Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

J C

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Oh, and J C?

Christian =/= Catholic.

The Roman Catholic Church is one (large) Christian Church amongst many. What exactly is your point?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

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.

... and irreligion/secularism is also a choice ... and one that would only be made by a tiny minority in its extreme manifestation of 'Kremlin style' freedom from religion.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

It certainly doesn't help.

Here's the thing. Let's assume for a minute that religious indoctrination embedded into primary school is vital to the formation of faith in children. Assuming that this is the case, surely it is unfair on the children of parents who do not want their children indoctrinated into a particular religion to have their own children indoctrinated this way?

Right now the choice for most parents is Catholic indoctrination or .... well, more Catholic indoctrination.

If you wish your children to go to a state school along with all their friends and neighbours, why should you be forced to have them indoctrinated into a specific religion, just because it might be the majority religion? Otherwise why don't we just declare Ireland to be a Catholic country and stop pretending that we care about any other beliefs?

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.

I meant "violent" in the sense of "strongly felt emotion", not as "physical force". Apologies if this was worded badly.

However I think you have a big blind spot when it comes to religion. I suspect you wouldn't be too upset if all children were forced to hear some kind of Christian message at school, as you may well believe it to be in their best interests - saving their souls, so to speak.

SpaceTime

I think you can sum it up in two words : institutionalised sectarianism.

It's long past is best before date too and we should have moved on and created an actual public school system for everyone.

I mean what does National School over the door mean if it's not really "national"

We don't have catholic libraries and protestant libraries or motortax offices or a catholic and protestant branch of the civil service either and it shouldn't apply to the school system. Or could you imagine having the Catholic police and the Protestant Police and Policing Together ... No, it would be a total nonsense and we'd be an international laughing stock if it were the case. I don't see why we make this special case of the school system and some aspects of the health system.

I also think duplicating schools to separate genders is an expensive nonsense that goes back to Victorian notions of differences between the sexes and quite likely hinders social skill development and often disadvantages girls' access to science and sports facilities. It's not too many decades ago where most girls schools didn't even offer Honours Maths. That's the kind of nonsensical, unequal, illiberal claptrap our education system is built upon. Yeah, it's changed a bit, but that's where the separation came from in the first place coupled with some bizarre notion that it would prevent teen pregnancy in a country that banned contraceptives and limited their availability until the 1990s!!

In my experience of it, I have found that for a % of both men and women it actually just makes them incredibly awkward at interacting with the opposite sex. If you happen to have had a lot of female friends, sisters, or had gone to a mixed primary school for a time, you might be better equipped but the number of guys I saw in university who either treated women as some kind of alien species to be ogled or were so shy that they couldn't even approach girls without 10 pints was just scary. It seems to apply the other way too where women are either too shy to approach without 10 pints or will 'hunt in packs' and go around trying to snare a guy. Most of them slowly become more normal by about 2nd year of university but I don't know how people who end up in very male or female dominated professions might cope as they'll never gain those social skills.

Our education system needs to be dragged (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the 21st century and out of the middle 1800s.
I find our notion of modern education at schools level is a bit like screwing an iPad to the back of the seat of a Victorian steam train and pretending it's a bullet train. You have to make some rather more fundamental changes than that.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

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

I certainly did not. However, this world/universe of ours is not binary. There is not simply one way or the other. There is no absolutely good or absolutely evil. Everyone is a mix. Even you yourself must have a fair amount of evil in you, right J C? However, you insist that Catholicism is the one true faith beyond a shadow of a doubt. How can you absolutely know this without being a perfect being?

My point is, and always has been, that priests are welcome into the schools, so long as it's not mandatory for children to listen to them.

J C wrote:

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

As I have pointed out, your comments have been based solely on emotion, not reason. You have been soapboxing rather than address posters' points.

J C wrote:

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

Saying it will only cheapen it, but I do love you J C. I love your ridiculous arguing style. Even though you annoy me and make me feel bad, you still amuse me with your inability to construct an argument with any reason.

J C wrote:

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

No, one can advocate neither. I am advocating the right for religion to be taught in schools, so long as it is not mandatory and doesn't interfere with the school day. It can happen during breaks, etc. In fact, if it's a privately owned school receiving no state funding, it can do what it wants. It can have religious classes all day every day if it likes.

J C wrote:

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

No.

Tomk1

J C wrote: »

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.

