How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

a poll from 2012 found that 3 out of 4 parents would send their children to schools run by patrons other than Churches if they had a choice.

Yes, but how many parents out of four are actually motivated to actively campaign for a secular education system? It's easy for anyone to say they would support change, but actually doing something to support that change is where there appears to be no motivation. Even among the minority who are calling for change, they still support religious ethos schools by placing their children in those schools, because their priority is themselves and their children's education.

Delirium

Agreed, there does seem to be a disconnect between what they want and actively working towards changing the system to the type they prefer.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, but how many parents out of four are actually motivated to actively campaign for a secular education system? It's easy for anyone to say they would support change, but actually doing something to support that change is where there appears to be no motivation. Even among the minority who are calling for change, they still support religious ethos schools by placing their children in those schools, because their priority is themselves and their children's education.

I wouldn't call it 'support' given it would be choice between education or no education for their child.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

Agreed, there does seem to be a disconnect between what they want and actively working towards changing the system to the type they prefer.

I wouldn't call it 'support' given it would be choice between education or no education for their child.

There's exactly the effect of that disconnect though - it's not true to say that the choice is between education and no education. The choice is between education in a school with a religious ethos, or an alternative education outside of a school with a religious ethos. That's not a very palatable choice for a parent who does not want to expose their child to religious indoctrination, but that's when they have to prioritise which is more important to them - their objection to religious ethos schools, or having their children educated in a formal setting.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's exactly the effect of that disconnect though - it's not true to say that the choice is between education and no education. The choice is between education in a school with a religious ethos, or an alternative education outside of a school with a religious ethos. That's not a very palatable choice for a parent who does not want to expose their child to religious indoctrination, but that's when they have to prioritise which is more important to them - their objection to religious ethos schools, or having their children educated in a formal setting.

What alternative? Many towns/villages only have religiously run schools.

So what happens is many parents resign themselves to sending kid(s) to religious schools. Not what I'd consider as a parent supporting religious schools.

Huntergonzo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's all relative though really. Because a secular education system isn't seen as a priority by the general public, it's not going to feature too highly on any national media agenda. The Irish Times tend to hit it in spots though -

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/non-catholic-in-a-catholic-school-1.2446488

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/dominican-school-cancels-invite-to-atheist-speaker-1.2420125

I again I would simply say though that quite often the media sets the agenda itself, it's almost as if they're saying to people 'here this is what you're upset/concerned about'. However I agree there doesn't seem to be much upheaval from parents but then again people have busy lives to live, it's hard to find time to join every cause.

That's a good article you posted btw, for me it really highlights the imbalanced, unfair system we have, particularly the marginalisation and stigmatisation of children who aren't taking part in communion or confirmation, public schools really should have no part in those occasions.

Samaris

A lot has been made of "there is a choice", but the reality is that choice is a somewhat illusory concept. Okay, yes, I have the choice to pack up and move to Australia. Except that I can't afford it, I wouldn't know what to do when I got there and also HUGE SPIDERS. But as an Irish citizen with an up-to-date passport, I could, technically, choose to up sticks.

Most ET (to take an example) schools are centred around the east coast, primarily the greater Dublin region. A family living in, say, Kerry, not particularly wealthy, born and raised in the area, working to support their family, perhaps with parents getting older that need a bit of looking after - can you -really- say that it's their own choice to send their child to the local religious school, when there's -only- religious schools nearby rather than upping and moving to Dublin?

The town where I grew up had, in terms of primary schools - 1 all-girls SoCS , 1 all-boys CBS, 1 mixed-gender school under the patronage of the Bishop of the nearby city and a Gaelscoil, also under the patronage of the local clergy. That was quite a big town (big enough to support four primary schools!) but the choice elements were pretty illusory.

lazygal

I've posted about my area before. One ET school and five religious schools. I've written many letters to the dept about how and where my children can be educated in line with our family ethos and the stock response is that there are no plans to divest existing schools or build new ones as all current schools cater for the children in the area and parents aren't entitled to their first choice of school, even if their ethos conflicts.
If I have to send my children to a religious school that does not mean I'm supportive of or happy with religious schools. In fact, if necessary I will be "the militant atheist" if necessary to ensure minimum indoctrination.

xband

Lazygal : they're just hoping you'll go away. Maybe emigrate or move to a city where they've special schools and other institutions for people like us.

Or better yet, you'll give up and baptise your children and be "normal" like everyone else.

From anything other than an Irish perspective this is passive-aggressive, institutionalised, state evangelisation.

Irish people don't notice because, like someone with Stockholm Syndrome, they're familiar with the system, have no perspective other than the Irish one and don't realise how screwed up it is.

Also almost all those involved in teaching and education at primary and secondary are products of that system. (Primary teachers especially)

So it's hardly surprising there's so much inertia.

xband

I don't mean this as a slight on Irish teachers but when you consider an Irish primary teachers typical education:

Religious primary school- 8 years
Religious secondary school - 6 years
Religious teacher training college - 3 to 4 years.
Religious employer - up to 43 years or so.

Basically they are one step away from being as religiously trained as clergy or nuns.

I know there are alternative ways of training and that they may have gone to ET primary schools but those are not the mainstream of teachers.

Second level teachers at least mostly get a chance to have spent their formative college years in a secular university environment. Although, older ones may well have been in fairly religious universities - I know teachers in their 50s/60s who would have studied catechetics and very religious philosophy programmes in university at UCD in the 60s/70s for example.

That and your career progress was often dependent upon impressing the local priests, nuns, brothers who ran the schools, so those who were most religious and most conservative are likely to have risen to being policy influencers.

This is probably why reform is so difficult.

Shrap

xband wrote: »

This is probably why reform is so difficult.

I quite agree. I know a number of teachers, and one who went to Mary I. only a few years ago as a mature student (in her 40's - a natural teacher). The level of religiosity that each of them encountered during teacher training was enough to make the three who went through it young look back and shake their heads at what they were taught to believe at the time, and the unquestioning compliance that was required of them, and how they ever complied with it. When I asked the older one how she had managed, she just looked at me silently for a moment and said "I don't know how Shrap, I just kept looking at the end result. You couldn't have kept your mouth shut, or your sanity". I believe it. She knows me well

lazygal

There is a blind spot for many teachers in Ireland when it comes to religion. Byhookorbycrook has posted about the school they teach in, and says that even though the school is catholic this isn't really an issue and the school is inclusive. How can a school under the patronage of a faith which, like many other faiths, thinks it alone has the path to salvation and those not of that faith are going to suffer for this in the afterlife be genuinely inclusive? The local school to us claims to be 'inclusive' and I've had teachers I know who work there tell me all about how 'inclusive' their classrooms are, but when asked about how children like mine will be accommodated during prayers, trips to church, priests' visits and sacrament prep they suddenly need to tell me it is a catholic school after all and most parents don't have any problem with the system. Does it not occur to many teachers to ask why their employment is subject to religious rules when the state is the one that pays them?

