Is there anything constructive I can do about this discrimination?

lawred2

looksee wrote: »

Mod: Lawred2 you are around long enough to know not to respond to a mod decision on thread.

fair enough but in my wee defence, I was responding to that poster's response to a mod decision..

but point taken

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The right solution here is that the boy would sit in a library/study, and be adequately supervised, and be able to study whatever would yield him most educational advantage, and ideally the school would be resourced to enable it to provide this. But if you’re bargaining with the school over what can be done to accommodate the boy, pick your battles; the right to independent study is of more importance/value to the boy than the right to sit in a different room, and it costs the school nothing to provide it, so I’d look for that first, and worry about the separate room afterwards.

Agreed entirely, if the school has a library the best solution is for the boy to go and study there. I usually try to fight my battles in such a way as achieve what I want while allowing enough elbow room to the other side that they think they've won. Confrontation with school staff where you're child is still attending is very much a last resort.

FWIW, my daughter decided not to opt out having enough interest in the subject to participate albeit rather critically. I get the impression at times that the teacher would rather she'd decided otherwise

techdiver

Clear cut case of religious zealot teacher and principal wanting to teach an uppity Atheist a lesson.

Absolutely ridiculous that he cannot read or study what ever he damn pleases. He's ****ing 17 ffs! School and system are too worried that other students will see the advantages of studying something real and opt out too, destroying the perfect brainwashing system that they have going.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

..Recedite suggested that the legal/constitution right was a right to opt out from religious indoctrination; in fact it’s a right to opt out from religious instruction. Arguably, even dispassionate and neutral information about various religions is “religious instruction”, but, even if it isn’t, “instruction” is clearly wider than “indoctrination”. So Irish law may in fact confer wider opt-out rights than the ECHR.

Well, no you are still missing the whole point here. Dispassionate and neutral information about various religions is definitely not religious instruction, it is religious education. So there is no opt-out under either EU or Irish law.
Nor should there be IMO. Topics such as the historicity of Jesus, or an objective study of Islam are quite valuable as part of a broader education. I would even say it could be very important for the future stability of Irish and European civil society that all kids be exposed to a common and objective view of these things at school (because a lot of them won't be at home).

Religious instruction on the other hand is something entirely different. whether it be doing first communion classes in Ballymun and learning the correct way to show deference to the bishop (are kneeling and kissing the ring still the done thing?) or whether it be learning the Koran off by heart at the muslim school in Clonskeagh. I regard these things as indoctrination.

Mark Hamill

Frowzy wrote: »

This goes way beyond discussion or debate, it's like being cross examined in court.

Your opinion differs with mine, let's leave it there.

Is it not entirely reasonable to expect someone to support their claims? You have explained that you believe religion class is important because it teaches patience and tolerance but you haven't explained how it does so or why they should be inextricably linked to religion classes. Until you do, all you have is a double non-sequitor.

robindch

Frowzy wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How does a religion class actually teach of this?

This goes way beyond discussion or debate, it's like being cross examined in court.

As Mark points out, when a poster makes some claim here in A+A, it's quite normal for another poster to ask you to expand on the claim or to back it up with evidence.

If the poster don't, can't or won't do that, then it's quite reasonable to assume that the claim or comment is either false or simply not worth defending.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Well, no you are still missing the whole point here. Dispassionate and neutral information about various religions is definitely not religious instruction, it is religious education. So there is no opt-out under either EU or Irish law.

According to Tenigate, this is the curriculum:

Summary of contents
Section A - The Search for meaning
Section B – Christianity
Section C – Religious faiths in Ireland today
Section D – Morality in action
Section E – God-talk
Section F – A living faith – doing justice
Section G – Celebrating faith
Section H – Story

Even assuming that Sections A, D, E, F, G and H are all somehow non-specific to Christianity, Christianity is given at least the same amount of time as all other religions In Ireland combined (and that's assuming Section C is actually as big as Section .

Given that smacl has seen that at least Sections A and D are from a Christian perspective, I thinks its clear that the course is unduly biased towards Christianity and goes beyond simple religious education.

lawred2

Frowzy wrote: »

This goes way beyond discussion or debate, it's like being cross examined in court.

