Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

Piliger

CAnthonyG wrote: »

Excuse me? I am a theist and you're saying I am brainwashed.. I am offended.

Oh dear .. Quelle tragique.

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.

Oh the irony.

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).

Hint ... 'god' .... 'alien' ....

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

Not from we are sitting.

Piliger

swampgas wrote: »

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.

I think there are better places ...

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

yeah ... right.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

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.

I agree with you on this.
I came across this very interesting quote recently from Dudley Field Malone (who was on the defense team in the Scopes trial) :-
"I have never learned anything from any man who agreed with me."
... yes he was a liberal Secularist ... and I also respect him for that
I think his quote is quite true ... I have certainly learned many things from talking with you guys!!!

swampgas wrote: »

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

Fixed.

J C

CAnthonyG wrote: »

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.

Secularists don't want you to bring anything up about your Theistic beliefs in a Secular Classroom ... that's the problem I've been addressing for the last 10 years on this forum. Not only will you be 'uncomfortable' bringing up Theistic ideas ... you will be banned by law from doing so ... because the idea that God exists might offend an Atheist.

CAnthonyG wrote: »

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).

Many Atheists believe in the possibility of Alien life ... some even believe that life on Earth may have been 'seeded' or 'created' by alien intelligence
... anything but God basically.

CAnthonyG wrote: »

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

Piliger didn't say that ... he was claiming that rational and logical thinking is the unique preserve of Secularists, like himself.
... even though Theists are objectively equally logical and rational.

He was insulting you and me (and all other Theists) ... and not treating us as equal to him.

wrote:

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

Piliger
Not from we are sitting.

This arrogance is something to behold ... dismissing all Theists as 'brainwashed' ... and claiming that Atheists have the monopoly on being logical and rational is just something else.
... and with expressed attitudes like this, they expect us to entrust them with the education of our children having told us that they think that Theists are all morons ... at least in relative terms to their supposedly 'logical' Atheistic minds ...
... when, in fact, the belief that God doesn't exist is actually no more logical than the position that He does.

Delirium

@JC: any chance you could define secularism as you understand it?

gaynorvader

CAnthonyG wrote: »

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.

Don't tar us all with the same brush! I don't think these sweeping generalisations (theists are x, secularists are y) are helping the discussion.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Don't tar us all with the same brush! I don't think these sweeping generalisations (theists are x, secularists are y) are helping the discussion.

Please then 'un-tar' yourself by disassociating yourself from any Secular remarks on the thread with which you disagree.

J C

koth wrote: »

@JC: any chance you could define secularism as you understand it?

The fact that all Secular Humanists are atheists/agnostics is more than a co-incidence IMO.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The fact that all Secular Humanists are atheists/agnostics is more than a co-incidence.

Any chance you could answer the question?

J C

koth wrote: »

Any chance you could answer the question?

I have just done so.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have just done so.

no you haven't. You made a statement about secular humanism.

I'm asking about secularism, as pertaining to the state/schools.

Piliger

J C wrote: »

This arrogance is something to behold ... dismissing all Theists as 'brainwashed' ... and claiming that Atheists have the monopoly on being logical and rational is just something else.
... and with expressed attitudes like this, they expect us to entrust them with the education of our children having told us that they think that Theists are all morons ... at least in relative terms to their supposedly 'logical' Atheistic minds ...
... when, in fact, the belief that God doesn't exist is actually no more logical than the position that He does.

Encapsulating in this one section, the sad plight of the theist.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Please then 'un-tar' yourself by disassociating yourself from any Secular remarks on the thread with which you disagree.

I have stated my beliefs and thoughts on the matter clearly and numerously. I don't disagree with secularism, I do however, disagree with some secularists. Just as I'm sure that you don't disagree with Christianity or creationism while you might disagree with some Christians or creationists.

I don't have to agree with every secularist to agree with secularism. That would be insane.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

I have stated my beliefs and thoughts on the matter clearly and numerously. I don't disagree with secularism, I do however, disagree with some secularists. Just as I'm sure that you don't disagree with Christianity or creationism while you might disagree with some Christians or creationists.

I don't have to agree with every secularist to agree with secularism. That would be insane.

... except I also disassociate myself from any remarks that some Christians may make, if I disagree with them.
Any time I don't, you are perfectly entitled to assume that I agree with them.