One eyed Jack

xband wrote: »

Lazygal : they're just hoping you'll go away. Maybe emigrate or move to a city where they've special schools and other institutions for people like us.

Or better yet, you'll give up and baptise your children and be "normal" like everyone else.

From anything other than an Irish perspective this is passive-aggressive, institutionalised, state evangelisation.

Irish people don't notice because, like someone with Stockholm Syndrome, they're familiar with the system, have no perspective other than the Irish one and don't realise how screwed up it is.

Also almost all those involved in teaching and education at primary and secondary are products of that system. (Primary teachers especially)

So it's hardly surprising there's so much inertia.

Honestly xband, it's like you're writing from the 1950's. What's with the 'people like us' nonsense? You're not any different to many people I know who would like to see a secular education system. I'm beginning to wonder do people understand the concept of secularism and it's relevance to a multicultural society. Here's a clue - it's not just about you, as France is beginning to find out -

Old Tradition of Secularism Clashes With France’s New Reality

Nothing passive about the aggressive way in which the French Government are pushing institutionalised secularism in the very same manner as you might term "State Evangelisation".

I've recently been thinking a lot lately about a quote from John Steinbeck, the author of the book "Of Mice and Men" -

“In every bit of honest writing in the world, there is a base theme. Try to understand men, if you understand each other you will be kind to each other. KNOWING A MAN WELL NEVER LEADS TO HATE and nearly always leads to love. There are shorter means, many of them. There is writing promoting social change, writing punishing injustice, writing in celebration of heroism, but always that base theme. TRY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER!”


It's completely contradictory to your "them and us" separatist mentality, which seems to be completely focused on people understanding you, while you appear to be languishing under the misguided perception that you have no part to play in trying to understand other people or show them understanding, instead assuming that everyone else in Ireland must be experiencing Stockholm Syndrome because they don't agree with your point of view. If anyone is experiencing a lack of perspective here...

I don't want anyone to go anywhere. I shouldn't have to reiterate again that I would like to see people who identify as atheist or non-religious or another religion would be accommodated by the State with regards to the education of their children. They shouldn't have to place their children in schools where they do not support the ethos of the school. That's not telling them to go anywhere, that's telling them that they're aiming at the wrong bloody target. People who identify as religious are not your damned enemy!

As for your assertion that "almost all those involved in teaching and education at primary and secondary are products of that system", have you any idea really how many of those Principals, teachers, administrators and civil servants work tirelessly towards achieving equality in education? I really don't think you do, or you wouldn't come out with a statement like that as though everyone wants you just to go away. It's utter nonsense, and it's insulting to those of us who at least are trying to work towards the society you claim to want, but still see yourself as an outsider. It doesn't come from State level through a trickle-down effect, it comes from community level, from the ground up!

xband

Talk to me when 97% of schools aren't treating people like me as "them".

The above is just head in sand nonsense!

Every day Irish citizens are facing "oh well we'll give your child a place once all the normal (Catholic) children have been accommodated.

Every day children have to deal with deliberately awkward opt out messes where they're sitting in the back of the classroom colouring or whatever.

Every day schools have to deal with rules that look like something from the 19th century, making it impossible to create even accommodating never mind secular environments.

Until that changes, my points remain very valid.

The situation in Ireland has been criticised at international level and is completely at odds with international norms.

We don't have a secular education system or anything even approaching one. It's a privately operated, mostly catholic, state funded system with de facto compulsory attendance and very little in the way of alternative a available to most people.

Are you saying that Irish teachers aren't a product of a highly religious system?

Did they suddenly somehow go off to the new secular teaching academy?

Sorry, but you are defending the indefensible here

Working tirelessly towards something in a deeply flawed system doesn't make that system acceptable in a modern, supposedly secular, multi faith, multi ethnic, republic where we're all supposedly equal.

I'm sure many teachers, principals, civil servants, administrators and others working towards inclusiveness must be absolutely frustrated by the utterly archaic system they're stuck in the middle of. They're clearly not speaking out loudly enough to effect change.

Hotblack Desiato

xband wrote: »

I don't mean this as a slight on Irish teachers but when you consider an Irish primary teachers typical education:

Religious primary school- 8 years
Religious secondary school - 6 years
Religious teacher training college - 3 to 4 years.
Religious employer - up to 43 years or so.

Basically they are one step away from being as religiously trained as clergy or nuns.

Then they might decide to get into politics...

Shrap

xband wrote: »

They're clearly not speaking out loudly enough to effect change.

They don't dare to. And we're back to "ethos" again, with many employees of the State actually sh1t scared of standing against the Catholic church and ever again getting a full-time postion/going up for advancement if they do. No word of a lie. One of my teacher friends I referred to in the last post was actually a regional chairperson of the INTO. I asked her would she ever bring this up, but no she wouldn't (and I get why not). As mentioned previously, they in fairness do have more to be battling with in terms of SNA's and resource hours, etc. I would never begrudge them tackling these first and ethos later, but by their own admission, they can't tackle ethos at all. Whoever stands up first is on their own. This is the "No-Go" area that so many are avoiding at union level. They feel they have good reason to avoid it.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't come from State level through a trickle-down effect, it comes from community level, from the ground up!

No, that's not true. It's a double edged sword, where both the community and the "employer" (the church) find it in their best interests to keep the threat of "ethos" hanging over the heads of the employees. Although the community isn't aware of this threat for the most part, but clearly want the school to teach faith formation to save themselves from having to.

Trump4Prez

CelticRambler wrote: »

They're not forced into any classroom. Their parents make a decision not to opt for one of the alternatives, all of which are permitted by the state (and more easily accessible/implemented in Ireland than in many other countries).

