All religious schools should be private.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sabat wrote: »

So you agree with me then. The point is that it's being taught as a real phenomenon in schools that claim to have no religion. You can look up myriad articles yourself on the potential pitfalls of meditation-now imagine what could happen with a barely-trained primary school teacher and 30 different young minds. The real question is why are they pushing it so much?

So, there are no issues you are aware of and can identify. Gramd. That's that sorted

sabat

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, there are no issues you are aware of and can identify. Gramd. That's that sorted

Do you have kids in an ET?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sabat wrote: »

Do you have kids in an ET?

No you don't - back on topic! What specific issues regarding meditation are you referring to? And no more of this "go research it yourself" rubbish!

one world order

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It depends what you mean "hate god". It is not possibly to ACTUALLY hate someone or something you do not even believe exists. I only "hate" god in the same way as I "hate" the character Silas Marner. In that I can envision the character in my imagination as a representation and judge them morally from what I have been told about their character in their relevant work of fiction.

The problem here is that "sin" is just an arbitrary concept that you subjectively apply to anything you personally do not like. Rather than argue that any particular thing is immoral or unethical you merely call it "sin" and act like that is job done.

From experience of people espousing the things you are here, I would guess you find things like abortion and homosexuality to be "sin". Yet when pressed on any actual arguments against either you will likely have nothing more than appeals to your imaginary friend's opinions on the matter.

So contrary to your imagination the issue is not that people like me "like sin". Rather it is that people like me see nothing morally or ethically problematic with many of the things you apply that label to. And we realise that merely shouting that label at something, does not make it bad, wrong or evil. "Sin" to me means nothing more than things you are not allowed do in your particular club house as part of your particular hobby. And that's FINE with me.

There is one reason and one reason only I do not think there is a god. And it is not remotely represented in your diatribe above.

It is this:

No one, least of all you, has yet offered me a single shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim our universe, or it's contents, was created or is being in any way maintained by a non-human intelligent or intentional agent.

The evidence of God's creation is all around you. God provided you with light, air, water and food to eat.This does not happen by a random big bang. God has also given you a conscience and provided you with morals, for example you know it's wrong to murder someone. Everyone was born with the knowledge they have a higher creator, but some like yourself suppress it.

We are a sinful people and alot of people like their sin. God provided the ten commandments to show what is right or wrong. If this didn't exist then what might be deemed acceptable by one person by their own reasoning is not for others. When no laws exist, society falls down. But the problem of sin has always existed throughout mankind and like a judge, God must punish sin.

However God still loves his people and this is why he sent Jesus into this world to take the punishment for our sin. Not everyone will accept that free gift and welcome the holy spirit into their heart and for those that don't, they will not be saved.

The bible says this world is controlled by the evil one and warns us not to be deceived. There is a spiritual war going on in this world and many people are being led astray. You may not be in tune to it but there are people at the top of our pyramid that continue to lead people away from God.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

one world order wrote: »

The evidence of God's creation is all around you. God provided you with light, air, water and food to eat.This does not happen by a random big bang. God has also given you a conscience and provided you with morals, for example you know it's wrong to murder someone. Everyone was born with the knowledge they have a higher creator, but some like yourself suppress it.

We are a sinful people and alot of people like their sin. God provided the ten commandments to show what is right or wrong. If this didn't exist then what might be deemed acceptable by one person by their own reasoning is not for others. When no laws exist, society falls down. But the problem of sin has always existed throughout mankind and like a judge, God must punish sin.

However God still loves his people and this is why he sent Jesus into this world to take the punishment for our sin. Not everyone will accept that free gift and welcome the holy spirit into their heart and for those that don't, they will not be saved.

The bible says this world is controlled by the evil one and warns us not to be deceived. There is a spiritual war going on in this world and many people are being led astray. You may not be in tune to it but there are people at the top of our pyramid that continue to lead people away from God.

