What to tell kids when they ask?

Hotblack Desiato

Swanner wrote: »

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID.

Do you seriously expect to be able to throw a whopper like that into the discussion, completely unsubstantiated, and get away with it?

Please feel free to research and educate yourself a little before responding

LOL

But this is neither an effective nor balanced education. For a timely example of what a balanced education can look like, see BoatMad's post above.

That's not balanced at all. It's indoctrination into a particular denomination of a particular religion. Any discussion of other faith or non-faith positions, if it occurs at all, is in the context of the overriding "ethos" of the school.

Balanced would be something like ET's RE curriculum (especially as it now includes input from Atheist Ireland )

And the ultimate kicker is that both of these are very likely to kill off any potential for further learning or understanding.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, not even Atheist Ireland, is proposing your strawman argument of 'banning religion'. A balanced approach to RE is required where all faith and non-faith positions are equally respected.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

Interesting how you address victim-blaming with more victim-blaming. It's the employees fault for not 'speaking up'. It's my fault for not 'speaking up' to the Principal.

For the record, I have no difficulty in 'speaking up' in any environment. If anything, I have difficulty in shutting up, not speaking up.

Please stop with that phrase "victim blaming". It's meaningless. You're not the victim of anything. People have differences of opinion all the time and not everything goes their way all the time. It doesn't mean they're the "victim" of anything.

Difficulties with getting to work an hour late are not due to lack of speaking up. They are due to people being in jobs where their presence at a particular time is a fundamental feature of the job. If you're a nurse on a ward, you need to start your shift on time to get the handover. If you're a security guard, you need to start your shift on time to open the building. No amount of 'speaking up' fixes this.

Yeah it does, that's how people get what they want, they speak up and they get support from other people who feel the same way they do. That's how conditions improve for people. You know this because you've been on the PA, you've achieved things, you've made progress on some issues, you haven't on other issues. Being on the PA and the BOM myself, I know exactly what it's like - not everyone has ever agreed with policies I've tried to introduce into the school, but I've never claimed I was the 'victim' of anything, because that would be silly.

In relation to the examples of discrimination given above, I had 'spoken up' quite a lot on these issues, and did get some progress with one of them, though people have now slipped back into old habits when I moved on.

But your victim-blaming approach misses the central point. Why should parents have to 'speak up' to force a school to work in an inclusive manner? Should it not be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all students in all activities?

It's your "I'm a victim" approach which misses the central point IMO. You even miss it when you talk about how changes were implemented in the school, but when you moved on, the progress that was made slipped back into old habits. That's why people need to speak up, because while it should be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all the students in all activities, it's also the responsibility of all parents to get involved in the school and get involved in activities.

Parents that don't feel they should have to do anything shouldn't expect that the school will be all that bothered either. In an ideal world the parents could just do a stop 'n' drop and have no further interaction with the school, and the school would churn out well-rounded little geniuses and all the rest of it, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'm trying to avoid being patronising here, but this is just common sense stuff - nothing changes unless something happens to change it.

If everyone dismisses it as someone else's responsibility, then nothing changes because nobody is complaining so the perception is that everyone is happy with the status quo.

Even more explicit victim-blaming here, with the blame being put on parents for being afraid to speak up - nice....

Expecting parents to behave like parents? Shocking!

Meanwhile, how do you think every other parent with school-going children manages to do it without claiming "I'm a victim" and expecting the world to revolve around them because they feel they shouldn't have to do anything to change their circumstances?

Without again meaning to sound patronising, but you know all this stuff already - change doesn't happen in a vacuum and without people speaking up and cooperating with each other to achieve the aims that benefit the group as a whole.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

Blithely throwing up your hands and saying "the system is unfair, but we just have to accept our lot in life" is the typical response of somebody who is receiving some advantage from that system.

Obviously, those who are being disadvantaged can only reply to you saying "that is nonsense".

Please quote the text where I stated that everyone has to accept their lot and we can go from there...

I don't think it, and i'm pretty sure I never said it so i'll wait for you to respond before commenting further...

recedite wrote: »

Its not even difficult to imagine what a 100% fair and secular public school system would be like. Its the norm in much bigger and more powerful EU countries such as Germany and France. Finland is of a more comparable size and population density, and their system is often considered to be the best as it does not stream kids in the way that the German system does. It would be a simple matter to copy that template.

Great. so when the majority of people in this country decide they want a 100% secular system, we can just adopt the finish system.

Problem solved.

Now all you need is majority support and you're all good :-)

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

If an atheist supports ID then they must accept that there is something causing the ID, i.e. a god, which would mean that they are not atheist. Stop trying to redefine words to suit your own agenda.

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

It's not an area that particularly interests me so I haven't done much reading on it but they are out there, the theories exist.

So you can sit here demonstrating your ignorance by telling me i'm wrong over and over again or you can go find out for yourself, open your mind and educate yourself a little.

Choice is yours..

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

It's sad to see you relying on the age-old tactic of 'You're not clever enough to understand this stuff, so leave it to me'. Many churches got away with this nonsense for years, but not so much these days.

I never said anything about anyone's intelligence.

I do however stand by the point that if you have zero experience of religious belief and zero knowledge of religion because your atheist parents have raised you that way, you will not be in a position to engage in a balanced theological discussion.