Your opinion differs with mine, let's leave it there.

That's not how discussion boards work. I know blind faith might be the norm for some; but usually when unsupported claims are made there is usually a request to provide support for same.

Otherwise your point of view carries zero weight whatsoever.

Hardly cross examination.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

One of the more interesting things which comes up again and again in relation to schools particularly is, broadly, how unsympathetic religious posters are to the needs of non-religious people. If the shoes were on the other feet, one senses that claims of discrimination would be coming thick and fast.

A point backed up by recent research which suggests that atheists behave more fairly toward Christians than the other way around:

http://www.psypost.org/2017/09/study-atheists-behave-fairly-toward-christians-christians-behave-toward-atheists-49607

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to Tenigate, this is the curriculum:


Even assuming that Sections A, D, E, F, G and H are all somehow non-specific to Christianity, Christianity is given at least the same amount of time as all other religions In Ireland combined (and that's assuming Section C is actually as big as Section .

Given that smacl has seen that at least Sections A and D are from a Christian perspective, I thinks its clear that the course is unduly biased towards Christianity and goes beyond simple religious education.

I gave the opinion that the document was not fit to be a govt. publication. But despite that, I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should recognise that Christianity is the main religion, by far, in this country, therefore it has a special relevance to the Irish curriculum.
Also it should be noted that a lot of the "jesus stuff" in the doc relates to the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus, which is a subject worthy of study.

However some of the other stuff, such as " God talking to us" is a bit "leading". It is perhaps based on the premise that God and Jesus have been shown to exist in the earlier part of the course.
IMO the document could be tweaked to make it acceptable as a state document.

Then separately, we have the issue of whether schools are following it, and it appears the answer is No.
Smacl gave an example of a more overtly RC curriculum, but also clearly said it was an RC school and so entitled to pursue an RC ethos.

I gave an example of a VEC school that went the other way, apparently removing almost all trace of religion from the religion class.

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

The boy himself opted out of the class, not his parents. Might help to read op again?

A minor cannot opt themseles out, they can ask their parents to opt them out.

Dodging the actual points raised and descending into irrelevances and semantics is par for the course for theists, it seems. Do they feel threatened by a family refusing to be browbeaten by catholicism?

Zillah

lazybones32 wrote: »

It is not a free class, so the teacher is within limits to prevent him from doing regular coursework. I think as the year moves on, your son will be able to read other subjects but writing or doing homework will reasonably not be allowed.

I literally can't think of any motivation to block him from doing school work other than pure, unadulterated spite.

This is all a vindictive desire to punish the uppity atheist and nothing more; it would be quite refreshing if anyone would admit that.

Kidchameleon

Thats a bloody disgrace can he not bring some other book like science/philosophy?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus - (your post is too long for me to quote on my phone)

44.2.4 says two things:

- that a right to not attend religious instruction at a school receiving public money exists

and

- that legislation providing state aid cannot prejudice that right.


Your interpretation is rather, ehh, creative. Teach Don't Preach / Atheist Ireland have been dealing with the theory and practice of this issue for years, on the ground with parents, schools, BOMs and ETBs, with the DoE, and with making submissions at the national, European and UN levels on this issue. I'll take their word for it over some poster on Boards any day, thanks.

In any case Ireland is bound by the ECHR and many common practices in the Irish education system, including this issue, are incompatible with the ECHR. The UN has also repeatedly stated that Ireland must uphold the rights of minority religion and non-religious parents.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

We should recognise that Christianity is the main religion, by far, in this country, therefore it has a special relevance to the Irish curriculum.

I agree insofar as teaching about Christian and Catholic beliefs and traditions, but once you suggest that students should adopt Christian values and morality you've crossed the line that separates religious education and religious instruction, and have entered different territory in terms of making the class mandatory or optional.

Also it should be noted that a lot of the "jesus stuff" in the doc relates to the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus, which is a subject worthy of study

Worthy but a total minefield. I can't see many of the more religiously inclined Catholic parents for example having the likes of Bart Ehrman on the syllabus.

