Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

Piliger

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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

It's also a train wreck.

I am not going to use the 'T' word ... but it is comical to watch people dance to the tune of one. For me, when someone doesn't even understand the meaning of the very words being used in the debate, like Secular, Atheist etc. then there is little point in an ongoing debate with them.

MadYaker

As far as I remember, when a child is baptised the parents and god parents make a promise to god to take responsibility for the childs religious education/upbringing. The schools and the state have made no such commitment. The way schools are run in Ireland at the moment is incredibly unfair to anyone children who aren't catholic. They are basically neglected in the weeks leading up to confirmation and communion.

A secular education system would be far more equitable for everyone, not just atheists. Secular does not equal atheist. Children wouldn't be banned from expressing their faith in schools. They could be educated factually about all religions instead of being indoctrinated into catholisicm.

In reality the only reason anyone objects to this is because they know that most parents don't care about religion and won't provide catholic education for their children by bringing them to mass or whatever. It would contribute to the demise of catholisicm in Ireland.

SpaceTime

I'd also wonder about the huge number of hours taken out of school time for communion and confirmation preparation. Really, that should be something that children, parents and religious communities get involved in directly outside of school time.

I'm not catholic, but speaking as a marketing professional, I would have to say it seems like a missed opportunity for the church to connect with the people as opposed to just outsourcing it to the school system.

I can't really think of very many other countries where religious sacrament preparation is merged into the public education system. It's quite frankly a bit strange.

I do think that there's a large element of 'soft compulsion' about the whole thing. It's like if the structures are shaped in this way it will encourage more people to baptise their children and make communions etc etc.

It's like : well we're not going to make it compulsory, but opting out is going to be such a hassle and a social faux pas that it will be extremely difficult to avoid.

I mean, it's a bit like the way constructive dismissal works in the work place i.e. making someone's position so uncomfortable that it becomes untenable and we don't stand for that legally.

The Catholic Church in particular, but also the Church of Ireland, has long exerted this kind of soft-power through control of social services like schools etc

So, basically all it's doing for the churches is creating a whole load of a la carte / de facto Catholics / Anglican-Episcopalians a large % of whom are non-practicing or may not believe a word of it and are just going along with it because it was easier than not going along with it.

I mean, if you do surveys a lot of Irish Catholics' beliefs are far closer to protestant in a lot of cases or just broadly humanist in others.

There's a whole nonsense going on of trying to coerce people into believing in something which simply does not work.

doctoremma

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 ... where the right of all faiths and none to be involved in the education of their children is respected by the state.

I think disestablishment is on the cards....thank god

gaynorvader

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 may as well point to the Spanish Inquisition and say that's why there should be no pope, or the crusades and say that's why Christianity is evil, or to Hitler and say that's why we should eat meat. There are always going to be people doing bad things that happen to belong to some group or other. You can't use that to claim that's what the group is all about.

tl;dr Communist Russia is a ridiculous example, devoid of relevancy.

smacl

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not catholic, but speaking as a marketing professional, I would have to say it seems like a missed opportunity for the church to connect with the people as opposed to just outsourcing it to the school system.

I don't think the catholic church has the number of effective staff it did twenty or thirty years ago, so it is forced to outsource pretty much everything. People of my generation (late 40s) will remember an Ireland that was teeming with nuns and brothers, who did most of the donkey work not just in the schools, but also hospitals and other institutions back in the day. These days, there's only the tiniest fraction of vocations, so I think the church is effectively on the way out. I for one can't see the catholic churches influence in mainstream schools lasting more than a generation or perhaps two at most. While I'd love to see a genuinely secular education much sooner rather than later, catholic doctrine and ethos being pushed in mainstream schools is on the way out.

As for the arguments of J C and other such God botherers that seem to believe that Ireland is as Catholic as it ever was, a question; Where then are the vocations? How many hundreds of priests did this country to produce per year thirty years, not to mention thousands of nuns and brothers? How many new vocations were there ten years ago by comparison? How many last year. Draw the graph. Join the dots. Note the obvious.

robindch

A US-based fundamentalist group with an outlet in Scotland infiltrated a number of schools, including one at which creationist literature was handed out:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/school-bosses-kick-out-extremist-2257795
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/school-heads-removed-in-row-over-radical-christian-helper.22143814
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24077924

Though the co-head teachers have been reassigned and the fundamentalists have been unceremoniously booted out, the parents appear to remain seriously unhappy.

