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

School patronage

Options
1…5758606263…194

Comments

  • Options
    #1772
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well done! Yes, the very ones that organise religious education for children, like you said.

    Why would you have thought that? Has the RCC said so, or are are you just looking to have a little dig about how you reckon they don't do things you think they should? Is it not up to the RCC to decide what their pastoral mission should include? After all, it is their pastoral mission, isn't it?
    Well, yes, it is a subject like maths or geography, and any subject can be taught by any person with the skills to teach and the knowledge to be imparted.
    That's not religious education you're talking about; it's religious instruction, or proselytisation, or indoctrination, depending on the fervour, forcefulness, and techniques employed.

    The point is some Protestant parents do expect the schools to provide religious education for them, just as some Catholic parents expect the schools to provide religious education for them, and there are parents in both faiths who are happier to take on the task themselves. You've not presented any evidence that the CoI does a better job either of educating people in religion or of proselytising to children than any other religion does.
    Nor, in fact, have you given us any reason for why you're trying to persuade us that they do?
    They "organise religious education" by paying lay people whose commitment to the church could be negligible or non-existent. People who, in many cases, have no interest in teaching religion, but are forced to in order to make a living. While clergy and religious sit on their hands and do nothing...

    No, Protestant parents don't expect schools to provide denominational education for their children. The religious education is provided by the church, outside the classroom.
    Because of the predominance of RC schools, Protestants are forced to counteract this by having schools to promote their ethos, and in doing so they give a basic Christian education which is applicable to any Christian denomination. In a secular system, there would be no need for any religious element in any school.

    And yes, I'm talking about religious indoctrination. Preparing children for the sacraments, teaching them the doctrines or prayers of a particular Christian denomination is not "religious education". Someone who could be an atheist could be expected to stand in front of a class and speak with authority and conviction on, say, transubstantiation. This is unfair on the teacher, and also unfair on the student, who deserves to be taught the practices and tenets of their faith by someone who believes them and wants to teach them.

    I hardly need to ask the RCC what their Christian mission is. It is, as I quoted in Jesus's words. It is the mission of any Christian community.
    I'm not trying to prove that the CofI does a "better" job, just pointing out that they take direct responsibility for the religious education of their children, unlike the RCC in this country.


  • Options
    #1773
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,141 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    I hardly need to ask the RCC what their Christian mission is. It is, as I quoted in Jesus's words. It is the mission of any Christian community. I'm not trying to prove that the CofI does a "better" job, just pointing out that they take direct responsibility for the religious education of their children, unlike the RCC in this country.
    I'm puzzled, katydid. If parents educate their children in the faith, that's the church taking responsibility. And if education happens in church halls through Sunday schools and the like, that's the church taking responsibility. But if it happens in schools, that can't be the church taking responsibility?

    It's a strange ecclesiology in which "church" embraces the nuclear family and the parish, but not other institutions. From a Catholic point of view, there is absolutely no reason why the mission of the church can't be expressed through a school. Once again, I think, you are criticising the Catholic church for acting in accordance with its own understanding of what a church is rather than in accordance with yours.