By the way i'd be of exactly the same opinion should that child be raised by fundamentalist parents of any religion.

RainyDay wrote: »

It's not subjective. There is no evidence showing that children can develop their own concept of God. It's just not there.

FYP

Yes there is. Plenty of it.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

It's not an area that particularly interests me so I haven't done much reading on it but they are out there, the theories exist.

So you can sit here demonstrating your ignorance by telling me i'm wrong over and over again or you can go find out for yourself, open your mind and educate yourself a little.

Choice is yours..

Redefining words. Again. Atheists who accept ID are not atheists. Regardless what they claim. Or what you claim.

Ignorance? I'm an atheist because of what I've read. I have no inability in learning new ideas. Stop trying to belittle the regulars on this forum. Your perceived superiority betrays your own ignorance.

silverharp

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

Huntergonzo

silverharp wrote: »

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

I don't believe in God but I do believe in intelligent design, I mean whoever designed the smartphone I'm using to post this message must have been pretty damn intelligent, maybe that's the sort of ID he means :-)

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

Redefining words. Again. Atheists who accept ID are not atheists. Regardless what they claim. Or what you claim.

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

Dangerous position that.

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone. I apologise if anyone feels belittled.. I'll try and choose my words more carefully..

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

They can self-identify as they wish? It doesn't make it so.

Dangerous position that.

Dangerous in what way? Adhering to accepted definitions is now dangerous?

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own

I'm not labelling them. They are labelling themselves incorrectly.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone.

Of course you are. It's one of the stock tactics used by anti-atheist commentators.

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

I think you'll find that atheists are usually the ones who look at religions with an unbiased eye.

Samaris

Swanner wrote: »

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

Dangerous position that.

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone. I apologise if anyone feels belittled.. I'll try and choose my words more carefully..

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

If they're atheist - have no faith in a god or the existence of gods - then they are very confused altogether if they support creationism! (And let's be honest here, Intelligent Design is the renamed version of creationism).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and all, but not their own facts. An atheist who accepts ID should probably reconsider their viewpoints. Despite that, people are people and quite capable of believing contradictory things. But it shouldn't be presented as a mainstream atheistic view.

Pherekydes wrote: »

I think you'll find that atheists are usually the ones who look at religions with an unbiased eye.

Mind you, I don't agree with that either. Atheists can look at a religious belief system, but they will have, by their own atheistic beliefs*, have prejudged it to be incorrect, just as a Christian going by the rules of their own religion, will look at atheism or, hell, any other religion, and prejudge it to be inaccurate. We're all going to be biased one way or another.

*Awkward word, I know, but I don't have a better one.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

If they're atheist - have no faith in a god or the existence of gods - then they are very confused altogether if they support creationism! (And let's be honest here, Intelligent Design is the renamed version of creationism).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and all, but not their own facts. An atheist who accepts ID should probably reconsider their viewpoints. Despite that, people are people and quite capable of believing contradictory things. But it shouldn't be presented as a mainstream atheistic view.

I think what they're doing, and certainly the way I read that article anyway, is that they actually are redefining the idea of "intelligent design", not so much to suggest the existence of a creator, but to suggest that there's some form of intelligence that remains undiscovered which forms the basis for the patterns they observe in the universe - extraterrestrial life, as opposed to existential deities.

Mind you, I don't agree with that either. Atheists can look at a religious belief system, but they will have, by their own atheistic beliefs*, have prejudged it to be incorrect, just as a Christian going by the rules of their own religion, will look at atheism or, hell, any other religion, and prejudge it to be inaccurate. We're all going to be biased one way or another.

I would have thought most atheists would simply be indifferent to the theistic beliefs, as for atheists these beliefs have no value. There are a small sub-group amongst atheists of anti-theists, who will focus solely on the negative aspects of theism.

*Awkward word, I know, but I don't have a better one.

Because my wife is non-religious, I explain things to our child in terms of principles, so for example when explaining about atheism, I explained it in terms of principles rather than 'beliefs', same thing with any of the other religions and religious denominations we'd talk about - there are certain principles peculiar to the various religions, and then there are the beliefs of that religion, and not all adherents who identify with a religion, will necessarily agree with all the principles or beliefs of whatever religion we're discussing.

silverharp

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I don't believe in God but I do believe in intelligent design, I mean whoever designed the smartphone I'm using to post this message must have been pretty damn intelligent, maybe that's the sort of ID he means :-)

it certainly wasnt designed for humans 99.999999999999 is a kill zone :pac:

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

I never said anything about anyone's intelligence.

I do however stand by the point that if you have zero experience of religious belief and zero knowledge of religion because your atheist parents have raised you that way, you will not be in a position to engage in a balanced theological discussion.

By the way i'd be of exactly the same opinion should that child be raised by fundamentalist parents of any religion.

FYP

Yes there is. Plenty of it.

You said that I 'didn't comprehend it' and you indicated that I wasn't part of your exclusive club that "continue to educate ourselves, evolve, learn, discuss and develop our understanding of these issues" - fairly cheap tactics to try to shoot the messenger instead of discussing the topic in hand.

