Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Secularism: Mod note in first post
Comments
-
But again the system I am suggesting does provide for people with different aspirations than me. If people want more religion in their education, then they are absolutely free to pursue that, since there are many ways to add supplemental education. Or if this is inadequate allows that church run schools can be set up.Peregrinus wrote: »but if that's objectionable a system which prioritised your values/aspirations over those of other people must be equally objectionable.
The issue here is that you are overestimating the proportion of people who specifically want a catholic ethos in their education.
Most people don't care and only pick the school based on many many other factors.
I think in modern Ireland, given a choice between equal schools, one secular and one catholic, the large majority would favour the secular school.
The tiny proportion of people who do actually want a catholic ethos for whatever reason, are catered for in many ways in the system I suggest.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It seems to me that if you take this approach then you want a system of education provision which, so far as possible, is neutral as between secular and religious schools, and which seeks to be responsive to the actual wishes of parents, whatever they might turn out to be, and regardless of whether the actual secular you, or the actual religious you, would approve of them. That, I grant you, is not going to be easy to provide, but that has to be the goal.
Which pretty much goes back to my previous post that to progress things we need to first find out what people actually want or not from a school. Possible criteria might include;
Range on subjects on offer
Facilities (i.e. labs, sports grounds etc..)
Proximity to where you live
Staff to student ratios
Religious ethos or secular ethos
Gender segregation
Extra curricular activities
Support for religious instruction on an extra curricular basis where it is not part of core syllabus
Acceptance of all students in a non-discriminatory manner
etc...
If you look at these criteria, you'll notice they are interdependent. It is pure speculation, but I would imagine for most parents the primary interest is in getting an education that affords the best vocational outcome from a local school first and foremost, with religion less of a concern. I for one do not believe our current school system meets this need, even for the Catholic majority.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Which means that what's ideal for you, or what you're sure of, is not much of a standard against which to measure whether people who have different educational aspirations are or would be well-served by the system which would satisfy you.
I am not sure spinning my conclusions to just dismiss them as my personal ideals or personal biases is helpful though. I do not argue for the benefits of such a system merely because it is what is ideal to me, but because I think it is THE best system we could implement for all.
It might not "satisfy" some people, but my arguments are not about satisfaction of me or others, but about what I think is best for both children and society. And I would always argue for what I think is the correct solution, not the most satisfying one, even if I was one of the people left dissatisfied.
And if I had a Damascus moment tomorrow and suddenly became a foaming catholic convinced of god and the truth of the catholic church and I wanted my children to be indoctrinated into that religion and learn all there is to know about Catholicism and it's teachings I STILL firmly believe the kind of school system I argue for would not change. My personal satisfaction would have nothing to do with it. I would still argue for it, not to satisfy myself or my biases, but because I think it is the entirely right system to have.0 -
So the persons choices are suck it up and send their child to a Catholic school (which is allowed to discriminate against their child), build their own school from scratch and hope it's successful, or dropping their entire life to homeschool? That about sum it up?
The current Irish system does not allow parents to really choose the education they want.
To address specifically your points about home schooling, because this misconception keeps coming up again and again. For obvious reasons I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, but I would genuinely suggest you... (I was going to use the words 'educate yourself'... awkward!) inform yourself about home schooling before you post that sort of ill-informed nonsense.
Home Education Network Ireland FAQ
Mar a deir an seafhocal, tús maith leath na hoibre.
The current Irish system certainly does allow parents to choose the education they want. They're just not choosing the type of education that you would not want, for their children.NEW FIGURES FROM Child and Family Agency Tusla have revealed that the number of children home-schooled in Ireland has increased at a rate of knots in recent years.
The statistics, first reported upon this morning in the Irish Daily Mail, show that the total number of children receiving at-home education in Ireland climbed from 699 in 2011 to 1,322 last year, an increase of 89%.
There are many reasons for parents to consider homeschooling a child, from bullying to the lack of school-place availability, to the individual needs of a student.
With numbers on the increase however, it seems the idea is becoming more socially acceptable.
Source: TheJournal.ie
And just a refresher on the relevant article in the Irish Constitution relating to Education:
ARTICLE 42
1 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.
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.
3 1° 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.
2° 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.