For a brief moment earlier today, I thought this thread had got back onto looksee's "how?" track, which is/would be a really interesting discussion. Unfortunately, it's gone off the rails again into an argument about religion/indoctrination/faith/whatever. I've never met anyone go on about religion so much as an internet atheist - even the Jehovah's Witnesses have more normal conversations! :rolleyes:

I was going to respond to some of the more calmly-made assertions (quite a few of which I agree with in one way or another) but it all seems rather pointless if the only reason is to feed the anti-religion intolerants.

My point is, Keep it out of the schools. I'm not anti religious. If Catholics want to practice their faith at church or at home, it's their freedom to do so.

I'm 100% for freedom of religion, but it also must include freedom from religion.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

I would never begrudge them tackling these first and ethos later, but by their own admission, they can't tackle ethos at all. Whoever stands up first is on their own. This is the "No-Go" area that so many are avoiding at union level. They feel they have good reason to avoid it.

The trade unions were crucial to the introduction of the smoking ban in Ireland - once it was pointed out that their members were working in unsafe environments, and statistically likely to be leading to the deaths of a small number of their members each year. The unions could have a similarly crucial role in removing discrimination from Irish schools if it could be shown, for example, that school policies are prejudiced against the kids of atheist teachers.

One eyed Jack

xband wrote: »

Talk to me when 97% of schools aren't treating people like me as "them".

I understand that you hate posts being multiquoted and all the rest, but you make a couple of points and I think each one is worth addressing. I'll do my best to keep it brief.

First of all, I can talk freely to you because 97% of schools aren't treating you as "them", a more accurate figure would be 3% of schools treat you as "them". You're just not that special.

xband wrote: »

The above is just head in sand nonsense!

No no, this is an example of head in the sand nonsense -

Trump4Prez wrote: »

My point is, Keep it out of the schools. I'm not anti religious. If Catholics want to practice their faith at church or at home, it's their freedom to do so.

I'm 100% for freedom of religion, but it also must include freedom from religion.

How can anyone be 100% freedom of religion, yet call for the exclusion of religion from schools with a religious ethos? Who is anyone to say that Catholics should not be able to send their children to schools with a Catholic ethos? Expecting people would just cowtow to such nonsense when 92% of National Schools in Ireland are Catholic ethos schools, as if Catholic ethos schools are going anywhere, is just head in the sand nonsense. I would use the more polite term "wishful thinking" though.

xband wrote: »

Every day Irish citizens are facing "oh well we'll give your child a place once all the normal (Catholic) children have been accommodated.

They're not actually, they only face that in August, when schools are deciding on the numbers of students they can accommodate. The greater barrier is actually the sibling rule, not the religious criteria, and that affects 20% of those applying for a school place. It's also mostly confined to the greater Dublin area.

xband wrote: »

Every day children have to deal with deliberately awkward opt out messes where they're sitting in the back of the classroom colouring or whatever.

Schools have limited resources, and are granted limited resources by the DES, depending on the number of children in the school, which determines the number of teachers provisioned to the school and the number of learning support staff and so on. There are never enough. Again, those children of parents who are non-religious are just not that special, and the school has to try and treat every student fairly, and try to accommodate all the students, and can only allocate resources accordingly. Any awkwardness isn't deliberate, it's unfortunate, but that's due to the lack of resources within the school to accommodate the parents who do not want their children to participate in religion classes.

xband wrote: »

Every day schools have to deal with rules that look like something from the 19th century, making it impossible to create even accommodating never mind secular environments.

Clearly you haven't read up on many of the modern policies, action plans and circulars issued by the DES to accommodate equality, and equality of opportunities for all students in schools. I don't understand what you mean by a 'secular environment' in a religious ethos school? Unless you mean a non-religious environment in a religious ethos school? How do you propose that could work?

xband wrote: »

Until that changes, my points remain very valid.

Your point is completely invalid as you have consistently failed to address the current reality of the education system in Ireland, instead proclaiming the way things should be according to the word of xband (I've heard of 'tyranny of the majority' bandied around here often enough, but 'tyranny of the minority'? Nope, that's not going to happen!).

xband wrote: »

The situation in Ireland has been criticised at international level and is completely at odds with international norms.

I noticed that you skipped deftly (or just purposely outright avoided) the article I linked to about the current position of secularism in France? Our education system is not at all at odds with international norms -


Religious education

Religious education in primary and secondary education


You appear to want a system that's closer to China and India. No thanks, quite frankly.

xband wrote: »

We don't have a secular education system or anything even approaching one. It's a privately operated, mostly catholic, state funded system with de facto compulsory attendance and very little in the way of alternative a available to most people.

It's not compulsory for parents to enroll their children any school -


This is the full text of Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland:

"42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."

xband wrote: »

Are you saying that Irish teachers aren't a product of a highly religious system?

Did they suddenly somehow go off to the new secular teaching academy?

Not in the way you were trying to make out, no -

The teacher: ‘On our staff, two out of 20 teachers are Mass-goers’

Cian is a primary-school teacher in Dublin who describes himself as “100 per cent atheist”. He prepares children for their confirmation every year
“I bring the sixth-class boys to Mass for an hour once a week. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: most of them don’t go to Mass on Sunday at all, so they need to be familiar with it for confirmation. Parents love communions and confirmation and the sense of occasion.

“Occasionally I do the evening prayer, but I wouldn’t bother with a morning prayer. I might do one religion class a week, or I might not; I do the bare minimum, but a bit more around Catholic Schools Week, Christmas and Easter.

“I’m lucky in that we have board-of-management chair who is good with the kids and somewhat modern in his understanding of how not everyone is religious. We also have a great pastoral worker who does fantastic work with the kids. But other schools are a lot more religious and have teachers who are atheist.

“The sex education in this school is very conservative. It’s all about marriage, and the external speaker has blanked questions about gay people. It’s insulting to the kids, as they’re more world-wise than I would have been at that age.

“The untold story, for me, is the teachers. We have a very young teacher population. Any analysis will show them as less religious than their parents, or not religious at all, so you have 90 per cent of schools as Catholic and teachers like me who are merely presumed to be Catholic and comfortable teaching religion.

“On our staff, I believe that about two out of 20 teachers are Mass-goers and about four or five are not religious at all. This is common in schools across Ireland; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers like me.
“It’s unreasonable to expect teachers like me simply to go to Educate Together. One of the reasons I wanted to teach was to work in schools within areas of disadvantage; these are almost all Catholic. I love teaching. But nobody’s gaining from this.”

