Is atheism inherently more militant in Ireland?

Count Duckula

Genuine question. I would consider myself an atheist in that I don't believe in God, or heaven, or anything of a religious nature. I am entirely irreligious. Most of my friends follow the same train of thought, but only one of us is what I would describe as "militant". Now, this is based on my life experiences here in the UK.

But the impression I get from this forum - and from the few Irish atheists I know in person - is that you're a lot more militant. Even going beyond atheism to anti-theism. It strikes me that in Ireland atheists are less able to "live and let live"; you seem to actively need to argue against religion, rather than tolerate it as something silly that other people believe.

I can only hypothesise that is because you have mostly grown up in a society that from birth accosts you with Catholic rhetoric, to the point you have had to grow up defending your atheism far more vehemently than I, in secular Britain, have had to.

Is this a reasonable assumption? Or am I way off the mark?

old hippy

Dunno CD, remember those athiest ads they had on the London buses here, last year? That was kinda militant

http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign

Count Duckula

"There's probably no God"?

I dunno, I'm not sure that could get any more British and wishy-washy if it tried!

Galvasean

Count Duckula wrote: »

I can only hypothesise that is because you have mostly grown up in a society that from birth accosts you with Catholic rhetoric, to the point you have had to grow up defending your atheism far more vehemently than I, in secular Britain, have had to.

That is most likely the case alright. To put it mildly, we're fed up with it and we've had enough.

mikhail

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

Was just about to go pull that one up myself.

To CD: I argue with religion to see if my position can survive criticism by personal choice, not because I have to defend it. What's the point in being an atheist, or holding any position if you can't defend it competently?
Also I tolerate religion at the same time. But I don't think it's "just something silly people believe in". Where as I do believe many many claims made by religious people are silly, for most believers the reason they do believe something are deep, complex, personal and very far from silly.

Count Duckula

mikhail wrote: »

Misleading. The Arizona shooter who just killed a load of people was an atheist; as were the Columbine murderers.

It's also not the point of the thread.

drkpower

Count Duckula wrote: »

Misleading. The Arizona shooter who just killed a load of people was an atheist; as were the Columbine murderers.

....and with that, the OP instantly loses all credibility.......

Dades

Count Duckula wrote: »

It strikes me that in Ireland atheists are less able to "live and let live"; you seem to actively need to argue against religion, rather than tolerate it as something silly that other people believe.

Live and let live would imply that religion does the same.

I'd be only too happy to live and let live if I didn't have to baptise my kids into someone else's religion to get them into the school around the corner.

Yes there is stuff like the Angelus or Good Friday that people get overly bothered about (on the internet, I might add), but there are genuine cases like the above that warrant getting vocal about. You must see this, no?

Count Duckula

I'm not saying you're wrong for being more vocal, I'm just curious as to why the differences are there is all.

Count Duckula

Count Duckula wrote: »

Misleading. The Arizona shooter who just killed a load of people was an atheist; as were the Columbine murderers.

It's also not the point of the thread.

That's because the term militant atheist is misleading.

The militant atheists you are talking about are the ones who sit about in pubs and have arguments.

If you want to accuse those shooters of being militant atheists, then you can't really compare them to the atheists you are referring to in your post.

Ghost Buster

Have you noticed this militant tendency anywhere other than boards?
Boards represents nothing.
Quality work in the "Good Friday/alcohol thread BTW:)

Count Duckula

Fair enough; it's a handy phrase used to describe particularly vehement atheists. I'll not use it again, don't worry.

Ickle Magoo

Count Duckula wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong for being more vocal, I'm just curious as to why the differences are there is all.

Well, I'm also from the UK and until moving here I can't remember atheism or religion being discussed or having any impact on my life whatsoever - cue a few years here and several knocks on the door from various church groups trying to recruit us, a priest haranguing me to bless our child in the state hospital and being told not to bother applying to the local state school because my kids haven't been baptised and lo-and-behold live and let live was a distant memory....

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

I'd be only too happy to live and let live if I didn't have to baptise my kids into someone else's religion to get them into the school around the corner.

