Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

Clockwork Owl

You may have missed it, J C, but I addressed that concern a few pages back.

I'm curious to know if you think every religious authority (imams, rabbis, Buddhist monks, etcetera) has the right to invite themselves to a school, walk the grounds freely, involve themselves in classes, lead the assemblies, offer unsupervised advice to the students and influence the curriculum - after being vetted, of course.

Would that privilege also extend to the fire fighters, Gardai, doctors, nurses, dentists and politicians that arguably serve an even greater percentage of the population than your average Catholic priest?

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

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 also not protected as well.

... 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.

If the school wishes for people to give a talk they are welcome. Otherwise it is no different than me going into the primary school across the road and teaching them about engineering.

Nasty situation? If the school wishes a religious leader to come into the school to discuss what it is that X religion believes then there would be no issue. If a religious leader comes in to say that X religion is the only real religion and if you think otherwise you should be punished then there would be an issue and rightly so.

J C

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

You may have missed it, J C, but I addressed that concern a few pages back.

I'm curious to know if you think every religious authority (imams, rabbis, Buddhist monks, etcetera) has the right to invite themselves to a school, walk the grounds freely, involve themselves in classes, lead the assemblies, offer unsupervised advice to the students and influence the curriculum - after being vetted, of course.

If children belonging to their faith are attending the school (and if they want to) they should be allowed to visit schools. Its all part of transparency in action and parity of esteem.

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

Would that privilege also extend to the fire fighters, Gardai, doctors, nurses, dentists and politicians that arguably serve an even greater percentage of the population than your average Catholic priest?

Yes ... and this privilege is already there for these people.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If the school wishes for people to give a talk they are welcome. Otherwise it is no different than me going into the primary school across the road and teaching them about engineering.

Nasty situation? If the school wishes a religious leader to come into the school to discuss what it is that X religion believes then there would be no issue. If a religious leader comes in to say that X religion is the only real religion and if you think otherwise you should be punished then there would be an issue and rightly so.

I don't think that any religious leader would be so undiplomatic ...
... but if this thread is anything to go by, s/he might be subjected to less than diplomatic actions from some of the 'secularists' in the school community ... like happened to that Scottish Creationist that Robin told us all about.

... as I recall, Robin described him as being 'booted out' of the school!!

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

I don't think that any religious leader would be so undiplomatic ...
... but if this thread is anything to go by, s/he might subjected to less diplomatic actions from some of the 'secularists' in the school community ... like happened to that Scottish Creationist that Robin told us all about.

... as I recall, Robin described it as 'being booted out'!!

I seem to be reading a completely different thread to you.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I don't think that any religious leader would be so undiplomatic ...
... but if this thread is anything to go by, s/he might subjected to less diplomatic actions from some of the 'secularists' in the school community ... like happened to that Scottish Creationist that Robin told us all about.

... as I recall, Robin described it as being 'booted out'!!

Bannasidhe
I seem to be reading a completely different thread to you.

You could well be reading a completely different thread to me ...

What I'm referring to is on this thread here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86568742&postcount=308

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.

SpaceTime

J C wrote: »

If children belonging to their faith are attending the school (and if they want to) they should be allowed to visit schools. Its all part of transparency in action and parity of esteem.

Yes ... and this privilege is already there for these people.

Eh, not really.

It would be reasonable enough to say have a class about religion and maybe invite the local RC priest, local CoI priest, local imam, local hindu representative, local presbyterian minister, local rep from the Society of Friends, etc etc in for a chat about what they do and what their religion is about or whatever.

It wouldn't really be reasonable or practical to have someone just wandering in and out at will.
I mean, what would the priest be doing there?

Even in Catholic primary schools at present, there's no question of a priest just wandering in and out either. That's just not done anymore for security and child safety reasons schools would actually generally have a policy of only allowing people in to work with kids who have been Garda vetted.

I'm not saying that as a slight against RC priests, just that it's general policy. None of the people on this forum would be allowed to wander in and out of schools either.

If kids wanted 'pastoral care' type services, most religious communities, especially the Catholic Church and C of I, tend to have a church up the road and a lot of infrastructure in place, other than schools anyway.

I don't really see the urgent requirement for a priest to be wandering around the halls of a school for no logical reason.

