Islamic school to be founded in Dublin

Nodin

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Cultural-relativism just doesn't cut it. .

Hmmmm, I point out that other faiths have a nasty element, you cry "cultural relativism"........You know what that phrase means?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am talking about a state-sponsored school curriculum..

No, you were talking specifically about muslims and the Saudi government, actually.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Just because we are not perfect ..

I never mentioned the Irish state or its failings.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

does not mean we should allow incitement to hatred against the majority community to be thought in our schools.

...and I don't believe I suggested that they should be.

saol alainn

irishconvert wrote: »

Why the scare mongering? There are approx 30,000 Muslims in Ireland (last census figures). With a population of over 4 million do you really think Sharia Law is even a remote possibility? No me either.

Why is the messenger always accused of scaremongering? Odd, considering the subject matter. Are we not just heeding, and passing on, what is being lectured by Qadafi, among others? I understand (spoken) arabic enough to confirm the translation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNUqLztI4mQ

FutureTaoiseach

Nodin wrote: »

Hmmmm, I point out that other faiths have a nasty element, you cry "cultural relativism"........You know what that phrase means?



No, you were talking specifically about muslims and the Saudi government, actually.




I never mentioned the Irish state or its failings.



...and I don't believe I suggested that they should be.

So you are opposed to the kind of Saudi school textbooks I quoted being taught in Irish Muslim schools? You know - the books that said a non-Muslim's life was worth less than that of a Muslim? :rolleyes:

Rev Hellfire

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So you are opposed to the kind of Saudi school textbooks I quoted being taught in Irish Muslim schools? You know - the books that said a non-Muslim's life was worth less than that of a Muslim? :rolleyes:

Yes because clearly if it happened somewhere else it must happen here.
Perhaps people should actually wait and see what is taught in this school, I'm sure it'll follow the state curriculum like other schools.

As far as the religious instruction is concerned, better to have it taught under the direct surveillance of the state.

While many here argue for the separation of religion from schools, I personally believe that state should actively invest itself into the teaching of religion so that it can at least control what people taught/indoctrinated.

To do otherwise is to turn a blind eye to a potential viper in your nest.

dvpower

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

While many here argue for the separation of religion from schools, I personally believe that state should actively invest itself into the teaching of religion so that it can at least control what people taught/indoctrinated.

I don't think anyone would sensibly argue for the separation of religion from schools; children need to learn about religions.

One might argue that teaching that a particular religion is the right one should be removed from schools or that teaching that the claims that religions make are correct should be removed from school.

The idea that the state should get involved in the religious indoctrination of children is, imo, a bit mad. Unfortunately, its the system that we currently have.:(

Rev Hellfire

The idea that the state should get involved in the religious indoctrination of children is, imo, a bit mad. Unfortunately, its the system that we currently have.:(

Actually its the opposite that we have, the state completely left the teaching of religion to the main faiths.

If you assume you can't remove religion from society, which I personally believe you can't.
Then the logical thing to do is to seek to control and shape it as best you can. That means stepping in and making sure more inclusive forms of the various faiths are introduced to those who follow them.

With such a system faith schools would be less potentially damaging to society.

Nodin

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So you are opposed to the kind of Saudi school textbooks I quoted being taught in Irish Muslim schools? You know - the books that said a non-Muslim's life was worth less than that of a Muslim? :rolleyes:

I would have thought that blatantly obvious, but yes, I would be.

FutureTaoiseach

Nodin wrote: »

I would have thought that blatantly obvious, but yes, I would be.

Thank God for that.

dvpower

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Actually its the opposite that we have, the state completely left the teaching of religion to the main faiths.

I dunno. Last time I checked the state was paying for the schools that religious indoctrination was taking place in and paying the salaries of the teachers who were teaching religion.

I presume that the state also sets the curriculum (for religion), but I'm not sure if the churches have an input into devising it (or to what extent the local PP as patron has influence).

I'd much prefer if the teaching of religion (distinct from about religion) was left to the religious organisations. I'd like to see Sunday schools springing up where religions can indoctrinate to their hearts content. If religious parents want to send their kids to Sunday schools then they should be able to do this.

FutureTaoiseach

The reason religious education (as a whole) needs to be abolished is that it effectively segregates the population along religious lines. In the context of the correlation between Christianity and the Irish/Europeans, this risks turning into segregation according to nationality aswell. We need an integrated society in order to remain a cohesive one. In the past, the minority communities were too small for the current system to cause that kind of problem. That is no longer the case. In that context, we need to do away with denominational-education altogether - at least insofar as the taxpayer is funding it.

Rev Hellfire

dvpower wrote: »

I'd like to see Sunday schools springing up where religions can indoctrinate to their hearts content. If religious parents want to send their kids to Sunday schools then they should be able to do this.

