in any event, telling them that they are deluded because they believe in God certainly isn't a viable alternative.

I don't agree whit that and I don't know anyone who thinks we should have a secular society and secular schools thinks that either.

I really am baffled by the idea you seem to have that secularist are for out lawing personal religious beliefs or for belittling them.

J C wrote: »

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.

Educate Together schools are based in the way that most secularist agree with, the mandated time for Religious eduction teaches about all world religions and atheism equally. They are be biggest growing type of school in the country for the last decade and are a model which works.

Religious instruction for children can be done in the same building after school hours or in their own religious community.

expectationlost

TD ask Min for Ed how are catchment areas are determined http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/01/17/00119.asp

Catchment boundaries have their origins in the establishment of free post-primary education in the late 1960s and were determined following consultation with local educational interests. For planning purposes the country was divided into geographic districts each with several primary schools feeding into a post-primary centre with one or more post-primary schools. The intention was and continues to be that these defined districts facilitate the orderly planning of school provision and accommodation needs.

local educational interests, churches perhaps

so where are the maps? or feeder lists

Sofiztikated

J C wrote: »

Your use of the phrase 'bronze and iron age' was clearly a 'put down' ... the Christian New Testament was written long after the so-called Bronze Age ... and the Old Testament was written by the same people who built the Pyramids in Egypt and at the same time as other monliths were erected around the World, that modern engineers wouldn't even be able to emulate.

... so you think that erroneously accusing Christians of lying to children is somewhat less offensive than just accusing them of lying???

I see ... Christians can educate their children for an hour on a Sunday ... and you guys will undo everthing they are taught for the rest of the week in school ... funded by the (largely Christian) taxpayer.
You must think that we all came down in the last shower!!!

... can I point out that Satanists are, by their own definition anti-christ, ... so why do you think any Christian could countence sending their children to any schools they control?

Whoa, whoa whoa, what?

Morag

J C wrote: »

If secularism was as even-handed as you claim, they would be campaigning for the separation of 'all faiths and none from the state'.

That is what it is about.

J C wrote: »

I see ... Christians can educate their children for an hour on a Sunday

Surely I should not have to explain to you have living a christian life is more then 1 hour a week?

No christian parents would be modeling christian behavior every day to their children and so would extended family member and community.

The same way muslim, jewish, hindu, budhist and pagan parents teach and model to their children.

J C wrote: »

... and you guys will undo everthing they are taught for the rest of the week in school ... funded by the (largely Christian) taxpayer.

Do you really think that being told in school that there some people are christian, some people are muslim ect will undo the huge influence of parents, family and community has on children?

Were you not taught that faith is passed from parent to child and is sustained by the family and sustains the family?

J C wrote: »

You must think that we all came down in the last shower!!!

Why should parent's who have children who are not christian but whom must attend a christian school have to spend so much time undoing and unpicking the indoctrination of our children?

J C wrote: »

... can I point out that Satanists are, by their own definition anti-christ, ... so why do you think any Christian could countence sending their children to any schools they control?

That depends on the type of satanists which you are referring those who venerate lucifer or those who are atheistic.

Corkfeen

I know JC says that he understands that one can support secularism and be religious but he really doesn't seem to understand. A secular education system is not for the purpose of indoctrinating or for removing one's religious belief. However a Catholic Primary school does indoctrinate students, this is not the duty of the state.

Spend as much time as you want indoctrinating outside of the classroom. There's still plenty of hours left in the week and no effort will be made to reverse your work.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Whoa, whoa whoa, what?

He's somewhat correct on that front, I'd suspect much of the methodologies for crafting are lost at this point in time. It could be replicated but somewhat artificially. For example, they only recently discovered how to concoct the extremely long lasting mortar which the Romans used for their structures.

Geuze

I am not particularly religious.

I am not a teacher.

However, I had to meet and talk to several groups of secondary school students.