I see this said all the time, but its simply not the case. Myself, and a whole ream of people I know have not been baptised into the RCC and never had an issue going to a RC school. Its a total red herring. In fact, that would be the best thing the RC schools could do for atheists, as it would mean that there would be an outcry where there was something of substance in it.

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

being told not to bother applying to the local state school because my kids haven't been baptised and lo-and-behold live and let live was a distant memory....

By who?

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

By who?

The school - who else?

Edited to add: Gotta love the, it didn't affect me there for it doesn't happen that keeps being trotted out. Have a look on any parenting board or speak to some of the people involved or going to ET - or read the papers regarding the hurriedly constructed port-a-cabin classrooms in dublin the other year that were slung together for all the non-national pupils that come enrollment day, magically no local school had a place for.

smellslikeshoes

The decades of rampant child abuse and constant cover ups by the RCC in Ireland has probably had some effect on our attitudes. Not saying it didn't happen elsewhere of course but it was definitely very bad here.

Morgase

Count Duckula wrote: »

I can only hypothesise that is because you have mostly grown up in a society that from birth accosts you with Catholic rhetoric, to the point you have had to grow up defending your atheism far more vehemently than I, in secular Britain, have had to.

You've answered your own question really. Ireland is secular in name only.

I'm sure I'd be far less of an Angry Atheist if I'd grown up and lived in a properly secular place like the UK. But having catholicism forced down my neck in school and at home means I have very little time for religion of any sort.

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The school - who else?

Could you elaborate?
You went to enroll your child,
they asked for baptism cert,
you said you didn't have one,
they said, no entry so?

If this happened, did you go to the Dept of education? If so, what was their stance?

Edited to add: Gotta love the, it didn't affect me there for it doesn't happen that keeps being trotted out.

Me or the countless number of people I know in the same boat.

Have a look on any parenting board or speak to some of the people involved or going to ET - or read the papers regarding the hurriedly constructed port-a-cabin classrooms in dublin the other year that were slung together for all the non-national pupils that come enrollment day, magically no local school had a place for.

So is the issue above with the RC schools refusing people, or the fact that they haven't enough space to cater for all the children in the area? If thats the case, then this is a dept of education issue for not providing more school places. yt the belly aching always concentrates on it being an RC issue. The fact is, if there are space shortages, some children are going to be excluded a place. Concentrating on the fact that RC schools use baptism in such circumstance to sort out who it is that will be excluded is somewhat secondary to the problem of a shortage of school places.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you elaborate?
You went to enroll your child,
they asked for baptism cert,
you said you didn't have one,
they said, no entry so?

No, you don't get put on the "preferred" children list, a list of children that get first dibs at places because they were baptized in the local parish. If there are any places left after all the children with baptism certs. for the religion of the school have been accepted then your child might get in.

Nearly all Catholic and CoI schools require a baptism cert. with school applications. They aren't just asking out of curiosity. Nor is this illegal.

It is common for a school to tell non-Catholic parents that they shouldn't even bother applying to the school because the school can estimate the numbers applying and know that there will be too many Catholic children for the non-Catholics to get a place.

Your "countless" friends were lucky.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you elaborate?
You went to enroll your child,
they asked for baptism cert,
you said you didn't have one,
they said, no entry so?

I called their office to ask about enrolment and was told - between me and them - not to bother; they were always over-prescribed and priority would always be given to those who fulfilled their ethos.

JimiTime wrote: »

If this happened, did you go to the Dept of education? If so, what was their stance?

I didn't go to the department of education no - I asked around and looked up the irish education system and found many other people in the same boat and many articles regarding the irish education system being legally allowed to discriminate based on religion and it being well known to contravene the convention on human rights in doing so...quite aside from the point that we were reluctant to fight to have our child admitted to a school that had no issue discriminating against them before so much as setting foot on the property.

JimiTime wrote: »

Me or the countless number of people I know in the same boat.

Ditto - have you read many articles about the lack of trouble people who are non-national or non/differing religion have in getting places in schools with a religious ethos?

Google "irish schools are fair and inclusive" then google "irish schools discriminate" & have a gander at the discrepancy of hits.

Despite your astonishing protestations, the irish education system and the issues regarding discrimination are well documented and if not acknowledged by you, certainly acknowledged by the UN, IHRC and CERD.