I respect that belief and I respect your right to teach it to your children - but ONLY your children and children of consenting parents.

nozzferrahhtoo

sabat wrote: »

It says it right there- "we teach spirituality." That is a religious statement about a supernatural concept.

No. It is not.

The word has of course been heavily used and associated with religious contexts.

However the word has grown and changed a lot over time and has come to mean any exploration of the human condition beyond our every day needs.

You are misusing quite a few terms in your posts here, and in most cases you are triggered by a label rather than exploring what the content of the label is in any given context.

For example you are screeching about how some things you saw listed were "deluded". Yet all they did in the text you quotes is mention a list of issues they will bring up. Surely for something to be considered "deluded" you would need to know the content they use when bringing those issues up. But no, the mere mention of them is enough to trigger you.

sabat wrote: »

I didn't say meditation is supernatural but it's completely inappropriate for 5 and 6 year olds to be partaking in it.

Why so?

sabat wrote: »

You can look up myriad articles yourself on the potential pitfalls of meditation

To my knowledge there is SOME concern about people with PTSD or other trauma using it as adults. Other than that I am not so aware of the issues you refer to. Have you specific citations rather than play a game of "Go find it yourself"?

sabat wrote: »

a barely-trained primary school teacher and 30 different young minds.

You're manufacturing issues now in whataboutery. Forget meditation. IN GENERAL I would be against a primary school teacher teaching ANYTHING that they have been "barely trained" to do.

The issue there is training, not meditation. If a teacher is expected to teach something.... anything.... they should be trained to do so.

Have you actual issues with the thing being taught, or do you just have to manufacture an issue by imagining lack of training in the teacher which is a completely separate issue?

nozzferrahhtoo

one world order wrote: »

The evidence of God's creation is all around you. God provided you with light, air, water and food to eat.

Circular begging the question from you there. "What is the evidence god created everything?" "Everything is!". That is not an answer, that is a dodge from you. It is like going into a court room and when asked "What is the evidence the accused committed the murder?" and you replying "A murder has occured and they don't happen by themselves!".

You are not evidencing your answer to the question of existence therefore. You are merely restating the question AS evidence of itself.

one world order wrote: »

This does not happen by a random big bang. God has also given you a conscience and provided you with morals, for example you know it's wrong to murder someone. Everyone was born with the knowledge they have a higher creator, but some like yourself suppress it.

Ah the "you know I am right you are just denying it" ploy. Honesty is not to be your approach to the conversation therefore I take it, for shame.

The appeal to morality fallacy is just more of the same dodge as above. You are merely listing things that exist, like Oxygen and our moral sense, and merely declaring by decree that a god did it. Your entire approach to evidencing that a god exists, is merely to assert it to be so therefore.

one world order wrote: »

We are a sinful people and alot of people like their sin. God provided the ten commandments to show what is right or wrong. If this didn't exist then what might be deemed acceptable by one person by their own reasoning is not for others.

Which is what happens anyway. You can lock two devout Catholics in a room together and they will not at all agree over morality. You can lock Bill O'Reilly and Andrew Sullivan in a room together..... both devout Catholics.... and they will not reach a consensus on this alleged god's opinion of homosexuality, for example.

Your 10 commandments seem more in the business of protecting a jealous god from other religions than protecting morality. And I simply reject the notion that murder, pillage, rape were all considered entirely kosher until the 10 commandments appeared.

I see nothing about morality, nor have you shown anything at all, that requires a god for us to engage with it. Your claim "you know it's wrong to murder someone" is simply false. Let me tell you what I know and believe, rather than you telling me what I think. I do not "know" murder to be wrong. Rather I have considered the topic rationally and realised that a society without murder is one me and my loved ones can function in better, where we can live thrive and survive, and where our mental health and well being will be maximised. I do not kill others because I want to live in a society where killing is not done.

one world order wrote: »

The bible says this world is controlled by the evil one and warns us not to be deceived.