VEC students (mixed)
"convent" school

I could straight away feel the apathy from the VEC kids, whereas the "convent" students were (mostly) full of energy and questions and curiousity.

What a contrast.

If State-run secondary education was popular and preferred, there would be waiting lists for VEC schools. There isn't.

Even though parents may not go to mass, and may not support the Catholic church too much, they are sensible enough to put practicality ahead of principles.

I would need to be convinced to send my children to a State-run school.


VECs do not fill me with confidence.

In the UK, some people move house to be closer to Church-run schools.

Many people seem to want the churches to pull back, and instead the State to run schools, but they already do - VEC schools.

So if as a parent you don't want to use a Church-run school, you already have a choice.


OK, for primary education, there aren't really any State-run schools.

Would parents want VEC primary schools??

Indoctrination!!!!!!

My parents went to primary in the 50s and secondary in the 60s.

They are as questioning and critical as anybody else.

They have faith - but not a naive, unquestioning faith.

They speak Irish and Latin, recite poetry, and my 70-year-old mother is faster at arithmetic than a modern uni student.


If that's the result of a church-run education, I'll take it over an unknown State-run education

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

What a contrast.

I'm not surprised at the contrast. I am surprised that anyone would see that as having any connection to religion or atheism, especially when you consider that there is almost certainly no difference in the percentage of "VEC" and "convent" students that are Catholic.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not surprised at the contrast. I am surprised that anyone would see that as having any connection to religion or atheism, especially when you consider that there is almost certainly no difference in the percentage of "VEC" and "convent" students that are Catholic.

Admission policies, and good old-fashioned snobbery, play a huge part in this and it becomes a vicious cycle. All the brighter students (And teachers) end up in the 'better' school, and that school is better because all the brighter students and motivated teachers go there...

Oh yeah, I nearly overlooked the little dig at mixed schools there Geuze, what is wrong with mixed schools? or why mention that at all?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There is no Christian leader (or indeed true Christian of any description) that advocates domestic violence or killing Homosexuals ... and your suggestion is totally outrageous.

That's an equally outrageous suggestion ... as domestic violence and homophobia are condemned by the first rule of Christianity to love our fellow Humans as ourselves.

If only that were true. There is a Christian pastor in America called Fred Phelps, who is the leader of the Westboro Baptist church. It is a Christian church that preaches a message based entirely on hate.

You have suggested a scenario where if Phelps lived in Ireland, he would be allowed unfettered access to his local school. In addition, he would have the ability to censor any material he deemed contrary to his religious beliefs.

Personally I think that all religious leaders should be treated as any other potential guest speaker in the classroom. They should not be treated as a de facto member of the teaching staff.

Btw your suggestion also removes any protection Christians would have in a secular class. As robin pointed out, satanists would be able to preach to Christian children and even bar any part of the lesson plan concerning Christianity and the bible.

Secularism wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively an anti-christian phrase as the only target for 'separation' ... is Christianity ... and no other faith community.

Nonsense, Islam, Judaism, Buddism and every other (non) religious group are also separated from the state.

If secularism was as even-handed as you claim, they would be campaigning for the separation of 'all faiths and none from the state'.
... but I can see that this wouldn't be a good idea, if you were a Secularist and you wanted the state to set up schools for you!!!

That's exactly what I've been saying all this time!

Cabaal

Corkfeen wrote: »

He's somewhat correct on that front, I'd suspect much of the methodologies for crafting are lost at this point in time. It could be replicated but somewhat artificially. For example, they only recently discovered how to concoct the extremely long lasting mortar which the Romans used for their structures.

Funny thing is all these creations...pyramids etc, had nothing to do with the christian faith.

Old 7 wounders being:

Great Pyramid of Giza
Hanging Gardens of Babylon
Statue of Zeus at Olympia
Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
Colossus of Rhodes
Lighthouse of Alexandria

If we look at other cool stuff, stonehenge, newgrange, crazy big heads on easter island, anything done in South America etc, they are nothing to do with the Christian faith. So unsure why J C is even trying to bring ANY of these structures into this discussion.