J C

robindch wrote: »

A US-based fundamentalist group with an outlet in Scotland infiltrated a number of schools, including one at which creationist literature was handed out:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/school-bosses-kick-out-extremist-2257795
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/school-heads-removed-in-row-over-radical-christian-helper.22143814
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24077924

Though the co-head teachers have been reassigned and the fundamentalists have been unceremoniously booted out, the parents appear to remain seriously unhappy.

OK ... so its Bible Believing Christians in Scotland ... and Roman Catholic Communion preparation in Ireland that is regarded as 'unacceptable' to 'secularists'.
I guess Christians of all persuasions need to wake up!!!!

When do you guys plan to 'unceremoniously boot out' the last Roman Catholic Priest from the last Roman Catholic School in Ireland, Robin?

Piliger

robindch wrote: »

A US-based fundamentalist group with an outlet in Scotland infiltrated a number of schools, including one at which creationist literature was handed out:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/school-bosses-kick-out-extremist-2257795
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/school-heads-removed-in-row-over-radical-christian-helper.22143814
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24077924

Though the co-head teachers have been reassigned and the fundamentalists have been unceremoniously booted out, the parents appear to remain seriously unhappy.

Demonstrating the thorough cunning dishonesty of these so-called christians. They preach one thing but practice their lies and deceit when it suits them.

J C

koth wrote: »

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.

'Handsome is as handsome does' ... you guys are the ones proposing the banning of all religious expression in schools. That couldn't be considered to be 'protecting' religion ... it is, in fact, the elimination of religion.
Extreme Secularism is deeply anti-religious ... we already have moderate Secularism in Ireland ... where people of all religions and none are equally respected and allowed to set up their own schools, as they see fit.

koth wrote: »

The above is wrong as it erroneously presumes atheism and secularism are the same thing. They are not.

I'm not assuming any such thing. For example, many Satanists consider themselves to be 'Secularists' ... and they are the sworn enemies of Christianity.
I know many liberal Atheists who aren't particularly bothered by religion, one way or the other.

koth wrote: »

If you want religion to be protected then you need secularism.
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.

I'm arguing against anti-christ moves from wherever they originate.

J C

Piliger wrote: »

Demonstrating the thorough cunning dishonesty of these so-called christians. They preach one thing but practice their lies and deceit when it suits them.

I know nothing about these Christians ... but the standard charge by you guys against me and fellow honest Christians of the highest integrity, that I know, is that we are also liars ... so I'll take your outrageous accusation against these Christian people with a large 'pinch of salt'!!!

It looks like their 'thought crime' was saying that Evolution may not be all it is 'cracked up to be' ... and we have a mega-thread if you wish to review the arguments for and against that particular proposition.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I think disestablishment is on the cards....thank god

Why do you think this?

Morag

Roman Catholic Communion preparation in Ireland that happens in school hours, using up class time and rescources which should be spent on other subjects 'unacceptable' to 'secularists'.

Yes, yes it is.

If it was to happen in the school after the end of the school day or before the school day started or even in the school on a Sunday, for children who are due to under go that sacrament, I would not have a problem with it.

J C

Morag wrote: »

Roman Catholic Communion preparation in Ireland that happens in school hours, using up class time and rescources which should be spent on other subjects 'unacceptable' to 'secularists'.

Yes, yes it is.

If it was to happen in the school after the end of the school day or before the school day started or even in the school on a Sunday, for children who are due to under go that sacrament, I would not have a problem with it.

... so when do the 'secularists' plan to 'unceremoniously boot out' the last Roman Catholic Priest from the last Roman Catholic School in Ireland?

... 'booting out' Biblical Christians in Scotland ... and First Communicants in Ireland ... is this what 'neo-secularism' is ultimately all about? ...
... and despite its floury 'liberal' words ... its actions seem to be distinctly illiberal and intolerant of religious diversity.

MadYaker

J C wrote: »

'Handsome is as handsome does' ... you guys are the ones proposing the banning of all religious expression in schools. That couldn't be considered to be 'protecting' religion ... it is, in fact, the elimination of religion.
Extreme Secularism is deeply anti-religious ... we already have moderate Secularism in Ireland ... where people of all religions and none are equally respected and allowed to set up their own schools, as they see fit.