  • Options
    #1774
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    katydid wrote: »
    They "organise religious education" by paying lay people whose commitment to the church could be negligible or non-existent. People who, in many cases, have no interest in teaching religion, but are forced to in order to make a living. While clergy and religious sit on their hands and do nothing...
    So, they do "organise religious education", contrary to your statement "The church doesn't organise religious education".
    katydid wrote: »
    No, Protestant parents don't expect schools to provide denominational education for their children. The religious education is provided by the church, outside the classroom.
    No? They don't? All of them? Quite a large proportion of my family is CoI; very few of their children attend religious education (or indoctrination) outside the classroom, and some simply participate in religious education in the RCC schools they attend. I think you're ascribing the behaviour of your ideal of Protestants to all Protestants, and I'm afraid it's just not true. Protestants, just like Catholics, come in all shades of engagement with their faith.
    katydid wrote: »
    Because of the predominance of RC schools, Protestants are forced to counteract this by having schools to promote their ethos, and in doing so they give a basic Christian education which is applicable to any Christian denomination. In a secular system, there would be no need for any religious element in any school.
    So you're saying that if there were no Catholic ethos schools, Protestants would not be forced to counteract them with Protestant ethos schools? Do you imagine the CoI would close all schools if there were no RCC schools? I don't.
    katydid wrote: »
    And yes, I'm talking about religious indoctrination. Preparing children for the sacraments, teaching them the doctrines or prayers of a particular Christian denomination is not "religious education". Someone who could be an atheist could be expected to stand in front of a class and speak with authority and conviction on, say, transubstantiation. This is unfair on the teacher, and also unfair on the student, who deserves to be taught the practices and tenets of their faith by someone who believes them and wants to teach them.
    Ah, but most posters in A&A are not interested in promoting religious indoctrination. At best, some are interested in providing religious education. But I don't think you're going to find anyone on A&A willing to back your desire to have teachers who espouse religious beliefs indoctrinating children in public schools. Quite the opposite in fact.
    katydid wrote: »
    I hardly need to ask the RCC what their Christian mission is. It is, as I quoted in Jesus's words. It is the mission of any Christian community.
    So now you won't even ask them what their pastoral mission is, you're telling them what their pastoral mission is? Isn't hubris a sin?
    katydid wrote: »
    I'm not trying to prove that the CofI does a "better" job, just pointing out that they take direct responsibility for the religious education of their children, unlike the RCC in this country.
    Really? I'd suggest they take probably less direct responsibilty; they haven't founded any educational arms, they don't even approach the scale of construction of educational institutions. As far as i can see there's just a half hearted attempt at double jobbing from the clergy at Sunday schools, which often aren't even purpose built. But really, what does it matter whether they take more or less responsibility than the RCC, the LDS, the Muslims, the Jews, the Krishnas or the Moonies?


  • Options
    #1775
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    As far as i can see there's just a half hearted attempt at double jobbing from the clergy at Sunday schools, which often aren't even purpose built..
    Not sure why "purpose built" should come into it, but anyway, as the clergy have not yet mastered the art of being in two places at one time, and the kids are usually in sunday school while the parents are in church, it follows that the sunday schools would be staffed mostly by little old ladies, and held in any room or hall adjacent to the church.

    From a secularist point of view, that is fine. But its not fine to bring that same indoctrination into a publicly funded weekday school, especially when it is also being attended by kids whose parents don't subscribe to the beliefs.

    I agree with you that CoI schools are not merely a response to RCC indoctrination in schools though. If that were the case, they would cease to exist as soon as an ET school appeared in an area. From the very beginning, way back in 1831, RCC and CoI co-operated to subvert the national school system and divide up the turf between them. They both use the publicly funded schools system to promote their own agenda, indoctrinate vulnerable young minds, and increase their membership in the long term.


  • Options
    #1776
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Not sure why "purpose built" should come into it, but anyway, as the clergy have not yet mastered the art of being in two places at one time, and the kids are usually in sunday school while the parents are in church, it follows that the sunday schools would be staffed mostly by little old ladies, and held in any room or hall adjacent to the church.
    Well the "purpose built" comes into it from the point of view of Katydids competitition between the RCC and the CoI to provide education for their respective flocks; the RCC educational arms use purpose built schools to provide their religions education/indoctrination, whereas Katydad maintains that the CoI don't expect schools to do it for them; so they're obviously averse to using purpose built establishments to do so, which is a 'win' in Katydids competition for the RCC. And since in the case of religious instruction, the professionals are the clergy according to Katydid, if those sunday schools are indeed staffed by little old ladies, CoI children are receiving no more (and arguably less) professional religious indoctrination than RCC children, who are at least being taught by people with teaching qualifications. Another 'win' for the RCC.
    recedite wrote: »
    From a secularist point of view, that is fine. But its not fine to bring that same indoctrination into a publicly funded weekday school, especially when it is also being attended by kids whose parents don't subscribe to the beliefs.
    Ideally, no. But when you make a deal with the devil, you have to pay the piper, to mix a metaphor. Regardless, the State is obliged by the Constitution to provide for education, and that education is not limited to secular education. As long as sufficient parents wish for a religious & moral education in line with Christian/Muslim/Pastafarian ethos, the State will be obliged to provide for it.
    recedite wrote: »
    I agree with you that CoI schools are not merely a response to RCC indoctrination in schools though. If that were the case, they would cease to exist as soon as an ET school appeared in an area. From the very beginning, way back in 1831, RCC and CoI co-operated to subvert the national school system and divide up the turf between them.
    I don't think that's an entirely truthful statement; in the very beginning the National School system was designed to be controlled by a Board comprised of two Roman Catholics, two Church of Ireland, and two Presbyterians. The system was established as a religiously controlled one from the outset; separating into the various factions didn't subvert the system, it remained led by the religious. They may well have subverted the laudable intent to have multi denominational schools which were supposed to be scrupulous in distinguishing between religious and secular education, but they schools were always intended to be fundamentally Christian. All this preceded the Constitution, which then guaranteed the right of parents to provide the moral and religious education they desired for their children, and obliged the State to provide for it.
    recedite wrote: »
    They both use the publicly funded schools system to promote their own agenda, indoctrinate vulnerable young minds, and increase their membership in the long term.
    To some degree, probably, though I'd argue that indoctrination is far too strong a word for religious instruction largely ignored by the majority of those who receive it, and there's no evidence that either denomination has increased its membership long term as a result of running the schools. And to their credit, the fact is those schools wouldn't exist if it weren't for the religious congregations. The nascent Irish State didn't have the means to construct or maintain such a huge number of schools, and our educational system today would be far poorer if it weren't for the investment made by the various churches.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1777
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Absolam wrote: »
    ... And to their credit, the fact is those schools wouldn't exist if it weren't for the religious congregations. The nascent Irish State didn't have the means to construct or maintain such a huge number of schools, and our educational system today would be far poorer if it weren't for the investment made by the various churches.
    I keep hearing this argument. It's crap. Where did the church get the land and money to set up these schools? From the communities served by the schools. The exact same money could have been raised by taxation.