If you look at the area's where Christianity flourished they were backwards in comparison or Christianity only came to the area after these massive structures were built...at which time in alot of cases the old knowledge was lost because of them or destroyed by them.

Christianity isn't exactly progressive when you look at its history

Corkfeen

Cabaal wrote: »

Funny thing is all these creations...pyramids etc, had nothing to do with the christian faith.

Old 7 wounders being:

Great Pyramid of Giza
Hanging Gardens of Babylon
Statue of Zeus at Olympia
Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
Colossus of Rhodes
Lighthouse of Alexandria

If we look at other cool stuff, stonehenge, newgrange, crazy big heads on easter island, anything done in South America etc, they are nothing to do with the Christian faith. So unsure why J C is even trying to bring ANY of these structures into this discussion.

If you look at the area's where Christianity flourished they were backwards in comparison or Christianity only came to the area after these massive structures were built...at which time in alot of cases the old knowledge was lost because of them or destroyed by them.

Christianity isn't exactly progressive when you look at its history

I'm somewhat perplexed alright but that happens when I read most of her posts.

kylith

J C wrote: »

... 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.

So, if the only school that in your area was Hindu you would have no problem with your children attending classes in which they were taught that Hindu deities such as Vishnu and Ganesh were the only true gods, that the Christian god was a myth, and that they must worship the Hindu pantheon to achieve a higher level of being on their next reincarnation?

Sarky

Bloody hell, I preferred him when he was just being completely clueless and dishonest about biology.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Bloody hell, I preferred him when he was just being completely clueless and dishonest about biology.

Be careful what you wish for!!!:D:)

J C

koth wrote: »

If only that were true. There is a Christian pastor in America called Fred Phelps, who is the leader of the Westboro Baptist church. It is a Christian church that preaches a message based entirely on hate.

You have suggested a scenario where if Phelps lived in Ireland, he would be allowed unfettered access to his local school. In addition, he would have the ability to censor any material he deemed contrary to his religious beliefs.

A Church based on hate is an oxymoron ... and has no validity.
Love one another, as I love you, says the Lord Jesus Christ.

koth wrote: »

Personally I think that all religious leaders should be treated as any other potential guest speaker in the classroom. They should not be treated as a de facto member of the teaching staff.

... you're right, local religious leaders should be treated as ex officio leaders within the school community, instead.

koth wrote: »

Btw your suggestion also removes any protection Christians would have in a secular class. As robin pointed out, satanists would be able to preach to Christian children and even bar any part of the lesson plan concerning Christianity and the bible. Secularism wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

... they do in America ... the Bible is banned from American Secular Schools ... so please explain why some 'Secularists' behave like you say Satanists would behave?

koth wrote: »

Nonsense, Islam, Judaism, Buddism and every other (non) religious group are also separated from the state.

... so everything is to be 'separated' except Secular Humanism apparently.
... and you haven't answered my question about why Secularists don't call for the 'separation of all faiths and none from state' ... instead of their distinctly anti-Christian call to merely separate church and state.

Sofiztikated

J C wrote: »

A Church based on hate is an oxymoron ... and has no validity.
Love one another, as I love you, says the Lord Jesus Christ.

... you're right, local religious leaders should be treated as ex officio leaders within the school community, instead.

... they do in America ... the Bible is banned from American Secular Schools ... so please explain why some 'Secularists' behave like you say Satanists would behave?


... so everything is to be 'separated' except Secular Humanism apparently.
... and you haven't answered my question about why Secularists don't call for the 'separation of all faiths and none from state' ... instead of their distinctly anti-Christian call to merely separate church and state.

Except for the gheys. And women. And maybe children, but only if they think for themselves.

Secularists call for the seperation of church and state because, well, because there is no other church involved in our state. It's not that difficult, really.

J C

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Secularists call for the seperation of church and state because, well, because there is no other church involved in our state. It's not that difficult, really.