4 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.0 -
I might have been too flippant in my wording about homeschooling. For those that choose it, I'm sure it works well for them.One eyed Jack wrote: »To address specifically your points about home schooling, because this misconception keeps coming up again and again. For obvious reasons I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, but I would genuinely suggest you... (I was going to use the words 'educate yourself'... awkward!) inform yourself about home schooling before you post that sort of ill-informed nonsense.
However my point stands that homeschooling is not a viable option for everyone, much as hand building a school is not a viable option for everyone.
Do you think that it is a viable option for everyone?
The current Irish system does not allow everyone to choose the education they want because not everyone has access or availability to every type of education.
I don't understand why people are pretending otherwise.
For example, one of the reasons people are choosing to homeschool according to your source is the lack of places available to them. These specific people obviously did not get to choose the education they wanted.
And even if your interpretation of the constitution is valid, then I don't agree with it and believe it should be changed.
Constitutions are not some holy document from which all morality is derived.0 -
Advertisement
-
Children should be educated without being segregated on the basis of religion. This is because the state should never concern itself with matters of faith. An added bonus is that secular schools enhance integration, multiculturalism, tolerance and broaden minds. Or so people think that segregating children on the basis of religion is a good thing?
Essentially, people of religion, who want their children to learn about their religion, should set up self-funded schools where their children can learn about their religion. So, their education would take place in the state school and their religious education would take place elsewhere in a place that has nothing whatsoever to do with the state. I'm struggling to see the argument against this?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »But, with respect, you're both secular individuals who presumably are seeking, or would seek if the occasion arose, a secular education for your children. Which means that what's ideal for you, or what you're sure of, is not much of a standard against which to measure whether people who have different educational aspirations are or would be well-served by the system which would satisfy you. I entirely agree that under the present system your values and your wishes are not adequately respected or catered for, but if that's objectionable a system which prioritised your values/aspirations over those of other people must be equally objectionable.
Isn't it Rawls whose theory of justice proposes a thought-experiment in which we frame rules for a society without knowing what position we ourselves will occupy in that society? Without knowing whether we will be rich or poor, male or female, black or white, talented or less so, or - in this instance - secular or religious.
It seems to me that if you take this approach then you want a system of education provision which, so far as possible, is neutral as between secular and religious schools, and which seeks to be responsive to the actual wishes of parents, whatever they might turn out to be, and regardless of whether the actual secular you, or the actual religious you, would approve of them. That, I grant you, is not going to be easy to provide, but that has to be the goal.
But with respect, the current curriculum (as outlined by the NCCA) is already secular. There is should be no need for anyone to be seeking anything new.
It's the corruption of education by introducing indoctrination concurrent with the curriculum which I would imagine some posters are against.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »inform yourself about home schooling before you post that sort of ill-informed nonsense.
What specifically was ill informed nonsense about it? I read 5 times the text you quoted and the user MENTIONS homeschooling as an option but says little to nothing about it. So there is nothing in the post there that is really ABOUT homeschooling, let alone anything that can be described as informed OR ill informed?
In fact ALL he seems to have said about it in the quote you cited was that someone might have to "drop their life" to do it. An exaggeration perhaps, but your own link does indeed say "You do need an interest in your children's education and a commitment of time and energy."
So what precisely is the "ill informed nonsense" in the text you quoted? I am not seeing it. Was it in another post? Another thread? I searched this entire thread for the word "home" and all I can see is the user saying that "homeschooling is not viable for everyone" which I would suggest is also not ill informed OR nonsense but is in fact entirely true.0 -
I might have been too flippant in my wording about homeschooling. For those that choose it, I'm sure it works well for them.
However my point stands that homeschooling is not a viable option for everyone, much as hand building a school is not a viable option for everyone.
Do you think that it is a viable option for everyone?
I do consider it a viable option for everyone, it's right there in the Constitution that the State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family! Education, like many things, starts in the home. Why would you think it wouldn't be a viable option for anyone who is concerned that their child is receiving the type of education that their parents or guardians consider appropriate? Who better to educate their own children than their own parents or guardians?The current Irish system does not allow everyone to choose the education they want because not everyone has access or availability to every type of education.
