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
As an Irish Christian are you against secularism
Options
-
03-06-2015 3:40pm#1Following on from a discussion here I'd be interested to know as a Christian whether you're for or against secularism. Specifically whether the church should have a say in how state funded organisations such as schools and hospitals are run, how the church can influence enrolment policy and curricula in state schools, etc... I'd appreciate if any non-Christians didn't vote in this one, as I'm predominantly interested in getting an idea whether Irish Christians are primarily anti-secular as has been mooted elsewhere.
As an Irish Christian are you anti-secular 24 votes
No, I don't think the church should influence the running of the state at all0%Not really, but I'd like to consider it on an issue by issue basis91%
22 votes
I don't like the term, but I'm happy with the status quo0%Yes, in fact I think the church should play a greater roll in running things.8%
2 votes
0
Comments
-
I don't agree with any of your poll options, but I am a committed Christian and a committed secularist.
By that, I mean that the Church should have the same standing in society as any other association or voluntary organisation. No special privileges, but no special discriminations either.
As such, it would be wrong to say that the Church should have no influence. Any organisation has the right to express its views and make its voice heard, particularly an organisation to which hundreds of thousands of voters belong.0 -
My bad, special privilege is better wording for sure. No idea how to change the text of a poll though, so I'll let it lie.0
-
By Church I hope you mean the Church of Christ and not just referring to a specific organisation.0
-
It does depend on what you mean by "secularism", which is an enormously flexible term.
You say that you mean "whether the church should have a say in how state funded organisations such as schools and hospitals are run". But you could easily turn that question around the other way - should the state provide funding to church-run organisations such as schools and hospitals? I would argue that the actions and decisions of a secular state should have no regard to questions of religion, belief, the supernatural, the afterlife, etc; these are simply not the business of a secular state. "Secular" basically means acting without regard to any considerations of that kind. Thus in funding decisions a secular state should simply ignore the question of whether any person or organisation is, or is not, religious; it should treat religious and non-religious people/organisations under the same set of rules, which should make no mention of religion. Thus in general the question of whether, say, a school is or is not religious should be wholly disregarded when making funding decisions; it's simply not a relevant consideration for a secular state.
But that's clearly not what you mean by "secular".
To answer the question, then, in the terms that you put it I'd say that religious people and organisations be in the same position, as regards the running of state-funded bodies, as non-religious people and organisations. But that's not one of the options you offer in the poll.
Also - no offence - I think there's a degree of confusion in the way your frame your question. As noted, you explain your concept of secularism in terms of whether churches should have a say in how state-funded organisations are run, but your poll questions talk about the church influencing the running of the state. There's a huge difference between the state, on the one hand, and state-funded organisations, on the other.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It does depend on what you mean by "secularism", which is an enormously flexible term.
Agreed, though a quick look at standard references suggest that common understanding of the term is on same lines as I put forward, i.e. a simple definition from Merriam-WebsterMerriam-Webster wrote:: not spiritual : of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world
: not religious
: of, relating to, or controlled by the government rather than by the church
And from the opening paragraph in Wikipedia on SecularusmWikipedia wrote:Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.Peregrinus wrote:You say that you mean "whether the church should have a say in how state funded organisations such as schools and hospitals are run". But you could easily turn that question around the other way - should the state provide funding to church-run organisations such as schools and hospitals? I would argue that the actions and decisions of a secular state should have no regard to questions of religion, belief, the supernatural, the afterlife, etc; these are simply not the business of a secular state.
I would suggest that any school or hospital that receives that vast majority of its funding from the state, where the vast majority of the staff and management are state paid employees and not members of the clergy, is actually state run, even if there are a members of the clergy on the board of management. This is the case for most schools and hospitals in Ireland with church patronage. The fact that there are a small and dwindling number of clergy involved in executive decision making does not to my mind imply they run the school or hospital. In the recent past, A Christian brothers school would have been largely manned by the Christian brothers, and there were many nuns teaching and working in hospitals. This is no longer the case."Secular" basically means acting without regard to any considerations of that kind. Thus in funding decisions a secular state should simply ignore the question of whether any person or organisation is, or is not, religious; it should treat religious and non-religious people/organisations under the same set of rules, which should make no mention of religion. Thus in general the question of whether, say, a school is or is not religious should be wholly disregarded when making funding decisions; it's simply not a relevant consideration for a secular state.