Practically all churches and all other religions (and indeed organisations representing Secularists) interact at many levels with the State ... and what is wrong with that?
I'm still wondering why Secularists, who often claim to be even-handed and liberal ... call for the distinctly discriminatory separation of Christian Churches (only) and the state.

TheChizler

J C wrote: »

Practically all churches and all other religions (and indeed organisations representing Secularists) interact at many levels with the State ... and what is wrong with that?
I'm still wondering why Secularists, who often claim to be even-handed and liberal ... call for the distinctly discriminatory separation of Christian Churches (only) and the state.

Who's specifying "only". The Christian churches get the most mentions cause of their overwhelming majority, non-Christian don't really compare in terms of numbers or influence. Ask any 'secularist' to be specific and they'd say ALL religions.

Sofiztikated

I really don't have the patience to deal with this.

But keep up with the "I don't like what's happening, so it must be discrimination." Let me know how that works out for ye.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

A Church based on hate is an oxymoron ... and has no validity.
Love one another, as I love you, says the Lord Jesus Christ.

Doesn't matter, it's still an example of a Christian church spreading hate speech against homosexuals which what you asked for an example of.

... you're right, local religious leaders should be treated as ex officio leaders within the school community, instead.

No, they shouldn't be treated as leaders within the school community. The teachers, principals and school board are the leaders.

... they do in America ... the Bible is banned from American Secular Schools ... so please explain why some 'Secularists' behave like you say Satanists would behave?

So a student would be expelled from school for bringing their bible/torah/koran to school? I would think that's a clear violation of the first amendment.

... so everything is to be 'separated' except Secular Humanism apparently.
... and you haven't answered my question about why Secularists don't call for the 'separation of all faiths and none from state' ... instead of their distinctly anti-Christian call to merely separate church and state.

I have, and I actually did so in the post you're quoting. It's the only piece of text you didn't address in my post.

See below:

Link to original post

JC: If secularism was as even-handed as you claim, they would be campaigning for the separation of 'all faiths and none from the state'.
... but I can see that this wouldn't be a good idea, if you were a Secularist and you wanted the state to set up schools for you!!!

Koth: That's exactly what I've been saying all this time!

FYI, the "church" in the separtion of church and state doesn't not refer to the Christian church. It refers to all religions. Also, you're suggesting that secularism = atheism by the wording of your post. It's not, and it explains your continued problem with understanding what secularism is.

Sarky

Same old thing. Demand evidence, ignore all evidence presented, claim victory. It's the J C way.

Cabaal

J C wrote: »

A Church based on hate is an oxymoron ... and has no validity.
Love one another, as I love you, says the Lord Jesus Christ.

Seems less about the love and more about hatred and some very messed up moral teachings,

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NLT)

On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord. Anyone who does work on that day, shall be put to death. You shall not even light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day. (Exodus 35:2-3 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

(yeah all about the love)

"You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their father's wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:4-5 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household'". (Matthew 10:34-36 NAB)

Yep, its all about the peace and love, no hatred at allll...

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

Seems less about the love and more about hatred and some very messed up moral teachings,

Yea ye keep repeating the same Laws that were given to the Jewish Nation by Moses way back when ... and like all Human-devised law both then and now ... they are imperfect and in many cases downright brutal. The Bible records history 'warts and all' including the Human weakness exhibited by all of the patriarchs.
David committed murder and adultery ... and Moses was a bit of an extremist when it came to punishing law breakers ... and it took Jesus Christ to sort things out and draw a line under this hypocracy when he challenged anybody without sin to condemn the repentant woman caught in adultery.

This is what Jesus Christ had to say about such Mosaic Laws (in this case the Law on divorce and adultery) and their limitations ... please note that the Pharisee confirmed that Moses was the source of these laws, not God:-

Mat 19: 3-9
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

... the Bible records that Moses promulgated these laws ... but it doesn't endorse them. In fact, Jesus has decried them for their hypocracy.

