A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... anti-theism exists because God exists ... and God has logically been there from the very start - so we've have anti-theism since then as well.

Theism is just a belief in the existence of a god. You can have a belief about the existence of a thing without that thing actually existing.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

Do you know of any child currently not attending school because they aren't baptised?

I know parents who can't enrol their child into a school because they arent baptized.

Again, do you have those figures to back up your claim?

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

I know parents who can't enrol their child into a school because they arent baptized.

Again, do you have those figures to back up your claim?

There are children who can't get into various educational establishments for all sorts of reasons. I agree that location relative to the school should also be an admissions criterion.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

There are children who can't get into various educational establishments for all sorts of reasons. I agree that location relative to the school should also be an admissions criterion.

And top of that list of reasons is that the child/children haven't been baptized. And seeing as around 91% of schools are Christian, that doesn't leave much scope for many other schools, does it?

Don't you see the problem with this? Denying children an education because they haven't had holy water splashed on their head, in schools that are STATE funded.

Hotblack Desiato

Pherekydes wrote: »

We've only had anti-theists since theism was invented, if you think about it logically.

Bit of a big ask that

recedite

J C wrote: »

There are children who can't get into various educational establishments for all sorts of reasons. I agree that location relative to the school should also be an admissions criterion.

Whoopee... finally, a small concession from JC

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

And top of that list of reasons is that the child/children haven't been baptized. And seeing as around 91% of schools are Christian, that doesn't leave much scope for many other schools, does it?

There would be a problem if they had no practical alternative IMO ... and that is why there should be a weighting given to proximity to a school.

Gintonious wrote: »

Don't you see the problem with this? Denying children an education because they haven't had holy water splashed on their head, in schools that are STATE funded.

I see the problem ...
... but denying Roman Catholic children religious instruction in church run schools, just because a tiny minority of children from a different worldview attends these schools is more problematical IMO.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Whoopee... finally, a small concession from JC

Fair is fair.
... anyway, I hold no sway with the RCC ... so my 'concession' is of no practical significance.

looksee

J C wrote: »

There would be a problem if they had no practical alternative IMO ... and that is why there should be a weighting given to proximity to a school.

I see the problem ...
... but denying Roman Catholic children religious instruction in church run schools, just because a tiny minority of children from a different worldview attends these schools is more problematical IMO.

The only running the church does in these schools relates to the promotion of the Catholic faith. Because 'Patron'. The most essential point is that there is no reason for the state to keep handing over schools to church patronage.

There is no reason to continue with the 'ah sure its only a few of them and if they don't like it they should build their own schools' debate as we have had it too many times already.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

The only running the church does in these schools relates to the promotion of the Catholic faith. Because 'Patron'. The most essential point is that there is no reason for the state to keep handing over schools to church patronage.

There is no reason to continue with the 'ah sure its only a few of them and if they don't like it they should build their own schools' debate as we have had it too many times already.

It's true that there's no particular reason for the State to keep handing over schools to any particular patron body, and it's true that we've had the "they should build their own schools" debate too many times already, but when do we start acknowledging that the State is fulfilling it's obligation to provide for the education of it's citizens, and isn't directly favouring one patron body over another?

I'm not thrilled by the idea of a secular liberal democracy either tbh, secular conservative democracy like we have now is just fine, and appears to be what most of the citizens of this country are happy with, well, those who are registered to vote at least.

J C

looksee wrote: »

The only running the church does in these schools relates to the promotion of the Catholic faith. Because 'Patron'. The most essential point is that there is no reason for the state to keep handing over schools to church patronage.

The Patron owns and manages the schools as well as determinining the ethos under which it operates ... and that applies to all Patrons, including non-religious ones.

looksee wrote: »

There is no reason to continue with the 'ah sure its only a few of them and if they don't like it they should build their own schools' debate as we have had it too many times already.

Nobody is saying that ... but if you happen to be 'the only Atheist in the village' ... it would be very arrogant IMO to expect the local church to divest itself of the local school just because you want them to do so.

J C

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not thrilled by the idea of a secular liberal democracy either tbh, secular conservative democracy like we have now is just fine, and appears to be what most of the citizens of this country are happy with, well, those who are registered to vote at least.

... but a secular anti-theist and irreligious society will be created by suppressing religion to the private domain.

KingBrian2

J C wrote: »

... but a secular anti-theist and irreligious society will be created by suppressing religion to the private domain.

Letting different religions practice and worship at home and in private is far better than imposing your values on everyone else who disagree with you. Next you will have specific religions be denied rights. It is a step in the wrong direction promoting one brand of religion.

J C

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Letting different religions practice and worship at home and in private is far better than imposing your values on everyone else who disagree with you. Next you will have specific religions be denied rights. It is a step in the wrong direction promoting one brand of religion.