Source: Non-Catholic in a Catholic school, Irish Times article.

xband wrote: »

Sorry, but you are defending the indefensible here

No, defending the indefensible would be suggesting that schools with a religious ethos should not be allowed to teach faith formation as part of that religious ethos. Defending the indefensible would be suggesting that a teacher like the one above should keep their job when they have no interest in doing their job properly.

xband wrote: »

Working tirelessly towards something in a deeply flawed system doesn't make that system acceptable in a modern, supposedly secular, multi faith, multi ethnic, republic where we're all supposedly equal.

Where are you getting the idea that we supposedly live in a secular republic? Have you seen the preamble to the Irish Constitution lately?


"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

xband wrote: »

I'm sure many teachers, principals, civil servants, administrators and others working towards inclusiveness must be absolutely frustrated by the utterly archaic system they're stuck in the middle of. They're clearly not speaking out loudly enough to effect change.

They're effecting change every day, not just for the 3% that identify as atheist or non-religious, but for the other 97% that identify as religious. They work to effect change on numerous grounds to promote equality and equality of opportunities for 100% of students. The reason as Shrap pointed out that many educators aren't speaking out about religion is because they don't want to risk their jobs, which is a choice they made, not one they were forced to make. They chose to become teachers, it wasn't something that was forced upon them. Many more people are concerned with other areas of education where they see inequalities that need addressing.

They simply have different priorities to yours is all. If you were able to make a compelling argument to prioritise secular education, then you might see change happen faster.

looksee

I think you have just made a very compelling argument for secular education OEJ.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder do people understand the concept of secularism and it's relevance to a multicultural society. Here's a clue - it's not just about you, as France is beginning to find out -

Old Tradition of Secularism Clashes With France’s New Reality

Nothing passive about the aggressive way in which the French Government are pushing institutionalised secularism in the very same manner as you might term "State Evangelisation".

Secularism and its relevance and/or compatibility with a multicultural society is indeed an interesting question. Some cultures just aren't secular by nature. Islam has its Sharia law, which has a whole raft of instructions relating to civil matters; from rules about lending money to the punishment of gays, apostates and adulterers. Is it possible for somebody steeped in Islamic culture to separate their religion from civil matters? Certainly it is a lot more difficult than it is for a Christian, where "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is the tradition which always acknowledged some separation of church and state.

Compare France to the USA which also has separation of church and state in its constitution, and also has secular schools. They don't have the same problem because they never had multiculturalism. Yes, they welcomed immigrants of all races and all cultures, but in the big melting pot they were all boiled done to one culture; American. Schoolkids must learn the language, salute the flag every morning and sing the national anthem.
There is no option in the USA to attend a public school where a foreign culture prevails, such as we have allowed in the Islamic schools in Dublin.

France is fighting hard at the moment to keep its secularism. I support that, and I reject the sentiments expressed in your link above as dangerous, defeatist nonsense. Especially this bit;

Voltaire wrote that religion was on a diminishing road, but it has returned with a vengeance, said Dominique Moïsi, a French political scientist. “Laïcité has become the first religion of the Republic, and it requires obedience and belief,” Mr. Moïsi said. “But I care more for democracy than for the republic,” he said. “To play Voltaire in the 21st century is irresponsible.”

Secularism is not a religion, any more than liberty, equality or fraternity are religions. These are principles. Voltaire is as relevant now as he ever was.
According to the link, Muslims now "make up close to 8 percent of the population and making up the largest number of regular worshipers".
It should be of no concern to the state which religion makes up the largest number of regular worshipers. But when that cohort starts to demand the dismantling of certain principles upon which the state is founded, that is another matter, and it cannot be tolerated. There is no conflict of interest now in France between democracy and the republic. That is "a false dichotomy" which M. Moisi has thrown in there for dramatic effect.
If it got to the stage where a majority called for implementation of Sharia Law, then that conflict would arise.

xband

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand that you hate posts being multiquoted and all the rest...

I agree with this bit.

The rest of it is so long I basically lost all will to live about 30 lines in, so I decided to go have a cup of tea instead.

CelticRambler

recedite wrote: »

France is fighting hard at the moment to keep its secularism. I support that, and I reject the sentiments expressed in your link above as dangerous, defeatist nonsense. Especially this bit;Secularism is not a religion, any more than liberty, equality or fraternity are religions. These are principles. Voltaire is as relevant now as he ever was.
According to the link, Muslims now "make up close to 8 percent of the population and making up the largest number of regular worshipers".
It should be of no concern to the state which religion makes up the largest number of regular worshipers. But when that cohort starts to demand the dismantling of certain principles upon which the state is founded, that is another matter, and it cannot be tolerated. There is no conflict of interest now in France between democracy and the republic. That is "a false dichotomy" which M. Moisi has thrown in there for dramatic effect.
If it got to the stage where a majority called for implementation of Sharia Law, then that conflict would arise.

Okay, that's enough to get me back! :pac: There is, at the moment, a huge conflict of interest in France between democracy and the République and it's values of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" - ask anyone who voted for the Front National, a party that makes no secret of the fact that its policies and candidates are strongly "Christian" - one of the leading candidate in the recent elections included a meet with the Pope in her campaign material. The party received 35-40% of the national vote - a figure that has been rising by about 5% points per year for the last decade - but because France does not have proportional representation, it does not gain seats to match its support.

That figure of 8% is imaginary. The fact is that official France is so aggressively "secular" that even asking someone what religion they adhere to (e.g. on a census form) is prohibited ... so no-one really knows how much of the population is muslim. That's the lowest estimate I've ever seen - it's usually put at around 10-12% with a suspicion of being possibly up to 15%.

And this is where the article is correct and you are wrong: real France - i.e. the ordinary people - is predominantly Catholic and is exactly as described in the article. The support "secular" education and "secluar" institutions and "égalité" only insofar as that doesn't mean treating muslims as equals. Even protestants get a rough time, and Jews are certainly considered fair game for a bit of discrimination. Vegetarians are tolerated (as long as they don't complain about having just a little bit of meat in their meal).

People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith. Which is why, if you want to see schools free from faith-based education, you've got to leave all the discussion about religion out and concentrate on the benefits of an educational programme where it just "isn't there".

looksee

CelticRambler wrote: »

People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith. Which is why, if you want to see schools free from faith-based education, you've got to leave all the discussion about religion out and concentrate on the benefits of an educational programme where it just "isn't there".

