World Religions Course Proposal for schools

RustyNut

Nick Park wrote: »

And, as history has shown us, when those kind of people get the reins of power they tend to be very quick to set up Catholic schools, and to force everybody else to attend them.

Fixed your post there.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer fund this?

Because the taxpayers have an interest in seeing the children of the nation educated. Leaving aside that education is inherently good and a civilised society educates its children, the taxpayers will in time become pensioners, dependent for their meat and drink on transfers from the next generation of workers. It's in their interest that the next generation of workers should be educated.

So, both principle and self-interest dictate that taxpayers - even taxpayers who have no children - should pay for education.

But this doesn't give them the right to dictate how children should be educated. The taxpayer has no more right to decree that every child shall have a secular education than he does to decree that every child shall have a Catholic education. That right belongs to the child's parents, who9 are likely to make diverse choices about how their childern should be educated.

Therefore, the taxpayer should pay for the schools that the parents want.

Saipanne

Reading through this thread is painful. The bigotry is barely concealed.

PolaroidPizza

at what point do we stop. For now its the main religions, but at what point does we have to teach Taoism, Shintoism, paganism, confucionism, Sikhism, Rastafarianism etc etc?
I mean, realistically, the same argument that is made for introducing Hinduism, Buddhism etc can be made for all the above? At some point this above list will be challenged legally to introduce even more.
is it only then people will realise that religion should be taught in your house of worship at your own time, not at school

Peregrinus

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

at what point do we stop. For now its the main religions, but at what point does we have to teach Taoism, Shintoism, paganism, confucionism, Sikhism, Rastafarianism etc etc?
I mean, realistically, the same argument that is made for introducing Hinduism, Buddhism etc can be made for all the above? At some point this above list will be challenged legally to introduce even more.

I'm not seeing the problem. If there's a sufficient demand for a viable Hindu, Sikh, etc school, why wouldn't we fund it?

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not seeing the problem. If there's a sufficient demand for a viable Hindu, Sikh, etc school, why wouldn't we fund it?

Because the state has no business funding religious indoctrination. And it's exclusionary.

PolaroidPizza

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not seeing the problem. If there's a sufficient demand for a viable Hindu, Sikh, etc school, why wouldn't we fund it?

because there are as many different types of religion as there are different people. eventually, our schools wont have time to teach reading, writing and maths because they're too busy teaching 50 different religions.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because the taxpayers have an interest in seeing the children of the nation educated. Leaving aside that education is inherently good and a civilised society educates its children, the taxpayers will in time become pensioners, dependent for their meat and drink on transfers from the next generation of workers. It's in their interest that the next generation of workers should be educated.

So, both principle and self-interest dictate that taxpayers - even taxpayers who have no children - should pay for education.

But this doesn't give them the right to dictate how children should be educated. The taxpayer has no more right to decree that every child shall have a secular education than he does to decree that every child shall have a Catholic education. That right belongs to the child's parents, who9 are likely to make diverse choices about how their childern should be educated.

Therefore, the taxpayer should pay for the schools that the parents want.

A duty to see children educated in ignorance and bigotry? No, it doesn't. By separating children in schools by virtue of faith, or by "allowing" children to go to their local school but forcing them to exclude themselves from class activity to avoid indoctrination, what positive lessons are the children of this nation being given? How are they being cherished equally?

I agree with your last paragraph - all taxpayers should pay for education, whether or not they have children. And they should not dictate how that education is carried out. But a government, acting on behalf of the people of this nation, should ensure that such education is equitable, and respectful of all. At the moment, the RC taxpayers DO dictate to the government that their private beliefs be taught by state employees to children in government funded schools, and the only compromise the state makes is to allow non RC children to opt out of this indoctrination, thereby causing exclusion. The opposite to what education should be about.

If the taxpayer should pay for the schools the parents want, then I presume that you would agree that there should be a school for the two Hindu children in a small village, and another one for the child of atheist parents, if that's what they want?

Peregrinus

I don't see that the state has any less business funding religious indoctrination than it does funding secular indoctrination, do you? The state should fund the schools that parents want, and refrain as far as possible from passing judgments about what kinds of education are acceptable and what kinds are not.

Peregrinus

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

because there are as many different types of religion as there are different people. eventually, our schools wont have time to teach reading, writing and maths because they're too busy teaching 50 different religions.

I'm not sugegsting that every school should teach every religion; I'm suggesting that the state should fund a variety of schools.

Saipanne

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that the state has any less business funding religious indoctrination than it does funding secular indoctrination, do you? The state should fund the schools that parents want, and refrain as far as possible from passing judgments about what kinds of education are acceptable and what kinds are not.

Secular indoctrination.

LOL!

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

A duty to see children educated in ignorance and bigotry?

The parents who choose to send their children to a Catholic (or C of I, or Jewish, or Muslim . . .) school presumably don't share your perception that they are educating their children in "ignorance and bigotry". Can you mount an argument as to why the state is obliged to accept your views on this matter, and not theirs, given that we are talking about the education of their children.

katydid wrote: »

By separating children in schools by virtue of faith, or by "allowing" children to go to their local school but forcing them to exclude themselves from class activity to avoid indoctrination, what positive lessons are the children of this nation being given? How are they being cherished equally?

Well, perhaps they are learning something about the value of diversity, and respect for differences in a diverse community. If we only allow children to go to schools where they all do the same things at the same time all the time, well, that's pretty much it for elective subjects, isn't it? And if we treat religion and the study of religion as something that must always be kept of of schools we teach them to be narrow-minded and intolerant.

katydid wrote: »

I agree with your last paragraph - all taxpayers should pay for education, whether or not they have children. And they should not dictate how that education is carried out. But a government, acting on behalf of the people of this nation, should ensure that such education is equitable, and respectful of all.

And funding secular schools is equitable, and equally respectful of people who want secular education and those who want religious education, is it?

katydid wrote: »

At the moment, the RC taxpayers DO dictate to the government that their private beliefs be taught by state employees to children in government funded schools, and the only compromise the state makes is to allow non RC children to opt out of this indoctrination, thereby causing exclusion.

That must be why there are no C of I, Presybterian, Methodist, Jewish or Islamic schools receiving state funding, then.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that the state has any less business funding religious indoctrination than it does funding secular indoctrination, do you? The state should fund the schools that parents want, and refrain as far as possible from passing judgments about what kinds of education are acceptable and what kinds are not.

Surely education in a modern, first world school doesn't need to include indoctrination at all? There is so much of education that is "secular" - maths, languages, science, IT, PE etc., that surely this can be taught by the state in a neutral way to all children? While allowing children of different faiths to mix with each other they will have to do as adults?

This allows for the education system to be better structured and avoid the waste and inefficiency caused by having umpteen different denominations all teaching the same core subjects but with their own flavour of "ethos".