Far better to let everyone express themselves in public ... with due tolerance and respect.
That's what truly pluralist and diverse society should look like.
Replacing a dominant religion with dominant irreligion is not progress at all.

Hotblack Desiato

In schools, tolerance of all religions but imposition of none is the only possible model which is fair and just to everyone.

Many children in ET schools go on to take part in communion and confirmation, we must therefore assume their catholic parents have no issue with the ET style model and having religious instruction take place after the school day. They're not clamouring for Irish through a religious ethos, or Maths through a religious ethos, or Geography... why would anyone?

We don't have hospitals which admit catholics and hospitals which admit protestants and other hospitals for the rest. That would be a crazy way to run a public service. Why should schools be any different?

One eyed Jack

J C wrote: »

... but a secular anti-theist and irreligious society will be created by suppressing religion to the private domain.

I wouldn't be interested in suppression of religion at all though, merely to allow people of all faiths and none to be allowed to adhere to their values, principles and way of life for themselves, without interference, impediment, promotion or favouritism by the State of one world view over another, and vice versa - the particular world views of others would not be forced upon those who do not share those world views, philosophies and so on, by anyone who would use the State and its agents as a means to do so.

looksee

J C wrote: »

Far better to let everyone express themselves in public ... with due tolerance and respect.
That's what truly pluralist and diverse society should look like.
Replacing a dominant religion with dominant irreligion is not progress at all.

So when it is time for Mohammad to say his prayers, he can get out his prayer mat and everyone else can go to the back of the class and do their homework, with due tolerance and respect?

And when Jacob needs to study for his Bar Mitzvah in 6th class this will be accommodated in the school day and the other children can ask to be excused from the tuition?

And when John the atheist needs extra tuition in maths and cannot afford to lose the class time that is being spent on the first communion practise, a teacher will be brought in...because tolerance and respect.

KingBrian2

J C wrote: »

Far better to let everyone express themselves in public ... with due tolerance and respect.
That's what truly pluralist and diverse society should look like.
Replacing a dominant religion with dominant irreligion is not progress at all.

What is your position on blasphemy laws? In favour or against. There are those among the religious community who use free speech do so to abuse it by inciting racial and religious violence.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

So when it is time for Mohammad to say his prayers, he can get out his prayer mat and everyone else can go to the back of the class and do their homework, with due tolerance and respect?

And when Jacob needs to study for his Bar Mitzvah in 6th class this will be accommodated in the school day and the other children can ask to be excused from the tuition?

And when John the atheist needs extra tuition in maths and cannot afford to lose the class time that is being spent on the first communion practise, a teacher will be brought in...because tolerance and respect.

It's almost as though you don't think accomodations could be made in all of the examples above. People thought, and still do think the same of children with special educational needs and how would they be accomodated and how are they accommodated in mainstream schools, and depending on whom you ask, the answer is somewhere between "poorly", and "same as everyone else". That's the practical way things are done in many schools up and down the country. Schools try and work with what finite resources they have to best accommodate all the students, and it's a struggle to try and keep all the parents happy. It just can't be done. That's the practical reality of it.

J C

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't be interested in suppression of religion at all though, merely to allow people of all faiths and none to be allowed to adhere to their values, principles and way of life for themselves, without interference, impediment, promotion or favouritism by the State of one world view over another, and vice versa - the particular world views of others would not be forced upon those who do not share those world views, philosophies and so on, by anyone who would use the State and its agents as a means to do so.

That is a reasonable and very fair objective. However, it cannot be achieved by suppressing religion from the public sphere. Tolerance and respect in word and deed is required instead.

One eyed Jack

J C wrote: »

That is a reasonable and very fair objective. However, it cannot be achieved by suppressing religion from the public sphere. Tolerance and respect in word and deed is required instead.

J C from the very first line in my post -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't be interested in suppression of religion at all though...

I do agree with you however that both tolerance and respect in word and deed is required, but I would expect that of people, and most adults in my experience at least, practice tolerance and respect for other people who's world views and outlook on life differ from their own. That's one of the joys of living in a democracy too - freedom from the tyranny of the minority. Everyone who is eligible to vote, regardless of that which informs their world view, is entitled to one vote only, but they have the freedom to espouse their world views on whomever, wherever they please. They aren't however, entitled to have anyone actually take their views seriously. That's another matter entirely.

J C

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What is your position on blasphemy laws? In favour or against. There are those among the religious community who use free speech do so to abuse it by inciting racial and religious violence.

Laughing at people and their beliefs (of which blasphemy is a subset) is not a good idea and can sometimes be thinly veiled intolerance.

