Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

Days 298

J C wrote: »

... and 'anti-faith formation' would be even more divisive.
Schools do not perform secular state roles, like issuing Drivers Licences, tax collection, policing, etc ... where the religion of the recipients and the functionaries is completely irrelevant.
Schools are centres of education and opinion formation ... and that is why anti-theists want to remove Theistic control over schools in order to replace it with their own values and beliefs.
... and the idea that anti-theists have no beliefs is denied by their virulent opposition to Theistic ideas and beliefs.
Just like Theists have deeply held beliefs and worldviews ... so also do anti-theists.

... and accommodating both sets of belief is the issue and the challenge.

Its very easy for anti-theists to tell theist parents to teach their children religion at home while teaching exclusively secular principles at school ... but its just as easy for theistic parents to tell anti-theistic parents to do the same and teach their children irreligion at home as well, while teaching exclusively religious principles at school.

You still are confusing atheist education and secular education. I'm tempted to explain but it looks like it has multiple times. Then again you don't seem to have a problem with "theistic control" taking advantage of childrens opinion forming and introducing God as fact when even your sig acknowledges science still needs to find him. God should never be taught as fact in a state funded school or as fiction. It should be up to the parents and the child to form an opinion, not the school to lead them towards the church. Its not inclusive

And your last point is pure bull and makes no sense. Are you suggesting that the state must teach children God as fact and then told by parents that its a load of codswallop. Teaching your religion to your child should be on your time . But then again you wont accept anything than teaching christianity as fact, everything else is anti-theists taking over. Its very easy to "accommodate" both beliefs. How? Don't teach them either as fact. Let parents indoctrinate their children

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

... and 'anti-faith formation' would be even more divisive.
Schools do not perform secular state roles, like issuing Drivers Licences, tax collection, policing, etc ... where the religion of the recipients and the functionaries is completely irrelevant.
Schools are centres of education and opinion formation ... and that is why anti-theists want to remove Theistic control over schools in order to replace it with their own values and beliefs.
... and the idea that anti-theists have no beliefs is denied by their virulent opposition to Theistic ideas and beliefs.
Just like Theists have deeply held beliefs and worldviews ... so also do anti-theists.

... and accommodating both sets of belief is the issue and the challenge.

I have attempted to answer this for you already. It's clear you have ignored my attempts. Try to take the time to inform yourself on what you are arguing against before posting again.

Its very easy for anti-theists to tell theist parents to teach their children religion at home while teaching exclusively secular principles at school ... but its just as easy for theistic parents to tell anti-theistic parents to do the same and teach their children irreligion at home, while teaching exclusively religious principnles at school.

Actually you are wrong in this assertion. Telling kids nothing about religion in schools leaves it open for parents to impart their own beliefs to their children. However, telling kids one religion is right or no religion is right has an adverse effect on parents' ability to impart their beliefs on the matter as it draws into conflict to authority figures in the child's life, his parent and his teacher.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

Do you think that schools should imbue opinions upon the students, or provide them the facts necessary for the students to form their own opinions?

Bald Facts on their own are fine in so far as they go ... but everyone interprets facts in accordance with their worldview and all kinds of other biases ... and therein lies the problem, if we are trying to reach agreement.
There are megathreads here and elsewhere where facts are presented ... and people are no nearer agreeing on what these facts actually mean than when they were first started.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Bald Facts on their own are fine in so far as they go ... but everyone interprets facts in accordance with their worldview and all kinds of other biases ... and therein lies the problem, if we are trying to reach agreement.
There are megathreads here and elsewhere where facts are presented ... and people are no nearer agreeing on what these facts actually mean than when they were first started.

So why not just teach the kids the facts and let them form their opinions themselves? Or present them with a number of different opinions, along with the basis for each one, so they can see how such opinions might be developed?

Or do you insist that we teach the kids in school that basic facts are less important than the specific (and perhaps faith-based) interpretation of those facts by their parents? Surely the parents can do that for themselves?