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

Surely education in a modern, first world school doesn't need to include indoctrination at all? There is so much of education that is "secular" - maths, languages, science, IT, PE etc., that surely this can be taught by the state in a neutral way to all children? While allowing children of different faiths to mix with each other they will have to do as adults?

This allows for the education system to be better structured and avoid the waste and inefficiency caused by having umpteen different denominations all teaching the same core subjects but with their own flavour of "ethos".

I have to say that, as far as I can see, "indoctrination" simply means "inculcation of values, principles or beliefs with which I do not agree". (I pass on important values, you indoctrinate, he brainwashes.)

So, it possible to have education which doesn't include the transmission of values and beliefs? No, it isn't, and anybody who thinks it is is unfit to run a school. Sure, within the school it's possible to have instruction in particular matters which doesn't involve passing on beliefs or values, or at least doesn't do so explicitly. But even in the most factual instruction, there's always some implicit lesson about values, even if it's only "it's important to know about X". And often there's much more; you can't deal with history, or civics, or literarature, for example, at any very deep level, without dealing with values and beliefs, both implicitly and explicitly. Plus, there's the life of the school - the way it approaches discipline, school values, etc, etc. That may not be formal instruction, but the kids learn a huge amount from it.

You can only have education without "indoctrination" if you think that education consists entirely of the informing children about specific facts, whose signficance is never considered. And, I don't know about you, but if there is anybody running a school who really thinks that, my child is not going to that school.

I don't have a problem with kids of different religious/philosophical backgrounds mixing; I think it's a good thing. And, for myself, if the state wished to impose a rule that no school could adopt religious or philosophical position an admission criterion, go for it. (At least as far as Catholic schools go; I'd be inclined to cut some slack for schools which cater for minority traditions.)

"Secularism" is the doctrine* that all questions should be decided without reference to God, supernatural realities, an afterlife, etc. It doesn't deny (or affirm) that God, etc, exists; it just says that we should ignore that possiblity in make decisions about how to act. A secular school will do precisely that. And in doing so, of course, it imparts secularism to pupils, since we mainly teach values by modelling them, and kids mainly acquire them by imitating them. The very fact that the school is systematically secular in its conduct indoctrinates* the kids into thinking that secularism is the way to go. (and vice versa for a religious school, of course). And while parents are free to be secular, or religious, or anything else, and to raise their kids accordingly, and to prefer secular or religious schools, I don't see that it's the business of the state to favour one of those views over another.

I'm a republican; in my view citizens form views and values and impart them to the state, not the other way around. The state should be secular in its own actions, but neutral as between the secular or religious preferences of its citizens. That means that parents who want a religious education for their children have as much right to acceptance and support from the state in educating their children as do parents who want a secular education for their children.

*See what I did there?

katydid

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

because there are as many different types of religion as there are different people. eventually, our schools wont have time to teach reading, writing and maths because they're too busy teaching 50 different religions.

Or you will have a small village with ten different schools...

It doesn't seem to dawn on the advocates of indoctrination during school time that the obvious solution is for their religious personnel to do the indoctrination outside of school and allow schools to treat all children equally.

It's a no brainer, basically. But it would mean parents and clergy putting themselves out, and that's not going to happen.

pconn062

Peregrinus wrote: »

The parents who choose to send their children to a Catholic (or C of I, or Jewish, or Muslim . . .) school presumably don't share your perception that they are educating their children in "ignorance and bigotry". Can you mount an argument as to why the state is obliged to accept your views on this matter, and not theirs, given that we are talking about the education of their children.

Well, when 92% of the schools in the country are Catholic schools, parents hardly have much of a choice but to send their kids to these schools whether they wish to or not. It's not like there is a whole lot of choice, unless you are lucky enough to have an ET school beside you it's down to the local Catholic school you go. I have no problem with faith schools, but they should be the minority and if parents really want their children's education to have a large religious focus (whatever religion that maybe be) they can apply to the faith school. It's ridiculous that the majority of schools are de facto Catholic.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not seeing the problem. If there's a sufficient demand for a viable Hindu, Sikh, etc school, why wouldn't we fund it?

Cause its a waste of tax payer money,

You're suggesting multi schools just to teach different faiths, even though all these faiths already have their own religious buildings.

But you want the tax payer to fund all these different faith schools and to pay the teachers wages. Thats frankly idiotic duplication of costs when many aspects of our education system are stretched.

Its far more logical to leave the religion upto parents and they can make use of the existing religious buildings/priests etc. If they do this this will also boost mass numbers from the pathetic levels of approx 30%.

Unless you are scared nobody will bother and go to mass? Is that what you are really scared of?

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to say that, as far as I can see, "indoctrination" simply means "inculcation of values, principles or beliefs with which I do not agree". (I pass on important values, you indoctrinate, he brainwashes.)

So, it possible to have education which doesn't include the transmission of values and beliefs? No, it isn't, and anybody who thinks it is is unfit to run a school. Sure, within the school it's possible to have instruction in particular matters which doesn't involve passing on beliefs or values, or at least doesn't do so explicitly. But even in the most factual instruction, there's always some implicit lesson about values, even if it's only "it's important to know about X". And often there's much more; you can't deal with history, or civics, or literarature, for example, at any very deep level, without dealing with values and beliefs, both implicitly and explicitly. Plus, there's the life of the school - the way it approaches discipline, school values, etc, etc. That may not be formal instruction, but the kids learn a huge amount from it.

You can only have education without "indoctrination" if you think that education consists entirely of the informing children about specific facts, whose signficance is never considered. And, I don't know about you, but if there is anybody running a school who really thinks that, my child is not going to that school.

I don't have a problem with kids of different religious/philosophical backgrounds mixing; I think it's a good thing. And, for myself, if the state wished to impose a rule that no school could adopt religious or philosophical position an admission criterion, go for it. (At least as far as Catholic schools go; I'd be inclined to cut some slack for schools which cater for minority traditions.)

"Secularism" is the doctrine* that all questions should be decided without reference to God, supernatural realities, an afterlife, etc. It doesn't deny (or affirm) that God, etc, exists; it just says that we should ignore that possiblity in make decisions about how to act. A secular school will do precisely that. And in doing so, of course, it imparts secularism to pupils, since we mainly teach values by modelling them, and kids mainly acquire them by imitating them. The very fact that the school is systematically secular in its conduct indoctrinates* the kids into thinking that secularism is the way to go. (and vice versa for a religious school, of course). And while parents are free to be secular, or religious, or anything else, and to raise their kids accordingly, and to prefer secular or religious schools, I don't see that it's the business of the state to favour one of those views over another.

I'm a republican; in my view citizens form views and values and impart them to the state, not the other way around. The state should be secular in its own actions, but neutral as between the secular or religious preferences of its citizens. That means that parents who want a religious education for their children have as much right to acceptance and support from the state in educating their children as do parents who want a secular education for their children.

*See what I did there?