J C

Piliger wrote: »

Encapsulating in this one section, the sad plight of the theist.

What 'plight'?
All that is in your selected quote are some of the unfounded accusations of Atheistic Secularism that were made on this thread.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

The fact that all Secular Humanists are atheists/agnostics is more than a co-incidence IMO.

You missed bolding a word there. Secular Humanists are primarily an atheist/agnostic.

Can you define a secularist or secularism? It might help if we weren't trying to debate a word where both sides thing it means a different thing.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

... except I also disassociate myself from any remarks that some Christians may make, if I disagree with them.
Any time I don't, you are perfectly entitled to assume that I agree with them.

Hm. I don't spend my time replying "I disagree" every time I don't agree with something someone posts. I doubt you do either, that would be obsessive behavior. What I do do (hehe) is try to lay my point out clearly. You have not actually disagreed or argued with any of my posts that you have replied to, am I to take it that you agree with them?

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You missed bolding a word there. Secular Humanists are primarily an atheist/agnostic.

Can you define a secularist or secularism? It might help if we weren't trying to debate a word where both sides thing it means a different thing.

Secularism is an irreligious approach to life ... and this has its roots in the atheism / agnosticism of Secular Humanism.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Hm. I don't spend my time replying "I disagree" every time I don't agree with something someone posts. I doubt you do either, that would be obsessive behavior. What I do do (hehe) is try to lay my point out clearly. You have not actually disagreed or argued with any of my posts that you have replied to, am I to take it that you agree with them?

If you don't fundamentally disagree with everything being said on this thread in the name of secularism ... then you are allowing yourself to be 'tarred with the one brush' in relation to Secularism ... as by your silence you are indicating your agreement.
Please then don't complain about being 'tarred with the one brush'.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Secularism is an irreligious approach to life ... and this has its roots in the atheism / agnosticism of Secular Humanism.

From Wikipedia:

Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

It's an approach for governments, not individuals.

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus; medieval Muslim polymaths such as Ibn Rushd; Enlightenment thinkers such as Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and more recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell.

Not necessarily atheists/agnostics either.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

If you don't fundamentally disagree with everything being said on this thread in the name of secularism ... then you are allowing yourself to be 'tarred with the one brush' in relation to Secularism ... as by your silence you are indicating your agreement.
Please then don't complain about being 'tarred with the one brush'.

I don't fundamentally disagree with everything being said on this forum. I find your lack of time spent reading my replies to you before responding, frankly insulting. I'll say again. I have laid out my views before. I think it was even in reply to you on one occasion. I have attempted to correct your erroneous understanding of what a secular state means. You have repeatedly picked out a few words from my posts and reformed them into your own sentences, effectively putting words into my mouth so to speak.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

Secularism is an irreligious approach to life ... and this has its roots in the atheism / agnosticism of Secular Humanism.

This is where the problem is coming from. You dont understand the topics you are discussing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Secular humanism may have some of its ideas from secularism but they are both very different.

Reading more of it now and they prefer to just be known as Humanists as the secularist part causes confusion for some people.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

If you don't fundamentally disagree with everything being said on this thread in the name of secularism ... then you are allowing yourself to be 'tarred with the one brush' in relation to Secularism ... as by your silence you are indicating your agreement.
Please then don't complain about being 'tarred with the one brush'.

Is this another case you your wilful if ignorance, or are you really not getting it? Remember PDN? He was, and presumably still is, a secularist. Be understands that secarism is the best way to protect religious minorities.

Now, where you seem to be going wrong, sorry, yet a other thing that you are getting wrong is that being a secularist does not exclude a person from being something else. PDN, for example, is a secularist but also a Christian. I am a secularist and also an anti-theist. I despise religion. I think that creationism is a blight on humanities intellect, but, I also understand that stupidity is not illegal and people are entitled to believe what they want.

So despite my anti-theist leaning I genuinely believe you are entitled to your religion and certain protections in law, in relation to your beliefs. As a secularist I believe that the organs of the state should be secular and should not promote religion or irreligion. It really is quite simple JC. Surely a scientific man, such as yourself, should be able to grasp this simple concept, particularly as it has been explained to you over and over again...

MrP

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

So despite my anti-theist leaning I genuinely believe you are entitled to your religion and certain protections in law, in relation to your beliefs. As a secularist I believe that the organs of the state should be secular and should not promote religion or irreligion. It really is quite simple JC. Surely a scientific man, such as yourself, should be able to grasp this simple concept, particularly as it has been explained to you over and over again...