Of course it does. And it also calls people who do not believe your fantasies "fools". That is kinda par for the course for making up this kind of nonsense. You insult, threaten, cajole, the mark into accepting it with canards like "the deceiver". So when anyone notices you have not offered a SHRED of evidence for your claims.... you can play the narrative of how it must be the devil talking.

one world order wrote: »

There is a spiritual war going on in this world and many people are being led astray. You may not be in tune to it but there are people at the top of our pyramid that continue to lead people away from God.

And if they are leading people towards evidence based rationality where they act upon ideas and claims that are supported by argument, evidence, data and reason...... then long may the people in the "top of our pyramid" continue to do so!

one world order

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Circular begging the question from you there. "What is the evidence god created everything?" "Everything is!". That is not an answer, that is a dodge from you. It is like going into a court room and when asked "What is the evidence the accused committed the murder?" and you replying "A murder has occured and they don't happen by themselves!".

You are not evidencing your answer to the question of existence therefore. You are merely restating the question AS evidence of itself.



Ah the "you know I am right you are just denying it" ploy. Honesty is not to be your approach to the conversation therefore I take it, for shame.

The appeal to morality fallacy is just more of the same dodge as above. You are merely listing things that exist, like Oxygen and our moral sense, and merely declaring by decree that a god did it. Your entire approach to evidencing that a god exists, is merely to assert it to be so therefore.



Which is what happens anyway. You can lock two devout Catholics in a room together and they will not at all agree over morality. You can lock Bill O'Reilly and Andrew Sullivan in a room together..... both devout Catholics.... and they will not reach a consensus on this alleged god's opinion of homosexuality, for example.

Your 10 commandments seem more in the business of protecting a jealous god from other religions than protecting morality. And I simply reject the notion that murder, pillage, rape were all considered entirely kosher until the 10 commandments appeared.

I see nothing about morality, nor have you shown anything at all, that requires a god for us to engage with it. Your claim "you know it's wrong to murder someone" is simply false. Let me tell you what I know and believe, rather than you telling me what I think. I do not "know" murder to be wrong. Rather I have considered the topic rationally and realised that a society without murder is one me and my loved ones can function in better, where we can live thrive and survive, and where our mental health and well being will be maximised. I do not kill others because I want to live in a society where killing is not done.



Of course it does. And it also calls people who do not believe your fantasies "fools". That is kinda par for the course for making up this kind of nonsense. You insult, threaten, cajole, the mark into accepting it with canards like "the deceiver". So when anyone notices you have not offered a SHRED of evidence for your claims.... you can play the narrative of how it must be the devil talking.



And if they are leading people towards evidence based rationality where they act upon ideas and claims that are supported by argument, evidence, data and reason...... then long may the people in the "top of our pyramid" continue to do so!

Think of this way, a book can't make itself, a building has a creator, the same way as the universe and world we live in has a creator. But your saying this universe created itself. Do you see how irrational that is. God's creation is all around you, but you've instead hardened your heart and refuse to believe.

Right and wrong was given to us by God with the 10 commandments as there will always be people that use their own morality to justify what is right and wrong. We needed this, as like a child God acted like a father to bring us all under the same law. By saying you are not a sinner you are calling your father a liar and we all know everyone has broken the commandments at some point.

People have a choice to make. Either recognise they are a sinner and accept Jesus as their saviour, thereby allowing the holy spirit to work within them or instead continue to reject God and putting your trust in the false idols of this world. Christ brings peace and eternal life while this world brings death.

L1011

Geuze wrote: »

Do we want all secondary schools to be VEC/ETB schools?

I don't.

I do. And primary.

Also don't approve of the private third level institutions, but they are generally (RCSI excluded) comically poor so find their own level.