But that's clearly not what you mean by "secular".
Correct, my definition of secular would include not imposing religious instruction on school children. Fine to have it available as an extra-curricular activity where there is demand, but not as a core subject or basic ethos.Also - no offence - I think there's a degree of confusion in the way your frame your question. As noted, you explain your concept of secularism in terms of whether churches should have a say in how state-funded organisations are run, but your poll questions talk about the church influencing the running of the state. There's a huge difference between the state, on the one hand, and state-funded organisations, on the other.
No doubt I could have framed the questions differently, but the core secular principle of separation of church and state remains, where in areas such as education they remain notably entangled.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I’d suggest - no offence - that you’re wrong. A “school or hospital that receives the vast majority of its funding from the state” is state-funded, but it doesn’t follow that it’s state-run. It’s only state-run if, in fact, the state runs it. If the institution has a board of management, it’s presumably run by the board of management. (In fact your concern may be that it isn’t state-run, and maybe your position is that the state shouldn’t be funding institutions that it doesn’t run?)I would suggest that any school or hospital that receives that vast majority of its funding from the state, where the vast majority of the staff and management are state paid employees and not members of the clergy, is actually state run, even if there are a members of the clergy on the board of management.
Sure. Instead there are mostly lay people doing those jobs. But lay people are not “the State” any more than clerics are. And they can be just as much members of a church as brothers and nuns can. I don’t think the withdrawal of brothers and nuns from working in an institution automatically translates into that institution being run by the State. It can continue to be church-run, or it can be an institution which is run neither by the state nor by any church.The fact that there are a small and dwindling number of clergy involved in executive decision making does not to my mind imply they run the school or hospital. In the recent past, A Christian brothers school would have been largely manned by the Christian brothers, and there were many nuns teaching and working in hospitals. This is no longer the case.
I think that definition of ”secular” is more relevant to the school that the state. Is your question really whether a secular state should fund only secular schools (and other institutions)?Correct, my definition of secular would include not imposing religious instruction on school children. Fine to have it available as an extra-curricular activity where there is demand, but not as a core subject or basic ethos.
That does depend on what you mean by “separation of church and state” which, like secularism, is a flexible concept, which plays out very differently in different countries.No doubt I could have framed the questions differently, but the core secular principle of separation of church and state remains, where in areas such as education they remain notably entangled.
If we take the view - as you suggest - that any institution receiving state funding is automatically an extension of the state, the state funding of church schools violates the principle of church/state separation. However that does seem a fairly extreme view, and it’s not one which the liberal democratic tradition generally takes. SFAIK, there is no liberal democracy which systematically denies state funding to religious educational establishments, which suggests that your understanding is not one that is widely shared.
That’s not to say that state funding of church institutions raises no issues at all; it does. Those issues are addressed in different ways in different countries, having regard to their different situations and their differing conceptions of what the secularity of the state requires. In Ireland, as you know, there is a constitutional guarantee (in Article 44.4) that nobody attending a publicly funded school can be required to attend religious instruction, so it seems that the definition of “secular” you give above (“not imposing religious instruction on school children”) is in fact embodied in Irish law. At the same time Article 44.3 provides that “the State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status”, which would preclude any rule banning religious schools from public funding on the terms offered to non-religious schools, which happily reflects my definition of “secular”.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I’d suggest - no offence - that you’re wrong. A “school or hospital that receives the vast majority of its funding from the state” is state-funded, but it doesn’t follow that it’s state-run. It’s only state-run if, in fact, the state runs it. If the institution has a board of management, it’s presumably run by the board of management. (In fact your concern may be that it isn’t state-run, and maybe your position is that the state shouldn’t be funding institutions that it doesn’t run?)
I disagree. An institution such as a school or hospital is run first and foremost by its staff, managed by the management team. The board of directors directs management and sets policy. So for such a state funded and run institution, my assertion is simply that a secular state should demand more secular policy. This is particularly the case where discrimination exists on religious grounds, for example in giving precedence in enrolment to those with a baptismal certificate. In my view, a secular state would seek to eradicate religious discrimination of all kinds.Sure. Instead there are mostly lay people doing those jobs. But lay people are not “the State” any more than clerics are. And they can be just as much members of a church as brothers and nuns can. I don’t think the withdrawal of brothers and nuns from working in an institution automatically translates into that institution being run by the State. It can continue to be church-run, or it can be an institution which is run neither by the state nor by any church.