  • Options
    #1778
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    mikhail wrote: »
    I keep hearing this argument. It's crap. Where did the church get the land and money to set up these schools? From the communities served by the schools. The exact same money could have been raised by taxation.
    But it wasn't.


  • Options
    #1779
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭swampgas


    mikhail wrote: »
    I keep hearing this argument. It's crap. Where did the church get the land and money to set up these schools? From the communities served by the schools. The exact same money could have been raised by taxation.

    And perhaps if some of the money going into the church wasn't being sent back to Rome, perhaps there would have been more left to spend on education?

    Either way, it's hard to argue that the church didn't use the people's own money and land, and employ their own countrymen and women, to set up and run the schools.


  • Options
    #1780
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    swampgas wrote: »
    Either way, it's hard to argue that the church didn't use the people's own money and land, and employ their own countrymen and women, to set up and run the schools.
    That's quite true. Damn them for educating people!


  • Options
    #1781
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's quite true. Damn them for educating people!

    Nice twist :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1782
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    swampgas wrote: »
    Nice twist :)
    It goes round more than once, too :-)


  • Options
    #1783
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Absolam wrote: »
    It goes round more than once, too :-)
    Is that something to be proud of?


  • Options
    #1784
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    mikhail wrote: »
    I keep hearing this argument. It's crap. Where did the church get the land and money to set up these schools? From the communities served by the schools. The exact same money could have been raised by taxation.

    The thing is, the state pays for everything, from purchasing the land through building equipping and maintaining the schools to paying the staff. The churches have never had to pay a red cent towards the schools they "own". All it would take would be a minister with the balls to stand up to the evil cabals and the integrity to do their duty to the state and its citizens to take the schools back and re-purpose them into the secular system as originally envisaged in 1830.

    But all our governments have been bending over for these cabals all down the years and we get the same kind of school system which has muslims strapping on explosives and blowing up children, or jews joining the army and killing children with anti-material rifles!


  • Options
    #1785
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    This is Ireland: vested interests come first! You should know that by now.

    Church, banks, etc etc

    Plebs like yourself and democracy don't actually matter so long as the bishops and the bankers are kept in the style they're accustomed to.

    We never really became a republic in the true sense and basically just retained the British class system and didn't really carry out the post war reforms they did. We only really began to hit that stage in the 1990s.

    In many ways the Irish primary and secondary school systems are a bit like the UK system circa 1900 - run by "charities", divided by social class and gender.

    We never really did much other than catholicify it and make Irish compulsory. There was an opportunity to build a progressive new country - we didn't do that and drove several generations abroad.

    I don't mean to be a total downer but until the 1990s this place was nuts and really the education system is one of the hangovers from that era.

    I think it's time polirics "grew a pair" and started acting in the public interest and stopped pandering to vested interests.
    We need serious reform of a lot of things.