It does, and in very specific terms too! The fact that not everyone does not have access to the type of education they want, is not something that can be addressed by any system, because there are a number of contributing factors to the issue of being able to meet every parent or guardians individual priorities with regards to the education of their children. Are we not taught as children that we can't have everything we want in life? I know I was, but I can still come pretty damn close to it if I am willing to make sacrifices to fulfil a greater priority, in this case specifically with regard to providing for my child's education.
Really wanted that Lamborghini and all, but his college fund has to come first. A quality third level education doesn't look like it's going to be provided for by the State any time soon either.I don't understand why people are pretending otherwise. For example, one of the reasons people are choosing to homeschool according to your source is the lack of places available to them. These specific people obviously did not get to choose the education they wanted.
Nope, they didn't get a place in a school that provided the type of education they initially would have wanted for their children, so they made sacrifices to provide for their children's education themselves. They were never entitled to, nor guaranteed by the State a place in a school of their choosing in the first place. Nobody else has that luxury either. How's that for educational equality?And even if your interpretation of the constitution is valid, then I don't agree with it and believe it should be changed.
Constitutions are not some holy document from which all morality is derived.
No 'if' about it, it's valid. I acknowledge that you don't agree with it, but then if you believe it should be changed, it's entirely within your power to change it. Of course that requires that you make sacrifices to bring about the change you want, but nobody can force you to drop everything and take up your argument with the State either. It's completely and totally up to you where your priorities lie, and you're right, the Irish Constitution is a living document, as is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, clearly from which not all morality is derived either. If the member states of the UN cannot come to a consensus among themselves, then is it really any wonder Ireland would continue to thumb their noses at them, rather than take their reprimands seriously?0 -
Are you joking? Why does this question need to be answered?One eyed Jack wrote: »I do consider it a viable option for everyone, it's right there in the Constitution that the State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family! Education, like many things, starts in the home. Why would you think it wouldn't be a viable option for anyone who is concerned that their child is receiving the type of education that their parents or guardians consider appropriate? Who better to educate their own children than their own parents or guardians?
It is because not everyone has the available time, money, resources and ability to do so.
So you think that everyone has access to this?
If so, what a lovely world you live in.
It can be. Secular education with supplemental religious education.One eyed Jack wrote: »It does, and in very specific terms too! The fact that not everyone does not have access to the type of education they want, is not something that can be addressed by any system, because there are a number of contributing factors to the issue of being able to meet every parent or guardians individual priorities with regards to the education of their children.
Yet, seems like the only people who get what they want is the few people who want a catholic ethos.One eyed Jack wrote: »Are we not taught as children that we can't have everything we want in life? I know I was, but I can still come pretty damn close to it if I am willing to make sacrifices to fulfil a greater priority, in this case specifically with regard to providing for my child's education.
Why are they not required to sacrifice?
So they didn't have a choice?One eyed Jack wrote: »Nope, they didn't get a place in a school that provided the type of education they initially would have wanted for their children, so they made sacrifices to provide for their children's education themselves.
You keep admitting this then pretending that the opposite occured. It's bizzare.
The small minority of people who actually specifically want catholic ethos schools get that luxury.One eyed Jack wrote: »They were never entitled to, nor guaranteed by the State a place in a school of their choosing in the first place. Nobody else has that luxury either. How's that for educational equality?
Why do they alone get that luxury?
Why not my suggested system were they and everyone else are extended that same luxury?
Or would that require too much sacrifice on their part?
So you disagree with the UN when they conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights?One eyed Jack wrote: »If the member states of the UN cannot come to a consensus among themselves, then is it really any wonder Ireland would continue to thumb their noses at them, rather than take their reprimands seriously?0 -
Advertisement
-
So sorry you have had to give up on your Lamborghini OEJ. That is indeed a terrible sacrifice to make.
Of course the playing field is pretty level with third level education, you don't have to consider your religious beliefs - though how children manage in third level without that all important ethos I have no idea, it must be a dreadful shock to the system. In fact when you look at it you find that after all that primary and sometimes secondary religious education, the number of children who fall away from the church when they get into third level is quite alarming. You would almost think all that religious education was a waste of time.