Nobody in this thread is advocating extreme secularism or the banning of all religion expression in schools. THAT IS NOT WHAT SECULAR MEANS. Maybe capitals will help you understand. All we want is and end to the current practice of indoctrinating children into catholisicm in schools. Children would be free to practice whatever religion they like, same as they are in any public area in Ireland. A secular system would just cut out the schools involvement.

A child religious education is the responsibility of the parents and godparents. It shouldn't be the schools responsibility because then all non catholic children are not receiving equal treatment.

While preparations for confirmation and communion are taking place non christian children are totally excluded. It makes them stand out from the rest of the class and that is unfair on them.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

<...>
It looks like their 'thought crime' was saying that Evolution may not be all it is 'cracked up to be' ... and we have a mega-thread if you wish to review the arguments for and against that particular proposition.

Ah yes, back to the mega-thread :-)

Seriously JC, that thread simply demonstrates the futility of trying to get you to understand simple concepts. You would rather cling to your irrational beliefs than let silly things like facts upset your precious "world view"!

shruikan2553

So from this we can see that it is ok to force a non catholic to go to a catholic school but if you attempt to make schools suitable for members of any religion you are trying to destroy religion. Typical christians who think that making the world fairer for people who arent them is destroying their religious freedomz. J C should send a CV into Fox News, you'll fit right in.

J C

MadYaker wrote: »

Nobody in this thread is advocating extreme secularism or the banning of all religion expression in schools. THAT IS NOT WHAT SECULAR MEANS. Maybe capitals will help you understand. All we want is and end to the current practice of indoctrinating children into catholisicm in schools. Children would be free to practice whatever religion they like, same as they are in any public area in Ireland. A secular system would just cut out the schools involvement.

A child religious education is the responsibility of the parents and godparents. It shouldn't be the schools responsibility because then all non catholic children are not receiving equal treatment.

While preparations for confirmation and communion are taking place non christian children are totally excluded. It makes them stand out from the rest of the class and that is unfair on them.

... so can we expect the 'booting out' of every Roman Catholic Priest from Irish Schools to be soon ... then???

You are conflating freedom of religion ... with freedom from religion.
In fact you can only have freedom of religion ... when other people are free to practice their religion in your presence ... and freedom from religion invariably results in the active suppression of religion.

MadYaker

I don't think catholic priests should have a place in schools, unless its some sort of Catholic Sunday School type thing done outside of normal hours where catholic children can go if they wish.

Why do you think priests should have a place in schools?

And do you not agree that the religious upbringing/education of a child is the responsibility of the parents/godparents? After all isn't that the commitment all catholic parents make to god when their child is baptised?

J C

MadYaker wrote: »

While preparations for confirmation and communion are taking place non christian children are totally excluded. It makes them stand out from the rest of the class and that is unfair on them.

... some children take part in particular sports ... and others don't ... some children take part in school drama ... and others don't.

With a little 'give and take' everyone can be satisfied ... unless you are the type of person who wants the school to do exactly what you want and only what you want .. which I would consider to be intolerant and unreasonable behaviour.

Morag

J C wrote: »

... so when do the 'secularists' plan to 'unceremoniously boot out' the last Roman Catholic Priest from the last Roman Catholic School in Ireland?

... 'booting out' Biblical Christians in Scotland ... and First Communicants in Ireland ... is this what 'neo-secularism' is ultimately all about? ...
... and despite its floury 'liberal' words ... its actions seem to be distinctly illiberal and intolerant of religious diversity.

Nope I am not intolerant of religious diversity, I have found that the majority of schools are intolerant of religious diversity.

Children should not be 'othered' in school, esp during school hours, they should have to sit at the back of the class during religious instruction and indoctrination. School should be a place were they are all equal.


Religious instruction and indoctrination should be done by the religious community a child is a part of if the parents wish, it should not happen in state funded schools.

Parents and communities should take charge of teaching their children and passing on their faith themselves.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

... some children take part in particular sports ... and others don't ... some children take part in school drama ... and others don't.

Nice of them to be given a choice of doing those things unlike being told what religion is the one true religion. Should we teach children in secondary school not to use contraception? Doing otherwise goes against what Catholics believe after all.

J C wrote: »

With a little 'give and take' everyone can be satisfied ... unless you are the type of person who wants the school to do exactly what you want and only what you want .. which I would consider to be intolerant and unreasonable behaviour.