Point of view:
Freedom from say British rule meant taking self control.
Freedom from "oppressive power"
Freedom from bullying indoctrination.
Freedom from BS
But if your for it then your viewpoint would be of suppression.
....Freedom from equality ??

Banbh

Those who insist on imposing their religion on others, in the schools or anywhere else, are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. By using state power to recruit people or keep people within the flock, they are losing the ones who actually believe in the tenets of the organisation.

If I were a Catholic - a believing one and not the crowd that do baptism for a school and marriage for a good hooley - I would want my church to be an association of like-minded individuals.

SpaceTime

J C wrote: »

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.

In a secular system, you're basically just providing public services on a religiously-neutral basis that is open to everyone.

If the services are being supplied basically entirely with public money and attendance at them is pretty much a fundamental need of every Irish citizen or resident regardless of their religion, then they should be open public services. Instead, we have quasi-private but publicly funded, religious schools.

In a secular system you have complete freedom of religion. Whether you're Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, Non-Religious, Agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Other Christian, Hindu, etc etc nobody's in anyway preventing you from expressing your faith, practicing your faith or living your life without a religious basis at all.

It would just mean that the Catholic Church and Church of Ireland, should they wish to continue to provide religious education to people who particularly wanted that, would have to run it as a separate service.

I think you could even bring in representatives of different faith groups to talk about their particular faith to a class in a secular school system in the context of explaining what it is all about without any notion of pushing it on the kids. It's important that they are aware of what people believe and how they might operate as members of a different faith too.

The current system just creates an 'us' and 'them' mentality instead of a notion that you can have different religious groups and people who aren't religious at all, yet you can all be the same town/village/suburb/school.

...

You seem to be assuming that a secular system would be some kind of rollout of compulsory atheism for all. That's just not the case. Secularism is basically a case of the state taking its nose out of people's religious beliefs entirely and for almost every other aspect of life, that's exactly what the Irish state does!

Education is a bit of an anomaly and I genuinely do think that the current system is not reflective of constitutional requirements for open access to education and freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion does not mean that one group should get to push their view point down everyone else's throats. That's the complete opposite of freedom of religion that's actually a quasi-established religion.

...

My major, major objection too is the fact that we are incurring excessive and unnecessary financial costs to keep all this fragmentation going.

I would much rather see a really good, well-funded genuinely public school system than a really badly funded bunch of catholic, protestant, educate together etc etc girls and boys schools with no facilities, leaky roves, no support services, no IT facilities and kids who are growing up with out access to decent sports facilities etc etc all so that we can keep a few self-rightious religious fundamentalists happy.

There's only so much cash, how thin do you want to spread it?

The more new schools open the thinner it gets and without a public system that's secular, we end up with a need for Educate Together and then you'll have other religious communities demanding their own schools and it just keeps multiplying.

...

I think this is the kind of thing where a referendum might be a good way of deciding what to do.
I can 100% assure you that there will be a growing crisis of school funding in the next 10 years. So, things aren't going to get better and radical solutions and re-structuring is going to just have to happen.

I would rather see an open, efficient system than a bankrupt falling apart system in 2023 with kids going to school without heating or something like that.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

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.

A muslim, a christian and an atheist come to live in Ireland. The Christian is welcome [to practice what he wants]. How can the muslim practice his religion if he isn't given the freedom from christianity? Must the atheist practice a religion? If he does, then there is no freedom of religion. And in this case, it would be the Christians oppressing the non-religious minorities. Not very Christian...

Your second sentence makes no sense. Secularism is the separation of church and state. Freedom from secularism would simply be a theocracy, like present day Russia, with its church-directed anti-gay laws. Church laws always lead to hell-holes for some, because not everyone in a given state subscribes to the [state] church.

Sarky

Oh J C, you poor self-oppressed mite, is there any topic at all about which you aren't completely clueless and hysterical?

Clockwork Owl

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.

H'okay. Well, there are roughly 1,600 primary schools in the Greater London area and, say, half that again of secondary schools. And the percentage of Muslims living in London at the moment is at about 13%. So, by that logic, about 300 of those schools should incorporate Islamic teaching throughout the day for all of their pupils. And of the 24,328 schools in England, 5% (an additional 900 schools) should actively instruct Islam to all children in its catchment area: appropriately modest and compulsory uniforms, Salah at noon and mid-afternoon, 2-3 hours of religious instruction from the Qu'ran per week, maybe a cheeky bit of chanting and prayer during the morning assembly.