Lay people in full time employment by the state, paid to act on behalf of the state, are part of the state, just as priests, brothers and nuns and other members of the clergy are part of the church. Lay teachers are part of the state, they are not part of the church.SFAIK, there is no liberal democracy which systematically denies state funding to religious educational establishments, which suggests that your understanding is not one that is widely shared.
Most liberal secular democracies ensure that there is first and foremost adequate provision for a secular education. France would be a prime example of this, though I personally find their brand of secularism rather harsh. (i.e. restriction on personal expressions of faith / religious symbolism)That’s not to say that state funding of church institutions raises no issues at all; it does. Those issues are addressed in different ways in different countries, having regard to their different situations and their differing conceptions of what the secularity of the state requires. In Ireland, as you know, there is a constitutional guarantee (in Article 44.4) that nobody attending a publicly funded school can be required to attend religious instruction, so it seems that the definition of “secular” you give above (“not imposing religious instruction on school children”) is in fact embodied in Irish law. At the same time Article 44.3 provides that “the State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status”, which would preclude any rule banning religious schools from public funding on the terms offered to non-religious schools, which happily reflects my definition of “secular”.
Embodied in the law, but very weakly provided for on the ground, and in some cases, such as discriminatory enrolment policy, seemingly ignored.0 -
If it’s run by the staff, it’s not run by the state.I disagree. An institution such as a school or hospital is run first and foremost by its staff, managed by the management team.
Don’t you mean “state-funded and staff-run institution”?The board of directors directs management and sets policy. So for such a state funded and run institution . . .
Hold on. There’s a big gap between the idea that “the state should be secular” and the idea that “the state should adopt a policy of making schools, hospitals and other institutions in the public square secular”. The first aims for a secular state; the second for a secular public square or a secular society. Big, big difference.. . . .my assertion is simply that a secular state should demand more secular policy.
Problem, though. We have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of association, meaning that people of a religious (or, for that matter, non-religious) philosophy are free to seek out other like-minded people, get together with them and endeavour to live out their philosophies collectively as well as individually. And this doesn’t drop out of the heavens into the Irish Constitution; it’s an important part of the Western liberal tradition. Obviously, a corollary of this right is that you can set up an organisation (like a school) for people who espouse a particular religious (or non-religious) philosophy. And, as already pointed out, we have a constitutional guarantee that the State shall not impose religious tests, and this again is an important part of the Western liberal tradition. And “must not be religious” is clearly a religious test. So I think we have important principles in tension here. Your approach doesn’t seem to me to acknowledge this, much less to address it.This is particularly the case where discrimination exists on religious grounds, for example in giving precedence in enrolment to those with a baptismal certificate. In my view, a secular state would seek to eradicate religious discrimination of all kinds.
Oh, b*lls on a stick. First of all, I deny that everyone paid by the state is paid to act “on behalf of the state”. A lecturer employed by TCD, for example, acts (in his or her employment) on behalf of TCD, not on behalf of the Republic of Ireland. Same goes for a secondary or primary school teacher; they act on behalf of the school concerned. But, leaving that aside, the notion that anyone whose salary is funded by the State automatically becomes “part of the State” unless they are a cleric is just incoherent. If there were such a rule, it would have to apply to clerics and lay people alike.Lay people in full time employment by the state, paid to act on behalf of the state, are part of the state, just as priests, brothers and nuns and other members of the clergy are part of the church. Lay teachers are part of the state, they are not part of the church.
Oh, that’s different. If you want to suggest that there is not adequate provision of secular education in Ireland, that people wanting religious education are much better catered for than people wanting secular education, you’ll get no argument from me. That’s completely true. Piece of cake. But it’s a radically different claim from the one you have been advancing up to now.Most liberal secular democracies ensure that there is first and foremost adequate provision for a secular education.
And yet you seem to me to be proposing a brand of secularism for Ireland which is in some respects even harsher. France does provide public funding for church schools; you wouldn’t.France would be a prime example of this, though I personally find their brand of secularism rather harsh. (i.e. restriction on personal expressions of faith / religious symbolism)
Weakly provided for on the ground, I’d grant you. But there again, that would a different claim from the one you have been advancing up to now.Embodied in the law, but very weakly provided for on the ground, and in some cases, such as discriminatory enrolment policy, seemingly ignored.