Of course the most delicious irony is that the best place JC can live in for his religious beliefs to be respected and he not be persecuted for them is a secular state.

As I told him before, in the kind of theocratic dictatorship his posts give the impression he wants instated in Ireland, he'd be one of the first in the KZ.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course the most delicious irony is that the best place JC can live in for his religious beliefs to be respected and he not be persecuted for them is a secular state.

We have a resonable secular state in Ireland that respects its citizens of all religions and none ... and that's how it should be.
Born Again Christians have lived peacefully with other religions and fellow Christians down the centuries. On the other hand, their experiences at the hands of extreme Secular systems (of both the left and right) hasn't been a happy one.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As I told him before, in the kind of theocratic dictatorship his posts give the impression he wants instated in Ireland, he'd be one of the first in the KZ.

I am fundamentally a democrat ... dictatorships of either the Theistic or Atheistic varieties are 'bad news' for everybody ... including the 'dictator' leading the dictatorship.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

We have a resonable secular state in Ireland that respects its citizens of all religions and none ... and that's how it should be.

Telling non catholics in most of the country enjoy your catholic school because thats all youre getting is respecting the citizens of all religions?

J C wrote: »

Born Again Christians have lived peacefully with other religions and fellow Christians down the centuries. On the other hand, their experiences at the hands of extreme Secular systems (of both the left and right) hasn't been a happy one.

Where was this?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

We have a resonable secular state in Ireland that respects its citizens of all religions and none ... and that's how it should be.
Born Again Christians have lived peacefully with other religions and fellow Christians down the centuries. On the other hand, their experiences at the hands of extreme Secular systems (of both the left and right) hasn't been a happy one.


I am fundamentally a democrat ... dictatorships of either the Theistic or Atheistic varieties are 'bad news' for everybody ... including the 'dictator' leading the dictatorship.

and yet you continue to argue against a secular school system. Why is a secular government a good thing but a secular education system a bad thing?

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

We have a resonable secular state in Ireland that respects its citizens of all religions and none ... and that's how it should be.
Born Again Christians have lived peacefully with other religions and fellow Christians down the centuries. On the other hand, their experiences at the hands of extreme Secular systems (of both the left and right) hasn't been a happy one.


I am fundamentally a democrat ... dictatorships of either the Theistic or Atheistic varieties are 'bad news' for everybody ... including the 'dictator' leading the dictatorship.

What are you babbling about? Our state is not secular, despite what it claims. State funding goes towards religious institutions, judges are required to swear to a Christian god when being sworn in and I'm sure there are many other examples. There has been much fighting in this countries between Christians over religion, I'm not sure about BAC, but I think that they're probably a minority. I'd love to hear about this fictitious state where "extreme" secularism (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) has lead to problems.

I'm not sure where this talk of dictators has arisen, or what bearing it has on the discussion of secularism.Care to enlighten?

Hotblack Desiato

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't fundamentally disagree with everything being said on this forum. I find your lack of time spent reading my replies to you before responding, frankly insulting. I'll say again. I have laid out my views before. I think it was even in reply to you on one occasion. I have attempted to correct your erroneous understanding of what a secular state means. You have repeatedly picked out a few words from my posts and reformed them into your own sentences, effectively putting words into my mouth so to speak.

Sadly you're wasting your time. I was around and around this with J C a week or two ago, until he stopped replying to my posts (but engaging with the similar posts of others.) A tactical withdrawal I suppose.

Morag

J C wrote: »

The fact that all Secular Humanists are atheists/agnostics is more than a co-incidence IMO.

I am a secularist and I am not an atheist or an agnostic.

CAnthonyG

ninja900 wrote: »

Sadly you're wasting your time. I was around and around this with J C a week or two ago, until he stopped replying to my posts (but engaging with the similar posts of others.) A tactical withdrawal I suppose.

If you had 10 people each demanding your attention would you be able to give it to them? Most of the arguments I have seen J C in he is usually responding to at least 5 people (to be generous). I would be more than willing to send you some tyelnol through mail for that inevitable headache if you did end up responding to all of them.

