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

Richard Dawkins - J'accuse!

2»

Comments

  • #32
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Can't blame nasty atheists 😊 for this, or how divestment has been an absolute disaster (except in the handful of places it's actually occurred, where it's been a great success) but generally speaking it's been a process designed to fail, and administered by the vested interest who wishes it to fail.

    Nope, seems like one of the major blocking factors for divestment from Catholic patronage was those annoying Catholic families who don't even go to church that often. Likewise, the government can and do sit on their hands on the issue as the majority of their voters are happy with the status quo. Butting heads with all involved has historically shown to be ineffective in making progress here. Having a solution that keeps everyone happy is the path of least resistance here as ET have clearly shown, and even then, they've met plenty of resistance over the years. Basically, you need a large enough block of parents in any given community lobbying for a school with minimal contrary opposition. Divestment doesn't seem to work as in each specific case there has been significant opposition. New ET schools don't encounter that as they appeal to both non-religious and religious families who appreciate ethos being promoted. Schools with a more hard-line stance against religion of any kind within the school simply don't have broad enough appeal to get the necessary traction.

    Feeling hard don-by as a 'nasty atheist' and moaning about the government isn't going to get you very far. As of the 2022 census, 14% of the population reported they were not religious (736,210 people), 0.06% of the population reported that they were Agnostic or Atheist (3,823 people). To be fair, atheism and agnosticism were not listed as options in this poll, but in the 2016 poll, where these were options, had broadly similar results (468,421 non-religious, 7,769 atheists). What this clearly shows is that the vast majority of non-religious people don't consider themselves atheist so promoting a specifically atheist agenda is never going to work.



  • #33
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,427 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack:

    Do these French private schools insist that Catholicism permeates the entire curriculum, as Irish schools do? Because this makes any real opt-out impossible.

    French religious schools that receive state aid teach the national curriculum. (Just as in Ireland, come to think of it.)

    Hotblack:

    The US Republicans tear up their Constitution when it suits them, especially when they can pander to conservative Christianity. It helps that their Supreme Court is packed for decades to come with brainless patsys. The idea that you can obtain a "degree" worth anything more than toilet paper from the likes of these radical religious "universities" is laughable in the rest of the developed world.

    Oh, my sweet summer child! Are you under the impression that the only church-affiliated universities in the US are the fruitcakey ones, and that funding for church-affiliated universities is a recent invention by mad MAGAist republicans?

    Wrong on both counts. Since federal funding for third-level education was first introduced there has never been a time when church-affiliated institutions couldn't get it. About a quarter of all US university-level institutions have a church affiliation and they include many highly-regarded institutions — Boston College, Boston University, Baylor, the University of Notre Dame, Yeshiva, Emory, BYU, Tufts, Georgetown, Duke, SMU. Other prominent universities that no longer have a religious affiliation but did so in the past received federal funding while they were religiously affiliated - Yale, for example.



  • #34
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    [smacl] Promoting a strictly irreligious model, as per the French education system, is going to meet with majority disapproval for as long as the majority of people in this country identify as religious.

    That's true - so long as you believe that everybody has an "identity", and that for people who hold that their identity is wholly or in part, "catholic", that this implies that they demand that the church controls the schools their kids attend. I'm sure it's the case for some people, but the majority? I've no idea and I'm not even sure if that question has ever been asked generally or, at least, not in that direct way anyway.



  • #35
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    [smacl] Having a solution that keeps everyone happy is the path of least resistance here as ET have clearly shown, and even then, they've met plenty of resistance over the years.

    One of the people involved in setting up ET in the 1970's said to me some years ago that it was well known that the RCC and CoI wished the ET movement to fail before it gained any momentum. What was less well known, he told me, was that the churches viewed it as equally important that ET was seen in public to fail.

    The churches are well aware that removing access to children, and therefore, their ability to indoctrinate children, is likely to kill the churches stone dead within one generation.



  • #36
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,427 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123192387#Comment_123192387

    This. I doubt that establishing how people identify, and then imputing preferences as to school patronage (or anything else) to them on the basis of that identity, would be a sound way to proceed. If you want to know what school patronage they prefer, just ask them that question.

    As to whether the question has ever been asked generally, I don't think it has. But that might not be the best way to go; what matters here — what the population at large wants, or what the parents of schoolchildren want? I think most people would feel strongly that they have a particular claim to be listened to in relation to the education of their own children; it would follow that their views about patronage would matter more than mine, since my youngest child is 25.

    There was an exercise conducted by the Dept of Education a number of years back — we discussed it here at the time and a bit of searching will probably find it. They surveyed parents in a number of districts (I think about 40?) where population growth would justify an additional primary school, asking them about their preferences for patronage of any new school.

    From memory, in all but one of the districts the most popular patronage for any new school was Catholic. But none of the districts had anything remotely like a 90% preference for Catholic patronage.