And then you took a further shot at those who get a secular education by indicating that they will not be up to discussion such complicated issues as yourself - more cheap tactics.

I'm very curious as to whether the reverse applies - whether in your opinion those who are brought up with a religious education are less capable of discussing matters of atheism than those who are brought up with a secular education?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Please stop with that phrase "victim blaming". It's meaningless. You're not the victim of anything. People have differences of opinion all the time and not everything goes their way all the time. It doesn't mean they're the "victim" of anything.

Yeah it does, that's how people get what they want, they speak up and they get support from other people who feel the same way they do. That's how conditions improve for people. You know this because you've been on the PA, you've achieved things, you've made progress on some issues, you haven't on other issues. Being on the PA and the BOM myself, I know exactly what it's like - not everyone has ever agreed with policies I've tried to introduce into the school, but I've never claimed I was the 'victim' of anything, because that would be silly.

It's your "I'm a victim" approach which misses the central point IMO. You even miss it when you talk about how changes were implemented in the school, but when you moved on, the progress that was made slipped back into old habits. That's why people need to speak up, because while it should be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all the students in all activities, it's also the responsibility of all parents to get involved in the school and get involved in activities.

Parents that don't feel they should have to do anything shouldn't expect that the school will be all that bothered either. In an ideal world the parents could just do a stop 'n' drop and have no further interaction with the school, and the school would churn out well-rounded little geniuses and all the rest of it, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'm trying to avoid being patronising here, but this is just common sense stuff - nothing changes unless something happens to change it.

If everyone dismisses it as someone else's responsibility, then nothing changes because nobody is complaining so the perception is that everyone is happy with the status quo.

Expecting parents to behave like parents? Shocking!

Meanwhile, how do you think every other parent with school-going children manages to do it without claiming "I'm a victim" and expecting the world to revolve around them because they feel they shouldn't have to do anything to change their circumstances?

Without again meaning to sound patronising, but you know all this stuff already - change doesn't happen in a vacuum and without people speaking up and cooperating with each other to achieve the aims that benefit the group as a whole.

The victims who you seem to wish to ignore are the students who are excluded from certain activities, and made to feel like they not full, normal students of the school. It is interesting that pointing out this discrimination seems distasteful to you. And it is also interesting that based on your posts, the entire responsibility for fixing this lies with the parents to 'speak up'. You don't assign any responsibility to the school BoM or management to change their approaches to include all students in school activities, unless parents are 'speaking up' to a level that meets your standard.

looksee

Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?

Hotblack Desiato

Swanner wrote: »

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

Who is proposing 'complete censorship of all religious knowledge'?

ET have an RE programme in their schools, heck, Atheist Ireland support the idea that all schools have an RE programme, they want it to be balanced and inclusive and not indoctrinating, but I am not aware of any group or body or campaign to remove all mention of religion from schools.
Forewarned is forearmed after all...

Swanner wrote: »

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

That's interesting, a few posts earlier you said it was 'plenty'

Swanner wrote: »

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID.

So which is it? And whether your claim is 'plenty' or 'a handful' you've provided no evidence for your assertion whatsoever. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to find 'a handful' of people out of 7+ billion who believe in any given position however illogical and inherently contradictory and frankly ridiculous that position may be.

Huntergonzo

looksee wrote: »

Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?

In fairness looksee, you were pretty smug up on your high horse yourself the other day calling for my post to be censored (which thankfully it wasn't) when I was only pullin' legs, let's call a spade a spade here!

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

The victims who you seem to wish to ignore are the students who are excluded from certain activities, and made to feel like they not full, normal students of the school.

You seem to want to ignore the fact that the school is a religious ethos school, and the parents do not share the religious ethos of the school are not being asked to participate in activities which are religious in nature, yet it is the school's responsibility to include these children in spite of the fact that their parents do not want them to participate in religious activities...

Would you prefer that the school involved the children in religious activities, in spite of their parents wishes to have them excluded?

It is interesting that pointing out this discrimination seems distasteful to you. And it is also interesting that based on your posts, the entire responsibility for fixing this lies with the parents to 'speak up'.

It's not distasteful to me at all. In order to form any judgement either way, I'd first have to understand what your problem is - you want your children excluded from religious activities, but you want your children included in religious activities?

How do you expect the school to know if you don't tell them? If the school involved your children in religious activities without your express consent, they'd still be in the wrong, so I can understand why they would err on the side of caution so as not to cause offence to you as the children's parent.

You don't assign any responsibility to the school BoM or management to change their approaches to include all students in school activities, unless parents are 'speaking up' to a level that meets your standard.

You seem surprised by that common sense approach? The school has a religious ethos, and so it's taken as a given that some children who do not share that ethos will not be required to participate in those religious activities. That's what you want, isn't it?

Or is it that you expect the BOM and the school to organise activities around your work schedule and in a way which suits you, and they're supposed to be able to guess what and when suits you, without you having to communicate with them?


You've got to be joking, surely?

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

They can self-identify as they wish? It doesn't make it so.

I'm not labelling them. They are labelling themselves incorrectly.

You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand their thought process better then they do.

I don't believe that's ever ok.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?

It's certainly a contradiction to the offline reality where many atheists don't appear to have the confidence in their principles that they wish to prevent their children from being exposed to ideas which contradict their principles.