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

What I'm referring to is here.

What I am referring to is here:

J C wrote: »

... but if this thread is anything to go by, s/he might be subjected to less than diplomatic actions from some of the 'secularists' in the school community ... like happened to that Scottish Creationist that Robin told us all about.

SpaceTime

I don't really see the issue with what happened in Scotland.

It's no different from a political party activist handing out politically charged material in a school. I don't think that's on either.

Nor, say a commercial company coming in handing out adverts.

I mean, how would you feel if your kid was coming home with political material from some very left wing political organisation and telling you all about how their teacher spent hours discussing the party's wonderful policies...?

J C

SpaceTime wrote: »

Eh, not really.

It would be reasonable enough to say have a class about religion and maybe invite the local RC priest, local CoI priest, local imam, local hindu representative, local presbyterian minister, local rep from the Society of Friends, etc etc in for a chat about what they do and what their religion is about or whatever.

It wouldn't really be reasonable or practical to have someone just wandering in and out at will.
I mean, what would the priest be doing there?

Even in Catholic primary schools at present, there's no question of a priest just wandering in and out either. That's just not done anymore for security and child safety reasons schools would actually generally have a policy of only allowing people in to work with kids who have been Garda vetted.

I'm not saying that as a slight against RC priests, just that it's general policy. None of the people on this forum would be allowed to wander in and out of schools either.

If kids wanted 'pastoral care' type services, most religious communities, especially the Catholic Church and C of I, tend to have a church up the road and a lot of infrastructure in place, other than schools anyway.

I don't really see the urgent requirement for a priest to be wandering around the halls of a school for no logical reason.

You're the guys who have introduced this concept of a 'wandering priest' aimlessly patrolling the corridors of schools up and down the country.
... when this isn't the current practice ... because of the very high standards of child protection currently operated by the Roman Catholic Church ... and indeed all other churches as well.

Obviously, like you say, priests don't simply wander about, at present ... and I wouldn't expect that they would do so in a secular school either.
But this doesn't mean that priests and other local church leaders cannot pay properly structured visits to secular schools, where children from their particular denomination are studying.
... and the implacable resistance shown to the idea of religious leaders visiting secular schools tells an ominous tale about how tolerant of religion the 'secularists' on this thread actually are.

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What I am referring to is here:

I didn't see anybody object to what happened to the Christians in Scotland ... so yes, if this thread is anything to go by, a local church pastor might indeed be 'unceremoniously booted out' of a secular school, as Robin has so eloquently described it.

clairefontaine

JC, I think school should be secularised, to a point. I don't want to see burkhas and I don't want to see crucifixes on the walls. I don't want prayer in school either. It does not belong there.

But I think they should keep the Christian calendar with Christmas off and a few days for Easter.

I'm not an absolutist or purist. We inherited a Christian culture and calendar.

And no you should not be exempt from class five times a day to pray to Allah or whatever, or at noon for the angelus. There have to be limits.

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

I didn't see anybody object to what happened to the Christians in Scotland ... so yes, if this thread is anything to go by, a local church pastor might indeed be 'unceremoniously booted out' of a secular school, as Robin has so eloquently described it.

That was post #308 - this will be approx post 413 - hyperbole much?

By the by - since when is Creationism a religion?

It certainly isn't a belief shared by all Christians.

SpaceTime

Speaking of which, our school had an electric Angelus bell on the clock tower which used to get stuck quite regularly and go off for hours!

We used to be allowed to wear our Walkman (the iPod of the time) when it went nuts

J C

clairefontaine wrote: »

JC, I think school should be secularised, to a point. I don't want to see burkhas and I don't want to see crucifixes on the walls. I don't want prayer in school either. It does not belong there.

But I think they should keep the Christian calendar with Christmas off and a few days for Easter.

I'm not an absolutist or purist. We inherited a Christian culture and calendar.

And no you should not be exempt from class five times a day to pray to Allah or whatever, or at noon for the angelus. There have to be limits.

There may well be limits to what Secularists will countenance in relation to their schools ... (quite ironic in view of the continuous campaign waged by these self same secularists against limits imposed by Christian Churches and others) ... and if these limits are too restrictive, then they shouldn't be surprised if the only people attending these schools are other secularists, like themselves ...
... and that's assuming that they don't fall out amongst themselves over some issue of Secular Dogma.