JimiTime wrote: »

So is the issue above with the RC schools refusing people, or the fact that they haven't enough space to cater for all the children in the area? If thats the case, then this is a dept of education issue for not providing more school places. yt the belly aching always concentrates on it being an RC issue. The fact is, if there are space shortages, some children are going to be excluded a place. Concentrating on the fact that RC schools use baptism in such circumstance to sort out who it is that will be excluded is somewhat secondary to the problem of a shortage of school places.

No, the issue is state funded schools picking and choosing pupils based on race or religion...that in a diverse community where school places are applied for well in advance of enrolment that those children without school places nearly all share a different skin colour or religion to those granted a place in the school - that is simply unacceptable in this day and age.

Improbable

JimiTime wrote: »

So is the issue above with the RC schools refusing people, or the fact that they haven't enough space to cater for all the children in the area? If thats the case, then this is a dept of education issue for not providing more school places. yt the belly aching always concentrates on it being an RC issue. The fact is, if there are space shortages, some children are going to be excluded a place. Concentrating on the fact that RC schools use baptism in such circumstance to sort out who it is that will be excluded is somewhat secondary to the problem of a shortage of school places.

So your point is that we shouldn't be outraged about the fact that children are discriminated against on the basis of what religious views their parents hold?

Yeah, your argument makes a lot of sense. "There aren't enough places for everyone, the department of education isn't doing it's job. So you know what we as a school will do? We'll just take the good RCC kids and screw the rest over, it's the best thing to do in this situation."

I don't see how anyone can find that to be a reasonable or even acceptable situation to be dismissed as being a secondary issue.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

No, you don't get put on the "preferred" children list, a list of children that get first dibs at places because they were baptized in the local parish. If there are any places left after all the children with baptism certs. for the religion of the school have been accepted then your child might get in.

Nearly all Catholic and CoI schools require a baptism cert. with school applications. They aren't just asking out of curiosity. Nor is this illegal.

Your "countless" friends were lucky.

Do you understand that this issue is more about the dept of education and its not providing enough school places? Whatever criteria a school uses, the big issue is that some kids wont get a school place. Also, your emphasis on 'countless' indicates you are dubious about such a claim. I can tell you its in the hundreds, and not one issue. Its why I find that these issues are somewhat exaggerated. I'll be putting my little fella in school in 4 years time, so I might yet encounter these issues. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this definitely doesn't happen etc, its just that it seems that its not the simple scenario people describe about 'no baptism cert, no entry' etc.

JimiTime

Improbable wrote: »

So your point is that we shouldn't be outraged about the fact that children are discriminated against on the basis of what religious views their parents hold?

Yeah, your argument makes a lot of sense. "There aren't enough places for everyone, the department of education isn't doing it's job. So you know what we as a school will do? We'll just take the good RCC kids and screw the rest over, it's the best thing to do in this situation."

I don't see how anyone can find that to be a reasonable or even acceptable situation to be dismissed as being a secondary issue.

Of course its a secondary issue! Listen to yourself. The state not providing enough school places or RC schools who can't fit all the kids deciding to use their ethos as a means of deciding which kids they HAVE to leave out.

I know what issue I'd be putting my energy into. Remember, I haven't a vested interest here. I am not a baptised RC nor is my son, who will be going to school in 4 years.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you understand that this issue is more about the dept of education and its not providing enough school places?

Really? I see the issue more you some what rudely telling Dades "Its a total red herring" that he and others have to get their children baptized as Catholics to greatly increase their chances of getting into a school.

Who exactly is to blame is a different issue to whether it happens or not.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, your emphasis on 'countless' indicates you are dubious about such a claim. I can tell you its in the hundreds, and not one issue.

You will excuse me if I'm skeptical that you know the ins and outs of hundreds of your friends private business. :rolleyes:

jimmycrackcorm

I definitely think that Atheists are probably more outspoken and intolerant than actually miltant. What I observe for example is how Atheists object to children being taught religion in school but not to compulsory Irish?