Or is the real problem that allowing too much rationality and critical thinking into a child's mind creates a real risk of the child rejecting faith as a basis for knowledge?

Gordon

J C wrote: »

Bald Facts on their own are fine in so far as they go ... but everyone interprets facts in accordance with their worldview and all kinds of other biases

Should teachers be interpreting the facts according to their vaying worldviews or simply provide the facts to the students?

J C

Gordon wrote: »

Should teachers be interpreting the facts according to their vaying worldviews or simply provide the facts to the students?

Providing the facts would probably be best ... but 'facts' can easily slide into 'opinion'.

Gordon

J C wrote: »

Providing the facts would probably be best ... but 'facts' can easily slide into 'opinion'.

IMO that's up to the student to form for themselves.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Providing the facts would probably be best ... but 'facts' can easily slide into 'opinion'.

True enough. Journalism and the media show that this is possible. However I would imagine that a basic primary school program of Maths, English, Irish ... etc. isn't going to suffer too much from the influence of opinion?

The tricky issue seems to be how religion is taught. Many religious people don't like their own religion being treated as "just another religion that some people may believe in", and would prefer it to be taught as "the truth". As a result many religious people seem to want specific faith schools for their kids, to drive home the message that their religion is somehow better than all the others.

Sofiztikated

Lads, you should know by now that J C's argument consists of "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA."

Fundementalists are the same, no matter what the basis of their fundementalism. And yes, J C, I include athiests in that as well.

Sarky

Still waiting to encounter an atheist as willfully ignorant of reality as J C. I'm sure there must be one out there, maybe more than one, but they're keeping fairly quiet about it...

Piliger

Well I think what the French are doing is an excellent idea.

J C

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Fundementalists are the same, no matter what the basis of their fundementalism. And yes, J C, I include athiests in that as well.

... OK
The tenacity with which many people of all faiths and none hold to their beliefs may explain megathreads where nobody agrees on anything.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Still waiting to encounter an atheist as willfully ignorant of reality as J C. I'm sure there must be one out there, maybe more than one, but they're keeping fairly quiet about it...

I'm not an atheist ... and that would be your ... opinion.

J C

Piliger wrote: »

Well I think what the French are doing is an excellent idea.

... others like what the Pope does ... and I like what Jesus Christ is doing.
I guess this is all part of the diversity of faith and opinion that makes life really interesting.
It would be a very 'grey' world if 'one size fits all' were to be the norm in almost anything ... and quite painful, if it were to be applied to shoes!!!:)

Delirium

what are the school policies the pope is implementing, and where are these schools located?

Obliq

J C wrote: »

... others like what the Pope does ... and I like what Jesus Christ is doing.
I guess this is all part of the diversity of faith and opinion that makes life really interesting.
It would be a very 'grey' world if 'one size fits all' were to be the norm in almost anything ... and quite painful, if it were to be applied to shoes!!!:)

However if it were applied to trouser waists (which is a better analogy as it isn't quite so constrained - pun intended), an elasticated or FLEXIBLE waistband would be fantastic and would suit most people. Anyone who didn't wish to be so *ahem* free to expand, could restrict themselves to a specific hole on a belt, and welcome to it.

Clockwork Owl

I actually think the French took it a bit too far on the ol' secularism business in that charter.

There are parts that I support, such as discouraging objections to the curriculum with regard to (let's be honest) the facts of evolution, the Holocaust and basic sex education. That's not to say that students may not engage in debates; I just think that, unless previously arranged to encourage critical thinking and discussion within the lesson plan, wafting about arguments of 'Well, -I- believe -this-!' could waste the valuable learning time of all students involved in the class. I also agree that teachers keeping their religious and political beliefs out of the classroom is generally a positive thing.

With that said, seeing religious clothing described as 'ostentatious' made me wince. At first, I assumed that this rule was purely intended to stop students from wearing blatant non-uniform under the excuse of 'But it's my culture!', or maybe because they felt that full burqas weren't conducive to social cohesion or~ something. However, the ban on crucifixes, headscarves and turbans seems excessive, disrespectful and, well, not very secular at all. It must be particularly tough on Muslim and Sikh students, who would be forced to choose between attending school and dressing in a way that is appropriate for their culture and faith.