As for discriminatory enrolment policy, that’s not quite the same. The constitutional guarantee is that, if you’re in a publicly-funded religious school, you can’t be compelled to attend religious instruction. There’s no guarantee that you have a right to be admitted to the religious school in the first place. And, again, if there were proper provision of places in non-religious schools to meet the demand for them, the need for parents raising their children in a secular way to have them admitted to religious schools would diminish.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »If it’s run by the staff, it’s not run by the state.
Don’t you mean “state-funded and staff-run institution”?
Oh, b*lls on a stick. First of all, I deny that anyone paid by the state is paid to act “on behalf of the state”. A lecturer employed by TCD, for example, acts (in his or her employment) on behalf of TCD, not on behalf of the Republic of Ireland. Same goes for a secondary or primary school teacher; they act on behalf of the school concerned. But, leaving that aside, the notion that anyone whose salary is funded by the State automatically becomes “part of the State” unless they are a cleric is just incoherent. If there were such a rule, it would have to apply to clerics and lay people alike.
Something simple you're missing here. Any employee is employed to act on behalf of their employer. Teachers and other public servants are clearly employed by the state, to provide services on behalf of the government for the people. For publicly funded schools, they are not privately employed which you seem to be implying.Hold on. There’s a big gap between the idea that “the state should be secular” and the idea that “the state should adopt a policy of making schools, hospitals and other institutions in the public square secular”. The first aims for a secular state; the second for a secular public square or a secular society. Big, big difference.
Let me be clearer then. My secular ideal is limited to the spending of the public purse and the institutions it funds and runs. I don't believe that any state funded body should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds either negatively or positively.Problem, though. We have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of association, meaning that people of a religious (or, for that matter, non-religious) philosophy are free to seek out other like-minded people, get together with them and endeavour to live out their philosophies collectively as well as individually. And this doesn’t drop out of the heavens into the Irish Constitution; it’s an important part of the Western liberal tradition. Obviously, a corollary of this right is that you can set up an organisation (like a school) for people who espouse a particular religious (or non-religious) philosophy. And, as already pointed out, we have a constitutional guarantee that the State shall not impose religious tests, and this again is an important part of the Western liberal tradition. And “must not be religious” is clearly a religious test. So I think we have important principles in tension here. Your approach doesn’t seem to me to acknowledge this, much less to address it.
I think the core secular principal in setting up a school is that it should be neither exclusive nor discriminatory. Saying that you need to be a member of a given religion to get in is exclusive. Teaching religion as part of the core curriculum is discriminatory as it favours members of that religion, and reduces the number of teacher taught hours for others. (IMHO, providing extra curricular religious instruction is not an issue).As for discriminatory enrolment policy, that’s not quite the same. The constitutional guarantee is that, if you’re in a publicly-funded religious school, you can’t be compelled to attend religious instruction. There’s no guarantee that you have a right to be admitted to the religious school in the first place. And, again, if there were proper provision of places in non-religious schools to meet the demand for them, the need for parents raising their children in a secular way to have them admitted to religious schools would diminish.
Which is clearly religious discrimination, which is why I wrote this post in the first instance. My feeling is that the time where the majority of Irish people will tolerate this type of discrimination has passed, and this is true of people regardless of their religion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Following on from a discussion here I'd be interested to know as a Christian whether you're for or against secularism. Specifically whether the church should have a say in how state funded organisations such as schools and hospitals are run, how the church can influence enrolment policy and curricula in state schools, etc... I'd appreciate if any non-Christians didn't vote in this one, as I'm predominantly interested in getting an idea whether Irish Christians are primarily anti-secular as has been mooted elsewhere.
Why would Christians not have a voice in how the country is run. If the 38% voted tomorrow we would be the single largest party in the country.0 -
They’re employed by the school, smacl. The school runs the appointment process; selects the successful candidate; manages, directs and supervises them; sets the policy and mission of the institution which they are expected to carry out; etc. The state pays for this.Something simple you're missing here. Any employee is employed to act on behalf of their employer. Teachers and other public servants are clearly employed by the state, to provide services on behalf of the government for the people. For publicly funded schools, they are not privately employed which you seem to be implying.