Some people aren't satisfied with just preventing their own children from exposure to ideas they disagree with, but they want everyone else's children prevented from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with too! If that's not condescending, arrogant superiority, I don't know what is tbh.

Personally, I would consider one extreme as abhorrent and intolerant as the other, and that's why secularism is a good thing - because some adults just don't know how to play nice together.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand their thought process better then they do.

I don't believe that's ever ok.

Well, I'm not actually telling an atheist anything...

Huntergonzo

Swanner wrote: »

You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand they're thought process better then they do.

I don't believe that's ever ok.

But people call themselves all sorts of funny things (which they are entitled to of course), again I do know a 'catholic' who doesn't believe in God. Now I never heard of an atheist who believes in intelligent design, the 2 are non-compatible, but that's not to say those people aren't out there, the world is a mad place.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

And then you took a further shot at those who get a secular education by indicating that they will not be up to discussion such complicated issues as yourself - more cheap tactics.

My comments are solely directed at those who, like the OP, apply total censorship on anything to do with religion.

I would actually be of the opinion that the ideal would be a secular education with a balanced curriculum on world religions, theism. atheism, agnosticism etc.

Just not at the expense of faith based schools.

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm very curious as to whether the reverse applies - whether in your opinion those who are brought up with a religious education are less capable of discussing matters of atheism than those who are brought up with a secular education?

Yes absolutely. I thought i'd mentioned that earlier but may have edited it out. A child brought up in a theistic censored environment will also have an equally unbalanced view of Religion.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that they can't grow up, learn about about the subject and gain perspective but they're starting out at a disadvantage.

The Bishop Basher

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But people call themselves all sorts of funny things (which they are entitled to of course), again I do know a 'catholic' who doesn't believe in God. Now I never heard of an atheist who believes in intelligent design, the 2 are non-compatible, but that's not to say those people aren't out there, the world is a mad place.

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

But then isn't that what some atheists would say about theists ?

It's nuts to believe in a fairy story that can never be proven.

If you go down that road anyone with an opposing view or one you don't fully understand can be considered nuts.

That wouldn't be a pleasant world to live in.

And while I might inwardly try and figure out your friends thought process, I would never feel like I had the right to tell him he's not Roman Catholic.

That would just feel like a judgement.

Huntergonzo

Swanner wrote: »

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

But then isn't that what some atheists would say about theists ?

It's nuts to believe in a fairy story that can never be proven.

If you go down that road anyone with an opposing view or one you don't fully understand can be considered nuts.

That wouldn't be a pleasant world to live in.

And while I might inwardly try and figure out your RC friends thought process, I would never feel like I had the right to tell him he's not Roman Catholic.

That to me would feel like a major judgement.

Personally I do find religious belief a bit mental, not that everyone who believes in God is mental of course, if they were I couldn't claim to know many sane people!

I wouldn't call all opposing views nuts just because I find religious beliefs nuts, for me it depends largely on the topic being debated and whether or not it can be logically tested or confirmed.

Hotblack Desiato

Swanner wrote: »

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

How about a link or something to back up your claim that plenty, or wait a minute, a handful, of atheists believe in ID and have developed theories in relation to ID which are compatible with atheism?

What makes them more 'nuts' than the teachings of mainstream religions, which are very nuts if you ask me?

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You seem to want to ignore the fact that the school is a religious ethos school, and the parents do not share the religious ethos of the school are not being asked to participate in activities which are religious in nature, yet it is the school's responsibility to include these children in spite of the fact that their parents do not want them to participate in religious activities...

Would you prefer that the school involved the children in religious activities, in spite of their parents wishes to have them excluded?

It's not distasteful to me at all. In order to form any judgement either way, I'd first have to understand what your problem is - you want your children excluded from religious activities, but you want your children included in religious activities?

How do you expect the school to know if you don't tell them? If the school involved your children in religious activities without your express consent, they'd still be in the wrong, so I can understand why they would err on the side of caution so as not to cause offence to you as the children's parent.

You seem surprised by that common sense approach? The school has a religious ethos, and so it's taken as a given that some children who do not share that ethos will not be required to participate in those religious activities. That's what you want, isn't it?

Or is it that you expect the BOM and the school to organise activities around your work schedule and in a way which suits you, and they're supposed to be able to guess what and when suits you, without you having to communicate with them?

You've got to be joking, surely?

I've already answered very clearly what I'd expect the school to do in this post. Unsurprisingly (as you well know), I do NOT expect the school to involve the child in religious activities when they know the child is of a different religion or no religion. The school ask about religion on the application form, so they already know the religion (or absence of religion) of each child.

I expect them to run an inclusive school, so that all children in the school participate in school.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people aren't satisfied with just preventing their own children from exposure to ideas they disagree with, but they want everyone else's children prevented from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with too! If that's not condescending, arrogant superiority, I don't know what is tbh.

Personally, I would consider one extreme as abhorrent and intolerant as the other, and that's why secularism is a good thing - because some adults just don't know how to play nice together.

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

I've already answered very clearly what I'd expect the school to do in this post. Unsurprisingly (as you well know), I do NOT expect the school to involve the child in religious activities when they know the child is of a different religion or no religion. The school ask about religion on the application form, so they already know the religion (or absence of religion) of each child.