Oh the hypocrisy.

MadYaker

J C wrote: »

... some children take part in particular sports ... and others don't ... some children take part in school drama ... and others don't.

With a little 'give and take' everyone can be satisfied ... unless you are the type of person who wants the school to do exactly what you want and only what you want .. which I would consider to be intolerant and unreasonable behaviour.

Sports and drama are done outside of normal school hours (apart from PE). That's what I was suggesting in my post for religious education.

Also why didn't you answer the questions I posted?

Anyway, I'm not saying that all schools should be secular. I think what most people want is more secular schools so parents have a choice and aren't forced to send their children to catholic schools.

J C

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't think catholic priests should have a place in schools, unless its some sort of Catholic Sunday School type thing done outside of normal hours where catholic children can go if they wish.

Why do you think priests should have a place in schools?

And do you not agree that the religious upbringing/education of a child is the responsibility of the parents/godparents?

As a liberal Christian, I do of course, think that Roman Catholic Priests, as the appointed pastors of their church, do have an important place in Schools serving communities that are over 80% self-declared Roman Catholics.

While parents are the primary educators of their children, they may delegate this responsibility to other persons or institutions, including schools.

If they choose to do so, I think that it is quite reasonable that Roman Catholic parents should have schools available to them that respect their church leaders and their beliefs.
I don't think that this should exclude people of other faiths and none. I would be quite happy for my children to attend a school that was respectful of all faiths ... but a school that was so deeply anti-christian that a Christian Pastor wouldn't be allowed to cross its threshold during school hours would be totally unacceptable to me, as a Christian.
Whilst I may disagree with some of my fellow Christians on matters of dogma ... I recognise them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.
... and I know that if somebody insults them because of their Christian Faith ... it won't be long until they start insulting me as well.

Morag

Drama isn't always and the problem is when the drama quota for the year is a nativity plan and the music quota for the year is singing christian hymns, arts and crafts is making posters to decorate the local church for Christmas/Easter/communions/confirmations all of which exclude non christian children.

When the graduation for the school for all 6th class with the presentation of certs is held in the local church instead of the school.

I have had two non christian children go through primary school in what most people think is an easy going school, it wasn't.

All of these other children and their families and cause segregation. The local community is no longer the local parish members and people need to acknowledge this.

MadYaker

J C wrote: »

As a liberal Christian, I do of course, think that Roman Catholic Priests, as the appointed pastors of their church, do have an important place in Schools serving communities that are over 80% self-declared Roman Catholics.

While parents are the primary educators of their children, they may delegate this responsibility to other persons or institutions, including schools.

If they choose to do so, I think that it is quite reasonable that Roman Catholic parents should have schools available to them that respect their church leaders and their beliefs.
I don't think that this should exclude people of other faiths and none. I would be quite happy for my children to attend a school that was respectful of all faiths ... but a school that was so deeply anti-christian that a Christian Pastor wouldn't be allowed to cross its threshold during school hours would be totally unacceptable to me, as a Christian.
Whilst I may disagree with some of my fellow Christians on matters of dogma ... I recognise them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.
... and I know that if somebody insults them because of their Christian Faith ... it won't be long until they start insulting me as well.

Proper secular schools would be respectful of all faiths, they just wounldn't have any hand in religious education. If children wished to pray in the school it would be fine regardless of what god they pray to. Religion would never be banned outright. However the presence of catholic priests in these schools would probably not be a good idea as that would be favoring one religion over all others.

I don't think anyone wishes to see every school in Ireland run this way. there should still be catholic schools where prayer etc are part of the daily routine and clergy are part of the teaching staff. I just don't think all schools should be like this, which is how it is in Ireland at the moment.

It is unfair if you are a Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist and there are only catholic schools to send your kids to.

J C

MadYaker wrote: »

Proper secular schools would be respectful of all faiths, they just wounldn't have any hand in religious education. If children wished to pray in the school it would be fine regardless of what god they pray to. Religion would never be banned outright. However the presence of catholic priests in these schools would probably not be a good idea as that would be favoring one religion over all others.

I don't think anyone wishes to see every school in Ireland run this way. there should still be catholic schools where prayer etc are part of the daily routine and clergy are part of the teaching staff. I just don't think all schools should be like this, which is how it is in Ireland at the moment.

... so you say ... and then other people call for all schools to be secularised.