Frowzy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is it not entirely reasonable to expect someone to support their claims? You have explained that you believe religion class is important because it teaches patience and tolerance but you haven't explained how it does so or why they should be inextricably linked to religion classes. Until you do, all you have is a double non-sequitor.

robindch wrote: »

As Mark points out, when a poster makes some claim here in A+A, it's quite normal for another poster to ask you to expand on the claim or to back it up with evidence.

If the poster don't, can't or won't do that, then it's quite reasonable to assume that the claim or comment is either false or simply not worth defending.

Actually I have already explained my reasons in my previous posts. If the contributor can't be bothered to read my posts then that's not my problem. As a moderator Robindch I would have expected you to read my posts before reprimanding me. The poster called me out once and I responded, lazy moderating there!

I was in fact trying to be polite in my posts by not blatantly accusing the poster of cherry-picking from my posts. He twice has said that I claim Religion teaches patience and tolerance when my quote was actually that I feel the class, when taught properly, can teach understanding and patience as well as tolerance. That isn't being pedantic either as it's quite different.

I have explained in my posts that I don't feel that we can be patient or tolerant if we don't understand another's beliefs. Therefore because I have already explained my viewpoint it is like a cross examination as the poster has not explained why he disagrees with me. This how a debate and/or discussion works. Otherwise this is not a discussion board but a he who shouts loudest board.

Which ever forum a person is on they are entitled to their opinion, I never understood the phrase "The Antis" before but I'm beginning to. Another poster here has hinted that I may have a blind faith when I clearly stated in my first post that I am not religious. If you're not going to read my posts how can you argue with them?

Perhaps if all if these people had paid attention in religion, LCVP, civics and debating class they would be able to carry out a more balanced discussion without pointing fingers. However perhaps they opted out!!

Zillah

Frowzy wrote: »

Perhaps if all if these people had paid attention in religion, LCVP, civics and debating class they would be able to carry out a more balanced discussion without pointing fingers. However perhaps they opted out!!

In early years in secondary school religion class I had a belligerent weirdo who would go off on incoherent rants about God and invoke his poor understanding of physics in an attempt to instil the class with a sense of religious awe. Later we had a hippy who did guided meditation and I'm pretty sure was stoned a lot of the time.

So if that counts or not I'm not sure? Either way, glad I didn't waste all that time doing something like math or science.

Frowzy

Zillah wrote: »

In early years in secondary school religion class I had a belligerent weirdo who would go off on incoherent rants about God and invoke his poor understanding of physics in an attempt to instil the class with a sense of religious awe. Later we had a hippy who did guided meditation and I'm pretty sure was stoned a lot of the time.

So if that counts or not I'm not sure? Either way, glad I didn't waste all that time doing something like math or science.

It's a pity you didn't get anything useful from your classes, I can't be blamed for that. Again you have decided the cherry pick from my post. What about where o said "when taught properly".

I also never said it was more important than academic subjects.

lazybones32

Zillah wrote: »

I literally can't think of any motivation to block him from doing school work other than pure, unadulterated spite.

This is all a vindictive desire to punish the uppity atheist and nothing more; it would be quite refreshing if anyone would admit that.

The teacher has already given their reason for not allowing the student to do his homework but you and others don't accept that. I'm not here to change your opinion (notice that i replied to the op and once to those who reply to me) or point out any flaws i've witnessed among the other posts.
I have one Q for you: how can anyone here admit that the teacher is punishing the student? It is the teacher, and only the teacher, who can admit that. I can admit to many things on his behalf, if you like.

smacl

Frowzy wrote: »

I have explained in my posts that I don't feel that we can be patient or tolerant if we don't understand another's beliefs.

Why so? I'd try be patient and tolerant of people by default and continue that way until such time as they repeatedly behave badly enough that my patience is worn down and I become intolerant of them as a result. Mostly, this doesn't happen, so I can get on with them just fine while remaining ignorant of their beliefs.

Frowzy

smacl wrote: »

Why so? I'd try be patient and tolerant of people by default and continue that way until such time as they repeatedly behave badly enough that my patience is worn down and I become intolerant of them as a result. Mostly, this doesn't happen, so I can get on with them just fine while remaining ignorant of their beliefs.