Yes, indoctrine is teaching the doctrines of a belief system. And the simple question is why a state school should have its agents teaching specific doctrines. All teaching outside of bare facts is, indeed, indoctrination of sort, but given that the common values of our society are respect for others, and other positive elements, it's hardly a bad thing to use the education system to instil those values in our children.

The difference between this and the indoctrination of religious beliefs is that the latter are specific to certain groups of society, and using the school system to indoctrinate them means that those who do not subscribe to these specific beliefs are excluded from the peer group. Exclusion is not the only problem but the inequality of educational access.

As a republican, believing presumably in democracy and equality, how can you support such exclusion and inequality and the use of a state system to promote it?

Secularism is simply the acceptance that religion is a private affair and that the state has a duty to all its citizens and those who live within its boundaries to not impose religion on them. This is so easily done, it's ridiculous that we are even discussing it.

Can YOU explain to me why RC clergy don't take responsibility for the faith formation of their flock in the way other clergy and religious leaders do?

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

The parents who choose to send their children to a Catholic (or C of I, or Jewish, or Muslim . . .) school presumably don't share your perception that they are educating their children in "ignorance and bigotry". Can you mount an argument as to why the state is obliged to accept your views on this matter, and not theirs, given that we are talking about the education of their children.


Well, perhaps they are learning something about the value of diversity, and respect for differences in a diverse community. If we only allow children to go to schools where they all do the same things at the same time all the time, well, that's pretty much it for elective subjects, isn't it? And if we treat religion and the study of religion as something that must always be kept of of schools we teach them to be narrow-minded and intolerant.


And funding secular schools is equitable, and equally respectful of people who want secular education and those who want religious education, is it?


That must be why there are no C of I, Presybterian, Methodist, Jewish or Islamic schools receiving state funding, then.

The parents that send their children to denominational schools other than RC often do so not because they wish their children to be educated in a particular religious ethos, but because they do NOT wish them to them to be indoctrinated in beliefs they don't hold, or to suffer exclusion. I would have liked my child to go to a non-denominational school - I had no option but to send her to a CofI school, not because I am CofI, but because the only other option was to send her to a RC school, and make her stand out from her peers by leaving the class during religion class, and, of course, being left out of many more activities during the years of Communion and Confirmation preparation. Not to mention the prayers and the statues and the school masses.
Because of that, she missed out on being educated in a Gaelscoil, which I would have loved her to attend.

If RC schools didn't exist, there would be far fewer other denominational schools. Of course, there still would be the parents who would demand such schools, but quite frankly, the welfare and wellbeing of children in this society is more important than the demands of parents. Such parents may not wish to admit that they are educating their children in ignorance and bigotry, but by sending them to such schools, what else are they doing other than denying them the chance to mix with other children and learn to know them as people, fellow human beings?

Am I reading you right when you suggest that by being exclude from the activities of their peers, children learn about diversity?? I find it hard to believe you are saying that? That is like saying that the black people in South Africa learned the value of diversity by being excluded from certain beaches and park benches. Diversity where one group of people is favoured over another is not the kind of diversity we should be teaching our children. In a religious school, those who have to leave the class to avoid indoctrination are being given the message that the children who stay are the normal ones, for whom the school is intended, and they are the outsiders, tolerated but not really as important. I am truly shocked that you see such exclusion as an example of diversity...

Yes, funding secular schools is equitable. So, as I asked you before, are you saying you would have no problem with several schools in one small area, each providing for different religions and for those who wanted a secular school, all paid for by the taxpayer?

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

The parents that send their children to denominational schools other than RC often do so not because they wish their children to be educated in a particular religious ethos, but because they do NOT wish them to them to be indoctrinated in beliefs they don't hold, or to suffer exclusion. I would have liked my child to go to a non-denominational school . . .

This is a good argument for parents who want multi-denominational schools being catered for as well as parents who want denominational schools to be cared for. But it's not an argument for saying that only parents who want multidenominational schools should be catered for.

Essentially, you're saying that the state should provide for every child the education that katydid wants for her child. What the parents of the other children want doesn't enter into your calculation at all. It seems to me you're demanding a much more sweeping privilege than the Catholic church currently enjoys, or has ever enjoyed, in Ireland.

katydid wrote: »

Am I reading you right when you suggest that by being exclude from the activities of their peers, children learn about diversity?? I find it hard to believe you are saying that? That is like saying that the black people in South Africa learned the value of diversity by being excluded from certain beaches and park benches. Diversity where one group of people is favoured over another is not the kind of diversity we should be teaching our children. In a religious school, those who have to leave the class to avoid indoctrination are being given the message that the children who stay are the normal ones, for whom the school is intended, and they are the outsiders, tolerated but not really as important. I am truly shocked that you see such exclusion as an example of diversity...

You can't possibly say that, if you have been reading my posts, and you know that your South Africa analogy is nonsense on stilts. I have been arguing precisely the reverse of what you have been saying here - all school types should enjoy equal esteem, equal respect, equal support from the state. You are the one who is demanding an exclusive privilege for secular schools; they, and they alone, get to use the park benches get state funding.

And I'm puzzled as to why you think leaving a class that you don't wish to participate in teaches people that they are "outsiders, tolerated but not important". On the contrary, they have the option of leaving precisely because their views, convictions and values are respected. What would signal disrespect for people's views, values and convictions would be banning them completely from the school, and excluding them from school life.

katydid wrote: »

Yes, funding secular schools is equitable. So, as I asked you before, are you saying you would have no problem with several schools in one small area, each providing for different religions and for those who wanted a secular school, all paid for by the taxpayer?

There are practical issues, obviously. Schools have to have a certain critical mass to be viable. If only one parent wants a single-sex Presbyterian Gaelscoil, they're not going to get it. No matter how diverse the school system, there will always be parents who don't have access to the school they would prefer, and both they and the schools will need to compromise in one point or another. I've already indicated that the state should, in my view, restrict the ability of schools to operate exclusionary admission policies.

But we don't solve this problem by having only one school type; we maximise it. It stands to reason that, the smaller the variety of schools on offer, the larger the number of people who don't get the school they want, and the limiting case is where only one type of school is offered.

Isaiah

Manach wrote: »

This is just a new face that anti-clericism wears. The tenants of religious belief are a core part of the ethos of Catholic schools and of a tradition that embraces the one generation to another: state education lurches from one fad to another. Given the mess the state has made of such subjects as Irish, to image that this particually hostile government has any objective that the chipping away at the foundations of Catholic parents rights, is hard to believe.

I am Christian but I disagree with you here, I feel that you are in error.

The state Catholic school system and the poor track record of the Clergy in upholding basic human rights and freedoms in schools has done untold damage to the public perspective of Christianity on a whole across Irish society.

Catholicism in schools has pushed more people away from Christ because of its unchristian behaviour towards societies most vulnerable. People come out the other side of our Catholic school system resenting Christianity because they equate it with Catholic abuse of power. I am a Christian in spite of a Catholic school system, not because of it.