Doesn't look like a 'withdrawal' to me IMO

MrPudding

CAnthonyG wrote: »

If you had 10 people each demanding your attention would you be able to give it to them? Most of the arguments I have seen J C in he is usually responding to at least 5 people (to be generous). I would be more than willing to send you some tyelnol through mail for that inevitable headache if you did end up responding to all of them.

Doesn't look like a 'withdrawal' to me IMO

To say that JC is "responding" to other posters displays both a lack of understanding of what responding means, in the context of a discussion forum and a gross overestimation of the quality and relevance of his posts.

MrP

gaynorvader

CAnthonyG wrote: »

If you had 10 people each demanding your attention would you be able to give it to them? Most of the arguments I have seen J C in he is usually responding to at least 5 people (to be generous). I would be more than willing to send you some tyelnol through mail for that inevitable headache if you did end up responding to all of them.

Doesn't look like a 'withdrawal' to me IMO

He'll respond to part of a post and ignore the rest. It's not a matter that reading 10 posts in an hour is beyond him.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

hands of extreme Secular systems

Name one. Go on, I dare you.

I am fundamentally a democrat ... dictatorships of either the Theistic or Atheistic varieties are 'bad news' for everybody ... including the 'dictator' leading the dictatorship.

Good, then you'll have no objection to Ireland finally becoming secular, including its schools, because one of the essential ingredients of sucessful democracy is that any religion has no part in the framing of laws or the running of a state.

Final note: it gets really annoying fast listening to someone who doesn't know what the **** he's arguing against. J C go off and educate yourself about the goals and achievements of secularism, and how a secular society is a far, far better place than a religious one.

Sarky

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Final note: it gets really annoying fast listening to someone who doesn't know what the **** he's arguing against. J C go off and educate yourself about the goals and achievements of secularism, and how a secular society is a far, far better place than a religious one.

This is just something you'll have to get used to. Since the catastrophe of ignorance that marked his contributions to the old evolution threads, I've resigned myself to the fact that there's simply no hope for J C.

Brian Shanahan

Sarky wrote: »

This is just something you'll have to get used to. Since the catastrophe of ignorance that marked his contributions to the old evolution threads, I've resigned myself to the fact that there's simply no hope for J C.

I live in hope that eventually he'll grow intelligent enough to actually go out and learn about what he is posting on. It happened once before with me, when I was involved in an evolution discussion over at CFC, where a poster eventually started reading all the evidence and proof for evolution (mostly posted by others more expert than me), and realised how silly he was making himself look decrying it.

Originally he even used the banana argument.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Sarky
This is just something you'll have to get used to. Since the catastrophe of ignorance that marked his contributions to the old evolution threads, I've resigned myself to the fact that there's simply no hope for J C.

Brian Shanahan
I live in hope that eventually he'll grow intelligent enough to actually go out and learn about what he is posting on. It happened once before with me, when I was involved in an evolution discussion over at CFC, where a poster eventually started reading all the evidence and proof for evolution (mostly posted by others more expert than me), and realised how silly he was making himself look decrying it.

Originally he even used the banana argument.

Lads, please stay on topic ...
... and less ad hominem remarks about me personally ... and a few more about the topic at hand would be appreciated.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Name one. Go on, I dare you.

... I will in my own good time ... but not in respose to such provocation.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Good, then you'll have no objection to Ireland finally becoming secular, including its schools, because one of the essential ingredients of sucessful democracy is that any religion has no part in the framing of laws or the running of a state.

Why should this have to be so, unless your brand of Secularism is deeply anti-religion to the point of eradicating religion from the public sphere?
Our friends across the water in Britain have an excellent secular state and the Head of State is also the Head of the Anglican Church.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Final note: it gets really annoying fast listening to someone who doesn't know what the **** he's arguing against. J C go off and educate yourself about the goals and achievements of secularism, and how a secular society is a far, far better place than a religious one.

Less of the bad language please.
There are good examples of secular states ... like Ireland ... and there are also very bad ones ... that would would put the Inquisition in the 'hapenny place'.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

... I will in my own good time ... but not in respose to such provocation.

In post 277 I asked you the same question without provocation, care to answer that one?

J C wrote: »

Why should this have to be so, unless your brand of Secularism is deeply anti-religion?

As has been shown plenty of times before secularism = separation of church and state. Making laws that have no basis on any religion is kind of the very definition of secularism, not a brand of it.