Ten of Swords

Mod

This thread is starting to veer off topic somewhat, let's stick to the topic in the op please

jaxxx

one world order wrote: »

Think of this way, a book can't make itself, a building has a creator, the same way as the universe and world we live in has a creator. But your saying this universe created itself. Do you see how irrational that is. God's creation is all around you, but you've instead hardened your heart and refuse to believe.

Right and wrong was given to us by God with the 10 commandments as there will always be people that use their own morality to justify what is right and wrong. We needed this, as like a child God acted like a father to bring us all under the same law. By saying you are not a sinner you are calling your father a liar and we all know everyone has broken the commandments at some point.

People have a choice to make. Either recognise they are a sinner and accept Jesus as their saviour, thereby allowing the holy spirit to work within them or instead continue to reject God and putting your trust in the false idols of this world. Christ brings peace and eternal life while this world brings death.

There is no god. The idea of a single god is ludicrous. I'm more inclined to believe in Ancient Greek/Roman/Norse mythology than this ridiculous notion of a single god. Get over it, and stop trying to preach your fantastical nonsense to others. Btw, your "god" didn't write your bible: humans did.



Anyway back on topic. Religion has no place in education. End of. Children should be taught about logical and critical thinking, basic morality and ethics that have ZERO religious prejudice behind it all [you don't need a religion to tell you that rape/murder/torture are horrible crimes!]. Taught fact, not fiction. Religion should have no place in education or politics. Religion is a personal choice, and therefore should not have a single cent put towards it with public money. If the Pope wants to come to Ireland again, let him buy a ticket like any other tourist.

eviltwin

Manach wrote: »

That you deliberty seek to mispresent your own cause is te only thing that seems strange. That the atheists willfully and progressively seek the elimation of faith in the public square is clear from other countries ie the lacisation laws of France. The endgoal is the banishment of old-school religion and the replacement with the secular type that brooks no rivials.

Don't tell me what I think or what I want. You have no idea.

One eyed Jack

jaxxx wrote: »

Anyway back on topic. Religion has no place in education. End of. Children should be taught about logical and critical thinking, basic morality and ethics that have ZERO religious prejudice behind it all [you don't need a religion to tell you that rape/murder/torture are horrible crimes!]. Taught fact, not fiction. Religion should have no place in education or politics. Religion is a personal choice, and therefore should not have a single cent put towards it with public money. If the Pope wants to come to Ireland again, let him buy a ticket like any other tourist.

And there was I thinking we live in a democratic society where parents are entrusted with decisions regarding how their children are to be educated and where public money is spent on providing services to the public, such as providing for the education of children. You have that same right to choose for your own children how you wish for them to be educated, same as I do, same as every parent in society has that same right. Perhaps you imagine you’re living in an autocracy.

Ray Donovan

You'd swear religious doctrine and theology was being rammed down 6 year old's throats.

Religion in primary school is basically treat everyone and everything with respect etc etc.

Your child goes to a catholic school and you don't want him/her doing religion. No biggie. Ring the principal and tell him/her you don't want your child doing religion. Your child's teacher doesn't really mind one way or the other and will give them a book to read during religion and they don't receive Communion and Confirmation. That's pretty much the reality of it.

Children aren't exactly being taught to lead the next Christian crusade in school you know!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ray Donovan wrote: »

You'd swear religious doctrine and theology was being rammed down 6 year old's throats.

Religion in primary school is basically treat everyone and everything with respect etc etc.

Call it ethics and leve Jesus out of it. Same thing.

Your child goes to a catholic school and you don't want him/her doing religion. No biggie. Ring the principal and tell him/her you don't want your child doing religion. Your child's teacher doesn't really mind one way or the other and will give them a book to read during religion and they don't receive Communion and Confirmation. That's pretty much the reality of it.

Children aren't exactly being taught to lead the next Christian crusade in school you know!!