The problem with that system is that there is no oversight on what is taught. It certainly doesn't hurt religion or make for a more inclusive society, look to the states for example it remains a highly religious society where religion plays a huge role in influencing policy etc.

There's nothing the fundamentalist religions would like more than to have a monopoly on the teaching of faith, which is exactly what the removal of religion from schools grants them.

recedite

The best way to give kids a balanced outlook is to allow them to mix and mingle with kids of other faiths, and none.
When the state pays the salaries of teachers who are giving religious instruction rather than religious education, that amounts to state support to the particular religion. It results in a religious monopoly in the school.
Up until very recently we had a cosy relationship between the main churches and state whereby any denominations that were large enough to organise a school building got state support. Anyone else with schoolgoing kids had to toe the line and ask for a spare place in one of those schools.
I'd agree that religious instruction should be kept out of school altogether.
If the parents are confident that their own religion is a good one and they "live it" at home, and they worship once a week, why should they be worried about the kids mixing?

Nodin

Whatever about no religous education in schools, they should be educated together for all other subjects. I don't see why each can't go off for an hour a week (or whatever its supposed to be) to a seperate classroom for whatever their particular faith is.....

Dades

I don't see why their parents can't teach them about it if it's so important. Or bring them to Sunday school or even mass more than once a year.

grumble grumble

recedite

We still haven't found out what they are doing in that other educational establishment at Clonskeagh;The European Council For Fatwa and Research.
I suspect they don't research anything. It's just that the alternative name of Foundation For The Spread Of Islam In Europe And Enforcement Of Sharia Laws might raise a few eyebrows.
Either that, or they are looking into novel ways of assasinating Salmon Rushdie. Apparently lacing his underpants with arsenic didn't work; he washes them too frequently :pac:
Or maybe they conduct research into

must go now, will finish this post later....

2 strange black helicopters are landing on my lawn.. :eek:

irishconvert

recedite wrote: »

Two questions for Irishconvert;
1 Would you prefer to swop our existing laws for Sharia Law?
2 Can you tell us what they are researching at the European Council for Fatwa and Research?

I don't expect the full implementation of Sharia law in any European country, but I have already outlined the serious dangers to society that result when people come to believe they are above the law. As a logical extension to this, they may feel they are morally obliged to break the law.

1. No, I quite like things as they are. Although I would like the judges to dish out more severe punishments for crimes like murder, rape and drug dealing as I suspect most other Irish people agree with.
2. I have no idea, why don't you get out the phone book and give them a call?

Sam Vimes

irishconvert wrote: »

1. No, I quite like things as they are.

Why not? If I thought that a particular type of law was given to us by a perfect and infallible being I know I'd want it implemented over one written by men.

irishconvert

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why not? If I thought that a particular type of law was given to us by a perfect and infallible being I know I'd want it implemented over one written by men.

A lot of so-called Sharia law practised in other societies is man's interpretation of God's laws infulenced by many other factors including the culture of the society. The poster who asked the question needs to be a little more specific about what he means by Sharia Law.

crown of storms

irishconvert wrote: »

The school in Clonskeagh is a Quranic school which takes place on Friday evenings and weekends. It is not a school for teaching the standard curriculum.

last time i was teaching there i was teaching the national curriculum.
-it is a national school required by law to teach the state curriculum.

Sam Vimes

irishconvert wrote: »

A lot of so-called Sharia law practised in other societies is man's interpretation of God's laws infulenced by many other factors including the culture of the society. The poster who asked the question needs to be a little more specific about what he means by Sharia Law.

Who's to say that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right? Is your interpretation not just as influenced by the culture of your society?

And when you apply that more generally, wouldn't it be better for all concerned if we did everything in our lives based on reason instead of taking any flawed human being's interpretation of what he thinks god wants us to do? As in if we can't find a logical reason to do something other than "god says so", should we do it?

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Who's to say that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right?

One of the earlier times I was in Saudi, I had dinner with a senior banking figure and we fell to talking about the differences between retail banking as practiced in Saudi and Iran and how these influenced all aspects of the industry. At the end of the meal, I asked him how come there were so many differences at so many levels, given that both countries comply with Sharia law, and should, therefore, have had fairly similar banking systems.

Without batting an eyelid, he explained that the Iranian interpretations of Sharia were "completely wrong".

A year or two later, and this time on the opposite side of the Persian/Arabian Gulf, a chap from a major bank in Tehran explained his take on the differences. And, of course, his view that the Saudi interpretation was "wrong".

irishconvert

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Who's to say that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right? Is your interpretation not just as influenced by the culture of your society?