And since when did secularism mean 'rejection of all violence and discrimination'? Seems they're kind of stretching the definition there.

Piliger

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

And since when did secularism mean 'rejection of all violence and discrimination'? Seems they're kind of stretching the definition there.

So you oppose schools having a statement rejecting all violence and discrimination ? Really ??

Piliger

J C wrote: »

... others like what the Pope does ... and I like what Jesus Christ is doing.
I guess this is all part of the diversity of faith and opinion that makes life really interesting.
It would be a very 'grey' world if 'one size fits all' were to be the norm in almost anything ... and quite painful, if it were to be applied to shoes!!!:)

Well you can do your 'jesus christ' thing outside school hours and in your own home - freely. Just don't impose it on the rest of society.

Clockwork Owl

Piliger wrote: »

So you oppose schools having a statement rejecting all violence and discrimination ? Really ??

I'm just -dying- to know where you got that from.

Piliger

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

I'm just -dying- to know where you got that from.

"And since when did secularism mean 'rejection of all violence and discrimination'? Seems they're kind of stretching the definition there."

Clockwork Owl

Secularism is the principle of separation of government from religious institutions. It has precisely bugger all to do with violence, discrimination or the reduction thereof. If those things happen to be a consequence of taking on a secular approach to education, that's great news... but it's certainly not secularism-exclusive, and I was baffled to read that the French charter (as focused on secularism as it was) would faff about with the definition quite so much.

[-0-]

JC should be studied, and not in a good way.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

Providing the facts would probably be best ... but 'facts' can easily slide into 'opinion'.

Fact: We currently have no evidence for the existence of god.

Opinion: God is real.

I think you'll find that those who are pushing a religious agenda (and atheism is not a religious agenda) will be far more likely to start stating opinion and falsehoods (e.g. creationism is an obvious falsehood) as fact than your ordinary garden variety teacher.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

I'm not an atheist ... and that would be your ... opinion.

I never said you were. Could you at least TRY to understand what you read before you reply to it and make a bigger fool of yourself?

J C

Piliger wrote: »

Well you can do your 'jesus christ' thing outside school hours and in your own home - freely. Just don't impose it on the rest of society.

Freedom of religion ... means freedom to practice your religion in public as well as private.

Nobody can stop anybody practicing their religion in private ... the mark of religious suppression is the banning of public religious displays.

It's also a fact that somebody praying beside you, isn't imposing their religion on you.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Freedom of religion ... means freedom to practice your religion in public as well as private.
Somebody praying beside you, isn't imposing their religion on you.

that's a very different thing to a teacher leading the class in prayer. Which is imposing a religion on the students that aren't of that religion.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

JC should be studied, and not in a good way.

Always worthwhile ... and in a good way!!!:)

J C

koth wrote: »

that's a very different thing to a teacher leading the class in prayer. Which is imposing a religion on the students that aren't of that religion.

It may be ... but where are you guys going to stop with suppressing religious expression?
At school ... you say ... but then Piliger comes along and says that religion should be confined to the home ... thereby presumably suppressing public religious expression in church buildings ... and yet others want religion to be outlawed in the home on the basis that it is a form of child abuse!!!

... of course, all the while it is unsaid but assumed that all of the beliefs of Secularism will have unquestioned free reign withn schools and everywhere else within the public domain.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It may be ... but where are you guys going to stop with suppressing religious expression?

But having religion classes isn't suppressing religious expression. We've been over that umpteen times. You're just unhappy that I don't support the idea of religious instruction happening in the classroom and suggest parents do their part.

At school ... you say ... but then Piliger comes along and says that religion should be confined to the home ... thereby presumably suppressing public religious expression in church buildings ... and yet others want religion to be outlawed in the home on the basis that it is a form of child abuse!!!

Secularism doesn't allow for making a religion illegal. Do try and absorb that nugget of information this time.