Hotblack Desiato

clairefontaine wrote: »

JC, I think school should be secularised, to a point. I don't want to see burkhas and I don't want to see crucifixes on the walls. I don't want prayer in school either. It does not belong there.

But I think they should keep the Christian calendar with Christmas off and a few days for Easter.

Christian calendar :pac:
You mean the one they stole off the pagans?

J C

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That was post #308 - this will be approx post 413 - hyperbole much?

By the by - since when is Creationism a religion?

It certainly isn't a belief shared by all Christians.

All churches that hold to the Apostles Creed (and that is basically all churches) are creationist churches.
The Apostle's Creed starts with :-
"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."
(Book of Common Worship).

The belief that God is the direct Creator of all things is therefore a central belief of such importance for practically all Christian Churches, that it is the first item of their Creed.

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

All churches that hold to the Apostles Creed (and that is basically all churches) are creationist churches.
The Apostle's Creed starts with :-
"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."
(Book of Common Worship).

The belief that God is the direct Creator of all things is therefore a central belief of such importance for practically all Christian Churches, that it is the first item of their Creed.

Really???

I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this... 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...'

Rowan Williams in The Guardian, 21 March 2006

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml

Archbishop of Canterbury didn't think it should be taught in British schools - was he not a Christian?

gaynorvader

This thread is going off topic. I'll attempt to reel it back in by saying that I think J C actually agrees with most of the posters and most of the posters actually agree with him insofar as schools should be secular, non-mandatory religion should be allowed on school grounds and adults should not be allowed on school grounds with no purpose.

I'm pretty sure J C is now saying what he calls "extreme secularism" and what everyone else calls religious persecution is wrong. And people are arguing that secularism is not wrong. They're 2 different things.

Please note the copious use of the word "most", I'm sure some people think something else.

TheChizler

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think J C actually agrees with most of the posters and most of the posters actually agree with him insofar as schools should be secular, non-mandatory religion should be allowed on school grounds and adults should not be allowed on school grounds with no purpose.

I'm reading it as:

A: I agree and share your views on this matter.

B: Your views are dangerous and radical and are weird and scary to me.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

I don't think that any religious leader would be so undiplomatic ...
... but if this thread is anything to go by, s/he might be subjected to less than diplomatic actions from some of the 'secularists' in the school community ... like happened to that Scottish Creationist that Robin told us all about.

... as I recall, Robin described him as being 'booted out' of the school!!

I doubt a religious leader wold but you assume the worse from an extreme anti religious side starting from secularism so I see no reason why I cant assume an extreme pro religion person forcing their religion on others. It works both ways. If you are going to continue to claim that the secularist are forcing an anti religious side to matters than I will claim that the christian religions are trying to destroy any trace of jews, muslims, atheists or anyone else outside of themselves.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

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.

No. It is a pertinent example of banning stupidity. There are enough morons in the world without allowing people to infect an entire school with their anti-intellectual bull.

MrP

SpaceTime

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

An infinite loop (also known as an endless loop or unproductive loop) is a sequence of instructions in a computer program which loops endlessly, either due to the loop having no terminating condition, having one that can never be met, or one that causes the loop to start over.

I think we're in the logical argument equivalent here.

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

You could well be reading a completely different thread to me ...

What I'm referring to is on this thread here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86568742&postcount=308

Erm, the teacher was not doing their job, they were attempting to take advantage of children's minds and teach creationism as fact. There was no permission from the school to hand out the literature and I'm particularly grateful that they didn't get as far as handing out his homophobic literature. I'd suspect they'd also have preferred for the parents to not have found out.

This is taking advantage of their role for their own benefit and you'd get in trouble here for doing so as much as anywhere else.

SpaceTime

I actually think there should be a little more monitoring of that kind of thing in Irish schools and I don't necessarily just mean about religious content.

I know in secondary school, we had election candidates wandering in handing out leaflets which I thought was absolutely ridiculous.

I wouldn't have minded if the school had said (for the sake of education about the election) : ok, let's bring in all the candidates and let them explain what they're up to and what their parties do and do it in a very neutral way.

Instead, we had a very one party bias from a particular teacher and nothing else.