No, people are superstitious and to avoid conflict about which particular superstitions are observed and which can be ignored, all superstition is left to individuals and the state does not observe any of them. After all it really doesn't matter whether you are or are not willing to walk under a ladder when you are creating legislation about, say, public services.

It is not superstitious to not recognise or consider superstitions, any more than secularism is a religion.

Benefits of a religion-free education system include:

All children are educated on an equal and inclusive basis.

They mix with, and therefore learn to trust other people of different backgrounds.

Their learning is factual. What they are taught is best actual knowledge on any subject.

They can be taught morality without the threat of supernatural retribution.

What they learn at school does not conflict with what they learn at home.

Significant amounts of time can be given over to other subjects.

They will have the opportunity to learn about different religions, beliefs and cultures; currently this would - even with the best intentions - conflict with teaching about one particular religion.

Currently a school does not have to have a Board of Management (though most do); it is the decision of the Patron whether there is one. Where there is one, it would give the parents on the board a more realistic role in managing the school; at the moment their role is somewhat illusory as the Chairperson is the Patron's appointment and is the person who deals with the department of education. They can, and I have seen this happen from while I was on a board of management, present a request or proposal from the board in a way that favours the Patron, even though that decision might have nothing to do with ethos, and goes against the views of the board.

It allows primary teachers to be employed in all state schools without them having to perjure themselves on the subject of their religious beliefs, and removes the need for parents to baptise their children for totally pragmatic reasons.

Hotblack Desiato

CelticRambler wrote: »

Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith.

If you think that, either you don't know what secularism is, or you don't know what religion is.

That's OK. Most Irish people don't really know what secularism is, and fall for the lie constantly peddled by the RCC that it is irreligion and/or anti-religion.

silverharp

CelticRambler wrote: »

And this is where the article is correct and you are wrong: real France - i.e. the ordinary people - is predominantly Catholic and is exactly as described in the article. The support "secular" education and "secluar" institutions and "égalité" only insofar as that doesn't mean treating muslims as equals. Even protestants get a rough time, and Jews are certainly considered fair game for a bit of discrimination. Vegetarians are tolerated (as long as they don't complain about having just a little bit of meat in their meal).

People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith. Which is why, if you want to see schools free from faith-based education, you've got to leave all the discussion about religion out and concentrate on the benefits of an educational programme where it just "isn't there".

can you be catholic and religious and be atheist at the same time? its only a poll but elsewhere it seems like mass attendance in France is around 5%?

recedite

CelticRambler wrote: »

There is, at the moment, a huge conflict of interest in France between democracy and the République and it's values of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" - ask anyone who voted for the Front National.....

Can you explain what exactly this conflict entails?
You gave an example of a smaller party being disadvantaged by the "first past the post" electoral system. Same thing happens in UK and USA. This is an argument in favour of proportional representation as a voting system. Another refinement is the list system. But the finer points of the electoral system are nothing to do with any alleged "conflict between democracy and the republic".

CelticRambler wrote: »

People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith.

People can be as religious as they like in a secular state.
In the USA, which has a strict separation between church and state, people are generally more religious than they are here. Secularism in a state protects minority religions and their followers from being disadvantaged.

CelticRambler

looksee wrote: »

Benefits of a religion-free education system include:

All children are educated on an equal and inclusive basis.

Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.

This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.

And it just so happens that - in "secular" societies - the schools run by priests and nuns are amongst the best, most sought-after establishments.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you think that, either you don't know what secularism is, or you don't know what religion is.

Separation of church and state - how complicated do you want to make it?

The problem arises when a nation's culture is profoundly influenced by the belief system of the people who developed it, but some of its citizens decide that they no longer adhere to those beliefs and seek to have that part of their society's culture set aside. On paper, that's reasonable, but you cannot simply remove a belief system from society and leave nothing in its place, because those with a belief system are and will always be more motivated to fill the gap.

Which leads to ...

recedite wrote: »

Can you explain what exactly this conflict entails?
You gave an example of a smaller party being disadvantaged by the "first past the post" electoral system. Same thing happens in UK and USA. This is an argument in favour of proportional representation as a voting system. Another refinement is the list system. But the finer points of the electoral system are nothing to do with any alleged "conflict between democracy and the republic".

People can be as religious as they like in a secular state.

... politicians realising that either they support the principles of a secular state that offers no moral guidance, and lose support to the party that says "We're proud to be Catholic (and will save you from the invading Muslims)" or they start reinforcing "secular" measures that are inherently discriminatory towards the non-Catholic electorate.

Banning the wearing of the veil in France was an unequivocal anti-Muslim measure - teachers were and still are perfectly free to wear crucifixes in the classroom.

In the summer (i.e. in the run up to the elections) a decision was made on "secular" grounds to not offer an opt-out on eating pig-meat in school cantines because that would be "catering to religious preferences". This was a huge story here for about three weeks, until the "migrant crisis" steamrolled the objectors into submission.

We've just had the annual "crib in the Place de la République" debate, about which - for a change - there wasn't any debate: since the elections, France has become a resolutely Christian country in all but name. No politician from either of the traditional parties will push too hard for "laïcité" because the Front National are taking their votes on a platform that includes good old-fashioned Catholic values - and that's without the endorsement of the Catholic Church.

So here you have a country that (literally) chased the religious orders out of their schools, convents and monasteries 110 years ago, nationalised all of their assets, and instituted secular education for everyone, yet in 2016 religion and politics are as entwined as ever. How on earth is that likely to turn out any different in Ireland by setting up a few more schools where there's no catechism class?

looksee

CelticRambler wrote: »

Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.

This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.

You asked for an argument for secular schools that did not involve 'harping on about religion'. On my very first point - which makes absolutely no reference to religion - you claim that it is not valid because parents do not want it.

Would you like to make your mind up about what the ground rules are for this discussion?

And would you like to offer some actual evidence for your confident statement about what 'the majority' of parents want? Before the marriage referendum the 'religious' argument was that 'the majority of people' would not want to recognise same sex marriage. Right.

If your argument is that parents do not want an education system that offers equality of any sort to children, then that is a different argument, but I feel you really need to look at the integrity of Irish parents, including the RC parents that you are apparently speaking for. I think you will find they are of a rather more generous and public spirited nature than you suggest.