I expect them to run an inclusive school, so that all children in the school participate in school.

Still missing the point of a school with a Roman Catholic ethos then?

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).

You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.

You're already aware on a small scale at least, how apathetic some parents can be as long as their children are receiving some form of education. They don't care enough to lend their active support to a change in the status quo, and so the status quo shall remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

I genuinely do appreciate your situation, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're consistently missing the most obvious solution to the problem IMO - lack of involvement and lack of support from other parents. They too have their own priorities just as much as you, or I, or anyone else here has.

Gallagher1

Swanner wrote: »

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

Atheists have absolutely zero problem learning new ideas provided they contain a crucial ingredient.

Evidence.

If someone proved God's existence tomorrow there would be two certainities
1) We would all wholehearted accept this God
2) The person who proved it would be hailed as the greatest mind in the history of mankind.

Until then I refuse to believe in God and wouldn't want my future children to have sizeable chunks of their educational time taken up by indoctrination into a substance-less faith whether it be Scientology, Mormonism or, dare I say, Christianity.

Samaris

RainyDay wrote: »

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Bingo, absolutely that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).

That's fine, it evens the playing field somewhat, although given ET is a privately-owned charity, I'm unsure how all the funding business works.

You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.

Those choices are harder to get at. Most people have relatively little choice where they send their kids, it will be down to proximity and cost. But it makes more sense to have everyone at a basic standing, being taught -educational- things in school. Indoctrination, into any religion or none, should be an optional thing, not having to go out of one's way to avoid it in places kids are legally obliged to be (in school).

How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

That's fine, it evens the playing field somewhat, although given ET is a privately-owned charity, I'm unsure how all the funding business works.

Any organisation can apply for funding through the patronage system, and off the top of my head, they're required to have an ethos, and to commit to teaching the national primary schools curriculum.

Those choices are harder to get at. Most people have relatively little choice where they send their kids, it will be down to proximity and cost. But it makes more sense to have everyone at a basic standing, being taught -educational- things in school. Indoctrination, into any religion or none, should be an optional thing, not having to go out of one's way to avoid it in places kids are legally obliged to be (in school).

The thing is, parents aren't required at all to send their children to school, but they are required to provide their children with a minimum standard of education. Indoctrination (or avoidance thereof) already is optional, so parents already have the right to withdraw their children from religious instruction (faith formation, indoctrination, whatever you want to call it).

Children are already taught educational things in school and science has been on the national primary schools curriculum since I think about 2009. Schools with a religious ethos are allowed by the DES to set their own curriculum for religion and it's not a subject examined by the school inspector.

How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?

It's difficult to say tbh, and anyone who tried to answer that question would only be speculating. It's been mentioned in a couple of reports though that parental resistance is one of the most common barriers to introducing changes in the current situation regarding the education system in Ireland. Depending upon who you ask, every parent wants more of one thing or another, but they're generally unwilling to give up anything. Some parents have even suggested extending the school day to accommodate their working hours, but again that was met with apathy from some parents, and outright resistance from other parents.

It really would be nothing short of a miracle if there was a general consensus among parents for any particular idea, difficult enough to get enough parents motivated to lend their active support to co-operating amongst themselves in order to benefit the group as a whole, because as has been explained time and time again - most people just don't have the time to care about the needs of others. They're barely able to find time for themselves, which is understandable, even if it is frustrating.

It doesn't help anyone's case IMO to be passing judgement on other parents simply because they don't have the same priorities as we do. It doesn't encourage support if we're passing judgement on the people who we hope to support us (and I include myself in that because I have always supported a secular education system and giving people more choices in education).

frostyjacks

Samaris wrote: »

How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?

Clearly most parents are happy for their children to learn about religion, given the absence of any real opposition to it. I would rather children receive a well-rounded education, given that religion is an integral part of our identity in this country.

If some parents want to indoctrinate their children with atheist dogma, they are free to do it in their own time. If they have an issue with freedom of religion then they should seriously consider emigrating. Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.

Are you even aware of how aggressive that sounds?

frostyjacks

Shrap wrote: »

Are you even aware of how aggressive that sounds?

Please enlighten me. If one went to Catholic schools in France or Italy and demanded they strip away their religious ethos, one would be given very short shrift Shrap.

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Still missing the point of a school with a Roman Catholic ethos then?

What specific parts of 'Roman Catholic ethos' would rule out including some non-denominational Christmas carols as part of the concert, or having one teacher stay behind to supervise others when most go to Mass, or inviting ALL students and families to the communion and confirmation celebrations?

In fact, would it not be living Christian values to actively include all students?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).

You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.

I don't have a choice in where taxes are spent, but as a citizen, we ALL have an interest in how they are spent. To spend public money to support the belief system of SOME people is just plain wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're already aware on a small scale at least, how apathetic some parents can be as long as their children are receiving some form of education. They don't care enough to lend their active support to a change in the status quo, and so the status quo shall remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

I genuinely do appreciate your situation, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're consistently missing the most obvious solution to the problem IMO - lack of involvement and lack of support from other parents. They too have their own priorities just as much as you, or I, or anyone else here has.