I mean shur, what's the harm? It's only a bit of religious indoctrination. Parents can always teach their children their own spiritual beliefs at home, ya know.

Ad absurdum aside, I take serious issue with the 84% Catholic, 90% Christian claim. Catholicism in Ireland is as much a political, cultural and social identity as a religious one. An astonishing number of 'Catholics' don't actually believe in core aspects of Catholicism. Transubstantiation is one of the better examples; ask your average 'Irish Catholic' if they believe that the bread and wine of communion is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ and the vast majority will say no. An Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference in 2010 found that, excluding funerals, weddings and christenings, nearly 30% of Catholics in the Republic of Ireland attended Church once a year or less. That same Bishops' Conference found that 28% don't believe in life after death, 50% don't believe in hell and 10% don't even believe in God!

So, uh-... how many Catholics do we have here again?

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?

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.

Police officers, fire fighters and doctors are involved in the safety and well-being of 100% of the population. That doesn't mean they can wander the school premises whenever the whim takes them. If they want to engage with students, they are first vetted and then attend as a visitor. They then lead an informative, respectful discussion and can be approached by students afterwards, if the students so wish.

In fact, a slightly more apt comparison would be a politician. A politician wouldn't wander into a school uninvited. They could request a visit or be invited to lead an assembly. There, they could explain political process and law-making, or discuss the history and merits of democracy. That would be reasonable. If that politician instead led a class extolling the virtues of a Fianna Fáil government and encouraging students to vote for them in the future, I'd take serious issue. A classroom is a place to learn - not a place to poach and proselytise at young minds.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Oh J C, you poor self-oppressed mite, is there any topic at all about which you aren't completely clueless and hysterical?

Now, now, be nice please.

kylith

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.

So, if 80% of parents in a school want their child to do drama, or learn to play drums, should all the children be made to play the drums or to declaim Shakespear? Is it ok for time to be taken away from classes of numeracy or literacy for this?

Would you be happy to send your child to a school if that school would teach them that the Christian god is a myth, that the Hindu pantheon is real, and that worshiping Ganesh and Shiva are the only way to improve your lot in your next reincarnation?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

So, if 80% of parents in a school want their child to do drama, or learn to play drums, should all the children be made to play the drums or to declaim Shakespear? Is it ok for time to be taken away from classes of numeracy or literacy for this?

Would you be happy to send your child to a school if that school would teach them that the Christian god is a myth, that the Hindu pantheon is real, and that worshiping Ganesh and Shiva are the only way to improve your lot in your next reincarnation?

Yes. Yes they should.

robindch

A priest complains about indoctrination in Irish schools. No, not his one. Another one.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/ireland-s-debate-on-education-shows-little-appreciation-of-experience-in-other-countries-1.1529621

Irish Times wrote:

The growing cultural diversity in our country is at the core of the debate on educational provision in Ireland. For better or worse, the debate focuses almost exclusively on denominational patronage in school governance, and the role of religious education. Little attention is given to the indoctrination and lack of diversity inherent in certain dominant economic world views underpinning education policy. These world views can see students simply as human capital for job markets. Social cohesion is promoted merely to enhance economic productivity. Education success is gauged by measuring “standard of living” rather than “quality of life”.

The challenge of cultural diversity is to empower people of different ethnic, religious and philosophical heritage to work together. Education plays a key role in meeting this challenge. However, the debate is heated when individuals have conflicting approaches to diversity and we can note three – assimilation, accommodation and integration. Assimilation sees diversity as a threat, and seeks to minimise it by promoting a single culture. This means treating all students in the same way. It leads to the standardisation of curriculum and methodology in fewer, larger schools.

It seeks to exclude religion from education to avoid “divisions”, which may unintentionally promote a unified secular world view. Assimilation can also be a feature of denominational schools when they focus on “membership” and compliance to a narrow ethos as criteria for admission. Accommodation means different groups must negotiate space for their values, based on compromise and tolerance. In local schools, parents are required to negotiate diverse approaches to religious values with the patron. Non-religious parents negotiate with denominational patrons and denominational parents negotiate accommodation with Educate Together.

Schools accommodate diverse views through exemption systems or by allowing private arrangements for faith instruction. The proposal from the Forum on Patronage to develop a new course teaching “about” religion seeks to negotiate a single approach to Religious Education rather than allowing denominational groups promote their faith. Integration sees diversity as a value in itself and celebrates differences. It promotes citizens living and learning together, respectful of one another. This is the ideal, but as seen across Europe, it is easier said than done. In Ireland, local schools have made efforts to cater for a wide diversity of student intake, and some have been very creative.