But going back to the playing field, the parents who stayed at home to educate their children would not have had the opportunity to save for third level. Now that's a sacrifice - giving up third level to give your child the primary education you felt was best for them. Though you have the consolation that you have maintained fairness in the system, in allowing all those other children to get the religious education their parents could not be bothered making other arrangements for.
And tbh all that makes about as much sense as the arguments for the status quo that have been presented here.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Who better to educate their own children than their own parents or guardians?
A number of competent, experienced professionally trained teachers. Unless you suppose most parents are competent to teach say seven to nine different subjects to leaving certificate honours level.0 -
I'm pretty sure most of the parishioners involved in setting up many of the existing Catholic schools were considerably poorer than most of us are today, though I note that these days it's not always necessary to assemble the skills, money, time and connections to go about building a school from scratch; there are also other options, like patronage, that they didn't have. Parents have more options than ever before, even if they're not always the options they might want, would probably sum it up better I think.Oh well it's just that easy I guess... Stop being poor. Genius :rolleyes: Again you display your privilege and honestly shocking callousness. Not everyone is able to acquire the skills, money, time and connections to go about building a school from scratch. Not everyone is able to do this in a timeframe that would benefit their kids. And even if a person is lucky enough to have all of these things, there are still hurdles that would stop them dead. Building a school from scratch is not a viable alternative. You pretending it is shows how unfair the system is. So the persons choices are suck it up and send their child to a Catholic school (which is allowed to discriminate against their child), build their own school from scratch and hope it's successful, or dropping their entire life to homeschool? That about sum it up?
It was your comparison, but if that's what you think....Still, a laughable disingenuous comparison.
I don't think so; it's obviously far more expensive than retaining the current system where the State funds existing schools rather than providing new secular ones, it's not fair to parents who will have to move their children to new schools as a result, and it would seem to only appear to be 'best' for people who want the State to provide secular schools, no one else seems to benefit at all.Yes, and the best, fairest, cheapest and most inclusive way to do this is to provide secular schools and allow religious orders to establish their own private schools as long as they adhere to standards.
The current Irish system does not allow parents to really choose the education they want.
Whining seems a rather snarky characterisation, but since I never offered them, I can't see how I'd ever return to them.So you keep whining, but you will return to those arguments in short order.
Well... You asked me once to explain why I disagree with the UN and various other bodies that conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, without my offering such a disagreement, and a second time, all this after I pointed out that we should talk about what I've posted instead of the stuff you're making up. That kind of blatant, indeed dogged, disregard for the facts I would say is rather more telling....However, you have been asked three times about the fact the UN and other bodies conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights. You have pointedly ignored and edited out this question each time. I think this is very telling.
I don't believe I said I was defending the majority of catholic ethos schools in the country, I think you're making that up as well. If you'd like to know why most of the schools in the country have a catholic ethos, I think the history has been well covered on the School Patronage thread already. Must we go through it again?Then what justification are you using to defend the majority of catholic ethos schools in the country?
Actually, I said that some people think their own religion is a fundamental part of their child's formal education. They don't really need to be a majority for their opinion to be as valid as someone who believes secularism is a fundamental part of their child's formal education; as I said earlier both are equally entitled to seek out the education they want. I don't doubt that the former, if Catholic, will have an easier time doing it than the latter, but I don't see that as a justification for replacing the system with one which only supports the latter.If you, like Abolsam are going to insist that there are people who believe that religion is fundemental to education, then I'm going to need some evidence to show that these people are a sizable majority to maintain the current, unfair system.0 -
Yes. But they weren't the ones bearing that cost.I'm pretty sure most of the parishioners involved in setting up many of the existing Catholic schools were considerably poorer than most of us are today,
Even so, not everyone can bear that cost today, since thing have also become more expensive, standards have increased and there are more impediments to setting up a school. Again you are using a disingenuous comparison.
Do tell. Who could be a patron for secular schools equal to the catholic church and where do they get the money?though I note that these days it's not always necessary to assemble the skills, money, time and connections to go about building a school from scratch; there are also other options, like patronage, that they didn't have.
Again, you are implying that this is a trivial matter when you know it isn't
Even if your dismissive suggestions held (they don't), that still doesn't mean that the choices you are presenting are viable to everyone.Parents have more options than ever before, even if they're not always the options they might want, would probably sum it up better I think.