You can never make every religion happy with certain laws and you cant impose religious laws on those who arent religious. Muslims can drink alcohol? Neither can Christians. Gay? Better get ready for your punishment. Instead they make laws for everyone and people can follow their religion themselves without needing everyone to join in.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

As has been shown plenty of times before secularism = separation of church and state. Making laws that have no basis on any religion is kind of the very definition of secularism, not a brand of it.

That's the theory ... but secularism can easily turn into an anti-religious (even an anti-christian) campaign if the objective is the complete eradication of the rights of religions (and in particular, Christian churches) to have an audience with the State.
Religions, like all other NGOs, have every right to have their concerns listened to and addressed by the State.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You can never make every religion happy with certain laws and you cant impose religious laws on those who arent religious. Muslims can drink alcohol? Neither can Christians. Gay? Better get ready for your punishment. Instead they make laws for everyone and people can follow their religion themselves without needing everyone to join in.

Seems to work well in Britain ... where the Anglican Church is the established state church.
This is the ultimate example of the unity of church and state ... and it isn't causing any significant problems within multi-cultural Britain ... where the right of all faiths and none to be involved in the education of their children is respected by the state.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

That's the theory ... but secularism can easily turn into an anti-religious (even anti-christian) campaign if the objective is the 'separation' i.e. complete eradication of the rights of religions to have an audience with the State.

It could also turn into a society without law and order where we all have to be home by sunset or risk being killed as there is no emergency services at night. A country with a state religion could turn into a country where people not of that religion are killed. Both could even start a nuclear war!

Secularism is separation of church and state. The rules of a religion have no bearing on the laws of a country so we can still be gay, use contraception, work on a sunday and have pre-marital sex without worrying about prison. No more, no less.

J C wrote: »

Seems to work well in Britain ... where the Anglican Church is the established state church.
This is the ultimate example of the unity of church and state ... and it isn't causing any significant problems within multi-cultural Britain.

England having Protestantism as a state religion is about the same level as Irish being the first language of Ireland. On paper, yes, in actual real life, not really. I'm not aware of any religious laws England has that have no purpose other than to make sure its citizens are good Protestants.

Dubai has a state religion too and look how well its doing. Maybe we should make Islam our state religion and we can start building huge cities! I'm sure you would prefer our laws to be based on Sharia Law instead of the secularists destroy any trace of religion in the country. You'll still be free to practice your own religion, just keep your women covered and you can explain to your children that Allah is just not the god you believe in when they come home from school. If its good enough for any non Christians to do now then the Christians will be fine with this.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It could also turn into a society without law and order where we all have to be home by sunset or risk being killed as there is no emergency services at night. A country with a state religion could turn into a country where people not of that religion are killed. Both could even start a nuclear war!

Sounds much like the extreme Secular State that once was Communist Russia, that you're describing there!!!
They tried to ban all public expressions of religion with a state take-over of churches and their property ... that they turned into grainstores and museums!!

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Secularism is separation of church and state. The rules of a religion have no bearing on the laws of a country so we can still be gay, use contraception, work on a sunday and have pre-marital sex without worrying about prison. No more, no less.

This is the current situation in Britain ... where there is unity of church and state ... as well as respect for the views of all religions and none.

Your model of an extreme Secular state, suppressing all public religious expression and ostracising churches from all contact with itself is irreligious extremism and a form of secular 'fundamentalism'.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

England having Protestantism as a state religion is about the same level as Irish being the first language of Ireland. On paper, yes, in actual real life, not really. I'm not aware of any religious laws England has that have no purpose other than to make sure its citizens are good Protestants.

Dubai has a state religion too and look how well its doing. Maybe we should make Islam our state religion and we can start building huge cities! I'm sure you would prefer our laws to be based on Sharia Law instead of the secularists destroy any trace of religion in the country. You'll still be free to practice your own religion, just keep your women covered and you can explain to your children that Allah is just not the god you believe in when they come home from school. If its good enough for any non Christians to do now then the Christians will be fine with this.

You have contrasted two states ... Britain has unity of church and state, yet respects all religions and none, just like Ireland also does.
The other state operates Sharia Law - which nobody is advocating for Ireland or any other moderate (or indeed, modern) Secular State.

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

Sounds much like the extreme Secular State that once was Communist Russia, that you're describing there!!!
They tried to ban all public expressions of religion with a state take-over of churches and their property ... that they turned into grainstores and museums!!

You basically just read what you want to read and ignore what it actually says don't you.