    The idea that an organisation can just insider lobby like this is very telling about how our country works and also neatly explains why regulation of the financial sector failed, why institutional abuses went unnoticed and unchallenged etc.

    The state is basically corrupt. No other way of putting it. It dresses up insider lobboying as "partnership" and all sorts of other fancy names. But that's all it is : bringing in private organisations directly into law making, policy formation or delivery of state services (like education) with basically no accountability to anyone other than the organisations themselves.

    A well intentioned badly designed system that's utterly undemocratic and contrary to the very notion of a republic is what we've created.

    It should be by the people, for the people of the people.

    Even our constitution seems to say that it derives power and sovereignty from the God rather than the people of Ireland. That's a very odd way to declare a Republic and sounds an awful lot more like a monarchy.

    There's nothing antireligious in looking for a fair, open, pluralistic, secular society. Ours has aspects of this but in areas like state provided education we might as well be living in a theocratic monarchy.


  • Options
    #1786
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    ^Print that out and read it from the steps of the GPO


  • Options
    #1787
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,770 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Religious discrimination in state schools is based on “historic traditions”, says Department of Education
    http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/01/religious-discrimination-historic-traditions/

    Atheist Ireland/Teach don't preach and Jane Donnelly have to trying to get an answer to why even some of the Model schools run by the department are religious

    original post http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2014/09/ireland-has-no-non-denominational-schools-even-the-nine-schools-directly-run-by-the-state-are-religious/

    the patron is the Minsiter of Education but they have a religious ethos and some give preference to religious pupils.
    In a letter dated 12th of December 2014 the Dept of Education & Skills has informed us that these schools operate as Catholic or Protestant schools in accordance with the historic traditions that go back to their foundation and the community to be served at the time they were established. However, according to the website of the Dept of Education & Skills these schools were actually established as non-denominational schools. They have evolved into religious schools and they discriminate on religious grounds. http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/01/religious-discrimination-historic-traditions/

    the dept of ed admit this is the case
    Model Schools – Minister for Education & Skills
    Model schools were established during the 1800s to facilitate teacher training
    and have operated under Ministerial patronage for many years. The Minister
    for Education and Skills fulfils the role of patron of the nine Model Schools.
    The model schools teach all aspects of the curriculum. Three of the nine
    model schools teach through the medium of Irish. All of the model schools are
    co-educational.
    Although originally established as non-denominational schools, in practice
    these schools have evolved to provide primary education within a Christian
    ethos.
    https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Diversity-of-Patronage/Model-Schools-Ethos-Description.pdf

    PQ https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-06.1469.0&s=%22model+schools%22+catholic#g1471.0.r
    The schools operate as Catholic or Protestant schools in accordance with the historic traditions that go back to their foundation and the community to be served at the time they were established
    .

    when did Athy Model School and Mhodhscoil in Limerick or the other schools go from ‘not originally denominational’ to denominational?

    was it when we got independence did we swop one kind of domination for another.


  • Options
    #1788
    Dr Turk Turkelton
    Registered Users Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Dr Turk Turkelton


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    But all our governments have been bending over for these cabals all down the years and we get the same kind of school system which has muslims strapping on explosives and blowing up children, or jews joining the army and killing children with anti-material rifles!

    So I guess the auld "I'll see ya down the pitch after school and we'll sort this out" went a bit further in your school!


  • Options
    #1789
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/02/11/editorial-cartoon-choices/

    338624.jpg


  • Options
    #1790
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,102 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It should read 'Non-Denominational School - Nowhere'

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1791
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    It should read 'Non-Denominational School - Nowhere'

    Maybe they are in a coastal location and the sign is for a school in the UK?
    :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1792
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,141 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    They're in the UK - the signs are in miles.

    Plus, since St Kevin's school, said to be half a mile a way, is plainly only about fifty yards away, the non-denominational school might also be a lot closer than the sign suggests.


  • Options
    #1793
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,102 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Is that guff really the best you can do? This is a real issue here.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1794
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,141 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Of course there's a real issue here. But, hey, it's a cartoon. And if you can criticise what you perceive to be misleading or inaccurate (as you do in post #1790), I don't see that it's so dreadful for me to do the same in post #1792.