Now leaving aside the assumption that any parents would move their children due to a loss of a catholic ethos, why are you now saying that it's unfair? Why would that matter to you now?it's not fair to parents who will have to move their children to new schools as a result, and it would seem to only appear to be 'best' for people who want the State to provide secular schools, no one else seems to benefit at all.
It's unfair that not all people are offered secular education, yet you insist that people just have to put up with it. Why can't the small number of people who actually want catholic ethos put up with it?
And then going back to the fatal assumption in your position, there are still many, many ways for people to have a religious education even if the state provides only secular options.
And you've avoided the question again.Well... You asked me once to explain why I disagree with the UN and various other bodies that conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, without my offering such a disagreement, and a second time, all this after I pointed out that we should talk about what I've posted instead of the stuff you're making up. That kind of blatant, indeed dogged, disregard for the facts I would say is rather more telling....
The UN concludes that the Irish system is a breach of human rights. Do you agree or disagree?
We're not seeing a justification for keeping the current system.I don't believe I said I was defending the majority of catholic ethos schools in the country, I think you're making that up as well. If you'd like to know why most of the schools in the country have a catholic ethos, I think the history has been well covered on the School Patronage thread already. Must we go through it again?
I don't doubt that the former, if Catholic, will have an easier time doing it than the latter, but I don't see that as a justification for replacing the system with one which only supports the latter.
Why should we keep it in your opinion?0 -
No? I think by and large they were; even looksee agrees that funding came from private benefactors parental and state contributions, and robindch has pointed out how collections were organised to provide school land. But as I 'disingenously' pointed out, it's not like building a school from scratch is the only option available these days, unlike back when people were so much poorer (in time, cash and assets) than they are now.Yes. But they weren't the ones baring that cost. Even so, not everyone can bare that cost today, since thing have also become more expensive, standards have increased and there are more impediments to setting up a school. Again you are using a disingenuous comparison.
Well, I never said they had to be equal to the Catholic Church (nor is there any need for them to be), or that it was a trivial matter (remember I said I reckon it would be quite difficult, it would require dedication, commitment, and idealism), those are just more things you're making up. Since you ask, I imagine Secular Schools Ireland could be a patron for secular schools though, and I suppose they could get their money the way the Catholic parishes did; by asking people who want to see such schools educating children for it.Do tell. Who could be a patron for secular schools equal to the catholic church and where do they get the money?
Again, you are implying that this is a trivial matter when you know it isn't
Well I'm not the one being dismissive (you're the one telling us how things aren't viable), and there are obviously people setting out to actually do what I'm suggesting could be done. I agree, it won't be viable for everyone, but it could be viable for those who actually set out to do it.Even if your dismissive suggestions held (they don't), that still doesn't mean that the choices you are presenting are viable to everyone.
If you leave aside what I said is unfair, why do you think I'd be saying something else is unfair? Is it unfair that not all people are offered secular education? Not all people are offered most things, what makes this particular thing the unfair one? Nor have I ever insisted people have to put up with it, that's just something else you're making up. In fact I've been pointing out to you things they can do about it, you just don't like them.Now leaving aside the assumption that any parents would move their children due to a loss of a catholic ethos, why are you now saying that it's unfair? Why would that matter to you now? It's unfair that not all people are offered secular education, yet you insist that people just have to put up with it. Why can't the small number of people who actually want catholic ethos put up with it?
I never assumed there weren't, if you're honest about it.And then going back to the fatal assumption in your position, there are still many, many ways for people to have a religious education even if the state provides only secular options.
I haven't, I've pointed out (again) that I didn't say I disagree with the UN and various other bodies that conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, and that you made the statement up yourself.And you've avoided the question again.
Now that statement I do disagree with. A UN committee (not quite 'the UN' I'm sure you'll agree!) has stated it is 'concerned' about the slow progress in increasing access to secular education through the establishment of non-denominational schools, divestment of the patronage of schools and the phasing out of integrated religious curricula in schools accommodating minority faith or non-faith children, but I think that's a far cry from the UN concluding the Irish system is a breach of human rights if you're honest about it.The UN concludes that the Irish system is a breach of human rights. Do you agree or disagree?