Once again, blame the parents - and still not a single word from you to suggest that you believe that schools should be inclusive as a basic value, and not wait for parents to kick up a fuss - very telling.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Clearly most parents are happy for their children to learn about religion, given the absence of any real opposition to it. I would rather children receive a well-rounded education, given that religion is an integral part of our identity in this country.

If some parents want to indoctrinate their children with atheist dogma, they are free to do it in their own time. If they have an issue with freedom of religion then they should seriously consider emigrating. Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.

It's really funny how you attack 'indoctrination with atheist dogma' which being completely blind to the institutionalised indoctrination with RC dogma that has been going on for a couple of hundred years. There should be no indoctrination with any dogma in schools. Let parents arrange their own indoctrination at their own expense if that is their thing.

Shrap wrote: »

Are you even aware of how aggressive that sounds?

It's a standard tactic, when running out of any sensible or rational debate - just get aggressive and throw in a touch of racism too.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

What specific parts of 'Roman Catholic ethos' would rule out including some non-denominational Christmas carols as part of the concert, or having one teacher stay behind to supervise others when most go to Mass, or inviting ALL students and families to the communion and confirmation celebrations?

I can't tell if you're now being purposely obtuse, or if that was a deliberately ridiculous question to highlight the fact that religious activities are part of the ethos of the school, and if you choose to have your children excluded from religious activities, then you can't seriously expect that they should be included in religious activities like the Nativity and the sacraments, and no, I wouldn't expect that that a denominational school should make any provisions for the inclusion of non-denominational principles.

In fact, would it not be living Christian values to actively include all students?

Of course it would, but you don't want that because you don't want your children to participate in religion.

I don't have a choice in where taxes are spent, but as a citizen, we ALL have an interest in how they are spent. To spend public money to support the belief system of SOME people is just plain wrong.

I can't argue with that.

Once again, blame the parents - and still not a single word from you to suggest that you believe that schools should be inclusive as a basic value, and not wait for parents to kick up a fuss - very telling.

Very telling that I would expect parents to be responsible for their children's education? Of course schools should be inclusive as a basic value, but if parents want their children excluded from being taught those basic values, then those parents can't have it both ways, no matter how much of a fuss they kick up!

It's really funny how you attack 'indoctrination with atheist dogma' which being completely blind to the institutionalised indoctrination with RC dogma that has been going on for a couple of hundred years. There should be no indoctrination with any dogma in schools. Let parents arrange their own indoctrination at their own expense if that is their thing.

They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community. That's the whole point of having their children baptised, to become part of that religious community, and sending their children to schools which are part of that religious community is parents indoctrinating their children at their own expense.

If you don't want to support the indoctrination of religious dogma in children in schools where you know the primary purpose of the school is indoctrination, then don't enrol your children in that particular school. Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

It's a standard tactic, when running out of any sensible or rational debate - just get aggressive and throw in a touch of racism too.

Well the OP and a few other posters got off to a great start by suggesting that some parents were insane, and their children are massive dorks, and that was mild in comparison to another poster who suggested that any adults who give communion should be shot (although admittedly, I think we all understood they were on a wind-up, desperate attention seeking to illicit a reaction), but you probably turned a blind eye to those posts.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community.

Assuming I am willing to have my children segregated from others purely on the grounds of religion, which I am not, please outline the practical alternatives to religious ethos schooling available to me.




...




...



Nope. There aren't any. That's the problem. You don't get it and it doesn't seem that you want to either.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Assuming I am willing to have my children segregated from others purely on the grounds of religion, which I am not, please outline the practical alternatives to religious ethos schooling available to me.




...




...



Nope. There aren't any. That's the problem. You don't get it and it doesn't seem that you want to either.

There are any number of alternatives, and while I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do, if I wanted to segregate my child (for any reason), there are any number of ways in which I could do that. It's simply a question of priorities. If I were in a position where our positions were reversed, I would do everything within my power to ensure that my child received the type of education I wanted.

I already involve myself as much as I can in ensuring my child receives the type of education I want, and I've had to make plenty of sacrifices and trade-offs in my personal and professional life in order to ensure that it isn't just practical, but that it's a reality.

Seriously tho lads

What to tell the Child when they ask?

The Bishop Basher

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Atheists have absolutely zero problem learning new ideas provided they contain a crucial ingredient.

Evidence.

I never said they didn't. And I would be of a similar way of thinking however we do differ somewhat in that I'm still open to new ideas regardless of the evidence especially when the evidence can neither prove nor disprove the theory.

In other words I won't dismiss an idea based on inconclusive evidence or on the fact that my own experience suggests otherwise.. Having given it a great deal of thought I may eventually fall on one side or the other but even then I will remain open minded to alternative possibilities.

Remember, years ago everyone thought the Earth was flat. Why ? Because that's what the evidence suggested. They were wrong as was the evidence.

It took a brilliant and free thinking open mind to see past the "evidence" and challenge the collective human "experience" and belief.

15 years ago I probably would have been in total agreement with you but the more I challenged my beliefs or lack of at the time, the more I evolved and eventually came to realise that I could see evidence of a deity in almost everything natural in the world around me.