I recall an encounter with a Catholic Priest in school, that involved him walking me home pulling me by the ear, all the way from my school to my house because I said the F word in class. Well, my Mom nearly took his head off when he arrived and dragged him back over to the principle to make an official complaint.

This was in 1995!

Now that was a mild Catholic school experience compared to what my Father had. He was battered every other day by the so called ‘Christian Brothers’. Thing is; he describes his experience as mild compared to what his Mother experienced in Golden Bridge industrial schools at the hands of the so called 'sisters of mercy'. It would break any decent person’s heart if they knew what she went through, I won't go into it here but it was bleak. Remarkably, she remained a Christian, again in spite of the Catholic Church and not because of it.

Catholicism, with its record, should not be involved in our school children's education as should all other religious organisations. I don't want to see Islamic schools in Ireland as we have here in London, or Sikh schools or any other religious state schools. This creates Sectarianism, this breeds an ‘us and them’ attitude into our kids, helps to create ghettos where an entire area is of one religion and background, as is the local school. Believe me this is very prevalent in Britain today and it allows extremist to take root in these areas.

As a Christian, I know that Christ does not need any state assistance to bring people to him. If parents want to bring their child up in a particular religion then that is their freedom to do so; in Sunday schools and at home. Let the state schools impart the science, arts and practicalities of life and leave the dogma for the parents and kids to decide. A Christian should have no fear that their kids will not be Christian if they raise them well, teach them right from wrong, and pray for them. We don’t need government and/or the Catholic Church to do this job for us. If we allow Catholic state schools, then we must allow Islamic state schools, and Hindu state schools and so on. This creates a fractured society, and Christ teaches us 'a house divided upon itself cannot stand'.

For Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. it is natural to want the state schools to reflect their belief system. However we live in a shared society, and we must recognise the fact that we are either in it together or we are at odds with each other, and this means not enforcing our beliefs upon anyone else. I believe in the right to raise my Child and conduct my family as a Christian man, without prejudice. However I have no right to force my neighbour to do the same just as the state has no right to enforce Catholicism upon children.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Yes, indoctrine is teaching the doctrines of a belief system. And the simple question is why a state school should have its agents teaching specific doctrines. All teaching outside of bare facts is, indeed, indoctrination of sort, but given that the common values of our society are respect for others, and other positive elements, it's hardly a bad thing to use the education system to instil those values in our children.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. I’m not the one who uses “indoctrination” as a pejorative. And I entirely agree that schools should be teaching respect for others.

What I don’t agree is that providing an, e.g., Catholic education to people who want a Catholic education implies disrespect for people who want any other kind of education.

Nor do I agree that providing a secular education both to those who want a secular education and to those who want any other kind of education either teaches or exemplifies respect. On the contrary, it’s a clear case of privileging the former over the latter.

katydid wrote: »

The difference between this and the indoctrination of religious beliefs is that the latter are specific to certain groups of society, and using the school system to indoctrinate them means that those who do not subscribe to these specific beliefs are excluded from the peer group. Exclusion is not the only problem but the inequality of educational access.

Well, I have to point out that secularism is specific to certain groups of society. Most of our society – probably a majority, in fact – do not agree that we should make decisions and choices without regard to the possibility of a deity or to other supernatural considerations.

The fact is that our society is diverse in this regard and, I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a good thing. You seem to be of the belief that if we have diverse social institutions, such as schools, which reflect and respect that diversity, this is exclusive and unequal. I simply don’t agree. Equality does not consist in treating everybody identically. In fact, if there is one stance pretty well guaranteed to make minorities feel excluded and disregarded, it is that one.

katydid wrote: »

As a republican, believing presumably in democracy and equality, how can you support such exclusion and inequality and the use of a state system to promote it?

As I have said repeatedly, I am not supporting exclusion and inequality. From my perspective, it is who are doing that, demanding exclusive privileges for the school type that you favour, and a complete disregard of the wishes of people who would prefer any other type of school.

katydid wrote: »

Secularism is simply the acceptance that religion is a private affair and that the state has a duty to all its citizens and those who live within its boundaries to not impose religion on them. This is so easily done, it's ridiculous that we are even discussing it.

I’d argue that the state has a duty not to impose any ideology on it’s citizens; I see no reason to confine that to religion. As I have pointed out already, in a republic citizens ideals inform the state, not the other way around.

Which means that the state has no more right to impose secular education on people than it has to impose religious education on them. So far as it can, it must respect all citizens equally, and provide for them the schools they want. That requires diversity.

katydid wrote: »

Can YOU explain to me why RC clergy don't take responsibility for the faith formation of their flock in the way other clergy and religious leaders do?

Because the are RC clergy, and not the clergy of other churches? Education in the faith is not part of their ministry. It may be part of the ministry of, say, CofI clerics, but that’s hardly a reason why every other church must follow suit, is it? I don’t think you have any more right to impose protestant views as to how ministries should be allocated in the Catholic church than you have to impose secular education on people who want religious education.

looksee

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because the are RC clergy, and not the clergy of other churches? Education in the faith is not part of their ministry. It may be part of the ministry of, say, CofI clerics, but that’s hardly a reason why every other church must follow suit, is it? I don’t think you have any more right to impose protestant views as to how ministries should be allocated in the Catholic church than you have to impose secular education on people who want religious education.

Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19 'Go ye therefore and teach/make disciples of all nations'

and Luke 18:16 'Suffer little children to come unto me'

Sounds to me like an instruction to go out and educate, especially children.

katydid

?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. I’m not the one who uses “indoctrination” as a pejorative. And I entirely agree that schools should be teaching respect for others.

What I don’t agree is that providing an, e.g., Catholic education to people who want a Catholic education implies disrespect for people who want any other kind of education.

Nor do I agree that providing a secular education both to those who want a secular education and to those who want any other kind of education either teaches or exemplifies respect. On the contrary, it’s a clear case of privileging the former over the latter.


Well, I have to point out that secularism is specific to certain groups of society. Most of our society – probably a majority, in fact – do not agree that we should make decisions and choices without regard to the possibility of a deity or to other supernatural considerations.

The fact is that our society is diverse in this regard and, I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a good thing. You seem to be of the belief that if we have diverse social institutions, such as schools, which reflect and respect that diversity, this is exclusive and unequal. I simply don’t agree. Equality does not consist in treating everybody identically. In fact, if there is one stance pretty well guaranteed to make minorities feel excluded and disregarded, it is that one.


As I have said repeatedly, I am not supporting exclusion and inequality. From my perspective, it is who are doing that, demanding exclusive privileges for the school type that you favour, and a complete disregard of the wishes of people who would prefer any other type of school.


I’d argue that the state has a duty not to impose any ideology on it’s citizens; I see no reason to confine that to religion. As I have pointed out already, in a republic citizens ideals inform the state, not the other way around.