Nowhere in my points did I mention an 'Irish context' or discuss any 'evils of the Catholic church'. My reference to the BoMs of primary schools referred to the authority of the Patron, not necessarily a Catholic patron.

xband

CelticRambler wrote: »

Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.

This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.

And it just so happens that - in "secular" societies - the schools run by priests and nuns are amongst the best, most sought-after establishments.


Separation of church and state - how complicated do you want to make it?

The problem arises when a nation's culture is profoundly influenced by the belief system of the people who developed it, but some of its citizens decide that they no longer adhere to those beliefs and seek to have that part of their society's culture set aside. On paper, that's reasonable, but you cannot simply remove a belief system from society and leave nothing in its place, because those with a belief system are and will always be more motivated to fill the gap.

Which leads to ...


... politicians realising that either they support the principles of a secular state that offers no moral guidance, and lose support to the party that says "We're proud to be Catholic (and will save you from the invading Muslims)" or they start reinforcing "secular" measures that are inherently discriminatory towards the non-Catholic electorate.

Banning the wearing of the veil in France was an unequivocal anti-Muslim measure - teachers were and still are perfectly free to wear crucifixes in the classroom.

In the summer (i.e. in the run up to the elections) a decision was made on "secular" grounds to not offer an opt-out on eating pig-meat in school cantines because that would be "catering to religious preferences". This was a huge story here for about three weeks, until the "migrant crisis" steamrolled the objectors into submission.

We've just had the annual "crib in the Place de la République" debate, about which - for a change - there wasn't any debate: since the elections, France has become a resolutely Christian country in all but name. No politician from either of the traditional parties will push too hard for "laïcité" because the Front National are taking their votes on a platform that includes good old-fashioned Catholic values - and that's without the endorsement of the Catholic Church.

So here you have a country that (literally) chased the religious orders out of their schools, convents and monasteries 110 years ago, nationalised all of their assets, and instituted secular education for everyone, yet in 2016 religion and politics are as entwined as ever. How on earth is that likely to turn out any different in Ireland by setting up a few more schools where there's no catechism class?

You're factually incorrect there.
The law does not specify anything in particular at all.

It's:
loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics.

The law does not mention any particular symbol, and applies to : Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs

It bans overt religious symbols in public schools and makes absolutely no exemptions for Christian symbols.

The problem is that unlikely for Christians, some Muslims and Sikhs etc see religious dress as a fundamental part of their religion, so it does impact them more dramatically.

One of my cousins was sent home for wearing a tshirt with a huge cross on the front for example. So it's far from just targeted at Muslims.

There's a lot of hijacking of this by both the extreme right (FN) and religious groups seeking to be offended by it.

The main issue in France is that they've republican values of separation of religion and state that go back to the revolution. They're considered a very fundamental part of what France is and they're being used by both sides as a tool of stirring things up.

Legally speaking, they don't blur those lines and that's causing major conflict with religious groups who want to insert religion into the state and have it recognised or protected from being criticised or questioned using blasphemy laws and so on.

For the most part at least France has a clear idea of what secularism is and is prepared to stand by that. It's a very key part of the founding principles of modern, post revolutionary France though. Religion is considered a private matter.

The ethnic community conflicts are largely a throw back to France's colonial past in Algeria, Morocco and elsewhere. There's a major issue with the aftermath of that both in terms of how people who moved to France were treated and also how they identify as French when France was their old colonial occupier yet, they live there and are French.

Then you've got a xenophobic, right wing movement in France which isn't particularly pleasant either and you've radicalised religious minorities who are equally scary.

It's *lot* more conflicted and complicated than just relgious issues.

If anything, lack of a secular school system in France probably would have made things even worse by entrenching ghettoisation even further than it already is.

School is one of the places where communities at least get to interact and meet on an equal footing.

France hasn't a great history of incorporating difference though. They've a history of attempting to erase regional languages, particularly German after WWII with policies banning it in schools in Alsace etc

Breton and Basque were never given much attention either and the old French languages like Occitane were actively just erased as non standard weird languages that were an anachronistic thing that might divide the nation.

It's quite a different culture to Britian and very much about everyone getting behind a notion of la Republique as a single national identity.

You have to remember tho, historically France is all about revolution and a cultural mythology that would be about being bad ass rebels who stuck it to the establishment, ditched the monarchy, championed rational thought and freedom of thinking and put the church in its place.

That's where it conflicts with radical Islam and *any* attempt to blur the line between public education and religion .

Ireland's system has no such radical new way of thinking. It's just been a conservative, highly Catholic version of the British system with few tweaks here and there.

CelticRambler

looksee wrote: »

You asked for an argument for secular schools that did not involve 'harping on about religion'. On my very first point - which makes absolutely no reference to religion - you claim that it is not valid because parents do not want it.

I maintain (based on the fierce competition for places in Dublin schools, with parents putting their children's names down within weeks of the child being born) that Irish parents are not interested in educational equality. They want the best place for their child, and religions doesn't come into it.

If you're looking for inconsistencies, you have it in this quest for "equality" where - in the context of this thread - you're asking how children can be educated in an environment that is even more fragmented than it is now. It's been acknowledged that, for the most part, "there's no choice" - put your child in a "religious" school or none at all. That's equality in action: the parents have no choice, and neither do the schools - everyone ends up in the same classroom, regardless of their parents' beliefs.

xband wrote: »

You're factually incorrect there.
The law does not specify anything in particular at all.

It's:
loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics.

The law does not mention any particular symbol, and applies to : Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs

It bans overt religious symbols in public schools and makes absolutely no exemptions for Christian symbols.

I'm confused now. You say I'm factually incorrect, then quote the law that proves I know what I'm talking about (I live with it!). Yes, on paper, all expressions of religious affiliation are forbidden in school; but no, chances are you'll never have any trouble if you discretely display your Catholicism.

xband wrote: »

For the most part at least France has a clear idea of what secularism is and is prepared to stand by that. It's a very key part of the founding principles of modern, post revolutionary France though. Religion is considered a private matter.

...

It's *lot* more conflicted and complicated than just relgious issues.

If anything, lack of a secular school system in France probably would have made things even worse by entrenching ghettoisation even further than it already is.

School is one of the places where communities at least get to interact and meet on an equal footing.