These successes are often ignored and denominational education is blamed for the remaining problems. Intemperate and ill-informed characterisations of the schools pepper the debate. For instance, some portrayals of Catholic schools are more like descriptions from the 1950s. Little recognition is given to the fact that Catholic philosophy of education has meant fundamental changes since Vatican II. However, its implementation is not always perfect yet no concession is made to the maxim that “an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it”. Freedom of religion is a liberty guaranteed to each citizen and gives rise to negative and positive claims. The freedom from religion protects individuals from undue interference from others, and a freedom for religion promotes positive support in exercising a philosophical world view. These two claims are equal.

The European Convention asserts that education will be “in conformity with” the religious and philosophical desires of parents. This is a much stronger position than a minimalist claim not to be “antagonistic” to these desires. The growing diversity of Irish society provides a major challenge in valuing and facilitating parental choice, both in school type and in what goes on in schools. An integrating approach to diversity does not seek to remove the tension that can exist between differences. It requires that we learn to negotiate the tension and even celebrate differences as good in themselves.

Frequently, the Irish debate reflects little appreciation of how other countries achieve a balance between private and state education and how the diversity of religious experience is supported in State schools. Responding to diversity through education requires a commitment to integration on the part of parents, patrons and the State. The rights of all three must be directed to a common vision that will only develop through an informed and respectful debate. We haven’t had that yet. Future generations deserve it.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. Yes they should.

Well, yes, of course, in English class. But should there be 30 minutes a day dedicated to learning soliloquies by rote?

Skrynesaver

robindch wrote: »

A priest complains about indoctrination in Irish schools. No, not his one. Another one.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/ireland-s-debate-on-education-shows-little-appreciation-of-experience-in-other-countries-1.1529621

So JC was just testing a thesis then?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Well, yes, of course, in English class. But should there be 30 minutes a day dedicated to learning soliloquies by rote?

By rote?? Obviously not - they should also be able to comprehend what they are saying. Verily.

In fact - the whole curriculum should be delivered in Early Modern English - if it was good enough for Shakespeare and all that! Gadzooks. :cool:

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In fact - the whole curriculum should be delivered in Early Modern English - if it was good enough for Shakespeare and all that! Gadzooks. :cool:

Classical Latin. As any fule kno, one is not truly a scholar unless one can express oneself in the language of Cicero, Seneca and Virgil.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Classical Latin. As any fule kno, one is not truly a scholar unless one can express oneself in the language of Cicero, Seneca and Virgil.

Latin is for pseudo scholars - true scholars are fully conversant in Classical Greek donchaknow.

SpaceTime

Well that priest is assuming that there's no value in the sense of community in the school or the community it physically sits in and that the entire rest of the education curriculum outside of the religion content is exclusively about building workers for the economy.

What about the poetry, cultural studies, science for the sake of just figuring things out, sports, creative stuff like writing and art and drama, history, geography etc etc etc ...

What about civics? Getting out there and getting involved in your community locally, national politics, EU politics international affairs etc etc

None of those things are about the exams or work they're about education and development.
Religious education isn't the exclusive owner of all things cultural and human!

smacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Classical Latin. As any fule kno.

Is that you Nigel?

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Latin is for pseudo scholars - true scholars are fully conversant in Classical Greek donchaknow.

Me too fick to learn Greek (or Latin for that matter). Me sad panda.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Me too fick to learn Greek (or Latin for that matter). Me sad panda.

Me fink life is too short. Me lazy panda.

Sofiztikated

J C wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church is one (large) Christian Church amongst many. What exactly is your point?

... and irreligion/secularism is also a choice ... and one that would only be made by a tiny minority in its extreme manifestation of 'Kremlin style' freedom from religion.

My point is at the moment, you have a choice between a majority Catholicism based education, or feck all else.

Secularism would give everyone fair choice in their religious choice. This my way or the highway lark is a bit childish.

SpaceTime

The current policy is like this:

94-96% of all schools are Roman Catholic ethos
In theory, you can go off and setup your own school or home school your kids and that is apparently giving parents a 'choice' when it reality it's just not an option for the vast majority of people.

If people do (and it's likely they will) start exercising their choice by establishing more schools, then the education budget just gets stretched even thinner. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we start to see other religious groups demanding schools and before long we'll have a whole mess on our hands of 12+ schools in a single suburb.