We also had commercial companies coming in to 'educate us' about dental hygiene and giving out free samples when I was in primary school.

Hotblack Desiato

SpaceTime wrote: »

Instead, we had a very one party bias from a particular teacher and nothing else.

Sure what do you expect, when not only do we allow teachers stand for the Dail, we hold their jobs open for them as well?

Other public servants are banned from political activity lest it be seen to bias them in the performance of their duties. There is no reason not to treat teachers in the same way, especially if they are talking about giving school students the vote.

robindch

J C wrote: »

... but if this thread is anything to go by, s/he might be subjected to less than diplomatic actions from some of the 'secularists' in the school community ... like happened to that Scottish Creationist that Robin told us all about.

The forum might need an FAQ entry on that:

robindch wrote: »

At the risk of explaining something that's been explained many, many times here:

I'm quite happy to have christian religious stories in school under the same general terms that other religious stories are included -- Greek gods, Norse gods, Jesus, Allah, Mohammad and the rest. They're the background of much of our culture and world culture generally, and they're important.

What I object to strongly, and you seem not to appreciate, is that there's a difference between telling people about religious stories, and telling impressionable kids that they'll burn in hell if they don't believe those religious stories.

Before replying, please read the post again. And again. Until you understand the difference. Then reply.

SpaceTime

ninja900 wrote: »

Sure what do you expect, when not only do we allow teachers stand for the Dail, we hold their jobs open for them as well?

Other public servants are banned from political activity lest it be seen to bias them in the performance of their duties. There is no reason not to treat teachers in the same way, especially if they are talking about giving school students the vote.

Yeah, I agree with that holding jobs open for teachers who become TDs is absolute nonsense. No other profession distorts the political system with too many teachers. Even without that extra advantage, it's one of the most compatible-with-politics careers out there anyway. Long summer holidays, community involvement, short hours etc.

But, I think that's taking this thread way OT.

kylith

J C wrote: »

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.

And yet you wish to deny those of other, or no, religious faith their freedom of religion by supporting a Catholic centered school system?

I ask again, for the fourth of fifth time, if the only school with room for your children, within a reasonable distance of your house, was Hindu (or Jewish, or Muslim) would you be happy that to send them there, knowing full well that they will be taught a religion which you do not subscribe as fact, that they will be expected to prepare for Diwali (or Ramadan, or Passover), and that if you do not wish them to be included in these classes you may be required to go to the school and supervise them yourself as there are no teachers available to do so? Would you be satisfied to send your children do a school which is completely at odds with your religious beliefs?

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the by - since when is Creationism a religion?

Ignoring evidence you don't like and distorting truth and outright lying in order to pretend your blind unquestioning faith has the barest chance of measuring up to reality?

It sure as hell isn't science.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Ignoring evidence you don't like and distorting truth and outright lying in order to pretend your blind unquestioning faith has the barest chance of measuring up to reality?

It sure as hell isn't science.

Sounds like some of the political ideologies making a bit of a come-back in places like Greece.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

No. It is a pertinent example of banning stupidity. There are enough morons in the world without allowing people to infect an entire school with their anti-intellectual bull.

MrP

Highly insulting, emotive stuff Mr P.

Just because you believe that you are descended from pondkind over millions of years ... and I believe that I am descended from people specially created by an omnipotent God, doesn't mean we can't be friends ... and respect each others beliefs.
We both can cite evidence for the validity of our beliefs and your use of loaded words like 'infect' is bordering on religious hatred.
Equally, unfounded name calling and schoolyard bully comments about my fellow Creationists don't become you, quite frankly.

Let's treat each other with respect ... and less of the sectarian abuse please.
Your emotive deeply prejudicial anti-religious outburst, which hasn't been challenged by anybody on the forum denies all of the 'lofty talk' about 'secularists' defending the rights of religious minorities ... when you clearly hate them instead!!!

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Highly insulting, emotive stuff Mr P.

Just because you believe that you are descended from pondkind over millions of years ... and I believe that I am descended from people specially created by an omnipotent God, doesn't mean we can't be friends ... and respect each others beliefs.
We both can cite evidence for the validity of our beliefs and your use loaded words like 'infect' is bordering on religious hatred.
Equally, unfounded name calling and schoolyard bully comments about my fellow Creationists don't become you, quite frankly.