Which means that the state has no more right to impose secular education on people than it has to impose religious education on them. So far as it can, it must respect all citizens equally, and provide for them the schools they want. That requires diversity.


Because the are RC clergy, and not the clergy of other churches? Education in the faith is not part of their ministry. It may be part of the ministry of, say, CofI clerics, but that’s hardly a reason why every other church must follow suit, is it? I don’t think you have any more right to impose protestant views as to how ministries should be allocated in the Catholic church than you have to impose secular education on people who want religious education.

I didn't say you said indoctrination was necessarily a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when it imposed rather than transmitted voluntarily.

You don't agree that providing a Catholic education to people who want a Catholic education implies disrespect for people who want any other kind of education? Really? What's respectful about obliging a chid who wishes to attend their local school to choose between indoctrinated in beliefs not theirs or being excluded from their peer group? How is that respecting the child, it's parents, and the faith it does subscribe to, if any?

Secularism is not specific to certain groups in our society. It is specific to certain aspects of our society, a very different thing. Elements of our society which touch the public domain should be secular; in other words, the private religious beliefs of any group in society should not be allowed to dominate over others. In education, healthcare, local and national government, public services, religion should not feature in any way. That way, nobody is given priority over anyone else by virtue of their religious beliefs. That is especially important in a society like ours where one religious group predominates, and where it has, in the past, had so much negative influence on our society. It's too late to undo that damage, but not too late to prevent the possibility of it happening again.

Of course diversity is a good thing. You can't have a diverse society that is equitable if one group of people is given special consideration. In allowing the beliefs of one group of people to be disseminated through the education system, and by creating exclusion for others by doing so, you are not being equitable. Equality doesn't always mean treating people exactly the same, but it certain involves being equitable and fair, and this isn't possible where one group is favoured in this way. There is no way out of it, if you favour a situation where 90% of schools are Roman Catholic, thus creating a situation where those who are not RC are forced into exclusion, you ARE supporting this exclusion.

You still haven't answered my question about whether you are in support of the logical follow through of your statement that the state should provide the kind of education that parents want; which is multiple schools in any given area, all funded by the taxpayer...

Are you seriously saying that it's not the job of a Christian minister to educate??? Words fail me...

Peregrinus

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Being allowed not to do something that you don't want to do is not "being excluded from your peer group". The child is quite welcome to participate in this activity. If they are excluded, they are excluded by their own parents. I cannot take seriously a claim that, if something goes on in the school that some children to not wish to participate in (or that their parents do not wish them to participate in) and thaty the do not have to participate in they are being "excluded".

And, yes, secularism is specific to certain groups in society. Atheists, for example, make all their decisions about how to act without reference to God, supernatural realities, etc. Theists, for the most part, do not. Atheists are secular in their own lives in a way that is not typical of theists. Atheists will naturally raise their children to act in the same way. Theists will not. Atheists will seek to have their children educated in an environment which teaches them to make decisions in this way, and so will prefer a secular school. Theists may prefer a secular school for other reasons, such as the ones you mention, but they certainly won't prefer it for that reason. Or, they may prefer a religious school.

I have answered your question as to whether the state should support multiple schools in any given area; yes, it should. And most states do this. The average school district in the US, for example, has eight schools. There's nothing revolutionary about my proposal that the state should support multiple schools. What I'm suggesting is that it should support diverse schools. I don't agree that the school system should be dominated by one ideology. And I think there's a terrible irony about complaining that 95% of the national schools in Ireland are Catholic in character, and simultaneously demanding that 100% of the national schools in Ireland should be of a different ideology.

As for Christian ministry, you have misread me. Of course it's the job of a Christian minister to educate. But priests are not the only Christin ministers, and while one church may prefer a model in which the same individual combines priestly ministry with the ministry of education, I can see no law of God or nature that says that every church must do so. Catholicism, traditionally, hasn't done so; that's why we had teaching orders. I cautiously suggest that the main reason why Anglicanism has done so is that they didn't have much choice, once they had dissolved the monasteries.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Being allowed not to do something that you don't want to do is not "being excluded from your peer group". The child is quite welcome to participate in this activity. If they are excluded, they are excluded by their own parents. I cannot take seriously a claim that, if something goes on in the school that some children to not wish to participate in (or that their parents do not wish them to participate in) and thaty the do not have to participate in they are being "excluded".

And, yes, secularism is specific to certain groups in society. Atheists, for example, make all their decisions about how to act without reference to God, supernatural realities, etc. Theists, for the most part, do not. Atheists are secular in their own lives in a way that is not typical of theists. Atheists will naturally raise their children to act in the same way. Theists will not. Atheists will seek to have their children educated in an environment which teaches them to make decisions in this way, and so will prefer a secular school. Theists may prefer a secular school for other reasons, such as the ones you mention, but they certainly won't prefer it for that reason. Or, they may prefer a religious school.

I have answered your question as to whether the state should support multiple schools in any given area; yes, it should. And most states do this. The average school district in the US, for example, has eight schools. There's nothing revolutionary about my proposal that the state should support multiple schools. What I'm suggesting is that it should support diverse schools. I don't agree that the school system should be dominated by one ideology. And I think there's a terrible irony about complaining that 95% of the national schools in Ireland are Catholic in character, and simultaneously demanding that 100% of the national schools in Ireland should be of a different ideology.

As for Christian ministry, you have misread me. Of course it's the job of a Christian minister to educate. But priests are not the only Christin ministers, and while one church may prefer a model in which the same individual combines priestly ministry with the ministry of education, I can see no law of God or nature that says that every church must do so. Catholicism, traditionally, hasn't done so; that's why we had teaching orders. I cautiously suggest that the main reason why Anglicanism has done so is that they didn't have much choice, once they had dissolved the monasteries.

Really, I think you are using the word secular in a rather odd way - almost as if someone religious cannot also be secular. Secular does not have to mean anti-religious, it just means that religious practice has to respect certain boundaries.

There are theocracies and there are secular republics with religious freedom. Which one do we want to aspire to? Surely it's a given that the state-funded institutions of a secular republic would not be theocratic in nature? Yet primary school education in Ireland does resemble what you might find in a theocracy.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Being allowed not to do something that you don't want to do is not "being excluded from your peer group". The child is quite welcome to participate in this activity. If they are excluded, they are excluded by their own parents. I cannot take seriously a claim that, if something goes on in the school that some children to not wish to participate in (or that their parents do not wish them to participate in) and thaty the do not have to participate in they are being "excluded".

And, yes, secularism is specific to certain groups in society. Atheists, for example, make all their decisions about how to act without reference to God, supernatural realities, etc. Theists, for the most part, do not. Atheists are secular in their own lives in a way that is not typical of theists. Atheists will naturally raise their children to act in the same way. Theists will not. Atheists will seek to have their children educated in an environment which teaches them to make decisions in this way, and so will prefer a secular school. Theists may prefer a secular school for other reasons, such as the ones you mention, but they certainly won't prefer it for that reason. Or, they may prefer a religious school.