    You wouldn't want to read too much into it — the survey was large but not universal; as noted it was only conducted in about 40 districts. Plus, people could only choose between those patronages on offer in the district — if, e.g., ET wasn't offering to patronise a new school in the district, you couldn't express a preference for ET patronage. The point of the exercise wasn't to establish broad national patronage preferences, but to inform specific decisions about specific schools. (And, to be clear, they weren't saying that the most popular patron would get the gig. They would pass over a popular preference if they felt that the demand for schools of that patronage was already amply catered for in the district. In the event, none of the schools did get Catholic patronage.)

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,150 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123179478#Comment_123179478

    I was speaking of the fruitcakey ones, note my use of "radical religious" rather than merely "religious".

    And no, that radical stuff is far from recent but I didn't say it was recent, either. It didn't have the ear of government when it started though. That started with Reagan. The last decent Republican was Ford.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #38
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,150 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123176098#Comment_123176098

    The majority of voters != a majority of parents of pre-school or primary age children.

    Why should a pensioner in Donegal ticking the RC box on the census influence the education of a child in Cork?

    Yes, ET have done well where a new school is being established. Unfortunately, huge numbers of parents who want an alternative to religous dogmatic education don't live in areas where new schools are being established. Divestment doesn't work and is a process designed to fail and maintain the status quo. 51% of support (post-FUD) in an area has been used as justification to maintain 100% RC schools in that area.

    Of course atheism and agnosticism were not listed as religions in the census, they are not religions.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #39
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    [robindch]That's true - so long as you believe that everybody has an "identity", and that for people who hold that their identity is wholly or in part, "catholic", that this implies that they demand that the church controls the schools their kids attend. I'm sure it's the case for some people, but the majority? I've no idea and I'm not even sure if that question has ever been asked generally or, at least, not in that direct way anyway

    That's very true, but note how divestment has failed miserably by being blocked by parent groups coupled with the fact that religious instruction after hours in many ET schools is in significant demand. In my opinion, it seems reasonable to conclude from this that while church control of schools may not be in demand by the majority, a major part of most communities still want their kids to go through the communion/confirmation gig without having to go through the rigmarole of ferrying them to a secondary location to get the religious instruction necessitated by this. Very many already find the ET approach a step too far in this regard but that number is decreasing as demonstrated by the growth of the ET movement. I think we're a long way off the position where a school that is more strictly irreligious would gather the necessary traction to get built in any community in this country.

    I also think taking a positively inclusive rather than polarizing stance when it comes to religious diversity (including irreligion) is the fastest path to a kinder and more secular society.

    One of the people involved in setting up ET in the 1970's said to me some years ago that it was well known that the RCC and CoI wished the ET movement to fail before it gained any momentum. What was less well known, he told me, was that the churches viewed it as equally important that ET was seen in public to fail.

    I was lucky enough to have gone to the primary school (DSP) that was the predecessor of Educate Together and still have vague memories of being dragged along to the original parent meetings as a sprog. I got chatting to Pat and Michael Johnston a couple of years back when they were guests of the first graduating year of my daughters ET secondary. Serous achievement but a fight, tooth and nail, all the way which is still ongoing from what I understand.

    The churches are well aware that removing access to children, and therefore, their ability to indoctrinate children, is likely to kill the churches stone dead within one generation.

    I wouldn't be so sure. If we go back to France for a moment, we see that the removal of religious instruction from the majority of schools hasn't wiped out Catholicism there. Interestingly, while there are just 3 state funded Muslim schools, practice of Islam is on the increase.

    Post edited by smacl on


  • #40
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123196650#Comment_123196650

    Why should a pensioner in Donegal ticking the RC box on the census influence the education of a child in Cork?

    That's precisely why ET operates at a community level to get schools for those communities. If you push at a central government level, people who don't actually need the school get undue influence. Politicians care first and foremost about the electorate, as opposed to the smaller groups within the electorate who are not having their needs met.



  • #41
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    [smacl] I was lucky enough to have gone to the primary school (DSP) that was the predecessor of Educate Together and still have vague memories of being dragged along to the original parent meetings as a sprog. I got chatting to Pat and Michael Johnston a couple of years back when they were guests of the first graduating year of my daughters ET secondary. Serous achievement but a fight, tooth and nail, all the way which is still ongoing from what I understand.

    Indeed it is still ongoing, but two generations of parents later still duking it out with successor generations of priests.

    BTW, my kid went to DSP too and by a strange coincidence, I had tea with Pat Johnston yesterday - she's keeping well!



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    BTW, my kid went to DSP too and by a strange coincidence, I had tea with Pat Johnston yesterday - she's keeping well!

    Small world, Pat's daughter was in my year in primary school (St Patrick's before it split off to DSP).



Advertisement