    What your point really does is call attention to a dispute about what is meant by a "non-denominational school". To be non-denominational, does a school have to be explicitly secular both in patronage and in ethos? Or is it enough that it's not associated with any particular denomination, and is open to students of all denominations and none? There are examples of the latter in Ireland but, I think, not the former.

    You can argue this one either way. The argument, like all semantic arguments, is ultimately pointless. We can assume, I think, that the parents in the cartoon are in search of a non-denominational school, but we have no idea whether by that they mean an explicitly secular school, or a school not associated with a particular denomination. The cartoonist, clearly, intends the latter, since he suggests that such a school is available, albeit not nearby. If the point of your comment is "he shouldn't be calling that a non-denominational school! He's using the wrong term!", well, fine. It's not a very interesting point, though.

    There is a real issue here, but the real issue is not the correct use of the term "non-denominational".


  • Options
    #1795
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,102 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It's not, if there was an ET in my area I wouldn't be complaining that it's multi-denominational not non-denominational, although the latter would be preferable.

    But the idea of going to the UK to access a needed service not available here is a sore point right now. Listening to Kenny saying 'make it available, but not yet' St Augustine-like, is patronising in the extreme. So due to my annoyance and the late hour I read something into your post that wasn't there at all, and I apologise.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1796
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,141 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No worries. And I will concede that, yes, my earlier post does fail to acknowledge the issue that the cartoon raises. So if you read me as suggesting that there was no issue, I'm not entirely blameless.


  • Options
    #1797
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    What your point really does is call attention to a dispute about what is meant by a "non-denominational school". To be non-denominational, does a school have to be explicitly secular both in patronage and in ethos? Or is it enough that it's not associated with any particular denomination, and is open to students of all denominations and none? There are examples of the latter in Ireland but, I think, not the former.

    Would be precluded by the Rules for National Schools document as things stand, at least for that sector. I'm not sure what you mean by "explicitly secular ethos" -- do you mean on the US/France/Turkey model? I'd personally settle for "no religious woo in curriculum time", myself.

    But wide provisioning of schools on the ET "multi-denom lite" model would at least be an excellent intermediate step.


  • Options
    #1798
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The various terms can be somewhat vague, and overlapping, but to suck in public funding for a private "patronage" is everything to these people. If I may quote Humpty Dumpty on this;
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
    Accordingly;
    Denominational; means the school is used as a vehicle to promote a particular religion.

    Inter-Denominational; is used by the Gaelscoil movement to denote a Catholic school that is willing to make some accommodation to Protestants.

    Multi-Denominational; means the school promotes several different and possibly contradictory religions all at the same time. Most schools that claim to be multi-denominational are not really, because it is too difficult to manage.

    Non-Denominational; would mean that the school did not promote any particular religion.


  • Options
    #1799
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    The various terms can be somewhat vague, and overlapping,
    Denominational; means the school is used as a vehicle to promote a particular religion.
    Inter-Denominational; is used by the Gaelscoil movement to denote a Catholic school that is willing to make some accommodation to Protestants.
    Multi-Denominational; means the school promotes several different and possibly contradictory religions all at the same time. Most schools that claim to be multi-denominational are not really, because it is too difficult to manage.
    Non-Denominational; would mean that the school did not promote any particular religion.
    In fairness, such a pejorative rendition doesn't actually do any justice to the actual differences. how about:
    Denominational; a school that prefers pupils from and encourages the practice of a particular religion.
    Inter-Denominational; a school that prefers pupils from and encourages the practice of broadly aligned religions.
    Multi-Denominational; a school that does not prefer pupils from any religion and encourages spiritual development.
    Non-Denominational; a school that does not prefer pupils from any religion and does not encourage spiritual development.


  • Options
    #1800
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,102 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Spiritual development :rolleyes:

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1801
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,141 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Spiritual development :rolleyes:
    See, there's the thing. It's perfectly possible to be secular and an atheist and a humanist and at the same time to recognise and celebrate the human spirit, and to see spirituality as important and spiritual development as a significant and central dimension of education.

    What we're seeing here is a division within atheism, with atheist materialist seeking to make atheist materialism normative for atheism. Thus a school which fosters any kind of spirituality isn't going to be seen as atheist enough, or secular enough, for them.

    When does a demand for accommodation for atheists become a demand for privilege for materialists? Do materialists have a right to schools which embody and express their philosophy? And if they don't get it, is that oppression of atheists, or just a refusal to privilege materialists?


Advertisement