Many non-practising catholics are not bothered about their kids being taught religion. Looking at church attendances, it's obvious that being taught religion has as much effect as the teaching of Irish has as an everyday language. so why the need to make such a fuss about it?

Improbable

No one is denying the fact that if there aren't enough spaces for children that it isn't an issue that should be dealt with. But that's something which is going to take a lot more time to solve by the government. The fact that the schools are discriminating on the basis of religion is the point that Ickle Magoo brought up. Let's just stipulate to the fact, for the sake of this discussion, that yes, the department of education is to blame for there not being enough spaces. That has nothing to do with the RCC. The issue we were discussing has to do with religion given that we are in the A&A forum and the fact that the schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. So do you think that it is acceptable for these schools to have an admissions policy which says "If requests for enrolment exceed capacity, we are going to discriminate on the basis of religion."?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You will excuse me if I'm skeptical that you know the ins and outs of hundreds of your friends private business. :rolleyes:

Ha ha, rolleyes is it becasue you can't believe that someone has alot of people they are acquainted with in the real world?:)

As someone who used to regularly attend Jehovahs Witness gatherings, including conferences with over 5000 people about 4 times a year, and who regularly talked about the topic we are talking about, hundreds is a conservative figure. You can rolleyes away, but thats how it is.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you understand that this issue is more about the dept of education and its not providing enough school places? Whatever criteria a school uses, the big issue is that some kids wont get a school place.

That there is a general issue in the education system about providing places in schools does not mean that schools should have free reign to use whatever criteria they like to pick who gets in. If someone came on and said that their son wasn't allowed into a school because he was black, would you say "well someone has to be turned away, might as well be blacks"?

JimiTime wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this definitely doesn't happen etc,

Then why exactly did you say "Its a total red herring. In fact, that would be the best thing the RC schools could do for atheists, as it would mean that there would be an outcry where there was something of substance in it."? That was a quick change of tack, from "total red herring" to "not saying this definitely doesn't happen" in less than an hour.

JimiTime wrote: »

its just that it seems that its not the simple scenario people describe about 'no baptism cert, no entry' etc.

Who said it was? You may still get in if your kid has no cert, but he will be at the end of the list, with those with certs put in ahead regardless of when they applied or where they live, and therefore be in trouble if the school if the school is over prescribed, like Ickle said hers was:

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I called their office to ask about enrolment and was told - between me and them - not to bother; they were always over-prescribed and priority would always be given to those who fulfilled their ethos.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course its a secondary issue! Listen to yourself. The state not providing enough school places or RC schools who can't fit all the kids deciding to use their ethos as a means of deciding which kids they HAVE to leave out.

I know what issue I'd be putting my energy into. Remember, I haven't a vested interest here. I am not a baptised RC nor is my son, who will be going to school in 4 years.

I dont care how many seats are actually in the school system, it should be allowed discriminate based on religion, even if the discrimination is never used. Fixing the place problem, but leaving in the legislation for discrimination would make this another blasphemy law debacle, just remove the legislation that allows religious discrimination as well.

Mark Hamill

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I definitely think that Atheists are probably more outspoken and intolerant than actually miltant. What I observe for example is how Atheists object to children being taught religion in school but not to compulsory Irish?

Who says we dont object to compulsory Irish? I certainly do. Besides compulsory Irish is not a religious issue, so why should atheists, who are only inherently alike because of a lack of believe (or non believe) in god have the same opinion on it?

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many non-practising catholics are not bothered about their kids being taught religion. Looking at church attendances, it's obvious that being taught religion has as much effect as the teaching of Irish has as an everyday language. so why the need to make such a fuss about it?

If nothing else, because it could be replaced by something better.

dvpower

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What I observe for example is how Atheists object to children being taught religion in school but not to compulsory Irish?

What defines atheists is their lack of belief in God(s); this is presumably whats behind their objection to their kids being indoctrinated in a religion.
The Irish language has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many non-practising catholics are not bothered about their kids being taught religion.

Correction. Many non-practising catholics are not bothered about their kids being taught the catholic religion.
If we were to let a few Imams loose into the primary school system for a while, they'd object alright.
Then we'd see real millitancy.