Educate Together is somewhat filling that gap for secular education, but it's not filling a gap for people who might start calling for say Islamic school or something like that.

Nobody here has suggested setting up a strictly atheist school and I just find this argument, particularly with J C becomes rather circular and repetitive. Secularism is 'live and let live' and keeping the state out of your religious beliefs. That's all it is and everyone be they atheist like myself and some of the posters on here or very Catholic like J C can use the facilities without any fuss at all.

I mean, maybe J C would have even gotten to know some nice non-Catholics had he/she gone to such a school and might even be a bit more broadminded than to assume that there's only one way of doing everything or that state services should be provided with a religious ethos built in.

However, I think posters on here are wasting their breath / finger muscles and even trying to debate it as the debate it. Either we're debating with a troll or a brick wall one or the other.

clairefontaine

They are doing themselves a disservice. I'm neither atheist or religious. Ultimately, I don't think it matters that much whether there is a od or there isn't. Or many gods, or goddesses or whatever is on the deistic smorgasbord these days. I just don't care.

So what happened when my son was in JI is I inadvertently undermined his teachers credibility. He'd ask questions about God yadda yadda yadda, I found them tedious and tiresome, and just tell him, no one knows for sure, and it really doesn't matter that much. What matters is how we treat each other.

And then the questions about the baby Jesus. Jesus Christ. More stupid questions. I ocouldnt back up the curriculum at home, because I had no respect for what they are teaching. And the rubber stamps at Ash Wednesday are offensive. So is dressing up little girls as brides, my main objection to first holy communion, and the statues of Jesus, which is basically the fetishisation of a public execution. It's entirely offensive.

Banbh

I'm neither atheist or religious.

Are you perhaps a little confused?

And you send your child to religious education? Now I'm confused.

clairefontaine

Banbh wrote: »

Are you perhaps a little confused?

And you send your child to religious education? Now I'm confused.

No I'm not confused. I'm very clear. I don't care. It's a discussion entirely irrelevant to life IMO.

I sent my child to religious education because I had no choice in Ireland. I have since left and I don't have deal with undoing the indoctrination.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

However, you insist that Catholicism is the one true faith beyond a shadow of a doubt. How can you absolutely know this without being a perfect being?

Where did I say that? ... the Roman Catholic Church may believe itself to be whatever it wants to ... but being Saved in Jesus Christ is the 'acid test' of being a Christian

gaynorvader wrote: »

My point is, and always has been, that priests are welcome into the schools, so long as it's not mandatory for children to listen to them.

... you guys want to replace Roman Catholic exclusivity with Secular exclusivity.

Everybody needs to be a little more inclusive of religious diversity.
I'll have my children listen to an Atheist ... provided you have yours listen to a Creationist ... or a Roman Catholic ... or a Muslim.

The 'knee-jerk' reaction to the 'village Creationist' in the Scottish school doesn't auger well for tolerance of diversity within our School systems!!!

gaynorvader wrote: »

As I have pointed out, your comments have been based solely on emotion, not reason. You have been soapboxing rather than address posters' points.

There is plently of emotion on both sides of this debate ... and I've tried to keep it as logical as possible.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Saying it will only cheapen it, but I do love you J C. I love your ridiculous arguing style. Even though you annoy me and make me feel bad, you still amuse me with your inability to construct an argument with any reason.

... I'm glad that I bring a smile to your face occasionally!!!:)

J C

clairefontaine wrote: »

No I'm not confused. I'm very clear. I don't care. It's a discussion entirely irrelevant to life IMO.

I sent my child to religious education because I had no choice in Ireland. I have since left and I don't have deal with undoing the indoctrination.

Clairefontaine's view is what I would expect from a liberal Secularist ... live and let live ... and no big deal about religion or the lack of it, one way or the other.
... I think she could teach us all a thing or two about respecting and living with diversity.

Why can you guys not be more like Claire?

SpaceTime

J C wrote: »

Clairefontaine's view is what I would expect from a liberal Secularist ... live and let live ... and no big deal about religion or the lack of it, one way or the other.
... I think she could teach us all a thing or two about respecting and living with diversity.

Why can you guys not be more like Claire?

You see the thing about a secularist school system is that it could comfortably accommodate your point of view and Clairefontaine's too and you could go about your respective religious and non-religious lifestyles without any issue whatsoever.

MadYaker

Live and let live is the essence of secularism. But I don't think there is any point in wasting anymore time trying to explain to you what secular means.