How much direct experience do you have of the so-called egalitarian French educational system? Because I can tell you that they are anything but places of "equal footing" ... especially if you're the wrong colour or have a name like Mohammed.

Yes, it's a lot more complicated than just religion, but Ireland is not just a Catholic tweaked version of Britain. By all means look for a new educational model for a 21st Century Ireland, but leave the anti-religion propoganda out of the campaign.

Oh, and beware of faraway hills looking greener. My eldest son had a taster term in Ireland, arranged in his cousin's school (which happened also to be my old school) - and part of the CBS network. The biggest difference he noticed between his long French school day (8am - 6pm and his short Irish day (9.30am - 3.30pm) was "we're doing stuff all the time!" You can complain about 45 minutes a week being wasted on RE, but that pales into insignificance compared to the hours and hours wasted on bad management - a persistent problem in France's state/secular schools.

And FWIW, even though he decided to stick with the French system until the equivalent of Leaving Cert, he's now studying in Dublin, the reason being that he'd had enough of mixing with "ignorant peasants" who knew that the guarantee of "égalité" meant they'd get a place in third level as long as they were perfectly average. That's an attitude that permeates every aspect of French society too (except politics and sport) - which is why the economy here is being hammered by countries (including Ireland) who couldn't give a damn about equality. :pac:

looksee

CelticRambler wrote: »

I maintain (based on the fierce competition for places in Dublin schools, with parents putting their children's names down within weeks of the child being born) that Irish parents are not interested in educational equality. They want the best place for their child, and religions doesn't come into it.

If you're looking for inconsistencies, you have it in this quest for "equality" where - in the context of this thread - you're asking how children can be educated in an environment that is even more fragmented than it is now. It's been acknowledged that, for the most part, "there's no choice" - put your child in a "religious" school or none at all. That's equality in action: the parents have no choice, and neither do the schools - everyone ends up in the same classroom, regardless of their parents' beliefs.

That argument is just irrational. I cannot argue with it as it does not make sense.

Using the inadequacies of the French system to prove that secular schooling does not work is hardly an argument either. If anything it gives us a basis of what to avoid.

xband

There's the law and then there's the application of the law.

As I said, France has issues with extremism on both sides of the fence.

It's feck all to do with secularism though when it does go wrong, rather it's just any old excuse to be anti-immigrant in a lot of cases.

The headscarf ban was quite blatantly an attempt to ensure FN didn't get too many votes and a populist and very divisive move a few years ago.l by the mainstream parties.

Also France's anti hate speech laws can stray into extreme censorship on the other side of it and in some ways seem to make the situation even more tense.

Overall I'm worried France is heading towards a total mess. The vicious protests around gay marriage there a few years ago show me a very ugly, violent and narrow minded right wing that's growing rapidly and on the otherside you've dangerous radicalised extremists of the Islamic variety. You've also got various scary bits on the far left in France too. They're no angles at the extreme side.

I had to experience the centre of Nantes being utterly trashed by rampaging anarchists a few years ago.

The reason for all this isn't secularism, it's right wing conservative racism on one side and religious extremism on the other.

I lived in France and I've seen institutional racism first hand. Mostly North African colleague of mine getting randomly stopped all over the place (long before the recent Paris massacre too).

You can see how it would drive people into ghetto mentalities.

Thankfully, Ireland is largely centrist and sensible on most issues.

My concern with the schools though is we are building a situation up where people are being excluded and made feel very unwelcome in what's a very important part of social life and formation.

We urgently need a lot more open and inclusive schools.

lazygal

CelticRambler wrote: »

I maintain (based on the fierce competition for places in Dublin schools, with parents putting their children's names down within weeks of the child being born) that Irish parents are not interested in educational equality. They want the best place for their child, and religions doesn't come into it.

It is a lack of equality that lead us to put our children's names down for the local ET school at a very young age. Given that all other schools allocate places on the basis of religion in categories one, two and in some cases three and up to eight, we don't have equal access to school places. If we picked the best school in the area it would be the closest catholic school that I attended myself which has a brilliant reputation. The fierce competition I've seen is nothing to do with getting into the 'best' school. It's usually about getting into any school and, to a lesser extent, getting into a school that doesn't carry out indoctrination.

looksee

xband wrote: »

My concern with the schools though is we are building a situation up where people are being excluded and made feel very unwelcome in what's a very important part of social life and formation.

We urgently need a lot more open and exclusive schools.

Exclusive of what (or who)?

lazygal

looksee wrote: »

Exclusive of what (or who)?

Might mean inclusive?

xband

It's an iPhone typo

looksee

I was arguing for equal and inclusive and you said it could not be done (the inference being that therefore we should give up trying).

xband

looksee wrote: »

I was arguing for equal and inclusive and you said it could not be done (the inference being that therefore we should give up trying).

No I didn't.

Do you mind quoting where I said that?!!

looksee

I said:

All children are educated on an equal and inclusive basis.

and you replied: (to which I have already responded)

CelticRambler wrote: »

Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.

This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.

You did go off on a straw man argument in which you seemed to suggest that there was no point changing the schools because external factors also created discrimination (ie unequal and excluding). But we can change what can be changed, and removing the discrimination from schools is a good start.

recedite

CelticRambler wrote: »

... politicians realising that either they support the principles of a secular state that offers no moral guidance, and lose support to the party that says "We're proud to be Catholic (and will save you from the invading Muslims)" or they start reinforcing "secular" measures that are inherently discriminatory towards the non-Catholic electorate...

Firstly this is a false dichotomy. The secular measures are not discriminatory towards minority religions. The whole purpose of secularism is to protect minority religions and those of no religion from the dominant religion.

Secondly the far right are exploiting a conflict between multi-culturalism and the republic. This arises because not all cultures are compatible with the values enshrined in the French republic. That is not a conflict between democracy and the republic. You need to look more closely at what is happening.

This is a euro wide phenomenon, not just in France. Europeans increasingly find themselves in a situation where their liberal values are coming under threat, and the only people willing to defend these values are the far right.
The tragic death of this man in Sweden sums it up. I would guess that the man only ever voted for the most liberal party in Sweden, yet it was the implementation of their policies that led to his death.