Nothing had changed but my experience. I was still looking at the same objects but now I was experiencing them differently

So yet again I had to go back and reevaluate everything, now I had evidence of a supernatural force and had to challenge myself again. It took a long long time but I've since come to accept that force as my "God".

Point is...If we don't challenge our beliefs we don't grow and raising a child as an atheist with a total ban on any religious knowledge is not challenging your beliefs. It's indoctrination plain and simple.

Gallagher1 wrote: »

If someone proved God's existence tomorrow there would be two certainities
1) We would all wholehearted accept this God
2) The person who proved it would be hailed as the greatest mind in the history of mankind.

I don't share your optimism and I certainly don't agree with No. 1. Again your assuming to speak for everyone and that everyone will share your view once the evidence is presented. They won't. Most will, but many others will continue to disbelieve and find arguments against this newly discovered God. It's our nature to question.

I also think the world would be cast into decades, maybe even centuries of turmoil as ideologies and world religions struggle to realign and find their place in a new world order. I honestly wouldn't want to be around for it.

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Until then I refuse to believe in God and wouldn't want my future children to have sizeable chunks of their educational time taken up by indoctrination into a substance-less faith whether it be Scientology, Mormonism or, dare I say, Christianity.

I don't think anyone is questioning your right to refuse to believe in God. How could they ? Likewise you're absolutely within your right to indoctrinate your children into atheism or any other belief / non belief system you choose.

My only point was that if you receive an unbalanced education on a topic you will have not have a balanced perspective on said topic. That was all.

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

Possibly a Bostrom style cascade of artificiality created universe simulations... But even with these ideas, at the origin of everything is probably a natural universe filled with evolved beings

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

My only point was that if you receive an unbalanced education on a topic you will have not have a balanced perspective on said topic. That was all.

For once I agree with you Swanner, schools that teach - to the level of indoctrination - only one angle on beliefs and religion obviously result in unbalanced perspectives.

Samaris

They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community. That's the whole point of having their children baptised, to become part of that religious community, and sending their children to schools which are part of that religious community is parents indoctrinating their children at their own expense.

If you don't want to support the indoctrination of religious dogma in children in schools where you know the primary purpose of the school is indoctrination, then don't enrol your children in that particular school. Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

And many -don't-. They baptise their children to get them into a school, preferably one within a sensible range of where they live.

Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

Yeah, that bore quoting twice.

Let the parents who don't want 7% of their children's time being taught, who don't want their children told that this religious dogma is the truth and the whole truth (and by the way, if their parents, or their Jewish and Muslim friends aren't good little Catholics they're going to hell), set up a separate schooling system. Because ...this is the way we've always done it? I think we can rule out "everyone wants it to stay like this", because this thread and the three others that are talking about it seems to suggest there's some dissent in that opinion.

Why is it so necessary to have religion in terms of indoctrination taught in school? Why is there so much pushing for it to be the very youngest and most impressionable children? Our universities aren't religious ethos (thank heavens), and the country's survived that. Actually, some of them used to be - Trinity was exclusively Protestant and banned Catholics. Somehow, we all survived it going multi-denominational (although I've heard there is still a rule on the books about being allowed to shoot Catholics from the bell-tower on the second Thursday in November, or something along those lines. This may be a university myth though!).

No-one is suggesting raising children to be indoctrinated into atheism either. There is just no need to get into it. Have a World Cultures class, sure, teach kids about people and their own and other cultures, let them learn about world religions there.

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How about a link or something to back up your claim that plenty, or wait a minute, a handful, of atheists believe in ID and have developed theories in relation to ID which are compatible with atheism?

What makes them more 'nuts' than the teachings of mainstream religions, which are very nuts if you ask me?

What exactly is intelligent about our eyes, our knees or our appendix? How could a race of being that had cracked interdimemsional or even intergalactic travel make such a sh1t job of designing a body. Don't get me wrong, the human body is an amazing thing but most animals have better knee joints, many animals (even octopi) have better eyes, and there are plans that don't have a ticking time bomb in their digestive system. Leaving aside the FACT* that ID is a religious construct and a religious concept, an atheist believing in ID would really have to be intellectually challenged.

MrP




* I would consider this to be a fact as it was found to be so in a court of law.

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

Please quote the text where I stated that everyone has to accept their lot and we can go from there...
I don't think it, and i'm pretty sure I never said it so i'll wait for you to respond before commenting further...

Swanner wrote: »

I agree with you that the current system is unfair. But I don't agree that we should switch to another unfair system just to keep atheists or any other minority happy.

We also have to accept the reality that life isn't always fair. Someone somewhere will always feel hard done by.

We have differing opinions on how this should be resolved and that's OK. I'm happy you have an opposing view because we get to challenge each other and that usually makes for a better and fairer solution.

But no matter what you do, it will never be 100% fair for all. We have to accept that and work on that basis. Anything else is just unrealistic.

And BTW I did notice the false dichotomy you threw in there (cautioning against switching to another unfair system) You intended that fallacy to support your basic point that we should accept the status quo.

frostyjacks wrote: »

If some parents want to indoctrinate their children with atheist dogma, they are free to do it in their own time. If they have an issue with freedom of religion then they should seriously consider emigrating. Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.

Right, so we have already been advised twice in this thread to avoid having children, given we know in advance what the schools situation will be.
Now we are being advised to emigrate to some other country that respects freedom of religion.