Is someone discussing their beliefs considered "behaving badly" now? Or are you talking about something else? My comment was specifically on topic.

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

I have one Q for you: how can anyone here admit that the teacher is punishing the student? It is the teacher, and only the teacher, who can admit that. I can admit to many things on his behalf, if you like.

Not admit, accuse. The implication of your post that you're only guilty of a transgression of you admit to it, which is clearly not the case. From what I've read, the child is being treated unfairly for having opted out of religion class. Unless that class is taught in an entirely object manner without pushing any religious agenda, the child and his families constitutional rights are being abused.

smacl

Frowzy wrote: »

Is someone discussing their beliefs considered "behaving badly" now? Or are you talking about something else? My comment was specifically on topic.

I think you missed my point. If someone behaves reasonably and fairly towards me I'll reciprocate and we can get on just fine without delving into one another's beliefs. Your suggestion that we can't be patient or tolerant of someone without understanding their beliefs implies a default stance of impatience and intolerance to those different to ourselves.

Frowzy

smacl wrote: »

I think you missed my point. If someone behaves reasonably and fairly towards me I'll reciprocate and we can get on just fine without delving into one another's beliefs. Your suggestion that we can't be patient or tolerant of someone without understanding their beliefs implies a default stance of impatience and intolerance to those different to ourselves.

I think you mistook my point, I don't believe that there's a default stance of impatience and tolerance, and never intended my point to come across that way. I was talking specifically about discussing religious issues, or being patient or tolerant of other people's beliefs or traditions, I'm not sure how that suggests a default stance?

Either way, we're nit picking now as it seems we're both on the same wavelength.

Frowzy

smacl wrote: »

the child and his families constitutional rights are being abused.

Genuine question as I'm totally clueless about the law. Is there something in the constitution about attending religion classes?

smacl

Frowzy wrote: »

Genuine question as I'm totally clueless about the law. Is there something in the constitution about attending religion classes?

Not an expert either, but from my previously linked article written by someone who is;

This story raises a range of interesting issues concerning rights protected by the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Both documents protect freedom of religion (which is a right of both parents and children), and stipulate that parents have the right to determine their children’s religious education and upbringing. As part of this, both documents grant parents what might broadly be described as a right to withdraw their children from religious instruction to which they object.

Basically, a school cannot insist that any of it students are given religious instruction against the will of their parents, as to do so would violate the above. So while mandatory religious education is allowed, if it places "undue emphasis on one religion or world-view, an opt-out must be provided and it must be effective". A brief look at the prescribed senior cycle religion textbooks leads me to suspect this is typically the case. In the case of the OP, the opt out is clearly ineffective.

smacl

Frowzy wrote: »

I think you mistook my point

My bad, I just re-read it and I think I did too.

Frowzy

smacl wrote: »

Not an expert either, but from my previously linked article written by someone who is;



Basically, a school cannot insist that any of it students are given religious instruction against the will of their parents, as to do so would violate the above. So while mandatory religious education is allowed, if it places "undue emphasis on one religion or world-view, an opt-out must be provided and it must be effective". A brief look at the prescribed senior cycle religion textbooks leads me to suspect this is typically the case. In the case of the OP, the opt out is clearly ineffective.

Interesting! My son attends a CBS school but they currently have people of various religions/beliefs attending. I guess the name of the class is misleading as it's called Religion but reading the posts here I would agree that perhaps philosophy might be a better title!

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

Not admit, accuse. The implication of your post that you're only guilty of a transgression of you admit to it, which is clearly not the case. From what I've read, the child is being treated unfairly for having opted out of religion class. Unless that class is taught in an entirely object manner without pushing any religious agenda, the child and his families constitutional rights are being abused.

I re-asked the question as it was put to me. I didn't propose it, so spare your corrections for the offender.

I don't know if the child is being treated unfairly. I think the teacher's reasoning and view should be sought, which is what i advised the op to do. The teacher seems tough to not allow written homework to be done, but if it is applied across the board then fair enough. The teacher is responsible for approx. 30 students and can run their classroom as they see fit imo. If dad talks to the teacher, he will get a better idea if the teacher is just strict or is singling out his son.

.......

This post has been deleted.