You do not respect people by mocking them ... and that applies equally to mocking non-religious people as well.
People should respect each other ... when they don't in gross ways ... laws restrict their behaviour ... examples of such laws are laws against incitement to hatred, laws against behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the Peace and laws against blasphemy.
Of course, these laws must be tempered by the right to free speech ... and reasoned debate about all ideas and beliefs.
Organisations like the Boards.ie manages to walk this fine line, thanks to the great work of its mods and the restraint and decency of posters.

... and everyone is intellectually enriched ... and given pause for thought ... and exposed to ideas they would possibly never be exposed to otherwise.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

That is a reasonable and very fair objective. However, it cannot be achieved by suppressing religion from the public sphere. Tolerance and respect in word and deed is required instead.

Suppressing religion from the public sphere would be closing down churches. In other words making worship outside of private homes impossible. Nobody is advocating that. Your constant resort to hyperbole and catastrophe does your already tenuous credibility no benefit at all.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's almost as though you don't think accomodations could be made in all of the examples above. People thought, and still do think the same of children with special educational needs and how would they be accomodated and how are they accommodated in mainstream schools, and depending on whom you ask, the answer is somewhere between "poorly", and "same as everyone else". That's the practical way things are done in many schools up and down the country. Schools try and work with what finite resources they have to best accommodate all the students, and it's a struggle to try and keep all the parents happy. It just can't be done. That's the practical reality of it.

Of course they could. And in one very specific case they are. However if the same degree of accommodation were allowed to all the rest there would not be much time for teaching. So how do you decide which one to accommodate - well of course, the 'majority preference'. Or what you choose to believe is the majority preference. Which brings us back to square one.

KingBrian2

J C wrote: »

Laughing at people and their beliefs (of which blasphemy is a subset) is not a good idea and can sometimes be thinly veiled intolerance.

You do not respect people by mocking them ... and that applies equally to mocking non-religious people as well.
People should respect each other ... when they don't in gross ways ... laws restrict their behaviour ... examples of such laws are laws against incitement to hatred, laws against behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the Peace and laws against blasphemy.
Of course, these laws must be tempered by the right to free speech ... and reasoned debate about all ideas and beliefs.
Organisations like the Boards.ie manages to walk this fine line, thanks to the great work of its mods and the restraint and decency of posters.

... and everyone is intellectually enriched ... and given pause for thought ... and exposed to ideas they would possibly never be exposed to otherwise.

Some religions incite hatred so they come into conflict with secular rule that is why it is up to gvt to ensure that all religions are treated fairly. Which is why i raise the point that giving preference to one religion is bad for society and exclusive.

Hotblack Desiato

All religions incite hatred.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All religions incite hatred.

How did you reach that conclusion?
There are many people of Faith who live peacefully and respectfully alongside their fellow man.
Some secularists have shown themselves just as capable, if not more so, of inciting hatred ... and indeed delivering destruction upon other people.

... but it would be equally wrong (and incorrect) to generalise, like you have done about religion, and claim that all secularists incite hatred.

However, if any secular state were to be run on the premise that all religions incite hatred ... then such a state would be a very 'cold house' for all religions ... and it could not be described as in any way 'best' for its religious citizens.

KingBrian2

All religions are well capable of inciting hate. Did not take long for the Myanmar Buddhists to become violent towards the Muslims once the Junta passed power over to the Buddhist leadership. Respect for all regions under a secular administration is far better system of governance than propping up a single religion.

looksee

HD did not say that all people of faith hate, but there is a fair bit of truth in the notion that much of the hate throughout history has been focused one way or another on religious differences. I think it is a bit sweeping to say that all religions incite hatred, but many have at various times and under various leaderships.

Hotblack Desiato

Did not catholics hate protestants, and vice versa? We have seen this on our own island, never mind the centuries of religious war on the continent of Europe.

Buddhists (who get fantastic press, totally undeserved) are massacring muslims in Burma. Muslims killing jews in Israel and anywhere else they can. Etc. etc.

All the Abrahamic religions preach hatred towards each other. All monotheistic religions believe that they have exclusive truth and it's a very short path from there to forced conversions at best, genocide at worst.

If there is any truly tolerant religion out there, by definition it must be a polytheistic one.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Did not catholics hate protestants, and vice versa? We have seen this on our own island, never mind the centuries of religious war on the continent of Europe.

Buddhists (who get fantastic press, totally undeserved) are massacring muslims in Burma. Muslims killing jews in Israel and anywhere else they can. Etc. etc.

All the Abrahamic religions preach hatred towards each other. All monotheistic religions believe that they have exclusive truth and it's a very short path from there to forced conversions at best, genocide at worst.

If there is any truly tolerant religion out there, by definition it must be a polytheistic one.