JimiTime

Improbable wrote: »

No one is denying the fact that if there aren't enough spaces for children that it isn't an issue that should be dealt with. But that's something which is going to take a lot more time to solve by the government. The fact that the schools are discriminating on the basis of religion is the point that Ickle Magoo brought up. Let's just stipulate to the fact, for the sake of this discussion, that yes, the department of education is to blame for there not being enough spaces. That has nothing to do with the RCC. The issue we were discussing has to do with religion given that we are in the A&A forum and the fact that the schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. So do you think that it is acceptable for these schools to have an admissions policy which says "If requests for enrolment exceed capacity, we are going to discriminate on the basis of religion."?

Well what form of discrimination would you suggest? First come first served? It will still be the same amount of kids not being schooled in the circumstances where there aren't enough places. As i said, this issue is most definitely secondary. I'm all for reforming the education system, but I know what would be the top issue for me. Its still an issue, but certainly just a secondary one.

Improbable

JimiTime wrote: »

Well what form of discrimination would you suggest? First come first served? It will still be the same amount of kids not being schooled in the circumstances where there aren't enough places. As i said, this issue is most definitely secondary. I'm all for reforming the education system, but I know what would be the top issue for me. Its still an issue, but certainly just a secondary one.

You're still not getting it, it's a discussion about discrimination the basis of religion, NOT about the failings of the department of education except in the capacity that discrimination on the basis of religion is still allowed. And yes, first come first served (which I wouldn't really consider discrimination unless you want to say that every selection form is discrimination of one kind or another, which would just be a pedantic thing to say) or a lottery system would be more fair than active discrimination.

jimmycrackcorm

dvpower wrote: »

What defines atheists is their lack of belief in God(s); this is presumably whats behind their objection to their kids being indoctrinated in a religion.
The Irish language has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

Why is there not anti-languagism - for want of a better word?
You may not believe in Fairies either. The point being that Atheism is an objection to religion and hence Atheists are naturally outspoken.

Correction. Many non-practising catholics are not bothered about their kids being taught the catholic religion.
If we were to let a few Imams loose into the primary school system for a while, they'd object alright.
Then we'd see real millitancy.

I disagree - Imams only have an effect because typically Muslim parents will follow their religion more strictly than say Catholics.

JimiTime

Improbable wrote: »

You're still not getting it, it's a discussion about discrimination the basis of religion, NOT about the failings of the department of education except in the capacity that discrimination on the basis of religion is still allowed. And yes, first come first served (which I wouldn't really consider discrimination unless you want to say that every selection form is discrimination of one kind or another, which would just be a pedantic thing to say) or a lottery system would be more fair than active discrimination.

I certainly DO get it. I just wouldn't concentrate on the discrimination element. the real issue is the state failing to provide adequate places for children in schools. If all the schools were to go secular tomorrow, there would still be kids denied places. THAT is the big issue. Who cares if its a catholic child or an atheist child being denied a place, the issue everyone should be hot and bothered about is the fact that in this day an age, there are areas not resourced enough to give children a place.

Ickle Magoo

If the system is rotten, the system needs to change - throwing up more schools to house those the schools already in place are going to discriminate against based on race and religion is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a very serious issue and a truly abhorrent practice.

While a secondary issue to you; attempting to disguise discrimination by supplying the odd non-irish/non-white/non-catholic overflow school that tax payers can ferry their children to when the local state school refuses them entry appears to me, at least, to be spectacularly missing the point.

dvpower

JimiTime wrote: »

Well what form of discrimination would you suggest? First come first served? It will still be the same amount of kids not being schooled in the circumstances where there aren't enough places. As i said, this issue is most definitely secondary. I'm all for reforming the education system, but I know what would be the top issue for me. Its still an issue, but certainly just a secondary one.

All schools currently discrimate on various other grounds (resident in the catchment area, age of the child, sibling in the school, first come first served).

There has to be some entrance criteria where demand exceeds supply. As a rule of thumb, I'd say we should veer away from discrimination in the education system that we wouldn't find acceptable for other government services (dial 911 for the catholic emergency services, dial 912 for the CoI emergency services..., dial 91♫ for the athiest emergency service.)