When the victim found out that the two teenagers were alone and sleeping rough, he offered to help them with fresh clothes and a shower...
The prosecution claims the motive for the murder was the man's sexual orientation, and want to label the killing a hate crime...
'In addition to this being a hate crime, it is also a mindless assault and a beastly murder.
The teenagers have given contradictory evidence since their arrest in June, and the victim's long-term partner, who has lived with him 'for many years', says the 54-year-old had never shown an interest in dressing up as a woman. 'It is as if they dressed him up to mock him or something,' the partner said in a police interview.

Every election in every European country over the next few years will see substantial gains for the far right. Not because people have abandoned their liberal values, but because they want to protect them.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, on paper, all expressions of religious affiliation are forbidden in school; but no, chances are you'll never have any trouble if you discretely display your Catholicism.

But in your last post you claimed there was no problem wearing Christian symbols such as a criucifix, and only Muslim symbols were banned. Now you are saying its a matter of being discreet. Headscarves for Muslim girls are not "discreet", they are an affront to a society that sees females as equals. There's nothing wrong with a bit of common sense discretion. But if there is a school that allows staff or pupils to wear discrete crucifix on a necklace, but does not allow a similarly discrete "hand of fatima" necklace then that would be religious discrimination. Let us know if you hear of it.

Similarly with pork in school canteens. Nobody is forcing Muslims to eat pork, and nobody is forcing vegetarians to eat it. If they don't want it, they can choose not to take it. Same as everybody else.

CelticRambler wrote: »

.. he'd had enough of mixing with "ignorant peasants" who knew that the guarantee of "égalité" meant they'd get a place in third level as long as they were perfectly average. That's an attitude that permeates every aspect of French society too (except politics and sport) - which is why the economy here is being hammered by countries (including Ireland) who couldn't give a damn about equality.

It seems your son is exhibiting the same bad attitude to equality as you yourself have been displaying. I wonder why you stay there among the despicable peasants and their ridiculous system? And you are wrong that Irish society doesn't give a damn a about equality. Franco is gone from Spain, so perhaps there is nowhere suitable left for you to go.

Hotblack Desiato

CelticRambler wrote: »

Separation of church and state - how complicated do you want to make it?

The problem arises when a nation's culture is profoundly influenced by the belief system of the people who developed it, but some of its citizens decide that they no longer adhere to those beliefs and seek to have that part of their society's culture set aside. On paper, that's reasonable, but you cannot simply remove a belief system from society and leave nothing in its place, because those with a belief system are and will always be more motivated to fill the gap.

What on earth has any of that got to do with your claim that "Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith." ?

What a load of nonsense.

Samaris

CelticRambler wrote: »

Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith. Which is why, if you want to see schools free from faith-based education, you've got to leave all the discussion about religion out and concentrate on the benefits of an educational programme where it just "isn't there".

"Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries." - definition of secularism.

So...what on earth are you talking about?

looksee

politicians realising that either they support the principles of a secular state that offers no moral guidance

Where does the assumption come from that there can be no moral guidance in a secular state. Morality isn't the prerogative of religion, in fact in many cases it is seriously lacking. And using the Catholic church as an example of an institution providing moral guidance is laughable.

Samaris

looksee wrote: »

Where does the assumption come from that there can be no moral guidance in a secular state. Morality isn't the prerogative of religion, in fact in many cases it is seriously lacking. And using the Catholic church as an example of an institution providing moral guidance is laughable.

I suspect it's down to not having a very clearly defined front-and-centre view of moral issues in the same way that religion does. Religions define "good" and "bad" (in different ways, of course) based on their own rules. Secularism isn't particularly concerned with that (and nor should it be), it is down to wanting to separate Church and State. Secularism and morality aren't mutually exclusive, of course. Secularism and being -religious- aren't mutually exclusive either.

Secularism isn't about forcing an ideal, it's about removing religious ethos from state affairs. I suspect there's an awful lot of people that conflate secularism with atheism and figure that anyone wanting a secular state wants to enforce atheism as a new "national religion", which is nonsense. All it does is return religions (or lack thereof) back to the realm of peoples personal choice and private life.

looksee

Samaris wrote: »

Secularism isn't about forcing an ideal, it's about removing religious ethos from state affairs. I suspect there's an awful lot of people that conflate secularism with atheism and figure that anyone wanting a secular state wants to enforce atheism as a new "national religion", which is nonsense. All it does is return religions (or lack thereof) back to the realm of peoples personal choice and private life.

This is the point that has been made over the 17 pages of this thread and however many pages of other threads, and which various people consistently refuse to acknowledge. If it doesn't suit your agenda, ignore it.

xband

We actually primarily get our moral compass from a shared social outlook (which changes over time) and our legal framework, which is also constantly being tweaked to suit our current outlook.

Things like attitudes to human rights have actually evolved (mostly for the better) as Ireland has become less religious and more secular.

I'd argue that our national moral compass was set to vicious judgemental mode when we were at peak religiousity.

Ireland's extreme Christian past was fairly puritanical and did its best to exclude, lock up or otherwise make life miserable for anyone who didn't reach ira judgemental values.

I would rate secular, 21st century European countries as probably some of the most moral that gave ever existed. It's largely because we try to see points of view and are empathetic and aim to achieve a human-friendly, fair society with things like the redistribution of wealth, good public services, try to create equal opportunity and so on.

To argue that without a religious philosophy that wouldn't happen is nonsense and is highly probable as so by simple observation!

One eyed Jack

xband wrote: »

I would rate secular, 21st century European countries as probably some of the most moral that gave ever existed. It's largely because we try to see points of view and are empathetic and aim to achieve a human-friendly, fair society with things like the redistribution of wealth, good public services, try to create equal opportunity and so on.

Could you give one example of such a European country that exists?


(and when you say 'most moral', I'm assuming you mean humanitarian? Because 'most moral' makes no sense)


Finish your tea first though

recedite

France was mentioned already?

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

France was mentioned already?

France is definitely not representative of xband's Utopian idealism -

xband wrote: »

It's largely because we try to see points of view and are empathetic and aim to achieve a human-friendly, fair society with things like the redistribution of wealth, good public services, try to create equal opportunity and so on.

That sounds like France to you?

The reason I asked for an example of this European model of humanitarianism, political, economic and social equality and egalitarianism, etc, is because I was wondering how could that culture be mapped to Irish society to achieve the same results?

If France is what we're using as a yardstick to emulate a human-friendly, empathic, fair society with redistribution of wealth, good public services, the creation of equal opportunities where everyone tries to see everyone else's point of view and so on, then quite frankly, xband can keep it.