And yet you believe that the state itself should be allowed to discriminate - should be required to, in fact. Is this entirely coherent?Let me be clearer then. My secular ideal is limited to the spending of the public purse and the institutions it funds and runs. I don't believe that any state funded body should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds either negatively or positively.
My view, for what it’s worth, is that “core secular principles” would go a bit further than that - a secular school probably shouldn’t accomodate religious instruction at all, whether as part of the core curriculum or otherwise.I think the core secular principal in setting up a school is that it should be neither exclusive nor discriminatory. Saying that you need to be a member of a given religion to get in is exclusive. Teaching religion as part of the core curriculum is discriminatory as it favours members of that religion, and reduces the number of teacher taught hours for others. (IMHO, providing extra curricular religious instruction is not an issue).
But I don’t think there’s any huge difference between us on the understanding of what a secular school is. The real point of disagreement is that you think, if I understand you correctly, that a secular state should only fund secular institutions, whereas I think that a secular state should not discriminate between secular and religious institutions.
I think your feeling is wrong, and it’s certainly not what Richard Dawkins would consider an evidence-based belief. Surveys which actually ask people about their preference for the type of school they want indicate that, while demand for Catholic school places is well below 95% (the proportion of primary school places actually under Catholic patronage), it’s well above 50%. Unless you think that most of these respondents don’t understand that Catholic schools can and often do prioritise Catholic applicants, it’s simply not true that “the majority of Irish people” will not tolerate this particular form of religious discrimination. Not only will they tolerate it; they appear to want it. And they are certainly more accepting of it than they are of the form of religious discrimination that you are advocating.Which is clearly religious discrimination, which is why I wrote this post in the first instance. My feeling is that the time where the majority of Irish people will tolerate this type of discrimination has passed, and this is true of people regardless of their religion.0 -
-
-
By "the 38%" I take it you mean the people who voted "Yes, in fact I think the church should play a greater roll in running things."?Why would Christians not have a voice in how the country is run. If the 38% voted tomorrow we would be the single largest party in the country.
You do realise that's just (so far) 4 people, right?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »And yet you believe that the state itself should be allowed to discriminate - should be required to, in fact. Is this entirely coherent?
I thinks so. What you're saying is that discriminating against discriminatory practice by refusing to fund them is in and of itself a form of discrimination. It is a bit like saying by allowing gay marriage, the state is discriminating against homophobes.My view, for what it’s worth, is that “core secular principles” would go a bit further than that - a secular school probably shouldn’t accomodate religious instruction at all, whether as part of the core curriculum or otherwise.
The we have very different notions about the meaning of secular. In terms of religious instruction for example, I don't think that it should be imposed on all students regardless of their religion. At the same time, I think that it should still be offered as an option where there is demand, as it is important to recognise, respect and nourish the diversity of religious and cultural backgrounds within the student body. I'm not a big fan for example of modern French laicité and how it deals with religion in education, e.g. to attempt to suppress it entirely and try to paint a multicultural group as essentially a non-religious homogeneous group. To my mind, it is clearly a mistake to force people to pretend to be something they're not.
At the same time, in an increasingly multicultural environment with limited resources, I think it is ridiculous to have separate schools for different religious groupings, particularly in areas of small population. I also think it is unfair to a child to say you can't go to the local state funded school because your not a member of a given religion. This discrimination leads to social stratification and disharmony in a country where we pride ourselves on welcoming everyone.I think your feeling is wrong, and it’s certainly not what Richard Dawkins would consider an evidence-based belief.
It may surprise you, but just because I'm an atheist doesn't make me a fan of Dawkins. I think there is a clear danger that you're falling foul of in stereotyping people's attitudes by their nominal religion or lack thereof. I started this thread with a straw poll as a response to a similar stereotyping of Irish Catholics in the thread linked in the opening post, where my assertion was that the moral compass of today's Irish Christians of any denomination is influenced by far more than religious dogma. While only a tiny sample taken from a small and rather eclectic community, the results of the poll suggest I may not be that far off the mark.0 -
Why would Christians not have a voice in how the country is run. If the 38% voted tomorrow we would be the single largest party in the country.