Because the current system allows parents to choose the education they want for their children and make as much effort as they wish to obtain it, which a State mandated one size must fit all secular education would not.We're not seeing a justification for keeping the current system. Why should we keep it in your opinion?
In the interests of brevity (lots of people don't like reading lots of long multiqoute posts), I'm going to suggest (again) that we stick to discussing stuff that you haven't made up on my behalf; I think it will make the conversation far more to the point. What do you think?0 -
Private benefactors and state contributions are not available to everyone.No? I think by and large they were; even looksee agrees that funding came from private benefactors parental and state contributions, and robindch has pointed out how collections were organised to provide school land.
Not everyone is able to organise collections to raise enough to establish a school.
The catholic church also played a large part in organising these things.
It's not comparing like for like.
And things cost more now. And there are more obstacles in the way of establishing schools.But as I 'disingenously' pointed out, it's not like building a school from scratch is the only option available these days, unlike back when people were so much poorer than they are now.
And while they do good work, their funding and abilities are limited, they cannot provide funding to everyone who needs it.Well, I never said they had to be equal to the Catholic Church (nor is there any need for them to be), or that it was a trivial matter (remember I said I reckon it would be quite difficult, it would require dedication, commitment, and idealism), those are just more things you're making up. Since you ask, I imagine Secular Schools Ireland could be a patron for secular schools though, and I suppose they could get their money the way the Catholic parishes did; by asking people who want to see such schools educating children for it.
Where did I say this?Well I'm not dismissing anything (you're the one telling us how nothing is viable),
Great. So what should these people do?and there are obviously people setting out to actually do what I'm suggesting could be done. I agree, it won't be viable for everyone; nothing is viable for everyone.
Just bite the bullet and send their kids to a Catholic school?
Yes it is unfair that people are left with no viable options but to send their children to schools with a catholic ethos.If you leave aside what I said is unfair, why do you think I'd be saying something else is unfair? Is it unfair that not all people are offered secular education? Not all people are offered most things, what makes this particular thing the unfair one?
It is unfair that people are not offered secular schools.
Yet, to them you are saying "tough ****."
But when some one suggests changing this, you whine that it's unfair to people who want a catholic ethos.
Why would it matter to you if it's fair to those people when it doesn't matter to you if it's fair to other people?
There are things that some people might be able to do if they in the right position and they are lucky.Nor have I ever insisted people have to put up with it, that's just something else you're making up. In fact I've been pointing out to you things they can do about it, you just don't like them.
Not the same thing.
Before we go into that, can we first establish whether you agree with the UN committee's assessment?Now that statement I do disagree with. A UN committee (not quite 'the UN' I'm sure you'll agree!) has stated it is 'concerned' about the slow progress in increasing access to secular education through the establishment of non-denominational schools, divestment of the patronage of schools and the phasing out of integrated religious curricula in schools accommodating minority faith or non-faith children, but I think that's a far cry from the UN concluding the Irish system is a breach of human rights if you're honest about it.
...If they are privileged enough.Because the current system allows parents to choose the education they want for their children and make as much effort as they wish to obtain it..
Unfortunately, that's not good enough.
Why not?which a State mandated one size must fit all secular education would not.
People have been suggesting several ways by which a secular education system can absolutely provide even more choice to a greater amount of people for less cost with added benefits such as better cultural integration.
For example, I have been suggesting that such a system would allow for private religious groups to establish their own schools. You have been arguing that this is a completely reasonable choice for people, so I'm not sure why this would be so objectionable to you now.
Further, people have been suggesting supplemental religious education in addition to secular education, such as Sunday schools and bible study groups and the like. These would be a damn sight easier and cheaper for parents to set up than actually building their own school. Why would this not cover it?0 -
So we're past contending that parishioners bore the cost of Catholic schools, good. There's no reason other citizens can't do the same, as well as organise collections and approach private benefactors, and these days, unlike then, the State bears practically all of the costs of new schools it deems necessary, so there's that advantage too. You're right, hardly like for like at all.Private benefactors and state contributions are not available to everyone. Not everyone is able to organise collections to raise enough to establish a school. The catholic church also played a large part in organising these things. It's not comparing like for like.