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If the system is rotten, the system needs to change - throwing up more schools to house those the schools already in place are going to discriminate against based on race and religion is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a very serious issue and a truly abhorrent practice.

First of all, where does race come into it? You are saying schools are allowed say, 'you're black, so you're not getting in'?

I would be thinking along the lines of providing more resources for the already established schools to provide for all the children.

While a secondary issue to you; attempting to disguise discrimination by supplying the odd non-irish/non-white/non-catholic overflow school that tax payers can ferry their children to when the local state school refuses them entry appears to me, at least, to be spectacularly missing the point.

Again, I said nothing of the sort.

Ickle Magoo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The point being that Atheism is an objection to religion and hence Atheists are naturally outspoken.

Good grief, man! Have I EVER gone onto a religious board and been so arrogant as to assume to tell those people what they are?

Atheism isn't an objection to religion, it's a lack of belief in god/s - it's the same way you feel about thor or ganesh only about ALL deities.

I don't object to religion - I'm even in favour of a general spirituality/religion/theology class being part of the curriculum.

dvpower

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why is there not anti-languagism - for want of a better word?

I don't know. I think theres an Irish Language forum; they might be able to help

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You may not believe in Fairies either. The point being that Atheism is an objection to religion and hence Atheists are naturally outspoken.

... on the question of religions.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I disagree - Imams only have an effect because typically Muslim parents will follow their religion more strictly than say Catholics.

What? If it was proposed that from now on the local PP was being replaced on school boards by an Iman, that the ethos of catholic schools would henceforth be Islamic and all catholic religious indoctrination was to be replaced with Islamic indoctrination, casual catholic parents would be just fine with it?

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

All schools currently discrimate on various other grounds (resident in the catchment area, age of the child, sibling in the school, first come first served).

There has to be some entrance criteria where demand exceeds supply. As a rule of thumb, I'd say we should veer away from discrimination in the education system that we wouldn't find acceptable for other government services (dial 911 for the catholic emergency services, dial 912 for the CoI emergency services..., dial 91♫ for the athiest emergency service.)

I'm all for reforming the school system to take it out of RC control, but I worry that there are too many people so eager to 'get the RCC out of our schools', that it will be fudged. First things first IMO, make sure that there are enough school places. Not by setting up overflow schools, but by resourcing existing schools.

Ghost Buster

If it is more militant perhaps it is because it still has reason to be

senordingdong

Ghost Buster wrote: »

If it is more militant perhaps it is because it still has reason to be

Fair point.
Even with the decline of interest in religion here, it still has huge grip on our society.

Ghost Buster

senordingdong wrote: »

Fair point.
Even with the decline of interest in religion here, it still has huge grip on our society.

You know how this now goes. A Churchy type will dispute this grip you refer to. You point out where the grip is gripping you and they then tell you to get over it as its not important:)

Count Duckula

Wow, this thread has taken off! My question was answered in the first few posts; now it's just posters slagging each other off!

Ghost Buster

:eek:

Count Duckula wrote: »

Wow, this thread has taken off! My question was answered in the first few posts; now it's just posters slagging each other off!

Oh... here we go....

dvpower

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm all for reforming the school system to take it out of RC control, but I worry that there are too many people so eager to 'get the RCC out of our schools', that it will be fudged. First things first IMO, make sure that there are enough school places. Not by setting up overflow schools, but by resourcing existing schools.

There's a general acceptance (shared by all stakeholders, including the RCC) that the system needs reform, but yet we see no reform.

Personally, I am eager to 'get the RCC out of our schools' in the same way that we don't have the RCC in our other services (well, OK, not our health service).
By 'out of our schools', I mean that they wouldn't have the kind of direct control that they currently have (hiring, firing, acceptance policies, religious indoctrination - as opposed to religious teaching).

Of course many parents want their kids to have a religious education and I'd see no problem in allowing school properties to be made available to religious institutions for this purpose.

PDN

Back to the OP, I find atheism here in Ireland to be considerably less militant that in many countries in the world. Thankfully so.

strobe

Count Duckula wrote: »

Wow, this thread has taken off! My question was answered in the first few posts; now it's just posters slagging each other off!

We call that 'the Jimi factor' round these parts.