You say that religion should never be banned outright ... but for some reason you want Roman Catholic Priests banned outright from the premises.
Why shouldn't pastors/chaplains of all religious persuasions be allowed on the premises?
... and if this is to be the case, why shouldn't pastors representative of over 80% of the school community be allowed?
... of course they should!!

Intolerant extreme Secularism has no more of a place in a multicultural society than any other form of extremism or intolerance.

MadYaker

J C wrote: »

... so you say ... and then other people call for all schools to be secularised.

People can call for it all they like but it'll never happen in this country.

J C wrote: »

You say that religion should never be banned outright ... but for some reason you want Roman Catholic Priests banned outright from the premises.
Why shouldn't pastors/chaplains of all religious persuasions be allowed on the premises?
... and if this is to be the case, why shouldn't pastors representative of over 80% of the school community be allowed?
... of course they should!!

I never said I wanted them banned from secular schools. I guess I need to be clearer. What I meant was priests (or indeed chaplains/pastors/imams etc etc) trying to preach their beliefs in secular schools would be unacceptable. Unless it was outside normal school hours to a group of kids who chose to be there, like I said earlier, Sunday Schools or whatever.

J C wrote: »

Intolerant extreme Secularism has no more place in a multicultural society than any other form of extremism or intolerance.

I agree.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

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'.

Three points to note:

1) I'll use the kind of language I want, especially if it emphasises my point. Lecturing me about it will not change it. Also bad language is highly mutable, what is bad today was not bad 200 years ago, and what was horrific 150 years ago (the word trousers was banned in polite society in the Victorian era) is laughable today.

2) Ireland is not a secular state. It pretends to be, but with the catholic church still controlling education and getting a free pass on mass criminality, theocracy is closer to the truth.

3) I see you name no intolerant secular state. That is because you well know that there are none. Oh, and the false equivalence with the inquisition, tsk, tsk.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

... so you say ... and then other people call for all schools to be secularised.

... maybe because a secular school doesn't prevent a child being brought up in a faith?

You say that religion should never be banned outright ... but for some reason you want Roman Catholic Priests banned outright from the premises.
Why shouldn't pastors/chaplains of all religious persuasions be allowed on the premises?

Because maybe parents would prefer it if there weren't a free-for-all of different pastors & chaplains vying for their children's attention? Or do you suggest segregating the children into groups when the pastors turn up?

... and if this is to be the case, why shouldn't pastors representative of over 80% of the school community be allowed?
... of course they should!!

Let's say the parents really are 80% Catholic. What about the children of the other 20% - should they be asked to leave the classroom while the priest is present? Or should this 20% be expected to listen to a priest even if their parents would prefer otherwise?

Intolerant extreme Secularism has no more of a place in a multicultural society than any other form of extremism or intolerance.

There is nothing intolerant or extreme about secularism. Your violent reaction to it though, suggests that you have an extreme intolerance to secularism.

MadYaker

Ireland is definitely closer to a Secular state then a theocracy. Don't exaggerate Brian. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. The only thing The Catholic Church still has a strangle hold on in Ireland is the primary school system.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Three points to note:

1) I'll use the kind of language I want, especially if it emphasises my point. Lecturing me about it will not change it. Also bad language is highly mutable, what is bad today was not bad 200 years ago, and what was horrific 150 years ago (the word trousers was banned in polite society in the Victorian era) is laughable today.

Apart from contributing to a general coarseness in society ... using swear words is a sign of a lost argument and an inability to express oneself with precision and clarity.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

2) Ireland is not a secular state. It pretends to be, but with the catholic church still controlling education and getting a free pass on mass criminality, theocracy is closer to the truth.

There are a number of religions and none, that operate schools in Ireland ... and currently about 90% of schools are under Christian patronage ... which approximates to the % of Christians in Ireland.
... and where is the mass criminality within Roman Catholocism? Every Roman Catholic that I know are fine upstanding members of society that I am proud to call friends.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

3) I see you name no intolerant secular state. That is because you well know that there are none. Oh, and the false equivalence with the inquisition, tsk, tsk.

I have already named Communist Russia as one ... and if you want another ... how about North Korea.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

Sounds much like the extreme Secular State that once was Communist Russia, that you're describing there!!!