Christians not only have a voice in how the country is run, regardless of how you slice or dice the census figures, they have the majority voice with margin to spare. I put this thread up to hear that voice in as much as it appears on boards, and listen to what it had to say regarding the church and state. I also voiced my own opinion when questioned, but then that's what a forum like this is all about.0 -
I don’t accept that parallel at all.I thinks so. What you're saying is that discriminating against discriminatory practice by refusing to fund them is in and of itself a form of discrimination. It is a bit like saying by allowing gay marriage, the state is discriminating against homophobes.
But, yes, I am saying that funding A while refusing to fund B is a form of discrimination. I’m surprised that anyone would query this. You are plainly discriminating between A and B; how is that not a form of discrimination?
The starting point here is that, unless you grant every funding application that comes in, without limit, all funding decisions involve discrimination. And, at the school level, unless you accept every application you receive, without limit, all admission decisions involve discrimination.
The question is, what forms of discrimination do we consider unacceptable?
In this thread we are discussing state secularism. I suggest - and, again, I wouldn’t expect to get too much disagreement on this point - that, if we approve of state secularity, at least one corollary is that actions and decisions of the state should be made without regard to religious considerations, and should therefore generally not involve discriminatioin on the basis of religion. I wouldn’t assert that as an absolute principle, but as a fairly strong one - if we want to argue that in a particular instance the state should discriminate on the basis of religion, we need to make a pretty strong case for that.
Right. You are arguing for religious discrimination in relation to the state funding of schools (and, in fact, all other institutions, but let’s stick to schools for the time being). I’m waiting for you to make a pretty strong case for that.
You have suggested, and I have agreed, that those wanting secular school places are unfairly prejudiced under the current system - there are far too few such places, relative to demand. And, furthermore, they are discriminated against a second time because, when left with no choice but to attend religious schools, their right to absent their children from religious instruction is not always vindicated. Again, no argument from me.
But that’s not the case you need to support the claim you’re making. That case tends to support a fairer allocation of school patronage, relative to demand, and a stronger vindication of the rights of those who, even with a fairer allocation, find themselves in a school not of their favoured patronage. It doesn’t support a ban on the funding of religious schools. What that would do is to disadvantage a much larger group of people (those whose preference is for religious patronage) in a more profound way (not too few publicly-funded places of the type they want, but none at all). It seems to me, in short, that you are arguing for a much more profound religious discrimination than the state currently practices, and the points you make about the unfairness of the current system, while valid in themselves, don’t support your argument. If anything, they highlight the fact that what you are arguing for looks even worse.
So that’s not the “pretty strong case” that you need.
Your alternative line of reasoning is not, I think, any more convincing. You state that “I don't believe that any state funded body should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds either negatively or positively” but you don’t say why you believe that, you don’t offer any reasons as to why anybody should agree with you, you don’t point to any real-world democracies in which this principle is accepted or implemented, and you don’t offer any reason why public policy should be based on smacl’s belief rather than, say, Breda O’Brien’s.
I accept, of course, that every child must have access to good education, but it doesn’t follow that every child must have access to every (publicly-funded) school. If that were a valid principle, we would be banning single-sex schools, we would not permit schools to have catchment areas, etc, etc. But we allow all these things. And I don’t see you making the case why religion, alone of all possible selection criteria, should be the one that is comprehensively banned.
Plus, your proposal has obvious implications for the health and welfare of minority communities in Ireland, and for the promotion of diversity. Will Ireland really be a happier country if its Jewish schools close because their funding is withdrawn? Not to Godwin the thread, or anything, but in adopting such a policy we’d be in some unsavoury company. Why should, e.g., a Humanist school be entitled to funding if a Jewish school is not? This looks like a fairly clear form of religious discrimination, and I’m not seeing the “pretty good argument” that I think you need to persuade many people to join you in what is, you must admit, a fairly extreme position.
I’m not suggesting that an atheist must be a fan of Dawkins; I’m just pointing out that your “feeling” is contradicted by the evidence, and people don’t have to be religious believers to see that as a pretty fundamental weakness in your position.It may surprise you, but just because I'm an atheist doesn't make me a fan of Dawkins. I think there is a clear danger that you're falling foul of in stereotyping people's attitudes by their nominal religion or lack thereof. I started this thread with a straw poll as a response to a similar stereotyping of Irish Catholics in the thread linked in the opening post, where my assertion was that the moral compass of today's Irish Christians of any denomination is influenced by far more than religious dogma. While only a tiny sample taken from a small and rather eclectic community, the results of the poll suggest I may not be that far off the mark.