... of course, all the while it is unsaid but assumed that all of the beliefs of Secularism will have unquestioned free reign withn schools and everywhere else within the public domain.

Yes. It's terrible that Christianity and all the other religions will be given equal standing in society. Much better to stay with the current model of attempting to ignore/suppress everything that isn't Christianity.

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

It may be ... but where are you guys going to stop with suppressing religious expression?
At school ... you say ... but then Piliger comes along and says that religion should be confined to the home ... thereby presumably suppressing public religious expression in church buildings ... and yet others want religion to be outlawed in the home on the basis that it is a form of child abuse!!!

... of course, all the while it is unsaid but assumed that all of the beliefs of Secularism will have unquestioned free reign withn schools and everywhere else within the public domain.

You seem to think that because one poster here says something then we all agree - as if we speak with one mind. Don't be silly.

We are not like Christians - always singing from the same 41,000 hymn sheets. ...oh...wait a second...

Days 298

J C wrote: »

It may be ... but where are you guys going to stop with suppressing religious expression?
At school ... you say ... but then Piliger comes along and says that religion should be confined to the home ... thereby presumably suppressing public religious expression in church buildings ... and yet others want religion to be outlawed in the home on the basis that it is a form of child abuse!!!

... of course, all the while it is unsaid but assumed that all of the beliefs of Secularism will have unquestioned free reign withn schools and everywhere else within the public domain.

So the status quo of one religion taught as fact must remain or else you'll shout religious repression? Sounds like the Fox News "War on Christmas" in terms of stupidity.

Piliger

J C wrote: »

It may be ... but where are you guys going to stop with suppressing religious expression?
At school ... you say ... but then Piliger comes along and says that religion should be confined to the home ... thereby presumably suppressing public religious expression in church buildings ... and yet others want religion to be outlawed in the home on the basis that it is a form of child abuse!!!

... of course, all the while it is unsaid but assumed that all of the beliefs of Secularism will have unquestioned free reign withn schools and everywhere else within the public domain.

You really are starting to catch on

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to think that because one poster here says something then we all agree - as if we speak with one mind. Don't be silly.

We are not like Christians - always singing from the same 41,000 hymn sheets. ...oh...wait a second...

Theists are so brainwashed that they cannot conceive of what it means not to 'believe', and not to follow in lock step. They continuously try to imbue atheists with a 'belief' in atheism that they/we do not have.
Atheism means we do NOT believe in the fairies and aliens. Apart from that we have absolutely nothing in common except rational and logical thinking.

Clockwork Owl

Did we ever establish exactly what the 'beliefs of secularism' are?

Was told today that my boyfriend's seven year old is being encouraged to prepare for communion so that she doesn't risk feeling left out among her classmates. This being a child with non-Christian parents who happily states, with no encouragement whatsoever, that she doesn't believe in any 'man in the sky' and clearly doesn't buy into Catholicism for a second. If employing peer pressure against young children in order to sign 'em up to a faith they've no faith in doesn't demonstrate the ethical problems of a non-secular education system, I don't know what does.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

It may be ... but where are you guys going to stop with suppressing religious expression?
At school ... you say ... but then Piliger comes along and says that religion should be confined to the home ... thereby presumably suppressing public religious expression in church buildings ... and yet others want religion to be outlawed in the home on the basis that it is a form of child abuse!!!

... of course, all the while it is unsaid but assumed that all of the beliefs of Secularism will have unquestioned free reign withn schools and everywhere else within the public domain.

It's clear that you still don't understand what secularism means. And yet you keep arguing against it.
I don't believe religion should be confined to home, I think you should be able to worship whatever religion you want to worship, wherever you wish to worship it. If you want to organise extracurricular faith classes, that's fine by me. However forced worship is wrong.

Kiwi in IE

JC is pretending that he dosn't understand what Secularism is. It suits his agenda to continue to misrepresent it.

If he truthfully did not know by now, after the numerous explanations, he would not have the intellectual capacity to operate whatever device he is using to post in here either!