Pre 1941:

The CCCP was an atheist state, dedicated to the eradication of religion. Please note that this is different from a secular state, which does not interfere with religion beyond what is good for society. Please also note that most atheists aren't invovled in eradicating religions (a} we're mostly for freedom of conscience, and b} why interfere with a process the religious are achieving so admirably). Third thing to note, the CCCP's attitude to religion was very far from that of Marx, who was a secularist, disappointed that the good aspects of religion were highjacked by the ruling classes to keep the plebs down with "jam tomorrow".

Post 1941:

Stalin made the Orthodox Church the de-facto state religion, opening many churches, releasing many priests, and pretty much re-affirming his Orthodox beliefs. To quote Edvard Radzinsky, Stalin's biographer:

During his mysterious retreat [of June 1941] the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected.

showing a clear change of heart re religion.
While the position was never formalised throughout the rest of the CCCP's life and individual religious people persecuted (not for their religious beliefs but their opposition to "communism") the Orthodox church had the same position essentially as under Stalin.

The reason why I asked you the question was because I knew you'd post something ridiculous like this (though I'm suprised you're not trying to paint Nazi Germany as secular, might as well be hanged for the sheep as the lamb, eh?), thus falling for my bait, hook, line and sinker.

'Twas pure easy to reel you in. Struggle better next time, you hear.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

... maybe because a secular school doesn't prevent a child being brought up in a faith?

It certainly doesn't help.

swampgas wrote: »

.Because maybe parents would prefer it if there weren't a free-for-all of different pastors & chaplains vying for their children's attention? Or do you suggest segregating the children into groups when the pastors turn up?

It's quite possible for pastors to share such responsibilities with respect for each other.

swampgas wrote: »

Let's say the parents really are 80% Catholic. What about the children of the other 20% - should they be asked to leave the classroom while the priest is present? Or should this 20% be expected to listen to a priest even if their parents would prefer otherwise?

They self-declared at 84% in the census and there are a further 10% or so of other Christians and Theists ... so the 'anti-religionists' would appear to be in 'a minority of one' ... in most schools throughout Ireland.

swampgas wrote: »

There is nothing intolerant or extreme about secularism. Your violent reaction to it though, suggests that you have an extreme intolerance to secularism.

I'm not in the least violent in my reaction to it ... I'm loving towards my enemies and I only wish good for those who hate me.
... as for secularism ... I welcome the moderate version of it and I reject the extreme version of it.

Brian Shanahan

MadYaker wrote: »

Ireland is definitely closer to a Secular state then a theocracy. Don't exaggerate Brian. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. The only thing The Catholic Church still has a strangle hold on in Ireland is the primary school system.

'M not. De iure Ireland is secular, but de facto it is highly biased towards catholicism in thought and deed.

For example, look at the government's recent capitulation to the religious orders over compensating the victims of institutionalised abuse, despite the same religious orders being guilty of mass serious and serial criminal actions. If, say, Barnardo's were found to be doing the same stuff in a home they ran on behalf of the state, they would long ago have been made insolvent from having to pay all the compensation.

It doesn't have the forms or institutions of a theocracy, but then again for most of its existence Fascist Italy had the forms and institutions of a democratic constitutional monarchy.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

... so you say ... and then other people call for all schools to be secularised.

You say that religion should never be banned outright ... but for some reason you want Roman Catholic Priests banned outright from the premises.
Why shouldn't pastors/chaplains of all religious persuasions be allowed on the premises?
... and if this is to be the case, why shouldn't pastors representative of over 80% of the school community be allowed?
... of course they should!!

Intolerant extreme Secularism has no more of a place in a multicultural society than any other form of extremism or intolerance.

So you would be happy for the local rabbai to be wandering around along with the catholic priest and for what? To tell the children all about the 1 true religion(s) or just to skulk around the school? With events that have come to light the past few years I'm sure parents would love that.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Pre 1941:

The CCCP was an atheist state, dedicated to the eradication of religion. Please note that this is different from a secular state, which does not interfere with religion beyond what is good for society.

... one mans 'good for society' is the suppression of religion ... while for another it is the eradication of religion.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Please also note that most atheists aren't invovled in eradicating religions (a} we're mostly for freedom of conscience, and b} why interfere with a process the religious are achieving so admirably). Third thing to note, the CCCP's attitude to religion was very far from that of Marx, who was a secularist,

I recall Marx referring to religion as the 'opium of the people' ... sounds like he just might want to eradicate something that he considered to be a Class A Drug!!
... and you say he was a Secularist ... eh!!!