As for the results of the poll suggesting that your feeling is not far off the mark, even if we leave aside the fact that so far you have only 18 self-selected respondents, the position you are arguing for (“I don't believe that any state funded body should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds either negatively or positively”) is not actually one of the options offered in the poll. (Even though you framed the poll!) Reading the poll outcome as indicative of support for your position is, I fear, wishful thinking. Plus, it requires you to ignore rather larger and more systematically-conducted research which shows contradictory results.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »By "the 38%" I take it you mean the people who voted "Yes, in fact I think the church should play a greater roll in running things."?
You do realise that's just (so far) 4 people, right?
The poll doesn't reflect the views of Irish Christians anyway as non-Christians are quite free to vote in it too.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »The question is, what forms of discrimination do we consider unacceptable?
In this thread we are discussing state secularism. I suggest - and, again, I wouldn’t expect to get too much disagreement on this point - that, if we approve of state secularity, at least one corollary is that actions and decisions of the state should be made without regard to religious considerations, and should therefore generally not involve discriminate on the basis of religion. I wouldn’t assert that as an absolute principle, but as a fairly strong one - if we want to argue that in a particular instance the state should discriminate on the basis of religion, we need to make a pretty strong case for that.
On aspect of secularism is 'to be free of imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people'. At the same time, the state is responsible for provision for education of its citizens on an equitable basis. Funding the church to provide education does not relinquish the responsibility of the state to provide education on an equitable basis, yet allowing church run schools to discriminate on a religious basis is clear inequitable.
The situation in this country currently is that the state is not providing for education on an equitable basis, it funds religious discrimination, and would not meet the common criteria (as linked previous) for being secular. Your criteria would seem to differ.I accept, of course, that every child must have access to good education, but it doesn’t follow that every child must have access to every (publicly-funded) school. If that were a valid principle, we would be banning single-sex schools, we would not permit schools to have catchment areas, etc, etc. But we allow all these things. And I don’t see you making the case why religion, alone of all possible selection criteria, should be the one that is comprehensively banned.
That still does not excuse discrimination against children on religious grounds, and I'm not sure you realise how hurtful that can be. By excluding a child from a local school in a small community, apart from adding the burden of travel to and from a more distant school, you're also reducing the probability of child integrating with the community, and having friends in walking distance. The clear message is 'We don't like your type around here'. You ask about unacceptable discrimination; that's clearly it.Plus, your proposal has obvious implications for the health and welfare of minority communities in Ireland, and for the promotion of diversity. Will Ireland really be a happier country if its Jewish schools close because their funding is withdrawn? Not to Godwin the thread, or anything, but in adopting such a policy we’d be in some unsavoury company. Why should, e.g., a Humanist school be entitled to funding if a Jewish school is not? This looks like a fairly clear form of religious discrimination, and I’m not seeing the “pretty good argument” that I think you need to persuade many people to join you in what is, you must admit, a fairly extreme position.
Sorry but those straw men border on pythonesque. 'Look, look, now he's having a go at the Jews...' My point is that all state funded schools should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Why exactly do religious minorities need schools exclusive to their religion, where all schools share the same core curriculum. Perhaps it is because they don't want someone else's religion rammed down their throats during the course of their school day. Once you make all religious instruction extra curricular, this ceases to be a problem, and any school should be suitable for any child. I'm not convinced that there is any benefit to segregating children on religious lines, but I can see plenty of detriment and huge additional cost required to replicate services by doing so.As for the results of the poll suggesting that your feeling is not far off the mark, even if we leave aside the fact that so far you have only 18 self-selected respondents, the position you are arguing for (“I don't believe that any state funded body should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds either negatively or positively”) is not actually one of the options offered in the poll.
Perhaps not, but I made it quite clear what I meant by secularism in my opening post, and would imagine people responded on that basis. It is what it is, just a straw poll on boards, but as an ad-hoc gauge for this small community at this point in time, I think it serves its purpose. FWIW, not the result I'd expected, I thought the bulk of votes would have been in the middle rather than the edges.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »The poll's public IIRC (I can't check as I'm on my phone), so the OP can ignore any non-Christians' votes.