Sarky

Same as he did with evolution, and all the scientific disciplines it encompassed. Is anyone really surprised after all these years that he doesn't know what he's talking about?

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to think that because one poster here says something then we all agree - as if we speak with one mind. Don't be silly.

I clearly didn't say that ... I highlighted the spectrum of views amongst Secularists about where religious expression should be tolerated ... and nobody has given me any comfort about where Secularism will draw the line on suppressing religious expression.

For example, you told me I was silly and other posters have made similar musings ... but still nobody has drawn any line where they believe religious suppression should stop.

In relation to my own beliefs, for example, I have been clearly told on this thread (without any dissenting voices) that Creationism should 'disappear into the sunset' ... not very tolerant of diversity of culture and religion, if I may say so.
... and a rather ominous indicator of where freedom of religion is heading, if you guys have your way.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

I clearly didn't say that ... I highlighted the spectrum of views amongst Secularists about where religious expression should be tolerated ... and nobody has given me any comfort about where Secularism will draw the line on suppressing religious expression.

For example, you told me I was silly and other posters have made similar musings ... but still nobody has drawn any line where they believe religious suppression should stop.

In relation to my own beliefs, for example, I have been clearly told on this thread (without any dissenting voices) that Creationism should 'disappear into the sunset' ... not very tolerant of diversity of culture and religion, if I may say so.
... and a rather ominous indicator of where freedom of religion is heading, if you guys have your way.

Secularism mandates no suppression of religious expression, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. It's pretty simple. Only you have linked secularism with suppression of religious expression under the misguided view that religious expression supercedes the right to people choosing the religion (or lack thereof) that they want to experience/follow.

J C

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

Did we ever establish exactly what the 'beliefs of secularism' are?

Was told today that my boyfriend's seven year old is being encouraged to prepare for communion so that she doesn't risk feeling left out among her classmates. This being a child with non-Christian parents who happily states, with no encouragement whatsoever, that she doesn't believe in any 'man in the sky' and clearly doesn't buy into Catholicism for a second. If employing peer pressure against young children in order to sign 'em up to a faith they've no faith in doesn't demonstrate the ethical problems of a non-secular education system, I don't know what does.

... two wrongs don't make a right. The challenge in a multi-cultural society is to respect and learn from all cultures ... and not just suppress them in favour of irreligion, on the spurious basis that favouring Atheism/anti-theism alone is the only way to resolve this conundrum.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I clearly didn't say that ... I highlighted the spectrum of views amongst Secularists about where religious expression should be tolerated ... and nobody has given me any comfort about where Secularism will draw the line on suppressing religious expression.

TBH I don't think there is a person living that could ever satisfy you regarding secularism considering you seem to be invulnerable to corrections about your erroneous understanding of the topic.

For example, you told me I was silly and other posters have made similar musings ... but still nobody has drawn any line where they believe religious suppression should stop.

It's not religious suppression to say to religious folk that they must take care of the religious instruction of their children. That it isn't the responsibility of the state.

In relation to my own beliefs, for example, I have been clearly told on this thread (without any dissenting voices) that Creationism should 'disappear into the sunset' ... not very tolerant of diversity of culture and religion, if I may say so.
... and a rather ominous indicator of where freedom of religion is heading, if you guys have your way.

That's a misrepresentation of what was said. The poster who made that comment was suggesting that opening a science book who most likely change some creationists minds.

Seriously, it's not a wicked thing to suggest a person read a book.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... two wrongs don't make a right. The challenge in a multi-cultural society is to respect and learn from all cultures ... and not just suppress them in favour of irreligion, on the spurious basis that favouring Atheism/anti-theism alone is the only way to resolve this conundrum.