Someone brought up issues about kids not being provided with an opt-out option in State schools a short while ago. Still find it difficult to believe the department of education tolerates this. That said, I wonder how some primary school teachers would react if some of the kids - with their parents prior permission - took out a book or some crayons and did their own thing quietly and unobtrusively in the corner while the religious instruction was being taught.

nozzferrahhtoo

one world order wrote: »

Think of this way, a book can't make itself

You are employing the watchmaker fallacy now. This should have been on the aforementioned bingo card. Listing things you KNOW to be designed by a designer does not automatically mean EVERYTHING is.

To return to my court room analogy, this is like trying to prove the accused is guilty of the murder by doing nothing but listing the names of people who have been found guilty of all other murders.

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Your child's teacher doesn't really mind one way or the other and will give them a book to read during religion and they don't receive Communion and Confirmation. That's pretty much the reality of it.

That SHOULD be the reality of it sure. But quite often it is not. And the government and other groups like the "teach dont preach" website are periodically receiving complaints that it actually is not the case.

First access to schools has been found to be uneven and favouring children of catholics.

But even once in the school attempts to opt the child out of religion are hampered or even outright refused. While there has also been controvosies such as Muslim kids being compelled to accept Forehead Ash on Ash Wednesday. Or other children being given extra homework if they do not partake in the correct religious ceremonies or propitiations. Or worse rather than the kids not doing so being given extra homework, the kids that DO do so are given "home work passes" to get off homework.

Further merely being asked to sit IN the religion class with a book as you describe is hardly "opting out". It is just a way to keep the child in the class essentially under the pretence of exclusion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And there was I thinking we live in a democratic society where parents are entrusted with decisions regarding how their children are to be educated and where public money is spent on providing services to the public, such as providing for the education of children.

The right you describe is not unlimited or total. There is a limit to what you could or could not have your child being taught. And there is a limit in HOW they can be taught it. Not every topic they could be taught, or method for teaching it to them, is allowed.

The user you are replying to is merely discussing what should be on that already existing list of limitations. Describing that as a autocracy is mere hyperbole and straw manning from you.

dvdman1

I sent my son to a catholic school...Better the devil you know. Not an ideal situation but it pays some homage to our past...without the church education in Ireland would have been very rudimentary or non existant in some parts.

Wanderer78

dvdman1 wrote:

I sent my son to a catholic school...Better the devil you know. Not an ideal situation but it pays some homage to our past...without the church education in Ireland would have been very rudimentary or non existant in some parts.

The church did play a critical role in running our educational system, but its time to move on, and allow people the choice of being a part of a religious order or not

kippy

'Private' schools in Ireland are state funded, same as regular schools. The last thing we need in Ireland are more private schools.

McGiver

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ah, no.

Atheism is a specific belief that God does not exist.

Religious schools do not teach this.

What ethos are you talking about?

Secular schools in civilised countries, which is pretty much all of Europe simply don't mention God. It's out of question and out of the syllabus. Religious education is a private matter not a matter for public school. It shouldn't be taught at secular, publicly funded school in any way. It's a fully private business.

Moreover, obviously, secular school ideology would be humanism if you insist on schools having to need "an ethos". God plays no role in any of this.

Zubeneschamali

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes. This is my whole point. If the Catholic Church wants to teach Catholicism to its adherents and this is something parents want, then there's no reason that they should be prevented from doing that.

No-one is suggesting preventing them doing that.

We are suggesting we stop paying them to do it with our taxes.

kippy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No-one is suggesting preventing them doing that.

We are suggesting we stop paying them to do it with our taxes.

Unfortunately your taxes pay for many things you may not agree with. Including private fee paying schools currently.

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No-one is suggesting preventing them doing that.

We are suggesting we stop paying them to do it with our taxes.

Exactly.

The issue is two-fold.

1. Taxpayer is paying the Catholic Church to run our schools and engage in the religious indoctrination. Taxpayer shouldn't be paying any religious organisation a single cent to do this. It is not a public asset or organisation. They should have their own private financing and they can do their own indoctrination privately. But not in the public school system.