I have answered your question as to whether the state should support multiple schools in any given area; yes, it should. And most states do this. The average school district in the US, for example, has eight schools. There's nothing revolutionary about my proposal that the state should support multiple schools. What I'm suggesting is that it should support diverse schools. I don't agree that the school system should be dominated by one ideology. And I think there's a terrible irony about complaining that 95% of the national schools in Ireland are Catholic in character, and simultaneously demanding that 100% of the national schools in Ireland should be of a different ideology.

As for Christian ministry, you have misread me. Of course it's the job of a Christian minister to educate. But priests are not the only Christin ministers, and while one church may prefer a model in which the same individual combines priestly ministry with the ministry of education, I can see no law of God or nature that says that every church must do so. Catholicism, traditionally, hasn't done so; that's why we had teaching orders. I cautiously suggest that the main reason why Anglicanism has done so is that they didn't have much choice, once they had dissolved the monasteries.

During the school day, an activity happens which is carried out by a paid employee of the state. It involves the indoctrination of the students by this employee in the beliefs of one denomination of the Christian religion, and if students don't wish to be indoctrinated in this way, they are obliged to exclude themselves from the group. Please explain how this is not disrespectful to their own beliefs?

I didn't see your response about multiple schools, but I have to say I'm astonished at your answer, and it makes me seriously question your sanity. There may be multiple schools in a US school district, but the eight schools will not consist of a Hindu school, a Muslim school, a RC school, a Protestant school, a Sikh school, a Jewish school, a Rastafarian school and a school for atheists. All eight schools will be state schools, providing for all.

I asked you if you would support multiple schools in any given area of this country, a small village or a suburb of a big town, for example. The logic of your statement that the taxpayer should find the kind of school parents want means that if two Hindu children, four Protestant children and one Jewish child live in a village in Ireland, the village should have four schools, all funded by the taxpayer. And if a Muslim family with three children move in and express a wish for a Muslim school, one should be provided for them.

Incredible...

As for the role of Christian ministers in teaching and passing on the faith, where does LAW come into it, either of God or nature? The duty of a Christian pastor is to pass on their faith - it is clear that involves teaching or organising for the teaching of the faith to the next generation. If they don't have time to do it themselves, or can't be bothered, it is their job, not the state's, to seek out volunteers from within their church community to do the job. I can't believe that you think this isn't part of a priest's job!!

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

Really, I think you are using the word secular in a rather odd way - almost as if someone religious cannot also be secular. Secular does not have to mean anti-religious, it just means that religious practice has to respect certain boundaries.

There are theocracies and there are secular republics with religious freedom. Which one do we want to aspire to? Surely it's a given that the state-funded institutions of a secular republic would not be theocratic in nature? Yet primary school education in Ireland does resemble what you might find in a theocracy.

Exactly. For someone who is so careful with words, I am surprised that Peregrinus is so careless with the use of this word. As you said, it's all about boundaries. I'm a committed Christian, and I believe in passing on the faith to the younger generation. That's why I volunteered as a Sunday School teacher in the past, and why, now, I help with the Confirmation class. But I also believe passionately that our society should be secular and that my, or anyone elses's religion should not impinge on the public functions of society.

Realt Dearg Sec

Manach wrote: »

The dismissive attitude shown and the reliance of the tired old trope of,we all know that, is yet more reliance of argument by obfuscation and ignorance. It blithely ignores by hand waving and wringing the concerns of others in the secular religons bottomless faith in governmence of the top down model and ignoring the what does not fit into their command driven world view by an attempt to firewall it from the public sphere. If your aim is to blithely children's and parents customary belief which has been part of their historic and cultural identify and leave them better than monads, than one can query your aspiration to promote anything outside a narrow ideology.

Huh?

two wheels good

"Secularism is a doctrine", "Indoctrinating secularism", "fundamentalist secularists" - these are bizarre interpretations.

Secularism is the principle on which a school operates when it comes to religious matters. Not some "doctrine" to be inculcated in a pupil at the expense of religious belief. A pupil could pass his\her schooldays without hearing the word.

Secularism does not preclude teaching religion in a school and it does not advocate an atheist view of the world.
For example: A multi-denominational Educate Together school. Any\all doctrines may be taught but no doctrine is given special status.

I think some posters on this thread would do well to research what secularism actually is.

two wheels good

toptom wrote: »

It was only a small number of disturbed people involved in the abuse, Some of the media make it out to be worse so they can sell papers, Without the nuns and brothers who would have educated us ?

Thats in the past i reckon some of it gets exaggerated once the smell of money and compensation come around.

This must be the most despicable comment I've read on the topic of the clerical abuse scandal.
However small the number of deviant and sadistic priests and nuns in Ireland they caused enormous pain - and similar abuse was repeated in many countries across the world.
Then the crime was compounded by the cover-up, over many years that went right to the top of the RCC.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

This is just a new face that anti-clericism wears. The tenants of religious belief are a core part of the ethos of Catholic schools and of a tradition that embraces the one generation to another: state education lurches from one fad to another. Given the mess the state has made of such subjects as Irish, to image that this particually hostile government has any objective that the chipping away at the foundations of Catholic parents rights, is hard to believe.

They're chipping away at Catholic parents' rights in the same way Browder vs Gayle chipped away at whites' rights.

lazybones32

two wheels good wrote: »

"Secularism is a doctrine", "Indoctrinating secularism", "fundamentalist secularists" - these are bizarre interpretations.

Secularism is the principle on which a school operates when it comes to religious matters. Not some "doctrine" to be inculcated in a pupil at the expense of religious belief. A pupil could pass his\her schooldays without hearing the word.

Secularism does not preclude teaching religion in a school and it does not advocate an atheist view of the world.
For example: A multi-denominational Educate Together school. Any\all doctrines may be taught but no doctrine is given special status.

I think some posters on this thread would do well to research what secularism actually is.

That's your interpretation of what secularism is: my dictionary says different, online dictionaries say different to my dictionary and the National Secular Society says different to all three. Which one is correct?
Some users use 'secularism' as a vehicle or as a more polite means for their anti-religion position.
Secularism can be a doctrine; it can be indoctrinated and there are 'fundamentalist'/aggressive secularists.

hinault

MadsL wrote: »

Read my post.

I did before I replied.

Why?

hinault

two wheels good wrote: »

I think some posters on this thread would do well to research what secularism actually is.

What Secularism actually is and how Secularism is practiced is something which some posters on this thread would do well to research as well.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

What Secularism actually is and how Secularism is practiced is something which some posters on this thread would do well to research as well.