^^

a good example that you don't understand what secularism is. How can a secular state ban religion when it is contrary to what secularism is? If they do ban religion, they it can't be a secular state.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Secularism mandates no suppression of religious expression, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

Everything that exists interferes with the rights of others to some degree.
That's why tolerance is required in a multi-cultural society ... but there is little point in somebody asking for tolerance for themselves and their beliefs, if they won't tolerate the expression and practice by other people of their beliefs.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Everything that exists interferes with the rights of others to some degree.
That's why tolerance is required in a multi-cultural society ... but there is little point in somebody asking for tolerance for themselves and their beliefs, if they won't tolerate the expression and practice by other people of their beliefs.

What rights are interfered with when there are optional religious classes in schools and optional religious services in churches?

swampgas

J C wrote: »

... two wrongs don't make a right. The challenge in a multi-cultural society is to respect and learn from all cultures ... and not just suppress them in favour of irreligion, on the spurious basis that favouring Atheism/anti-theism alone is the only way to resolve this conundrum.

Not really - secularism simply means that religion is the private business of the citizen, and that the state is neutral on matters of religion. The state doesn't have to respect (in the sense of deference) any religion or belief - it is assumed that it is none of the state's business what your religion is, as long as it doesn't cause a conflict with the law or wider society.

Secularism is useful where society contains multiple religions and beliefs, including non-belief, as it is a tacit acceptance by everyone that if they keep their religion to themselves, and not try to force it onto everyone else, then maybe everyone can get along.

In a secular state you accept that you cannot express your religion any time you like. In your own home, or in your own church, you can express away to your heart's content. In a state institution, which is shared by everyone, of all religions and none, you have to respect the diverse beliefs of everyone else and rein in your expression of religion. Similarly, you don't have to put up with other people's expression of religion, as we have all agreed to leave any overt religiosity at the door.

If you are the kind of person for whom religion is so important that you need everyone around you know it all the time, then obviously secularism might make you feel somewhat restricted. You might want to shout "I'm a Christian! It's great! Let me tell you about Jesus!" all the time, but that's not really on in a school, or hospital, or other state institution that other people have to use. It's bad manners to assume that other people want to hear about your religion.

Secularism really is "Live and Let Live". Unfortunately some overly-keen religious people don't want to live and let live - they want to preach and convert instead.

Piliger

J C wrote: »

Everything that exists interferes with the rights of others to some degree.

Errrr no it doesn't. My choice to watch SKY football doesn't interfere with anything you do. Neither does my choice of sexual positions or my taste in wine. My choice of saying or not saying prayers in my home doesn't interfere with others at all either. Get a grip.

That's why tolerance is required in a multi-cultural society ... but there is little point in somebody asking for tolerance for themselves and their beliefs, if they won't tolerate the expression and practice by other people of their beliefs.

And your argument has already been comprehensively debunked.

Piliger

swampgas wrote: »

Secularism really is "Live and Let Live". Unfortunately some overly-keen religious people don't want to live and let live - they want to preach and convert instead.

For these theists, the mere knowledge that secular people exist is a source of intolerance for them. As demonstrated by JC here, he feels interfered with by even what people think and do behind their closed doors. There is no way to deal with fundamentalist people like this.

CAnthonyG

Piliger wrote: »

Theists are so brainwashed that they cannot conceive of what it means not to 'believe', and not to follow in lock step. They continuously try to imbue atheists with a 'belief' in atheism that they/we do not have.
Atheism means we do NOT believe in the fairies and aliens. Apart from that we have absolutely nothing in common except rational and logical thinking.

Excuse me? I am a theist and you're saying I am brainwashed.. I am offended. In fact, if this is how a 'secularist' reacts then I may not feel comfortable bringing up anything about my beliefs in a 'secular' classroom.

One of my close friends is an atheist and he believes in aliens (i'm not 100% sure what you have defined as 'aliens' though).

But I do want to thank you for letting me know that I have rational and logical thinking.

swampgas

Piliger wrote: »

<...> As demonstrated by JC here, he feels interfered with by even what people think and do behind their closed doors. There is no way to deal with fundamentalist people like this.

I actually find JC's posts useful: it can be an effort for me to articulate why exactly I disagree with them, and that helps me clarify my own position.

And to be fair to JC, I think he/she is honestly expressing his/her opinions.