Cabaal wrote: »

(yeah all about the love)

Yep, its all about the peace and love, no hatred at allll...

Right on!!!
All you need is love ... love is all you need.

J C

koth wrote: »

Doesn't matter, it's still an example of a Christian church spreading hate speech against homosexuals which what you asked for an example of.

It's an example of a heretic in action all right.

koth wrote: »

No, they shouldn't be treated as leaders within the school community. The teachers, principals and school board are the leaders.

They're the managers of the school. The leaders are logically mostly local church leaders ... as over 90% of the Irish population are self proclaimed members of Christian churches who elect / appoint leaders in accordance with their church governance rules.

koth wrote: »

So a student would be expelled from school for bringing their bible/torah/koran to school? I would think that's a clear violation of the first amendment.

They would certainly be expelled for using them ... which is in line with what you say Satanists would do. Why do you think that public Schools are behaving in this kind of way?

wrote:

koth
As robin pointed out, satanists would be able to preach to Christian children and even bar any part of the lesson plan concerning Christianity and the bible.

.

koth wrote: »

See below:
FYI, the "church" in the separtion of church and state doesn't not refer to the Christian church. It refers to all religions. Also, you're suggesting that secularism = atheism by the wording of your post. It's not, and it explains your continued problem with understanding what secularism is.

How does the phrase 'separation of church and state' mean the 'separation of all religions and state'.
Since when did any religion other than Christianity call itself a church?
... and what about the irreligionists are they to be given favoured status by the state ... and why so?
The 'separation of church and state' is straightforward call to the state to discriminate against Christians ... and Christians alone.

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

The 'separation of church and state' is straightforward call to the state to discriminate against Christians ... and Christians alone.

Why do so many Christians complain that they are being discriminated against because they are asked not to discriminate?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It's an example of heretic in action all right.

They're just the managers of the school.

Same thing for the sake of this discussion.

They would certainly be expelled for using them ... in line with what you say is what Satanists would do.

What schools are being run by Satanists in the US? I was asking if a student would be expelled from a state school in the US for wearing a crucifix or bringing their bible to school with them?

How does the phrase ' separation of church and state' mean the separation of all religions and state.
Since when did any religion other than Christianity call itself a church?
... and what about the irreligionists are they to be give favoured by the state ... and why so?
The 'separation of church and state' is straightforward call to the state to discriminate against Christians ... and Christians alone.

Absolute nonsense. Church is just short hand for religion. Just as 'state' is shorthand for congress/government.

The exact text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the government can't be pro or anti-religion.

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why do so many Christians complain that they are being discriminated against because they are asked not to discriminate?

Christian Churches represent their members just like Secular Organisations represent their members views.
Why should the Christian Churches alone be 'separated' from the state?
Surely every organisation should be 'separated' ... or better still, no organisation?

J C

koth wrote: »

What schools are being run by Satanists in the US? I was asking if a student would be expelled from a state school in the US for wearing a crucifix or bringing their bible to school with them?

I don't know ... but you have said that if a school were run by Satanists they would ban study of the Bible from the school ... and this is what we find that has been done.

koth wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Church is just short hand for religion. Just as 'state' is shorthand for congress/government.

Church is shorthand for Christianity (and Christianity alone) ... religion is shorthand for religion ... and irreligion is shorthand for irreligion
so the phrase 'separation of church and state' is shorthand for 'separation of Christianity and state.

koth wrote: »

The exact text of the first amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the government can't be pro or anti-religion.

They shouldn't be ... yet they ban religious expression from schools (despite having a constitution that doesn't allow the prohibition of religion or the free exercise thereof).
I guess its a case of fine words not translating into fine actions.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I don't know ... but you have said that if a school were run by Satanists they would ban study of the Bible from the school ... and this is what we find that has been done.

how could it be done? where are the satanist schools in the US? can you provide some links?