That's why I made it public, and also asked non-Christians not to vote. I'll freely admit that the boards community in no way represents the Irish community, and that the result could become easily skewed, but you can only work with what you've got.0 -
Why would anyone think the church should have a greater role in running things
How would you want that to work, what kind of role would you want the church to have? 0 -
The church should be more like the GAA or the IRFU and look after their own and not bother anyone else. (and have marketing drives to recruit new members, which is fine...)0
-
I would like to see the Church having a greater role in how the country is run. Any country which sees itself as largely a Catholic state could use the Church as a watchdog, protecting the people from the excesses of uncontrolled government and, in the wake of the recent referendum, the people's own stupidity.
This used to be very much the case. In the 20th century the Argentinian dictator Peron introduced the scourge of divorce upon the Argentinian society, who were largely Christian Catholic. Pope Pius XII intervened, threatening Peron with excommunication. The latter had to yield. During the Middle Ages, kings were routinely chastised by the religious for their excesses - an example being St Thomas Beckett.
People rarely stop to think where does the idea of the separation of Church and State come from. Believe it or not it is relatively recent, cooked up in the "enlightened" masonic lodges of the 18th century. If the philosophers who pushed the proposition were to be examined, you would literally find a who's who of the 18th century Grand Orient. I'll let you figure out their motives.0 -
Johanna Immense Telegram wrote: »I would like to see the Church having a greater role in how the country is run. Any country which sees itself as largely a Catholic state could use the Church as a watchdog, protecting the people from the excesses of uncontrolled government and, in the wake of the recent referendum, the people's own stupidity.
This used to be very much the case. In the 20th century the Argentinian dictator Peron introduced the scourge of divorce upon the Argentinian society, who were largely Christian Catholic. Pope Pius XII intervened, threatening Peron with excommunication. The latter had to yield. During the Middle Ages, kings were routinely chastised by the religious for their excesses - an example being St Thomas Beckett.
People rarely stop to think where does the idea of the separation of Church and State come from. Believe it or not it is relatively recent, cooked up in the "enlightened" masonic lodges of the 18th century. If the philosophers who pushed the proposition were to be examined, you would literally find a who's who of the 18th century Grand Orient. I'll let you figure out their motives.
Are you talking about Ireland being ruled by the Vatican with a puppet government? Or is it more nuanced than that?
Why bother having the people voting if the RCC is to step in to 'correct' the errors of the peoples 'stupidity'?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
-
Johanna Immense Telegram wrote: »I would like to see the Church having a greater role in how the country is run. Any country which sees itself as largely a Catholic state could use the Church as a watchdog, protecting the people from the excesses of uncontrolled government and, in the wake of the recent referendum, the people's own stupidity.
I'd take issue with the notion that people making a decision that you happen to disagree with is a sign of stupidity, but that's beside the point.
Some type of clerical oversight of government similar to Iran's Guardian Council is a simply terrible idea. The best counterweight to government overreach is a vibrant civil society - churches, trade unions, clubs, charities and activist groups,among others. Not to mention well-educated citizens.
Religious bodies should have no special privilege, nor should they be restricted from expressing an opinion. A secular state allows the church (in it's broadest sense) to do what it does best - inspire people with the message of the Gospel, not to dominate them through fear.0 -
Why would anyone think the church should have a greater role in running things How would you want that to work, what kind of role would you want the church to have?
Who provides homeless services to the country? Who to people go running to when the doll office is closed or has not processed their claim.
Of course the church should be able to voice their concerns and the government should listen. Why would we not have a say?
I case you don't know all the Church means is a group of people. assembly, congregation, council. Just because we happen to believe in God makes us no different to any other organisation in ireland.
Do you think the GAA puts pressure on the Government?0 -
Advertisement
-
Who provides homeless services to the country? Who to people go running to when the doll office is closed or has not processed their claim.
Of course the church should be able to voice their concerns and the government should listen. Why would we not have a say?
I case you don't know all the Church means is a group of people. assembly, congregation, council. Just because we happen to believe in God makes us no different to any other organisation in ireland.
Do you think the GAA puts pressure on the Government?
what has that to do with the question posed by eviltwin?Why would anyone think the church should have a greater role in running things
How would you want that to work, what kind of role would you want the church to have?
Do you think the church should have a greater role? If yes, then how do you respond to eviltwins post?If you can read this, you're too close!
0
Advertisement