Are you sure you know what work they do at all? As far as I know they don't provide funding for anyone, their purpose is to provide secular education.And things cost more now. And there are more obstacles in the way of establishing schools. And while they do good work, their funding and abilities are limited, they cannot provide funding to everyone who needs it.
Here, here, and here,Where did I say this?
The same as everyone else who can't get their child into exactly the school they want perhaps?Great. So what should these people do? Just bite the bullet and send their kids to a Catholic school?
They're still things that people can do about it I'm afraid.There are things that some people might be able to do if they in the right position and they are lucky.
Not the same thing.
Before we do, can we establish whether you agree that the UN did not, in fact, conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, and that I did not, in fact, disagree with the UN and various other bodies that conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, and that you literally made all that up?Before we go into that, can we first establish whether you agree with the UN committee's assessment?
I disagree, it takes no privilege at all to choose something, or to make an effort to get it....If they are privileged enough. Unfortunately, that's not good enough.
Because no parent who wanted religion to be a fundamental part of their child's formal education would have any possibility of a State funded option to do so, no matter how remote that possibility could be. Right now it's possible to have a State funded secular, or religious, or what ever other educational flavour you might imagine, school. Under the proposed conditions it would not be possible, as State funding would be restricted solely to secular education.Why not?
I would argue the substantive difference; I would have the State fund both secular and religious schools (in fact, any kind of school), whereas your argument is the State should only fund secular schools.You have been arguing that this is a completely reasonable choice for people, so I'm not sure why this would be so objectionable to you now.
I've no objection to parents providing supplemental and religious education outside State funded education at all; I'm pretty sure lots of parents already do.Further, people have been suggesting supplemental religious education in addition to secular education, such as Sunday schools and bible study groups and the like. These would be a damn sight easier and cheaper for parents to set up than actually building their own school. Why would this not cover it?0 -
Can they provide the option of secular education to everyone? No, because their scope is limited.Are you sure you know what work they do at all? As far as I know they don't provide funding for anyone, their purpose is to provide secular education.
I specifcally did not say that there were no viable options.
I specifically said that the options are not viable for everyone.
So, tough **** to them.The same as everyone else who can't get their child into exactly the school they want perhaps?
Some people can do if they are lucky.They're still things that people can do about it I'm afraid.
You are avoiding the question again.Before we do, can we establish whether you agree that the UN did not, in fact, conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, and that I did not, in fact, disagree with the UN and various other bodies that conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, and that you literally made all that up?
I believe that yes, the UN did conclude that. You are simply being pedantic to avoid the issue.
I am not sure if it's because you believe that the UN is wrong or if you're just fine with it being against human rights.
But not everyone has equal opportunity. Some people are more privileged in some ways than others.I disagree, it takes no privilege at all to choose something, or to make an effort to get it.
It's not just a matter of hard work. Claiming otherwise is simply ignorant.
Why would it matter to them that it's state funded if the important aspect is that it is religious? The idea I purpose offers them the option of religious schools (at least to the level by which you consider secular people have options).Because no parent who wanted religion to be a fundamental part of their child's formal education would have any possibility of a State funded option to do so, no matter how remote that possibility could be.
Are you claiming that they require it to be free?
Then it's simply a matter of getting their religious order providing it for free, or the person likewise fund raising like you suggest people seeking secular education should.
But the part that confuses me is why you place so much importance on this group of people that insist on both it being religious and state funded. Why should their oddly specific requirements be so important as to trump all other requirements?
Do you believe that the number of these people is somehow significant?
Why are you concerned about these people being "denied" their optimum choice yet have no concern when secular people are likewise denied?
Do you believe that these people are a significant proportion of the population or something?
Again, why would state funding be so important?Right now it's possible to have a State funded secular, or religious, or what ever other educational flavour you might imagine, school. Under the proposed conditions it would not be possible, as State funding would be restricted solely to secular education.
And if it is important, then having secular schools that accept everyone allows for more, better funded, staffed and equipped schools that cater for more people than smaller, more expensive specifically segregated schools.
Yes, so then what's the issue?I've no objection to parents providing supplemental and religious education outside State funded education at all; I'm pretty sure lots of parents already do.
Anyone who requires religious education is covered by both this and by privately funded religious schools.0 -
Mod: The topic of equality in schools has been pretty much flogged to death in at least two other threads, so could we get back to the subject of secularism please.