And when you apply that more generally, wouldn't it be better for all concerned if we did everything in our lives based on reason instead of taking any flawed human being's interpretation of what he thinks god wants us to do? As in if we can't find a logical reason to do something other than "god says so", should we do it?[/QUOTE]

Do you not think that people's sense of logical reason is also infulenced by their society and as a result is vunerable to the same problem?

irishconvert

crown of storms wrote: »

last time i was teaching there i was teaching the national curriculum.
-it is a national school required by law to teach the state curriculum.

Ok, well if you teach there then I accept what you say.

Why do the kids go there on weekends then? Why does it not normal school hours?

MrPudding

irishconvert wrote: »

And when you apply that more generally, wouldn't it be better for all concerned if we did everything in our lives based on reason instead of taking any flawed human being's interpretation of what he thinks god wants us to do? As in if we can't find a logical reason to do something other than "god says so", should we do it?

So, not going to answer the question then.

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you not think that people's sense of logical reason is also infulenced by their society and as a result is vunerable to the same problem?

So how do you “fix” this problem. You have a document which is supposedly written / inspired by an all powerful all knowing being which, whilst being all powerful and all know, is apparently totally incapable of writing what is arguably the most important document in history in a manner that can be instantly understood by all who read it. So, given that it is so badly written how are you, or indeed anyone, to know you are correct?

MrP

irishconvert

MrPudding wrote: »

So, not going to answer the question then.

So how do you “fix” this problem. You have a document which is supposedly written / inspired by an all powerful all knowing being which, whilst being all powerful and all know, is apparently totally incapable of writing what is arguably the most important document in history in a manner that can be instantly understood by all who read it. So, given that it is so badly written how are you, or indeed anyone, to know you are correct?

MrP

Ok the document you are referring to, I presume, is the Qur'an. Muslims are in not doubt that this is the word of God so there is no disagreement on what is contained in it, it is our primary rule book if you like. As a secondary source we follow the documented accounts of Prophet Muhammed's (PBUH) life and what he said and done (called hadiths). Some of these hadiths are considered reliable, while others are not so reliable and considered weak. The problem arises where a particular society base some of their intrepretations of Sharia law on weak hadiths. This accounts for the differences in Sharia Law from one country to another.

Sam Vimes

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you not think that people's sense of logical reason is also infulenced by their society and as a result is vunerable to the same problem?

Indeed it is but I am under no illusions that my flawed opinion of what the law should be is endorsed by the omnipotent creator of the universe and therefore 100% right no matter what anyone else says. At best religiously derived laws are only as good as human derived laws because they are subject to flawed human interpretation and at worst they are extremely dangerous because certain people treat their flawed interpretation of laws that can't necessarily be independent justified beyond saying "it's god's will" as if they are perfect truth

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok the document you are referring to, I presume, is the Qur'an. Muslims are in not doubt that this is the word of God so there is no disagreement on what is contained in it, it is our primary rule book if you like. As a secondary source we follow the documented accounts of Prophet Muhammed's (PBUH) life and what he said and done (called hadiths). Some of these hadiths are considered reliable, while others are not so reliable and considered weak. The problem arises where a particular society base some of their intrepretations of Sharia law on weak hadiths. This accounts for the differences in Sharia Law from one country to another.

But why follow any hadiths at all then? If its generally recognised that some are weak (it would have to be, seeing as there is such variations in the interpretations) then why are they even considered. Is the Qur'an by itself not good enough? Did god leave out some important issues that only anecdotes about Muhammed could answer? Would god not have been able to foresee the problems that arise from leaving the interpretations of punishments to anecdotal stories about Muhammed, as opposed to onl his infallible work?

MrPudding

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why follow any hadiths at all then? If its generally recognised that some are weak (it would have to be, seeing as there is such variations in the interpretations) then why are they even considered. Is the Qur'an by itself not good enough? Did god leave out some important issues that only anecdotes about Muhammed could answer? Would god not have been able to foresee the problems that arise from leaving the interpretations of punishments to anecdotal stories about Muhammed, as opposed to onl his infallible work?

It would appear that, like the Christian god, the muslim god’s all powerfulness, all knowingness, perfectness and infallibility does not seem top stretch to documentation or manuals. Nor indeed to the amount of death this flaw would cause.

MrP

irishconvert

Well I believe that God is perfect, but man is far from perfect and that is where the problem lies.

MrPudding

irishconvert wrote: »

Well I believe that God is perfect, but man is far from perfect and that is where the problem lies.

I presume to can see how ridiculous this looks from the outside? You believe in this perfect merciful god that created an imperfect creature and as a result of the imperfection in his creation your god have to punish the creature he created? PLease tell me, just how does that make any sense?

MrP