Even that would not solve the "problem" for you though. Some of the children growing up with a religious upbringing would eventually declare themselves to be atheists, and then you would be back to square one.

MrPudding

I have been trying to keep up, but have I missed the response to these?

MrP wrote:

Any time you are ready Swanner.

looksee wrote:

Swanner, I am also very interested to know about the financial support that the church gives to schools, and the financial support that parents give, solely on the basis of that school's religious ethos, rather than concern for their children.

MrPudding wrote:

Ok. So can you provide details on the funding the church, the community and the parent provide for school?

Akrasia

MrPudding wrote: »

many animals (even octopi) have better eyes

Just on the subject of our octopus cousins, they can change the colour of their skin. How could an intelligent designer decide to give that amazing ability to octopodes but not humans. How million racist attacks would end if people could decide to be whatever colour we wanted to be. How many skin cancer deaths would we avoid if we could adjust melanin levels according to our weather?

Also couldn't we have gotten at least one tentacle? Those things are amazing!

Gallagher1

Swanner wrote: »

I never said they didn't. And I would be of a similar way of thinking however we do differ somewhat in that I'm still open to new ideas regardless of the evidence especially when the evidence can neither

Remember, years ago everyone thought the Earth was flat. Why ? Because that's what the evidence suggested. They were wrong as was the evidence



I don't share your optimism and I certainly don't agree with No. 1. Again your assuming to speak for everyone and that everyone will share your view once the evidence is presented. They won't. Most will, but many others will continue to disbelieve and find arguments against this newly discovered God. It's our nature to question.

From what you say it's as if an Evidence based view of the world is somewhat tunnel visioned, which it is not. You are right, it is our nature to question and we do question, it's just we just dont accept thoughts that evidence doesnt back up in the slightest.

Using the Earth example. When the idea of a spherical Earth was presented by the likes of Strabo with ample evidence it was still rejected by certain branches of Christianity because it went against ancient hebrew scripture (fingers in the ears screaming lalalalalala syndrome). Same prinicple applies with the work of Galileo and Copernicus.

Evidence seeking and open-mindedness can go 100% in hand in hand. Just because Atheists dont believe in a God due to lack of evidence does not mean we are any less open minded than someone of faith. If anything the contrary is often true.

MrPudding

Akrasia wrote: »

Also couldn't we have gotten at least one tentacle? Those things are amazing!

I don't like to brag, but...

MrP

RainyDay

Can you really not see the conflict between your two contradictory statements?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't tell if you're now being purposely obtuse, or if that was a deliberately ridiculous question to highlight the fact that religious activities are part of the ethos of the school, and if you choose to have your children excluded from religious activities, then you can't seriously expect that they should be included in religious activities like the Nativity and the sacraments, and no, I wouldn't expect that that a denominational school should make any provisions for the inclusion of non-denominational principles.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course schools should be inclusive as a basic value,

If schools are inclusive as a basic value, they should be including the entire school community in school activities. This doesn’t stop schools continuing to teach religion. Inviting all students and parents to the communion and confirmation social celebration (tea & cake basically)doesn’t take away anything from these events. It doesn’t take anything away from the religious nature of these events. It just allows the entire school community to take part in the celebration.
But you are entirely resistant to any suggestion that the school should simply invite all students and parents to a social event. It is this kind of bull-headed narrow-mindedness that will ultimately cause the churches to lose complete control of schools.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it would, but you don't want that because you don't want your children to participate in religion.

How is singing a couple of Christmas carols ‘participating in religion’? How is coming to social celebration of communion or confirmation ‘participating in religion’? How is coming to school at the normal time to sit in the hall under supervision ‘participating in religion’?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't argue with that.

You really are contradicting yourself here again, as you’ve just spend quite a long time arguing that fundamental principle. 

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very telling that I would expect parents to be responsible for their children's education? Of course schools should be inclusive as a basic value, but if parents want their children excluded from being taught those basic values, then those parents can't have it both ways, no matter how much of a fuss they kick up!
They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community. That's the whole point of having their children baptised, to become part of that religious community, and sending their children to schools which are part of that religious community is parents indoctrinating their children at their own expense.
If you don't want to support the indoctrination of religious dogma in children in schools where you know the primary purpose of the school is indoctrination, then don't enrol your children in that particular school. Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

Quite bizarre that you say above that you ‘can’t argue’ with the principle of taxpayers money not being used for indoctrination, but now you want those who don’t want their children being indoctrinated to have to pay more to avoid indoctrination? Is there any logic here, or are you just trolling?
Your whole argument assumes that parents have reasonable choices of schools, which in general, they don’t. Non-indoctrination schools are few and far between. Most parents don’t choose indoctrination – they have no other reasonable choice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the OP and a few other posters got off to a great start by suggesting that some parents were insane, and their children are massive dorks, and that was mild in comparison to another poster who suggested that any adults who give communion should be shot (although admittedly, I think we all understood they were on a wind-up, desperate attention seeking to illicit a reaction), but you probably turned a blind eye to those posts.

I don’t recall these particular posts, but if you’re best argument is “Well, the other guy was worse” you are on pretty dodgy ethical grounds.