Let's treat each other with respect ... and less of the sectarian abuse please.
Your emotive deeply prejudicial anti-religious outburst, which hasn't been challenged by anybody on the forum denies all of the 'lofty talk' about 'secularists' defending the rights of religious minorities ... when you clearly hate them instead!!!

I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging this thread off topic by engaging anyone in a creationist debate. That's why I, at least am ignoring remarks about it.

J C

robindch wrote: »

The forum might need an FAQ entry on that:

Originally Posted by robindch View Post
At the risk of explaining something that's been explained many, many times here:

I'm quite happy to have christian religious stories in school under the same general terms that other religious stories are included -- Greek gods, Norse gods, Jesus, Allah, Mohammad and the rest. They're the background of much of our culture and world culture generally, and they're important.

What I object to strongly, and you seem not to appreciate, is that there's a difference between telling people about religious stories, and telling impressionable kids that they'll burn in hell if they don't believe those religious stories.
Before replying, please read the post again. And again. Until you understand the difference. Then reply.

I have read it again and again ... even though your request smacks of bullying ... with the insulting implication that I cannot understand your post, on a first reading.

Firstly nobody is telling children they will burn in Hell ... that's just your emotive anti-religious prejudices coming out.
Secondly, the Bible is much more than mere 'stories' ... it is the Word of God ... and it is believed to be so by over 90% of the Irish Population, as is their right.
You are, of course, free to deny this ... but it doesn't give you the right to exclusively impose your irreligious viewpoint on the minds and hearts of the Christian children of Ireland.

Please go and set up your own ireligious schools, if you want to ... and parents will then have the choice as to which school suits them best.

As for your claim that you have no problem with Christian religious stories ... you do seem to have grave difficulties with the most fundamental Monotheistic story of all ... the Creation of Heaven and Earth and all things therein ... and probably every other belief in the Christian Creed, besides.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

I have read it again and again ... even though your request smacks of bullying ... with the insulting implication that I cannot understand your post, on a first reading.

Firstly nobody is telling children they will burn in Hell ... that's just your emotive anti-religious prejudices coming out.
Secondly, the Bible is much more than mere 'stories' ... it is the Word of God ... and it is believed to be so by over 90% of the Irish Population, as is their right.
You are, of course, free to deny this ... but it doesn't give you the right to exclusively impose your irreligious viewpoint on the minds and hearts of the Christian children of Ireland.

Please go and set up your own ireligious schools, if you want to ... and parents will then have the choice as to which school suits them best.

As for your claim that you have no problem with Christian religious stories ... you do seem to have grave difficulties with the most fundamental Monotheistic story of all ... the Creation of Heaven and Earth and all things therein ... and many other stories besides.

There's a difference between telling a child the Bible is fiction or a lie and not telling a child about the Bible though.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging this thread off topic by engaging anyone in a creationist debate. That's why I, at least am ignoring remarks about it.

This isn't about the Creationist debate (on the validity or otherwise of Creationism) ... it is about treating people like Creationists, Roman Catholic Priests ... and everybody else with whom you have a difference of beliefs with respect and tolerance.
Mr P shouldn't call anybody unfounded insulting names like 'moron' or describe their beliefs as 'stupidity' ... such remarks are only personal abuse ... that adds nothing to the debate ... and are quite inflammatory in a multi-cultural society.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

There's a difference between telling a child the Bible is fiction or a lie and not telling a child about the Bible though.

Why should we do either?
Christian Children should be told that the Bible is the truth.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

Firstly nobody is telling children they will burn in Hell ... that's just your emotive anti-religious prejudices coming out.

Is it not the main part christian belief that if you dont believe in Christ you go to hell because you arent forgiven for the sins you are born with thanks to God? That seems like telling children that they are going to burn in hell, unless they love Christ that is.

J C wrote: »

This isn't about the Creationist debate (on the validity or otherwise of Creationism) ... it is about treating people like Creationists, Roman Catholic Priests ... and everybody else with whom you have a difference of beliefs with respect and tolerance.
Mr P shouldn't call anybody unfounded insulting names like 'moron' or describe their beliefs as 'stupidity' ... such remarks are only personal abuse ... that adds nothing to the debate ... and are quite inflammatory in a multi-cultural society.