The proposal as to how it would be practiced here in the Republic is quite clear - children would be taught about religion at school and taught the beliefs of particular religions or denominations outside of school. Pretty straightforward.

hinault

swampgas wrote: »

Secular does not have to mean anti-religious,

Perhaps.

In practice "secularism" is what you say it isn't.

swampgas wrote: »

There are theocracies and there are secular republics with religious freedom. Which one do we want to aspire to? Surely it's a given that the state-funded institutions of a secular republic would not be theocratic in nature? Yet primary school education in Ireland does resemble what you might find in a theocracy.

No.

This government want already religious ethos schools to teach other religions in those same schools.

Nanny statism.

swampgas

hinault wrote: »

Perhaps.

In practice "secularism" is what you say it isn't.



No.

This government want already religious ethos schools to teach other religions in those same schools.

Nanny statism.

The state should have no business in funding religious ethos schools. Schools should (IMO) be public services to the public at large just like hospitals and police stations.

This isn't really a problem with the government dictating to private religious ethos schools how to teach religion; this is the fact that the de facto state schools are allowed to discriminate in a way that is incompatible with a secular republic.

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

Really, I think you are using the word secular in a rather odd way - almost as if someone religious cannot also be secular. Secular does not have to mean anti-religious, it just means that religious practice has to respect certain boundaries.

There are theocracies and there are secular republics with religious freedom. Which one do we want to aspire to? Surely it's a given that the state-funded institutions of a secular republic would not be theocratic in nature? Yet primary school education in Ireland does resemble what you might find in a theocracy.

I don't think a religious person can be secular - at least, not without a great deal of tension.

If "secular" meands "makes decisions about how to act without reference to God/supernatural considerations" then, unless you have a rather strange definition of "religious", a religious person is pretty much by definition not secular, and a secular person is pretty much by definition not religious. A secular person would never go to church, for example. A person who seeks in their own lives to follow the Gospel cannot possibly be secular.

I think where the confusion arises is here: a religious person can, and in our society commonly does, believe that the state ought to be secular. But believing that the state ought to be secular doesn't make you secular.

So, what does it mean to believe that the state ought to be secular? One of the things I suggest that it means is that the state should not discriminate between religious and non-religious citizens, religious and non-religious social institutions, etc. While the state may legitimately treat citizens or social institutions differently for a variety of reasons, it may not legitimately treat them differently on account of the fact that they have, or do not have, a religious character. That goes beyond secularism and strays into bigotry or prejudice (and this is true whether is is the religious or the non-religious who are treated more favourably).

I suggest, then, that a religious person can certainly believe that the state should act in a secular way, and there is no contradiction there. But if a religious person believes that the state should promote secularity among citizens or in social insitutions, there's quite a tension there, it seems to me.

When it comes to schools, I don't think the state has any business favouring secular schools over religious schools (or vice versa). A child going to a secular school is indoctrinated(!) with the belief that decisions should be made, and actions chosen, in a secular way. The school may or may not explicitly teach that, but it implicitly models it, all the time in a pervasive way. That's fine, and indeed good, if it's what the parents want, but the state has no business to preference or privilege that way of educating children.

I think you're looking at the school as an arm of the state, Katy, much like the law courts or the army. I don't see it that way. The school doesn't act on behalf of the state, or the community at large; it acts on behalf of the parents of the children at the school. It derives its authority to education their children from them. It really does act in loco parentis. My child is at the school she is because I sent her there, not because the state sent her there. Hence, I don't see the views that the state should act in a secular way as extending to saying that schools (in receipt of state funding) should act in a secular way. That's a matter for the school community. The state should act in a secular way in makign funding decisions about schools, but that absolutely does not require that they should fund only secular schools. On the contrary, it means that as far as funding decisions go the religious or secular character of the school should be a matter of indifference. The state has no more business to fund only secular schools than it has to employ only secular postmen.

looksee

I fail to see how schools cannot be run without the significant amount of religious instruction that is currently in place. You can teach English and maths, history and geography without a religious input, and no-one would notice the difference. Secondary schools do not continually refer to religion in the course of classes.

How is it essential to children's school education that they be required to spend school time learning by rote prayers and songs? I honestly would not mind if children were being taught Christian values and ethics, that is not the problem. The problem is the time spent on the convolutions of religious observance that are relevant to a specific denomination - very little to do with love and respect and a great deal to do with the outward show of religiosity.

These aspects of belief and religious observance could and should be taught by the particular denomination or faith, outside of school time.

Nick Park

The word 'secularism' gets bandied out in so many different ways that it's easy to misunderstand one another. A related word is 'secularity'. I like the way Wikipedia differentiates them:

Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.

For instance, eating and bathing may be regarded as examples of secular activities, because there may not be anything inherently religious about them. Nevertheless, both eating and bathing are regarded as sacraments in some religious traditions, and therefore would be religious activities in those world views. Saying a prayer derived from religious text or doctrine, worshipping through the context of a religion, and attending a religious school are examples of religious (non-secular) activities.

A related term, secularism, is the principle that government institutions and their representatives should remain separate from religious institutions, their beliefs, and their dignitaries. Most businesses and corporations, and some governments, are secular organizations.

If we follow these definitions then a deeply religious person can certainly promote secularism, if not secularity.

For example, I am a committed Christian and my faith informs and influences much of my life. Furthermore, I am part of an organisation that is committed to making the Christian Gospel visible in the marketplace, media and public life. So I don't see religion as being something private to be hidden in the corner - it is something to be promoted, discussed and shared (just as others do with politics, vegetarianism or their sporting affiliations).

However, government institutions (and I include schools in that since they are enmeshed with the Department of Education and public finances) should be strictly neutral in religious matters - neither for or against religion in general, or any particular brand of religion.

Secularism, by this understanding, is not a removal of religion. It is the removal of special privileges for religion. All religions, and indeed atheism, should be given an equal standing in a free marketplace of ideologies and worldviews - if religious people really believe their message to be true, and indeed to have the blessing of God on it, then they should be confident that it will thrive on a level playing field.

looksee

Well said, Nick Park

lazybones32

Nick Park wrote: »

If we follow these definitions then a deeply religious person can certainly promote secularism, if not secularity.

Everyone uses the definition that describes a topic best for themselves. There will always need to be clarification on what ones interpretation and use of a word means.

Nick Park wrote: »

However, government institutions (and I include schools in that since they are enmeshed with the Department of Education and public finances) should be strictly neutral in religious matters - neither for or against religion in general, or any particular brand of religion.

And how many new 'Catholic-only' schools were built in the last 20 years?

Nick Park wrote: »

Secularism, by this understanding, is not a removal of religion. It is the removal of special privileges for religion. All religions, and indeed atheism, should be given an equal standing in a free marketplace of ideologies and worldviews - if religious people really believe their message to be true, and indeed to have the blessing of God on it, then they should be confident that it will thrive on a level playing field.