Church is shorthand for Christianity (and Christianity alone) ... religion is shorthand for religion ... and irreligion is shorthand for irreligion
so the phrase 'separation of church and state' is shorthand for 'separation of Christianity and state.

No it's not, and I provided the text from the constitution to prove that you're wrong on that claim.

They shouldn't be ... yet they ban religious expression from schools (despite having a constitution that doesn't allow the prohibition of religion or the free exercise thereof).
I guess its a case of fine words not translating into fine actions.

You're forgetting/ignoring that the constitution also forbids the government from promoting a religion. The actions reflect the text.

J C

koth wrote: »

how could it be done? where are the satanist schools in the US? can you provide some links?

I'm merely pointing out that public schools are behaving like you say satanists would behave ... by baning any part of the lesson plan concerning Christianity and the bible.

koth wrote: »

You're forgetting/ignoring that the constitution also forbids the government from promoting a religion. The actions reflect the text.

Actions speak louder than words ... they promote the irreligious position and ban the Christian one.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out that public schools are behaving like you say satanists would behave.

You should be able to provide links then to back up your claim.

Actions speak louder than words ... they promote the irreligious position and ban the Christian one.

You may repeat that error as frequently as you like, it won't stop being wrong.

J C

Love and blessings to you all.

shruikan2553

Only read the first few pages so may repeat somethings that have already been said. Religion as a subject being compared to something like maths is ridiculous. 1+1=2 is a fact that nobody can have a varying opinion on. The fact people can think that they are comparable explains youth defence's counting abilities.

Just because someone believes something doesnt mean it has a right to be respected. I can think it's ok to beat a child but cant use "well, thats just what I believe" as an excuse when someone tries to stop me.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

beliefs of Secular Humanism

Beliefs of secularism:

1) We believe that every person has the right to their religious, political and social beliefs, provided that those beliefs are not harmful to others or actively against the law of the land (e.g. nobody has the right to believe that followers of other religions be murdered), and to persecute anyone for their, legally held, beliefs is one of the most heinous crimes.

2) We believe that the laws of the state, while protecting the rights of worship &c. for all, should not favour the rights of one group over others. We also believe that no single group should have a right to the framing of laws in their favour, and that all laws to be decided on the basis of how they best serve the whole of society.

3) Erm...., that's it.

You see JC when you come out contra secularism, you paint yourself as a bigot, as you are stating that a specific group has rights and privileges over and above every other group in the country.

Edit: J C you well know that freedom from religion means the right not to be forced into a religion if you so wish, not the bs you keep spouting about it leading to the eradication of religion.
The best way to eradicate religion is to teach people about it properly. That is why the catholic church is so good at failing to teach its followers the tenets they are supposed to live by.

Gordon

Secular love and blessings to you, J C.

kylith

Could you answer my question, JC?

If the only school that in your area that you could get your child ino was Hindu, you would have no problem with your children attending classes in which they were taught that Hindu deities such as Vishnu and Ganesh were the only true gods, that the Christian god was a myth, and that they must worship the Hindu pantheon to achieve a higher level of being on their next reincarnation?

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

Admission policies, and good old-fashioned snobbery, play a huge part in this and it becomes a vicious cycle. All the brighter students (And teachers) end up in the 'better' school, and that school is better because all the brighter students and motivated teachers go there...

Oh yeah, I nearly overlooked the little dig at mixed schools there Geuze, what is wrong with mixed schools? or why mention that at all?

You can see that difference even within some schools. For example I know a few women who count Laurel Hill in Limerick as their alma mater, and they all testify to the difference in levels of funding, teaching ability and quality of facilities between the "A", "B" and "C" schools when they were educated there. The "A" students got top of the line everything, "B" students got slightly below average state education and "C" students basically had to teach themselves. There were only two ways of getting into the "A" school, 1) pay lots of money, or 2) score very high in a test designed at a level well above primary school education (i.e. also pay lots of money, this time on grinds).

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Love and blessings to you all.