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

(Marx was) disappointed that the good aspects of religion were highjacked by the ruling classes to keep the plebs down with "jam tomorrow".

What were these 'good aspects' of religion as far he was concerned?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Post 1941:

Stalin made the Orthodox Church the de-facto state religion, opening many churches, releasing many priests, and pretty much re-affirming his Orthodox beliefs. To quote Edvard Radzinsky, Stalin's biographer:

showing a clear change of heart re religion.
While the position was never formalised throughout the rest of the CCCP's life and individual religious people persecuted (not for their religious beliefs but their opposition to "communism") the Orthodox church had the same position essentially as under Stalin.

... so are you suggesting that Stalin and Stalinsm is the model of 'liberalism' that the 'neo-secularists' want to adopt ... 'when is the next train to Siberia' ????

... and if Stalin was as great a 'Secularist' as you claim, why did he leave a murderous trail of 12 million Christian and Jewish dead in his wake???

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

It certainly doesn't help.

It's quite possible for pastors to share such responsibilities with respect for each other.


They self-declared at 84% in the census and there are a further 10% or so of other Christians and Theists ... so the 'anti-religionists' would appear to be in 'a minority of one' ... in most schools throughout Ireland.

Secularism means that any school funded by public money would be outlawed from teaching mandatory religious classes. This would include assemblies, etc. However, it would be okay to have a priest over at lunchtime or after school or even before school hours.

J C wrote:

I'm not in the least violent in my reaction to it

You are. Maybe not physically, but on this thread you have been. You have repeatedly ignored people's attempts to explain where your errors were and behaved like a petulant child with their fingers in their ears screaming "Santa is too real! HE IS!".

J C wrote:

... I'm loving towards my enemies and I only wish good for those who hate me.

Perhaps you really do feel that way, who am I to say? However, going on what has been said in this thread, it seems you are a very hateful person, constantly striving to see the worst in anyone who does not agree with you. Again, perhaps that's just a misapprehension I've suffered and you have difficulty expressing yourself through text.

J C wrote:

... as for secularism ... I welcome the moderate version of it and I reject the extreme version of it.

This is a lie. You have already said on multiple occasions that you will not stand for children not being forced to learn your religion in schools. That is the moderate version. In fact, that is the ONLY version. The removal of religion is a further step, banning religions is completely separate to secularism.

Now I know you'll look at this post and read "Secularism means any school would be outlawed from teaching religious classes. This would include assemblies, etc."

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So you would be happy for the local rabbai to be wandering around along with the catholic priest and for what? To tell the children all about the 1 true religion(s) or just to skulk around the school? With events that have come to light the past few years I'm sure parents would love that.

Oh yes, play the 'child abuse' card ... and tar all religious pastors ... even Jewish Rabbis ... with the one stick!!

All pastors are police-vetted and are just as safe as any teacher or any other adult with access to children ... so please keep the debate fair and reasonable ... and don't descend into false stereotyping.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Secularism means that any school funded by public money would be outlawed from teaching mandatory religious classes. This would include assemblies, etc. However, it would be okay to have a priest over at lunchtime or after school or even before school hours.

Why should Christian parents have to 'bow and scrape' in order for their pastors to have access to school premises?

gaynorvader wrote: »

You are. Maybe not physically, but on this thread you have been. You have repeatedly ignored people's attempts to explain where your errors were and behaved like a petulant child with their fingers in their ears screaming "Santa is too real! HE IS!".

... so expressing an opinion with reason and love is somehow 'violent' ... I need to get a new 'secular' dictionary ... if this is to be classified as 'violent'.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Perhaps you really do feel that way, who am I to say? However, going on what has been said in this thread, it seems you are a very hateful person, constantly striving to see the worst in anyone who does not agree with you. Again, perhaps that's just a misapprehension I've suffered and you have difficulty expressing yourself through text.

All I can say is that I love you gaynorvader ... and I want the very best for you. I'm sorry if you don't love me in return.

gaynorvader wrote: »

This is a lie. You have already said on multiple occasions that you will not stand for children not being forced to learn your religion in schools. That is the moderate version. In fact, that is the ONLY version. The removal of religion is a further step, banning religions is completely separate to secularism.