So you can beat women and keep them locked in the house all the time and its ok as long as you claim its a belief?

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Is it not the main part christian belief that if you dont believe in Christ you go to hell because you arent forgiven for the sins you are born with thanks to God? That seems like telling children that they are going to burn in hell, unless they love Christ that is.

I prefer to concentrate on the positive option of being Saved.
Nobody can say what the eternal destiny of anybody is ... so telling somebody they will burn in Hell is completely wrong.
... even though some tabloid newspapers may do this occasionally ... Christians do not do this.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So you can beat women and keep them locked in the house all the time and its ok as long as you claim its a belief?

The moral validity (and indeed legality) of the belief needs to be examined, if somebody is claiming that they are justified in acting in a particularly reprehensible, outrageous and illegal manner, such as the abuse and kidnapping of women.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

I prefer to concentrate on the positive option of being Saved.
Nobody can say what the eternal destiny of anybody is ... so telling anybody they will burn in Hell is totally wrong.
... even though some tabloid newspapers may do this occasionally ... Christians do not do this.

But by teaching children that Christianity is true then you are teaching them that they will only be "saved" by believing in it. Otherwise they will suffer for eternity.

J C wrote: »

The moral validity (and indeed legality) of the belief needs to be examined, if somebody is claiming that they are justified in acting in a particularly reprehensible manner.

You mean like Christianity's view on homosexuality? You said that religious beliefs need to be protected. If a religion tells its followers that they must treat women badly, maybe they are there to lead men astray so they aren't "saved", then you should respect it as it is their belief.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

But by teaching children that Christianity is true then you are teaching them that they will only be "saved" by believing in it. Otherwise they will suffer for eternity.

I believe that you can be Saved by believing on Jesus Christ.
Other people are free to believe this or not ... and I fully respect their freedom to do so.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You mean like Christianity's view on homosexuality? You said that religious beliefs need to be protected. If a religion tells its followers that they must treat women badly, maybe they are there to lead men astray so they aren't "saved", then you should respect it as it is their belief.

Like, I have said, all beliefs may be tested for their moral and legal validity.
The Christian moral test is whether our beliefs, if acted upon, will treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves.
Saved Christians aren't legalists ... look how tenderly and lovingly Jesus Christ treated the woman caught in Adultery ... while the 'moralists' were calling for her to be killed.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

They are free to believe it or not.

Children are gullible and will believe what they are told by parents and teachers. They believe in santa, monsters and that God will save them only if they believe in him. Maybe we should wait until the child can actually form an opinion to allow them to choose a religion?

J C wrote: »

Like, I have said, all beliefs may be tested for their moral and legal validity. The Christian moral test is whether our beliefs, if acted upon, will treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves.

Christians want to be treated like how they treat homosexuals? Or they want their child to be taken away from them and given to another family while they work as slaves?

I dont think this Christian moral test happens often. At least Jesus knew how to treat slaves well. Which ironically the nuns failed to follow.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Christian Children should be told that the Bible is the truth.

But by whom?

I have no objection to Christian parents telling their children that this is so, but I strongly disagree with a state-paid teacher in a state-paid school being forced to tell the children what is effectively religious dogma.

The teacher might not believe it to be true himself/herself. And having a teacher make a statement like (that the Bible is true) removes any tolerance whatsoever towards other children. It is completely wrong for the state (via the teacher) to reinforce such a partisan message.

Surely the parents telling the children is sufficient? Why the desperation to have the message reinforced by the teacher?

J C

wrote:

shruikan2553
Children are gullible and will believe what they are told by parents and teachers. They believe in santa, monsters and that God will save them only if they believe in him. Maybe we should wait until the child can actually form an opinion to allow them to choose a religion?

swampgas
I have no objection to Christian parents telling their children that this is so, but I strongly disagree with a state-paid teacher in a state-paid school being forced to tell the children what is effectively religious dogma.

Here we have two distinct Secular viewpoints ... one has no problem with Christian parents teaching Christian beliefs to their children, as long as the taxpayer isn't paying for it ... but this seems to be only a temporary 'stepping stone' to the ultimate secular objective ... the banning of religious instruction to children until they are adults (no matter who is paying for it) ... and no doubt, by then it will argued that it should be illegal for one adult to talk about religion to another adult or some other ruse.

wrote:

shruikan2553
Christians want to be treated like how they treat homosexuals?