You can't teach people who don't want to learn.

J C

robindch wrote: »

A priest complains about indoctrination in Irish schools. No, not his one. Another one.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/ireland-s-debate-on-education-shows-little-appreciation-of-experience-in-other-countries-1.1529621

I found it to be a well thought out article that should give everyone food for thought.
Its a reasonable and reasoned reaching out to diversity ... and it doesn't deserve to be summarily dismissed as you have done, Robin.

Nobody is going to get everything they want on this issue.
... and I have found that those who hold out for everything they want, very often get nothing they want.

SpaceTime

J C wrote: »

I found it to be a well thought out article that should give everyone food for thought.
Its a reasonable and reasoned reaching out to diversity ... and it doesn't deserve to be summarily dismissed as you have done, Robin.
Nobody is going to get everything they want on this issue.
... and I have found that those who hold out for everything the want often get nothing.

Again, actually everyone would get what they want if the system was just properly open and secular i.e. not religious and not atheist, just a public service.

What we want is a good education system that everyone can access. What you seem to want is some kind of an exclusively Catholic system for Catholics and everyone else can feck off with themselves or something like that.

I think however, we'll just have to agree to disagree as I don't think my point of view and yours are ever going to be aligned.

J C

SpaceTime wrote: »

You see the thing about a secularist school system is that it could comfortably accommodate your point of view and Clairefontaine's too and you could go about your respective religious and non-religious lifestyles without any issue whatsoever.

I have no doubt that a liberal secular system could deliver this. Indeed I attended such a secular school myself.

However, what I'm hearing here on this forum isn't liberal ... or indeed secular (certainly not in its tolerant liberal manifestation) ...
... I'm mostly hearing advocacy of an illiberal anti-religious form of schooling, where the views of irreligionists predominate ... and religion isn't really tolerated at all.

Piliger

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think however, we'll just have to agree to disagree as I don't think my point of view and yours are ever going to be aligned.

Now you're talking :cool:

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Where did I say that? ... the Roman Catholic Church may believe itself to be whatever it wants to ... but being Saved in Jesus Christ is the 'acid test' of being a Christian

Fair enough.

J C wrote:

... you guys want to replace Roman Catholic exclusivity with Secular exclusivity.

In publicly funded schools, yes. But it's not what you think it means.

J C wrote:

Everybody needs to be a little more inclusive of religious diversity.
I'll have my children listen to an Atheist ... provided you have yours listen to a Creationist ... or a Roman Catholic ... or a Muslim.

Ok, that bolded bit? That's what secularism is, pretty much.
No one has to listen to an atheist or a Catholic or a Muslim or a Jedi in a school setting. Religion would be taught more like Geography or Physics is in secondary school. An opt-in experience.

J C wrote:

The 'knee-jerk' reaction to the 'village Creationist' in the Scottish school doesn't auger well for tolerance of diversity within our School systems!!!

I don't know of what you speak, but it sounds irrelevant to the discussion at hand, let's not muddy the waters here.

J C wrote:

There is plently of emotion on both sides of this debate ... and I've tried to keep it as logical as possible.

... I'm glad that I bring a smile to your face occasionally!!!:)

I hope I bring one to yours on occasion too!

J C wrote: »

Clairefontaine's view is what I would expect from a liberal Secularist ... live and let live ... and no big deal about religion or the lack of it, one way or the other.
... I think she could teach us all a thing or two about respecting and living with diversity.

Why can you guys not be more like Claire?

That is what Secularism is supposed to be. That is what secularism is. That is the secularist ideal. You have twisted it by identifying it with genocidal dictators who happened to be secularists.
In fact, Stalin was anti-theist and pushed through many anti-religious policies which were nothing to do with secularism, but the unfortunate side effect of a megalomaniac in charge of a totalitarian government who hated religion.

J C

SpaceTime wrote: »

What we want is a good education system that everyone can access. What you seem to want is some kind of an exclusively Catholic system for Catholics and everyone else can feck off with themselves or something like that.

I think however, we'll just have to agree to disagree as I don't think my point of view and yours are ever going to be aligned.

I too want a good education system that everyone can access.
I don't want a Roman Catholic system per se ... but if it comes down to it and the only alternative is an agressive anti-christian system ... I'll go with the Roman Catholic model, any day.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by SpaceTime
I think however, we'll just have to agree to disagree as I don't think my point of view and yours are ever going to be aligned.