Everything I'm hearing on this thread sounds suspiciously close to banning religion ... and there is nothing being said that gives me any reason to hope for any accommodation for religion.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Now I know you'll look at this post and read "Secularism means any school would be outlawed from teaching religious classes. This would include assemblies, etc."

... you did say it ... and now you are repeating it, with a few bits missing from it (but adding up to roughly the same result in the end). I take people at their word.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Why should Christian parents have to 'bow and scrape' in order for their pastors to have access to school premises?

I said no such thing.

J C wrote:

... so expressing an opinion with reason and love is somehow 'violent' ... I need to get a new 'secular' dictionary ... if this is to be classified as 'violent'.

No love and little to no reason in your arguments, but nice try. There's also no secular dictionary as it's not a language.

J C wrote:

All I can say is that I love you gaynorvader ... and I want the very best for you. I'm sorry if you don't love me in return.

When did I say I didn't love you? There you go expecting the worst of people again.

J C wrote:

Everything I'm hearing on this thread sounds suspiciously close to banning religion ... and there is nothing being said that gives me any reason to hope for any accommodation for religion.

Nope, you're wrong again, it's like you don't understand English or something

J C wrote:

... you did say it ... and now you are repeating it, with a few bits missing from it (but adding up to roughly the same result in the end). I take people at their word.

I didn't, I cherry picked the bits I thought you'd latch on to and put them together to form a completely different sentence, with very different meaning.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

Oh yes, play the 'child abuse' card ... and tar all religious pastors ... even Jewish Rabbis ... with the one stick!!

All pastors are police-vetted and are just as safe as any teacher or any other adult with access to children ... so please keep the debate fair and reasonable ... and don't descend into false stereotyping.

So what are they doing in a school?

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

I said no such thing.

You certainly didn't say there was a 'welcome mat' in the hall.

gaynorvader wrote: »

No love and little to no reason in your arguments, but nice try. There's also no secular dictionary as it's not a language.

... we are certainly talking two different languages if my reasoned comments on this thread are said by you to be 'violent'.

gaynorvader wrote: »

When did I say I didn't love you? There you go expecting the worst of people again.

I don't feel the love!!!:)
... and you still haven't said that you love me.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Nope, you're wrong again, it's like you don't understand English or something

... so you're advocating the promotion of religion (and not its banning) in secular schools then.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I didn't, I cherry picked the bits I thought you'd latch on to and put them together to form a completely different sentence, with very different meaning.

... that adds up to roughly the same thing ... 'take a hike' with religion in schools.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So what are they doing in a school?

Educating children. That's what school is for, after all.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

Educating children. That's what school is for.

You mean after school hours where they can educate the catholics or maybe if the school decides for members of different churches to come in for a talk to discuss what they believe in?

Morag

MadYaker wrote: »

Ireland is definitely closer to a Secular state then a theocracy. Don't exaggerate Brian. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. The only thing The Catholic Church still has a strangle hold on in Ireland is the primary school system.

And the hospitals.

Morag

The local parish priest or vicar or imman or rabbi or druid should have to be invited into the school.
Rather then popping in from around the corner, by passing the school office to wander in to class rooms at a whim.

Some of them can't grasp that they should be registered as any visitor to the school and often put teachers in a very difficult position when they interrupt classes. We had one do just that and ask my child a RC doctrine question and when they couldn't answer it chastised my child in front of the rest of the class. The priest assumed that a white Irish child would be catholic.

He would also appear in the school yard and ask parents he didn't' recognize why they weren't bringing their kids to Mass on Sunday, esp parents who's children were in classes due to undergo communion and confirmation.

His remit is his flock and again priest and people need to learn not everyone is in their parish.

Sofiztikated

Oh, and J C?

Christian =/= Catholic.

Why should a parent have to deal with their child being taught a particular flavour of religion, even if it conflicts with their own teaching? Why not keep your own flavour of religion to outside of school? Because like it or not, religion (in all it's various forms and guises) is a choice.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

You are conflating freedom of religion ... with freedom from religion.
In fact you can only have freedom of religion ... when other people are free to practice their religion in your presence ... and freedom from religion invariably results in the active suppression of religion.

Haha. You can't have freedom of religion if you don't have freedom from religion.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Haha. You can't have freedom of religion if you don't have freedom from religion.

Freedom from religion is another name for the suppression of religion.
... just like freedom from secularism would mean that it would also effectively cease to exist.