Does your church benefit from tax-exemptions? If yes, are you truly seeking to end this privilege?

looksee

lazybones32 wrote: »

Everyone uses the definition that describes a topic best for themselves. There will always need to be clarification on what ones interpretation and use of a word means.

The Alice in Wonderland approach to language only applies to chat rooms and facebook - despite the aggravation it causes, the 'grammar and spelling nazis' are trying to preserve meanings so that rational discussion can be held without tedious debates as to the meaning of words, most words have very precise meanings

And how many new 'Catholic-only' schools were built in the last 20 years?

None, hopefully, there are none needed, there are quite enough as it is.

Does your church benefit from tax-exemptions? If yes, are you truly seeking to end this privilege?

Maybe we could sustain this privilege in exchange for one that matters, secular education.

steamengine

katydid wrote: »

What point did you acknowledge? I didn't notice.

What questions did I "dodge"?

I don't know anything about the RC clergy, it's a long time since I've been a member. It's a rhetorical question - do you have an opinion as to why they don't bother taking responsibility for their flock?

And were your children indoctrinated or excluded? You don't seem too bothered about either.

The questions are still in reach of your keyboard.

My children joined in the religious education classes in the school, however, they were not 'indoctrinated' to use that 'bigoted' term. They blended fully into their surroundings, and the GAA sporting culture and no doubt learned the basics of Christianity, although they never talked about it.

My protestant views may be rather unusual, as I view the Roman Catholic church's teachings to be just as valid as my own. I personally see very little difference between protestant and catholic beliefs and prefer to lay more emphasis on the common Christian beliefs that bind both together.

In this country, one's religion is generally decided in a non-democratic way at the baptismal font and generally remains that way for life. Therefore I could have been baptised a Roman Catholic too, or not at all. As the man says, "Yis pay your money and you take your chances".

MadsL

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

because there are as many different types of religion as there are different people. eventually, our schools wont have time to teach reading, writing and maths because they're too busy teaching 50 different religions.

50? I bet you can't name more than six without Googling. Sects are not distinct religions.

hinault wrote: »

I did before I replied.

Why?

I'll bold it for you this time, make it easier...

MadsL wrote: »

I taught such a course in the UK in 1991 at faith ethos school. Has it seriously taken 24 years for such a leap forward in Irish education to be seriously considered. The idea of NOT teaching such a course in preference to catholic dogma is nothing short of scandalous. It is almost impossible to function intelligently in modern society without some understanding of world religions.

The sooner this happens the better, it is well overdue.

That's why.

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

. . . The word 'secularism' gets bandied out in so many different ways that it's easy to misunderstand one another. A related word is 'secularity'. I like the way Wikipedia differentiates them:



If we follow these definitions then a deeply religious person can certainly promote secularism, if not secularity.

Thanks, Nick. The distinction between secularism and secularity is a helpful one. I think in those terms Katydid and yourself are not secular, but you are secularists - i.e. you think the institutions of the Republic should be secular. I'm a secularist too, for that matter. But . . .

Nick Park wrote: »

However, government institutions (and I include schools in that since they are enmeshed with the Department of Education and public finances) should be strictly neutral in religious matters - neither for or against religion in general, or any particular brand of religion.

. . . the difference is that I don't see schools as emanations of the state. For the reasons I already outlined to Katydid, I think they act on behalf of parents (and that's certainly the view that the state takes; it's enshrined in the Constitution). The state funds them, but I don't think it's a requirement of secularity that the state should only fund secular institutions.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . the difference is that I don't see schools as emanations of the state. For the reasons I already outlined to Katydid, I think they act on behalf of parents (and that's certainly the view that the state takes; it's enshrined in the Constitution). The state funds them, but I don't think it's a requirement of secularity that the state should only fund secular institutions.

Not if the secular institutions are not in conflict with the values of the population of a whole and the stated values of the Constitution.
A system that encourages inequality and exclusion does not cherish the children equally is in conflict with both of those; and avoiding this should take precedence over the "wishes" of some parents to have their children indoctrinated in their faith at the price of other children's exclusion.

katydid

steamengine wrote: »

The questions are still in reach of your keyboard.

My children joined in the religious education classes in the school, however, they were not 'indoctrinated' to use that 'bigoted' term. They blended fully into their surroundings, and the GAA sporting culture and no doubt learned the basics of Christianity, although they never talked about it.

My protestant views may be rather unusual, as I view the Roman Catholic church's teachings to be just as valid as my own. I personally see very little difference between protestant and catholic beliefs and prefer to lay more emphasis on the common Christian beliefs that bind both together.

In this country, one's religion is generally decided in a non-democratic way at the baptismal font and generally remains that way for life. Therefore I could have been baptised a Roman Catholic too, or not at all. As the man says, "Yis pay your money and you take your chances".

I have, to the best of my knowledge, answered your questions. Revisiting your posts isn't going to change that. If you aren't prepared to tell me what I've missed, fair enough, but don't complain that I didn't answer.

If your children participated in the RC religion classes, they certainly were indoctrinated. I don't know why you put quotation marks around the word; indoctrination is teaching the doctrine of a particular belief system. In RC schools, that's what they teach - the belief system of the RC denomination. So it's a simple statement of fact - not an opinion - that they were indoctrinated.

I have to say, it is a very strange kind of protestant belief that RC beliefs are as valid as your own. Of course we hold beliefs in common, but you can't be a believing protestant and believe that RC beliefs are as valid. I mean, how can you believe, for example, that transubstantiation and consubstantiation are equally valid? RC's doctrine teaches very firmly that only the former is valid. It is logically impossible to believe in both at the same time. It seems to me you haven't put a lot of thought into your own beliefs.

Your belief is not decided at the baptismal font. Your belief is decided at Confirmation, and carried on, if you so wish, into adult life. Membership of a Christian community and belief are very different things. That is something you should perhaps give a bit of thought to...

lazybones32

looksee wrote: »

The Alice in Wonderland approach to language only applies to chat rooms and facebook - despite the aggravation it causes, the 'grammar and spelling nazis' are trying to preserve meanings so that rational discussion can be held without tedious debates as to the meaning of words, most words have very precise meanings



None, hopefully, there are none needed, there are quite enough as it is.



Maybe we could sustain this privilege in exchange for one that matters, secular education.

Thank you Nick, I'm delighted you replied so swiftly.
No, darling, as we've seen from this thread alone, there are differences in opinion as to what 'secular' stands for and each person has a different understanding and implication of what the term encompasses. Words have precise meaning but the people who use them don't always apply them correctly. One poster's definition of secularism differs drastically from at least 4 different sources - one of them being the National Secular Society. (I find that I must repeat myself at least 3 times to 'certain folk' here, so let me know if it needs repeating once more...) What you consider to be Nazism, is in fact, seeking clarity.

The point of asking how many new Catholic-only schools were built was to show whether the privilege is still being granted to the detriment of others. It's not.