Please be aware that when you are arguing with someone who is simply presenting the 'devils advocate' position it ceases to be a rational discussion and becomes an exercise in semantics and logic chopping.0 -
New topic?
I have a problem with the religious oath that must be taken in order to become the President or a judge in this country. It shouldn't be in the Constitution.
Discuss.
0 -
Advertisement
-
From your previous posts I can't help but feel you're referring to me there, so I feel obliged to point out that I've never claimed to be (nor am I) simply presenting a devils advocate position on the subject, I'm putting forward my own view. But I agree the subject of schools belongs on the school patronage thread.Please be aware that when you are arguing with someone who is simply presenting the 'devils advocate' position it ceases to be a rational discussion and becomes an exercise in semantics and logic chopping.0 -
I think we should include the option to remove it as part of the next referendum that comes along. I doubt it would fail to pass.sunshine and showers wrote: »New topic? I have a problem with the religious oath that must be taken in order to become the President or a judge in this country. It shouldn't be in the Constitution. Discuss.0 -
Let's work through this and see where we get to... There are a couple of elements to Rawls' idea. The first is that each citizen has a representative, and it is those representatives that work out the rules for the society the citizens will live in.Peregrinus wrote: »Isn't it Rawls whose theory of justice proposes a thought-experiment in which we frame rules for a society without knowing what position we ourselves will occupy in that society? Without knowing whether we will be rich or poor, male or female, black or white, talented or less so, or - in this instance - secular or religious.
The main premise of the idea is that between the representatives and the citizens there is a "Veil of Ignorance". This means that the representatives don't know anything about the person they are representing. They don't know what age or sex they are, what religion they following, how smart they are, if they are able bodied or not, if they are healthy or ill, if they are rich or poor. They know nothing.
So this bunch of representatives get together to set up the structures of society, all aspects of laws, rules and infrastructure. The end purpose being the creation of a society that is as fair to all as possible. Basically, a society where the set up is equally to everyone's advantage.
So what happens if we apply this to education? Clearly, I have a bias, but I can't see how, if we apply this Rawlsian process we could end up any system that had religious schools or looked anything like what exists in Ireland right now.
If you were one of the representatives would you agree to a school system where there was a possibility that the person you were representing would not be best served? Remember, none of the representatives know the religion of the people they represent, and I would presume, then, that none of the representatives know the religious makeup of the society as a whole, to do so break the system.
So if you were one of the representatives, would you select a system whereby there was a possibility that the person you represented would potentially either be excluded from certain schools (perhaps those closest), would have difficulty getting into school (or whereby schools could discriminate based on religious belief), would have to attend a school that conflicted with his or her religious beliefs (or probably more correctly, those of their parents) or would otherwise have to make special arrangements or expenses in order to attend an agreeable school or caused the person you represented to engage in certain activities (like baptising a child into a religion they did not believe in in order to secure a school place)? As I said, I have a bias, but trying to genuinely think about this question honestly and in as unbiased a manner as I can, I simply can't see how any representative, following the Rawlsian model, could possibly accept a system with religious schools.
Using this Rawlsian process what would your school system look like? Mine would probably look something like that outlined by nozzferrahhtoo earlier.
Rawls has an issue with "Comprehensive Doctrines". They cause issues. Religion is a comprehensive doctrine in that it sets out how one should lead one's life, what is virtuous and what is not, and what kind of relationships one can have. This is itself is not necessarily a problem, the problem comes when the source of the comprehensive doctrine cannot be questioned. So where you have two comprehensive doctrine that are in conflict, and they are based on some supposed revealed knowledge, as is the case with religion, then there is little scope for compromise. This was why Rawls believed that comprehensive doctrines should have no place in the formation of the rules in a society. If a group tries to impose a law or a rule on you, which is based on that group's comprehensive doctrine, and that law or rule conflicts with your comprehensive doctrine, then how could you ever agree with that rule?
I genuinely don't think Rawls would have agreed with an education system where a large proportion, or even any proportion, of the schools were run by an organisation in favour of a particular comprehensive doctrine.
MrP0 -
Mod: One Eyed Jack's post moved to School Patronage thread.0
Advertisement