2. The State is reneging on responsibility to run a secular, state education system and simply outsources it to the Church. Such responsibility is the norm in whole Europe.


The most disturbing thing is that we have to argue for something which is the norm in Europe. The debate here is many decades behind Europe. Schools in Europe are simply secular. Religious education is an extracurricular matter to be taught to those interested and privately.

nozzferrahhtoo

kippy wrote: »

Unfortunately your taxes pay for many things you may not agree with. Including private fee paying schools currently.

Well yes, that is why it is good we live in a democracy where we instigate change through education, debate, elections and activism.... is it not?

Though apparently when some people use their democratic voice to maintain the status quo that is democracy..... but if another person uses it to suggest change, that is autocracy. Who knew?

Ray Donovan

Further merely being asked to sit IN the religion class with a book as you describe is hardly "opting out". It is just a way to keep the child in the class essentially under the pretence of exclusion.

Yes, because in fairness primary schools have a team of free teachers ready at the drop of a hat to take kids out of their classroom and supervise them when they opt out of religion!!! Any chance you’d like to join the rest of us in the real world!

kippy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, that is why it is good we live in a democracy where we instigate change through education, debate, elections and activism.... is it not?

Though apparently when some people use their democratic voice to maintain the status quo that is democracy..... but if another person uses it to suggest change, that is autocracy. Who knew?

I wasn't making the suggestions you pointed out in the second paragraph - just pointing out that on a personal level you don't get to chose where your taxes go.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Yes, because in fairness primary schools have a team of free teachers ready at the drop of a hat to take kids out of their classroom and supervise them when they opt out of religion!!! Any chance you’d like to join the rest of us in the real world!

Your pointless snidery aside, the "real world" is made up of the fact that we are constitutionally obliged to allow parents to opt their children out of religion classes. Keeping them in the class is not opting them out at all. It is pretending to.

Nor is giving them extra homework or, worse, exempting the people in the class from homework, in an attempt to create a disparity for the child who has been opted out.

Schools here in Germany where I currently live seem to have absolutely no issue with it. They time table religion in such a way that anyone opting out can merely be facilitated in a class running at the time. Hardly rocket science. They also tend to offer an Ethics class on the time table to offer to those families who do not want religion, but want to replace it with something.

Moaning about resources does not really help the situation though. When someone opens a school they do so knowing what is expected of them. If they can not provide what is expected of them, they should not plough on regardless. A restaurant knows the rules it must abide by when it opens. If their hygiene was found to be wanting later we would not let them away with "Get with the real world, we do not have the resources to do that!". No we would tell them quite simply "If you can not meet the standards required of you, you should not be in business, so let's work to find a way you can do it because we want you IN business".

IF the standards we expect of them are unrealistic, we need to change the standards. But whinging that they can not meet the standards expected of them does not help much.

nozzferrahhtoo

kippy wrote: »

I wasn't making the suggestions you pointed out in the second paragraph

I was not suggesting you did sorry, I was referring to other content in the thread in general where such suggestions were made.

kippy wrote: »

just pointing out that on a personal level you don't get to chose where your taxes go.

Agreed. I always laugh at the people.... there was one in this thread already..... peddling the "So you think religious parents should pay for their kids education, and pay taxes to educate your kids too?" line.

Yes the simple fact is that IS how it works. We all pay taxes and those taxes are used for things like education. Even people WITHOUT kids are paying taxes. And those taxes are in part used for the education of people WITH kids.

kenmm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you think religious parents should pay for their kids education, and pay taxes to educate your kids too?

I don't see what religion has got to do with education at all (except of course maybe to study the different religions of the world).

Ray Donovan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further merely being asked to sit IN the religion class with a book as you describe is hardly "opting out". It is just a way to keep the child in the class essentially under the pretence of exclusion.

Yes, because in fairness primary schools have a specialist team of available teachers ready to supervise children who don't partake in religion!!!

Any chance you could join the rest of us in the real world?