Piliger
Now you're talking :cool:

... or not ... by the looks of it!!!:)

SpaceTime

J C wrote: »

I have no doubt that a liberal secular system could deliver this. Indeed I attended such a secular school myself.

However, what I'm hearing here on this forum isn't liberal ... or indeed secular (certainly not in its tolerant liberal manifestation) ...
... I'm mostly hearing advocacy of an illiberal anti-religious form of schooling, where the views of irreligionists predominate ... and religion isn't really tolerated at all.

I don't think anyone has actually suggested banning religion in public or something like that. What they have suggested (for the most part) is a liberal secular system.

Indeed, the Educate Together model is just that and is the most likely model that would be pursued in Ireland if a big change like this were to happen in the future.

The problem is that you cannot really have a liberal secular model if you still have a particular ethos and a particular set of religious instructions being taught as part of the curriculum in a particular school.

They just have to become extra-curricular activities. I don't really even see any issue with the school's facilities being made available to prepare kids for communion, confirmation or whatever their particular family religious point of view might need to do. However, I do have a big issue with that being a major part of the general curriculum that everyone has to use. I think that's just unfair and very much like what you'd expect in a theocracy rather than a democracy.

The issue in Ireland at the moment is that the current curriculum weaves religious instruction and aspects of doctrine directly into the whole syllabus at primary level which makes it extremely difficult to provide education to a multi-cultural / multi-religious & non-religious community that need to use the school.

It would be actually a lot easier for a kid to opt out of say Maths than it would be from religion because the religious syllabus is woven into the whole structure of teaching and is not a defined block of classes or particular time of the day. At least in secondary schools it's usually something that's clearly defined as a particular class.

Even the constitutional position would seem to say that it should be separated out so that kids can attend a school without being disadvantaged / made feel awkward / compelled to partake.

The Catholic Church survives quite well (indeed it probably has more uptake than it does here in many ways) in the United States where it co-exists with a completely secular public education system that is actually far more radically secular than I think we would be likely to go here with a more Educate Together type model which would at least probably educate about religions in a cultural awareness way and which might make the physical facilities open to preparation for big milestone religious events like communion.

So, to be honest, I don't think you've anything to fear about any Irish secular education model that might emerge. It's unlikely to be any more dramatic than Educate Together or than the likes of UCC which is a completely secular university.

donspeekinglesh

clairefontaine wrote: »

No I'm not confused. I'm very clear. I don't care. It's a discussion entirely irrelevant to life IMO.

You could call yourself apatheist I guess.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheist

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't know of what you speak, but it sounds irrelevant to the discussion at hand, let's not muddy the waters here.

Robin brought it up earlier ... he said that a Creationist was 'booted out' of a school in Scotland when he was 'outed' ... and apparently the head and vice-head (who aren't creationists) have been removed from their posts as well.
It is a pertinent example of banning religion ... and religious people from secular school.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I hope I bring one to yours on occasion too!

Absolutely!!:)

gaynorvader wrote: »

That is what Secularism is supposed to be. That is what secularism is. That is the secularist ideal. You have twisted it by identifying it with genocidal dictators who happened to be secularists.
In fact, Stalin was anti-theist and pushed through many anti-religious policies which were nothing to do with secularism, but the unfortunate side effect of a megalomaniac in charge of a totalitarian government who hated religion.

I attended a (liberal) Secular school ... so I know exactly what Secularism means ... and how it can be very good ... when its liberal ...
... and very bad ... when it's illiberal and intolerant of diversity ... Stalinism being a very very extreme example.

Skrynesaver

I've watched this drivel unwind for days now, @J_C provide a meaning for the oxymoron "secular exclusivity" that doesn't decend in Watersesque word play or meet my ignore list (I suspect you'll like the company in there)

And JC goes on ignore as either a knave or a fool

SpaceTime

J C : Honestly, do you think that Ireland is likely to go down the route of some kind of Soviet style atheist school system!? It's about as likely as banning alcohol and use of the word 'craic'.

The model most likely to emerge here is a very liberal secular approach almost definitely based on the models developed by Educate Together.

We have already got fully functioning schools that are basically secular in that model and we have fully functioning completely secular universities since the 1800s.

UCC for example was established as a secular institution specifically to avoid all the problems that had been created by TCD being a protestant university and the Catholic University of Ireland (now UCD) having been setup as a response to anti-Catholic and sectarian policies in the past that were a huge issue at that time.