I have the height of respect for homosexuals ... I don't share their sexual orientation ... but they are Human Beings deserving of our love and respect, like all other peoples.

wrote:

shruikan2553Or they want their child to be taken away from them and given to another family while they work as slaves?

I dont think this Christian moral test happens often. At least Jesus knew how to treat slaves well. Which ironically the nuns failed to follow.

That may be the case ... people sometimes don't reach the highest ideals ... but the test of loving people as oneself is still there nontheless.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Here we have two distinct Secular viewpoints ... one has no problem with Christian parents teaching Christian beliefs to their children, as long as the taxpayer isn't paying for it ... but this seems to be only a temporary 'stepping stone' to the ultimate secular objective ... the banning of religious instruction to children until they are adults (no matter who is paying for it) ... and no doubt, by then it will argued that it should be illegal for one adult to talk about religion to another adult.

Frankly, that smacks a little of conspiracy theory. Are you objecting to secular education because you truly believe that it is merely a smokescreen for the eradication of religion? And you think this is likely in Ireland, of all places?

The problem here isn't with secularism, it's with your (IMO massively misplaced) deep fear that secularism is merely a front for some kind of program to introduce religious oppression.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

Frankly, that smacks a little of conspiracy theory. Are you objecting to secular education because you truly believe that it is merely a smokescreen for the eradication of religion? And you think this is likely in Ireland, of all places?

The problem here isn't with secularism, it's with your (IMO massively misplaced) deep fear that secularism is merely a front for some kind of program to introduce religious oppression.

I don't believe in conspiracies ... but it is a fact that people can act in consort to achieve objectives.

The secularists on this forum appear to be exhibiting very strong anti-religious opinions ... and nobody appears to be disagreeing with even the most extreme anti-religious statements.
This is in stark contrast the liberal secular claim that secularism is areligious ... rather than anti-religious.

I've had a pleasant experience in a liberal secular school as a student myself ... but maybe that was then ... and this is now.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

I prefer to concentrate on the positive option of being Saved.
Nobody can say what the eternal destiny of anybody is ... so telling somebody they will burn in Hell is completely wrong.
... even though some tabloid newspapers may do this occasionally ... Christians do not do this.

Really, you are not showing much respect for other posters here if you are willing to serve up nonsense like this which is directly contradicted by the first-hand experience of many of them - including myself.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

Really, you are not showing much respect for other posters here if you are willing to serve up nonsense like this which is directly contradicted by the first-hand experience of many of them - including myself.

What experience are you referring to?

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Why should we do either?
Christian Children should be told that the Bible is the truth.

Because that is the exact same as telling them the Bible is a lie, just the other side of the coin.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

I don't believe in conspiracies ... but it is a fact that people can act in consort to achieve objectives.

The secularists on this forum appear to be exhibiting very strong anti-religious opinions ... and nobody appears to be disagreeing with even the most extreme anti-religious statements.
This is in stark contrast the liberal secular claim that secularism is areligious ... rather than anti-religious.

I've had a pleasant experience in a liberal secular school as a student myself ... but maybe that was then ... and this is now.

For many people, including myself, this forum is one of the few places where I can vent a little about religion. I can discuss religion, its craziness, its persistence, the weird Irish version of it, and so on, in a way that is not possible elsewhere. Of course we're going to sound anti-religious - some of us think religion is wrong, plain and simple. But that's on this forum.

However, outside of this forum many of us also have family and friends, spouses and partners even, who are religious. I don't try to convince my mother that she is wrong, nor does she try to convince me that I am wrong. She goes to mass, I don't, and we are both willing to accept the other one's choice in the matter. When she dies she will have a Catholic funeral, which I will be happy to arrange, should I pop my clogs first she will respect my wishes to have a non-religious funeral. At a meal she will say grace quietly to herself, and not expect us all to join in. If she stays with me I'll happily drive her to mass, but I won't actually go in.

To my mind a secular system is just an extension of that, where we manage to rub along side by side, everyone making some concessions, everyone agreeing to maintain a neutral shared space, and nobody insisting that their particular beliefs be enforced on anyone else.