This explains so much about you.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Sounds much like the extreme Secular State that once was Communist Russia, that you're describing there!!!
They tried to ban all public expressions of religion with a state take-over of churches and their property ... that they turned into grainstores and museums!!

Both of the statements above can't be true as they are opposing ideologies.

secularism would protect religion fron non or anti-religious, and vice versa.

This is the current situation in Britain ... where there is unity of church and state ... as well as respect for the views of all religions and none.

Your model of an Atheist state suppressing all public religious expression and ostracising churches from all contact with the state is irreligious extremism and a form of secular 'fundamentalism'.

The above is wrong as it erroneously presumes atheism and secularism are the same thing. They are not. If you want religion to be protected then you need secularism.

You have contrasted two states ... Britain has unity of church and state, yet respects all religions and none, just like Ireland also does.
The other state operates Sharia Law - which nobody is advocating for Ireland or any other moderate (or indeed, modern) Secular State.

by arguing against secularism you are supporting the idea if a single religion being given preferential treatment by a government. By not adopting secularism, you have agreed in principle to living under a single religious group. That includes sharia law.

Andrewf20

It looks like JC is nervous about where this all leads, although I too feel that JC is being overly cautious / nervous on this one. JC - perhaps look to countries which are already secular; perhaps you have visited some in the past or will do in the near future. Maybe you have lived in one for a while. I think sometimes our fear of what may be can be out of proportion to how reality actually unfolds.

Ive been browsing throught the interweb to try find the most secular countries - places like France, China, Sweden, South Korea have popped up. I think if JC was to visit places like these and talked to the local christians, it may help soften JCs concerns on this matter.

Peregrinus

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Ive been browsing throught the interweb to try find the most secular countries - places like France, China, Sweden, South Korea have popped up. I think if JC was to visit places like these and talked to the local christians, it may help soften JCs concerns on this matter.

Perhaps not the best example! I doubt that talking to local Christians in China would do a lot to allay JC's concerns.

Cabaal

Netherlands would be a good example I guess,
Very easy going country, nice people, they don't have wars with anyone or anything like that and the majority 51% are not religious.

Clockwork Owl

J C - I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that you think Britain's got the right idea when it comes to a relationship between church and state? Because there's really a considerable difference between the influence of the Anglican church in Britain and the influence of the Roman Catholic church in the Republic of Ireland.

SpaceTime

I think though if you look at it, the thing that defines 'extreme countries' is that they're invariably dictatorships or seriously flawed democracies with very heavy-handed authoritarian regimes behind them.

Regardless of whether they're driven by a religious or a political dogma, they're usually awful places to live for many people and are prone to severe human rights abuses as those on top use brutality and oppression to maintain power.

It has nothing to do with whether they're secular or religious, the problem is they're dictatorships run as police states.

Ireland is fundamentally a secular society but it has serious issues in education in particular which make it completely incompatible with the reality of a very diverse, multi-cultural, pluralist society. I don't see how we think that 96% catholic school can fit with the values of society at large. Even if you play with the %s you still exclude people from access to normal schooling if they're not in reach of an Educate Together school.

Have a read of our constitution sometime as I can't even see how the current system complies with it.

Article 44.2 of the Irish Constitution wrote:

1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

One could argue that the current system is actually both endowing and de facto establishing a religion by making it the controller of a huge % of the education system and that it is imposing disabilities and discriminating against people on the grounds of religious profession (or non-profession).

Article 44.2 of the Irish Constitution wrote:

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

With the current curriculum merging religion into every aspect of the day, that is actually not complied with.

Article 42.3 of the Irish Constitution wrote:

1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.


4° The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Constitutionally speaking, a secular public school system fits all of the above where as the current system fits very little of it and looks like a wilful misinterpretation by conservative powers over the decades. I don't see how it could be seen as in the spirit of the constitution at all really.

I find we can get very hung up on the constitution when it suits the powers that be, and not at all hung up on it when it doesn't.

It's odd that a document written in 1937 is in many ways far more forward-thinking than the reality of the 2013 education system.

I realise the constitution has its own issues in terms of flowery, religious preambles and other little inserts here and there but the gist of it is pretty much setting out a secular, liberal democracy albeit a bit dressed up in some overtones of the times in which it was written.

Genghiz Cohen

It's kinda fun to see all the people encounter JC for the first time.

It's also a train wreck.