I don't avocate for a Theocracy ... the truism about absolute power corrupting is true whether the power is vested in religious or irreligious persons. Checks and balances to power are therefore essential.
One such check is that religion/irreligion and the state should be separate ... respectful of one another ... but separate.
This cuts both ways ... just like religions shouldn't dictate to the state ... the state shouldn't dictate to religions.
... and irreligion allied to the state causes just as many problems as religion being allied to the state.

looksee

J C wrote: »

I don't avocate for a Theocracy ... the truism about absolute power corrupting is true whether the power is vested in religious or irreligious persons. Checks and balances to power are therefore essential.
One such check is that religion/irreligion and the state should be separate ... respectful of one another ... but separate.
This cuts both ways ... just like religions shouldn't dictate to the state ... the state shouldn't dictate to religions.

So how will the checks and balances be applied to religion if the state does not dictate? The state is democratically elected and is answerable to the people; religions are only answerable to their creators and internally / self-appointed authority? 'Religion' can include sects and cults that are thinly disguised power trips for individuals as well as benevolent groups whose aim is only to praise their god and care for each other. Even then it is a very short step from caring to controlling and from praising to dictating how to praise.

J C

looksee wrote: »

So how will the checks and balances be applied to religion if the state does not dictate? The state is democratically elected and is answerable to the people; religions are only answerable to their creators and internally / self-appointed authority? 'Religion' can include sects and cults that are thinly disguised power trips for individuals as well as benevolent groups whose aim is only to praise their god and care for each other. Even then it is a very short step from caring to controlling and from praising to dictating how to praise.

The state should hold all religious and irreligious to account to its laws ... but it must do so fairly, not favouring (or disfavouring) one over the other.

J C

looksee wrote: »

HD did not say that all people of faith hate, but there is a fair bit of truth in the notion that much of the hate throughout history has been focused one way or another on religious differences. I think it is a bit sweeping to say that all religions incite hatred, but many have at various times and under various leaderships.

Religion is often used as a proxy for other things, like political persuasion, nationhood, race, class, wealth or the lack of it to justify wars and hatred.
... but it would be foolish to believe that if all religion was done away with tomorrow (even if that were possible) that everything would be 'sweetness and light'.

Michael OBrien

J C wrote: »

Religion is often used as a proxy for other things, like political persuasion, nationhood, race, class, wealth or the lack of it to justify wars and hatred.
... but it would be foolish to believe that if all religion was done away with tomorrow (even if that were possible) that everything would be 'sweetness and light'.

I agree with your statement, and I would say most rational atheists also would, however religion does act as a mask that hides this fact behind mysticism and often makes it harder to address the underlying factors, primarily because it uses elements like magic, invisible agents and agency and posthumous promises (hell, heaven) that are harder to tackle than the issues of race, class or wealth which at least can be challenged and are challenged by real world analyses.
While tribalism is part of human history and perhaps psychology, religion's part contributes to its resistance to challenge due to its reliance on (blind) faith.

Frank Bullitt

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0207/850894-primary-school-applications/

93 refused because they didnt have a Catholic birth cert. Ireland is still backwards.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

There would be a problem if they had no practical alternative IMO ... and that is why there should be a weighting given to proximity to a school.

I see the problem ...
... but denying Roman Catholic children religious instruction in church run schools, just because a tiny minority of children from a different worldview attends these schools is more problematical IMO.

I would have no trouble at all if they were to get the funding themselves, but seeing as they get the vast majority of their money from the state and tax payers money (of all religions and atheist backgrounds), them having total control over that is flat out wrong.

Get your own money and pick and choose as you want. Denying a child a state funded education because of their religion (or lack of) is in breach of human rights. Simple as.

Hotblack Desiato

Gintonious wrote: »

93 refused because they didnt have a Catholic birth cert. Ireland is still backwards.

Diarmuid Martin is directly responsible for this policy. He refuses to ask the schools under his control to change it.

Obviously the government should make it illegal, nevertheless there is one man who could make this issue go away overnight but won't.

hinault

No wonder Irish Times newspaper is in decline.

hinault

Yet in the U.K. admission waiting lists for enrolment to Catholic schools increase year on year.

Hotblack Desiato

hinault wrote: »

No wonder Irish Times newspaper is in decline.

Who mentioned the Irish Times?

hinault wrote: »

Yet in the U.K. admission waiting lists for enrolment to Catholic schools increase year on year.

As has been explained multiple times, that's because in the UK they're schools for snobs.

hinault

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who mentioned the Irish Times?

The OP.

That's who.

Hotblack Desiato

hinault wrote: »

The OP.

That's who.

A month ago?

How topical.

If the Irish Times is failing, it's because they still indulge the likes of the second link in the OP, imho. They print entirely uncritical pro-religion pieces every single week.

I note you chose not to address the point about discriminatory schools in the UK.