They also did not want to have a situation emerging in Belfast, Cork and Galway where six under-sized universities would emerge split on religious grounds instead of three decent-sized institutions that could serve their respective cities and hinterlands with access to third level education.

The Queen's Colleges as they were then in Cork, Galway and Belfast were created without any religious basis to be run as educational establishments open to all and were funded only on the basis that that was how they would work.

It was very forward thinking for the mid 1800s and they were absolutely castigated by the protestant and catholic hierarchies at the time as "Godless institutions"

I honestly don't think any Catholic, protestant or anyone else has ever felt 'oppressed' at UCC or UCG ?! Have they?

I'd also point out that UCC appointed the first female full professor in any university in Ireland or Britain - Prof. Mary Ryan in 1910.

The problem in Ireland is that kind of logic was thrown out the window in the earlier years of the Republic because some very powerful individuals with an extremely anti-secular, anti-liberal agenda were setting the agenda through the use of political influence and soft power and where the ideas of nationalism became very deliberately convolved with catholicism.

There was a very strong agenda for a long period of time to turn the Republic of Ireland into 'Holy Catholic Ireland' and I don't think that's been good for anyone really, including the Church itself which ended up becoming riddled with corruption because it became too powerful.

The weird primary and secondary education system is very much a symptom of that. The third level system was untouched by it because it was largely above control of the state at that time.

J C

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

You could call yourself apatheist I guess.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheist

... or an Agnostic ... or simply a liberal person who is tolerant of diversity.
Well said ... Claire.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

I have no doubt that a liberal secular system could deliver this. Indeed I attended such a secular school myself.

but ...

However, what I'm hearing here on this forum isn't liberal ... or indeed secular (certainly not in its tolerant liberal manifestation) ...
... I'm mostly hearing advocacy of an illiberal anti-religious form of schooling, where the views of irreligionists predominate ... and religion isn't really tolerated at all.

Don't worry JC - if Ireland ever does get as far as making the education system secular, I doubt they'll ask the members of this forum to set it up!

And, even if we were given free rein - I think many of us would be very keen to implement a system that was as inclusive as possible, probably much like the system you attended yourself, rather than use secularism as a Trojan Horse to push some imagined evangelical atheistic agenda.

Also, bear in mind that (according to yourself) a huge majority of Irish people are Christian, so it's not like Christians aren't going to be well represented during the planning of any proposed secular primary school system.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

I have no doubt that a liberal secular system could deliver this. Indeed I attended such a secular school myself.

However, what I'm hearing here on this forum isn't liberal ... or indeed secular (certainly not in its tolerant liberal manifestation) ...
... I'm mostly hearing advocacy of an illiberal anti-religious form of schooling, where the views of irreligionists predominate ... and religion isn't really tolerated at all.

Where are you hearing this? You seem to be the only person saying that if we start secularist schools it will turn into all catholics being burned at the stake. Everyone else is using the actual definition of secularism.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Where are you hearing this? You seem to be the only person saying that if we start secularist schools it will turn into all catholics being burned at the stake. Everyone else is using the actual definition of secularism.

You aren't saying that all Roman Catholics will be burned at the stake ... but you are saying that their religious leaders aren't welcome in secular schools during the school day.

... and of course, of just as much concern to me, this ban also applies to all other Christian Church leaders as well.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

You aren't saying that all catholics will be burned at the stake ... but you ]are saying that their religious leaders aren't welcome in secular schools during the school day.

... and of course, this ban also applies to all other Christian Church leaders as well.

You seem to only focus on the christians, do you not think Islam and Judaism arent worth protecting too?

Church leaders are as welcome in the school as the local politician, police and the guy down the road that fixed grans doorbell. If the school invites them to talk to the students then they are welcome, just like everyone else.

Should I be able to wander into a school and interrupt classes to talk about engineering? Electronics are probably more important to the children than religion.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You seem to only focus on the christians, do you not think Islam and Judaism arent worth protecting too?

As a Christian, what happens to fellow Christians is of most immediate concern to me. I am, of course, also concerned if people of other faiths or none are not protected as well.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Church leaders are as welcome in the school as the local politician, police and the guy down the road that fixed grans doorbell. If the school invites them to talk to the students then they are welcome, just like everyone else.

... your words betray the fact that they're not actually welcome at all in your 'model' of Secular School.
... and even if they were invited, all it would take is for some 'sensitive' Secularist to object ... and we could have a very nasty situation on our hands.