Translation: Crap, they're STILL not falling for it. Better retreat to irrelevant platitudes until they forget about me making a tit of myself.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Translation: Crap, they're STILL not falling for it. Better retreat to irrelevant platitudes until they forget about me making a tit of myself.

Translation ... love and blessings to you all.
I say what I mean ... and mean what I say.

All I can do is lay the truth before you... whether anybody allows the truth to set them free is entirely between themselves and God.

mohawk

Seriously!! Is the misrepresentation of what secularism means deliberate??

How hard is it to understand a school day consisting of learning English, Maths, Science, History, Geography etc. If religion is to be taught why not teach them about all the major religions covering things like customs and religious holidays.

Would it be so terrible for religious parents to read the bible/insert book of choice to their own children?:eek: Teach the children the prayers themselves, bring them to mass. Plenty of catholic parents with children in ET schools currently bring their children after school to prepare for communion and confirmation.
I would guess most children in Ireland are taught pretty much everything about "their religion" in school.

inocybe

mohawk wrote: »

Seriously!! Is the misrepresentation of what secularism means deliberate??

How hard is it to understand a school day consisting of learning English, Maths, Science, History, Geography etc. If religion is to be taught why not teach them about all the major religions covering things like customs and religious holidays.

Would it be so terrible for religious parents to read the bible/insert book of choice to their own children?:eek: Teach the children the prayers themselves, bring them to mass. Plenty of catholic parents with children in ET schools currently bring their children after school to prepare for communion and confirmation.
I would guess most children in Ireland are taught pretty much everything about "their religion" in school.

Not to mention the fact that many many teachers don't believe a word of what they are being forced to teach. Surely religious people would prefer their beliefs to be taught by believers, at their own place of worship where it belongs.

Kiwi in IE

I had a junior infant religion book sent home suggesting that parents should teach their children to 'genuflect'.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/genuflect

This is clearly a Catholic thing. Why are they assuming that any non Catholic parent would want to teach their child, or have their child taught to express a servile attitude. I find this incredibly bizarre. These are STATE schools and the fact that the majority of them are run by the RCC should not be allowed to take precedence over the fact they MUST cater for everyone, because that is the only option in many areas. This is in contrast to every other Western country. Surely most parents who are no religion or another religion would find it inappropriate that their junior infant be taught to express a servile attitude to something they do not believe in?

J C

Mohawk wrote: »

Seriously!! Is the misrepresentation of what secularism means deliberate??

How hard is it to understand a school day consisting of learning English, Maths, Science, History, Geography etc. If religion is to be taught why not teach them about all the major religions covering things like customs and religious holidays.

I have no problem with the beliefs of people of all faiths and none being taught.
However, giving the general impression (and sometimes stating it outright) that the Christian God is a myth, is the 'stock in trade' of the 'secularists' on this thread ... so why will people of the same general beliefs behave any differently in schools, if they gain control over them?

The answer seems pretty clear to me that they won't ... and the mere teaching of all subjects from a hard secular point of view is sufficient to transmit secular beliefs to children ... and to suppress the formation of theistic belief (which seem to be the objective of Secularising schools and society, in the first place).
The fact that many Secularists want all schools to be secular, while over 90% of the population are Christian smacks of 'social engineering' and 're-education' not practiced on a similar scale since Atheistic Communism tried to do this in Russia.
Equally, the claimed 'liberalism' of Secularism on religious matters, is denied by its ban on religious expression in any schools it controls.

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I had a junior infant religion book sent home suggesting that parents should teach their children to 'genuflect'.

What is the big deal about this? ... nobody is making you do anything ... surely you told your child that they don't need to genuflect.
... and your child learned something about the beliefs of 84% of your neighbours in the process.
This intolerance of the expression of religious belief smacks of secarianism ... yet ye guys claim that secularism is 'liberal' when it comes to faith (or the lack of it).
I'd wonder what you consider intolerance to actually be, if you break out in a cold sweat, when a child says a prayer or wears religious aparrel in the presence of your child.